And James hit the #50 mark. :)
Big deal, I got three Yahtzees. Mostly sixes, I believe. If that tells you anything.
(This post was completely sarcasm-free. I hope everyone was able to understand it. And no, I don't think sarcasm is age-dependent. I know small children who are quite sarcastic, and I also know elderly people who wouldn't know sarcasm if it bit them on the ass.)
#52 Posted by: julie at February 26, 2004 04:51 PMwow, it's amazing that anyone missed the satire, especially with the extremely active argument behind this thread.
Meri: Please stop comparing the plight of homosexuals to African Americans. African Americans reproduce, and attempt to contribute to the fundamental fabric of society. You are most obviously out of touch with the nature of the plight against people of color at the hands of the Western World, and northern hemisphere. Yes, both are protected classes "According to the American Government", thankfully, as they both face continued discrimination and bigotry on a daily basis. However, homosexuality can be transparent. Race, special cases aside, cannot.
"Black children were not taught anything past basic arithmetic, had no facilities (and often not even any school buildings) and on average had class sizes of 80."
Agreed, but where is your parallel? As 'Frank A.' noted, "Nearly all of the arguments people level...rely on words which seem to be neutral or objective, but actually express value judgements." Yes, on both sides. The 'race' case is similar, in that it is an oppressed minority, but more importantly, they were an OUTSIDE group, not an internal faction. Blacks didn't seek to 'redefine' anything except those laws which were intentionally structured, from the beginning, by an extant group in order to control and subjugate them.
This isn't the case here. Marriage has had the same meaning throughout the course of human history. I think it's silly to be debating a word, but if it causes so much opposition, especially amongst the vast majority of America. Blacks endured segregation and still made it towards 'freedom'. Homosexuals have never been enslaved (bedroom behaviour aside) or physically segregated from society. In fact, your current situation and level of discrimination is most closely related to the CURRENT position of African Americans, not the former.
(nice blog)
Frank A.: 'biologically improper' was a bad choice of words, and I agree that 'a biologist' may have problems with the phrasing, but not the meaning.
The basic purpose of any sexual organism is to reproduce, from the cellular level on up. If we disagree on this question, we have a fundamentally different concept of the reality.
Finally, to clarify myself--I am not 'on the Bush side of the debate'. I think what he is doing is abusing the Constitutional process. However, I feel as though pro Gay Marriage advocates have already blatantly violated the law, which is blanketly unacceptable; and, more importantly, are attempting to abuse the Judicial System and the concept of political correctness. I can see that Bush feels, "civil disobedience, eh? Ok, then civil unions!"
I say, hey, it's a democracy, why not put it on the referendum?
#53 Posted by: calVIN at February 26, 2004 04:53 PMIt's not a democracy but a representative democracy. As in your representatives are supposed to be intelligent enough to figure this shit out. If we allowed direct democracy to always rule we'd still have slaves, women wouldn't be allowed to vote and we'd be two (or more countries (hell I'd vote for secession myself right about now as long as Dubya was on the other side).
#54 Posted by: B.O.B. (bob) at February 26, 2004 05:02 PMCivil rights should never on a referendum. The majority would vote in favor of the majority, naturally.
What Bob said.
#55 Posted by: Mike at February 26, 2004 05:05 PM"African Americans reproduce, and attempt to contribute to the fundamental fabric of society."
Equal rights is not about reproduction. Families are not about reproduction.
The fabric of a society is in its interactions, not what those interactions are. "Society" is not defined by specific interactions, although "a society" is made up of interactions.
There is nothing in your argument to indicate that homosexual-headed families cannot be part of a society's fabric. It's just moralism.
While I have you here, are you who you claimed to be with the email address in your first comment? Just wondering, since you decided to drop the email address in subsequent posts.
#56 Posted by: James at February 26, 2004 05:06 PMAnd now for something completely different:
Chocolate Espresso Pots De Creme
http://www.epicurious.com/run/recipe/view?id=109140
You realise, of course, that by categorisign all people who oppsoe Gay marriage as dirven only by Hatred and fear, you are gyilty of Hypocracy? You also relaise that not everyone hwo is opposed ot Gay Marriage is opposed for religious reasonms.
One said on this list that he had yet to hear a reason that was not base don Hatred and fear, her eis one, but i will be shot down. I know how thse boards work, and I know that this ownt be welcomed and you will call me a Homophobe and Bigot, well, here goes anyway.
By opposignf Gay Marriage, On is not nessisarily withholding a right form one group pf people that other groups have, indeed, by allowign Gay Marriage, you are actually inventing a new right bindign everyone.
Currently, two men cannot marry, neither can two women marry. Gay Men can marry women, just like strieght men can. Before you call me a lunatic, I am soeakign of law, NOT motivation, and no one is compelling Gay men to marry women. The same logic applis to lesbians.
Same Sex marriage is therefore termable as a new right beign invented, for a group of people, and opposeition to Same Sex marriages is not equatable to denying the rights of peopel to marry.
Indeed, Gays have all the same rights currently as Strieghts do, rather you like it or not this is true, and all the loud protest over them not having all the sam rights is simpley false. They have all the same rights, they just cannotmarry their own gender, which happens to be a restirction on everyone.
I will also like to point out one other false thing on the initial list posted. The joke about how people woudl turn Gay,m just like hanging around tall peopel will make you tall, is unjust, and assumes somethign that is not proven.
It assumes that Homosexuality is Genetic, and inherant, so, as with tall people, one cannot deteermine their sexual preintation, any more htan their hight.
I am sorry, but their is no research to indicate htis as a fact, and no evidence o prove that Gays ar eborn gat, and indeed, some startling new evidence to suggest that their not, and indeed, that chang eis possible. This new evidence I beleive was published in thr APA a year or two ago.
I appologise for hte crudity of this post, but why bother makign it fine and nice when its just goign to be ripped to sdshreds in the name of Tolerence?
#58 Posted by: Zar at February 26, 2004 05:14 PMYou know, I thought since I sent this to you and I had the first post, I had the right to have the last word.
Apparently, Chocolate Espresso Pots de Creme aren't the show-stopper I thought they would be.
Say goodnight, Gracie.
#59 Posted by: Patti M. at February 26, 2004 05:16 PMYou're right. You're a homophobe and a bigot.
I don't believe anyone here said that gaiety is genetic. In fact, I don't think anyone believes it. If it were genetic, the nature of reproduction is such that it would disappear quickly.
There are many features a person can have that are neither genetic nor chosen. Like enjoying or being repulsed by spinach. Or enjoying or being repulsed by someone of a certain gender.
You had more to say, but since you made no effort to be coherent (and admitted as much), I didn't feel compelled to put in the effort to read it.
Normally I would be very excited about espresso anything, but right now my stomach's on fire and the thought of espresso anything makes me a bit queasy. (Perhaps the Constitution should be amended to outlaw espresso, to protect the sanctity of tea.)
Anyway, if you want to end an acrimonious (or maybe I should say matrimonious) thread, you have to mention Hitler. It's a grand old Internet tradition.
#61 Posted by: Julie at February 26, 2004 05:38 PMPatti - if I decide to close this thread someday, I'll give yo uthe last post. OK?
Zar: Yes, the way these boards work is that the person who owns the board makes the rules. So he can delete comments, ridicule them, take them seriously, etc. That's all part of the fun. But, while most of us are fairly out in the open, you are not -- not even providing an email address. But I'll let your comment stand because it ads to the discussion.
But, to your point, such as it is.
Let's say folks could only marry within their race. Clearly, by your logic, everyone has the same rights, because everyon and anyone can marry within their race.
Is this type of logic what you are advocating? A return to miscegeny?
With gays it is the same issue in reverse. They would like to be able to marry among their own group. So, you see, their rights are rsetricted in much the same way it would be if miscegeny laws were in place.
#62 Posted by: James Burke at February 26, 2004 05:51 PMYou know, I think that argument deserves to be on the main page. Up it goes.
#63 Posted by: James Burke at February 26, 2004 05:52 PM> You realise, of course, that by categorisign
> all people who oppsoe Gay marriage as dirven
> only by Hatred and fear, you are gyilty of
> Hypocracy?
First of all, I have *not* categorized everyone who opposes Gay Marriage as driven by hatred and fear. What I said was I have yet to hear a sound logical argument against same-sex marriage that did not boil down to hate and fear. I'm still listening and will objectively consider anything new, but I'm not going to put up with obvious bullshit that I've heard before.
Second of all, if I am able to demonstrate that someone is driven by fear and hate, how does that make me a hypocrite?
Thirdly, learn to spell. It's an insult to everyone here to mispell every single word, apparently deliberately.
> You also relaise that not everyone hwo
> is opposed ot Gay Marriage is opposed
> for religious reasonms.
Yes I've heard a number of hate/fear based arguments that have nothing to do with religion. Pretty much all of them have been particularly flawed one way or another.
> One said on this list that he had yet
> to hear a reason that was not base don
> Hatred and fear, her eis one, but i
> will be shot down.
I won't shoot you down unless you use flawed reasoning does. I have no patience for faulty arguments, and particularly with people who cannot admit the flaws in their own arguments. "I stand corrected." are words I utter often. We should all aspire to being critical thinkers who can have our ideas challenged, and change our ideas in the face of evidence and compelling argument.
> I know how thse boards work,
You certainly think you do.
> and I know that this ownt be
> welcomed and you will call me
> a Homophobe and Bigot, well,
> here goes anyway.
That's not necessarily the case, unless you are about to say something bigotted or homophobic.
> By opposignf Gay Marriage, On is not
> nessisarily withholding a right form
> one group pf people that other groups
> have, indeed, by allowign Gay Marriage,
> you are actually inventing a new right
> bindign everyone.
At this point I disagree, but I assume you are about to explain that statement, so I will withhold comment for a bit.
> Currently, two men cannot marry, neither
> can two women marry. Gay Men can marry
> women, just like strieght men can. Before
> you call me a lunatic, I am soeakign of
> law, NOT motivation,
I understand you and I have heard this argument before, but let's see where you are going with this.
> and no one is compelling Gay men to marry
> women. The same logic applis to lesbians.
>
> Same Sex marriage is therefore termable as
> a new right beign invented, for a group of
> people, and opposeition to Same Sex
> marriages is not equatable to denying
> the rights of peopel to marry.
>
> Indeed, Gays have all the same rights
> currently as Strieghts do, rather you
> like it or not this is true, and all
> the loud protest over them not having
> all the sam rights is simpley false.
> They have all the same rights, they
> just cannotmarry their own gender,
> which happens to be a restirction
> on everyone.
Your argument presupposes that marriage is already defined as a union between a man and a woman. If you are talking about RELIGIOUS marriage, I would tend to agree with you, however you have already indicated your argument is nonreligious, so I can only assume that you are talking about LEGAL marriage. LEGAL marriage is not so defined. If it were, there wouldn't be a push by ignorant people to create a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Were that already the definition, there would indeed be no need of an amendment and you would be 100% correct.
The definition of marriage has changed many times in the history of humanity, and differs even across religious boundaries today (Mormons, anyone?)
I (and many others) define marriage as a union between two people who love each other, PERIOD. If there were no push for gay marriage or civil unions, that definition would probably be acceptable for most people. I think we are all agreed that there's something wrong when two people who are not in love get married (case in point: Britney Spears).
The mad dash to write same-sex unions out of the definition of legal marriage explicitly is only a response to people who are asking for the right to enter into such unions.
If we recognize legal marriage as a contract you have a right to enter into with another consenting adult with whom you are in love, then we are indeed denying gay people that right. We say to them "You may marry, but only someone you do not love."
You cannot separate love from marriage, to attempt to do so is just lawyerly antics, and I refuse to get drawn into a discussion which is going to jettison love from marriage simply to support an argument.
Now that we've heard your argument and my response, let's go back to:
> by allowign Gay Marriage, you are actually
> inventing a new right bindign everyone.
Forgetting for a moment that you are presupposing the manwoman definition of legal marriage, a definition that is by no means recognized universally, how in the world does granting gay couples the right to marry "bind" anyone? By definition rights don't "BIND" they "EMPOWER". If you are granted the right to marry someone of the same sex, nobody is forcing you to exercise that right. I have a right to dress up like a giant tuna and call myself 'Phyllis', but I am not bound to do so.
So even if you are 100% right up to this point, how does granting gay couples the right to marry adversely affect you or society in general? I just don't see any harm there. Since your argument indicates no harm whatsoever, and is not a religious argument, my advice is "don't sweat it". If it is a new right, fine it is a new right. Let's let those gay people get married so we as a culture can start discussing pressing issues that are not irrational, such as abortion.
Keep in mind I am an atheist humanist, so if you're going to argue against a loving couple's right to marry, you're going to have to demonstrate how such an arrangement is harmful to the couple, those around them, or society in general. Arguments based in faith are not going to fly with me, and neither are flawed or irrational arguments.
> I will also like to point out one other
> false thing on the initial list posted.
> The joke about how people woudl turn
> Gay,m just like hanging around tall
> peopel will make you tall, is unjust,
> and assumes somethign that is not proven.
>
> It assumes that Homosexuality is Genetic,
> and inherant, so, as with tall people,
> one cannot deteermine their sexual
> preintation, any more htan their hight.
>
> I am sorry, but their is no research to
> indicate htis as a fact, and no evidence
> o prove that Gays ar eborn gat, and
> indeed, some startling new evidence
> to suggest that their not, and indeed,
> that chang eis possible. This new
> evidence I beleive was published in thr
> APA a year or two ago.
Prove it.
Provide the links please, and if you're going to link me to the Family Research Council, don't waste your time. They are demonstrably full of shit, and that horse has already been beaten to death.
According to the latest information from the APA there are many biological, and social factors which shape sexual preference. According to the APA sexual preference is hands down not a choice. You can choose whether or not to engage in a homosexual relationship, but you can't make yourself attracted to one sex over another, any more than you can make yourself like broccoli or rap music. I, for example, am very partial to tall brunettes. Tall women with long brown hair are very sexy to me. In fact, I married one. But I didn't wake up one day and say "Hey! I think I'll like brunettes!"
As far as changing a gay person into a heterosexual person? Respectable scientific organizations have cast a lot of doubt on that.
Here's what the APA has to say about homosexuality as a choice, and changing one's sexual preference (link: http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html):
Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.
Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.
However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.
What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?
Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.
The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any social bias.
> I appologise for hte crudity of this
> post, but why bother makign it fine
> and nice when its just goign to be
> ripped to sdshreds in the name of
> Tolerence?
You assume much. I have given your argument fair consideration and treatment. Please make a modicum of effort to be coherent so that the conversation benefits both parties.
#65 Posted by: Chuck S. at February 26, 2004 06:50 PM> Hitler was queer.
Sure Jay, whatever... and his 4/28/1945 marriage to his longtime mistress Ava Braun was all lies spread by the allies. Just like the Holocaust.
You're a halfwit troll who couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag. You clearly have nothing to add to the discussion, and are too chickenshit to identify yourself or respond to the points levied against you.
James? Please IP ban this backward prick, he's said his say, can't handle opinions that differ from his own, and wouldn't admit he was wrong if God Himself told him so.
#66 Posted by: Chuck S. at February 26, 2004 06:58 PMZar: Yes, the way these boards work is that the person who owns the board makes the rules. So he can delete comments, ridicule them, take them seriously, etc. That's all part of the fun. But, while most of us are fairly out in the open, you are not -- not even providing an email address. But I'll let your comment stand because it ads to the discussion.
{I didnj't think that the email address was needed, and didnt feel like offering it, I will upon requeast. But heck, I foudn this baord accedentally, I may not veen fnd it tomorrow, so who cares. Besides, its not like you "Open minded" peopel will listen to me anyway, becayse your minds are well made up and I am clealry wrong, and all of your reaosns make perfect sence, whereas everythign I say is bigoted and hateful. I mean not to address you personally, but from the posts on this thread, I do not think I will be given a fair say, no matte what. }-Za
But, to your point, such as it is.
Let's say folks could only marry within their race. Clearly, by your logic, everyone has the same rights, because everyon and anyone can marry within their race.
{False analogy. The race/sexual preference card is a trump that is base don a lie. Race is CLEARLY genetic, and OBVIOUSLY innate. Ther eis nohtign in ethnicity however that renders a man of one race findamentally different form a man of another race, whereas Sexual oreintation is a behaviour, and not a race. Indeed, its offensive to ME that I have to deal withthe race comments all the time, as if beign opposed to Homosexual marriage automaticlaly makes one boht a Homphobe and a racist. Until you show tentitive links between race and sexual preference, this is simple fluff and bad form argument.}-Zar
Is this type of logic what you are advocating? A return to miscegeny?
{More like common sence. See,Racism is NOT identicle with Homophobia, and beign opposed to Homosexuality on moral grounds is not, itsself, Homphobia. All three are distinct in reality, but on discussions like this become one in the same thing.
ne can be opposed to Homosexiality and not be a Homophobe.
Likewise, Homosexuality is a Behaviour, and not, I will repeat not, equatable to race. Upu will say this is me tryign to bakc out, tis not, but I will not be backed into a lie of Bigotry when clearly pthers on this board are Bigots themselves, more on this later. }-Zar
With gays it is the same issue in reverse. They would like to be able to marry among their own group. So, you see, their rights are rsetricted in much the same way it would be if miscegeny laws were in place.
{Except the issue is toaly different, and here I explain a bit deeper.
Race is obviosuly an innae trait. It cannot be changed, and is genetic. Likewise, rac eis what you are, not how you feel at any given moment.
Sexual preference is an inclination. Its more equatable to beign a star Trek fan, or a pathologically depressed person, than it is to race. It is a matter purely of the mind, rather or not you acnoweldge this. The equating it to racism is not only old, bur false. Race and sexual preintation are not identicle concenrs.}-Zar
Your argument presupposes that marriage is already defined as a union between a man and a woman.
{Techniclaly, it is.See a dictionary.}-Zar
If you are talking about RELIGIOUS marriage, I would tend to agree with you, however you have already indicated your argument is nonreligious, so I can only assume that you are talking about LEGAL marriage.
{The two techniclly arent distinct, under the law religious marriages are recognied. This aside, the point is still that marriage is a social concern. By forcing society itsself put and allowing the courts to handle it, you yourself force everyone in the nation to accept it, under the law, evn if they doint want to. }-Zar.
LEGAL marriage is not so defined.
{Yes, it is. Thats what the whole debate is over, changing the definition.}-Zar
If it were, there wouldn't be a push by ignorant people to create a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
{Why do you call them ignorant? Isn't that a wee bit arrogant? I mean, if they disagree with you, they are ignorant... Izsn thtat itsself presuming the moral high ground is automaticlaly yours, and eliminatinvg their own free say as irrelevant? I suppose its too much to ask that you actually treat the other side fairly though, as I said, readign this thread, I notice tghe Hypocritical cry of a Bigots stanmdard. If it agrees that Gay Marriage is good and shoudl be accepted, its enlightened, if not, its ignorant... and any reason they present will be ignored because they are ignorant bigoted Homophobes... thats why I dotn bother much on posting here. Nothign I say unless I become a sichophantic yes man will be seen as intellegent, ebven if I wirte pulitzer material.}-Zar
Were that already the definition, there would indeed be no need of an amendment and you would be 100% correct.
{In most states it is so defined, its juist not federally defined. The Federal Govenrment has never had to concern itsself with the Univedrsal concept of Marriage till recently, and all sttaes at one time had anti-Sodomy laws. How can omethign they regarded as criminal be sanctioned by law in an institutional marriage?}-Zar
The definition of marriage has changed many times in the history of humanity, and differs even across religious boundaries today (Mormons, anyone?)
{Not really, and for soemone who called the people who opposed you ignorant, this is ignorant in a half. even in societies where Homosexuality was accepted, like Ancient Greece, everyones favourite area, marriage was stull between men and women. Polygamy doesn't alter this as a basic foundation, it merely allows for multiple partners to be added tot he mix. Saying that the concept of marriage has been altered many times is, itsself, extrmely ignorant, as its always been between men and wmen, no mater how many men or how many wmen.}-Zar
I (and many others) define marriage as a union between two people who love each other, PERIOD.
{So you now deny that marriages happen when people don't love each other? Sorry, plenty of loveless marriages exist to this day, love doesnt have much to do with it. Especially of you reduce otit to nothign more than a legal contract. Further, the rampent emotionalism seems itsself absurd, after all, you assume, out of hand, that Homosexual love is real when these peopel marry, when in fact it coudl be lust. You are the one trying to make this exactly like Heterosexual marriages, yet you think that it will be fre of these incedents?
Further, one can always argue that Love is NOT best served in Homosexual marriage. But to do so, I woudl hav to get you to listen to reasons that you have decided are ignorant and bigoted. Agfter all, your tyoo busy beign open minded to consider the pother persons point of veiw.}-Zar
If there were no push for gay marriage or civil unions, that definition would probably be acceptable for most people. I think we are all agreed that there's something wrong when two people who are not in love get married (case in point: Britney Spears).
{Somethign is worng, but its still legal, and you open the floodgate for lots of male brittany Spears. You seem to be arguinmg emoiton here, and it paints a picture of corrpt heterosexuals, as epitomised by Mr.s SPrears, and yet seem to have this image that two happy, in love men marry and it lasts a lifetime. Sorry, thats fairy tale.
Indeed, in the nation that legalised Sam Sex marriage first, few same sex coup,les marry, and few heterosexual ones do either. The nation is scandinavia. The fac tthat Homosexuality cherapened the marirage is hard to deny, need I post an article on it? Maybe htree? No, you will say they where wirtten by Bigots, no maer hwho their author. You can look it up yourself of course, but likely you wont, your too content in your selfish dilusionalism and emotionalism to listen to anyones reaosns but your own, or anothe rperspectivce.}-Zar
The mad dash to write same-sex unions out of the definition of legal marriage explicitly is only a response to people who are asking for the right to enter into such unions.
{But whay gives them this right? There is the problem you ignore completely. Marriage is a findamental institution to society, and has far reachign efects on social stability, which you wish to ignore or pretend wont be effected by this.
Indeed, its liek the cry to remive religion, religion is no a hot potato, and if anyone dares to say they are religioys they are branded as a fanatic, let alone allow themto make publkic opinions based on their koral convistions! The Horror! Someone livign by an ideal!!!
Sorry, this is just emotional propeganda. It doesnt impress me much any more, and I am more disturbed by it, as it is a tyrannical form of mind controle, the "Agree with me or else" Policy, complete wihhte brandings of peopel who dont agree with you as ignorant or bigoted.
I even remember, on the note of religion, the old tired " Christains shoudlnt sya its worng, the Binle says Judge not" routine, as if you people shoudl tell Christaisn how to interpret their own rleigion, and you consider this arrogance and Hypocracy rational. If you knew anyhtign at all about Christain theology, you woudl relaise that Jesus also told themto reprove sin, and they consider Homosexuality sin. Judgement is not equated with tellign someone they are wrong, but rather condemnign someone else as somehopw of less worth.
Why do I brign up religion? Werll, because its discussed a lot, and I see the ame symptom, that I ant o make clear in your mind.
You as a group seem to think you underxstand Christainity better than the Christains and tell them not to judge. In reality you probabely only know that oen verse and use it as a blindgend, and will ignore the real theology, or even just the practical, meanign behind the term.
Likewise, on Homosexuality, you declare Homosexuality morally acceptable, and Homosexual marriage good, make up all kinds of sappy emopitonal arguments, an then try to force feed it to people who arent willing to acot it and if anyone opposed toyr veipount theiy are Bigoted and Ignotant.
How can I read this thread and not see eithe rposition as arrogant? You know, other people may have put a lot ocf thought into this, and come to raitonal comclusions opposite your ownm, and maybe they arent really Bigots. Maybe theu are jut different? }-Zar
If we recognize legal marriage as a contract you have a right to enter into with another consenting adult with whom you are in love, then we are indeed denying gay people that right. We say to them "You may marry, but only someone you do not love."
{No we don't. Once again this is useless emotionalism. For starters, you havent really illustrated that Love enters into all marriages, no have toy illustrated that marriage is the end result of love.
Can you not love someone and not marry them? What of a man whose best friend is a girl, and he loves her more than even hi wife, but its not expressed sxually.
You asume that if their in love, they shoudl marry, and ignore any argument that they may not be in love, or that if they love each other maybe they shuldnt marry. Yo yuoi, the moral case is closed, Homosexuality is moral, and its all about love, and then you try to foce this, without discussion, as a fact, on everyone else as a basis of how we shoudl live and what we shoudl accept.
I am sorry, but this kidn of attitude is why many researchers ( Some I kno personally ) Dont publish their researhc into Homosexuality, Bigots liek you tend to cry fowl when they are shown to be in error, or if theirs even he slightest Chance.
Dr.Spitzer, who helped remove Homosexuality form the APA Disgnostic Journal, which is toted here as abadge of Honour, even dida survety that was shot down. I know, ou will post his findings failutes...but hte poitn is that this was a preliminary study, which shodl have been backed up, but becaus it got so much media heat, no one owul touch it,. Score one fo the Gay lobby, but it is obstricting science. All for an agendca. ow is this NOT Bigotry?}-Zar
You cannot separate love from marriage, to attempt to do so is just lawyerly antics, and I refuse to get drawn into a discussion which is going to jettison love from marriage simply to support an argument.
{Noe you invent a strawman. Not only ar emany marriages themslves loveless form the word Go, BUT you are seperatign reaosn for discussion, as well as real love form anyhting.
Homosexual marriage , and htis whole debate, is NOT About love, and pretendign that pnly Gay Men or lesbians that ar ein love will marry is itsself nieve and unrealistic.
Further, one can argue that if they relaly loved them, they woudl want whats best for them, which may not be same sex marriage, but I forgot, you have already decreed that Homosxuality is moral, so anyone elses opinion is irrlevant, no mater what its based on, and anyone that holds an opinikon of morality thats different form ytou is Ignorant and Bigoted...
Thats why I dotn debate htis at length, nothign I say will b hard, and its nto because I am stupud, its because you are too narrow minded to see anyone elses poitn of veiw, or loisten to their lines of reasoning. In fact, you wil pretend they dont have a lien of reasoning in the first placve.}Zar
Now that we've heard your argument and my response, let's go back to:
{Your responce was emptional gibberish which illistrated why I dont get heavily invovled with narrow minded people such as yourself, and remember what you called me.}-Zar
> by allowign Gay Marriage, you are actually
> inventing a new right bindign everyone.
Forgetting for a moment that you are presupposing the manwoman definition of legal marriage, a definition that is by no means recognized universally, how in the world does granting gay couples the right to marry "bind" anyone?
{All laws Bind everyone, thats thir whole point, and I explained above, I presuppose the definition that exists currently. ou just choose to ignore this and pretend th definition isnt their.}-Zar
By definition rights don't "BIND" they "EMPOWER".
{No, if we are speakign of laws, we are all BOUND to recognise the same sex marriage, and my tax dollars ill go to support same sex couples, and they will be bound by their own contract,and society will be bound to greet this as acceptable behavioiur. Laws Bind, and thats the definition we are using , the legal one.
Then again, you ignore the legal definitin of marriage as it stands in most states to pretend its not their...}-Zar
If you are granted the right to marry someone of the same sex, nobody is forcing you to exercise that right.
{No, but he law is still binding that I acept others o that, ebven if I am morally opposed, likewise, to pay for their benegits, I must give over my tax money.}-Zar
I have a right to dress up like a giant tuna and call myself 'Phyllis', but I am not bound to do so.
{Do you have any idea what I emant when I said Bound by the Law? I didnt mean that oen was compelled to enact the right upon themselves that was granted, I meant that the law Binds us as citisens into forced sociqal acceptance.}-Zar
So even if you are 100% right up to this point, how does granting gay couples the right to marry adversely affect you or society in general?
{Glad you asked.
For starters, it takes my tax money to support marriage benegfits, if I am morally opposed to Homosexuality, I will still have o say in the matter, the law will BIND me to aceptance ( This is where that bindign comes form) and I will not be able to refuse worker rights to a same sex couple, even if I am opposed, nor will I be able to refise thir married partners affiliation withhtem. Even if on moral grunds.
As to how it effects society, well, I mentiond scandinavia a few times, here is one link to show you the end result their. You will doubtless blame somethign else, as you will need a scapegoat, and claim it wont happen here, but in so doing you will prove that ational discussion is not in your perveiy, onluy enforced mroalising based on ncessant emotionalism.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp
http://www.andrewhagen.com/log/00000608.html }-Zar
I just don't see any harm there.
{Rather or not you see harm is irrelevant, you are beign short sighted and allowjgn your own desired to blidn you.}Zar
Since your argument indicates no harm whatsoever, and is not a religious argument, my advice is "don't sweat it".
{If it where a religious argument, you woudl simpley tell me to keep my rleigion to myself, and enforce me to live a secular life in public. As I said, you have a nasty habbit of telling peopel how to interpret their religion. Religion, yo you, is a private matter to be lept in homes or churches or whatever, btu in the general society, we shoudl be secular and acept whatever you say. Unfortunatley, if one tries to live by his rleigious convictiosn in public, he is swiftluy shamed to silence.
But thats OK, even atheists cant freely speak, as many ot hem can also be opposed to Homosexuality onrational, logical levels, and still be lables as fearign hatemongers, just so you can play the victim.
Dint you see, no matter hwat argument is used, you weill pretend its not their, and justifgy it with weak emotionalism such as " Peopl in love shoudlnt be prevented form marrying", and will close off any discssion of rather or not Homosexual couples actalu can fall in love because to you its case closed, your midn is mafe up therefore you are right and they are wring. }-Zar
If it is a new right, fine it is a new right. Let's let those gay people get married so we as a culture can start discussing pressing issues that are not irrational, such as abortion.
{Actuallythis issue is rational, marirage is a foundation of society. You like to pretnd Gay Mariage wont harm society, but hisotry shows it actually weakens the fibres of culture and community. By allowign it to be redifiend at a whim wrecjlessly base don the tide of your emoitonal sophistry, you will inevitabely collid withthe cold rocks of reality as csociety continues to decay.}-Zar
Keep in mind I am an atheist humanist, so if you're going to argue against a loving couple's right to marry, you're going to have to demonstrate how such an arrangement is harmful to the couple, those around them, or society in general.
{Keep in mkind tha no matter whT I say, you are too much a Hypocritical Bigot to listen. I coudl list 10'000 reports on how it harms withe rthemselves or society and you will dismiss them with a magoc wand.
Again, you asusme Love is all that is invovled here, btu again can you really demonstrate that these couples love each other? Can you? No, you cant, in fact even in the walls of th APA ( I know as a fact) they are debatign the causes of Hoosexuality and if Homosxual couples love ach othe rin he same way as Heterosexual couples.
The health risks behidn Homosexuality are well known, and I am not limited to AIDS, the average lifespan is abotu 20 years shorter.
Socially it undermines a basic institutionm, and causes confusion and later apathy.
It causes lots of social harm, as well as personal harm. You just wont bother to listen to the other side f that debate, and wan tot hide behaindf the cry of "Their in love" and not even listen to peopel who ask what to peopel who love each other shoudl do in the first olace.
Loce is not always consumated by marriage, and often greater love is shown by restraint. But then, I doubt you wan tot delve into the matter of what Love relaly is, you just want to pretend to have all he answers and call your oponants names.}-Zar
Arguments based in faith are not going to fly with me, and neither are flawed or irrational arguments.
{My veiws are based on reason, and guess what, nothign will fly with you. As I said, I ocudl put fourth an iron clad argument, and it woulnt gly with you.
Teirs an old saying, if someone claims the moon lnmding never happened and wont look at the pictures and evidence, then tey will never beleive. That fits you.
Homosexual marriage does damage society, but you wont look into it. It does damahe peopels lives, but you wont care. Its not about love which you sont even have an incling of understanding over, its baout politics.
You don't even relaly wan tot ocnsider the ramificatiosn fo fvorcing everyone rto acept this as socially acceptable and Moral, even in opposition to their own moral veiws. Let alone the ramificatiosn of allowgn the Judges to violate the law to supprot your owrlveiw. Thats not democracy if it doesnt even allwo the peopel a say. ( Becaue, dispite your claim, Homosexual marriage is techicanlly agaisn the law in most states. Marriage is clealry defined as one man, oe woman in most of the 50 states it he Union, contrary to your false claim otherwise.)}-Zar
> I will also like to point out one other
> false thing on the initial list posted.
> The joke about how people woudl turn
> Gay,m just like hanging around tall
> peopel will make you tall, is unjust,
> and assumes somethign that is not proven.
>
> It assumes that Homosexuality is Genetic,
> and inherant, so, as with tall people,
> one cannot deteermine their sexual
> preintation, any more htan their hight.
>
> I am sorry, but their is no research to
> indicate htis as a fact, and no evidence
> o prove that Gays ar eborn gat, and
> indeed, some startling new evidence
> to suggest that their not, and indeed,
> that chang eis possible. This new
> evidence I beleive was published in thr
> APA a year or two ago.
Prove it.
{You want me to prove a negsative?}-Zar
Provide the links please, and if you're going to link me to the Family Research Council, don't waste your time.
{Mos fo what I am aware of are published in such magazines s the APA Journal, or othe rPsycological mfazines, the onlyoen I can link is the spitzer study.But I wont be able to prove that here is no evidence, as thats askign me to prove a negative. I also cant prove Unicorns dont dance around a distant star systenm on the other end of the galaxy.}-Zar
They are demonstrably full of shit, and that horse has already been beaten to death.
{What abotthe APA?}-Zar
According to the latest information from the APA there are many biological, and social factors which shape sexual preference.
{You do relaise that its well known that the APA Speaks with both ends of its mouth and is largley contorled by Political interests, right? Besies, your "Latest" Infor is a bit outdated.}-Zar
According to the APA sexual preference is hands down not a choice.
{Have they ever been worng before? Was htis decision by the counsil scientific?
I am afraid not, and without citing focus on the family or whatever else you object to, I may add that this dicision was reached BY MAJORITY VOTE.
That may sound all very well and good, but socnece isnt a democracy.
http://sk2k.com/can-gays-go-straight.htm
Of I ever find this site again, I will quote from journals and ive dates, btut he APA Is only playign up tot he usual political climate here, the science jorunals themselves speak a different story. }-Zar
You can choose whether or not to engage in a homosexual relationship, but you can't make yourself attracted to one sex over another, any more than you can make yourself like broccoli or rap music.
{Actually, you can choose what sort of music ytou like. Often, your taste is withon your controle. It may take time to adjust to a new stylke, but you can . Studies indicate that oreferences are modifiable. Even a hardened trekkie can be converted to an ex trekkie, if given the correct stimulis to do so.
Saying otherwise makes us slaves to programmign anyway, which of course is encuraged by your world veiw, as it makes us all victims.Do you want hte nawms of those studies as well?}-Zar
I, for example, am very partial to tall brunettes. Tall women with long brown hair are very sexy to me. In fact, I married one. But I didn't wake up one day and say "Hey! I think I'll like brunettes!"
{Just because its a logn proccess doesnt mean its not reversable. Indeed, you rpreferences and desires are modifiable and changable. If you are fed a consistant diet of alternate thoughts, you own thoughts will adjust to the new programming, as i where. You wherent Born likign brunettes wither, some series of events caused it.
That said, you are partially right in this not beign a choice, but onoly to an extent.
Its not a simpel matte rof wakign upo and syang " I am Gay" , but likewise, the subtle effects of exposure to cedrtain stimuli will eventually cause one to, well, think Gay thoughts, whih will cause one to develop Homosexual tndancies. Howver, as with any prefernece, this can be overcome. Goven enough time I coudl change youyr preferneces, but no ojne wants to.}-Zar
As far as changing a gay person into a heterosexual person? Respectable scientific organizations have cast a lot of doubt on that.
{Not raly, many rpsectable institutions think it spossible. Many Many in fact think it sposible.}-Zar
Here's what the APA has to say about homosexuality as a choice, and changing one's sexual preference (link: ):
{I have read it, I also read other reports.
Lie this one...
http://sk2k.com/can-gays-go-straight.htm
ANother one...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1320743.stm
Let me guess, the BBC IS a Christan goup...
Lets not forget te fac tthat there woudl be political kotives to prevent studies ito same sex attraction that revealed a mean of cshapign it.
But yhou cna prtnd I am paranoid if you like.I will find references in old magazines on PSycology if toyu will like... it iwll take time and I odnt know if I hall return here again.
}-Zar
Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.
{I disagree, and have seen data to show otherwise. I am also trainignto ebe a Psycologist... }-Zar
Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.
However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.
{Nice heavy handed discussion, and I kwo they came yo withthis base don scinece, look at all the study citatiosn they have...}-Zar
What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?
Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.
The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any social bias.
{Again, not relaly impresive. Theu dotn show toyu rhe mountian of evidenc ein favour of their position, nor cite spaific cases in rebuttle. AOA IS largley a political group, especially thse days. I recocmend real readint o Psycology today, or some other repsected Journal.Again I will find issues for you if I can and find this place again.}-Zar
> I appologise for hte crudity of this
> post, but why bother makign it fine
> and nice when its just goign to be
> ripped to sdshreds in the name of
> Tolerence?
You assume much.
{Not really, I observed fact. You didnt even use real lpgic or reasonign on me, just emoional drivel like "Their in love". To discuss that, we woudl ahev to really be allowed to anylise if they ( The gay couples" are relaly in love, a debate which you will resist because you take it on faith that they are, and wont queastion their word.}-Zar
I have given your argument fair consideration and treatment.
{You erected a couple of straw men and ignored the law, while pretendign it doesnt exist. You also ignore case studies and assume that the APA manuel is infallable.}-Zar
Please make a modicum of effort to be coherent so that the conversation benefits both parties.
{No need, it wit be coherent iwht you anyway, you hav determiend thst I AM RIGHT, therefore any oponant of yours will be automaticlaly worng no matter what.
Single minded dogmatism about your veiws, pressed by emotionalism, is the very essence of Bigotry, and yet you call people who think figgerently form you Bigots and Ignorant because they dont agree with you, and this is arrogance.Which is my main point, which will be ignored.}
Zar, you said:
"but from the posts on this thread, I do not think I will be given a fair say, no matte what."
How can I be more fair than allowing you to post?
I'll give you unfair. Unfair is having to squint at your poor writing and decypher it while I'm also repairing my Windows machine.
You base all your arguments on homosexuality as a choice because you claim it is not genetic.
Interestingly, hetero folks who make this argument never explain to me how they would go about choosing to be homosexual. Are you telling me that if you engaged in homosexual sex enough you'd grow to like it? See, because I, as a hetero male, figure that no choice I make is going to get me all hot thinking about Ben Afflek.
You, on the other hand, seem to believe that if you meditate on it long enough, you'd be willing to drop your pants for members of the same sex.
Sorry, I don't buy it.
And since your whole argument hinges on that belief, your whole argument is not compelling.
#68 Posted by: James at February 26, 2004 09:46 PMInterestingly, hetero folks who make this argument never explain to me how they would go about choosing to be homosexual. Are you telling me that if you engaged in homosexual sex enough you'd grow to like it? See, because I, as a hetero male, figure that no choice I make is going to get me all hot thinking about Ben Afflek.
Another simplification.
The turth is that you can cindition your midn to do virtually anything. Heck, we have known this form Brainwashign victims.Normal people whop wpudl never hurt a fly become murderers and spies...
You want ot make it simple. Its either a choice, or its not, if its not a choice, they cant help it, and they cant change. The trouble here is that in the ling run, as with MOST majort portions of ones Personality, preferences are aquired over long periods of time, and invovle a myrade of complexe events to generate them. I didnt mention meditation at all, so you simpley erected another oversimplified straw man.
Anyone who has studied Psycology loing enough will tell you that most of your personality t raits arent inborn byt learned, and although it can be hard to change who you are, it can be done with enough ouniliogn and therapy. I can take a rabbid Mets fan and make him hate Sports altogather with enough time and cooperation on his part.
But its not simpley about meditating, one has to go through groulign hours of examination, and analysis of what caused the guy to like the mets int he first place. But thats anothe rissue, which we may address later.
As to fair say, I mean it not in the context of allowing me to post, I mean int h contextof actually tryign to understand what I am saying, which, acording to youtr aformentioned strawman, you arnet even goign to give me the benefit of a doubt. I am kept to keep the conversation interesting.Period. No reason else.
But ultimatley you miss my main point, My arguments agisnt Homosexuality arent designed ot be compelling, rather I am askign for self examination.
Basically, what I am seeing is a polirised "Us VS Them" Scenario.
In your collective minds, its simple. Open Minddness means accpetance of Gay Mariage. Closed Minddness Opposition tothis.
You determine someon elses state of midn based on the position they take, and auomaticlaly assume that if they take the psition opposite of yours, they are narrow minded, fear driven Bigots, whereas you are the enlightened elite with all thr answers.
Again, I will poitn t it. Someone on this thread stated that Christians shoudlnt complain, because they are commanded not to Judge, then spoke condesendingly about having to explain t Jesus their acitons. Thsi implies that they know more abour Said Christaisn beleifs than th Christaisn do, and tghe whole " Dont Judge me" line is not only overused, its a crutch desirgned to allow peopl to do as they want and not face down christains who oppose.
In reality, Judgement is about condemnign the person, or rendering their life as less worthy than your own.
However, a Chrisyain who opposed Gay Marriage is reproving Hay Marriage, they are NOT judginh the person, but rather speakign agaisn thte behaviour which they find offensive.
its a weak crtch to try to silence them on that, and it shows cowardice and conceit, not to mentioned Arrogance.
Npw tiurn back to me, look at the facts. Peopel who oppose Gay Marriage arent automatically Homophobic, nor are they Bigoits. In fact, Bigotry can be seen HERE ON THIS BOARD, in the form of people here JUDGING ME, like Hypoctires. Bigotry is defined as a state of mind in which one holds to ones own beleifs at the xpence of anothers, without listening.
How many of you woudl listen to a legitimate argument agaisnt Homosexuality wihtout autoimaticallu asusmign the speaker didnt know what they where on about? How many woudl refrain from callign him a Bigot or a Homophonbe?
Dont you see how Hypocritical and shallow you are beign when you call your oposition names that you cant justify simpley because they disagree wiht you?
Thaty is my main point.
#69 Posted by: ZAR at February 26, 2004 11:03 PM
calVIN,
For mentioning Hitler in a serious, albeit three word, comment I hereby invoke Godwin's Law and award the argument to... well, almost everyone else here. Sorry, dem's da rules.
With all due respect to whatever the hell you've been trying to say, if you must resort to name calling please do the other participants here a favor and aim your vitriol elsewhere.
#70 Posted by: Mike L. at February 26, 2004 11:15 PMYour arguments are filled with requests for us to apply self-examination and a constant fixation that we're not going to take you seriously. What kind of a reaction do you expect when there are so few kernels among the chaff?
Okay, so your argument is that when someone calls someone else a bigot, then they, too are a bigot. So, you're not a bigot because you have an apparent strong distaste for homosexuality which colors your opinions, you're a bigot because you feel you're pointing out the bigotry in this thread?
Listen, I can understand why you don't want to be called a bigot. But you seem more fixated on what people are going to think about your opinions than trying to back them up.
I'm tolerant of christian beliefs and complaints. But it's the old adage that your freedom to swing your arms ends where your fist touches my nose. Anti-gay amendments are a punch in the nose.
If you can show that the gay couple living a happy married life down the street is infringing on your rights, I'll be happy to listen.
#71 Posted by: James at February 27, 2004 12:00 AM> Teirs an old saying, if someone claims the moon
> lnmding never happened and wont look at the
> pictures and evidence, then tey will never
> beleive. That fits you.
I am a critical thinker, I have studied hard sciences, I base my conclusions on observation and I change my mind in the face of evidence and compelling argument. You sir, do not know anything about me, and it is the epitome of arrogant presumption to assume you know me so well. Your behavior is reprehensible, your arguments are largely unsubstantiated, and your pompous condescension is astonishing. You've given yourself an easy out for every single argument you've half made by decrying ahead of time that any opposition to that argument must be because I am close minded. How convenient for you to be able to display your opinions in little glass boxes, free from outside contamination.
I respect your right to act like a colossal ass, but I'm not going to sit idly by and say "yes sir may I have another" to every unfounded insult you hurl at me.
If you knew thing one about psychology and human behavior you would know that people are not so easily pigeonholed.
Originally I was going to respond to your post a comment at a time, but your behavior is so appalling that your post doesn't deserve that kind of consideration. I was more than prepared to give your a fair shake, but after hearing the same insult 50 times, you'll have to forgive me if I don't care what you think. When I began to write this response genuinely interested in what you had to say, but your abusive treatment of me combined with your vapid illogical spew has cured me of that particular illness. Your ideas may have merit, but you are woefully ill equipped to discuss them rationally. So I'll just cover the highlights.
> Indeed, its liek the cry to remive religion,
> religion is no a hot potato,
Removal of religion? What removal of religion? I cry not for a removal of religion. I think religion serves a valuable purpose for those who have need of it. If you are referring to the separation of church and state, well obviously I support that. This is not a theocracy... I have no wish to practice governance like the Iranians do. Since the issue on the table is legal marriage and not religious marriage, I feel it is quite fair that religion has no bearing on the discussion. If we were going to force churches to marry gay people, then I'd agree that religion should be front and center in the discussion, but that isn't the argument.
> and if anyone dares to say they are religioys
> they are branded as a fanatic, let alone allow
> themto make publkic opinions based on their
> koral convistions!
>
> The Horror! Someone livign by an ideal!!!
Wow you really sound paranoid. To clue you in, I greatly respect and admire people of faith. I am a man without faith, faith simply does not work for me as a model for living, but I have nothing against those who practice their faith or believe in God. One of my best friends is a devout Catholic, another is a devout Jew, another is an Agnostic, another is a Baptist. Yes I have long standing and wonderful relationships with men and women of faith. I even believe there is wisdom to be found in the bible along with all the myths, misrepresentations, mistranslations, and omissions. As a result I have studied the bible at length.
I do not equate religion with fanaticism, I equate flying planes into buildings with fanaticism.
No I have nothing but admiration for people who have strong moral conviction, and who live by their convictions, whether or not those convictions are based in religion.
My objections only come forward when people begin imposing their moral convictions on people who do not share them, like for example, forbidding a gay couple to marry because of personal distaste for homosexuality, or a personal belief that it is immoral. Practice your morality, teach your morality, follow your morality, but recognize it as your morality.
For example, my morality says that you shouldn't impose your morality on others unless it is to prevent demonstrable harm to other individuals or society as a whole. That caveat is how my morality allows me to in some way take action to prevent a murder, or to punish a crook.
This is why I would never tell you it is wrong of you to disapprove of homosexuality, I would encourage you to teach those views, and advise gay couples you know against same-sex marriage, those are your morals, you've every right to them. My morality demands no less of me.
Since your morality doesn't preclude forcing your beliefs on others, you see nothing wrong with telling two gay people who don't share your moral code that they CAN'T marry. This is where my morality forces *me* to intercede because you are doing harm to individuals by cruelly denying people who are probably in love the right to obtain legally married status, and you are doing harm to society by creating an oppressed second-class of citizenry. Nothing good can come from that. Under my moral code, discrimination is immoral and does harm.
Those are my moral convictions, and I follow them "religiously". Go ahead and decry me for trying to deny you your "right" to oppress people if you must, but don't expect any sympathy.
> I even remember, on the note of religion, the old tired
> "Christains shoudlnt sya its worng, the Binle says Judge
> not" routine,
>
> *snip*
>
> Jesus also told themto reprove sin, and they consider
> Homosexuality sin. Judgement is not equated with tellign
> someone they are wrong, but rather condemnign someone
> else as somehopw of less worth.
Whether I am Christian or not, I am not abusing Christ's words. The meaning was clear and concise. In fact it was such an important message to Christ that he said it more than once. Did not Christ also say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" The definition of reprove is to "to scold or correct usually gently or with kindly intent" and "to express disapproval of", not "to forcibly correct". Were you to follow Christ's teachings in this regard, you would realize that he is telling you do exactly what I suggested you do, TEACH, SPEAK OUT. Denying people the right to marry is not "reproving", that's "oppressing". Christ never said to oppress, in fact he said "blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth". The meek don't deny people rights because they personally have moral issues with those rights.
> as if you people shoudl tell Christaisn
> how to interpret their own rleigion, and you consider
> this arrogance and Hypocracy rational. If you knew anyhtign
> at all about Christain theology, you woudl relaise that
>
> Why do I brign up religion? Werll, because its discussed
> a lot, and I see the ame symptom, that I ant o make clear
> in your mind.
>
> You as a group seem to think you underxstand Christainity
> better than the Christains and tell them not to judge. In
> reality you probabely only know that oen verse and use it
> as a blindgend, and will ignore the real theology, or even
> just the practical, meanign behind the term.
Your presumption knows no bounds.
First of all, it is inherently specious to say "if you aren't a Christian, you can't argue points of Christianity." Bullshit. Anybody can study and become learned in any culture, society, religion, system of law, race or gender issue, and so on.
And secondly, I wasn't always an Atheist you know. How ridiculous of you to assume that because I am not a Christian now, I must know *nothing* of Christianity. I was once a Catholic, and a particularly devout one. I went to Church every Sunday, as a kid I went to Sunday school, I studied the catechism, and so forth. As a teenager I attended a respected parochial high school where I studied the bible extensively, Christianity extensively, and world religions to some lesser degree. Beyond high school I continued to study the bible on my own, but as I went through college and began to experience more and different worldviews, I took on a broader perspective. I met and fell in love with a Lutheran who was beautiful and sweet, and many years later she and I were married in a Catholic ceremony, and attended the necessary precana classes. At that point in life I was having serious doubts about my faith, as was my soon-to-be wife. We agreed to have a religious wedding (mostly for the benefit of our parents) but that we would start to examine other religions to see if we could find one that worked for us. Over a period of years we found that the religion that worked best for us was no religion at all. By the time our daughter was born, we were well adjusted to our Atheism and enjoying a fuller, happier existence because of it. This was what worked for us. My knowledge of Christianity is extensive, and I have been told by devout Christians in various discussions that my understanding of the tenets of the Christian faith is better than the average Christian's.
That thing you're tasting right now is your foot. Feel free to pull it out of your mouth at any time.
> As I said, you have a nasty habbit of telling peopel how to
> interpret their religion.
My interpretations of Christian teachings are just that, my interpretations, do with them what you will. You may choose to interpret Christ's recommendation to "reprove sin" as "OPPRESS THE FAGS", my interpretation, based on my own study of Christianity is that that is an incorrect interpretation, and I have every right to hold that opinion and express it. It is only *you* who thinks it is a "nasty habit" for me to share my opinions on certain Christian teachings with you. In short, it's your problem, not mine. Grow a little. What are you afraid of? I might say something that might actually cast some doubt on something you believe? Sheesh.
> > Let's say folks could only marry within their race.
> > Clearly, by your logic, everyone has the same rights,
> > because everyon and anyone can marry within their race.
>
> False analogy. The race/sexual preference card is a trump
> that is base don a lie. Race is CLEARLY genetic, and
> OBVIOUSLY innate. Ther eis nohtign in ethnicity however
> that renders a man of one race findamentally different
> form a man of another race, whereas Sexual oreintation
> is a behaviour, and not a race. Indeed, its offensive to
> ME that I have to deal withthe race comments all the time,
> as if beign opposed to Homosexual marriage automaticlaly
> makes one boht a Homphobe and a racist. Until you show
> tentitive links between race and sexual preference, this
> is simple fluff and bad form argument.
The discussion of protected classes has already been made, as far as you are concerned sexual preference, as a behavior, is somehow less "important" than race, which is clearly genetic. The US government protects all protected classes equally and both race and sexual preference are protected classes. The argument is about LEGAL marriage. So let's talk about discrimination as recognized by our system of law, instead of discrimination based on your personal feelings that discriminating against someone based on sexual preference isn't as bad as discriminating against someone based on race. As I said to Calvin, the US government doesn't agree with that position. The "race/sex preference card" as you call it is not based on "a lie", it's based on "the law".
> See,Racism is NOT identicle with Homophobia, and beign
> opposed to Homosexuality on moral grounds is not, itsself,
> Homphobia. All three are distinct in reality, but on
> discussions like this become one in the same thing.
> ne can be opposed to Homosexiality and not be a Homophobe.
I agree with you and have already said so earlier. As I said before nobody is denying you the right to think homosexuality is wrong or distasteful. In fact I've said it several times. How is it you've missed it? How is it that you've arrived at the conclusion that if you say "I think gay sex is morally wrong, not to mention gross", that I will call you a homophobe? I wouldn't. If you think it is wrong, and gross, whatever. You're entitled to your opinion. It is only when you use that opinion as a justification for denying rights to others that I will call you a homophobe or a bigot. Morals are not universal. Your morals are just that: YOURS--not mine, and not the gay fellow's who lives up the street. Use your morals to determine what is right *for you*. If you think homosexuality is morally wrong, I advise you not to enter into a homosexual relationship. It is, however, none of your business if someone else chooses to.
I think smoking cigarettes around other people and placing carcinogens into the air that they breathe is morally wrong. I don't deny people their right to do it though. I may think them rude or at least thoughtless, and I may ask them not to do it around me because it does me physical harm, but I respect their right to do so, no matter how distasteful I find the act. If they don't stop, I relocate myself if possible.
The line between disapproving of homosexuality and being a homophobe is drawn at the point where you stop making decisions for yourself and start making them for everyone. Capische?
> > With gays it is the same issue in reverse. They would like
> > to be able to marry among their own group. So, you see,
> > their rights are rsetricted in much the same way it would
> > be if miscegeny laws were in place.
>
> Race is obviosuly an innae trait. It cannot be changed,
> and is genetic. Likewise, rac eis what you are, not how
> you feel at any given moment. Sexual preference is an
> inclination. Its more equatable to beign a star Trek fan,
> or a pathologically depressed person, than it is to race.
This is simply the same point, being made again, to which my response stands. With respect to the laws regarding discrimination versus protected classes, your opinion would not stand up in court. The matter being discussed is a legal one. Your personal belief that it is okay to discriminate based on sexual preference, but not on race is not in accordance with the law.
By your argument, there would be nothing wrong, for example, with not permitting Star Trek fans to eat at certain restaurants, or not permitting pathologically depressed persons to marry, or not allowing people partial to the color red to own automobiles. Would those not be acts of discrimination? After all, they have nothing to do with race.
In my opinion they are discriminatory acts, and to discriminate against a group of people for any reason be it behavioral, idealogical, or physical, is bigotry. A bigot, according to Webster's, is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". The word "race" doesn't appear there.
> > Your argument presupposes that marriage is already
> > defined as a union between a man and a woman.
>
> Techniclaly, it is.See a dictionary.
What the heck, let's check the dictionary... from Webster's Online:
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage (same-sex marriage) b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union
Hmm, it would appear marriage has many definitions, of which only ONE is a union between a man and a woman. I note an entry for same sex marriage, and one that simply describes it as an "intimate or close union". But what the dictionary says on the matter probably isn't as relevant as the law, yes?
If marriage were already defined legally as between a man and woman, there would be no need for an amendment stating that fact. The push for the amendment is specifically because LEGAL marriage is NOT currently (or WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY in those states that have now passed such amendments) defined as between man and woman. That argument still stands, regardless of what your particular dictionary says.
If you are talking about RELIGIOUS marriage, I would tend to agree with you, however you have already indicated your argument is nonreligious, so I can only assume that you are talking about LEGAL marriage.
> The two techniclly arent distinct, under the law
> religious marriages are recognied.
And under the law nonreligious marriages are also recognized and granted all the rights of religious ones. This is what distinguishes the two. This point was covered earlier.
> This aside, the point is still that marriage is a
> social concern.
You'll get no argument from me on that point, marriage is a social concern. A society with healthy marriages is probably a stronger society than one with no marriages. That's why I'm for gay marriage. More healthy marriages can only improve and enrich our society.
> By forcing society itsself put and allowing the courts
> to handle it,
Categorically the majority protects the interests of the majority and MANY issues of equal rights have ultimately been solved in the courts. That's the way it works. People deny others equal rights, even pass discriminatory laws, the courts overturn them, society moves forward, and 40 years later everyone looks back and wonders what all the fuss was about. So it will be with gay marriage.
> you yourself force everyone in the nation
> to accept it, under the law, evn if they doint want to.
This point has been covered. I'm getting tired of covering it. Nobody is asking you to "accept gay marriage", if you don't think it's right, that is 100% A-OK JIM-DANDY FINE! There is a difference between thinking it is morally wrong, and trying to impose your morals on people who seek to marry others of the same sex. If you think it is wrong, tell people, teach your kids, speak out. But don't try to deny others the free will that God gave them to perform an act that doesn't affect you (yeah I'm going to touch on your arguments on this point in a bit).
> > LEGAL marriage is not so defined.
>
> Yes, it is. Thats what the whole debate is over,
> changing the definition.
Right, changing the definition so it says "one man and one woman" is what the amendment business is all about. If that is what we are changing our legal definition to (and specifically to prevent same sex marriages) then it follows through rudimentary deduction that the current legal definition (or the definition immediately prior to the passage of a reactionary amendment) of marriage does not define it as "one man and one woman". You can say "yes it does" all you want, but if that already is the LEGAL definition, then what the heck is the push for the amendment for? Either it is defined that way legally or it isn't.
> In most states it is so defined, its juist not
> federally defined.
Yes that is true, some states have passed reactionary and discriminatory law to prevent same-sex unions by changing the legal definition of marriage to exclude them.
> > If it were, there wouldn't be a push by ignorant
> > people to create a constitutional amendment to
> > define marriage as between a man and a woman.
>
> Why do you call them ignorant?
1. This group of people of whom I am a member, have this thing we do. It's very important to us.
2. A different group people want the right to do this same thing in a slightly different way within their own group. It's very important to them.
3. If they are allowed to do it, it doesn't affect me or anyone else in any impactful way.
4. I think the different way in which they choose to do it is wrong based on my religion or my personal morals.
5. I will therefore attempt to prevent them from doing this thing which is very important to them, because it is an offense to my morals.
That is bigotry in action, bigotry is inherently ignorant.
> Isn't that a wee bit arrogant?
Nope.
> I mean, if they disagree with you, they
> are ignorant...
Nope, never said that. Stop trying to read my mind. Assuming you know what I'm thinking is pretty arrogant.
They can disagree with me all they want. That's not why they are ignorant. When two scientists disagree over the finer points of quantum theory, neither is ignorant. If one were to try to prevent the other one from pursuing his research, then that would be an act of ignorance.
> and eliminatinvg their own free say as irrelevant?
I deny nobody the right to say what they want (once again, point already covered), and I assume nothing to be irrelevant unless it is something I have already determined to be irrelevant through thoughtful analysis and discussion.
> > The definition of marriage has changed many times
> > in the history of humanity, and differs even across
> > religious boundaries today (Mormons, anyone?)
>
> Not really, and for soemone who called the people who
> opposed you ignorant,
Your continued accusations are staggeringly miguided as I have already demonstrated.
> this is ignorant in a half. even in societies where
> Homosexuality was accepted, like Ancient Greece,
> everyones favourite area, marriage was stull
> between men and women. Polygamy doesn't alter this
> as a basic foundation, it merely allows for multiple
> partners to be added tot he mix. Saying that the
> concept of marriage has been altered many times
> is, itsself, extrmely ignorant, as its always
> been between men and wmen, no mater how many
> men or how many wmen.
(A) Marriage has always been between men and women: true.
(B) The definition of marriage has changed many times: true.
Where's the ignorance? The fact that you want to only pay attention to the gender aspect of marriage, and ignore the fact that there have been countless other changes to the institution throughout history (to name a few polygamy, polyandry, interracial, interreligious, nonreligious, common law, arranged, etc. etc. etc.) does not somehow make me ignorant. I say "The definition of marriage has changed throughout history" and you say "Not really" because the one thing about it that is central to your argument, opposite-sex-partners, has not changed. "Not really" my ass. The point was that the definition of marriage has changed in many ways at many times. There is precedent for change in the institution of marriage. Perhaps not this particular kind of change, but that is not the point.
> > I (and many others) define marriage as a union between
> > two people who love each other, PERIOD.
>
> So you now deny that marriages happen when people don't
> love each other?
Oh you can enter into a civil marriage contract without love, some people do, for example, to gain citizenship. Do you believe that is a real marriage? What does your morality say about that sort of marriage?
> Sorry, plenty of loveless marriages exist to this day,
> love doesnt have much to do with it.
I see. So because there are examples of marriage without love, you conclude that love has nothing to do with marriage. Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
> Especially of you reduce otit to nothign more than a
> legal contract.
Nonsense. Strong marriages are loving ones. Our society seeks to encourage strong marriages and one way of doing so is to provide a legal contract for such marriages that makes benefits and protections available to those who choose to enter them. Presumably most who choose to enter them do so out of love.
I have a very loving marriage with my wife, and I assure you our marriage was built on love, legal aspects notwithstanding.
> Further, the rampent emotionalism seems itsself
> absurd,
Man is a giddy thing. To try to discuss human marital behavior and social structures without taking love into account is lawyerly folly. Recognizing the concept of love in an argument, and its bearing on behavior and social attitude, is not "rampant emotionalism". This isn't Star Trek and we're not Vulcans, in the real world, logic and love are not mutually exclusive concepts, especially if you are discussing society and social structures.
> after all, you assume, out of hand, that
> Homosexual love is real when these peopel marry,
> when in fact it coudl be lust. You are the one
> trying to make this exactly like Heterosexual
> marriages, yet you think that it will be fre
> of these incedents?
What on earth are you talking about? My point on the love in a homosexual couple was made to strike down the assumption that "true love" only exists between heterosexuals. I never said that every homosexual couple's marriage would be a loving one, would be a perfect one, would be guaranteed to succeed.
You're right I am equating homosexual marriage to heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage sometimes fails, can be based on lust or other less savory intentions, and is often imperfect. I'm sure the same thing would happen in Homosexual marriages. So what? We don't deny heterosexuals the right to marry because "they might be infatuated based on lust" or "their marriage might fail". Why should those be arguments against gay marriage?
The only possible argument for a difference in the nature of gay marriage is that since gay people are currently denied the right to marry, and are having to fight so hard for something that it is so important to them, that when they finally are granted the right to marry, they will cherish it far more than the average heterosexual person who has never had to fight for said right. I would expect, at least in the short term, that homosexual marriages will be stronger than hetero ones. Over time, however given that homosexuals are normal everyday people, homosexual marriages will ultimately be as fallible as hetero ones.
> Further, one can always argue that Love is NOT
> best served in Homosexual marriage.
Really? That is an argument I would like to hear if based on objective reason, and not something subjective as say "faith" or "personal philosophy".
> Somethign is worng, but its still legal, and you open
> the floodgate for lots of male brittany Spears. You
> seem to be arguinmg emoiton here, and it paints a
> picture of corrpt heterosexuals, as epitomised by
> Mr.s SPrears, and yet seem to have this image that
> two happy, in love men marry and it lasts a lifetime.
> Sorry, thats fairy tale.
Not only is it a fairy tale, but it is one you created. My example of Ms. Spears' "marriage" was to point out that we all agree that there is something wrong with a loveless, trivial, marriage of whimsy. I'm glad you agree with that.
The notion that heterosexuals are all corrupt and gay marriages will be perfect is your fairy tale, not mine. That is not an assertion I made, and furthermore, I think it a ridiculous assertion. I'm simply saying it is cruel, and therefore wrong, to deny people who are in love the right to marry.
If anyone is arguing on emotionalism and fairy tales it is you, with your image of a "floodgate of male Britany Spears" as if (a) MOST gay marriages will be trivial, and (rather inexplicably), (b) these will only be the gay marriages between males.
With respect to the quality of gay marriages, my belief is that though they will doubtless be different in the beginning, ultimately it will be hard to distinguish between gay marriage and hetero marriage, beyond the single obvious difference. After all, gay people aren't really looking for "GAY" marriage, they're just looking for legal marriage, like everyone else. It's only us heteros who continue to insert the word "GAY" in there, as if the fact that the two people in the marriage are of the same gender somehow makes their loving union and social contract HUGELY DIFFERENT.
> Indeed, in the nation that legalised Sam Sex marriage
> first, few same sex coup,les marry, and few
> heterosexual ones do either. The nation is scandinavia.
> The fac tthat Homosexuality cherapened the marirage is
> hard to deny, need I post an article on it? Maybe htree?
Until you do I might as well assume the articles don't exist. I could say that I've seen an article in a respectable scientific journal that proves the world is populated with millions of invisible pink unicorns, but you'll just accuse the writer of being crazy if I post it, so I'm not going to.
Don't hint at evidence unless you're prepared to provide it. It's fricking annoying.
> No, you will say they where wirtten by Bigots,
You don't know what I will say, and my patience with your continued condescension and presumption is at at end. Cut it out.
Were they written by bigots? I'd have to read them first before I would say that. Then of course, AFTER reading them, I would seek other independent articles to see if the views were corroborated. AFTER that I would probably research the authors and look into their credentials. Have you done all these things with these articles that support your position?
There also exists the possibility that upon reading the articles I will conclude that my position is in error, and perhaps I will decide that gay marriage should not be allowed because it is harmful to society. It's going to have to be a very strong and unassailable article though, before I would consider something as cruel as denying marriage to couples in love for "the greater good".
> no maer hwho their author.
Oh the author would be very important to me. As I said, I would want to know what his or her credentials were. I would want to find out if, for example, an article on gay marriage in sweden was written by a known gay or anti-gay activist. That would pretty much preclude an unbiased study. You'll note that the page at the APA I keep directing you to is at the APA and not like, the ACLU or GLAAD or whatever. I'm specifically trying to provide you with something that appears unbiased. I've read it, it's very informative. Have you read it yet? Or are you engaging in the behavior you keep accusing me of?
> You can look it up yourself of course
I've not yet read any articles on Gay Marriage in Scandinavia (objective or otherwise) so I will certainly look it up, since I am always looking to improve my worldview with more information. Thanks for the tip. Please provide more information if you can since it will make my search easier.
> Marriage is a findamental institution to
> society, and has far reachign efects on
> social stability,
No argument here.
You feel that social stability will be affected by allowing gay couples to marry?
I agree with you.
And presumably, though you still haven't stated it, you believe the impact will be a negative one, although you have failed to illustrate how. Presumably the articles on gay marriage in Scandinavia which you failed to name would provide some of this illustration. I've no doubt your points are very heartfelt, but you're making impossible for me to judge their validity. If you're going to get into the discussion GET IN, don't pussyfoot around in the doorway and shout laments from the hall. Honestly though, if you're so all fired convinced that I am the close-minded monster that you keep saying I am, why the hell are you even talking to me?
> which you wish to ignore or pretend wont
> be effected by this.
Oops! There you go telling me what I wish or pretend, as if your computer monitor was hooked to an adapter in my brain. If it was the words "Jeeze this guy is pompous" would be flashing on your screen in great big letters right now, and somewhere down near the bottom would be the observation "it's 'affected', not 'effected', numb-nuts" along with a litany of internal observations about unnatural grammar and spelling errors.
Yes social stability will be affected by allowing gays to marry. I think the effect will be a positive one in the long term, and negative in the short term, but rather than say "I'm not going to tell you why because you won't listen anyway", as you keep doing, I'm actually going to explain why I feel that way. There are three reasons why I am doing this: (1) that's how discussions work--you really should try it, (2) I'm not afraid of putting my ideas up for criticism, even if the criticism may be unfair, and finally (3) I'm not afraid of having my ideas challenged, and maybe concluding that I am wrong. Boy am I a close-minded shmuck!!!
So anway, why do I think allowing gay marriage will have a positive impact on society?
Well the numbers in flux--10% of the populace being gay is now thought to be an overestimate, but the 3% of population who are "practicing" homosexuals is thought to be too low, precisely because many homosexuals are not practicing and have yet to "come out". Right now the most universally accepted estimate (your own opinions notwithstanding) is that about 5% of the population is gay.
That's a pretty big chunk of the populace. To demonstrate by comparison, those of the Jewish faith also make up 5% of our population. This isn't a handful of people, we're talking hundreds of thousands if not millions.
This chunk of the populace currently believes itself to be denied a basic right by the majority, and a much larger chunk (larger and growing considering trends over the last 20 years) of the populace agrees with them. As a result our society is becoming more and more polarized and divided on this issue. These millions of people are not going to "go away", and passing a law that says "nope you guys can't have that right" is not going to make them shut up and go home, it is only going to make them fight harder.
We are in for a period of unrest (and indeed are ALREADY in a period of unrest) until the discrimination ends. It is *not* going to stop. Once the discriminatory and self-conflicting laws are finally corrected by the courts, there will likely be a rise in hate crimes perpetuated by bigots. (Surely you wouldn't deny that a person who beats up a gay couple for being a gay couple is a bigot.) This stage is also unavoidable since, as I said, gay people and heteros that believe they are being discriminated against aren't going anywhere. Get used to it. Doubtless we will see some dramatic events.
Ultimately over time, once the discriminatory practices are forbidden under law, the unrest and hate crimes will die down. Hollywood will inundate us with positive images of normal homosexuals interacting with heterosexuals in much the same way that it bombarded us with images of blacks and whites working together over the last 40 years. People will decry it, but in the end it will prove useful in providing an alternative to the negative imagery perpetuated by intolerant people. Society will adjust, probably when a younger generation, that grew up in a world where gay marriage was legal and accepted, comes into their own and begins forming social decisions. They will not remember a day in which gay people could not be married and they will wonder why everyone got so crazy over it.
So, in the long term, this significant chunk of the populace will be integrated into our society, thus ending the unrest that we are beginning to get a taste of now, and our society will cease to be one that ostracizes or oppresses 5% of the population. This is the longterm positive effect I see. Hopefully, with this issue out of the way, society can begin to focus more effectively on other issues, such as abortion, child abuse, etc.
> Likewise, on Homosexuality, you declare Homosexuality
> morally acceptable,
No I did not.
I said that homosexuality was "harmless", I made no blanket statements about its moral acceptability, because, as I have repeatedly maintained all along, morals are not universal concepts. Indeed I have repetitively defended your right to find homosexuality morally wrong.
> and Homosexual marriage good
A specific homosexual marriage may not be good, but to cease to oppress a portion of our society and allow them to marry is a good thing in my opinion. In general, as already stated, I believe Homosexual marriage will be no better or worse than Heterosexual marriage except perhaps in the immediate short term.
> make up all kinds of sappy emopitonal arguments, an
> then try to force feed it to people who arent
> willing to acot it and if anyone opposed toyr
> veipount theiy are Bigoted and Ignotant.
My arguments are neither sappy or emotional, and your complete failure to grasp the majority of my points doesn't lend a lot of strength to your mischaracterization of me, my arguments, and my inner motivations.
> > If we recognize legal marriage as a contract you have a right
> > to enter into with another consenting adult with whom you are
> > in love, then we are indeed denying gay people that right.
> > We say to them "You may marry, but only someone you do not
> > love."
>
> No we don't. Once again this is useless emotionalism.
Mentioning the word "love" does not turn the argument into "useless emotionalism". This was a reasonable argument. You can disagree with the premise, and then we can discuss that but the logic from the premise to the conclusion is unflawed.
> For starters, you havent really illustrated that Love enters into
> all marriages,
Nor am I required to. Sexual attraction is often the primary driving emotion that leads to love, and love is often the primary driving emotion that leads to marriage. Yes there are loveless marriages, yes there are marriages that begin without love (such as arranged marriages). But that's neither here nor there. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF NOT 100% OF ALL MARRIAGES ARE BASED ON LOVE. Most common everyday marriages begin with people who fell in love and then get married. It is neither rash nor ill-thought to begin from the assumption therefore, that if you have two people who want to get married, it's likely they want to marry because they are in love. If you are going to seriously take me to task over that assumption, spare me. It would be a ridiculous tangent anyway. Assume for the sake of argument that only 1% of marriages begin with two people in love. It would therefore follow that if you deny a group of people the right to marry, you are denying people the right to marry people they love. That's cruel. Yes, cruel may be an emotional assertion, but if society forbade you from marrying the person you loved, you would think it cruel too. And you would be right.
What if NO marriages begin from love? Is it then okay to deny some people the right to marry when other people are given that right? I don't see how that's any less discriminatory, although it may not be cruel.
In actuality, and you damn well know it, most marriages begin from affection and love. I've attended dozens upon dozens of weddings in my lifetime, I saw marriages that I thought would fail, and they did, I saw marriages I was sure would succeed and thus far they have. I saw some marriages that surprised me. What I *never* saw was a marriage not based in love.
> You asume that if their in love, they shoudl marry,
No I don't. I never said that. Once again you put words in my mouth and thoughts in my brain. You could have this discussion with yourself, since you are trying to "say all my lines" too.
What I said was if two people want to marry, they are probably in love, and that I believe it to be cruel to deny them that right. In addition I believe denying them that right based on a personal moral code that they do not share to be obscene, bigotted, perverse, and ignorant.
> and ignore any argument that they may not be in love,
> or that if they love each other maybe they shuldnt
> marry.
They may not be in love. Maybe they shouldn't marry. Those are observations that could be applied to heterosexual couples as well. The differentiating factor here is that I believe that it is not my right to force them to live their life according to my moral code, or in fact any moral code but their own, precluding scenarios that result in harm.
> I am sorry, but this kidn of attitude is why many
> researchers ( Some I kno personally ) Dont publish
> their researhc into Homosexuality, Bigots liek you
> tend to cry fowl when they are shown to be in error,
> or if theirs even he slightest Chance.
Heaven forbid if someone cries foul when a study is shown to be in error! You're right there should be no review of scientific work.
> Dr.Spitzer, who helped remove Homosexuality form the
> APA Disgnostic Journal, which is toted here as abadge
> of Honour,
This has the potential of being an interesting piece of information...
> even dida survety that was shot down. I know, ou will
> post his findings failutes...but hte poitn
Earnlay otay ypetay egiblylay... orway ustjay uckfay offway.
I mean seriously WHAT? "even dida survety"? "hte poitn"? "failutes"?
Obviously, I'll have to look elsewhere for knowledge. I will look for that article on same-sex marriage in Scandinavia, and I have some familiarity with Spitzer. I listened to an interview awhile back that was I think with him and some people who worked with him, and as I recall he had some positive and negative things to say, but I can't remember what they were. I remember thinking it was interesting at the time. I'll have to dig into the archives at the NPR website... pretty sure I heard it on NPR.
> Homosexual marriage , and htis whole debate, is NOT
> About love
It clearly is not from your perspective. I suspect it is much easier for you to deny people the right to marry if you start from the assumption that there is no real love there. Maybe I'm being a little unfair in my interpretation of your spew there, but WTF, you've shown me no charity tonight.
> and pretendign that pnly Gay Men or lesbians that ar
> ein love will marry is itsself nieve and unrealistic.
I'm not pretending that only gay couples who are in love will seek marriage, dumbass.
> Further, one can argue that if they relaly loved them,
> they woudl want whats best for them, which may not be
> same sex marriage,
You're right marriage isn't always the right choice for two people, even when they are in love. I'm prepared to offer advice if it is asked, but let them make that decision for themselves. Too bad you aren't.
> > So even if you are 100% right up to this point,
> > how does granting gay couples the right to marry
> > adversely affect you or society in general?
>
> Glad you asked.
Glad you are FINALLY getting to some substantive argument against gay marriage.
> For starters, it takes my tax money to support marriage
> benegfits, if I am morally opposed to Homosexuality,
> I will still have o say in the matter, the law will BIND
> me to aceptance (This is where that bindign comes form)
> and I will not be able to refuse worker rights to a same
> sex couple, even if I am opposed, nor will I be able to
> refise thir married partners affiliation withhtem. Even
> if on moral grunds.
I see so you are essentially pointing to two adverse effects of gay marriage on you personally. Let me summarize:
(1) Some portion of your tax dollars will translate into marriage benefits for gay couples.
(2) You will not be able to discriminate against gay marriages.
I think we can dispense with #2 right away. The very point of providing laws that protect classes from discrimination is so that people will not discriminate against them, even on moral grounds. You may wish to return to a backward society where it's okay to hate the infidels, but I assure you it isn't going to happen.
As far as #1 goes, yes you're right. Some of your tax money will go to marriage benefits for gay people. Just as some of it goes to schools in which prayer is banned and creationism is not allowed to be taught. Just as some of MY tax money goes to support the certain organizations I have no great love for. Welcome to democracy.
Incidentally once you pay your tax dollars, they cease to be *your* tax dollars. Further, have you taken a moment to calculate what dollar amount of your annual tax money would be going to gay marriages? How much less or more than almost nothing is it? I'm curious.
> As to how it effects society, well, I mentiond scandinavia
> a few times, here is one link to show you the end result
> their.
Okay, I'll look into those articles tomorrow, thanks for finally providing some links. It's 4 AM here and I've been responding to your post for about 4+ hours now.
> Dint you see, no matter hwat argument is used, you weill
> pretend its not their, and justifgy it with weak
> emotionalism such as " Peopl in love shoudlnt be prevented
> form marrying", and will close off any discssion of rather
> or not Homosexual couples actalu can fall in love because
> to you its case closed, your midn is mafe up therefore
> you are right and they are wring.
First of all, I'm merely stating my opinion. If you had a rational argument to make that homosexuals can't actually be "in love", you should have made the argument instead of being a coward because you were afraid I would beat you up over such a statement. I've known a number of loving homosexual couples through the years, and I'm quite certain I was witnessing love. If your argument was a good one, you should have made it, instead of filling that swollen head of yours with "certain truths" about how I would inevitably respond. Wanna talk about creating straw men? How about your INCESSANT attacks on the nature of my response before I have even responded?
> You like to pretnd Gay Mariage wont harm society
If it is my opinion that gay marriage will not harm society, that doesn't mean I'm "pretending" it won't. Quit being inane.
> By allowign it to be redifiend at a whim
> wrecjlessly base don the tide of your emoitonal
> sophistry, you will inevitabely collid withthe cold
> rocks of reality as csociety continues to decay.
Most melodrama is set to music. You should definitely look into getting some... how about Also Sprach Zarastrutha (sp?).
> I coudl list 10'000 reports on how it harms withe
> rthemselves or society
Spare me your hyperbole, I seriously doubt you could find 10,000 respectable reports on how Gay Marriage affects society, either way. You posted two articles above and I will read them. If you think there are other articles I should read, please supply them and I will read them.
> Again, you asusme Love is all that is invovled here,
> btu again can you really demonstrate that these
> couples love each other? Can you? No, you cant,
Neither can you, but you seem prepared to say they're not. And as I said the love issue connects with the cruelty of the oppression. Oppression is oppression, even if there is no cruelty. You're the one who seems to be hung up on the love thing.
Clearly you don't believe any gay couple shares real love. I think you're wrong. My evidence is anecdotal of course, but perhaps the dozen or so gay couples I've counted amoung my friends at different times in my life were all amazing exceptions, psychological curiousities to be marvelled at, and then dismissed as statistically insignificant. As for YOUR evidence that gay couples can't experience love? You've yet to provide any.
Oh wait, I know why you haven't provided any, it's because I won't take it seriously right? That's it! Wow, that's a pretty effective way to avoid having a discussion.
> The health risks behidn Homosexuality are well known,
> and I am not limited to AIDS, the average lifespan
> is abotu 20 years shorter.
Yes clearly we need to provide the appropriate education to gay people about various health risks they place themselves at, much as we do for, say smokers. It's good to hear that you are motivated to help gay people pursue their chosen lifestyle and mitigate as much of the risk as possible.
> Socially it undermines a basic institutionm, and causes
> confusion and later apathy.
How does Gay Marriage undermine marriage?
How does Gay Marriage cause confusion and apathy?
> It causes lots of social harm, as well as personal harm.
Well I reserve judgement on this point until you respond to my questions. You've itemized a few bad things that Gay Marriage will cause without bothering to say how or why.
> Loce is not always consumated by marriage, and often greater
> love is shown by restraint.
Perhaps not. Since when is it your decision to decide whether two consenting adults should restrain themselves from loving each other or not?
> > > [there is] some startling new evidence
> > > to suggest that their not, and indeed,
> > > that chang eis possible. This new
> > > evidence I beleive was published in thr
> > > APA a year or two ago.
> >
> > Prove it.
>
> You want me to prove a negsative?
Good God man. Did you not just say that there is some "startling new evidence", let's see it. Asking you to produce startling new evidence that you have reviewed is not asking you to prove a negative.
And then the startling new evidence turns out to be an article written by Maggie Gallagher of the "Institute for American Values". No agenda there. :rolling eyes:
* At this point I got tired of your rude vituperation and half-arguments and lost any interest in attempting to communicate further with you. You can GFYS at your earliest convenience, your ideas are clearly not open to discussion because anybody who disagrees with you is automatically a hypocritical bigot who wouldn't give you a fair shake. Yes you commit the very sin you accuse everyone else of.
================================================
This section is devoted to Zar's outrageous
presumption that he knows exactly how I am going
to respond before I do.
Of course, this attitude is ludicrous but his
tenacity is nothing short of amazing.
When Zar does stupid, he goes in WHOLE HOG.
I originally wrote responses for each of these,
but really why bother? They're so pitiful they
speak for themselves. I left in my original
intended reply for a couple, just for amusement.
I counted 16 times (before I got tired of counting)
where Zar tried to tell me what I was going to do
or say next and he was wrong every time.
================================================
(1)
> Besides, its not like you "Open minded" peopel will listen
> to me anyway, becayse your minds are well made up and I am
> clealry wrong
(2)
> Upu will say this is me
> tryign to bakc out, tis not, but I will not be backed
> into a lie of Bigotry when clearly pthers on this board
> are Bigots themselves, more on this later.
(3)
> I suppose its too much to ask that you actually
> treat the other side fairly though, as I said,
> readign this thread, I notice tghe Hypocritical
> cry of a Bigots stanmdard. [...blather snipped...]
> Nothign I say unless I become a sichophantic yes
> man will be seen as intellegent
(4)
> but likely you wont, your too content
> in your selfish dilusionalism and
> emotionalism to listen to anyones
> reaosns but your own, or anothe
> rperspectivce.
(5)
> But to do so, I woudl hav to get you to listen
> to reasons that you have decided are ignorant
> and bigoted. Agfter all, your tyoo busy beign
> open minded to consider the pother persons
> point of veiw.
(6)
> Yo yuoi, the moral case is closed, Homosexuality is
> moral, and its all about love, and then you try to
> foce this, without discussion, as a fact, on everyone
> else as a basis of how we shoudl live and what we
> shoudl accept.
(7)
> but I forgot, you have already decreed that Homosxuality
> is moral, so anyone elses opinion blah blah blah blah
> same boring misguided presumptuous bullshit said 20 times
> already about how nobody will give me a fair shake despite
> the fact that this is all being noted BEFORE the responses
> are written
(8)
> Thats why I dotn debate htis at length, nothign I say will
> b hard, and its ... blah blah blah more crybaby blather
(9)
> which illistrated why I dont get heavily invovled with
> narrow minded people such as yourself,
(10)
> You will doubtless blame somethign else, as you will need a
> scapegoat, and claim it wont ... blah blah blah ... I live in
> Chuck's brain. I grew up with him. I know what color under
> wear he is wearing. I know what he's thinking, I know what he
> thought, I know what he thinks he thought, and I know if he
> thought he was going to think of that. No really. It's not
> just me being arrogant, I REALLY KNOW.
(11)
> Keep in mkind tha no matter whT I say, you are too
> much a Hypocritical Bigot to listen.
Thanks I'll try to keep that it mind. Tell you what, I'll keep that in mind if you will keep in mind that no matter what I say, you are too much of a hypocritical pompous arrogant co
and that's 50. think we can do 75?
#51 Posted by: B.O.B. (bob) at February 26, 2004 04:51 PM