Feel free to find it rediculous, but demanding something from someone is a much more hostile act then denying someone something he doesn't really need in the first place.
Printable View
Feel free to find it rediculous, but demanding something from someone is a much more hostile act then denying someone something he doesn't really need in the first place.
Who is demanding anything? There is no legal basis for us to bar two gay men (or polygamists for that matter) Its fear wrapped in the false premise of "The I could marry my toaster fallacy"Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
If you're not one; you got nothing to "fear" from that consideration. However, if you should happen to be one, it'd serve your best interests. As far as having green, blue or brown eyes is normal; homosexuality is too. It wouldn't be an issue if you didn't make it one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Or they will not. I've always understood it the way that 'brainwashing' the children has always been parents' right, anyhow. Children could be picked on for pretty much anything, that's not an argument.Quote:
Not to mention the disastrous consequences of gay couples being able to adopt children once they are married. They will brainwash their children (and yes Christian families brainwash children too but that doesn't make this OK), and make them start to think that maybe they could be gay, especially when they look up to daddy, and in particular when there's two daddies. Their kids will be picked on at school, and come home and tell everything to Daddy. I can see it already...
ROTFL ~~Quote:
Kid: Daddy, how come all the other kids have one dad and one mum?
Dad: Well son, that is because your parents love each other anyway, so much that is doesn't matter that we're both men.
Kid: But everyone at school says men should only love women...
Dad: That is because they hate freedom.
Kid: So does this mean that I could be gay?
Dad: Why of course son, you must think about it seriously before you make your mind up.
Kid: But that doesn't make sense, they tell us at health education that its not a choice.
Dad: That is because Christian fundamentalists are trying to confuse you son, we must make you challenge their ridiculous notions that it is normal for men to be attracted to women.
Dad2: This kids a bigot.
Kid: *cries* Daddy why did Daddy2 say I am a bigot?
Dad: Aw, don't worry son, just go to your room and think about what we have told you.
Kid: Thanks Daddy, I feel better now, when I grow up I want to be just like you! *goes and wonders if he is gay*
Someone is always demanding it is never enough, more gays here and that hole needs to be filled as well not enough gays there, if you want to be treated as an individual stop being a movement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
This thread is about the legalization of gay marriage. I dont believe in giving a certain position to a man because he likes other men he should just have the right to marry. Is this one of the "freedom to" things we Americans are so fond of? Because until you mentioned it I never heard of Gay AA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It exists because someone has been lobbying, what is the big deal they can shred eachother apart 24/7, they already had all fiscal rights why they need to get married when they know it is important to a lot of people, probably because it is, makes it all the more important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Oh dear lord. Are we going to start doing faith healings now? Because this is well into the realm of the ridiculous. Stop believing whatever your fanatical church says and go meet some actual gay people from OUTSIDE your church, and listen to their perspective before making this kind of ridiculous claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
If you don't like the movement, stop looking the other way or telling people to stop drawing attention to themselves when they have their property seized or are beaten into the hospital for no reason. If it hadn't been for widespread collusion in the mistreatment of people just because of their private home life, we wouldn't be where we are at as societies.Quote:
Someone is always demanding it is never enough, more gays here and that hole needs to be filled as well not enough gays there, if you want to be treated as an individual stop being a movement.
Your macbook is not a consenting adult...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
EDIT: And neither is TuffStuff's toaster for that matter.
Rhyfelwyr,
Because they are also human being and entitled to love, and build relationships.Quote:
Why should the state have to acknowledge relationships between homosexuals and give them tax cuts?
And what is that historic role?Quote:
Tax cuts are not given to heterosexual couples for their lustfulness, but because of the historic role of the traditional family unit.
Maybe you should have paid better attention in class then, so we wouldn't have to educate you.Quote:
Liberals are trying to brainwash children through school through sex education classes. I only finished mine a few years ago, and they were always telling us how it is normal to be homosexual, how everyone must consider if they are homosexual!
Your argument is that homosexuality was a non-issue before sex education, or what?Quote:
This is terrible, if they stopped making issues out of non-issues and fooling children into thinking they might be homosexual then there would be no problem.
How are the two related? In Sweden they can marry, but not adopt.Quote:
Not to mention the disastrous consequences of gay couples being able to adopt children once they are married.
First of all, what evidence do you have for claiming kids of adopted gays gets brainwashed to become gay? I think the gays, if able to adopt, will try to ensure their kids can love whoever they want to. As they, if any, are aware of the problem of forbidden love.Quote:
They will brainwash their children (and yes Christian families brainwash children too but that doesn't make this OK), and make them start to think that maybe they could be gay, especially when they look up to daddy, and in particular when there's two daddies. Their kids will be picked on at school, and come home and tell everything to Daddy. I can see it already...
You just sound veeery bigot.
What are you afraid of?
That is the scariest avatar I have ever seen in my entire life. Seriously, it reminds me of that one part of Creepshow.
@Andres, off topic sorry.
Bunk. Heterosexual married couples do not get tax credit for children until they have children and claim them on a tax return, with social security number. You get a tax cut per child. If you have no children, you still get the generic married tax bracket. So it has nothing to do with fostering procreation.Quote:
Tax cuts are not given to heterosexual couples for their lustfulness, but because of the historic role of the traditional family unit.
que? Was it something I said?Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
I am afraid that the world is becoming a cesspit of iniquity.
People must choose to engage in homosexual acts, unless it was just a coincidence that all the Roman emperors except Claudius did this.
Or ancient Greece, where it was seen as alright to have little boy slaves. Plato said it was good for population control after all. I'm not comparing this to paedophiles, but they all chose to engage in homosexual acts.
And this is not just a case of having 'freedom to', the gay pride movement wishes to force its 'values' on everyone. They want children to be indoctrinated into believing that unnatural things are natural, and telling them to make choices that don't exist. They don't just want to take people out the closet, they want to take them into a different room and bar them from the normal world, telling them they are gay and always will be gay and that they have no choice in the matter.
Gay people all the time engage in straight sex acts for social acceptance or self-validation. In a culture like Greece or Rome where all power was tightly and exclusively male-held, and a culture that endorsed hedonism and pursuing any form of pleasure as acceptable, it is not exactly a shocking revelation that otherwise heterosexual men would mess around for political advantage. Though, they played around with powerful or high-born women for political advantage , too. So I am not sure what distinction you believe you are making about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
And as for the "forcing their values on you", what values would those be? Family? Life commitment? Wanting to move out of the era of back alley or closeted casual sex and into formal, stable relationships? Accepting and tolerating difference?
I don't see what about the "values" behind gay marriage, any Christian should have a problem with. By your imagined-up image of how "values are being forced on you", straight people force their values on everyone every single day.
Yes, but that's not the same as that people choose to become homosexuals. Either way, it's their choice, not yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Indeed, and unless their choices cause you some form of harm, encoded legislature to restrict or deny them certain equal rights they would have as heterosexuals is unsupportable in our country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
That's just because you are inventing categories of people. For example saying that people are born homosexual or heterosexual, and have no choice in the matter. In reality, homosexuals just choose to commit particularly vile acts, it doesn't make them special and eligible for tax cuts as normal couples would.
Some people happen to make sodomy a way of life, either because they really embrace it or because gay activists tell them that they must because its who they are. They do not deserve privileges for this.
Such as?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
(NB: I am not looking for a detailed description here - I am just wondering what you consider to be "particularly vile")
If the church does not want to preform the service they dont have to. No one here has advocated that and if some gays feel smug oh well thats the way the cookie crumbles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Sodomy is abominable full stop. Don't give people tax cuts for it.
You can get a tax cut for sodomy? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
So are many other things. There really isnt even a christian basis for the discrimination of homosexuals anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Um, no. You do realize straight people participate in this same "vile behavior", correct? It doesn't change which gender they are attracted to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Should heterosexual couples that practice sodomy (this would in absolute numbers well be more than homosexual couples) also be exempt from tax cuts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Any other sexual activities that would make you forfeit your tax cuts?
Judging others is also a vile sin in the Bible. Never stopped a good Christian though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
It doesn't seem it stopped a good liberal either ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
I seem to remember a guy being sent to prison after it was proved in a court of law that he used his mouth on his wife's genitals ... oh, here it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Hard-time convicts in the prison yard derive no end of fun comparing their particular crimes to the transgression that landed James David Moseley behind bars 17 months ago.
Moseley, in the midst of a five-year sentence at a state prison outside Atlanta, is doing time for committing oral sex. With his wife.
"The other prisoners, some of them murderers and such, burst out laughing," said Clive Stafford-Smith of the Southern Prisoners Defense Committee. "Jim is bemused himself. Here he is languishing in jail for a crime that millions of Americans commit daily. Or perhaps nightly." Moseley, 34, a carpenter from the Atlanta suburb of Jonesboro, was convicted under Georgia's 156-year-old sodomy statute last year after admitting in court that he had had oral sex with his estranged wife, Bette Roberts.
Did he also lose his tax cuts? ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Hey, I'm not the one using my archaic Middle Eastern moral code as a justification for denying people equal rights. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
P.S. there are plenty of Christian liberals.
OK lets not get technical on the definitions of Sodomy. We all know what its widely used for, look for example at Ian Paisleys "Save Ulster From Sodomy" campaign.
I suppose the problem here is I see homosexuality as an act some people commit for whatever reason, others here see it as the defining aspect of those who engage in it.
Because if you acknowledge it as an act which any person can choose to commit, then you can't claim people are being unfairly discriminated against.
Rhyfelwyr, I hope you are joking...
I find it sad to see that western culture and tolerance has not come further. I wish I can blame teh school system, but obviolsy you have been thought, you just refused to listen.
A person refusing to learn is called, a what?
Tolerate people, whether they are of a different race, culture, religion etc.
Don't tolerate the sins which people choose to commit.
Wait so... if we can prove a couple had sex before their wedding date, they should not get any rights either?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
This is a clumsy, bumbling argument trying feebly to straw-grasp any justification to attack a group you feel is "vile" and sinful. Even though existing legal privileges for married couples extends to an awful lot of sinners.
We all commit sins and they are for the most part tolerated! Not to mention separation of church and state! I would actually like to debate modern theology with you and scriptures impact on the modern world. Most people here are very entrenched in there ivory towers when it comes to the jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Rhyfelwyr, and you do not accept that people ahve other beliefs than you?
I mean, when you talk about sin, you expect other people to follow your version of the christian belief, no?
But my point is there is no group! Homosexuals acts are no more than what they are - acts. It just so happens that some of the people who commit these acts choose to make them the defining features of their personality, because increasingly that's what gay activists are trying to make them think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
I don't like arguing on legal technicalities, that's why I'm avoiding the 'toaster argument'.
Sins should not be tolerated. I don't know exactly what you mean by 'tolerated' though. If you mean should sins go unpunished, well then technically on this earth the answer would be yes I would think. God forgives us for our sins when we ask Him to, He will give forgiveness to those who commit homosexual acts just as for any other act. Sin is sin is sin. I'm not suggesting the death penalty for sodomy as in Iran, just as I wouldn't kill someone if they told a lie or stole something. Its purely for practical reasons we have to lock some sinners up, notably those who pose a threat to public safety.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
But if you mean tolerate as in regard as morally acceptable, then I will never tolerate homosexual acts. The reason for the Christian outcry against homosexuality in particular is that, unlike with other sins, modern society is increasingly coming to accept it. And that is a frightening thought, indeed 'homosexuals' are already accepted into the clergy in Canada and the Anglican Church looks to implement them, its a sign of the end times as far as I'm concerned.
Well not specifically my beliefs. But mainstream Christian beliefs, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
How come you feel the need to force your beliefs upon others?
I'm pretty sure that he was talking about stoning people to death in the street.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
I'm also pretty sure that I'm not getting married to a gay man, so that plank isn't in my eye. Therefore I'm free to help my brothers pull the planks out of their "eyes".
Are we not supposed to judge politicians before election day? What about judging president Bush for invading Iraq?
Liberals arn't judgemental at all... Hey, why don't you pull the log out of your own brown eye?
"The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment." (Psa. 37:30)"
Well yes. You make it seem like clergyman don't sin well they do! The end times? I didnt know they still made people like you in Britain ~;) "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" How are you going to completely condemn an act that has no effect on you and poses no threat to public safety?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Where do you get this crap? Gay people are just addicted to a specific form of sex, and form it into a personality because gay activists brainwash them to? What, do you think all gay kids go to gay boot camp at age 12 and emerge at age 18? Almost all gay kids are raised by straight, frequently Christian parents. So where is this activist brainwashing stepping in and taking over?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
I'm surprised when I hear Christians so intentionally abuse the teachings of their own Bible for unfriendly purposes. The "remove the log from your own eye before removing the speck from your brother's" does not refer to having to be guilty of precisely the same fault, and you are being obtuse to pretend so. Somewhere in your life there are things you will not admit (and shouldn't) and aren't proud of. I don't know what they are. Maybe you pressured a girl who wasn't ready. Maybe you hit a girl once. Maybe you've had copious premarital sex. Maybe you've cheated on a girlfriend. Who knows, who cares. Even if you haven't done any of those things, you are imperfect, flawed, and sinful. So going around correcting the sins of others is judgment, which is reserved for God. Making up punishments or restrictions for others based on sins you feel they commit and you don't, even worse IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
According to your little book, anyway. And 13 years of what Rhyr would call "Christian activist brainwashing", seeing as how I went to Christian schools.
So are you against judging people who kill other people? What about people who judge?Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
Judgement is pretty straight forward. Judge not lest ye be judged. I'm open to being judged. I judge myself and like to hear the judgments of others about elements of decency that I am lacking.
It is stupid not to judge people - we do it everyday and it is healthy and good. Hey, maybe AA sponsors shouldn't judge alchoholics since they were alchoholics themselves once too?
What if we just try to help reform the lives of those who sin, including homosexuals? I'm not calling for them to be imprisoned or stoned to death. Maybe you havn't read up enough on it. Read wrtings from Paul. Read about when Jesus flipped those tables in the temple. Or how he came not to destroy the laws (of which one book is entitled "judges") but to fulfill them.
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." Jesus never said it's okay to judge people for crimes. He said it was your duty to forgive. But he acknowledged worldly authority and heavenly authority as totally separate. Your flaw here as well as the entire Christian right, and the whole of Sharia Islam, is that they can ever be, or should ever be, one and the same. Jesus did not attempt to overturn all the laws of the land during his life, but nor did he try to add some for "sins not on the books yet."Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Your argument was "I'm not gay so I can judge gay people as much as I want." I would like to see you present that one to your god.Quote:
Judgement is pretty straight forward. Judge not lest ye be judged. I'm open to being judged. I judge myself and like to hear the judgments of others about elements of decency that I am lacking.
So now you are calling your religion stupid. P.S. there is a difference between making distinction/decision, and judging. I can say blue is different from green. But if I say if you like blue more than green you're vile and should have fewer rights and will go to hell, well, that's different.Quote:
It is stupid not to judge people - we do it everyday and it is healthy and good. Hey, maybe AA sponsors shouldn't judge alchoholics since they were alchoholics themselves once too?
Jesus never said one word about homosexuality, so why it is so high up on the vile 10 most wanted hate list of Christians is beyond me. Probably just becuase most Christians aren't gay and thus it's a sin they can scapegoat as being so "bad" and feel good that they themselves aren't guilty of it, while they go back to being greedy, selfish, gluttonous judgmental capitalists who lie and harm others and covet things.Quote:
What if we just try to help reform the lives of those who sin, including homosexuals? I'm not calling for them to be imprisoned or stoned to death. Maybe you havn't read up enough on it. Read wrtings from Paul. Read about when Jesus flipped those tables in the temple. Or how he came not to destroy the laws (of which one book is entitled "judges") but to fulfill them.
God calls us wherever we are. You'll find a few of us dotted around Scotland and Northern Ireland. Although if you're wondering I didn't inherit my beliefs through my parents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Anyawy, the sin doesn't have to affect me, it is an abomination in God's eyes and as His servant I'm obliged to try to prevent it happening. Through eradicating the sin, not the sinner. Because we are of course all sinners, and born as sinners.
Regardless, the whole "judge not" argument used by atheists is ridculous, and taken spectacularly out of context. So basically what TuffStuff said. We judge as best as we can through God's grace. But Christians must remember that we are all born equally sinful, it would be comitting the sin of Lucifer to deny so.
EDIT: Also Koga stop spamming absurd generalisations against Christians. We're not all Shirley Phelps. Its a bit like me saying Stalin is from now on the basis of all socialism, which of course as a lefty I wouldn't!
If you believe it is within your power to eradicate sin, least of all by seeking legislative power to punish "sins", you have a lot to learn about being Christian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
There is? Isn't it just a semantic difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
I can distingish good from bad. I can distinguish between guilty and not guilty, black and white.
Of course it is my duty to try, what makes you think otherwise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
Only God can grant forgiveness, all I can do is spread the Word. The problem is when I do that I'm told I'm being hateful of people (which is blatantly untrue), and that I'm infringing on their beliefs.
It is your duty to correct sin in yourself, and forgive and help others for theirs. Not to pursue petty legal persecution against what you believe to be a "fake made up identity surrounding a sin act", some strange prejudiced qualification you make on gay people even though plenty of straight people have nothing binding them together but a sinful sex act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
That's discrimination. Telling the difference between two things. Judgment is assigning punishment or weight to offenses as if you are perfect and have the right to decide who is more befouled than who.Quote:
There is? Isn't it just a semantic difference?
I can distingish good from bad. I can distinguish between guilty and not guilty, black and white.
And how does telling children that its OK to be gay correct that sin in them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
How does telling your children anything affect whether they wind up gay or straight? Last time I checked, gay children were as likely to emerge from Bible-loving households as any other. What evidence do you have that ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Oh nevermind. Carry on.
we are not born with sin .Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Know what happens when you do the opposite, Rhyfe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
At 17 your kid is slipping off behind your back to clubs for casual sex, or online hookups, because you've repressed him and made him ashamed of something he can't change.
HIV for the win.
You choose to believe it's just a choice/fettish, keep on believing that. It's not helping, and this issue isn't going to go away, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
Why not, it came out of nowhere - maybe it will go back there when people get a real issue to cry about?
I could say the same about abortion....Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I resign from this thread.... To much blatant idiocy.
Let people be with the ones they love, for gods sake.
You could? Please explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Its an issue designed to fire up the base without a chance for it to go the way the base so desperately wants it. Abortion will never be outlawed and gay marriage will never be made an amendment or federal law. Both issues in the respect are dead. It is mind boggling to see how much time people spend on abortion or gay marriage when they could be using there money and power for something useful like the economy foreign affairs or education. This is why the country is slowly descending into socialism because people like to feel warm and fuzzy when they are defending others it makes them feel like they make a difference. When in reality what is really killing the country is labeled as drawn out and boring by us. SHEEPLEQuote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I think gay marriage will become enshrined in federal law one way or another. I wouldn't be fighting it if I didn't think it would happen. Why fight an enemy if you don't feel threatened?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I also believe that abortion can become a democratically brokered thing in the future either Federally or on a State by State basis.
It all goes to priority. To you the economy is the most important thing, but I'd do without TV and air conditioning to save a bunch of kids, particularly ones who were abandoned or killed by their parents. I think we can do both, though and that they feed each other at their base.
To me, gay rights beyond basic human rights is an absurdity.
For the record abortion does not fit into my view however since there is no shred of evidence saying that a human has a pluse or brian activity before the 1st trimester I cant call it murder either. I like the way you put up creature comforts as well that will never happen so why post it? To show how dedicated you are? This is why the government should stay out of social issues as much as possible. Outside of destroying or harming life or property everything should be legal. You are proving my point with your statement. Social issues cause divisions where one side is made out to be good and the other bad and that only breeds hate and contempt. Thats where I fear we are headed. People need to mind there own damn business.The grey area within these issues is astronomic. The gays in no way threaten you or property so why care?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Strike, I agree with you completely. But here's the issue I have with so-called wedge issues. You have to have two sides to make a good wedge. Yes, people on the social-right tend to have an 'all-or-none' approach, but so do people on the left. Not talking about gay marriage for a second, to move to your abortion issue... what is it about the madness of the American political machine that requires us to have elective abortion in the 39th week? At 39 weeks, the so-called mass of tissue will rock in the mother's womb if you sing to it. But it's still a choice at that point? Can't expect a woman to go the next 4 days? That's the way our laws are written.
I'm sad to say this, but the reason slippery slope arguments work so well in America is because we're such fools, we also dive right down the slope. There is no balance, no reason. There's just, I won last week, so I'm back, asking for twice as much. That's not a condmenation of the Left, the Right is just as stupid and overbearing.
Nobody wants common-sense solutions or compromises. Everyone just wants to stick it to the other side. This is why I'm slowly weaning myself out of the Backroom, and out of politics in general. We're just a bunch of mindless morons screaming sound bytes at each other. :furious3:
The right to visit your life partner injured, ill, or dying in the hospital, IS a basic human right. It just isn't respected for certain kinds of couples.Quote:
To me, gay rights beyond basic human rights is an absurdity.
Regarding wedge issues, Don, I agree it takes two to tango. However, I don't think an argument of recognize rights vs. do not recognize rights are just two equally valid extremes. Not in a democracy. There are some elements of the movement that will not settle for less than inclusion into the Federal legal entity of marriage because separate but equal has never proven equal in the United States, and there is no legal basis upon which to separate out two separate marriage contracts, one for gays and one for straights, except to appease religious people who want to hold onto the validation that straight marriage is better, superior or preferred, and gay marriage immoral or secondary or begrudgingly allowed.
I have listened to the arguments from the anti-gay marriage side. There are a couple categories. People who believe the scare tactics that churches are going to be legally forced for the first time in history to perform ceremonies they do not wish to. This one has no basis in reality, it is a scare tactic. The other are people who either, out of personal disgust for homosexuality, or religiously-motivated disgust for homosexual activity as "immoral", feel that any recognition of gay people, who most certainly are here and among us whether people like it or not, is an "endorsement" of gay "values" or "morals." (And those are never made explicit, except occasionally you get people like Rhyfe detailing it as something ridiculous like gay people out to indoctrinate and convert or brainwash young people into being gay, which is an extremely ignorant claim for which there is no evidence.)
I have laid out the rights and what I consider to be basic human dignity issues that convince me that gay marriage is not only acceptable but necessary. People focus so much on the tax issue, I'm sure that would help a lot of gay couples out there but I am sure if you did a survey that is not the reason most of them want it. Most of them want formal equality, for one, They want their right to make medical decisions, visit in the hospital, and share and have equal ownership over property to be unchallengeable by outsiders for two. It is not up to you or anyone else to, on a case by case basis, "decide" upon the death or divorce of a couple, who should be entitled to something, everything, or nothing. It's frankly not your business nor your right. Nor if your lesbian sister died one day should you be able to step in and lay claim on half the house she and her life partner lived in. Yet, today, legally, there is frequently room, depending on the state in question, to do exactly that. And it has been done, not just over property, but even over rights to children and pets as well.
On the other hand, you have people comparing it to marrying a toaster or dog, or the first step in a Gay Normandy to brainwash via gay activism everyone into accepting gay values-- whatever those may be. Or saying that gay rights is a "made up non-issue" from a bunch of fettishists and as soon as they shut up about it we can get back to something that "really matters."
So... with your pardon, excuse me for not saying yes this is just a gray area issue where the arguments on both sides are valid.
Wow, I'm just aghast at the amount of people on these boards that still look at homosexuality as something perverse. People scream about the government taking away freedoms, or taxes being unfair. Then when a group of people just want to be treated as everyone else.
Why?
Perhaps it is because some still hold on to some religious beliefs. Yet on a site which is founded around a game in which shows us how religion has propagated wars, how can we let this religious hate dive us.
Perhaps it is just fear. Fear that the world in which we grew up is fading away. We know fear can breed hate. We also know ignorance can breed fear.
Whatever the reasons it is unexceptionable for any of us to infringe on another persons rights to live as they see fit, as long as it does not hurt other.
I may not have a lot of post on these boards. I may not be well known, but I have always seen these boards as a place of learned discussion and fierce debate. I have always been proud to be a regular member of these boards.
This is really the first time I'm embarrassed to be a member here. Thankfully only members can see the backroom.:shame:
So much introspection around here lately... :magnify:
This has a lot to do with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by m52nickerson
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
[Lemur raises his hand hesitatingly ...]Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Please, sir, may I have some more?
You're pretty ignorant about the past, Tuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
Did you know that police and local governments used to systematically raid and beat up gay people in incidents like the ones that prompted this one? Bet you didn't...
Gay rights and the persecution and second class status of openly gay people is nothing new. You do yourself a disservice saying something like it's a non-issue and a fake problem. All that really translates into is "it's not a problem for me so I don't give a crap."
BS - historically very few people identified with strict homosexuality. Find most of the historical people that you associate with homosexuality and you will find a string of heterosexual liasons even after they've come to "know themselves" by your standard.
Couple the idea that humans can have sex with whatever they want, but that sex between one man and one woman is the building bloc of human life and deserves special recognition - you have my understanding of the issue. If no man can marry any other man nor woman marry any other woman irrespective of their sexual attraction - there is no discrimination and our "special social recognition" should be changed by legislation if at all.
You idealise homosexuality by a historical standard, Koga.
Point being what? When homosexuals have been burned at stakes and killed and were even targets in the Holocaust, I wouldn't expect any form of accurate headcount throughout history. Are you arguing that if some group is only 1% of the population, it's okay to oppress or persecute them, or revoke rights?Quote:
BS - historically very few people identified with strict homosexuality.
Yes you have stated this before. There are two problems with it and they've been repeatedly pointed out. One is that it is unconstitutional to extend special rights exclusive only to people of a certain set of sexual habits. Two is that gay marriage in no way will deter heterosexual people from forming the "building block of life" relationship and have children.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Since you have repeatedly failed to illustrate that either point is incorrect, your argument is merely a statement of your own personal belief that the nature of our legal system should bend, in this one case, to make special privilege for one group and marked unrecognition of another.
And how the heck am I "Idealizing" homosexuality? Homosexuals throughout history, either in the desire to have children, appease social and familial pressures, or even for basic survival, have engaged in heterosexual relationships. And there is a complex stretch of sexuality which doesn't embrace either strict homo or heterosexuality. What is your point with that? There are heterosexuals who likewise have engaged in homosexual acts, under voluntarily or under duress, while otherwise not having any personal sexual leanings towards the same gender. I am not sure what "point" you believe you are proving with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
In other words, anybody that doesn't agree with you 110% must be off their rocker. Thank you for making my point for me. For starters, I've said, repeatedly, on this issue, I actually agree with you, that legal marriage, if it's to be granted at all, must be granted to everyone. My point was on the absurdity of the absolutism of our politics in the US, and I was building from Strike's mention of abortion. I give up....
No... you have a tendency to put this imaginary extremist spin on anything I say. What I said was that the weight of validity between the two sides here is not equal. So I wasn't sure waht you were saying... that wedge issues are non-issues people get heated over, or one side is just equally responding to the other side. And I do not believe, morally, legally, or Constitutionally, there is anywhere near as much validity on the anti- side of this debate. Nor has even Tuff pretended that there is. He's just made some strange comparisons to marrying non-human objects and saying that heterosexual marriages are "special" and should be recognized as such. And I have no idea why he thinks that would change with passage of a law which will not impact heterosexuals in any way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Out of curosity Don.... you said no one believes in compromises anymore. How would a gay person compromise with someone who argues that they are nothing but someone obsessed with a fettish and don't deserve any rights beyond "basic human rights"? It reminds me, and feels, a lot like trying to reach a compromise between a black person and someone saying black people are 2/3rds of a person. It's hard to find middle ground when one side has drawn an ideological hard line and refuses to listen to any other perspective.
You have a disciple Mr.Corleone:2thumbsup: We are saying the same thing at this pointQuote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I'd be happier if the government got out of the marriage business entirely. In practice, it really amounts to little more than just another way to tax me -- or do you really believe that the notary crimp on the certificate justifies its price-tag?
Any public "rights" should be handled on a contractual basis by mutually consenting adults.
Matrimony is a sacrament, and functions differently -- as it should.
Don:
Don't leave the Backroom. I enjoy your company here. My best to your ladies.
It is good that you speak with respect for Don Corleone. His enemies...fare poorly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
[cut to theme music]
I have an idea Tuff, if you are so sure that people choose to be homosexual you try it! Go look at some naked pictures of men and make your self get aroused. Go watch some gay porn and see if you can really enjoy it. It should not be hard, since it is just a fetish.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
What is that comment about walking in another man's shoes?
walk a mile in another man's shoes before you judge him. That way you're a mile away and have his shoesQuote:
Originally Posted by m52nickerson
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Yeah, that's a common-sense notion with a longish tradition in Western law. It's a reasonable compromise that would satisfy most everyone and cause no damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
So I despair that it will ever happen.
It won't. As much as the religious like to protest that laws should not be Federal and regulate issues of morality such as abortion, they defend its use to "discourage immorality" or give special status to "desirable" behaviors in other cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Quote:
Originally Posted by m52nickerson
No problem! I could have sex with pretty much anything PARTICULARLY if it was a dare. I do recognize a particularly unique element to male/femal sexuality.
I think that I see it from a unique perspective in that I am honest with myself. I could engage in a sexual relationship with a man if I had to - and most likely enjoy it. I prefer females and am currently dating a girl that I love very much and that I am attracted to.
Here are some estimates for you:
I'd have to say that 99% of the porn that I watch is heterosexual. The other 1% is gay, but the interest clicks on or off for me. Of the heterosexual porn that I watch around 50% is exotic women (Black or Asian in particular), 25% is some sort of professional or scenario based fantasy and the rest is a mishmash of whatever I was thinkign about all day. I am liberated sexually. I don't engage in promiscuous sex (by todays standards) and strongly believe in heterosexual monogomy.
I can say all of this because I believe that it gives me credit to talk with more authority on the subject. I've said it all before - I'm sure much to the chagrin of posters who recall and are not intoxicated by my musky allure. I believe that sexual interests are largely chosen or pursued for conscious or subconscious reasons. I believe that if you closed your eyes and thought about it that you could become aroused by anything. I believe that homosexuals closed their eyes and thought about the wrong thing too long and it made them neurotically averse to their inherent biological function.
I stand by peoples choices to do what they want and not be pursued by the law as long as it hurts no one even abstractly., but male female unions are something that we are all equipped for biologically (barring an actual mutation or malformation). My religious slant on the issue is something else entirely. I believe that it is common sense that male/female unions are special - and so long as they are open to all, non-discriminatory.
Short of that I'd say get the government out of marriage and allow any two people to engage in contractual agreements in civil unions with no tax breaks. Why should couples get tax breaks? Why should single people be persecuted for their lifestyle choice? I think that is a better Idea anyway.
(post note : Thinking about it the heterosexual pornography is probably closer to 99.99% - but out of 100 that is still enough to make my point)
It's amazing that we've amassed over 200 posts when everyone appears to agree on this.:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Congratulations, your bisexual!Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff