Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > can we all just agree that homosexuality is not normal?

can we all just agree that homosexuality is not normal? (Page 4)
Thread Tools
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2007, 11:41 PM
 
All that really matters is that all humans are humans and should be entitled to the same set of rights. Homosexual does no harm to no one; homophobia harms everyone, though. Abusive parents harm children and can be of any sexual orientation and any gender. To say that having two mothers will traumatize children is stupid; having a mother who abuses her kids is what will traumatize children. Love, don't hate.

That said, if people would rather accept pre-nups and divorce as the norm for marriage instead of one livelong, loving commitment of trust, we've reached a sad state in society.
MacBook Core 2 Duo 2.16 (Black)
iPod classic 160GB
iPhone 8GB
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2007, 12:54 AM
 
Yep - personally, I would like to see the State get out of the marrying business- just issue civil unions - essentially contracts of rights and obligations - to any consenting adults who want them, and leave the marrying to the churches - that way everyone gets the same legal rights, and each church gets to define marriage just the way they want it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2007, 01:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Yep - personally, I would like to see the State get out of the marrying business- just issue civil unions - essentially contracts of rights and obligations - to any consenting adults who want them, and leave the marrying to the churches - that way everyone gets the same legal rights, and each church gets to define marriage just the way they want it.
Then people wouldn't have a reason to stick their noses in other peoples' business! They'd actually have to clean their own houses, instead of others'. Imagine that.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2007, 03:24 AM
 
Yes, you are right. But than there is the problem of non-liberal christians (and many muslims and fundamentalistic jews, non-religious morons etc) trying to prevent people from getting to be consenting adults who want to do things different than "normal" , e.g. by pushing them into heterosexiuality during schooll, manipulating school library content etc.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2007, 08:28 AM
 
Seeing as this thread is now in its fourth page, I think it's clear the original poster has his answer and it's obviously: No.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2007, 10:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Yep - personally, I would like to see the State get out of the marrying business- just issue civil unions - essentially contracts of rights and obligations - to any consenting adults who want them, and leave the marrying to the churches - that way everyone gets the same legal rights, and each church gets to define marriage just the way they want it.
The only problem with that is I think some churches seem to think they own the copyright on "marriage" and don't want other churches to be able to define it. These churches want the State to stay in the marrying business because it favors their definition and would probably try to use their considerable political influence to ensure the status quo.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2007, 01:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
The only problem with that is I think some churches seem to think they own the copyright on "marriage" and don't want other churches to be able to define it. These churches want the State to stay in the marrying business because it favors their definition and would probably try to use their considerable political influence to ensure the status quo.
Huh? Please tell me what church thinks it owns the "copyright" on marriage.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2007, 03:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG View Post
Huh? Please tell me what church thinks it owns the "copyright" on marriage.
See: any church that opposes state-sanctioned marriages for a certain class of people on the basis that it violates their teachings about marriage. (Notable examples include the Southern Baptist opposition to interracial and gay marriages.)
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2007, 04:34 PM
 
That doesn't mean they own a copyright on marriage; it simply means they have certain beliefs that they will adhere to when they perform marriage ceremonies. This isn't any new concept, and the answer to that has already been addressed, in that, as long as they don't violate federal or state laws in discrimination, no one is going to force them to marry people whose beliefs are different than their own. They won't go against their beliefs already, so I'm not sure why you brought this up. No one is asking them to violate their beliefs, and the state being the institution that gives out civil licenses wouldn't change any of that. Your response to peeb's post about civil licenses, after reading your explanation, sounds like you'd be concerned that various denominations are trying to enshrine thier beliefs into marriage law, which simply isn't going to happen. There is no one denomination that has enough power to enshrine its beliefs into marriage law. As a matter of fact, a church ceremony is, strictly speaking, a matter of religious belief, and a couple doesn't need it anyway, if they're nonreligious . There is no law that states that a couple have to get married in a church; most do, because of their religious beliefs. but there is no statute that requires that. Atheists and agnostics can be legally wed, and people of different denominations wed regularly; this has nothing to do with law. Thankfully, this country is at least diverse enough in its religious beliefs that enshrining one particular set of beliefs into a marriage license isn't going to happen.

No one is going to ask the Southern Baptists to perform a marriage ceremony for gays if gays get the right to marry (which they should), and no one is expecting that to happen.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2007, 04:57 PM
 
Then why are certain churches so opposed to same-sex marriage?
     
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2007, 05:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Then why are certain churches so opposed to same-sex marriage?
Because they interpret the bible as declaring homosexuality a sin, and therefore oppose letting sinner sin further.
MacBook Core 2 Duo 2.16 (Black)
iPod classic 160GB
iPhone 8GB
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2007, 05:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG View Post
No one is going to ask the Southern Baptists to perform a marriage ceremony for gays if gays get the right to marry (which they should), and no one is expecting that to happen.
And yet they still vehemently oppose it. Isn't that the point people were trying to make?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2007, 05:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
And yet they still vehemently oppose it. Isn't that the point people were trying to make?
That's what the problem here is. Even if they oppose it, they shouldn't have the right to force their opinion on everyone else, especially when it jeopardizes the rights of others.
MacBook Core 2 Duo 2.16 (Black)
iPod classic 160GB
iPhone 8GB
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2007, 07:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
And yet they still vehemently oppose it. Isn't that the point people were trying to make?
So what if they oppose it? They don't decide the what the laws are, although they'd no doubt like to,and they don't have to marry gays if they don't want to. They don't run this country. There's room in this country for all beliefs, even those who are intolerant of others.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2007, 10:11 PM
 
Yes, that would be the advantage of civil unions for all from the state, and then marriage (defined however each church wanted to define it) from any church you like, with the marriage being purely a social / spiritual thing for the people involved - no legal issues.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Northern VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2007, 01:17 AM
 
If I were trying to prove a point about supporting/promoting or proving that homosexuality were 'normal', I'd not have considered a comparison to animals, as I don't think that's going to win any arguments. Animals are not at the same intelligence level as humans. To use an argument that hints at regressing to a base animal state in support of a homosexuality argument isn't going to convince a sane individual that this activity is normal or acceptable.

And that person who said that most humans are latent homosexuals...I wonder how he came to that conclusion. Got any scientific data to support that claim? Hardcore data and not suppositions or stats (stats can always be skewed, so I don't like using them as a source of proving points). I know for a fact that I have NO homosexual tendencies...there's no way in Hell I'm a latent homosexual, I'm 100% sure on that, and I'm pretty sure there are alot of people in the world that have similar thoughts to mine. Each individual would know far better than some report or consensus (or however that 'data' was gleaned).

Originally Posted by voiceofra View Post
You don't have to be gay to like butt sex.

Seriously though, homosexual behavior IS NORMAL.
Male penguin couples have been documented to mate for life, build nests together, and to use a stone as a surrogate egg in nesting and brooding.

Courtship, mounting, and full anal penetration between bulls has been noted to occur among American Bison. The Mandan nation Okipa festival concludes with a ceremonial enactment of this behaviour, to "ensure the return of the buffalo in the coming season."[citation needed] Also, mounting of one female by another is common among cattle. (See also, Freemartin. Freemartins occur because of clearly causal hormonal factors at work during gestation.)

Bonobos [monkeys] in zoos.

Male bighorn sheep are divisible into two kinds, the typical males among whom homosexual behavior is common and "effeminate sheep" or "behavioral transvestites" which are not known to engage in homosexual behavior.


Non-human animal sexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The ONLY thing dictating that homosexual behavior is ABNORMAL is THE CHURCH.

Go cry to your Invisible Pink Unicorn
:) unixfool :)
http://www.unixfool.com
_____
iMac 27" 3.06GHz C2D | White MB CD 2.0GHz, 2GB RAM, 80GB HDD | Graphite PMac G4 500MHzx2, 1GB RAM, 100GB HDD | White iPhone 3G 16GB | Black iPhone 3GS 32GB
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2007, 02:02 AM
 
How's it possible that in the 5 threads at the top of this forum, despite having different topics, there's at least one moron who confuses benefits with the term "rights"

There's not that many rights guaranteed to anyone by the Constitution.
Saying someone has a "right" to something does not mean that its 1) an actual federally supported right and 2) a benefit meant to be extended to everyone.

I swear, you don't see me posting about plastics molding and cars in the other forum because I have the good sense to acknowledge that I have no background in those subjects but a bunch of idiots in here like to pipe in about the Constitution and laws like you have the slightest clue what they entail and consist of.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2007, 02:32 AM
 
Yeah - the US was founded on the idea of the benefit to the pursuit of happiness. Oh, wait, no, it was a right.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2007, 03:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Yeah - the US was founded on the idea of the benefit to the pursuit of happiness. Oh, wait, no, it was a right.
In point of fact: The Declaration of Independence is not the same as the Constitution.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2007, 01:55 PM
 
Point of fact, the US was not founded on the Constitution alone.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2007, 08:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Then why are certain churches so opposed to same-sex marriage?
Because the notion of "same-sex marriage" is contrary to institution itself and goes against the teachings of just about every established mainstream religion in existance (yes, I know there are new, non-mainstream belief systems that have sprouted up pretty much for the express purpose of just ignoring traditional religious teachings).

I guess that's reason enough.

Marriage isn't a government institution. It's a societal one. Most of society is opposed to "gay marriage". Contracts and civil law on the other hand is the jurisdiction of the government. That's why there's not a whole lot of friction with "civil unions" for any two people (even platonic partners) who wish to join their assets, etc.

As to whether homosexuality is "normal", I think under any reasonable interpretation it could be classified as a mental disorder as we've outlined in another thread. Given the fact that it's a condition effected by a tiny percentage of the human population, makes a person act in ways that go completely contrary to normal human response and if present in all humans (the "norm") would possibly lead to the extinction of the species....I think it's safe to say it's not "normal". Now, whether being homosexual is "bad" or "wrong" or a "sin" is a separate issue. Not being "normal" doesn't hold with it any moral conotations in my opinion. Having an extremely high IQ is not "normal" either. I don't think anyone would argue that having a high IQ wouldn't be a good thing, even though it's abnormal.

I happy to think that having a condition like homosexuality isn't a "good thing". It's akin to being born without a certain limb. It's a handicap that one has to overcome one way or another.
( Last edited by stupendousman; May 16, 2007 at 08:56 AM. )
     
ink
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2007, 11:54 AM
 
Left-handedness is also abnormal.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2007, 12:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Because the notion of "same-sex marriage" is contrary to institution itself and goes against the teachings of just about every established mainstream religion in existance (yes, I know there are new, non-mainstream belief systems that have sprouted up pretty much for the express purpose of just ignoring traditional religious teachings).

I guess that's reason enough.

Marriage isn't a government institution. It's a societal one. Most of society is opposed to "gay marriage". Contracts and civil law on the other hand is the jurisdiction of the government. That's why there's not a whole lot of friction with "civil unions" for any two people (even platonic partners) who wish to join their assets, etc.

As to whether homosexuality is "normal", I think under any reasonable interpretation it could be classified as a mental disorder as we've outlined in another thread. Given the fact that it's a condition effected by a tiny percentage of the human population, makes a person act in ways that go completely contrary to normal human response and if present in all humans (the "norm") would possibly lead to the extinction of the species....I think it's safe to say it's not "normal". Now, whether being homosexual is "bad" or "wrong" or a "sin" is a separate issue. Not being "normal" doesn't hold with it any moral conotations in my opinion. Having an extremely high IQ is not "normal" either. I don't think anyone would argue that having a high IQ wouldn't be a good thing, even though it's abnormal.

I happy to think that having a condition like homosexuality isn't a "good thing". It's akin to being born without a certain limb. It's a handicap that one has to overcome one way or another.
Nice analogy - thankfully, we gave up prohibiting handicapped people from getting married a while back. I'm glad that you agree that the government should not be issuing marriages - it should be civil unions for any consenting adults that want them, churches (or anyone else) can issue marriages based on their own consciences. Everyone gets to pursue their own happiness, no harm comes to anyone. Case closed.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2007, 12:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I happy to think that having a condition like homosexuality isn't a "good thing". It's akin to being born without a certain limb. It's a handicap that one has to overcome one way or another.
Fortunately for progress, people with ideas like yours will fade away as time goes on, and at some point in the future, we will look back at this and wonder what all the fuss was about, and be amazed at the archaic thinking behind such points of view. The tide is already, although slowly, turning. More and more states are granting civil unions, and the issue of marriage is, properly, before some courts. Younger generations correctly realize that they have no need to feel threatened by Ken and Bill living next door, and<gasp> having sex in the privacy of their own house. They also realize that, if they choose to get married, their vows are between themselves, and as such, Sue and Mary's marriage doesn't denigrate the bonds between John and Elizabeth. They're very aware that, as long as they follow their own beliefs and are secure in them, what others do won't affect them.

It's really not such a scary world out there. You can come out of your cave anytime you want to, and no one is going to make you be a homosexual, unless you want to be one. You really are in charge of yourself.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2007, 12:22 PM
 
Amen. I just love the idea that, if only it were legal, everyone would do it!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2007, 12:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by ink View Post
Left-handedness is also abnormal.
I resemble that remark!
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2007, 12:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Amen. I just love the idea that, if only it were legal, everyone would do it!
It's been said many times before, and it will undoubtedly be said many times again, but irrational fear is a tremendously powerful motivator.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2007, 05:01 PM
 
Stupendousman isn't normal, I hope infertility strikes fast
     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2007, 05:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by ink View Post
Left-handedness is also abnormal.
They weren't called sinister and worthless for nothing.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2007, 06:29 PM
 
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2007, 06:48 PM
 
I think, after 4 pages, we can't even agree on a definition of "normal" with respect to sexual preferences.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2007, 07:03 PM
 
I think we all pretty much agree that there are two definitions, one statistical, the other judgmental, the problem is that that is not the question. The issue is what decisions does the judgment of which one to apply lead you too. The OP wants to use the definition that means 'deviant' as the first step in justifying discrimination based on sexual preference.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2007, 08:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by ink View Post
Left-handedness is also abnormal.
So is the desire to eat human flesh.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2007, 08:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Nice analogy - thankfully, we gave up prohibiting handicapped people from getting married a while back.
It's not the handicap that is being prohibited. Any man having homosexual tendencies can get married. He just has to pick a female who'll mary him.

I'm glad that you agree that the government should not be issuing marriages - it should be civil unions for any consenting adults that want them, churches (or anyone else) can issue marriages based on their own consciences. Everyone gets to pursue their own happiness, no harm comes to anyone. Case closed.
No, that's not what I said. I said that those who don't want to get married, but would rather have some kind of same sex union or platonic joining of assets and responsibilities should be able to do so if they want, since that's a legal contract. Government can continue to recognize the societal construct of Marriage in the same way as they always have.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2007, 08:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG View Post
Fortunately for progress, people with ideas like yours will fade away as time goes on, and at some point in the future, we will look back at this and wonder what all the fuss was about, and be amazed at the archaic thinking behind such points of view.
Or not. It's just as likely that we'll look back, like we do know at some of the silly notions foisted back during the 60's, and laugh at those who wanted to call black, white and up down.

Civil unions are a contractual matter between two people - lovers or otherwise. It's not "marriage" and entities like this are not equal to marriage in the eyes of most of society. I don't think that will change as a majority opinion. Not as long as most people are straight, get together in a long-term union, and reproduce. It's kind of hard to put the two on the same equal plane given the facts. But hey...who needs facts when you can make decisions on emotion!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2007, 09:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Or not. It's just as likely that we'll look back, like we do know at some of the silly notions foisted back during the 60's, and laugh at those who wanted to call black, white and up down.
Well, we do look back on the silly notions in the 60s that blacks and whites should not be able to marry, it was 'not "marriage" and entities like this were not equal to marriage in the eyes of most of society."'

Civil unions are a contractual matter between two people - lovers or otherwise. It's not "marriage" and entities like this are not equal to marriage in the eyes of most of society. I don't think that will change as a majority opinion. Not as long as most people are straight, get together in a long-term union, and reproduce. It's kind of hard to put the two on the same equal plane given the facts. But hey...who needs facts when you can make decisions on emotion!
So why not let the govt stay out of marriage, and stick to contracts? As to marriage being about 'long term' and 'reproduction', why not ban divorce, and marriages that don't, or can't result in children? Oh, that's right, because you have a double standard.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2007, 09:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It's not the handicap that is being prohibited. Any man having homosexual tendencies can get married. He just has to pick a female who'll mary him.
I was referring to the fact that, in the past, handicapped people were prohibited from marrying. We don't do that any more, because it's wrong to try to make personal decisions for people based on what you think is best. Why would you want to get involved in who this person wants to marry? Don't you think there is something kind of odd about this level of obsession with other people's personal lives?


No, that's not what I said. I said that those who don't want to get married, but would rather have some kind of same sex union or platonic joining of assets and responsibilities should be able to do so if they want, since that's a legal contract. Government can continue to recognize the societal construct of Marriage in the same way as they always have.
Why would it want to? It would be like having government recognition of baptism that gave benefits, but only if it was done according to the doctrine of a certain church.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2007, 09:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
So is the desire to eat human flesh.
Your point being what, exactly?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2007, 09:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Or not. It's just as likely that we'll look back, like we do know at some of the silly notions foisted back during the 60's, and laugh at those who wanted to call black, white and up down.

Civil unions are a contractual matter between two people - lovers or otherwise. It's not "marriage" and entities like this are not equal to marriage in the eyes of most of society. I don't think that will change as a majority opinion. Not as long as most people are straight, get together in a long-term union, and reproduce. It's kind of hard to put the two on the same equal plane given the facts. But hey...who needs facts when you can make decisions on emotion!
I know that you can rationalize anything you want, but that isn't going to change the fact that marriage is already legal in one state, and New York now recognizes some gay marriages performed in Massachussetts. It is also a fact that more states are passing civil union legislation, and polls of younger people show that they just plain don't care if two gays marry. Believe it or not, views do change on what you think are immutable moral and religious issues. You can't, or more correctly, don't want to, get past the fact that a gay couple marrying has absolutely no effect on any straight couple's marriage, instead trying ferociously, and vainly, to make the same tired argument that such an act denigrates the institution of marriage, as if suddenly John and Mary's personal vows are no longer valid because Bill and Ken love each other and got married. If two gays marry, and a straight couple sees that as a denigration of their marriage, then their marriage wasn't strong enough in the first place to justify the paper the license was printed on. You can't equate one with the other, but you're no doubt going to continue to try, so knock yourself out. You base all your arguments on history, while denying that the meaning of language and words changes over time, because it's convenient for you to do so, to propogate your specious arguments.

I also noticed that, as usual, you cherry pick the points you want to debate, and ignore those you don't, but that doesn't surprise me, as you're one of those who clings to some mythical past, denying that change is inevitable. I'm not the one working on emotion; I know it's a fact that gay marriage hurts no one, except those who allow it to hurt them, and that's their problem. You're an excellent example of one of the majority who allows a tiny minority to control your emotions and beliefs. Until 1972, interracial marriage was still illegal in Virginia, and it wasn't until just a very few years ago that they removed the ban on it from their constitution, and even then, some people went down screaming and kicking! The bizarre thing is that an interracial couple didn't affect any of those people, but they allowed it to affect them. Thankfully, as I stated before, your view is headed towards minority status, and that's fine; there are always those who cling to outmoded beliefs for no reason other than irrationality and fear of the different, and they often rationalize their beliefs to their graves. In the end, however, change happens anyway, and they could have put their efforts in fighting silly causes to much better use.

I'm grateful that I've never had to live in a cave and club meat for food, and I'm not afraid to change my views when I realize that previous beliefs, based on invalid arguments that I thought would affect me and didn't, were wrong.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2007, 09:57 PM
 
But is interracial marriage normal? Strong statistical and biological evidence suggests that it must not be, and therefore should be banned. Interracial couples should be flogged. Left-handed ones and atheists, too. Only normal people, of whom I approve, should be allowed to marry. Gays and cannibals -- not a chance.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2007, 10:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No, that's not what I said. I said that those who don't want to get married, but would rather have some kind of same sex union or platonic joining of assets and responsibilities should be able to do so if they want, since that's a legal contract. Government can continue to recognize the societal construct of Marriage in the same way as they always have.
As one US citizen, I don't want the government "recognizing the societal construct of Marriage". I want the government to deal with legal and contractual relationships between individuals and leave the societal aspects of relationships between individuals to other societal groups like churches.

Let the state provide civil unions for all and lets churches provide the extra recognition of marriage for those couples who conform to a specific faith's belief in personal unions. If your faith doesn't allow the practice of same-sex marriages you need to stick with the civil union and not try and get married, or change your faith to one that will allow same-sex marriages.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2007, 10:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I happy to think that having a condition like homosexuality isn't a "good thing". It's akin to being born without a certain limb. It's a handicap that one has to overcome one way or another.

Whether intended or not, this is a really inflammatory way to make your point.

While the desire to cut through the BS is admirable, I think it's callous of you to lose sight that you are talking about people, and if you're going to hand them a harsh truth, they deserve to have it handed to them gently.

If you want to show someone that their **** stinks, shoving it in their face isn't going to do that, it's just going to make them think you're an asshole.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2007, 01:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Well, we do look back on the silly notions in the 60s that blacks and whites should not be able to marry, it was 'not "marriage" and entities like this were not equal to marriage in the eyes of most of society."'
Of course, the constitution protects against difference based SOLEY on the color of one's skin. That's the case with opposite sex mixed race unions. Not so with same sex unions. Apples to oranges.

So why not let the govt stay out of marriage, and stick to contracts?
It's not broke...no need to fix it.

As to marriage being about 'long term' and 'reproduction', why not ban divorce, and marriages that don't, or can't result in children? Oh, that's right, because you have a double standard.
I have no double standard. Marriage is a societal construct which acts as a "affirmative action" for people who enter into unions which normally results in the production of offspring. Divorce is an accepted part of the marriage construct for quite some time. As far as banning those with offspring, you typically DON'T "means test" an affirmative action as long as the partcipants would generally be thought to benefit. That's the case in racial affirmative action where a wealthy black individual gets pretty much the same consideration as one who is poor, as oppose to a poor non-minority. Unless you believe that all forms of affirmative action are a "double standard".
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2007, 01:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Your point being what, exactly?
None. Same as yours apparently.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2007, 01:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
I was referring to the fact that, in the past, handicapped people were prohibited from marrying. We don't do that any more, because it's wrong to try to make personal decisions for people based on what you think is best. Why would you want to get involved in who this person wants to marry? Don't you think there is something kind of odd about this level of obsession with other people's personal lives?
No. I think people should be free to do whatever they want with THEIR personal lives. When they start demanding that society accept their desires and wishes as the "norm" is when it starts to impede on the interests of others.

Why would it want to? It would be like having government recognition of baptism that gave benefits, but only if it was done according to the doctrine of a certain church.
A. Baptism is a purely religious phenomena. There is no justification for it otherwise so your example is flawed. The equation of man+woman=union has ramifications that goes beyond religion.

B. A better example would be for the government to recognize baptism, then someone claim that because they once went swimming, they should be recognized as having been baptized and if they aren't, they are being treated unfairly.

There is no requirement for unequal things to be treated equally. Sorry.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2007, 01:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Whether intended or not, this is a really inflammatory way to make your point.

While the desire to cut through the BS is admirable, I think it's callous of you to lose sight that you are talking about people, and if you're going to hand them a harsh truth, they deserve to have it handed to them gently.
It's a balance. The rest of the world mollycoddles, I give harsh truth. That leaves those effected somewhere in between. I think as adults we have to be prepared for harsh truths handed ungently. It's what is required to survive "the real world". We've become lazy and emotionally crippled as a species. There was a time when you didn't have to worry about getting your feelings hurt - someone would just hit you over the head, take what was yours, and the fittest would survive. I don't think that's the best place to be, but living under a false sense of self esteem does nothing but harm you in the end.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2007, 02:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG View Post
I know that you can rationalize anything you want, but that isn't going to change the fact that marriage is already legal in one state, and New York now recognizes some gay marriages performed in Massachussetts. It is also a fact that more states are passing civil union legislation, and polls of younger people show that they just plain don't care if two gays marry.
Winston Churchill said it best.

Believe it or not, views do change on what you think are immutable moral and religious issues. You can't, or more correctly, don't want to, get past the fact that a gay couple marrying has absolutely no effect on any straight couple's marriage, instead trying ferociously, and vainly, to make the same tired argument that such an act denigrates the institution of marriage, as if suddenly John and Mary's personal vows are no longer valid because Bill and Ken love each other and got married.
I never said it would nullify someone else's marriage. It wouldn't have that effect. It's the same effect allowing non-minorities access to affirmative action would have. That's an entirely different set of ramifications.

If two gays marry, and a straight couple sees that as a denigration of their marriage, then their marriage wasn't strong enough in the first place to justify the paper the license was printed on. You can't equate one with the other, but you're no doubt going to continue to try, so knock yourself out. You base all your arguments on history, while denying that the meaning of language and words changes over time, because it's convenient for you to do so, to propogate your specious arguments.
Blah..blah...blah.

You have to engage in strawmen and attempts to do 180 degree changes to the English language and ignore majority opinion in order to force a change that makes little logical sense. I'd say that's a specious argument.

I also noticed that, as usual, you cherry pick the points you want to debate, and ignore those you don't, but that doesn't surprise me, as you're one of those who clings to some mythical past, denying that change is inevitable. I'm not the one working on emotion; I know it's a fact that gay marriage hurts no one, except those who allow it to hurt them, and that's their problem.
Then in the same sense, allowing me and those like me (a non-minority) miniority affirmative shouldn't hurt minorities. After all, they'll still get the same treatment as they always have.

You're an excellent example of one of the majority who allows a tiny minority to control your emotions and beliefs. Until 1972, interracial marriage was still illegal in Virginia, and it wasn't until just a very few years ago that they removed the ban on it from their constitution, and even then, some people went down screaming and kicking! The bizarre thing is that an interracial couple didn't affect any of those people, but they allowed it to affect them. Thankfully, as I stated before, your view is headed towards minority status, and that's fine; there are always those who cling to outmoded beliefs for no reason other than irrationality and fear of the different, and they often rationalize their beliefs to their graves.
I'm pretty sure it's you who is whistling past the graveyard....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2007, 02:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Of course, the constitution protects against difference based SOLEY on the color of one's skin. That's the case with opposite sex mixed race unions. Not so with same sex unions. Apples to oranges.
It does now, it did not always. There were a lot of people who denied the right to marry to people based on their belief that people of different skin colors marrying was outside of the normal societal definition of marriage. They were on the wrong side of history, thankfully.

It's not broke...no need to fix it.
The same applied, presumably, for slavery, for the people for whom it was 'not broke'. The denial of rights to a minority, by a majority, is not perceived as a problem by the majority. That does not mean it is not broken.

I have no double standard. Marriage is a societal construct which acts as a "affirmative action" for people who enter into unions which normally results in the production of offspring. Divorce is an accepted part of the marriage construct for quite some time. As far as banning those with offspring, you typically DON'T "means test" an affirmative action as long as the partcipants would generally be thought to benefit. That's the case in racial affirmative action where a wealthy black individual gets pretty much the same consideration as one who is poor, as oppose to a poor non-minority. Unless you believe that all forms of affirmative action are a "double standard".
Your contortions are painful to watch. You think that marriage's benefit to society is the production of offspring, and yet you are not interested in whether those marriages produce offspring, unless they are gay? And gay couples who adopt - their children do not deserve the protections afforded to the children of straight couples? Of course not... because... their parents choices of partners are offensive to you.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2007, 03:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Winston Churchill said it best.



I never said it would nullify someone else's marriage. It wouldn't have that effect. It's the same effect allowing non-minorities access to affirmative action would have. That's an entirely different set of ramifications.



Blah..blah...blah.

You have to engage in strawmen and attempts to do 180 degree changes to the English language and ignore majority opinion in order to force a change that makes little logical sense. I'd say that's a specious argument.



Then in the same sense, allowing me and those like me (a non-minority) miniority affirmative shouldn't hurt minorities. After all, they'll still get the same treatment as they always have.



I'm pretty sure it's you who is whistling past the graveyard....
Excellent rebuttals. About what I expected, hinging as it does on your premise that, just because a majority thinks it's okay to discriminate, it is. I don't know how old you are, but if you're younger than me (60), you'll more than likely see gay marriage made legal within the next two decades, and it will be because it's wrong to discriminate against a minority group that harms no one, despite your irrational fears. The majority isn't always correct; that's been proven over and over again. It must be really sad to be so inflexible that one's mind is like concrete; all mixed up and permanently set.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2007, 03:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No. I think people should be free to do whatever they want with THEIR personal lives. When they start demanding that society accept their desires and wishes as the "norm" is when it starts to impede on the interests of others.
So you think that the right of a child to have access to their parent's hospital room is 'impeding on the interests of others'? You don't think that it is kind of sick to impose your political agenda into people's families like that?

A better example would be for the government to recognize baptism, then someone claim that because they once went swimming, they should be recognized as having been baptized and if they aren't, they are being treated unfairly.
No, the better example would be if the government recognized baptism, but only from one church. All other churches were put in the category of 'once having gone swimming'.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:36 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2