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 > Obama, Gay Marriage, Original Sin, Founding Fathers, Catholics, and Pearls

Obama, Gay Marriage, Original Sin, Founding Fathers, Catholics, and Pearls (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2012, 10:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by gradient View Post
As Athens pointed out earlier, gay people can be homophobic.
Of course they can. The problem is we're defining one's degree of homophobia on whether or not they support same-sex marriage when in reality, this doesn't define you at all. Gays who may want to eventually marry and even support that opportunity can also be homophobic.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2012, 11:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
If someone has to give equal treatment to unequal things, that can have a direct impact on their well being. The fear of being forced to uphold and support intellectually dishonest standards against your will, and therefore forcing you to "live a lie" by the government isn't an irrational one.
The government allowing gays to get married does not force anyone to "live a lie". Nobody will be forced into a gay marriage. How does allowing gay marriage harm those who are opposed to it?

On the other hand, if by "live a lie", you mean "tolerating the morals of others", then you're absolutely right. However, by that measure, these same people are already living a lie whenever someone does something that the people living the lie believe to be immoral (which includes a *great many* things). Therefore, according to you, the only way these people can avoid living a lie would be to impose their moral positions onto everyone.
( Last edited by Wiskedjak; May 12, 2012 at 12:01 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2012, 12:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'd be willing to bet religion had zero to do with it. In fact, I'd bet that if they were regular churchgoers who said they're prayers before going to bed each night; they'd be more peaceful, loving, gratuitous, and understanding. They'd certainly be less apt to hang out with their thug-buddies looking for gays to beat up.

What you're seeing here is that finger-pointing is counter productive. It is exactly the We vs They nonsense you're supposedly chastising.
I respectfully disagree, it is generally accepted that as far back as the roman times and the Egyptian times that homosexuality was practiced with out punishment. It was not until the Christian religion and the bible that it became blasphemy. Of course it was not called homosexual or bisexual, those terms where created in the late 1800s. But it was called sodomia and applied to 3 areas. Sex with Animals. Sex between 2 men. Sex in the wrong hole. We know it today as Sodomy. But it was religion that turned it into something to be feared, and punished.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2012, 01:37 PM
 
Phun Phact: when blowjobs were illegal, which was in my lifetime BTW, the crime was on the books as "oral sodomy".
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2012, 02:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Of course they can. The problem is we're defining one's degree of homophobia on whether or not they support same-sex marriage when in reality, this doesn't define you at all. Gays who may want to eventually marry and even support that opportunity can also be homophobic.
I posted that video as proof that homophobia exists, because stupendousman wants to argue that there is no proof that it does. My statement regarding opposition to gay marriage was simply that such a high opposition should also be considered an indicator that homophobia exists, not that all who oppose it are homophobic.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2012, 07:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I respectfully disagree, it is generally accepted that as far back as the roman times and the Egyptian times that homosexuality was practiced with out punishment. It was not until the Christian religion and the bible that it became blasphemy.
Not exactly. In ancient times, pederasty was accepted, but that's it. The "top" had to be older and higher class. If a male patrician was caught giving oral sex to or being buggered by a younger slave, he could suffer legal consequences. Homosexuality as a relationship between equals was simply not acceptable, though some aristocrats got away with it anyways.

The end of legal pederasty is one of the legitimate successes that Christendom can rightly crow about.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2012, 07:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I have believed for years that the secular state should get out of the occupation of defining "marriage" altogether. It should, for legal purposes, recognize only civil unions of consenting adults, whether hetero or homo, or even unions of more than two. Polygamy is also a biblical institution! Leave the term marriage to individuals and private institutions who want to define and delimit their unions as such.
So basically, you think gays and straights should have the same legal marriage rights, but you just don't want it to be called marriage.

I find this kind of "re-definition" to be cowardly. Will gays be allowed to use the words husband, wife, and spouse? And will I be denied the word "marriage" because I get married in a court house because I'm not a believer? Fnck that stupidity. "Civil unions" are a stupid non-concept; they are and always were marriages.

Lastly, recognition of polygamy is a stupid idea. Even most of the Muslim world bans polygamy because of the social problems it causes. Polygamy is and always was a distortion of marriage laws for the benefit of the rich and the commodification of women.

Problem solved.
Are you sure? Because the people of North Carolina just banned civil unions for everyone, gay or straight.

And for the record, this is one of the stupidest issues to be dominating the national political debate. We have real, extreme, country-threatening problems on our hands that people apparently don't care nearly as much about. These problems will result in untold human misery, destruction and death, but people don't care to tackle them. No, gay marriage is what this pathetic excuse for a president and our pathetic excuse for news media focus on. Oh yeah, and whether Mitt Romney cut some gay guy's hair in 1965 - really important!
Callous. Gays are being denied access to their partners in hospital, being denied access to their partner's pension, and being denied access other legal rights just because they are gay. That's not a "stupid issue." Why do you object to the desire for basic fairness?

The only reason gay marriage is such a time-consuming issue is because narrow-minded religious zealots are throwing a non-stop temper tantrum. The entire issue would go away if the zealots would stop with the stupid protests, referendums, constitutional amendments, and so on. They are the reason this issue is causing other issues to be pushed to the side.

EDIT: here's exactly what I was talking about: Santorum says "weaponize" the gay marriage debate.

And the issue of Rmoney isn't that he cut a kid's hair, it's that he's still the same callous, remorseless jerk he was in high school, as proved by his empty, insincere apology.

EDIT: Would you feel the same way if Romney had cut off a jewish kid's curly side-locks? Because I think the fact that you can't identify with the victim here is the issue.
( Last edited by lpkmckenna; May 13, 2012 at 01:06 AM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2012, 07:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I'm gay and I am opposed to gay marriage. I'm opposed with government having any role in marriage. Marriage is a religious arrangement. Let the religions deal with marriage on there own independent of the state. If a church decides to marry men before god so be it. If not some gay people can create a gay church for all I care to solve the symbolic part of the problem.
So you think everyone should be allowed to get married, but just not call it marriage unless they've been married in a religious institution? What a pointless game of word-redefinition. If I get married in a court house, I'm married, period. I'm not "civil union'd" or whatever.

Same question I asked Big Mac: will the "civil union'd" be allowed to use the words husband, wife, and spouse? Why or why not?
As for the state side of things, all dependent living partners should have the same access and rights regardless of anything. If its a husband and wife, or a gay couple, or brothers, or 2 roommates, co-habitation (common law) should apply. The perks and benefits currently limited to married couples should apply to all co-dependent living situations.
So two people who have never even met before moving in together should enjoy the same legal privileges as married couples, including hospital visits and pension rights? Give your head a shake.
Oh the reason I am against Gay Marriage being forced upon a church is because a Church is a private members club no different from any other club. (Should be taxed like any other club too)
NO ONE wants to force gay marriage on churches. This is a complete non-issue.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2012, 07:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Fnck that stupidity. "Civil unions" are a stupid
Well, we've got the "civil" part beaten, so I guess we're halfway there
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2012, 09:54 PM
 
Whatever the government chooses to call it is irrelevant; people will continue to call it "marriage".
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 03:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
So you think everyone should be allowed to get married, but just not call it marriage unless they've been married in a religious institution? What a pointless game of word-redefinition. If I get married in a court house, I'm married, period. I'm not "civil union'd" or whatever.
No Co-habitation and dependance laws under Domestic Partnership. Sex isn't a requirement. 2 People living together is a partnership.

Same question I asked Big Mac: will the "civil union'd" be allowed to use the words husband, wife, and spouse? Why or why not?
In non religious matters what would be referred to husband, wife, Spouse today would be referred to Domestic or Civil Partner.

So two people who have never even met before moving in together should enjoy the same legal privileges as married couples, including hospital visits and pension rights?
If they are living together its a good chance they are not strangers. Any one who is reliant on another in a shared living arrangement after 1 year SHOULD have the legal privileges like hospital visits and shared benefits packages, tax benefits and yes if they are old even shared pension benifits

OH OH OH and all married couples start out as being strangers
Give your head a shake.
You first
NO ONE wants to force gay marriage on churches. This is a complete non-issue.
No they want to force the term and the usage of the word marriage on those that the church does not agree with. And in some jurisdictions yes the Church is being forced to perform/recognize them.


Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Whatever the government chooses to call it is irrelevant; people will continue to call it "marriage".
Its very relevant because this is the biggest issue for a LOT of people. And I know Atheists that call themselves domestic Partners, not a married couple.
( Last edited by Athens; May 13, 2012 at 03:51 AM. )
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 04:13 AM
 
Those people should lighten up.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 04:14 AM
 
Francis.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 04:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
If someone has to give equal treatment to unequal things, that can have a direct impact on their well being. The fear of being forced to uphold and support intellectually dishonest standards against your will, and therefore forcing you to "live a lie" by the government isn't an irrational one.
Having the government recognize gay marriages forces you to 'live a lie' just because you don't believe in gay marriages?

So if you are a Christian, having the government recognize Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam as a religion, forces you to 'live a lie' just because you don't believe in those religions?

Just because the government recognizes gay marriages, doesn't mean you have to have a gay marriage or makes your marriage any less meaningful.
Just because the government recognizes other religions besides your own, doesn't make your religion any less meaningful does it?

You don't have to treat them as equal; The government has to treat them equal.

I wouldn't give a sh*t if you think gays, women, blacks, muslims, and so forth are less than equal to yourself.
However, the government has to treat everyone equal regardless of race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 10:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
In non religious matters what would be referred to husband, wife, Spouse today would be referred to Domestic or Civil Partner.
Think about the nonsense this system would produce:

1) Rachel and Steve never go to church, except on Christmas. They get married in a church. Thus they are husband and wife.
2) Edgar and Ricardo go to Catholic mass every Sunday, adopted an asian kid name Casey, and are raising him as a Christian, even having him baptized and sending him to Catholic school. But they can't use the terms marriage, husband, or spouse, because they don't have a "religious marriage." (Are they allowed to use the terms "father" and "son" ??)
3) Rebecca and Chloe were married in a Unitarian church. They can use terms marriage, wife, and spouse. They have a baby named Markus, but being the good Unitarians they are, they aren't raising him to believe anything, but will let him decide when he grows up.

Please tell me that this sounds as stupid to you as it does to me.
No they want to force the term and the usage of the word marriage on those that the church does not agree with. And in some jurisdictions yes the Church is being forced to perform/recognize them.
[Citation Needed.]
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 11:10 AM
 
What I don't understand around this issue is the strong desire to have a nanny state policing who can and can't be "married", by people who are normally opposed to nanny states.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I respectfully disagree, it is generally accepted that as far back as the roman times and the Egyptian times that homosexuality was practiced with out punishment. It was not until the Christian religion and the bible that it became blasphemy. Of course it was not called homosexual or bisexual, those terms where created in the late 1800s. But it was called sodomia and applied to 3 areas. Sex with Animals. Sex between 2 men. Sex in the wrong hole. We know it today as Sodomy. But it was religion that turned it into something to be feared, and punished.
This is incorrect as mckenna noted. I maintain that distaste for homosexuality transcends race, religions, and cultures. If religion is a human construct, so is distaste for homosexuality. You cannot have it both ways. With regard to religion, "unclean" was generally the attitude toward the forms of sex you indicate above and again, these acts are shunned in just about every society on the planet to this day. Otherwise, we may have to give religious fundamentalists credit for laws against child sexual abuse and you'd have to accept the good with the bad I suppose.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 12:18 PM
 
ebuddy, I don't understand the nexus you've drawn between cultural distaste for homosexuality and child molestation. Could you elaborate on that?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 12:23 PM
 
I'm not concerned about the semantics as I am ensuring the government recognizes their place in the relationship. For example, marriage is only tracked as a means of logging our collective demographic. Over time, benefits have been conferred on this relationship, but they are contractual agreements available to any two who wish to engage them. The term "marriage" is important to gays for affirmation and it's important to straights as a way of holding on to yesteryear. I say take the football away from both of them. Heterosexuals have defined marriage as a lifelong commitment made to one person at least twice in a lifetime to more than one person with arrangements for who gets the dogs... kids and prenups to protect assets. If marriage is important to the State for logging its demographic, so be it. It is serving a civil purpose and as such is a civil union. It holds no more profundity than that and if straights want someone to blame for the lacking sanctity of marriage, they can blame themselves. As far as the State goes, it has a civil purpose for logging the relationship and that is it. Period. And for you "ooh that's gross" types who only champion gay rights because this helps your ranking in your little social order, this goes for mother marrying son, father-daughter, brother and sister, sister-sister, first-cousins... the works.

Anyone who argues with me is stupid. Done.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 12:25 PM
 
I think we're in agreement, although I'm not entirely sure. . .

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Having the government recognize gay marriages forces you to 'live a lie' just because you don't believe in gay marriages?

So if you are a Christian, having the government recognize Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam as a religion, forces you to 'live a lie' just because you don't believe in those religions?

Just because the government recognizes gay marriages, doesn't mean you have to have a gay marriage or makes your marriage any less meaningful.
Just because the government recognizes other religions besides your own, doesn't make your religion any less meaningful does it?

You don't have to treat them as equal; The government has to treat them equal.

I wouldn't give a sh*t if you think gays, women, blacks, muslims, and so forth are less than equal to yourself.
However, the government has to treat everyone equal regardless of race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.
Don't bring fact into this; he needs something to hold onto, so he can continue his "logical" thinking. He obviously, still, doesn't understand the difference, and this is why this issue is still so contentious to so many, and why the argument is so successfully used against gay marriage. Talk about irrational fear!
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 03:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
ebuddy, I don't understand the nexus you've drawn between cultural distaste for homosexuality and child molestation. Could you elaborate on that?
The nexus was drawn between religion and distaste for homosexuality. If religion is to blame for shaping views against sexual freedoms, child molestation would be among them and religious contribution to society is unmistakable. However, I maintain for the non-religious among us; if religion is a human construct, it cannot shape human values, but merely defines or reflects them.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 05:04 PM
 
Not sure what the difference would be between shaping values and defining them.
Religion certainly has been a mechanism for spreading them.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 05:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This is incorrect as mckenna noted. I maintain that distaste for homosexuality transcends race, religions, and cultures. If religion is a human construct, so is distaste for homosexuality. You cannot have it both ways. With regard to religion, "unclean" was generally the attitude toward the forms of sex you indicate above and again, these acts are shunned in just about every society on the planet to this day. Otherwise, we may have to give religious fundamentalists credit for laws against child sexual abuse and you'd have to accept the good with the bad I suppose.
I agree I might not have been 100% correct, but I was not totally wrong either, I have not research the topic for the accent times in depth. But no other institution has been more vocally opposed to it. When religion run society pre-dating modern governance systems they actively murdered people for it too.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 05:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The nexus was drawn between religion and distaste for homosexuality. If religion is to blame for shaping views against sexual freedoms, child molestation would be among them and religious contribution to society is unmistakable. However, I maintain for the non-religious among us; if religion is a human construct, it cannot shape human values, but merely defines or reflects them.
Religion has always been a key element in sexual freedoms. From day one it tried to control it. I don't have time to elaborate, I will later tonight.

Religion had its place for shaping human values in a time of no central governments to run things. It also played a roll in limiting knowledge to maintain control as well. Many things in the bible had its reasons. Most of them good reasons which do not apply today. It was very dangerous to eat pork before modern sanitation standards and the study of microbes and sicknesses made it safe. It was valid that a couple should be together for ever and should only have sex with a wife for the sake of not spreading STDs, but again modern science and technology has change this too. In the days when you are talking about a few million people on the planet Homosexuality was a real threat to the continued procreation of people. Babies where needed. Today that isn't the case either.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 05:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm not concerned about the semantics as I am ensuring the government recognizes their place in the relationship. For example, marriage is only tracked as a means of logging our collective demographic. Over time, benefits have been conferred on this relationship, but they are contractual agreements available to any two who wish to engage them. The term "marriage" is important to gays for affirmation and it's important to straights as a way of holding on to yesteryear. I say take the football away from both of them. Heterosexuals have defined marriage as a lifelong commitment made to one person at least twice in a lifetime to more than one person with arrangements for who gets the dogs... kids and prenups to protect assets. If marriage is important to the State for logging its demographic, so be it. It is serving a civil purpose and as such is a civil union. It holds no more profundity than that and if straights want someone to blame for the lacking sanctity of marriage, they can blame themselves. As far as the State goes, it has a civil purpose for logging the relationship and that is it. Period. And for you "ooh that's gross" types who only champion gay rights because this helps your ranking in your little social order, this goes for mother marrying son, father-daughter, brother and sister, sister-sister, first-cousins... the works.

Anyone who argues with me is stupid. Done.
I think we mostly agree... I think
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 05:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Think about the nonsense this system would produce:

1) Rachel and Steve never go to church, except on Christmas. They get married in a church. Thus they are husband and wife.
And are a domestic partnership in the eyes of the state.

2) Edgar and Ricardo go to Catholic mass every Sunday, adopted an asian kid name Casey, and are raising him as a Christian, even having him baptized and sending him to Catholic school. But they can't use the terms marriage, husband, or spouse, because they don't have a "religious marriage." (Are they allowed to use the terms "father" and "son" ??)
They are a domestic partnership in the eyes of the state. The term father and son have nothing to do with marriage. I can't believe you even brought that up in this.
3) Rebecca and Chloe were married in a Unitarian church. They can use terms marriage, wife, and spouse. They have a baby named Markus, but being the good Unitarians they are, they aren't raising him to believe anything, but will let him decide when he grows up.
They are a domestic partnership in the eyes of the state.

Please tell me that this sounds as stupid to you as it does to me.
[Citation Needed.]
What is stupid, what don't you get?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 06:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Not sure what the difference would be between shaping values and defining them.
Religion certainly has been a mechanism for spreading them.
I meant "define" in the sense that the value was set down in writing. I don't believe most people do or think things they don't want to do or think. People have no problem shirking their religion when it suits them. If there is a tenet of their faith that gets in their way, they simply ignore it. You have only to look at the numerous sins the Bible claims we're all guilty of and yet, so much focus on homosexuality. I blame humankind, not religion. I realize this doesn't satisfy the human need to isolate people into We/They groupings and it doesn't give them much of a direction for pointing their finger, but I believe it to be true none the less.

The fact of the matter is that people see homosexuality as yucky just as they find incest yucky, it's just that homosexuality is the cause du jour. For one thing, there's a lot of money in that bloc of voters.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 07:14 PM
 


If real news outfits are going to come up with covers like this, The Onion is going to have to step up their game.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 08:21 PM
 
I also think the CG on the halo is atrocious.

Personally, I would have gone for a more stained glass thing with an old-timey disc halo.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 08:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The fact of the matter is that people see homosexuality as yucky just as they find incest yucky, it's just that homosexuality is the cause du jour. For one thing, there's a lot of money in that bloc of voters.
Actually I think that both (to an extent) are cultural. People are brought up to believe that homosexuality is wrong/dirty/sinful/etc and the same is true of incest. One is taught more often in religious families and the other is taught in all families which is why one is accepted by a great many more people than the other.

There are plenty of examples of incest being more accepted at certain times or in certain places or circles. The deep south in the US, the aristocracy anywhere in the world, etc. The justifications vary but its more normal so its more culturally acceptable.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2012, 09:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The fact of the matter is that people see homosexuality as yucky just as they find incest yucky, it's just that homosexuality is the cause du jour. For one thing, there's a lot of money in that bloc of voters.
You're projecting your own opinion, and that's all. Homosexuality is not the "cause du jour," as you would like to believe, and people will always find incest "yucky." Besides, no one is talking about incest, except you of course.
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 13, 2012, 11:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The fact of the matter is that people see homosexuality as yucky just as they find incest yucky, it's just that homosexuality is the cause du jour. For one thing, there's a lot of money in that bloc of voters.
I certainly find homosexuality "yucky". But, I don't think that gives me a right to treat homosexuals any different from other people.

Things I also find yucky, but also don't try to prevent people from doing:
- smoking
- drinking cheap beer
- betting on horse races
- eating liver
- spinach
- keeping snakes as pets
- ...
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2012, 08:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I certainly find homosexuality "yucky". But, I don't think that gives me a right to treat homosexuals any different from other people.
Homosexuals are different from other people. People are going to treat others in various ways in spite of the fact that their religion may have taught them to love one another as God has loved them. I would say religious people are at least as tolerant of gays as gays are of religious people again, in spite of what the religion actually teaches on a matter.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2012, 08:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
You're projecting your own opinion, and that's all. Homosexuality is not the "cause du jour," as you would like to believe, and people will always find incest "yucky." Besides, no one is talking about incest, except you of course.
I'm not projecting, I'm going right at the giant, friggin' 800lb gorilla in the room you keep stumbling over. I'm talking about another relationship that grosses people out and using your own disgust of that relationship to illustrate that you're no better than a homophobe. Maybe you'll understand when you're older.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2012, 08:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Actually I think that both (to an extent) are cultural. People are brought up to believe that homosexuality is wrong/dirty/sinful/etc and the same is true of incest. One is taught more often in religious families and the other is taught in all families which is why one is accepted by a great many more people than the other.
Yeah, but that's just people being people having nothing to do with religion specifically. Particularly in cases where cruelty is in stark contrast to their religious doctrine.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2012, 08:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm not projecting, I'm going right at the giant, friggin' 800lb gorilla in the room you keep stumbling over. I'm talking about another relationship that grosses people out and using your own disgust of that relationship to illustrate that you're no better than a homophobe. Maybe you'll understand when you're older.
I'd buy your argument if homosexual sex led to Hapsburg looking babies.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2012, 08:31 AM
 
I also want to add that beyond the children with twelve toes, the problem with incest isn't that people are banging, it's that what should be a familial relationship has gone horribly off the rails.

If you don't actually have a pre-existing relationship with said family member, then slap on a raincoat and have at it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2012, 08:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm not projecting, I'm going right at the giant, friggin' 800lb gorilla in the room you keep stumbling over. I'm talking about another relationship that grosses people out and using your own disgust of that relationship to illustrate that you're no better than a homophobe. Maybe you'll understand when you're older.
You're the one who keeps bringing up "disgusting" relationships. Maybe you ought to look inward. There are some of us who aren't disgusted by what two people do in their bedroom. You sound as if you have issues.
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 14, 2012, 09:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Homosexuals are different from other people. People are going to treat others in various ways in spite of the fact that their religion may have taught them to love one another as God has loved them. I would say religious people are at least as tolerant of gays as gays are of religious people again, in spite of what the religion actually teaches on a matter.
I don't perceive homosexuals as any more different than someone from another culture, religion or ethnicity. Probably even less so.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2012, 09:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I would say religious people are at least as tolerant of gays as gays are of religious people again, in spite of what the religion actually teaches on a matter.
I would say that gays would have no more problem with religious people than the rest of us if it weren't for the fact that so many religious people are anti-gay.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2012, 10:25 AM
 
I'd categorize homosexuality as "awesome" instead of "icky".

What am I missing?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2012, 11:09 AM
 
You're talking about two hot girls right?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2012, 11:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I also want to add that beyond the children with twelve toes, the problem with incest isn't that people are banging, it's that what should be a familial relationship has gone horribly off the rails.

If you don't actually have a pre-existing relationship with said family member, then slap on a raincoat and have at it.
If you want to go down that road, get a vasectomy and/or hysterectomy.

Here's a story that fit's your scenario. They grew up apart and met as adults.
Brother and sister fight Germany's incest laws | World news | The Guardian
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2012, 12:02 PM
 
Tubal ligation is probably preferable.

But the point is I can't find anything "icky" about that relationship.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2012, 12:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Homosexuals are different from other people. People are going to treat others in various ways in spite of the fact that their religion may have taught them to love one another as God has loved them. I would say religious people are at least as tolerant of gays as gays are of religious people again, in spite of what the religion actually teaches on a matter.
I don't think this is accurate. The majority of gay people I know believe in god and religion. I've asked many times of many of them how can you believe in religion when the religion hates you and the brain washing is so deep even though they are hated by there religion they still are religious people.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2012, 03:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I also think the CG on the halo is atrocious.

Personally, I would have gone for a more stained glass thing with an old-timey disc halo.
It's the Spinning Pizza of Death!
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2012, 03:29 PM
 
Beach ball.

"I can't force quit you!"
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2012, 08:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I don't perceive homosexuals as any more different than someone from another culture, religion or ethnicity. Probably even less so.
okay.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2012, 08:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I don't think this is accurate. The majority of gay people I know believe in god and religion. I've asked many times of many of them how can you believe in religion when the religion hates you and the brain washing is so deep even though they are hated by there religion they still are religious people.
I don't think this is accurate. The majority of religious people I know don't hate gays or teach others to hate gays or brain-wash people to hate gays. As I said earlier; religious people are at least as tolerant of gays as gays are of religious people. The reason your sample of respondents (the "people you know" must get tired of all the polling on health care, homosexuality, US vs Canada, etc...) likely remain in the religion is because it doesn't hate them, or teach others to hate them, or brain-wash people to hate them.
ebuddy
     
 
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 01:40 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2