Simple question re: homosexuality

Originally posted by SQUEALER

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
People comparing us to animals, if we can get married than surely you can marry an Animal,

how is that logical? we are just wanting equal Human rights

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably just a duck.

Human beings have something called "intelligence", that differentiate us from the animals. We know what our body parts are designed for, animals do not. A male dog, jumping on a male dog, could possibly be excused, as being confused, by similarity of form, poor eyesight, and uncontrollable urges.

However, even if a human has poor eyesight, the human can still figure out, using intelligence, the difference between male and female. And although humans do have urges, again they have intelligence and self-control, lacking in the animal world, that enable them to steer their vehicle on the right path.

maybe i am confused about your post, but did you seriously just compare me to an animal?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Very simple question here. It is simple logic that gay marriage cannot and will not effect any person outside of that particular relationship. It cannot effect my marriage. It cannot effect yours.

With that in mind, I have to ask:

What is so scary about gay marriage? Fear is literally the only reason that people are against it (whether it be religious fear, social fear, etc). There is no other logical reason.

So, again, I ask: What is so scary about gay marriage?

Grammar nazi reporting for duty.

I believe the word you are looking for is "affect", thank you and have a great day.

A reply to the statement specifically I would say everyone affects everyone at all times and in all places. Like the Beastie Boys song "Putting Shame in Your Game" the following verse can be applied as an example of this;

"We're all connected like a Lego set
One equaling one together like a croquette
Whether we have or have not yet met
It ain't no thing and it ain't no sweat"



Everyone affects everyone, period.

reply to post by SQUEALER

EXCEPT..what is meant by "consent" varies from society to society, and person to person.

Fair enough, let's be clear then: as per american law, consent is, most of the time, the base line for sex laws. There are pretty clearly defined consent laws on the books, and, though age of consent can vary from state to state, the idea of consent is consistent.

In some cultures it's "parental consent" that matters. In some cases the "government consent" matters, many governments deny their consent to cousins and siblings wanting to marry. In some places it's the "Religious Consent" that matters, a Jewish community would not consent to a Jew marrying a Muslim, etc..

This should be cleared up by my preceding thought.

In the well known case of the man marrying the goat..

Again, cleared up, and really stretching, I might add.

it was the local community that consented that he should marry the goat. He didn't particularly wish the marriage, only to practice with the goat like a married couple. But, the local community insisted he marry to make it legal.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Propulsion

 

Mardi Gras is in New Orleans. I know to keep my children from it. But when a gay parade is brought to my backyard, than “yes”, it is a problem...

If you're letting them throw a parade in your backyard, that is your issue. What I assume you really meant, was in the city that you live.

Guess what....you still dont have to take them there.

In the end, your hypocritical nature on this is exposed, and your attempt to make the "i have an issue with ANYONE who does displays like this" statement has been shown as a lie.

Are you serious? I brought this very issue up with my brother (who by the way is bisexual) yesterday when we went bar hopping. He agreed with me. “There is a time and a place for everything! If you want to do adult activities, than you should keep that from our children at all costs! Keep it in the bedroom! And once they mature and become adults, they can do whatever they want”. It’s embarrassing to see adult straight, bisexual, homosexual, transgender, or what not, making out in public! You want to do that stuff, than get a room! He also told me he would never participate in a gay parade, but does understand why a lot of people do it. He thought a great many people do it for attention. When I made out with whomever when I was a teenager, it was more so showing off to my friends that I had a girlfriend, and that I was sexually active. Little did my friends know, I was too shy to get past second base. But either way, it was as cool as hell! And I loved showing off!

I think the gay parades are the same way. Letting the world know that you can let loose, show off, and get attention. And when I see a couple people fondle each other’s azzes, with their tongues down each other’s throat in public, I can’t help but think back when I did that stuff as a kid.

Think what you want rock star! As “adults”, kids look up to us for understanding. They go by example. Not the other way around.

reply to post by Darth_Prime

Dear Darth_Prime,

Sorry, I was distracted by ANOK. I'm sure he's a wonderful fellow, but we all have different gifts. His may not be in the area of teaching, persuading, and diplomacy, but I may just be reacting wrongly.

Now to get back to your, important, post.

because many still look at it and perceive it as 'Gay' or 'Straight' and not human,

That's an important point and I'm glad to see that it seems to be becoming more of a factor in our discussions here. If we remember that we are all humans with our own problems and sins, and that we pretty much all are in painful circumstances, I think the hatred will slow considerably. Agreement might not come, but we've learned how to deal with loving disagreement.

we should receive equal rights and privileges because we are Human as you are Human, our sexuality should never factor into 'Rights'

We may have touched on this but I think treating everyone identically, regardless of circumstances, is not part of our system, and I doubt it should be. Of the many examples available, consider that some states have laws punishing women for drug use during pregnancy. Here's information from one source:

Some states consider prenatal substance abuse as part of their child welfare laws. Therefore prenatal drug exposure can provide grounds for terminating parental rights because of child abuse or neglect. These states include: Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

In 2004, Texas made it a felony to smoke marijuana while pregnant, resulting in a prison sentence of 2-20 years.

americanpregnancy.org...
But a similar penalty does not apply to the father. Sure, I agree. That's an entirely different case, etc., etc. But my point is that society seems to have no trouble passing different laws for people in different conditions. That's why I have trouble with the idea that all Citizens should have identical rights, their situations are different.

Besides, as you know, the pro-straight side says "Gays have equal rights now. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want, just like us." An infuriating argument, but it's not logically flawed.

if not, why do we have to pay taxes? why do we have to do things that 'Americans' or other countries do if we are not considered equal? they will gladly take from us but we get nothing in return?

Even income tax laws treat people differently, depending on family size, income, age, disability, etc.

I'm a little confused by the idea that you get nothing in return. Do you think if you do not get gay marriage, then you don't get anything? I understand, a little, (I think) some of the powerful emotions involved in this discussion, but as I say, this confuses me.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Propulsion

Are you serious? I brought this very issue up with my brother (who by the way is bisexual) yesterday when we went bar hopping. He agreed with me. “There is a time and a place for everything! If you want to do adult activities, than you should keep that from our children at all costs! Keep it in the bedroom!

You said it yourself. You have no problem with Mardi Gras, because you like boobs. You'd keep your kid away, but you enjoy the show, so its ok in general. Same principals apply here.

And once they mature and become adults, they can do whatever they want”. It’s embarrassing to see adult straight, bisexual, homosexual, transgender, or what not, making out in public!

You are contradicting yourself.

You want to do that stuff, than get a room! He also told me he would never participate in a gay parade, but does understand why a lot of people do it. He thought a great many people do it for attention. When I made out with whomever when I was a teenager, it was more so showing off to my friends that I had a girlfriend, and that I was sexually active. Little did my friends know, I was too shy to get past second base. But either way, it was as cool as hell! And I loved showing off!

I think the gay parades are the same way. Letting the world know that you can let loose, show off, and get attention. And when I see a couple people fondle each other’s azzes, with their tongues down each other’s throat in public, I can’t help but think back when I did that stuff as a kid.

Again, you contradict yourself.

Think what you want rock star! As “adults”, kids look up to us for understanding. They go by example. Not the other way around.

As adults, its our job to keep the world in perspective for our kids, not to expect the rest of the world to tiptoe around them.

Originally posted by SQUEALER

Originally posted by Darth_Prime

Originally posted by SQUEALER

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
People comparing us to animals, if we can get married than surely you can marry an Animal,

how is that logical? we are just wanting equal Human rights

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably just a duck.

Human beings have something called "intelligence", that differentiate us from the animals. We know what our body parts are designed for, animals do not. A male dog, jumping on a male dog, could possibly be excused, as being confused, by similarity of form, poor eyesight, and uncontrollable urges.

However, even if a human has poor eyesight, the human can still figure out, using intelligence, the difference between male and female. And although humans do have urges, again they have intelligence and self-control, lacking in the animal world, that enable them to steer their vehicle on the right path.

maybe i am confused about your post, but did you seriously just compare me to an animal?

Well, I don't know you. So, how could I compare you to anything?

I think what I said was pretty clear. By our acts we define ourselves. What could be confusing about that?

Heterosexuals generally are of clear mind, sound body, and clean spirit. Homosexuals, on the other hand, seem to be confused about a good many things.

This is why it's hard to carry on a conversation with gays. They simply can't understand what is being said.
.

i am not confused sir, i am not clear mind? i am not sound body? and you know this? and you say i can't understand what is being said?

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Darth_Prime

 

Dear Darth_Prime,

Sorry, I was distracted by ANOK. I'm sure he's a wonderful fellow, but we all have different gifts. His may not be in the area of teaching, persuading, and diplomacy, but I may just be reacting wrongly.

Now to get back to your, important, post.

because many still look at it and perceive it as 'Gay' or 'Straight' and not human,

That's an important point and I'm glad to see that it seems to be becoming more of a factor in our discussions here. If we remember that we are all humans with our own problems and sins, and that we pretty much all are in painful circumstances, I think the hatred will slow considerably. Agreement might not come, but we've learned how to deal with loving disagreement.

we should receive equal rights and privileges because we are Human as you are Human, our sexuality should never factor into 'Rights'

We may have touched on this but I think treating everyone identically, regardless of circumstances, is not part of our system, and I doubt it should be. Of the many examples available, consider that some states have laws punishing women for drug use during pregnancy. Here's information from one source:

Some states consider prenatal substance abuse as part of their child welfare laws. Therefore prenatal drug exposure can provide grounds for terminating parental rights because of child abuse or neglect. These states include: Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

In 2004, Texas made it a felony to smoke marijuana while pregnant, resulting in a prison sentence of 2-20 years.

americanpregnancy.org...
But a similar penalty does not apply to the father. Sure, I agree. That's an entirely different case, etc., etc. But my point is that society seems to have no trouble passing different laws for people in different conditions. That's why I have trouble with the idea that all Citizens should have identical rights, their situations are different.

Besides, as you know, the pro-straight side says "Gays have equal rights now. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want, just like us." An infuriating argument, but it's not logically flawed.

if not, why do we have to pay taxes? why do we have to do things that 'Americans' or other countries do if we are not considered equal? they will gladly take from us but we get nothing in return?

Even income tax laws treat people differently, depending on family size, income, age, disability, etc.

I'm a little confused by the idea that you get nothing in return. Do you think if you do not get gay marriage, then you don't get anything? I understand, a little, (I think) some of the powerful emotions involved in this discussion, but as I say, this confuses me.

With respect,
Charles1952

Indeed, i comprehend why some differences are in place, as your example: a mother is penalized to take drugs whilst pregnant because in concern of the child, whilst the father taking drugs wont concern the child's health whilst within the womb

the basic argument related to Gay Marriage is: you can get married, i can get married, not based on sexuality, by the separation of church and state it doesn't break any 'Holy Laws' or religious dogma, just basic equal rights as Humans existing,

Nay, Gay Marriage is not the only thing i would consider 'getting something back', but it is something we are being denied based on sexuality, there are many places that wont hire someone based on sexuality, there are many places where people are not welcome based on sexuality, sexuality or race, or religion etc.

what i mean is we work, we pay taxes, we contribute to society, and yet by the institution that we are giving, we are being denied rights and or privileges,

reply to post by Darth_Prime

Dear Darth_Prime,

what i mean is we work, we pay taxes, we contribute to society, and yet by the institution that we are giving, we are being denied rights and or privileges,

I agree with you completely.

Please forgive me if I sound blunt or harsh. I don't think I've made my point clearly, so I'll try to be more frank than usual. Again, no hurt is intended.

Some want the marriage laws, or the definition of marriage changed from what they have been for, I don't know, put in any number of centuries you'd like. It seems reasonable to ask those desiring change "Why should we change? What do we get out of it?"

If the pro-gay argument is primarily "Well, we really, really want the change, and you're not being fair if we can't have it," I would urge the supporters of change to find an additional argument. I can see where there would be financial and perhaps psychological benefits to gays, but the equal rights argument is a little weak. Beides, as has been pointed out by others, gays will have to face some individual scorn and rejection for quite some time. Bullying seems eternal. One will not be able to say, "You can't criticize me, I'm married."

In sum, the argument for changing the law is weak, and the effects of changing it will not affect the fundamental problem of rejection by individuals. It will only give a very small minority of the citizenry some money and the chance to feel good about themselves when they're home alone with their loved ones. Oh, it might also provide those inclined with a symbol to taunt straights with. Sort of like the gay protests which have disrupted Catholic Masses.

The "Why?" question remains unaddressed. I know it is obvious to some that gays, as humans, have that right which is being denied by a hostile society, and that it should be obvious to everybody, but it is not obvious to everybody. Simply repeating that it should be obvious is not very persuasive. Actually, it is frustrating and causes anger in some cases.

Again, I apologize if I have caused any hurt. That was not my intention, I was striving for clarity.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by SQUEALER

Originally posted by Truth_Hz
reply to post by SQUEALER

 

Is the Goat capable of consent?? If not you are forcing it to marry against it's will and probably a rapist...?

Yes. The Goat consented. It said "Baaaaa". And didn't run away. I understand the Goat dialect. I can provide translation services "for a reasonable fee" at the wedding ceremony, for those who can't speak Goatlang.

edit on 31-5-2013 by SQUEALER because: (no reason given)

O-M-G

What is it with straight people and their obsession with marrying animals?

Are SURE you are not repressing a hidden problem there squealer?

Originally posted by charles1952
I can see where there would be financial and perhaps psychological benefits to gays, but the equal rights argument is a little weak.

In another thread you have stated genocide might be the answer to "Jihadists", which ended up really be a thinly veiled comment against Islam itself, now you are claiming that homosexuals striving for equal rights simply to have equal rights is a weak argument, even when you acknowledge social benefits.

Your outlook on humanity is truly appalling.

reply to post by markosity1973


Here you go, sir:

Recognition of same-sex unions in Germany :: Note the date this was enacted - 22 October 2009

German Legislators Vote to Outlaw Bestiality :: Note the date of this article - 1 February 2013

It seems to me that they made progress when it comes to the treatment of animals some time after the allowance of same-sex unions, so they did not devolve in this case.

(It is also interesting to note that, while it carries a hefty fine, it is still considered a misdemeanor - which is fitting since for animal "lovers" the more dey mis de meanor dey get!)

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by SQUEALER

 

EXCEPT..what is meant by "consent" varies from society to society, and person to person.

Fair enough, let's be clear then: as per american law, consent is, most of the time, the base line for sex laws. There are pretty clearly defined consent laws on the books, and, though age of consent can vary from state to state, the idea of consent is consistent.

And I think by my examples I was trying to point out to you that "consent" is not just the two individuals trying to get married.

Marriage is not a contract between two people.

Marriage is a contract between a couple and the community in which the couple resides.

The consent of relevance is the community consent.

There's no such thing as two people going off and getting married, separate and detached from some community.

You seem to think consent involves just two people, and everyone else "butt out".

There's no such thing.

Originally posted by markosity1973
O-M-G

What is it with straight people and their obsession with marrying animals?

Are SURE you are not repressing a hidden problem there squealer?

edit on 31-5-2013 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)

Well, there's a clear similarity when "procreation" is obviously not the goal.

Or do you think gays can somehow "reproduce"?

Originally posted by SQUEALER
Or do you think gays can somehow "reproduce"?

Yeah, homosexuals can have children, been doing it since been doing it.

reply to post by SQUEALER

And I think by my examples I was trying to point out to you that "consent" is not just the two individuals trying to get married.

By using an example from Sudan.

Marriage is not a contract between two people. Marriage is a contract between a couple and the community in which the couple resides.

Actually, its both.

The consent of relevance is the community consent.

But its not relevant, as, in this country, the community can not give consent for someone to get married, engage in sexual activity, etc. You are reaching.

There's no such thing as two people going off and getting married, separate and detached from some community.

Bull.

You seem to think consent involves just two people, and everyone else "butt out". There's no such thing.

Please explain, with relevant examples.

reply to post by SQUEALER

Well, there's a clear similarity when "procreation" is obviously not the goal. Or do you think gays can somehow "reproduce"?

seriously, if you wanna have sex with animals, and can prove that those animals consent, then have at it.

A recently published little book on this ethics of homosexuality "Whats Wrong with Homosexuality" by John Corvino is an interesting read.

The morality and politics of homosexuality are strictly separate subjects, although they can influence one another. Conservatives fear that sanctioning homosexual marriage in law will lead to a moral acceptance of it. Liberals not only want it to be accepted in law, but want people to treat homosexuality as inherently moral.

Since I'm a libertarian, I find myself between these two positions. Practically speaking, it is unlikely that you can keep gays from getting married. They want it - and so, they're likely to get it, regardless of what you think about it. On the other, I am wholly against the dogmatic presumption that homosexuality should be treated as moral, as if it were as obvious as the light of day. It is not obvious, and not all epistemologies and metaphysics support the morality of homosexual relationships. To say that it "should" be that way, is a nice sentiment, but it's no more enforceable than saying it shouldn't be that way. The right to form my own thinking, and formulate my own morality, is a basic human right. So long as I respect the civil rights of homosexuals, I can express disapproval of their homosexuality.

After reading Corvino's book - and Corvino, a homosexual himself, believes homosexuality is morally defensible- I'm not sure there is any concrete argument either for or against homosexuality. While Corvino does a decent job deconstructing most of the arguments against homosexuality, he fails to address the metaphysical argument against homosexuality which bases itself on a ontological and theological premise. This a harder argument to refute because it starts from a radically different framework. The so-called NNL theory (new natural law theory) propounded by Catholic theologians somewhat touches on this subject, but it fails to go the whole way. This is a systemic failure intrinsic to the Christian belief system. The "law" of the old testament was superseded by the antinomian tendencies of the new testament. Judaism, conversely, would more naturally propose a metaphysical framework which sees the harmonious interaction between male and female energies as intrinsic.

In any case, this personal viewpoint must remain personal. History has taught us well, that democratic liberal values conduce to social advancement, reduction in violence, crime, (etc, all of this is demonstrated in Steven Pinker's "the better angels of our nature"). As such, Church (religion) and state (public policy) must remain separate. The negotiation between these two spheres happens through the "agora" i.e. democracy. But, of course, given our sophisticated understanding of how secularism has benefited civilization, it is unlikely that people will ever "vote in" a government with a pronounced theocratic agenda.

Originally posted by charles1952


No need to re-consider all the arguments, suffice it to say that there are reasonable, non-religious arguments to be made against gay marriage, and powerfully emotional ones to be made for it. The two just don't seem to be talking to each other and compromise (civil unions) has been rejected.

No there isn't you cannot come up with a singular legitimate secular reason for it not to be allowed. And no procreation is not a valid reason so do not even bring it up. There are plenty of married couples that cannot have children or simply do not want children. And what exactly are you expecting them to compromise on? This whole religious aspect of it? That is the only thing I can see, but there is a small problem in that line of reasoning as well.

You see say we compromised and made "civil unions" the legal equivalent of marriage. Why should a church that wants perform them not be legally allowed to? If they can then at that point you are doing nothing but fighting over a word, what are you like 5?

I just do not get it with you guys really. The arguments against is an obscure passage in the Bible, which also prohibits engaging in sex with your wife on her period, living under the same roof as your wife on her period, wearing blended fabrics and eating bacon and shellfish. Do you think as long as you hold onto one God is gonna forget all about the rest you have ignored?

You bring up procreation yet I don't see you lining up to exclude anyone with no desire or lacking the ability to procreate from getting married. You would think you would be all up in the legalese on that one, people not living up to their obligation to spit out some more toy soldiers for the Government and all.