Bush vs Gay Rights

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 02:22 PM
link   
A serrogate(spelled wrong I know) is not breeding! It is using a guys sperm to have a kid. But guess what? You are basically adopting the kid, you aren't making a kid, you are adopting a kid from some other guys sperm. Also, it still isn't gays breeding, you can't do that. Gays will have straight kids, straights will have gay kids. It isn't learned but genetic. If it was learned, there would be no gays.




posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
It isn't learned but genetic. If it was learned, there would be no gays.

And your evidence of this? Are you gay but the son of a straight couple? Im serious, what are you basing this off of and are you gay?



posted on Mar, 7 2004 @ 02:41 PM
link   
he is basing this off the obvious fact that not every kid raised by straight parents turns out to be straight. if this was true, there would be no gay people. so by logic, a kid raised by gay parents won't neccisarily turn out to be gay.



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 05:44 PM
link   
While that's true, and I don't know where James pulled this out of in the conversation, it does not mean that it is genetic.

I think you guys are taking a very limit view of the term "learned".

Most of your personality is learned. The person you are is learned. Your mannerisms are learned, your accent or voice attributes are learned.

There is nothing in science that proves being gay is a born attribute.



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 06:58 PM
link   
True KJ, there is no proof it is a genetic trait. But I look at the facts that if it was a learned behavoir picked up from others, then how did the first two people become gay? Also, how do you explain why straight people can have gay kids and gay couples can adopt kids and they grow up straight?

Also, to baldie, it is not an insult to me if you keep saying I am gay, for I see nothing wrong with it. And in the words of Fin Finnaginn from the book Finnagins Week-"I am probably gay, except for the sex part." Besides, even if i was, it would be like telling a satanist to go to hell, isn't that where they want to go? Or a christian to go to heaven since that is where they want to go?



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 08:26 PM
link   
While I understand that gay parents rear straight kids and vise versa, I think that this line of reasoning leaves out the myraid sources of influence a child encounters in his/her life.

This in combination with a natural proclivity for social deviation can cause homosexuality.

Some people rebel and think that it is their own idea or doing regardless of their proclivity to do so. For example, I used to steal when I was 13 or 14 years old. It was stupid, but had I at that point found a support base and acceptance for my behavior, I might be a criminal today.

This is by no means a support for homosexuality being illegal or somehow criminal, just a parallel in effect.

All people gravitate towards those who accept them.

This is why I see a number of "ugly" or "wierd" kids gravitate to the goth culture or other such abnormal groups.



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
While that's true, and I don't know where James pulled this out of in the conversation, it does not mean that it is genetic.

I think you guys are taking a very limit view of the term "learned".

Most of your personality is learned. The person you are is learned. Your mannerisms are learned, your accent or voice attributes are learned.

There is nothing in science that proves being gay is a born attribute.



While I understand that gay parents rear straight kids and vise versa, I think that this line of reasoning leaves out the myraid sources of influence a child encounters in his/her life.

This in combination with a natural proclivity for social deviation can cause homosexuality.

Some people rebel and think that it is their own idea or doing regardless of their proclivity to do so. For example, I used to steal when I was 13 or 14 years old. It was stupid, but had I at that point found a support base and acceptance for my behavior, I might be a criminal today.

This is by no means a support for homosexuality being illegal or somehow criminal, just a parallel in effect.

All people gravitate towards those who accept them.

This is why I see a number of "ugly" or "wierd" kids gravitate to the goth culture or other such abnormal groups.


in case you missed it...

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.


Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.

However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.

taken from the American Psychological Association's web site. www.apa.org...

theres also a good section there titled, "Why is it Important for Society to be Better Educated About Homosexuality?", you should check it out.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
There is nothing in science that proves being gay is a born attribute.

True, there is nothing in science that undeniably proves homosexuality is genetic, but there is quite a bit of evidence that shows it is biological, and a result of specific occurrences within the mother pre-birth.

There is also nothing in science proving that homosexuality is psychological.

Most scientists agree that homosexuality results from a combination of environmental, biological, and genetic factors. It is an attraction that is not only sexual, but emotional in nature. The issue that people tend to focus on, is the sexual practices of male homosexuals, but that is not the only thing that should be considered.

For one thing, not all male homosexuals engage in anal sex. Many choose to only participate in oral or manual sex. Also, lesbian women primarily use the same sexual organs as they would if they were straight. Sure they use sex toys instead of a real penis, but straight couples often use the same toys themselves, so they really aren't very different.

When you take into consideration the huge range of "deviant" sexual habits and fetishes of many straight married couples, gay sex practices cease to be a valid argument. Many hetero partners practice BDSM, anal sex, swinging, cross-dressing, etc. and we don't tell them that they cannot get married because their bedroom activities are not accepted by society.

The only reason that we feel justified in discriminating against homosexuals is because we can't pretend that their sex life is what we want to call "normal". With heterosexuals, we can imagine that they only have sex in the missionary position, naked, and with the lights off. We can pretend that there are no straight couples that are into crazy, kinky sex, since just seeing a man and woman together is not direct evidence that they participate in so-called "perverted" behavior.

As for reproduction, there are many, many straight couples, myself included, which choose not to have children (or can't have them), for various reasons, but we are allowed to marry. It's not even a question on the marriage license application, so why should it be held against gay couples?

Do people forget that homosexuals are just as capable of meeting someone and falling in love, as straight people? The only difference is that they are romantically attracted to their same sex, whereas we are attracted to the opposite sex. I can't see how that is enough of a reason to refuse them the right to be legally married.

And for another twist in the issue. It is legal for a husband or wife in a heterosexual relationship to have a sex change, and still be considered legally married.
There is an interesting video and transcript regarding this subject on:
www.democracynow.org.../02/26/1612216

REPORTER: While politicians in the public debate whether to legalize gay marriages in a few states, marriages like these are legal in all 50 states. That's why -- that's right, couples are still considered married under the law even after one spouse goes through a sex change.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 05:56 AM
link   
I've read about 11 pages of this running debate, here is my take on the overall line of discussions here
No to gay marriage. (use of term gay is to save space, not to disrespect)

1. Discrimination is LEGAL! A given society must discriminate in order to define itself. All freedoms and no rules/responsabillity = ANARCHY.
We have laws that descrimate based on age, (Retirement, child labor)....The right to association (yes you can legally have a black only scholorship, or a men's only golf club, no gays/girls in the boy scouts ect)...this is related to the right to be left alone.....or not to be forced by others that do not share in your groups core beliefs. We discriminate based on immigration status. If you are not a citizen, you dont have the same rights as citizens do. Some pay more/less/no taxes based on their income...Bottom line on #1...a culture has the right to set its "boundaries" in order to define itself. This being a democratic republic, on most things the majority rule is in effect. Anyone ever say "life isnt fair" before? Lots of things arent fair or balanced in the world, deal with it. (within the appropriate channels....hint hint judges trying to legislate) This is not to say things dont change, but why are gays suprised that theve met resistance on an issue that hit near the core of how America has been defined for 250 yrs?

2. Several people on the pro-gay marriage side have erroniously lumped all christians together, as well as republicans. If youve ever studied the science of logic, then you know that "all are" or "none are" statements are very often wrong...also...never assume...stick to facts that can be documented, please do not generalize...thats the sign of a weak argument. If your gonna convince me, give me substance not rhetoric.

3. Marriage is not always for/about love...plenty of people get married for reasons other than love. Now we should open this abuse of marriage to even more people? If so, then whom? (this is the slick slope that brings NAMBLA into the fray, or people and animals or any other such ideas, basically when is enough altering of the idea enough?)

4. Religion....to those that say why arent we enforcing the bibles take on the list of things they had in their post? Because christians use the old testimat as a referance....the new testimate is what guides christians.
While it is true that our govenrment does have provisions to seperate church/state....the history of why we created certain laws is based (loosley) on the judeo-christian belief system....not that religon is mandated, rather that its values are represtnted within the law in a non religious supposedly blind manner. we cannot forget or erase history/where weve been, or we will be doomed to repeate it.

5. sociology....examine the thousands of years of human history, YES, gays have been around for as long as then, but NO...why havent "gay cultures" been legitimized before very recently? Dont blame christians..they havnt been around for even the majority of the history of man's time. I do not have a difinitive answer, but this is a good question. This relates to #6

6. zoology....while homosexual behaivior is observed in the animal kingdom in many species...it is not, and has never been predominate, else reproduction of the species would not have occured, hence no continuation of the species....as far as "well animals do it so it must be natrural for man as well" idea....animals sometimes eat their own young...should we? We are a higher order of being than the animals, and we should act like it. Giving in to ones "animal self" is an excuse of a weak will to control ones actions, or total disreguard of the existance of others (should i steal food if im hungry? defficate on the street because i have to go? Rape a woman ((person)) because i feel the need to?) Relates to #1 as to why rules/boundaries/laws are nessisary.

7. "give us a non religious legal reason to ban gay marriage"
The first legal reason would be my #1 point...a society has the rights to say what is and is not acceptable for itself....How do we as a nation distinguish (discriminate) ourselves from other nations? AND How do other nations react to us as we do? (rights and responsibilities)
I hear alot of talk about making this change, but none on the rammifications that will be nessisary to revamp the legal system to make this change functional. I cannot support blind change...ever hear the road to hell is paved with good intentions? I saw one post where a person listed some of the things being married affects, and i think thats a short list. Its not just about what rights to get, but also what protections from abuse ect that have to go into a working law, as well as its ties to other laws that are not directly tied to marriage.
To the idea that the president shouldnt be trying to set policy....WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM? STUDY YOUR CIVICS....The basics are...Executive....Legislative...and Judicial branches of government...i wont bother to explain their jobs, you can look up the differences in those branches of gov.....This is why it is wrong for judges on the west coast to violate the law in order to change it...its not their job, its congresses....(as citizens they have the right to protest/revolt...heck the usa is here from a revolution, but to use their judicial positions for this purpose is ethically questionable for impartial judges to exhibit this behaivior as well as a violation of the law.) If you wnat change, do it thru the established means.

8. gay choice/born gay
I think the official jury is still out on this...lots of studies on both sides have been done, but so far there has not been ONE major theory that has become accepted as the overall basis. If its a choice, then the gays are up a creek...choose another place to live that is more to your liking.....If they find a "gay gene"....is that a defect? a minority deviance in the dna? should it be "corrected?" this is a thread of its own so i wont dwell on the tangent. Either way, in a democratic/repbulic....the majority opinion is going to carry far more weight than minority views should.

9. Who does this hurt?
without more discussions on the rammifications of how this COULD work...its way too early to tell how this will affect our overall culture...but if history is an example...many cultures have gone bye bye because of "moral decay" or "decadence"....(IM NOT SAYING GAY IS DECADENT.) what i mean is, that these societies strayed from what it was(ideals) that made them what they were.....then they "lost their way" and collapsed from within....America is divided too much already...do we really need to splinter over more and more things, gay marriage and other ideas? Islamic Terrorists dont like jews or gays and blame the rest of the people they burried on 9-11 in the towers for ALLOWING your behaiviours to permiate our culture....so other cultures outside of ours have taken a hostile action against the USA, in PART (REPETE IN PART) because they've judged us the great satan because of thier stated dislike of gays and jews here, and how they then percieve the rest of our culture...anyone hurt yet? how about 3k people? And thats comming from outside the USA...I think if you say who will this hurt? you have not examined this with enough detail. thats just the obvious overt extreme example of "HURT"...What is your definition of hurt? A splinter in my finger might annoy me, but to a young girl might be tramatic pain...how to you guage when someone/thing is hurt? When is a culture Hurt?

Im excited to be part of this debate now here, and look forward to the blasts im about to recieve...Yeah open intelligent debate.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
Bottom line on #1...a culture has the right to set its "boundaries" in order to define itself. This being a democratic republic, on most things the majority rule is in effect. Anyone ever say "life isnt fair" before? Lots of things aren't fair or balanced in the world, deal with it. (within the appropriate channels....hint hint judges trying to legislate) This is not to say things don't change, but why are gays surprised that they've met resistance on an issue that hit near the core of how America has been defined for 250 yrs?
People have the right to discriminate against things that go against their principles or beliefs, the law (at least in the US) does not. The judges that ruled in favor of allowing same-sex marriages, did so by stating that they did not find legal justification within the law to rule against them. They did not legislate any new laws. They recognized the responsibility of the courts to protect American citizens from unequal treatment by the majority and ruled accordingly.

Forty U.S. states, including Massachusetts, once prohibited marrying someone of the “wrong” race, no matter how much you loved them. Social prejudice accomplished much the same in the remaining states. Marriages between whites and persons of color were decried as "immoral" and "unnatural". Polls showed that overwhelming numbers of Americans agreed. Massachusetts forbade interracial marriage as early as 1705, a restriction which was ultimately changed in 1843 after a three year campaign in the legislature. The legislature understood that withholding marriage based on race was an affront to human dignity and denied our basic guarantees of equality.

Despite the public opposition to interracial marriage, in 1948, the California Supreme Court became the first state high court to declare a ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional. In Perez v. Sharp the Court stated that:
“A member of any of these races may find himself barred from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable. Human beings are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable as trains.”
The decision was controversial, courageous and correct. At that time, 38 states still forbade interracial marriage, and 6 did so by state constitutional provision. Then, in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the remaining interracial marriage laws nation-wide.
A Virginia judge had upheld that state’s ban on interracial marriages, invoking God’s intention to separate the races. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned his decision, declaring that:
· the “freedom to marry” belongs to all Americans;
· marriage is one of our “vital personal rights” and
· the right to marry is “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free people.



Also, I did not realize that America had been defined by it's heterosexual marriages for the last 250 years. All this time I thought our country had been defined by it's belief in, and protection of, individual freedom!


3. Marriage is not always for/about love...plenty of people get married for reasons other than love. Now we should open this abuse of marriage to even more people? If so, then whom? (this is the slick slope that brings NAMBLA into the fray, or people and animals or any other such ideas, basically when is enough altering of the idea enough?)
So because some straight people abuse marriage for their own gain, we shouldn't allow gay people to get married for any reason? Marriage throughout history has been for the economic benefit of the bride and groom's family, not for love. Historically, women were married off with or without their consent. They had no rights whatsoever, when it came to being married. In western civilization, marriage was often pre-arranged by the parents in order to gain ownership of land, property, or power.
The only reason marriages lasted so long before feminism, is because women were considered to be second class citizens and their happiness was not a concern. So long as they obeyed their husbands and popped out babies, no one cared about what they wanted.
There is no basis for the idea that same-sex marriage would lead to marriages between adults and children or animals. Why would allowing 2 consenting adults to be married, in any way, open the door to allowing marriage between a child, who cannot give adult consent, or an animal, who cannot give human or adult consent, and an adult? There is no logic in that argument at all.


4. we cannot forget or erase history/where we've been, or we will be doomed to repeat it.
But we are repeating history. The way we are treating the homosexual community is exactly the same as we treated the black, and female Americans in the past (not to mention every other minority in our short history that wasn't white or whose beliefs didn't jive with the predominate judeo-Christian view of morality). Time & again we have oppressed those who were "different", and time & again we have come to the conclusion that it is contrary to the ideals of individual freedom for the law to discriminate against the rights of the minority, simply because of the majority's personal prejudice.
5. sociology....examine the thousands of years of human history, YES, gays have been around for as long as then, but NO...why haven't "gay cultures" been legitimized before very recently?
Homosexuality is - and always has been - an integral feature of human life and society. The most obvious example, of course, were the Greeks and Romans. However, many other cultures (i.e., Egyptians, Indians, Native Americans, to name a few) were accepting of same-sex relationships within their societies.

I'm not avoiding your other points, I just ran out of steam, so I'll have to come back to them later.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
I've read about 11 pages of this running debate, here is my take on the overall line of discussions here
No to gay marriage. (use of term gay is to save space, not to disrespect)

1. Discrimination is LEGAL! A given society must discriminate in order to define itself. All freedoms and no rules/responsabillity = ANARCHY.
We have laws that descrimate based on age, (Retirement, child labor)....The right to association (yes you can legally have a black only scholorship, or a men's only golf club, no gays/girls in the boy scouts ect)...this is related to the right to be left alone.....or not to be forced by others that do not share in your groups core beliefs. We discriminate based on immigration status. If you are not a citizen, you dont have the same rights as citizens do. Some pay more/less/no taxes based on their income...Bottom line on #1...a culture has the right to set its "boundaries" in order to define itself. This being a democratic republic, on most things the majority rule is in effect. Anyone ever say "life isnt fair" before? Lots of things arent fair or balanced in the world, deal with it. (within the appropriate channels....hint hint judges trying to legislate) This is not to say things dont change, but why are gays suprised that theve met resistance on an issue that hit near the core of how America has been defined for 250 yrs?

no, i don't believe discrimination is needed for a society to define itself, and how exactly does 200+ million people define themselves as a whole anyway? i think there'd be a little too much diversity for that, no? and maybe you haven't notice but the bounderies have been set...it's illegal to have sex with animals, it's illegal to molest children, it's legal for homosexuals to fall in love, to have sex and to live together...all they're asking for now is a piece of paper from their government that recognizes their rights in the society they're helping to create.

2. Several people on the pro-gay marriage side have erroniously lumped all christians together, as well as republicans. If youve ever studied the science of logic, then you know that "all are" or "none are" statements are very often wrong...also...never assume...stick to facts that can be documented, please do not generalize...thats the sign of a weak argument. If your gonna convince me, give me substance not rhetoric.

well i don't really know what that has to do with gay marriage, but if we're sticking to documented facts, where are yours?

3. Marriage is not always for/about love...plenty of people get married for reasons other than love. Now we should open this abuse of marriage to even more people? If so, then whom? (this is the slick slope that brings NAMBLA into the fray, or people and animals or any other such ideas, basically when is enough altering of the idea enough?)

again, why can't you stick to the topic at hand? homosexual adults getting married. sexually abusing animals and children is illegal, as well it should be. we're talking about gay marriage between two consenting adults. comparing gay marriage to child abuse is not based in reality.

4. Religion....to those that say why arent we enforcing the bibles take on the list of things they had in their post? Because christians use the old testimat as a referance....the new testimate is what guides christians.
While it is true that our govenrment does have provisions to seperate church/state....the history of why we created certain laws is based (loosley) on the judeo-christian belief system....not that religon is mandated, rather that its values are represtnted within the law in a non religious supposedly blind manner. we cannot forget or erase history/where weve been, or we will be doomed to repeate it.

so is this your argument for why we shouldn't allow gay marriage? because the bible says its wrong?

5. sociology....examine the thousands of years of human history, YES, gays have been around for as long as then, but NO...why havent "gay cultures" been legitimized before very recently? Dont blame christians..they havnt been around for even the majority of the history of man's time. I do not have a difinitive answer, but this is a good question. This relates to #6

why haven't they been legitimized before now? my guess would be hate based on religion, being afraid of things and people that are different from the norm. womens rights havent been around for that long and in many countries today they still don't exist, doesn't make it right. in addition, minorities have always had to fight for their rights...i guess some things never change.

6. zoology....while homosexual behaivior is observed in the animal kingdom in many species...it is not, and has never been predominate, else reproduction of the species would not have occured, hence no continuation of the species....as far as "well animals do it so it must be natrural for man as well" idea....animals sometimes eat their own young...should we? We are a higher order of being than the animals, and we should act like it. Giving in to ones "animal self" is an excuse of a weak will to control ones actions, or total disreguard of the existance of others (should i steal food if im hungry? defficate on the street because i have to go? Rape a woman ((person)) because i feel the need to?) Relates to #1 as to why rules/boundaries/laws are nessisary.

real higher order of beings we are. we kill each other over money, greed, religion and a slew of other reasons. we steal, lie, cheat, we do things on a daily basis that pale in comparison to anything in the animal kingdom. on most days i have more respect for my dog than i do for a lot of people i meet. studying animal behavior to understand humans better is nothing new and in this case it's used to show that homosexuality IS natural and can be found in many walks of life.

7. "give us a non religious legal reason to ban gay marriage"
The first legal reason would be my #1 point...a society has the rights to say what is and is not acceptable for itself....How do we as a nation distinguish (discriminate) ourselves from other nations? AND How do other nations react to us as we do? (rights and responsibilities)
I hear alot of talk about making this change, but none on the rammifications that will be nessisary to revamp the legal system to make this change functional. I cannot support blind change...ever hear the road to hell is paved with good intentions? I saw one post where a person listed some of the things being married affects, and i think thats a short list. Its not just about what rights to get, but also what protections from abuse ect that have to go into a working law, as well as its ties to other laws that are not directly tied to marriage.
To the idea that the president shouldnt be trying to set policy....WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM? STUDY YOUR CIVICS....The basics are...Executive....Legislative...and Judicial branches of government...i wont bother to explain their jobs, you can look up the differences in those branches of gov.....This is why it is wrong for judges on the west coast to violate the law in order to change it...its not their job, its congresses....(as citizens they have the right to protest/revolt...heck the usa is here from a revolution, but to use their judicial positions for this purpose is ethically questionable for impartial judges to exhibit this behaivior as well as a violation of the law.) If you wnat change, do it thru the established means.

ok so your one big reason, besides religion, why gay marriage shouldnt be accepted is because you're worried about the effort it would take and the possiblity of abuse? maybe i misread that so feel free to clarify.

8. gay choice/born gay
I think the official jury is still out on this...lots of studies on both sides have been done, but so far there has not been ONE major theory that has become accepted as the overall basis. If its a choice, then the gays are up a creek...choose another place to live that is more to your liking.....If they find a "gay gene"....is that a defect? a minority deviance in the dna? should it be "corrected?" this is a thread of its own so i wont dwell on the tangent. Either way, in a democratic/repbulic....the majority opinion is going to carry far more weight than minority views should.

i've quoted the American Psychological Association's stance on this subject. maybe you can talk about some of the other studies you've mentioned above relating to the other side. it's not a choice, it's not a defect, i don't blame people for reacting from their gut on this topic but it would do everyone here a world of good if you would actually research the topic some.

9. Who does this hurt?
without more discussions on the rammifications of how this COULD work...its way too early to tell how this will affect our overall culture...but if history is an example...many cultures have gone bye bye because of "moral decay" or "decadence"....(IM NOT SAYING GAY IS DECADENT.) what i mean is, that these societies strayed from what it was(ideals) that made them what they were.....then they "lost their way" and collapsed from within....America is divided too much already...do we really need to splinter over more and more things, gay marriage and other ideas? Islamic Terrorists dont like jews or gays and blame the rest of the people they burried on 9-11 in the towers for ALLOWING your behaiviours to permiate our culture....so other cultures outside of ours have taken a hostile action against the USA, in PART (REPETE IN PART) because they've judged us the great satan because of thier stated dislike of gays and jews here, and how they then percieve the rest of our culture...anyone hurt yet? how about 3k people? And thats comming from outside the USA...I think if you say who will this hurt? you have not examined this with enough detail. thats just the obvious overt extreme example of "HURT"...What is your definition of hurt? A splinter in my finger might annoy me, but to a young girl might be tramatic pain...how to you guage when someone/thing is hurt? When is a culture Hurt?

wooo, so now we should base our society on what terrorist might or might not agree with? i think our foreign policy and support of israel have FAR MORE to do with our current terrorist problems than gay marriage...to address your first point, what do you personally feel would happen if homosexuals were allowed to be married? how exactly would this lead to the moral decay of america and the destruction of our country?

Im excited to be part of this debate now here, and look forward to the blasts im about to recieve...Yeah open intelligent debate.

consider this your 'welcome' to the debate.





posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 09:42 AM
link   
i guess jezebel beat me to the punch, half of it anyway



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Oh brother. This conversation has gotten really over done.

I'll only make a couple points:

-While I agree that America was not "defined" by hetrosexual marriage per se, it was what made America strong. The family unit was the backbone of America making things like gay marriage laughable even twenty years ago. With the degredation of the hetrosexual marriage, we have seen a culture slide to see every and any group with deviant sexual desires come out of the woodwork and find not only acceptance, but a support base. Now America is weak in many ways.

-I can not disagree with the courts that ruled in favor of gay marriage in ambiguous states. They made a judgement based on the realistic rights NOT infered to by the state constitution.

-While there is "evidence" all over the place, not all of it lies in the pro-genetic camp. There are many studies done on this and quite a number of them prove the contrary of the "gay-gene" theory. Nothing is proven either way yet although it makes more sense to me that it is learned.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Yes KJ, no proof either way. So I guess we kinda have to leave that part of the arguement alone until there is prof, one way or the other with genetic vs choice.

Then, with the new guy, how you doing? Anyways, some of your arguements are ok, but some are/have been argued. Like the if you allow two consenting adults to marry, then why not a man and a dog? Guess what? Not not an issue, sorry, but there is no link between two consenting adults and a man and his dog.

Next, don't allow it bnecause of terrorists? So women should be forced to stay at home, cover their face, and forced to be nothing more than slaves since the terrorists don't like women having rights?

Then, with your religon crap. That's right, crap. Sorry, but most people don't like stories with giants and zombies and magicians. well, when little kids sure, they make great fairy tales, but when one grows up without being brainwashed, they realize that a guy who walks on water(David Copperfeild baby! Yeah, he the best!) or raises from the dead(how many B-Movies have zombies in them?) or have all mighty and all powerful invisable people who spank you if you eat meat on a friday is just stupid.



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 05:20 AM
link   
This responce is mostly to Jezebels critique of my statements, although i hope it helps clarify things for enomus and james the lesser too..(ill try to hit some of thier concerns too possibly in another post)

DISCRIMINATION/LAW
You avoided discussing my examples of where USA law does "discriminate" based on age, associations, income, immigration.ect....what about the fact that at 18yrs old, one can join the millitary to train to fight and die, you can vote, and are able to be prosecuted as an adult.... but you cant buy beer or ciggarettes...age based discrimination in the law? discrimination is in existance, whether its to make distinctions between things, or as an act of willful denial of rights/privilages is the only question....also how should a culture be defined enomus? how do we distinguish (discriminate) between us and them? yes we have a lot of diversity, and too much of it will be our undooing....what will unite us as a nation, not further divide? how much water can you pour into a bucket of soda till its so diluted its not soda anymore? At what point can you say its soda or its not...its America or its not (just dont call us France) of course we have to differentiate (discriminate) between what it is to bu the USA, and what it is to be say Japan. Otherwise how do we know the difference?
As far as the judges go....they are in violation of the defence of marriage act (federal) as well as CA state laws (according to what i heard the new govenator Arnold say on a talk show) The judges were not reviewing any case on the books, but took it upon themselves to throw their "impartial" status as judges out the window and helped (with the san fran mayors help) create this situation...effectivly trying to pre-emptivley have the executive and judicial branches of local gov to bypass the legislative process, and the rights of the voters to hear and vote on proposed legislation...it doesnt matter that they are trying to right a percieved injustice or not...the ends do not justify the means...
I appreciate the research you provided in support of your position...Hmm what can i infer from this....It took how many hundred years for your given example to evolve and change? Is the pro-gay marriage camp ready to acknowledge that this may take some time to resolve, perhaps not even in their lifetime? or IF AT ALL?
According to your supplied info, the court said marriage is a PERSONAL right.....ITS NOT A STATE SPONSORED RIGHT....it is a persons choice IF to marry or NOT...no one forces anyone (these days, in western cultures)to marry....Plenty of people manage to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness without ever being married. In fact some dont want to marry or marry again. Marriage is not a nessisity for life here, it is a choice, not a right/entitlement.
MARRIAGE FOR LOVE/GAIN
Your responce illustrates perfectly my point actually...so the arguments that say "why cant 2 people in love have the same thing as others in love" are invalid. marriage is not solely about love. In fact it has been more about power and tangible gain to many (more so in the past) as youve pointed out.) so now i have to accept the fact that if gay marriage were institutionalised, 2 non gay men could become married as a tax shelter, or to transfer property/title/inheritance ect to the other by cheating the tax laws? (just one example of abuse) this means that in just this one type of marriage misuse, it would be 3x more likley that we'd have this go on...(now just hetero scamming possible, but then m4m, and w4w added to it really increases the chance of just this one type of misuse occuring) On a simpler line, we have this boat called marriage...but it has some leaks (marriage not for love put power/gain...high failure rate...ect) So now you want to put more people into a broken boat, before you work to fix it first? Isnt that asking for MORE trouble, not less?
GAY MARRIAGE/NAMBLA
Everyone ive read on this thread has missed compleatly the point of the slippery slope concept.....we are not saying gay marriage is equivalent to, or comparable to NAMBLA acts, or on the extreme, man/animal stuff....indeed they are not, what we ARE saying is that we are talking about redifining the definition of mariage as it pertains to our society. Take any issue...issue X.
Our culture has issue x in its laws, now a minority group preasures the culture to modify the idea, so the society does...now its idea x1.....whats to stop the next minority group from doing the same...now its x2....ect....ect...ect untill x5 is now the rule....well x5 does not equal x now does it? They are not the same...thats what were talking about...if the door to alter the idea of marriage is opened, when does it close again? why wouldnt other groups, say poligamists, or NAMBLAS do the same thing the gay community is doing now? (forget the animal extreme case) again, how much water can you pour into a bucket of soda till its so diluted it doesnt count as being soda anymore? At what point can you say its soda or its not...its America or its not, or its marriage or its god knows what? that is the slick slope, and it applies to many discussions, not just this issue....i dont know how else to explain it...its not that the behaivors are =, its that the erosion of the idea has begun, and at what point does it end or result in the idea being altered to the point that it irrelavent.
Personal freedoms have always been subordinate to the common good....you cant yell fire in a crowd...your religion might ask you sacrifice animals (santaria) but you'll get charges with animal cruelty if you do....theres a religion that uses marijuanna for spiritual enlightenment, but go try and buy some for your church...Think you can say anything you want under the first ammendmant? Ask howard Stern about that now.
this is a conspiracy website isnt it? If so, then do you think that the people have ever had more freedom than those in positions of power ever wanted you to have?
Ive seen the word oppression used when discussion this issue...I do not see gays being oppressed, instead i see that a minority group is asking for special considerations from a pre-existing social structure....Society in large is not going around (nor should be) keeping gays from working, housing, serving the country, or even loving and living happily together (see happy not married from earlier.) It is an inslut to try and compare this issue to slavery....think youve got it tough being gay? try forced living in a shack and picking cotton, being chained, bought and sold as property....not being able to get married truely pales in comparrison.....yes this may be about civil rights, but the 2 situatuions are not equal. I do understand that no-one should be harrassed, phisically abused, or denied basic rights as a human....however, a social conviction choice(to marry/not to), that has some legal rammifications, that PREEXISTED all of us in this culture, is not the same oppression as being chased thru a field by dogs being shot at because your owned by someone else.
I know this is an emotional issue, but together this nation needs to come up with a working plan as to how this could work if and when this culture is ready, its rammifications and consequences...BEFORE we just try it. peraps then this will become less of a contentious issue about somantics, and more about substance.
Im trying to keep an open mind, on this issue, but change for changes sake, whenever the winds blows is not a long term strategy for a culture to adopt. New is not always better (ever hear of new coke?)
PS while i am a republican, bush is p-ving me off, im a christian, but havnt been to church for more than a wedding in 10 yrs (in fact was expeled from catholic school for pointing out hypocritical church doctrine)
JAMES...please stop using inflamitory rhetoric like "invisible people that live in the clouds" when discussing peoples religion...its not showing them any respect, yet your demmanding it from them? Also, while i dont carry a bible and pray daily, im sorry that this world has left your being feeling so vacant that your unable/willing to consider spiritual matters..isnt love a "spiritual" bond?..at least for christiasns, its not about weather you can prove god, its about having faith and hope...if god showed himself, why would we need faith?
ENOUMUS, a few quickies for you. Trying to be brief
much of what i just wrote hopefully clarifies, but a few of your points i wanted to hit.
#2...what facts are you looking for? logic theorams? debate rules, im at work now, but if you want the names of the college textx ive used ill get them....r u talking about legitimate discrimination? look around, aside from the given examples(that you all skipped over)...the private sector is rife with, womans only, blacks only, x gropus only entitlements/assistance...example, can i get A.A.R.P. bennifits, not until im 55....ect American negro college fund for me a whit guy? hell, only democrats could vote in the democratic primaries...
#5 you mentioned that the lack of womens rights in certain countries doesnt make it right....Does it make it wrong? It is arrogant of us to pass judgment on their culture because ours doenst have the same values. Thats partly (PARTLY) why theyve decided to attack us....was it right that we destroyed the american indian culture because we thought ours was right/better? This is the height of huberis!!! i agree that women in afganistan should have rights, but are we so sure of ourselves that we can condem them for their beliefs? thats not tolerance or inclusion, its not a diverse opinion, its a do it our way or else mentality....sort of like gay marriage, is it ok for society to continue to "exclude" this from them? Is it ok for them to expect that we will give up our beliefs for theirs? the right and wrong can often be vauge.
#6 Youve given great examples of mankinds negitive traits, however, we'd have never made it this far if thats all there was to us....man has done great things too dont forget, and can show greatness as well...(self sacrifice the ultimate expression)
Is man inherintly good or evil in his nature is a centuries old debate....depending on your starting referance is how your theories on man will evolve.
#7, im not worried about the effort this will take, im worried at the lack of effort ive seen from the gay rights camp...theve been like spoiled kids...give me give me...but have not provided much more than a list of demmands, nothing of substance or on the actual nuts and bolts of how this could be worked out in the full ramifications of what/how this change will affect.
#9 I repeated for clarity, this was only a PART of why we were attacked (see also #5 on arrogance for another PART) This idea is about perceptions....Yes we should rule ourselves according to our sovergin wishes, but we need to be aware that we are not alone, and that other people will not always agree with us. We must be aware that there are CONSEQUENCES FOR ACTIONS!!!! Have we thought them out on this issue or are we just saying give me give me, without thinking things thru. This also reflects in how we view ourselves as a whole nation/people, again, the less "united we stand" the more we risk "divided we fall"
Ill answer youe very last question in a seperate post as this one was a bear already.



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Mr Bush iclaims to be a christian and therefore believes to make homosexual actions would be to commit a "destestable" sin.

I believe this too isnt marriage supposed to be the union between a man and woman. If they wish to be married that would change the meaning of marriage. why not call it something else?




posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I think people on both sides of the fence are too hung up on this word marriage. I personally haven't a problem with having a civil union, seperate but equal to straight marriage, I can see both sides to the objections and support for this but apart from the few, who no doubt start from the base that gay people should have no entitlement to any rights whatsoever which then informs their opinion, I don't have any problem with, or feel any great objection to being denied the word marriage as such.



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 10:15 AM
link   
enomus says...



in case you missed it...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

From:The boston phoenix.com
Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.

However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.


If the premise of this is true, how do gays who are determined by birth change streams in midlife and become straight, marry the opposite sex and live on this way??

It happens all the time. These persons all reflect on the CHOICE they made in being Gay.

Says Jason Cianciotto, a policy analyst at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), in New York, "That anybody would choose to be gay in light of all the evidence showing how difficult it is to be gay in America is preposterous." That someone would choose to be called a "fag," to get beat up in school, or to be kicked out of their parents’ homes defies common sense. He adds, "Basic logic demands the question ‘How could you possibly say that?’"

But Larry Houston doesn’t hesitate to answer. People may not be able to control their attractions to those of the same sex, he says, but they can choose whether or not to follow up on those attractions. "You may have attractions. Your choice is, ‘Do I act on them?’" Besides, he points out, "Science has not proven that homosexuality is genetic."

www.bostonphoenix.com...

[Edited on 10-3-2004 by Tyriffic]



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 01:18 PM
link   
And in answer to that I'd ask if a person chooses to act on these feelings how is it of any concern to anyone else and what would they have done about it.



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubermunche
And in answer to that I'd ask if a person chooses to act on these feelings how is it of any concern to anyone else and what would they have done about it.


In response to this I would say so what.





top topics
 
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join