The Homosexual Agenda

Originally posted by LadyV

Really!? Prove tome that homosexuality is wrong. Prove to me that they should not have the equal right to marriage....I am assuming that if you have the credentials you can prove this, sense your throwing it around as if you can?

I have never stated a moral position on homosexuality and I'm not about to start now.

Marriage is not a right. It is a social institution to which certain privileges accrue by the consensus of society. Everyone has the right to set up housekeeping with whomever they choose. That is not the issue. The issue is, Why should society sanction an arrangement from which it derives no benefit?

The burden of proof is not really on me, but rather on those who want to impose this arrangement on the larger society.

You really should see an ophthalmologist about those eyes.


[edit on 04/12/28 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

You really should see an opthamologist about those eyes.

Thank you for your concern, but my eyes are fins....thank you. How bout an cardiologist for that heart of yours!? There is no logical reasoning what so ever that gays should not be able to marry! None...nada....zero

Originally posted by LadyV


Thank you for your concern, but my eyes are fins....thank you.

I'm sorry, I never saw anyone use his eyes for swimming. That would explain the rolling motion.

How bout an cardiologist for that heart of yours!? There is no logical reasoning what so ever that gays should not be able to marry! None...nada....zero

I agree!. Gays may indeed marry persons of the opposite sex, if they so desire. There is no logical reason for two persons of the same sex to enter into marriage.


[edit on 04/12/28 by GradyPhilpott]

Your absolutely hopeless...a dinosaur....truly there will be no hope for mankind as long as this type of mentality lives.....your heart is cold and stone Grady too filled with self righteousness....I'm though with you...your negative and hard hearted.....you are blind beyond reason....
Bye.....

Originally posted by LadyV
Your absolutely hopeless...a dinosaur....truly there will be no hope for mankind as long as this type of mentality lives.....your heart is cold and stone Grady too filled with self righteousness....I'm though with you...your negative and hard hearted.....you are blind beyond reason....
Bye.....

Bye! It's been a pleasure, but particularly enlightening.

I really must object to your analysis of my personality, however. Those who know me, know that I am really a very kind-hearted man--highly clinical and analytical, at times, but warm and generous, nonetheless.

Bye GP, have fun. BTW, nice poetry.

Anyways, again, there is no real reason to stop gays from marrying. Society? Ask the 1950 society about blacks and them voting..... Ask society from 800-early 1900 whether or not witches, jews, mauslims, blacks, whatever are human and not evil demons from satan. Ask society from well, still kinda going on today, but worse about 30 years ago and down, whether or not women are the mens property or allowed to leave the house outside of going to hospital to have another kid.

In other words, society isn't right, the few times it is are spaced so far inbetween they don't shine.

Breeding maybe? Well, again, infertile people, older couples past menopause and such, they can marry, so there goes breeding...

Hmmm, religon? Well, the western religons are against gays, we aren't ran by religon anymore, we took our heads out of our ass about 30 years ago.

So, no real reason besides opinion to keep gays from marrying.

That's all very nice, James, and I'm not denying that the society changes over time. We did, after all, descend from the trees to attain dominance over the planet. But, in this matter we are discussing the defining institution of organized human interaction and I am not arguing whether or not any behavior is right or wrong.

What I am saying is that society does not owe even heterosexual couples the privileges deriving from marriage, but experience has shown that benefiting the married benefits the society. Such a relationship does not exist between society and homosexual interaction of any kind and therefore, it does not behoove society to sanction such.

All your other comparisons are wholly irrelevant.

It is simple as that.

[edit on 04/12/28 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
But, in this matter we are discussing the defining institution of organized human interaction and I am not arguing whether or not any behavior is right or wrong.

Except that I fail to see marriage as "the defining institution of organized human interaction" contrary to your claims. Ezxplaining why you feel this way would help....

What I am saying is that society does not owe even heterosexual couples the privileges deriving from marriage, but experience has shown that benefiting the married benefits the society.

I don't believe you, call me a skeptic if you will. PLease prove this statement. Especially the FIRST part.

Such a relationship does not exist between society and homosexual interaction of any kind and therefore, it does not behoove society to sanction such.

It doesn't behoove society to do many things that it does. Since, how did you put it, oh yes "all other comparisins are irrelavent-it's as simple as that"
Why should you care about it doing another thing that doesn't benefit it?



[edit on 3-1-2005 by I_AM_that_I_AM]

I am not going to produce a monograph here to explain the fundamentals of sociology and cultural anthropology.

So, you can do your own research and as far as I'm concerned the burden is really on you to prove that I am wrong in so far as some things are so fundamental as to be axiomatic.

You're not going to find it all on the Internet and especially at Wikipedia, but that's a start.

en.wikipedia.org...
encarta.msn.com...

en.wikipedia.org...
encarta.msn.com...

en.wikipedia.org...
encarta.msn.com...

en.wikipedia.org...
encarta.msn.com...

Oh, and don't forget your local library and when you get to college, take survey courses in Anthropology, Social Psychology, and Sociology. If you find them interesting enough any good college curriculum will have plenty of courses relative to the family. A course in Symbolic Interactionism will give you a very useful model for analyzing human interaction, though it is not the only one.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I am not going to produce a monograph here to explain the fundamentals of sociology and cultural anthropology.

Well that's obvious. You could never do that in this venue.
The extent of your pontification is utterly astounding!
You should be embarassed.

[edit on 3-1-2005 by jupiter869]

I have pontificated far less than I have been baited to do so and I am not embarrassed, at all, nor do I see why I should be. Perhaps you could clarify just what it is that you mean, instead of showing how well you can use Roget's.

grady, surely you can admit that love, no matter what kind and between whom, is better than hatred due to bigotry.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I have pontificated far less than I have been baited to do so and I am not embarrassed, at all, nor do I see why I should be. Perhaps you could clarify just what it is that you mean, instead of showing how well you can use Roget's.

There are a lot of incredibly intelligent people on this board trying to talk to you. How dare you repeatedly insult and demean them with your attitude? Indeed you should be embarrassed, and yes, you do pontificate. (I apologize if you had to refer to Roget's with the word pontificate.) You are a prime example of someone who has his fingertips on some knowledge yet has no idea on what it really means to UNDERSTAND. You�re great (the best I�ve seen in fact) at tossing encyclopedia links to people for them to "find the answers themselves" because you couldn't be bothered or don't understand yourself. That is insulting to the other members on this board.

I must say your initial question is a valid one, more valid and probing than you even realize. But the answer to it is something you will have to learn on your own. Even though there are real answers to your question, nobody can teach or explain them to you. 600+ repeated responses to your initial posting has shown that all too clearly.

I truly have no angst against you, my friend, but you do need step down from your soapbox and open your eyes and ears when you speak. There are people speaking back and you are not listening; you are only hearing yourself. This is something that many, many people in this world do. And when you learn to overcome that, you'll really have learned something valuable. You�ll be such a more peaceful person if you listen more than you speak. It�s corny but it�s true. I really do wish you well and good luck in your quest, fellow ATS friend.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I really must object to your analysis of my personality, however. Those who know me, know that I am really a very kind-hearted man--highly clinical and analytical, at times, but warm and generous, nonetheless.

Oh and by the way, could you toss us one of those many links in your back pocket to back this statement up too?



[edit on 4-1-2005 by jupiter869]

I am going to only point out that I came by my opinions the hard way. Through extensive educating and intense personal and professional experience.

When someone asks me to explain concepts that are fundamental and sometimes very complex, I fink it easier to suggest some source material, sot that we can sing from the same page.

I know this irritates some, but I think it is an effective way to expand a person's knowledge without having to explain it to myself.

In the case of the thread, my views are set, base upon my education and experience and I have herald all the arguments against my views and still I hold to them.

Jupiter says,

The extent of your pontification is utterly astounding! You should be embarassed.

NO, he shouldnt. First of all, internet forums like ATS ARE soapboxes for the common man, they are the virtual street corners where anyone can stand up (as long as you adhere to the community standards) and speak your mind.

Now while i agree with grady's premise, i dont always agree with the details of it. He has done a REMARKABLE job of standing up to incredible opposition with general dignity and decency, especially in light of some of the abuse he (and I) have suffered for our positions.
While listening is indeed an important aspect of communication, it is hardly exclusivly lacking to grady...in fact most of the opposition REFUSES to consider the ideas presented, and usually resorts back to name calling and emotional retorts nstead of actually considering the info presented.
ALL minds need to open on this issue. As the 600+responces you attest to, plenty of non-listening is going on all around. At least grady isnt flip flopping around and stays focused and coherant thru the barrage.

In general, i too feel as grady does when it comes to "debunking" of any issue. Here in America, our justice system is based on innocent until proven guilty, and more importantly to debating things...it is up to the ACCUSER to prove the case, not the defence. If you (anyone not just jupiter) cannot find enough "evidence" to refute an allegation...then that allegation stands unchallenged (true or not)

Obviously grady has some education and experiance with the studies of sociology and anthropology, and poses his position well using these sciences.....MANY that oppose him have little of substance to counter with other than "feel good" issues...which do nothing to refute these social sciences that have been being studied by mankind for now hundreds if not thousands of years. Grady does provide supporting links when challenged, but i see this as the opposition not being able to come up with something on their own to counter with, more than i see this as pontification.

Gen Zapata,
Prove Love, more importantly to this topic, how can it be quantified and used to make a point? People have married for "non-love" reasons for enturies. Love is generally the stated reason for the special intrest group entitlment of marriage, but it is hardly the sole reason for it.
Also, prove that "hate/bigotry" is the only reason to oppose this issue.

Lets look back to the top of my responce, where i talk about being able to be on a soapbox, AS LONG AS YOU ADHERE TO THE ATS COMMUNITY STANDARDS.

Now, we all know these community standards here in the ATS community, what happens if we dont follow them? We are denied the entitlment of participation here.
OK so far?
SO why then do most of you REFUSE to say that a society, with community standards that define it, can decide that something is NOT part of their cultural base? In this case, the issue of a culture deciding weather or not, for whatever reason, to adopt/reject gay marriage.
This is the really basic idea in the study of sociology that most people REFUSE to see. This abillity for a culture to determine its "cultural identity" is how humans can distinguish the USA from say France, or France from China.
The act of distinguishing one thing or culture from another thing or culture is DISCRIMINATORY by nature....otherwise, how can you tell the two things/cultures apart?
Ultimatly, why is a culture doing this "identity/value" determination "wrong"?

Heck i even feel sorry for say the taliban, as much as i DISSAGREE with their ideology and way of life, isnt it for their people to decide that they want to have women stay uneducated, wearing burkas, and walking 5 steps behind men. Isnt it their cultural right to determin this? Why are we soo "right" in forcing westernization upon them? Isnt this what destroyed the native Americans too?
Why cant America decide that gay marriage is not something that needs to be institutionalized into our society, laws, practice, and values we identify ourselves with, both to bind our culture together (common heritage), and as an identifier to other cultures?

in fact most of the opposition REFUSES to consider the ideas presented, and usually resorts back to name calling and emotional retorts nstead of actually considering the info presented.

Does this also apply to such endearing terms as peadophile, mental illness, sick and abomination which are the depressingly prevelant emotional retorts presented by quite a few posters.

In general, i too feel as grady does when it comes to "debunking" of any issue. Here in America, our justice system is based on innocent until proven guilty, and more importantly to debating things...it is up to the ACCUSER to prove the case, not the defence. If you (anyone not just jupiter) cannot find enough "evidence" to refute an allegation...then that allegation stands unchallenged (true or not)

Didn't this thread begin with the assertion that their is a homosexual agenda. You are forgetting who the original accusers were. It is up to them to prove their case.

Gen Zapata,
Prove Love, more importantly to this topic, how can it be quantified and used to make a point? People have married for "non-love" reasons for enturies. Love is generally the stated reason for the special intrest group entitlment of marriage, but it is hardly the sole reason for it.
Also, prove that "hate/bigotry" is the only reason to oppose this issue.

But love is a pretty good reason for getting married in this day and age just as hate/bigotry is usually the main reason that this issue is opposed.

SO why then do most of you REFUSE to say that a society, with community standards that define it, can decide that something is NOT part of their cultural base? In this case, the issue of a culture deciding weather or not, for whatever reason, to adopt/reject gay marriage.
This is the really basic idea in the study of sociology that most people REFUSE to see. This abillity for a culture to determine its "cultural identity" is how humans can distinguish the USA from say France, or France from China.
The act of distinguishing one thing or culture from another thing or culture is DISCRIMINATORY by nature....otherwise, how can you tell the two things/cultures apart?
Ultimatly, why is a culture doing this "identity/value" determination "wrong"?

Cultural identity is not arrived at through some PTA meeting where everyone sits around with refreshments, chats politely then gives a show of hands. It is often forged and tempered by many different influences, not all of them bening. War, invasion, immigration, disaster can all play their part and it is more often than not the minority voice that pushes for and achieves social change. Civil rights, womens rights etc. And that change is often disruptive and unwelcome initially.

Majority determination as sacrosanct is a myth and a fallacy. If it was left to the goodwill of the majority a significant part of the population would still be slaves. While I don't deny the majority's right to self determination is important on this issue it's being used as a sacred cow to oppose social equality.

Uber asks,

Does this also apply to such endearing terms as peadophile, mental illness, sick and abomination which are the depressingly prevelant emotional retorts presented by quite a few posters.

Certantly ive maintained all along, since i joined this thread and others, that BOTH sides of this issue have been involved in use of demonizing terms, and refusal to CONSIDER the opposing view. When this becomes your only defense, your point is in trouble....i have yet to see more than emotive, feel good reasons by the pro side that will overcome cultural identity or use of democracy in this case. When these positions are put forth, just look at the (mostly) only emotive and bashing resoponces in defense of the pro side, that tells me they really are clueless about things and only looking at the issue in a self centered view, instead of the rammifications for ALL citizens on the issue.

Uber continues interrogations,

Didn't this thread begin with the assertion that their is a homosexual agenda. You are forgetting who the original accusers were. It is up to them to prove their case

As mentioned above, all the "proof" (if proof is determinable here) in the world wont matter when the opposition closes its eyes and continues to believe in fiction. This is not exclusive to this topic, i see it all the time around ATS. Looking back thru this thread (33 pages) it seems that even some pro people acknowlege that there is some kind of agenda, or as some put, social equality issue....weather they agree that the agenda is right or wrong is another story, but it seems evident that most of us die hard posters contributing to this debate in depth seem to feel that an agenda is in play. (on both sides)

On reasons for marriage, specifically that love justifies legitimizing gay marriage; uber states,

But love is a pretty good reason for getting married in this day and age just as hate/bigotry is usually the main reason that this issue is opposed.

Again, while neither reason is the sole reason used for either position....these untangible things that cant be quantified into workable policy offer little more than emotive tugs at heart strings (either way) and offer nothing that can be applied in a tangible, measurable fashion to solve this dilema. A person can say they have these intangible and un measurable feelings (either way) yet how can they be proven, let alone used to work into a policy legally or culturally?

I will agree with Uber in that MANY factors go into determing "cultural identity/values", including sitting around having tea and discussing it all the way to physical confrontation...Time is a key factor reguardless of the tactics used to make this decision. So far with demonization of the opposition the MAIN tool in use by the pro side...im not suprised that they are not able to get more support, and indeed apear to be losing it.

Uber states,

Majority determination as sacrosanct is a myth and a fallacy.

Only if you begin from the premise that individule entitlments somehow override or are more important than the societies cultural order.
If you try and take the stance that "united we satnd" is not as important as "Me first, everyone else in line after that", than you have no problems abusing the rights of others to get what you want. Cultures thru time have dissolved, crumbled from infighting, or been weakened so much that a foriegn power could easily take over because their cultural identity became so diluted, there was no longer enough cultural unity to hold them together. How much erosion of USA social values can we withtand before we are no longer the country recognizable as the USA? basically how much water can you pour into a coke untill its no longer coke, but water?

Uber cites fallicy,

If it was left to the goodwill of the majority a significant part of the population would still be slaves.

Alert to fallicy here!!! Actually the MINORITY of people were wealthy enough to actually own a slave, let alone many slaves. As is now, it was then, the wealthy and politically influential were dictating policy to the masses (more so then as education levels and communication abillity (media) were far lower and slower than it is today) Not everyone in a slave state believed slavery was just..like no southerners helped slaves get into the underground railroad..like no black units were in the southern army..slavery wasnt even the main issue during the civil war.....indeed there was a large chunk of populace that was predjudice, that doesnt mean they were pro slavery if the were for segregation.

Ubers last statment,

While I don't deny the majority's right to self determination is important on this issue it's being used as a sacred cow to oppose social equality.

Im glad you see that the points raised by grady and myself along these lines have some merit to this issue...if only others would say the same...
YET,
look at the term "sacred cow" used to do what in your phrase? to delegitimize the position at the least, demonize it to lessen the appeal of this position, imply some degree of "wrongness" to it, even tho you acknowlege it has merit?

In SUPPORT of Uber, and other pro "gay agenda" people like MacMerdin and others...you have been moderate in your discussions and have not fallen into just emotive spewing...you are a credit to those that seek inclusion by practice. The pro side needs more people like you to both acknowlege concerns (even those based on religion are concerns) of those against and try to build bridges in understanding and work twords some kind of reasonable accodomations FOR ALL CITIZENS that dont sacrifice too much one way or the other...but know this, SOME sacrifice is nessisary even if it means not getting what you seek because the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. This is a basic idea of cultural identity as well...participation in government and society is VOLUNTARY...meaning you can choose to be "outside" the cultural norms if you so desire, but this does not mean that the culture cant set these guidlines for its citizens to relate to each other and to others.

[edit on 5-1-2005 by CazMedia]

Originally posted by General Zapata
grady, surely you can admit that love, no matter what kind and between whom, is better than hatred due to bigotry.

I wouldn't deny this in a million years. In fact, I believe that homosexuals should have all the rights of association granted by the Constitution. My only contention is that marriage is for couples of the opposite sex for the purpose of raising a family, allowing, of course, for those couples of the opposite sex, who cannot, for whatever reason, procreate.

I also support the right of any two individuals to enter into a legal contract to protect their desired property and inheritance rights. I do not support a Constitutional amendment regarding the marriage institution.

[edit on 05/1/5 by GradyPhilpott]

I would like to ask.....what is the difference between entering a social contract for the same benefits of marriage and marriage itself? Is it religious? I'm all for Civil Unions myself because I would not want to be a part of a religion that tells me I am going to hell for being who God made me to be. But, if we can get all the benefits anyway with social contracts...what's the big difference that people will go to extreme lengths to deny marriage? Just asking.

Originally posted by CazMedia
Gen Zapata,
Prove Love, more importantly to this topic, how can it be quantified and used to make a point? People have married for "non-love" reasons for enturies. Love is generally the stated reason for the special intrest group entitlment of marriage, but it is hardly the sole reason for it.
Also, prove that "hate/bigotry" is the only reason to oppose this issue.

It is not my place, or even yours, to judge if someone is in love or not. That is up to the person in question ALONE. I never said marriage. I just said that love is better than hatred. This thread is about the homosexual agenda. It has just been usurped into a thread about homosexual marriage. My comment was just a blanket statement.