So it begins: Texas Has the Right to Deny Gay Spousal Benefits

a reply to: Thorneblood

Those generally are not widely broadcast on the news and held up as evidence of the great new moral place society has reached and the next bastion of freedom and civil rights like some of those pride parades were.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Ok. That's a fair point and I cannot refute it. As it stands, it sounds unreasonable, but I will reel in my outrage a bit until I hear more about why this happened.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: scraedtosleep

originally posted by: wheresthebody
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Not to get too philosophical or hung up on semantics, but nothing outside of nature can exist, so if something exists at all, then it is natural.

It's a completely moot point.

Not many people agree with me about this, so thank you.
We ARE nature. Nothing we do can be outside of nature.

So murder/genocide, rape, and slavery are natural!

Yes. We can find analogs in nature for every single one of those activities. Sometimes animals behave worse than humans do even.

Um, no. Animals do not use forethought to murder, rape and enslave each other. There may be animal behaviors that *look* like it, but only if you anthropomorphize them.

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: TheRedneck


The problem here is that people pushing gay marriage went about it all wrong. Sometimes it matters how you do a thing. In politics, the idea is to build consensus, to convince others that your position is right. But that didn't happen. Instead of convincing others that marriage should be extended to all, they demanded that marriage would be extended to all, by court decision, like it or not, hahaha, in your face.

Would have never happened otherwise; people who remain willfully ignorant can’t be built a convensus with. Ideologues would refuse to ever accept gay marriage and we’d still be arguing the point for centuries to come.

There’s a point at which you must stop negotiating with ignorance and tell it to # off and join everyone else in the damned present.

Funny how I feel this way too, but usually about progressives.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheRedneck

1) Convincing everyone is impossible. This is doubly so in today's hyper-partisan climate.
2) Sometimes you have to drag people kicking and screaming towards the right thing.
3) The Supreme Court has determined things like this in the past. Interracial Marriage is an example.

The problem is that you are starting from the assumption that you are on the right.

How do you know?

Just because you are convinced it's so doesn't necessarily make it that way, especially when you are talking about a purely social issue.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

An adaptation can be harmful or beneficial to a species' survival demanding on many circumstances. Currently, homosexuality has no baring on the survival of the human species and many of the instances it occurs in nature it doesn't inhibit those species' survival. That particular animal may not breed, but the species itself lives on.

The only time homosexuality could even CONSIDERED to be negative on a species' survival rate is if that species is endangered and critically below its minimum viable population, but even that isn't definitive. It's not like gay animals can't reproduce or anything.

Yeah but do they want to?

so don't move to Texas if you're gay. The people of Texas have the right to run their state the way they want.

#Fauxoutrageculture #liberalismistyranny

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bluntone22

That's a good question, but for this particular instance it really isn't an apt point. The discrimination is clear here. Texas is singling out the gay community. Particularly those who want to get married by denying them benefits they'd receive in a heterosexual marriage. Then the fact that SCOTUS isn't even hearing the case is more alarming.

Would Texas then be discriminating against those who want to be polygamous? How about those who want to be polyamorous? How about those who want to marry incestuously?

The idea that because gays cannot have a thing makes it discriminatory ignores all the other groupings out there who would like to get married who currently cannot legally.

If you think it's discriminatory to deny gays, then it is equally discriminatory to deny them. Either we treat all marriages as valid and equal or we are selective about how we define it and we think about why that might be.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Um, no. Animals do not use forethought to murder, rape and enslave each other. There may be animal behaviors that *look* like it, but only if you anthropomorphize them.

Murder
Murder 'comes naturally' to chimpanzees

Rape
Dolphins Are Dangerous Animals That Could Rape You And Kill Your Baby

Slavery
A few species of ants are pirates that enslave other ants

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Um, no. Animals do not use forethought to murder, rape and enslave each other. There may be animal behaviors that *look* like it, but only if you anthropomorphize them.

Murder
Murder 'comes naturally' to chimpanzees

Rape
Dolphins Are Dangerous Animals That Could Rape You And Kill Your Baby

Slavery
A few species of ants are pirates that enslave other ants

Thanks for those excellent examples of anthropomorphising.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bluntone22

That's a good question, but for this particular instance it really isn't an apt point. The discrimination is clear here. Texas is singling out the gay community. Particularly those who want to get married by denying them benefits they'd receive in a heterosexual marriage. Then the fact that SCOTUS isn't even hearing the case is more alarming.

Would Texas then be discriminating against those who want to be polygamous? How about those who want to be polyamorous? How about those who want to marry incestuously?

Why do conversations about homosexuality have to always go down the slippery slope trail into incest? I'm going to just say this is "whataboutism" and leave it at that.

The idea that because gays cannot have a thing makes it discriminatory ignores all the other groupings out there who would like to get married who currently cannot legally.

Well gays CAN legally marry. That's the big difference that you are trying to ignore to make your weak slippery slope connection.

If you think it's discriminatory to deny gays, then it is equally discriminatory to deny them. Either we treat all marriages as valid and equal or we are selective about how we define it and we think about why that might be.

I'm game with that. If you can marry then you should get the same rights as any other married couple/group of people. But don't bring up situations where you can't marry and use them as an example to compare to homosexual marriage.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Currently, homosexuality has no baring on the survival of the human species and many of the instances it occurs in nature it doesn't inhibit those species' survival. That particular animal may not breed, but the species itself lives on.

agreed. That's why I said "majority". As it stands...no I dont see gay people barring any influence on species survival. They are simply too few to upset the scale.

But my point was: promoting it serves no beneficiary purpose to the human kind. We certainly wouldnt want to enlarge the population would we ? I'm saying that simply because...natality rates would plummet even further. western world natality rates are not that great to begin with. Dont you think so ? Hypothetically speaking.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Yes.

Nature is nether good nor evil it just is.

Humans place labels on things. Evil=things we don't like good= things we do like.

Now please don't act like a fool and try and say that I am advocating murder or rap.

Are you placing homosexuality in the same basket as murder and rap?

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Way to not read the sources.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Um, no. Animals do not use forethought to murder, rape and enslave each other. There may be animal behaviors that *look* like it, but only if you anthropomorphize them.

Murder
Murder 'comes naturally' to chimpanzees

Rape
Dolphins Are Dangerous Animals That Could Rape You And Kill Your Baby

Slavery
A few species of ants are pirates that enslave other ants

So congratulations for discovering the logical fallacy that just because a thing occurs in nature that it makes it morally correct.

Of course, then there is the issue of researchers anthropomorphizing. We've been over the issue of "gay" fish. Plenty of instances of that are actually "sneaker" males where the sub-dominant males adopt female coloration and behavior *not* because they want to mate with the dominant male but because by appearing female, they can hang out in his territory without getting their butts kicked and confuse the mating enough to get their own genes in with the actual females.

In other words, it's a viable breeding strategy for non-gay fish who aren't alpha males.

a reply to: bgerbger

*sigh*

Why can't we just let people be people.

This is BS.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

The US birth rates is right under 2%. It's currently historically low, but it also isn't detrimental to our survival either.

As far as benefits to mankind. So what? Just about everything humans do have no benefit to mankind. Life is just a matter of distracting yourself until you die. It helps to spend that time distracting yourself with pleasantness and if being gay makes someone happy then who are you or I to argue?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Um, no. Animals do not use forethought to murder, rape and enslave each other. There may be animal behaviors that *look* like it, but only if you anthropomorphize them.

Murder
Murder 'comes naturally' to chimpanzees

Rape
Dolphins Are Dangerous Animals That Could Rape You And Kill Your Baby

Slavery
A few species of ants are pirates that enslave other ants

So congratulations for discovering the logical fallacy that just because a thing occurs in nature that it makes it morally correct.

That's a strawman. I never said ANY of those things were morally correct.

Morals are a construct of humans. Correct or incorrect morality is subjective to the human you are talking to anyways.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Yes.

Nature is nether good nor evil it just is.

Humans place labels on things. Evil=things we don't like good= things we do like.

Now please don't act like a fool and try and say that I am advocating murder or rap.

Are you placing homosexuality in the same basket as murder and rap?

Nature just is, but how many times do we make the argument that humans are outside of nature? Isn't the the excuse every time someone goes on and on about Global Warming? I am seeing some of the same voices now arguing about our "being part of nature" here that argue how we are outside of it and causing Global Warming there.

We either are just products of nature or something beyond it. Not both.

Of course, life would be so grand if we did just devolve to nature. Don't you think? No more worrying about anyone else at all. Then this entire argument would be moot because who gives a hang about anyone else? You want to get it on with a man? Just beat the crap out of him and do it whether he wants it or not.

If you're strong enough to dominate him, go for it. It's nature baby! Might makes you the alpha and you can just have whatever way you want. Then you can go on and impregnate about 20 or 30 local ladies with your genes ... whether they want it or not, and if one of them has a baby and resists? Just kill the kid, amirite? That will make her come back into season faster so you can spread your genes. Maybe that baby will taste good.

It's all nature, man.

Oh, animals don't marry. Why u so hung up on being human?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Um, no. Animals do not use forethought to murder, rape and enslave each other. There may be animal behaviors that *look* like it, but only if you anthropomorphize them.

Murder
Murder 'comes naturally' to chimpanzees

Rape
Dolphins Are Dangerous Animals That Could Rape You And Kill Your Baby

Slavery
A few species of ants are pirates that enslave other ants

So congratulations for discovering the logical fallacy that just because a thing occurs in nature that it makes it morally correct.

That's a strawman. I never said ANY of those things were morally correct.

Morals are a construct of humans. Correct or incorrect morality is subjective to the human you are talking to anyways.

Oh, so now you are removing yourself from humanity?

Nice twist to dodge the issue.

a reply to: ketsuko

And that's the third time you've invented my side of the argument for me.