Gay marriage

[Dapper Tom]

I give up on you guys. I quit responding and have just read the last three pages and most of you change you side over and over again.

You clearly quit because your genes are retarded.

[PLAYER57832]

I would probably not accuse myself of being an expert on the gay gene or into behavioral genetics, even though neoteny bravely accused me as such. Therefore, to take my post and claim it is the brave defense of what your saying, is kind of being silly. Your effort to make leaps and bounds of logic continues when you assume than anyone is suggesting if there is a genetic cause that it is actually a disease. Such an interpretation is culturally understood and can easily be understood in the context of your anti-gay rights animus, and can be disregarded as such.

Marriage when seen in the context of a values-norms society (which is what you argue) must be seen as a right, because marriage is a social approved of goal. In and of itself, marriage does not dictate who gets married, this can be understood by the widely different definitions and understandings of the term. Therefore your narrow definition can equally be rejected by someone who uses a more encompassing understanding.

While you may charge that people are making a mistake in categorizing an issue, if you make a mistake in your interpretation of each relevant point, at the end of the day you dont argue the point effectively.

Edit: Also worth noting: can we stop with this whole if its not nature or nuture then clearly homosexuality is wrong argument that some of you are advocating. Its like everytime someone discusses the issue from either side, you try and prove that your right by taking one of the sides. A lot of people fall on either side of the coin as far as nature and nuture go, and neither explanation would be complete in and of itself (though obviously social construction explanations are better, intrinsically). But seriously, its a silly and dishonest game to play.

I was hoping you would come out a bit more vocally anti-behavioral genetics. I don't even know why I try anymore.

The reality is that just about everything behavioral is almost certainly a mixture of genetics -- as inherited AND as altered by various chemicals (hormones particularly), both "natural"/internal (extra testostorine "flushes" within the mother's womb, just as an example)and "unnatural"/external (radiation, for example) -- AND by chemical influences that affect the brain, etc but not genetics (lead & mercury for example), environmental influences while within the womb (be it loud sounds, heat, etc.), the diet of the mother -- AND ALL of these factors PLUS once the child is born.

IN other words, there are far more variables involved that even the faciest of computers can really and truly quantify -- EVEN using lorenzien (or "chaos") calculations.

AND, regarding homosexuality, the REAL truth is that ALL of these factors DO almost certainly play a part. Trying to claim it is simply one thing or the other is ridiculous.

Further, whether it is biological or not does not answer the question of whether it is or is not sin, though thinking about it DOES lead a lot of caring Christians to question whether there might not have been some misinterpretations (HUMAN misinterpretations).

FINALLY, though a lot of people will point to these factors as excuses for why they do nor do not like the idea of homosexual marriage or civil unions, arguing over the origins of homosexuality does not answer the basic question

Is there any HARM that will come from legalizing homosexual unions.

It doesn't matter how much you like or dislike homosexuality. As has been pointed out before, unless you can give an overriding reason why NOT allowing it would create harm, then it should be allowed, as per the rules of our country.

Oh, and I definitely acknowledge those who say the government should ackowledge no unions .. I disagree, but that IS a very genuine opinion, and backed by reasonable argument.

And I think that is about all I have to say on this matter. Either you agree or don't. One of the wonders of our country ... and many others, of course, is that we are fully able to speak and disagree on these matters. For that, we should all be grateful!

[joecoolfrog]

Are the people arguing against gay marriage also arguing against civil contracts for same sex couples ?

[Neoteny]

Are the people arguing against gay marriage also arguing against civil contracts for same sex couples ?

I don't think that's come up recently, but in the past we have a bit of both.

[Napoleon Ier]

Are the people arguing against gay marriage also arguing against civil contracts for same sex couples ?

I don't think that's come up recently, but in the past we have a bit of both.

Union contracts, fine. "Marriage", no. It's a prenickety distinction, but I genuinely believe in the importance for society to recognise this dichotomy.

[Dapper Tom]

To me, enforcing the distinction seems like an arbitrary semantic exercise.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like.....etc

[MeDeFe]

To me, enforcing the distinction seems like an arbitrary semantic exercise.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like.....etc

Does it weigh as much as a witch?

[silvanricky]

Personally, I don't care if two flamers want to go at each other in their own house. Just don't try knowingly donating blood to the local Red Cross and contaminate it because that would be criminal. I've actually read stuff from homosexuals who say they'll do that unless they get what they want.

But what is really offensive to me is when people try to say that this -



is the same thing as this -



I think that's Dapper Tom on the right now that I look at it again!

[Neoteny]

Personally, I don't care if two flamers want to go at each other in their own house. Just don't try knowingly donating blood to the local Red Cross and contaminate it because that would be criminal. I've actually read stuff from homosexuals who say they'll do that unless they get what they want.

But what is really offensive to me is when people try to say that this -



is the same thing as this -



I think that's Dapper Tom on the right now that I look at it again!

My first thought was to photoshop the heads from the former picture onto the latter, but I'm not sure I have it in me. The intent wouldn't be disrespectful, but the interpretation would be (so would that make it art?).

Anyhow, I hope you aren't being sarcastic because...

I don't give a shit what you find offensive. Come down off your high horse and observe that both movements concern the rights of a portion of our population. You can be offended all you want, but all that implies is a closed-minded perspective of the world. Think about things a bit more and maybe they won't bother you as much.

[Napoleon Ier]

Oh cone on...gays wanting to subvert the institution of marriage and MLK are two very different things. I mean, MLK was a bit unintelligent and sounded rather, how shall I say, crude, in terms of what he said and wrote, but at least he had guts and principles as well as actual experiences of discrimination, which is more than can be said for these pathetic empty shells of men.

[Frigidus]

Personally, I don't care if two flamers want to go at each other in their own house. Just don't try knowingly donating blood to the local Red Cross and contaminate it because that would be criminal. I've actually read stuff from homosexuals who say they'll do that unless they get what they want.

Guilt by association is a dangerous path to walk. Anyways, as pointed out earlier, civil union is basically another word for marriage. I find the idea of recognizing them without calling it marriage practically more of an affront to religious freedom than I do denying it outright. Countless societies have some form of marriage, and a heavy majority of them don't mention homosexuality at all, so if you're going to allow a civil recognition, then you must leave the religious aspect to religion. Separation of church and state and all that.

Also, what exactly does giving it a different term do? Kids wouldn't get the difference: "Well, one is a religious and civil union between two people and one is just a civil union...or something...just go watch TV." Adults aren't going to be emotionally scarred by the title or anything. It's not like giving it a different name is going to save society from whatever envisioned moral collapse might be theorized. The only thing it actually does is say "we don't like you, and we aren't going to hide it."

[silvanricky]

I don't give a shit what you find offensive.

and I don't give a flying f*ck if you approve of what I find offensive. It's my belief system, not yours.

Come down off your high horse and observe that both movements concern the rights of a portion of our population.

You can come off of your high horse first, asshole. Everyone has a right to an opinion and yours is not better than anyone elses.

You can be offended all you want, but all that implies is a closed-minded perspective of the world. Think about things a bit more and maybe they won't bother you as much.

f*ck you. Don't tell me you don't give a shit and then say I can be offended all I want. Come down off of your throne, your worshipfulness. Just because someone doesn't agree with your opinions doesn't make you automatically right and superior to others.

[Neoteny]

I don't give a shit what you find offensive.

and I don't give a flying f*ck if you approve of what I find offensive. It's my belief system, not yours.

Come down off your high horse and observe that both movements concern the rights of a portion of our population.

You can come off of your high horse first, asshole. Everyone has a right to an opinion and yours is not better than anyone elses.

You can be offended all you want, but all that implies is a closed-minded perspective of the world. Think about things a bit more and maybe they won't bother you as much.

f*ck you. Don't tell me you don't give a shit and then say I can be offended all I want. Come down off of your throne, your worshipfulness. Just because someone doesn't agree with your opinions doesn't make you automatically right and superior to others.

Oh goodness. You are so right. You can condescend others for their way of life, but can't take a little criticism for yours. This is where the "get over yourself" part comes into play. Perhaps my opinion isn't any better than yours, but I will say that it is more noble than yours, which should count for something. And even that's nowhere close to what the men in your pictures are (were) standing up for. So, belittle all you want, but just know that it is people like you who are holding these individuals down, and it is people like you who will be left behind. I'm not elitist, I'm a realist. Most people will go with the current flow on this point, hopefully you will as well.

[savant]

if i were the guy on the right, i'd be a little envious that the guy on the left has better abs than me. but at least my hair looks better.

[Dapper Tom]

I think that's Dapper Tom on the right now that I look at it again!

Nope... on closer inspection it appears to be your father.

f*ck off until you can debate something without stooping to petty aspersions.

[silvanricky]

Oh goodness. You are so right. You can condescend others for their way of life, but can't take a little criticism for yours. This is where the "get over yourself" part comes into play. Perhaps my opinion isn't any better than yours, but I will say that it is more noble than yours, which should count for something. And even that's nowhere close to what the men in your pictures are (were) standing up for. So, belittle all you want, but just know that it is people like you who are holding these individuals down, and it is people like you who will be left behind. I'm not elitist, I'm a realist. Most people will go with the current flow on this point, hopefully you will as well.

You are an elitist, and you do it by considering your opinions more noble than people who don't agree with you. Perhaps one day you'll consider the rest of the human race as equally important as yourself.

[silvanricky]

Nope... on closer inspection it appears to be your father.

f*ck off until you can debate something without stooping to petty aspersions.

Let's try it a different way then.

This -



is not the same as this -

[got tonkaed]

I think part of the issue with the way your portraying it, is that youve taken homosexuality to mean a very specific thing, and its something that conflicts seemingly with how you view masculinity (at least with the male representations, there hasnt been as much discussion of females). However, i think its fair to suggest that your choice of images informs how you feel about all people who share a particular sexual preference, which would be a pretty poor assumption. It seems rather reasonable and fair to suggest that you could find numerous different variations of outward appearnce and personality amongst people who are homosexuals, yet you continually use visual representations of a very narrow form.

I think it actually shows a lot, and probably more than may at first meet the eye.

Also, i think theres a lot of incorrect about the notion that because someone doesnt hold a discriminatory view and chastizes you for doing so, that they are therefore elitist.

[Dapper Tom]

This -



is not the same as this -

Well duh...

One is in colour, and one is in black and white.
There's your difference.

[silvanricky]

Also, i think theres a lot of incorrect about the notion that because someone doesnt hold a discriminatory view and chastizes you for doing so, that they are therefore elitist.

and who are you people to be chastizing anyone else. Worry about your own damn views and leave me to mine. Another problem is that you don't view your own opinions as discriminatory - so yes, that makes you an elitist.

.....................and it's also why your side is losing this poll big time, because of the attitude that you guys portray. You come off as if you're so much smarter than people who disagree with you.

[Frigidus]

Nope... on closer inspection it appears to be your father.

f*ck off until you can debate something without stooping to petty aspersions.

Let's try it a different way then.

This -



is not the same as this -

Yah, at least blacks could get married.

[got tonkaed]

Allow me to offer why i disagree (in addition to the fact that i dont think ive ever chastized you for any of your views, even though we disagree frequently).

when looking at something like a policy issue, i am not being discrimatory toward you if i advocate for a change in the law that would not have an impact on you, even if you disagree with the law. By advocating for gay marriage, i am not forcing you to get married, or limiting the benefits that society would confer on your marriage should you choose to do so someday.

On the other hand, you by holding your views are discriminating against anyone who would like to be able to be married but cannot under the current law. Your support (should you choose to do so at somepoint in time) for legislation or action that continues the status quo, would be a step against that group of people.

Its a rather simple distinction, my view of the issue doesnt affect you in any way nor does the policy i would wish to have enacted affect you either. Its clearly not the same case for some people using your views in the reverse.

[Neoteny]

Oh goodness. You are so right. You can condescend others for their way of life, but can't take a little criticism for yours. This is where the "get over yourself" part comes into play. Perhaps my opinion isn't any better than yours, but I will say that it is more noble than yours, which should count for something. And even that's nowhere close to what the men in your pictures are (were) standing up for. So, belittle all you want, but just know that it is people like you who are holding these individuals down, and it is people like you who will be left behind. I'm not elitist, I'm a realist. Most people will go with the current flow on this point, hopefully you will as well.

You are an elitist, and you do it by considering your opinions more noble than people who don't agree with you. Perhaps one day you'll consider the rest of the human race as equally important as yourself.

Wrong again. I don't consider my reasons more noble because you disagree with me, I consider my reasons more noble because I am arguing for someone's rights. As far as those pictures, you are doing an excellent job of treating both sides in a mature, thoughtful manner. It is clear you have an "us and them" mentality that was typical of anti-civil rights proponents in the previous century. Think about it. Is there any point in posting those pictures other than to ridicule their position?

I think this picture would be more appropriate.



Or how about this one?



That's a bit more serious, I think.

[Dapper Tom]

and who are you people to be chastizing anyone else. Worry about your own damn views and leave me to mine.

If that's your attitude then what's the point of debating? Leave us to our opinions and you can keep yours. Game over... how fruitless.

On the other hand, if you're willing to continue to have your own views exposed as illogical and indefensible, then feel free to stick around.

Another problem is that you don't view your own opinions as discriminatory - so yes, that makes you an elitist.

Feel free to explain how GT's views are in any way discriminatory.

Oh hang on, you can't... because you're talking rubbish.

Come on mate, try actually making a point instead of just posting ridiculous pictures and throwing insults around... otherwise this is just going to become another slanging match.

[Neoteny]

Also, i think theres a lot of incorrect about the notion that because someone doesnt hold a discriminatory view and chastizes you for doing so, that they are therefore elitist.

and who are you people to be chastizing anyone else. Worry about your own damn views and leave me to mine. Another problem is that you don't view your own opinions as discriminatory - so yes, that makes you an elitist.

.....................and it's also why your side is losing this poll big time, because of the attitude that you guys portray. You come off as if you're so much smarter than people who disagree with you.

I don't think my attitude implies that I'm smarter than you. More reasonable, perhaps, but not more intelligent. And what's this about chastization? Would you not do the same thing if someone told a black man they couldn't marry someone they loved? Could you also explain to me how my opinions are discriminatory so I could stop being elitist?