Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
shaka5

Ny votes against......

293 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Drego

Ohh you're one of those "people choose to be gay" people aren't you?

Don't people also choose to believe in certain deities? That's a divisive right too, but one that you Americans protect like nobodies business.

When it gets to this point (where someone is of the misconception that sexual preference is a choice) it is impossible to continue having a fair conversation with them. It's like trying to debate evolution with someone who still believes babies are delivered by storks.

By the way, please don't make this a "you Americans" thing. I didn't even think people still did that. I am by no means patriotic, but if it hasn't occurred to you yet that there are plenty of americans (more and more each year, in fact) who do not believe in forcing religion into law, then please realize how ignorant it makes people sound when they lump all americans into some giant pile of ignorant misconceptions. Religious nuts are not exclusive to our country, I'll remind you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

When it gets to this point (where someone is of the misconception that sexual preference is a choice) it is impossible to continue having a fair conversation with them. It's like trying to debate evolution with someone who still believes babies are delivered by storks.

By the way, please don't make this a "you Americans" thing. I didn't even think people still did that. I am by no means patriotic, but if it hasn't occurred to you yet that there are plenty of americans (more and more each year, in fact) who do not believe in forcing religion into law, then please realize how ignorant it makes people sound when they lump all americans into some giant pile of ignorant misconceptions. Religious nuts are not exclusive to our country, I'll remind you.

oh give me a break!

All of sexual behavior is within the REALM of choice. Or do you want to claim that you have no idea who or what you are and that you cant help yourself in regards to how you feel sexually?

This is the biggest pile of bunk that the radical homosexual leftwing progressive movement wants to promote. They want to claim that we all can not help how we act and feel sexually.

What a corrupt political ideology. Obama so far still wont fire the sicko gay activist he has as head of the "safe school" agenda who wants to teach children about gay fisting. What a sick and immoral bunch of crap the left-wing progressive movement promotes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drego

That was even worse than what I expected... Well, here goes.

All of sexual behavior is within the REALM of choice. Or do you want to claim that you have no idea who or what you are and that you cant help yourself in regards to how you feel sexually?

Close. All of sexual activity is a choice. We can have sex with whoever or whatever we want to. However, it is not within our control who we are attracted to. Or do you want to claim that you have never had a crush on someone? Also, it absolutely IS true that we cannot help how we feel sexually.

This is the biggest pile of bunk that the radical homosexual leftwing progressive movement wants to promote. They want to claim that we all can not help how we act and feel sexually.

I agree. One minor correction, though: "radical homosexual leftwing progressive movement" should read: "all biological and psychological research and those who subscribe to the commonly held belief that people have natural sexual feelings towards some poeple and not others." Still though, that's the closest we've come to an agreeance (no, that probably is not a word).

What a corrupt political ideology. Obama so far still wont fire the sicko gay activist he has as head of the "safe school" agenda who wants to teach children about gay fisting. What a sick and immoral bunch of crap the left-wing progressive movement promotes.

And there we go. For the sake of argument, I will assume the jist of what you are getting at (omitting paranoid, misguided and fear-based vitriolic comments) is that you believe that children are being "recruited" to be gay. Let's follow this out logically. If every person on the planet was gay, the species would eventually die out. You believe, not only that that is biologically accurate, but that there are also people out there who are actively trying to use this to bring an end to the human species. For no reason. Am I hitting the paranoid nail on the head?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

That was even worse than what I expected... Well, here goes.

Close. All of sexual activity is a choice. We can have sex with whoever or whatever we want to. However, it is not within our control who we are attracted to. Or do you want to claim that you have never had a crush on someone? Also, it absolutely IS true that we cannot help how we feel sexually.

I agree. One minor correction, though: "radical homosexual leftwing progressive movement" should read: "all biological and psychological research and those who subscribe to the commonly held belief that people have natural sexual feelings towards some poeple and not others." Still though, that's the closest we've come to an agreeance (no, that probably is not a word).

And there we go. For the sake of argument, I will assume the jist of what you are getting at (omitting paranoid, misguided and fear-based vitriolic comments) is that you believe that children are being "recruited" to be gay. Let's follow this out logically. If every person on the planet was gay, the species would eventually die out. You believe, not only that that is biologically accurate, but that there are also people out there who are actively trying to use this to bring an end to the human species. For no reason. Am I hitting the paranoid nail on the head?

Sexual thought is sexual behavior. You want to claim that if you act something out that then you are choosing. You admit that. Here is your own words:

All of sexual activity is a choice.

But then you want to claim that all of sexual thought is not a behavior or a choice. Next you will claim that it is ok to think about children or think about animals or whatever sexual thought someone engages in. Because you say we can not help what we are attracted to.

Because you think that we are helpless as to how we think and feel. And you want all of society to accept that idea that is pure corrupt garbage and then also to deny others an opposing view.

It is not a biological end to the human species that I fear from people who think like you. It is an end to our humanity that I fear. You have a thought process that defies human decency by claiming that no one should be responsible for their sexual thoughts and desires.

It is amazing to me that people do not see through the corrupt morality that left-wing progressives promote in this regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drego
But then you want to claim that all of sexual thought is not a behavior or a choice. Next you will claim that it is ok to think about children or think about animals or whatever sexual thought someone engages in. Because you say we can not help what we are attracted to.

This is where psychological research is at a hault. There have been studies (none of which I can cite off the top of my head, apologies) to suggest that sexual attraction to children, animals, etc. is an actual psychological condition. If that is true these people cannot help that they are sexually attracted to [insert age group/animal/weird kink here]. The rule also applies. The line is broken, however, when one acts out that attraction in the form of non-consentual/non-age-appropriate sexual activity. That, however, does not apply to gender preference.

Because you think that we are helpless as to how we think and feel. And you want all of society to accept that idea that is pure corrupt garbage and then also to deny others an opposing view.

I honestly can't decipher most of that (single?) sentance to reveal a succint point. However, I did catch on near the end. You think that no one is allowed an opposing view. Please explain.

It is not a biological end to the human species that I fear from people who think like you. It is an end to our humanity that I fear. You have a thought process that defies human decency by claiming that no one should be responsible for their sexual thoughts and desires.

Indeed we should not. It is our sexual actions we must be responsible for. This is the differtence between someone telling you that it is wrong to have sexual thoughts about a woman and someone telling you that it is wrong to act those urges out by way of rape. It is the very decency you think I'm trying to destroy that draws that line.

It is amazing to me that people do not see through the corrupt morality that left-wing progressives promote in this regard.

The end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

Sexual thought is sexual behavior. You want to claim that if you act something out that then you are choosing. You admit that. Here is your own words:

But then you want to claim that all of sexual thought is not a behavior or a choice. Next you will claim that it is ok to think about children or think about animals or whatever sexual thought someone engages in. Because you say we can not help what we are attracted to.

Sexual action is a choice, as in it is a conscious willing decision to perform a sexual act. Sexual though, as in attraction is a not a choice. At what point in time do we ever think "Is that person hot? Do I want to be attracted to that person?"...never. Physical attraction just happens, however we can choose to act or not to act on those desires.

When did you choose to be straight?

Because you think that we are helpless as to how we think and feel. And you want all of society to accept that idea that is pure corrupt garbage and then also to deny others an opposing view.

The opposing view fails in debate. There is no reasonable or logical notion to support the idea that homosexuality is inherently bad or that homosexuals do not deserve equal treatment. I should know as I have bin involved in the subject for years.

It is not a biological end to the human species that I fear from people who think like you. It is an end to our humanity that I fear. You have a thought process that defies human decency by claiming that no one should be responsible for their sexual thoughts and desires.

Unless you can show that homosexuality is inherently detrimental to humanity then this is all unfounded opinion.

It is amazing to me that people do not see through the corrupt morality that left-wing progressives promote in this regard.

Again logically show how homosexuality is 'immoral'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

This is where psychological research is at a hault. There have been studies (none of which I can cite off the top of my head, apologies) to suggest that sexual attraction to children, animals, etc. is an actual psychological condition. If that is true these people cannot help that they are sexually attracted to [insert age group/animal/weird kink here]. The rule also applies. The line is broken, however, when one acts out that attraction in the form of non-consentual/non-age-appropriate sexual activity. That, however, does not apply to gender preference.

I honestly can't decipher most of that (single?) sentance to reveal a succint point. However, I did catch on near the end. You think that no one is allowed an opposing view. Please explain.

Indeed we should not. It is our sexual actions we must be responsible for. This is the differtence between someone telling you that it is wrong to have sexual thoughts about a woman and someone telling you that it is wrong to act those urges out by way of rape. It is the very decency you think I'm trying to destroy that draws that line.

The end.

You seem to draw a very strange line between sexual thought or desire and action.

If someone is simply expressing their sexual thoughts about homosexuality or pedophelia or animals then they are not acting it out.

So you think that they should not be responsible for having these thoughts and expressing them? Maybe they can teach it to children even in your view? They are only responsible for acting them out?

Until they act them out they are not responsible? They couldn't help it?

That makes very little sense. It is pure bunk even. Thought and desire PRECEED action. If someone is expressing thier allegiance to homosexuality then of course they must of thought it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

You seem to draw a very strange line between sexual thought or desire and action.

If someone is simply expressing their sexual thoughts about homosexuality or pedophelia or animals then they are not acting it out.

So you think that they should not be responsible for having these thoughts and expressing them? Maybe they can teach it to children even in your view? They are only responsible for acting them out?

Until they act them out they are not responsible? They couldn't help it?

That makes very little sense. It is pure bunk even. Thought and desire PRECEED action. If someone is expressing thier allegiance to homosexuality then of course they must of thought it out.

You should study a little basic psychology to better understand basic human behavior.

Nonetheless this has little to do with gay marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

Sexual action is a choice, as in it is a conscious willing decision to perform a sexual act. Sexual though, as in attraction is a not a choice. At what point in time do we ever think "Is that person hot? Do I want to be attracted to that person?"...never. Physical attraction just happens, however we can choose to act or not to act on those desires.

When did you choose to be straight?

The opposing view fails in debate. There is no reasonable or logical notion to support the idea that homosexuality is inherently bad or that homosexuals do not deserve equal treatment. I should know as I have bin involved in the subject for years.

Unless you can show that homosexuality is inherently detrimental to humanity then this is all unfounded opinion.

Again logically show how homosexuality is 'immoral'.

Take a biology course. You need it. I do not need to provide proof that it is a man and a woman who are made to love each other that way. It is obvious. Not man-man or woman-woman in the confused way that you see it.

If you have a problem knowing what it is that you choose then that is your problem. It is easy to see what is natural though and what is not.

Your confusion on this issue makes my point. It is not just a natural urge that drives some people to choose homosexuality. You are even trying to make an moral argument that you feel homosexuaity is right. You are choosing to view it that way and making an argument to support your choice. You are defending homosexulity so there is a total element of choice on your part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoIverine

It seems that the common man is beginning to no longer care about the homosexual cause (possibly it has lost its importance in the grand scheme of things). Currently in this nation...there are MUCH bigger fish to fry. A failing economy and the holidays take far more precedence in the minds of everyone at the moment. It's easy to see why NY voted against it, there's already too much chaos going on.

Edited by SpiderCyde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

Take a biology course. You need it. I do not need to provide proof that it is a man and a woman who are made to love each other that way. It is obvious. Not man-man or woman-woman in the confused way that you see it.

Typical response.

Lets first take a look at the bolded. The implication here seems to be that homosexuality is 'unnatural' and because of that it is inherently wrong. Riddle me this, was metal 'made' to be stripped from the earth? Is your car not an 'unnatural' creation? Surely you cannot reasonable equate 'Unnatural' to 'bad'. You say 'who are made' like there was an original uniformed intent, all religion aside, the universe has no intentions or motivation.

Nonetheless, 'unnatural' and 'who were made' are kind of out of the question as homosexuality has existed consistently in the human species throughout time as well as many other species, most note ably the penguin that will not only mate with a member of the same species but also live together and adopt a smooth rock as a surrogate egg.

Even if I were to submit to your awkward viewpoint on homosexuality it is irrelevant to the issue. I can list a number of accepted oddities in human behavior and characteristics that are universally accepted and are treated as equals...such as delusions of a two thousand year old carpenter god or the 'unnatural' condition of Dwarfism.

You have to show that homosexuality is inherently detrimental, since you cannot do that you have attempted to equate "unnatural" with wrong or bad a notion that of course fails to hold up.

If you have a problem knowing what it is that you choose then that is your problem. It is easy to see what is natural though and what is not.

Can you provide your reasoning behind your choice in being against homosexuality? Furthermore, can you answer the question I asked previously about how and when you consciously chose to be a heterosexual?

It is natural for us to fear what we do not understand, and attack that is which is different. It is an old animalistic defense mechanism.

Your confusion on this issue makes my point. It is not just a natural urge that drives some people to choose homosexuality.

I am not confused in the slightest. I will take a new tactic...why would anybody 'choose' homosexuality? To be treated like a second class citizen, be socially shunned and outcasted, have more limited options in potential mates, etc. People choose to date, we choose to marry, we choose to have sex...but what the influencing factor that makes make those decisions? Attraction and desire...you see somebody and find them attractive, we do not choose our attractions. That initial attraction causes you to talk to the girl sitting at the bar, to get her number and ask her out, to fall and love and get married, etc.

If homosexuality were all choice, then you would be suggesting that everybody is born heterosexual. Even if you could actually prove it is all choice you still can't how explain how homosexuals lose their attraction to the opposite sex.

You are even trying to make an moral argument that you feel homosexuaity is right.

I have applied no morality to any sexual orientation that would be silly. When considering homosexuals and heterosexuals I have brought ethics to the table to argue that regardless of one's sexual orientation(or gender, or race, or...well you know) equal consideration should be given.

You are choosing to view it that way and making an argument to support your choice. You are defending homosexulity so there is a total element of choice on your part.

Of course a chose in choosing sides in a debate is a totally different thing then 'choosing' who I am attracted to.

I am attracted to woman, even if I wanted to I couldn't stop it. Of course I can choose to stop acting on my attraction but that wouldn't stop me from being a heterosexual.

With all that said I will again have to ask you to bring forth something, anything that supports the notion that homosexuals are inherently detrimental and/or should be shunned and treated like second class citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

It seems that the common man is beginning to no longer care about the homosexual cause (possibly it has lost its importance in the grand scheme of things). Currently in this nation...there are MUCH bigger fish to fry. A failing economy and the holidays take far more precedence in the minds of everyone at the moment. It's easy to see why NY voted against it, there's already too much chaos going on.

I would agree that there are bigger fish to fry...but there will always be bigger fish to fry. For more or less, this is a social issue that only effects a small minority of people in relatively small way.

Even though, it was brought to the table in NY, and people voted. This isn't a subject like health care, war, or the economy that has to be long drawn out and heavily considered by the people before they vote. All they have to do is go vote Yes or No and it's pretty much over...it's like going up to your wife and saying I can't take out the garbage because I have no time and there is better more important things to do...she would of course say "it takes two minutes!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siara

Pathetic and if people still want to live in the 1950's go for it but don't try to hold back the future with bigotry. It will be legal I promise you that so why fight it.

When you look at the gay marriage vote with respect to age, most older folks are against it and most younger people are for it. It seems like only a matter of time until the majority of the population will be for it and it will be voted in. Too bad older gay couples who've been together forever might not live to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

When you look at the gay marriage vote with respect to age, most older folks are against it and most younger people are for it. It seems like only a matter of time until the majority of the population will be for it and it will be voted in. Too bad older gay couples who've been together forever might not live to see it.

Oh darlin I'm only a few years behind Trueyou. I use to be a huge bigot and very anti gay. I would bash and make gay jokes and ya if at a young age had a guy hit on me I might have punched his lights out.

So for me it's more of a disappointment that more can't learn and grow instead of holding on to yesterday type thinking. We all need to grow up and the closer I look at us as a people the more I see how much alike we all are. The divides between people are manufactured. Either by popular opinion or bigotry, or both MSM plays a big role in that.

I can no longer look at an individual and judge, no more nor never. I have learned what humble is and live that way now. No man women or child needs any extra burden put upon them ever. We either work as a whole or die as individual.

That is why religion, homosexuality, race, color has made me blind but yet I see so much better now. It took me years to get past all the BS about gays and that we are to be afraid of something no more scary than the Bogey man under the bed. Some really need to grow up and I will say that it does take time. It also takes a strong willingness to learn that some may not have in them and thats not going to change unfortunately.

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
theGhost_and_theDarkness

Take a biology course. You need it. I do not need to provide proof that it is a man and a woman who are made to love each other that way. It is obvious. Not man-man or woman-woman in the confused way that you see it.

If you have a problem knowing what it is that you choose then that is your problem. It is easy to see what is natural though and what is not.

Your confusion on this issue makes my point. It is not just a natural urge that drives some people to choose homosexuality. You are even trying to make an moral argument that you feel homosexuaity is right. You are choosing to view it that way and making an argument to support your choice. You are defending homosexulity so there is a total element of choice on your part.

Terribly sorry, but I believe you are the one that needs to take a biology course.

Humans are biologically driven when it comes to sex. This drive can and does over ride psychological and social desires. We may have the ability to make certain decisions while choosing a mate, but sexual attraction will ALWAYS be the force behind it. There is such of plethora of tiny factors which attract us to certain people that we are never consciously aware of. We can CHOOSE who we are with, but we CAN'T choose who we are attracted to. Our bodies sort of do that for us. We can try to figure out why our species (as well as others) has evolved to include attraction that does not relate to pro-creation, but we can only speculate on that matter. Perhaps since our species has reached a point where it has over-populated, attraction has found a different niche. No one can really say.

Some of our closest relatives in the animal world exhibit homosexual behavior, which seems to point to it not being a novel human tendency, but something more. Its apparently NOT something unnatural, seeing as though it occurs else where in nature, and it's apparently NOT a choice. . .seeing as though these creatures operate on a more instinctive scale, its hard to imagine them thinking "Hmm. . .I choose to be a homosexual!"

To put it in really simple terms. . . You can examine who you are attracted to. What kind of person, what qualities they have, etc. Now, imagine having to be with someone you aren't attracted to. That's how a homosexual person would feel having to be with someone of the opposite sex.

One of my best friends is gay, and he told me over and over again how hard it was growing up. He had a perfectly normal childhood, his parents are wonderful, etc. Even when he was too young to understand it, he always preferred the company of girls, he always felt better around them. When he got to be a teenager (the time when our biological clock starts urging us towards sex) he found he was attracted to men. And that put him through no end of self-torture because he was different and he didn't like being different. But, no matter how hard he tried to be attracted to girls, like he thought he should be, he could not do it. His body just would not respond to them. And that's something that people can't help. Its also a story that you will find many homosexual men and women telling. Blaming them for being attracted to the people they are is no better than me blaming you for who you are attracted to. Its a point that can not be rationalized or defended no matter how hard you try.

Two consenting adults is just that, two consenting adults. You can not infringe upon their personal freedoms any more than they can yours. Gay marriage is something that will never infringe upon your freedom, no matter what crazy theory you can come up with. . .but you, and people like you, that want to deny them the right to get married ARE keeping them from having their freedom, and that is quite un-American.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Your confusion on this issue makes my point. It is not just a natural urge that drives some people to choose homosexuality. You are even trying to make an moral argument that you feel homosexuaity is right. You are choosing to view it that way and making an argument to support your choice. You are defending homosexulity so there is a total element of choice on your part.

Agreed. People who make choices will defend those choices by saying that what they are doing is Normal and Safe. My Sister-In-Law used to go on and on about how drinking two sixpacks of beer in an hour and then going driving looking for more was Normal and Safe. It was not her fault when things went bad, she had not choice, it was Normal. Who are we to judge her? She would often say. Well, the fact is that everyone can judge everyone.

I judge homosexuals as not biologically Normal, because their actions do not provide a biological advantage, ie no children. Same with alternate sexual practices with straight people. These are not biologically Normal, as they provide not advantage. I'm not saying that Gays are Evil. I'm saying that aside from adoption, or medical assistance, they can not have children and thus are not helping continue the human species, which according to some is the reason behind society, governments and laws.

You have to show that homosexuality is inherently detrimental, since you cannot do that you have attempted to equate "unnatural" with wrong or bad a notion that of course fails to hold up.

Who says homosexuality has to be Wrong to be treated as a choice rather then a protected Group? If it is a choice it should require no protection. If it is Genetic, then these people need to be recorded as having an abnormal sexual condition and given the rights that they want. But, to call it marriage I think is not going to happen. To many zealots in the world today, even in the USA.

What would constitute detrimental data? Would a lack of children be considered detrimental? Would increased health issues be considered detrimental? Would increased social and political problems be considered detrimental?

I can, and do, treat a Muslim (or Hindu, or Jewish, or Black, or Asian, or female, or handycapped) coworker the same as anyone else, and yet I believe I would fight him wanting to force his values on me. Expecially if it was done by way of a Federal Judge mandating from the Bench.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoIverine

"Ny votes against...... Gay marriage"

I can only respond with this...

Simpsons_nelson_haha.jpg

Edited by SpiderCyde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

Agreed. People who make choices will defend those choices by saying that what they are doing is Normal and Safe. My Sister-In-Law used to go on and on about how drinking two sixpacks of beer in an hour and then going driving looking for more was Normal and Safe. It was not her fault when things went bad, she had not choice, it was Normal. Who are we to judge her? She would often say. Well, the fact is that everyone can judge everyone.

Agreed, people will indeed defend their choices rationalizing how they are normal, good, or justified from serial murderer to a overweight person who gives excuses to his diet. It also expands to those take a stance or make an allegiance, obvious examples being UM's own Politics and Religion boards were polar opposites debate eachother and even when they are clearly wrong will support their stance even to the degree of hypocrisy. Parents will also rationalize the bad deeds of their children, spouses rationalizing cheating....tons of instances and examples to choose from but in short rarely does a human intentionally knowing do something bad/wrong for the sake of doing something bad/wrong...even Hitler thought he was saving and progressing the world.

However I'm not sure how that applies to this current discussion. Homosexuality has yet to be shown to be inherently bad, you would have to show a negative or detrimental consequence of the homosexual orientation in general. So what bad deeds are homosexuals rationalizing and trying to justify?

I judge homosexuals as not biologically Normal, because their actions do not provide a biological advantage, ie no children. Same with alternate sexual practices with straight people. These are not biologically Normal, as they provide not advantage. I'm not saying that Gays are Evil. I'm saying that aside from adoption, or medical assistance, they can not have children and thus are not helping continue the human species, which according to some is the reason behind society, governments and laws.

Depending on how you define 'normal' I may agree. Normal can be defined as whatever the majority of average people are and homosexualities being a small minority would not be 'normal'. However a homosexual engaging homosexual activity and relationships is behaving normally, a gay guy trying to be straight would not be normal...as he would not be acting normally, going against what is native or normal for him...in short a straight guy partaking in homosexual actions is not normal but homosexual partaking homosexual actions is.

I understand your viewpoint but I do not see how it can be used to support anything as very nature of the "it's unnatural" line is hypocritical as their are numerous instances in human biology that do not serve an evolutionary purpose, plenty of human behavior the same, and nearly all of human achievement is 'unnatural' ...ie "man wasn't designed to be with another man" but then again metal wasn't intended to be ripped from the earth to make your automobile either(and cars can actually be shown to cause harm)

Who says homosexuality has to be Wrong to be treated as a choice rather then a protected Group? If it is a choice it should require no protection. If it is Genetic, then these people need to be recorded as having an abnormal sexual condition and given the rights that they want. But, to call it marriage I think is not going to happen. To many zealots in the world today, even in the USA.

Whether it is choice or genetics, natural or unnatural is actually pretty irrelevant here...religion is also choice but religious people are awarded all the same rights as every other citizen, it can also be argued that religious belief is a mental delusion(it is pretty much talking to imaginary friends) but because Religion and religious people aren't inherently bad or detrimental or cause any general negative consequences they are accepted(being the majority and hence classifying as normal also helps).

The zealots have no logical case, the definition of marriage has changed throughout history to reflect the times. Modern marriage has little in common with Biblical marriage for example. Also considering that America prides itself on equality and freedom the very idea that Gay marriage is still an issue is a bit embarassing. The zeolots have no case but I fear you are right...people being people do not need logic or reason to do something emotions and impulses always supercede.

What would constitute detrimental data? Would a lack of children be considered detrimental? Would increased health issues be considered detrimental? Would increased social and political problems be considered detrimental?

Lack of children, no unless you also want to shun single people, couples who choose not to reproduce, those who die before they reproduce, and those who are infertile. Neither Law nor society demands that we reproduce. Considering overpopulation there is little argument to justify homosexuals as being detrimental do to not reproducing. Also homosexuals CAN have children!

Increased health problems, maybe but only if you could determine that the source of those problems is rooted with the homosexual orientation. I'm assuming your referring to higher rates of STDS. This may be attributed to lack of safe sex practices because of the idea that because they can't get pregnant mine as well forgo the condom. Even so African Americans as well as teenagers also have an alarming high rate of getting STDs surely you do not suggest we lowere their social or legal standings? If you are refering health problems as in mental health and suicide rates this can be attributed to well...living in a world that hates you, having no homosexual targeted education to help curb sexual confusion, and yeah people hate you. Again by the same logic we would have to shun those who have clinical depression or not allow people with ADHD to get married.

Political and Social problems? Not sure what the basis for that is you'll have to explain...however I'm sure whatever you bring forth can be compared to another group that has bad statistics...say Hispanics being more prone to be criminals, but of course they can get married and are not socially shunned.

I can, and do, treat a Muslim (or Hindu, or Jewish, or Black, or Asian, or female, or handycapped) coworker the same as anyone else, and yet I believe I would fight him wanting to force his values on me. Expecially if it was done by way of a Federal Judge mandating from the Bench.

Nobody is forcing values on you, it's not like there is an agenda to turn you gay. Your life does not change in the slightest bit if homosexuals are allowed to marry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Lack of children, no unless you also want to shun single people, couples who choose not to reproduce, those who die before they reproduce, and those who are infertile. Neither Law nor society demands that we reproduce. Considering overpopulation there is little argument to justify homosexuals as being detrimental do to not reproducing. Also homosexuals CAN have children!

Increased health problems, maybe but only if you could determine that the source of those problems is rooted with the homosexual orientation. I'm assuming your referring to higher rates of STDS. This may be attributed to lack of safe sex practices because of the idea that because they can't get pregnant mine as well forgo the condom. Even so African Americans as well as teenagers also have an alarming high rate of getting STDs surely you do not suggest we lowere their social or legal standings? If you are refering health problems as in mental health and suicide rates this can be attributed to well...living in a world that hates you, having no homosexual targeted education to help curb sexual confusion, and yeah people hate you. Again by the same logic we would have to shun those who have clinical depression or not allow people with ADHD to get married.

Political and Social problems? Not sure what the basis for that is you'll have to explain...however I'm sure whatever you bring forth can be compared to another group that has bad statistics...say Hispanics being more prone to be criminals, but of course they can get married and are not socially shunned.

Nobody is forcing values on you, it's not like there is an agenda to turn you gay. Your life does not change in the slightest bit if homosexuals are allowed to marry.

I was just fishing for what might constitute a detrimental characteristic. I did not mean for those three examples to be all there is, but wished to see if there were any other examples (of detrimental characteristics) that might be given. For example, if all gays ran around burning down structures that would be detrimental. But, of course they do not, so I am wondering what characteristics we might be talking about?

As for forcing values... I beleive it is being forced on us. Adding Gays to other protected statuses, like sex, race, religon, nationality, language, ect., forces one to behave differently. If I am Forced to accept Gay Marriage, as opposed to waiting for it to be publically accepted, then I am forced to act differently for that group. This may not be a bad idea, as gays do need protections, but it is being Forced.

And by the way, I am just discussing here. I'm not against gay rights. I am only pointing out that it is not likely to happen in modern America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

i can't believe that we still on this subject. i also can't believe that you guys haven't seen everything else people are now marring. this is as i said it would be a cheapening of marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverCougar

Divourse, spousal abuse, and infidelity(cheating) has already cheapened the "sanctedy" of marrage. Even though marrage was just a property contract way back when. There was no sanctedy, never was. People just want to scream it now so they have have a warm fuzzy when they sleep at night to tell themselves that their bigotry and hatred are justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

I was just fishing for what might constitute a detrimental characteristic. I did not mean for those three examples to be all there is, but wished to see if there were any other examples (of detrimental characteristics) that might be given. For example, if all gays ran around burning down structures that would be detrimental. But, of course they do not, so I am wondering what characteristics we might be talking about?

For more or less, anything that shows that homosexuality directly causes a harm. I can't think of any conclusive examples, the ones you gave and I expanded upon are among the most common given.

As for forcing values... I beleive it is being forced on us. Adding Gays to other protected statuses, like sex, race, religon, nationality, language, ect., forces one to behave differently. If I am Forced to accept Gay Marriage, as opposed to waiting for it to be publically accepted, then I am forced to act differently for that group. This may not be a bad idea, as gays do need protections, but it is being Forced.

This is a bit tricky, given the form of our government we would want a democratic process through vote but when does it simply become mob rule?

You use the word 'value' which is common in these discussions but what place does it have here? Homosexuality isn't a 'value'. If anything is being forced it is the value of equality the same logic used to support any minority group.

In what way does it make you act differently? Gay Marriage only being a slight change in legal definition, not effecting anybody's life but those of homosexuals. Having our society evolve to a point where it no longer condones homophobia and rids itself of shunning homosexuals also doesn't effect how you act(unless your a gay basher or something and this change would make you look bad, but thats not you).

Speaking of "force"(im assuming you dont mean literally but more as in heavily influenced through media or politics or something) I would have to disagree, if that were true there would be progress but as we see the vote is always tallied against. Even so how 'socially acceptable' was freed african americans or voting women? How 'acceptable' are atheists, muslims, pagans, mexican immigrants, those goth/emos that nobody likes, etc, etc.

LGBT's represent between 5-10% of the population, that is a large number wed cannot simply ignore it. By contrast only 4% are non christian religious, 15% non-religious, 5% rich, working poor 15%, seniors 13%, Native American less then 1%, African American 13%, Hispanic 15%, all other non-white 10%.....number of people who discuss aliens and bigfoot on the internet?:P

In terms of the law something doesn't have to be socially acceptable to be legal and just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to agree with it. Many people disagree with homosexuality based on religious belief however they understand the reason why it should not be illegal. Like I hate American Idol but I wouldn't ban it because I believe people have the right to do what they do.

And by the way, I am just discussing here. I'm not against gay rights. I am only pointing out that it is not likely to happen in modern America.

Sadly I think I would have to agree. I mean come on California and New York can't pass Gay Marriage? Two progressive and liberal states with a relatively high homosexual population?

We are looking at a decade or two of progress yet. Data shows that older people are more likely to be against homosexuality while younger people more likely not to be. So in theory, when the generations change so will this issue. The slow but steady decline of organized religion could also be a factor as well as more and more other nations changing their marriage laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

i can't believe that we still on this subject. i also can't believe that you guys haven't seen everything else people are now marring. this is as i said it would be a cheapening of marriage.

How?

Like as in OMGZ a boy likes another boy...GASP!

What other people do effects your marriage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Even though marrage was just a property contract way back when. There was no sanctedy, never was.

There has never been gay marriage, "never was". Your point prooves nothing. Current cultural belief is current cultural belief.

You use the word 'value' which is common in these discussions but what place does it have here? Homosexuality isn't a 'value'. If anything is being forced it is the value of equality the same logic used to support any minority group.

I'm not refering to gays making me do anything. It would be the Law making me act some way. What I am on about is having that Law created, not by a vote, or representation, or even public pressure, but by Lower Judicial rulings. Judges are to interpret the law not enforce it. Legislation from the Bench is a bad practice, whatever case is being heard.

Even so how 'socially acceptable' was freed african americans or voting women? How 'acceptable' are atheists, muslims, pagans, mexican immigrants, those goth/emos that nobody likes, etc, etc.

One problem, I think, is that you can look at a woman, or a black, or an asian, or an elderly person and SEE they are different, but how can you determine homosexuality? Give a test? Signed affadavits? How is the government to know who they are giving rights to? I suppose the same can be done for religons, but I can not think of a parallel need for rights there.

LGBT's represent between 5-10% of the population, that is a large number wed cannot simply ignore it. By contrast only 4% are non christian religious, 15% non-religious, 5% rich, working poor 15%, seniors 13%, Native American less then 1%, African American 13%, Hispanic 15%, all other non-white 10%.....number of people who discuss aliens and bigfoot on the internet?:P

Bigfoot... bigfoot? Never heard of 'em. ;) I don't know anyone who posts about Bigfoot.... ^_^

I'm not entirely sold on the 5 to 10 percent estimate. I know a lot of people who live in thickly populated areas say they think it is true, but then again a lot of people live outside these areas. And, it is well known that homosexuals generally will move to where they are more accepted and so will congregate in urban environments. The number is certainly significant, but the actual number is up for much debate.

In terms of the law something doesn't have to be socially acceptable to be legal and just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to agree with it. Many people disagree with homosexuality based on religious belief however they understand the reason why it should not be illegal. Like I hate American Idol but I wouldn't ban it because I believe people have the right to do what they do.

Agreed.

Sadly I think I would have to agree. I mean come on California and New York can't pass Gay Marriage? Two progressive and liberal states with a relatively high homosexual population?

We are looking at a decade or two of progress yet. Data shows that older people are more likely to be against homosexuality while younger people more likely not to be. So in theory, when the generations change so will this issue. The slow but steady decline of organized religion could also be a factor as well as more and more other nations changing their marriage laws.

That is what I think too. Give it a couple decades and no one will raise an eyebrow. Religon (Christianity anyway) I believe is generally on the decline too, so that angle will dry up eventually too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

There has never been gay marriage, "never was". Your point prooves nothing. Current cultural belief is current cultural belief.

There is gay marriage just not here, just about every other westernized nation in the world has progressed better in this issue.

What he was just trying to say is that the definition and role of marriage has changed drastically throughout the years. noting that those who argue "tradition" are being hypocritical(especially when citing religion) and that argument or tactic is pretty much void. The 'Sanctity of Marriage' position is silly considering how much marriage has always changed and especially in light of statistics.

From one man 20 bought wives for business to modern one man one woman for love and commitment....to modern/future two people for love and commitment

I'm not refering to gays making me do anything. It would be the Law making me act some way. What I am on about is having that Law created, not by a vote, or representation, or even public pressure, but by Lower Judicial rulings. Judges are to interpret the law not enforce it. Legislation from the Bench is a bad practice, whatever case is being heard.

The Law wouldn't be making you do anything, I'm not sure how your getting that idea. The Law will never force anybody to personally accept or like homosexuals. If Gay Marriage existed I don't see how actions or life would change.

One problem, I think, is that you can look at a woman, or a black, or an asian, or an elderly person and SEE they are different, but how can you determine homosexuality? Give a test? Signed affadavits? How is the government to know who they are giving rights to? I suppose the same can be done for religons, but I can not think of a parallel need for rights there.

Gaydar? :P

The government would know your gay when you show up to get your marriage license with another dude. What rights are you referring to?

Bigfoot... bigfoot? Never heard of 'em. ;) I don't know anyone who posts about Bigfoot.... ^_^

Somebody is in the paranormal closet! :P

I'm not entirely sold on the 5 to 10 percent estimate. I know a lot of people who live in thickly populated areas say they think it is true, but then again a lot of people live outside these areas. And, it is well known that homosexuals generally will move to where they are more accepted and so will congregate in urban environments. The number is certainly significant, but the actual number is up for much debate.

That 5-10% includes any orientation that isn't straight so it includes not only homosexuals but bisexuals as well.I agree it is very much debateable, you will get totally different numbers depending on your source. The population of homosexuals also varies drastically by location.

Determining a statistic is difficult because people may not be willing to admit or announce that they are gay or are in the closet or in other wise in denial.

I say 5-10% because 5% is the average of what my sources said and I push it to a possible 10% to include those who are in the closet, in denial, or are not willing to admit it to others.

That is what I think too. Give it a couple decades and no one will raise an eyebrow. Religon (Christianity anyway) I believe is generally on the decline too, so that angle will dry up eventually too.

That is what I think too. Give it a couple decades and no one will raise an eyebrow. Religon (Christianity anyway) I believe is generally on the decline too, so that angle will dry up eventually too.

Christianity itself isn't the problem, it's organized religion and churches. The Bible itself gives very little(if any) to support homophobia.

However I must stress that Religion is just an excuse to be against homosexuality. The core of the problem lies in human nature...to fear and reject that which we do not understand and that which is different(an old survival mechanism). Which makes the core of the issue more akin to something like racism then religious prejudice.

Also another core issue lies in the ego and insecurities of straight males. Represented on the internet, Xbox, and highschool with 'gay' being not only a slur word or an insult but being synonymous with 'lame'("that movie was gay"). The modern change of gender roles also brings tension with homosexuality...because women are now allowed to do everything that was once only for men...boys/men have to further pronounce their "manliness" and there is no better way to show your straight and manly then hating on homosexuality.

Edited by Cadetak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.