quote:These unions have no positive contribution to society.
Unsupported bullshit, dude. A committed gay couple can add anything and everything good to a society that a straight couple can, with the only exception being adding their own biological offspring to the population. Tell me what a gay couple cannot provide besides this? (Don't repeat the "role model" bullshit, either. That just begs the question by assuming heterosexuality inherently makes a couple better role models, a claim that is so obviously false it's laughable.) A gay couple can jointly own property and improve it. They can be a support to their joint extended families. They can provide comfort and support to one another, which, believe it or not does benefit society as well. I know several straight couples who are very grateful their gay loved one is in a committed and stable relationship. Not only are their loved ones happier with themselves, but in many cases the children of the straight couple now have two uncles who love them, instead of just one. And as often as not, these uncles, being free of offspring of their own, are able to provide additional attention and support to neices and nephews.
quote: I do not try to force others to sin with me, I do not make my sin into a lifestyle,
And neither do I, believe it or not. Sidestepping your assumption that my behavior is 'sin', I have never forced anyone to engage in homosexual conduct. I've never even promoted homosexuality except insomuch as I have tried to promote an understanding of homosexuals as people on this forum. And homosexuality is not my "lifestyle". My lifestyle is that of a 30-something computer professional in a 5 day/week, "9 to 5" type job. I own a home in a borderline-but-upwardly-changing neighborhood (upwardly changing, mind you, largely because of the homosexuals who live there). I have two cats that I have rescued from abandonment. I have the nicest, prettiest yard on my block. I am politically active and financially stable. The fact that I engage in homosexual conduct is only a very tiny facet of my "lifestyle". It does not define it. Are you defined by what you do in bed?
quote: The human genitalia is suited best to heterosexual sexual contact.
And you know this from experience? Or are you just assuming that because you only know one way to make love the rest of us are equally aesthetically challenged in bed? Trust me, I know of many, many types of contact to which my genitalia are perfectly well suited, and none of them involves a vagina. (Note: I'm not knocking heterosexual tastes here. To each his own.)
quote: And what about AIDS?
Well, here you shoot your own hypothesis in the foot. It is impossible (yes, impossible) for aids to be introduced sexually into a monogamous homosexual relationship. And far from your uneducated fears about AIDS being a point against recognizing and encouraging stable relationships between homosexuals, it is actually a point in their favor. I would think anyone with a gay friend or family member would welcome the decreased likelihood of contracting disease that a stable monogamous relationship would provide.
The fact is, the idea of officially recognized gay unions is becomming more acceptable in society. I believe gay unions are an inevitability as more and more people realize that the only reasons to prevent them are based on ideas of forcing society to conform to a narrow set of personal religious values. This discussion, thus far, has certainly provided nothing but "God says so" arguements against them.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe some people still think of HIV as the "gay disease." That is insane. They listened to the likes of Reagan and Bush Sr. too much.
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
From the standpoint of Christianity, Ryan, ignorance is not a sin, but it often leads people into sin (or rather sets the stage for it). I would think that someone who has strong opinions on a subject from a religious standpoint would be especially careful to become educated on that subject in the hope of avoiding a situation in which they sin through ignorance.
From the standpoint of debate, there's a different reason for you to get more information. Much of what you said, but especially your statement about AIDS, shows that you aren't really knowledgable on this subject and therefore are easily dismissed as just someone who has prejudged the situation.
On the other hand, if you'd just care to state your unsupported biases, I think it would be more intellectually honest if you simply acknowledged them as your biases.
But that's just me.
I have a bias against people who don't own up to (and thus appear unaware of) their prejudgements.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This discussion, thus far, has certainly provided nothing but "God says so" arguements against them.
As opposed to the 'I say so' arguments generally put forward by the opposing side?
Studies on the issue of how homosexual unions affect society are generally SO biased (from either POV) as to hurt one's teeth. Anectdotal evidence is used by both parties simply because REAL data can't be gathered in any efficient, objective, way. The phenomena of homosexuality isn't even OLD enough in American society to be able to have been studied.
_____________
After the Supreme Court struck down the Texas sodomy law, polls (and we know how reliable THOSE are) showed a big swing against homosexual unions. . . which was to me, very interesting.
Since I don't really trust polls, though, I was only very interested for a moment.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I stopped paying attention to polls after the 2000 election results in FL. I didn't care much for them prior to that, though.
At any rate, if there is a backlash arising from the Supreme Court decision, I doubt it will be very long lived. Sodomy laws are something that most people are aware of in the abstract as they never affect their daily lives (they hope!). The homosexual marriage issue is completely divorced from sodomy laws most of the time. Nobody considers that if you allow gay marriage, but make illegal the various sex acts that the newly married couples will engage in, that you are being inconsistent.
And the sodomy laws always feel like ancient history when people hear about them.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: As opposed to the 'I say so' arguments generally put forward by the opposing side?
Well, if you are trying to restrict my freedom, I think the onus is on you to come up with the arguements justifying the restriction. And to be fair, the only valid responses to "God says so" are "No he doesn't", "So what?", and "Stop trying to cram your religion down my throat".
It is the anti-gay marriage side that has the burden of proof.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amen brother. I thought we'd covered that point pages ago.
The "leave it alone" or "wait until we have more information" crowd are simply failing to realize that real people are hurt by the current restrictions and they shouldn't have to have fewer rights than every other citizen just because of some definable difference.
It's exactly analogous to restrictions on marriages between the different races. And we got past that foolishness, so why not this foolishness?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I think it's a shame that Ryan showed up when he did, and clearly didn't bother to read the rest of the thread; everyone said everything better the first time around.
Ryan, for effective rebuttals of your entire argument, please read the first ten pages of this thread. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If this has been addressed in the first 10 pages, please feel free to throw rotten fruit and tell me to go back and read them.
I keep seeing this idea that a marrage which can produce no offspring is harmful to society. Um, I have to take that rather personally. My husband and I have no intention of having oducing children. Should we also be stripped of the right to our union?
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No-- because homosexuals are the ones trying to change the law, the onus (just one little vowel, one itsy-bitsy vowel . . . and I could make a hilarious joke here) is on them.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, ScottR, they (and many others who are not homosexual) are trying to change the law only to get it to line up with our over-arching law -- the US Constitution.
Basically, if you deny equal rights to any segment of society, you (the group that wants to keep it that way) has the onerous task of constantly reaffirming that you do not abide by the laws we all were born under as Americans, or more broadly as citizens of the world endowed with certain inalienable rights (okay, that's from the US Declaration of Independence). But the point is as follows:
The challenge is to those who believe that the current laws should stay on the books because they must somehow come up with ways to align those frankly discriminatory and backward laws with the Constitution that overarches everything.
And here's the other problem I have with your statement. Very few, if any, states have a law defining marriage in a way that legally excludes homosexual unions. What there is barring it is long practice and the state saying that as a matter of policy they will not sanction such unions.
Now we have a legal quandry. Existing laws don't bar it, but by practice we don't allow it. Clearly some new laws are needed no matter which direction we go in. The status quo is already dead or dying, if you think about it. Either the issue will be settled with states defining marriage less broadly or more broadly, but it will get settled.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Scott, you have got that completely WRONG. The anti-gay marriage crowd is the only crowd seeking to change any laws. Gay marriage could have occurred and been integrated cleanly into society if it weren't for all the "sky is falling" christian groups working tirelessly to CHANGE THE LAWS to prohibit gay marriages and to create a legal definition of marriage to exclude homosexuals where no such definition existed previously.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, these groups have added laws in states and at the federal level which try to preempt the acceptance of gay marriages if other states decide to grant the right. Clearly all the law changing that has been going on has been on the anti-gay side. So again, the onus is on them.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Clearly some new laws are needed no matter which direction we go in.
Perhaps now, but until very recently all it needed was a court decision stating that the gay couples who were petitioning to be recognized within existing laws had that right. This was the case in Hawaii. A couple there was actually able to obtain a marriage license. It was "suspended" pending a court decision. It won in the lower courts, but thanks largely to a massive campaign by the LDS church and other christian groups, it lost in the state supreme court.
Recognizing this narrow defeat, these groups began massive efforts in other states to get laws on the books defining marriage and declaring that even if another state comes to allow gay marriages, their state didn't have to recognize them. These laws are pretty clearly unconstitutional, but since, so far, no state has granted a gay marriage, these laws cannot be challenged in court.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not precisely, and lawyers get very rich in just such precision. If it was against the law, there would be no need for further laws banning it or refusing to recognize it. Clearly such is not the case.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You either can't read or just are being obtuse now. The fact that the law is SILENT on the issue means that new laws will now have to be crafted.
Long standing tradition is not law.
It may be that the tradition becomes law, by being written down, voted on by representatives or added to the state/federal Constitution through referendum. But until that happens (and his has NOT in most states, or no-one would be pressing for stupid laws defining marriage as "between one man and one woman" now would they?) we have a sort of legal limbo.
As it stands right now, there are no states that allow homosexual couples to marry, but that's not written down in their laws. If a state actually passed a law defining marriage so that homosexuals could get married, it would be a clarification, not a new law. Just as a law stating that marriage is between one man and one woman would be a clarification.
Either way, a new law would be crafted to deal with the situation.
So the issue you raised is moot.
The higher issue -- what is right according to our founding principles -- seems to me to be the one that places the onus on the anti-gay-marriage crowd. You all have to figure out why it is right to deny ANY segment of the population rights and privileges that we granto ANY OTHER segement of the population.
I don't think you can do it. But maybe you've got some good argument out there I haven't heard yet.
I just love the way you can take one sentence from paragraphs of rebuttal and throw out a dismissive quip and a shrug.
I think this offends me more than some of the more blantant bigotted rhetoric that has been thrown around on the thread so far. At any rate, it underscores why so many people believe discussions of this nature are futile. You take the time to form a coherent arguement and it's just dismissed with a joke or a shrug. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I think the different stances are arguing under different skies.
If someone is basing their belief on what God says, there is no earthly wisdom that will trump that. Hence the flippancy - your opinion isn't going to beat God's - no matter how well-crafted. If someone keeps trying, it's like watching someone trying to outrace a car. "Nice form, and you improved your time. Still didn't outrace the car, though."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, believe me, I can deal with the "God says so" arguements. I can even accept them. I just don't think they should be made into law. However this has nothing to do with Scott's recent posts. We were talking specifically about the changing of laws in the US legal system (i.e. who is doing the law changing). So in this case, I don't buy the "different skies" defense of what is basically a patronizing dismissal.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I know why he's doing it for the exact same reason why I was doing it (except he knows he's talking to someone who's going to take it personally, and I didn't ). There is simply no way to set that completely aside. We stop discussing the "God says so" part because there's really no place to go with that, but discussing a separate aspect doesn't mean that the underlying "God says so" thing disappears.
We keep discussing because we're Hatrackers, and this is a place that we can discuss it.
I mean, you are asking/arguing for him to countenance something that he profoundly disagrees with, and the response is to either get upset, go silent, or go flippant.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*grin* The important thing is to know what you're doing, and who to trust.
If it's true, if it is really true, if this really is the word of God, if there really is a plan of salvation, if there really is a loving, all-wise being who has given us guidelines for our complete, eternal happiness, and if this life is really a testing ground - a period of utter suckiness punctuated with glimpses of joy - then that is worth everything.
It is worth absolutely everything. There no temorary pleasure here that is worth giving up eternity for.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I mean, you are asking/arguing for him to countenance something that he profoundly disagrees with, and the response is to either get upset, go silent, or go flippant.
Actually, no I'm not. My last few posts have been asking only to have my arguements treated with the same respect as I have given his arguements. I have tried very hard in this thread to not be dismissive of any arguement no matter how personally offensive I have found the rhetoric in which it was couched. Clearly it's too much to expect the same level of courtesy in return.
For me too, if you can believe that. I joined Hatrack after my mission, so y'all have just known AfterKatie. You didn't know BeforeKatie. I know its a big "if". It's big both ways, though.
quote: It is worth absolutely everything. There no temorary pleasure here that is worth giving up eternity for.
Unfortunately, there are all too many religious types who are also willing to give up the freedoms and pleasures of other people, with a "trust me, you'll see it's worth it" attitude. Sacrifice is just fine when you're slaughtering your own cows. Just stay the heck out of my barn.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat: That's okay. I'm just glad I got read it. I didn't feel patronized.
Kat.understanding++;
(That's C++ for 'I understand you better now.')
The Three Pillars of Zen is a fantastic book by Philip Kapleau, one of the first Westerners to be ordained as a Zen teacher (a roshi). He trained under a famous Japanese roshi, and his book is mostly transcripts of sessions between his teacher and other Western students. He would sit in on the sessions (called dokusan) and remember all that was said as best he could, then write it down afterwards. There are even accounts of enlightenment experiences; I'm just about to start in on those. There are also all sorts of other goodies; letters written by Zen masters centuries ago, various pieces of verse and art, and other interesting things.
Basically, it's a fantastic source of information about Zen that has not been tainted by the Western popular Zen movement because it preceded that movement. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Well, now I'm concerned because you appear to have misunderstood me to have said "Shut up" in some way. When I say "Stay out of my barn" I don't mean "Don't engage me in dialog" or even "Don't try to persuade me". What I mean is "don't curtail my freedoms with the promise of some future reward that I don't believe in."
posted
Kat: Just so you don't think I'm some sort of 'new age' trendy Zen nutjob, Zen is actually the fourth religion that I've spent time reading about and studying. Before it I learned a fair bit about each of the three major monotheistic religions. I think, though, that after Zen my curiosity about various religions will probably be satisfied. Zen is definitely the most compelling of the religions I've learned about, but like all other religions, you must start from a basis of faith. In the monotheistic religions, that faith obviously must be in God (which is where I invariably run into trouble, because I just can't find that faith in myself). In Zen it can be one of several things, most notably faith that you can attain enlightenment, or (and this is really syonymous) faith that there is only Mind.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everyone will be pleased to hear that this is my FINAL POST about homosexuality.
The bottom line is, I do think that homosexuals can be good people. I do think that they may actually love each other. However my religion says that it is wrong, and I am going to believe it. I don't want to damn those people to hell, but I do wish they would change their ways. I also wish that they would not try to impose their lifestyle on unconsenting communities, like North Carolina.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl: I know you don't mean to shut me up. I just think that I need to sit this debate out, and leave it to others to say the things I'd agree with.
twink: Oh don't worry - I think you're crazy, but not because of your book recommendations. And thanks for the recommend - different religions are fascinating to me.
Also... I think "Kat.understanding++;" is one of the coolest things I've ever heard.
posted
I'd love to sit this one out. I just want to through one comment out, that may or may not have been said in the first 500 posts.
homosexuals aren't trying to impose their lifestyle on you. Its the reverse. You are trying to force your lifestyle on them.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Okay-- Karl and Bob are right. No written laws explicitely state that marriage is solely between a man and woman.
This does not mean that the burden of proof is on society to prove homosexuality is wrong. And because the large part of American people believe it IS bad for society, the state can rightly act in the interest of its general populace against homosexual unions.
In other words, the state is acting lawfully until the weight of opinion, fact, etc, move cultural opinions in the opposite direction.
In my opinion, anyway.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahhh. So by that argument, the majority of the population can believe rape isn't immoral, and the laws against rape could be taken off the books...
Or the majority of people could believe that its ok to discriminate against black people in the hiring process, and those laws could be taken off the books...
Or the majority of people could believe that its ok to require that women have 2 or more children, and we could create laws like that...
This is your argument, correct? Because, frankly, I don't really see the difference between your comment, and requiring women to stay at home and raise children.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: This does not mean that the burden of proof is on society to prove homosexuality is wrong. And because the large part of American people believe it IS bad for society, the state can rightly act in the interest of its general populace against homosexual unions.
Scott, forgive if I swap a couple of your sentences, making your quote read as follows:
"Because the large part of American people believe it IS bad for society, the state can rightly act in the interest of its general populace against homosexual unions. This does not mean that the burden of proof is on society to prove homosexuality is wrong. "
Phrased like this, I think it might be clearer why I disagree with you. While it may be perfectly legal for the state to act this way, I think it is morally imperative that the state take the higher road sometimes and require that proof of danger or damage be shown before the rights of one segment of that society be curtailed.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Back in the day, you would declare a variable like so:
int x = 1;
Which declares a variable, named 'x,' of type 'integer,' with value 1. If you wanted to increment x, you would write:
x = x + 1;
Which takes the value of x + 1 and then overwrites the old value of x with the new value. However, incrementing happens a lot in programming, so a shorthand was developed. Now all you have to do is write:
x++;
Which is short for the old 'x = x + 1;'
My understanding is that this is how C++ got its name (incremental improvement on the older C). I think it's one of the wittiest programming language names ever, and gave Microsoft some serious respect for naming their new C-based language C# (or C++++, which does in fact work syntactically).
Now, as to the Kat.understanding part... here's how that works. In this case, you, Kat, are what's called an 'object.' An object is an instance of what's called a 'class.' A class is, essentially, a custom variable type. C didn't have classes, but C++ does, which is why it's called an object-oriented language (because you can make classes and then declare variables using those classes, which are called objects; it's called object-oriented because you do this a whole lot ).
So you, Kat, are an instance of class 'people,' with certain associated parameters. The cool thing about classes is that they encapsulate as many data fields as you like. So while an integer variable can only store one piece of information (a number; more specifically, an integer, of course), objects of a given class can store all sorts of data. These data fields are decided when the class is created. So my 'people' class would have as data members things like 'age,' (a number), 'personality,' (a string, i.e. a sentence or paragraph), 'feelings,' (another string, this would be whether or not I like you ), and so forth. 'understanding' is one of those fields; the way I've used it makes the most sense for it to be a numerical value, so it would be like the degree to which I feel I understand you.
So. Returning to the start:
Kat.understanding++;
means that the degree to which I feel I understand you, an object of class 'person' has been incremented.
Does that make sense?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
I see you called me an object though, and I feel troubled about that. How cant this be justified?
Edit: D'oh, missed the intervening posts.
twinky.hatrackiness++
Seriously, I think using computer programming language to explain someone, then eloquently using words to explain the programming language, has to worth about five thousand Hatrack points.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
). There is simply no way to set that completely aside. We stop discussing the "God says so" part because there's really no place to go with that, but discussing a separate aspect doesn't mean that the underlying "God says so" thing disappears. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I know. That's a pretty big "if".![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
