FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Funniest essay on gay marriage that I've seen.... (Page 4)

  This topic comprises 16 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  14  15  16   
Author Topic: Funniest essay on gay marriage that I've seen....
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
So you are in fact a bisexual who chooses to live as a heterosexual.

You still then are attracted to both sexs.

Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Hmm... isn't it a sliding scale?

The whole concept of Option One, Option Two, or Both is a modern construct. I don't think it's true.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
popatr
Member
Member # 1334

 - posted      Profile for popatr   Email popatr         Edit/Delete Post 
Xavier,
I disagree.

Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
Well then I'm 99.9% on the heterosexual side, and my friend Steve is 99.9% toward the homosexual side.

For us anyway, not one bit of choice was used to select which sex we are attracted to.

Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zgator
Member
Member # 3833

 - posted      Profile for zgator   Email zgator         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There may be some debate on whether it is chemical, genetic, or environmental factors that directs a person's sexual preference, but all agree that concious decision is not one of those factors.
I've always thought using the term "choice" was a bad misnomer. Whether it is genetic, environmental or a combination of factors, I agree that no ones consciouly chooses their sexual preference.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
popatr
Member
Member # 1334

 - posted      Profile for popatr   Email popatr         Edit/Delete Post 
Zgator,
I have to disagree with you, too.

Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jacare Sorridente
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Jacare Sorridente   Email Jacare Sorridente         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Is it a person's choice who they find attractive? Is it a person's choice who they fall in love with.
You treat attraction and love as if they were one and the same. That might be true in hollywood, but I hope it isn't so in real life. I think that in general you don't choose who you are physically attracted to- tall, short, dark, light etc. "there's no accounting for taste". But we most certainly choose whom we fall in love with. The emotional attractiveness of someone, for me at least, is determined almost entirely on a long list of commonalities and differences which are practically all a matter of choice.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry if I misrepresented you, but help me understand pop.

You chose at one point to be a heterosexual. Which means that you were at one time attracted to both men and women.

Now you say that this is no longer the case. Are you saying that you made a decision to no longer be attracted to men, and now you aren't? To me that just doesn't seem possible. Can you really fool your very biological attraction with a conscious decision? Isn't it more likely that you have a psychological block which convinces you that you aren't attracted to them, but that you really are?

Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
Jacare, are you claiming that you could fall in love with a man if you so choose?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
"Is there some way to get independent insight on what is objectively right and wrong? (objectively meaning right and wrong according to God)."

See, I think you're defining "objectively" wrong.

Why?

Because if what YOU mean by "objective" is actually "objective," that means that, in a universe ruled by an evil God -- evil in any way we would recognize, vicious, cruel, and capricious -- we would have no basis on which to judge him. And yet this is clearly not the case.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jacare Sorridente
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Jacare Sorridente   Email Jacare Sorridente         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Jacare, are you claiming that you could fall in love with a man if you so choose?
No. I am claiming that falling in love with someone generally involves at least two steps with the first being physical attraction (which is a culturally biased biological phenomenon) and the second being a completely voluntary interplay of likes and dislikes.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zgator
Member
Member # 3833

 - posted      Profile for zgator   Email zgator         Edit/Delete Post 
popatr, what Xavier said.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jacare Sorridente
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Jacare Sorridente   Email Jacare Sorridente         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Because if what YOU mean by "objective" is actually "objective," that means that, in a universe ruled by an evil God -- evil in any way we would recognize, vicious, cruel, and capricious -- we would have no basis on which to judge him. And yet this is clearly not the case.
Well, you are right, but only because I was defining "objective" as based on the more common Christian understanding of God as the creator of everything including all governing laws. Based on my own theology then you are right- objective truth is more than just what God decides is right. However, also based on my theology is the fact that if God ever chose evil he would cease to be God.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Caleb Varns
Member
Member # 946

 - posted      Profile for Caleb Varns   Email Caleb Varns         Edit/Delete Post 
Jacare, you act as if you were discussing the downfalls of changing anything about marriage INDEPENDENTLY of the homosexual marriage issue, when you were in fact discussing other marital flaws to justify your status quo position towards this issue. But I'll treat it as an acceptable dodging since it doesn't really matter.

<erases horns & beard>

Snarky:

quote:
Yes! Bring on the ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies! Mwahahahaha!
*Ahem*. Mwahaha? There was no ad hominem attack in my post. I truthfully believe that Jacare has no understanding of how much hurt his views and the perpetuation thereof cause the homosexual community, otherwise he would not express them as often and publicly as he does. I know that Jacare is a good person that doesn't intentionally harm others, so I am left with this opinion and no other alternative.

I can only assume that you took my black=criminal thing as a straw man, which is why you accuse me of logical fallacy. My fault for using a touchy subject to touch another touchy subject. In reality I was trying to show that even Jacare would not be comfortable allowing the Bible--much less any other religious text--be the equivalent of our Constitution. The deporting criminals example was a really poor choice on my part.

Another off-the-wall point:

If you truly view homosexuality as an evil blot of humanity, wouldn't it benefit you to let them lead their lives according to their own choices? To quote Eddy Izzard: "Gay people come from straight people". Frankly, the longer homosexuality remains a dark secret in our communities, the more rampant it is likely to become, as gays afraid of conservative persecution will feign heterosexual lives and give birth to even more homosexual children. That's possibly even why this issue has gained us much strength as it has over the last couple decades. As a result of not recognizing homosexuality, our society has created TONS of them, and only now are there enough to cause a significant enough shift in social thought.

Only now it's probably too late for them to be bred out, since we have so many other fertility options available to us these days. Did Jesus shoot himself in the foot, or what? [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jacare Sorridente
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Jacare Sorridente   Email Jacare Sorridente         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, and by the way, I may have stumbled onto an argument against allowing homosexual marriage in my previous post, though the logic is rather circular. Try this out and let me know what you think:

Since physical sexual attraction is clearly conditioned by culture (if you dispute this we can debate it), allowing homosexual marriage and the widespread acceptance of homosexuality is harmful to those who believe that homosexuality is wrong since it will lead to greater societal conditioning for homosexual physical attraction and hence an increase in the ratio of homosexuals.

We can see an example of cultural conditioning of physical attraction in the simple example of models and moviestars that are held up as the standards for attractiveness in society- large breasts, tiny waist, tan skin etc.

What do you think? Might this be a viable argument or no?

Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
The problem, Jacare, is that it IS circular reasoning.

If homosexuality is only wrong because it can lead to a slight increase in the incidence of homosexuality, there's not really anything wrong with it.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kayla
Member
Member # 2403

 - posted      Profile for Kayla   Email Kayla         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah. I don't agree with that. Even bushmen from Africa pick out the same type of faces when chosing beauty. There are studies on what people find beautiful and it's amazingly consistant throughout the world. Gay marriage won't change that. I mean, if people who live in a freaking dessert seeing no one but the rest of the tribe, then how in the world did they come to have the same standard of beauty as the rest of us?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
I'll tell you, Kayla, the damn liberal media is more insidious that we could possibly imagine.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jacare Sorridente
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Jacare Sorridente   Email Jacare Sorridente         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Jacare, you act as if you were discussing the downfalls of changing anything about marriage INDEPENDENTLY of the homosexual marriage issue, when you were in fact discussing other marital flaws to justify your status quo position towards this issue. But I'll treat it as an acceptable dodging since it doesn't really matter.
The reason I acted as if I were discussing it independently is because I was. Jeniwren is the one who used it in conjunction with her position on damaging the institution of marriage.

quote:
I truthfully believe that Jacare has no understanding of how much hurt his views and the perpetuation thereof cause the homosexual community, otherwise he would not express them as often and publicly as he does.
I am truly rather perplexed with this one. You must be referring to my view that homosexuality is a sin, for I can think of no other which I have expressed in a long time which may be considered hurtful. And to be honest I don't know how my position- that homosexuality is a sin- hurts any homosexual, as I don't believe that homosexuality as sin justifies attacking homosexuality or truncation of their rights guaranteed by the constitution. In fact, I know exactly how it is to be in that same position as I know of many people who consider Mormonism a sin and a great blot on the face of religion. That doesn't bother me at all until such people take up arms or other such things to enforce their opinions.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Snarky
Member
Member # 4406

 - posted      Profile for Snarky   Email Snarky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The problem is that you have absolutely no understanding. You have no concept of what it might be like to be outside of your religion. There's no way you could possibly know just how much you demean homosexuals--people, mind you--with every word of your petty justifications.
You don't think this is an ad hominem attack? It has nothing to do with Jacare's position and everything to do with him as a person. That's ad hominem
quote:
But would it be okay if there were a couple Bible versus referring to them as an abomination?

NO, IT STILL WOULD NOT BE OKAY. And you think so too, damnit!

This is what I was referring to with my "logical fallacies" comment. Did Jacare say that he would think this? Or are you making faulty conclusions about him?

[ August 05, 2003, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Snarky ]

Posts: 586 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Caleb Varns
Member
Member # 946

 - posted      Profile for Caleb Varns   Email Caleb Varns         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
What do you think? Might this be a viable argument or no?
Only if you think homosexuality is a choice and you also think that you have the right to limit other people's choices; the same reasoning would allow you to legislate against movies like The Matrix: Reloaded, because there's a rave scene and you don't want your kids to go to or even be exposed to raves, since there are typically drugs involved in a rave. You could also ban Rocky, Rocky II, Rocky III, Rocky IV... heh. You would be left with Big Idea productions at the top of the hollywood food chain.

Of course, you'd have to ban Vegen marriages...

Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jacare Sorridente
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Jacare Sorridente   Email Jacare Sorridente         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If homosexuality is only wrong because it can lead to a slight increase in the incidence of homosexuality, there's not really anything wrong with it.
You phrased it badly, I'm afraid. Try this: if allowing homosexual marriages will lead to a higher ratio of homosexuals then those who believe homosexuality is a sin are right in opposing homosexual marriage (note that I am not stating that this is the case necessarily, I just want to see if the idea makes any sense).

quote:
Yeah. I don't agree with that. Even bushmen from Africa pick out the same type of faces when chosing beauty.
Faces I might believe, barely. But definitely not body. Brazilian men for instance prefer ample hips and small breasts as opposed to... well, we all know what AMerican men prefer. Incas believed that crossed eyes were a sign of beauty. They would hang ornaments from locks of their babies hair to coax them into being crosseyed.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Ah. Sorry. Phrased that way, I agree with you COMPLETELY. (I even said so, earlier in this thread.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Caleb Varns
Member
Member # 946

 - posted      Profile for Caleb Varns   Email Caleb Varns         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
That doesn't bother me at all until such people take up arms or other such things to enforce their opinions.
Oh. You mean, like, if someone ever tried to ban Mormon marriages, you would find that hurtful?

It's not your view of homosexuality as sin that hurts their community directly. It's your view on how they are to be treated in comparison to everyone else.

Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BannaOj
Member
Member # 3206

 - posted      Profile for BannaOj   Email BannaOj         Edit/Delete Post 
no one has commented on my idea where, they just legalize gay marriage and then let it drop off the media's radar screen, because there isn't controversy anymore. This would reduce the visiblity of the gay movement as well as their power to sway public opinion.

eh?

AJ

Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Caleb Varns
Member
Member # 946

 - posted      Profile for Caleb Varns   Email Caleb Varns         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Did Jacare say that he would think this? Or are you making faulty conclusions about him?
[Confused] :

quote:
And you think so too, damnit!
Of course he doesn't think that. OBVIOUSLY he doesn't think that. That's WHY I pointed it out. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
You don't think this is an ad hominem attack? It has nothing to do with Jacare's position and everything to do with him as a person. That's ad hominem
I was trying to make the point that Jacare-as-a-person has everything to do with Jacare-as-an-argument. In that sense I suppose it is necessarily "ad hominem", but I reject the notion that it was an attack. I'm explaining my frustration at his hurtful position because it's obvious that he doesn't understand how hurtful it is.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
popatr
Member
Member # 1334

 - posted      Profile for popatr   Email popatr         Edit/Delete Post 
Xavier,

At one distressing time, mister would stand up for anything. Even the thought, "Whew, I don't have a boner" was enough to start the chain reaction.

At that same age, I didn't have a whole lot of information about the birds&bees, and so the closest imagery my (wet)dreams could come up with for a long time was me taking an unusually satisfying pee. Thoughts of that, and Mr. would threaten to stand up.

Does that mean I was attracted to myself, or to toilets? Nah. It means I was developing my mind on the sex issue.

Pretty soon it got related to girls, but VERY vaguely.

But then I had a friend who wanted to explore the other way. This produced disgust and fascination. I never did anything--but not surprisingly to me, the imagery in my dreams started to change. And this is the point where my choice came in--if I had let myself do even one thing, which was tempting, I'm almost 100% sure I'd be "gay" today.

As it was, I resisted a long time and eventually had to "not be his friend" anymore. I had few friends, so this was especially hard.

And even after that, my problem didn't go away fast. But through a concerted effort, I forced myself to associate sex with girls. (girls, don't be offended at the crassness of this) And eventually that association became powerful enough that my dreams experimented with girls again, instead.

Now I can honestly say that I all of my dreams/fantasies are about girls. (I'm still a virgin) I don't think that I could go the other way at this point, and the thought or guy-guy things is yucky.

I think, had I never had the strange events that led me to question--or had I given in at that point--that I would, like others, doubt that I had any choice involved. But because I teetered on the edge, and stepped back, I saw the choice.

I believe--though I have no evidence beyond my own experience--that everyone, given the right experience, can go either way. I believe choices at crucial moments can change them.

Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kayla
Member
Member # 2403

 - posted      Profile for Kayla   Email Kayla         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Various studies have showed that if a man's body is very symmetrical, he will begin his sex life earlier, he'll have more sexual partners, and he'll be a better lover. In one study involving symmetrical and lop-sided men, women who made love with the most symmetrical men had, during sexual intercourse, orgasms 75% of the time. But women who made love to the most asymmetrical men had orgasms only 30% of the time. And the more symmetrical man was more likely to have his ejaculation at the same time his female partner was having her orgasm! So according to this study, symmetry also meant more babies.

[Eek!]

http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s53207.htm

Now, Jacare, the underlying assumption is that symmetry is beauty. Whether or not you change the proportions is irrelevant. Just like changing the sex. Just because you've been bombarded with pictures of Mel Gibson and George Clooney, it hasn't "turned" you gay, has it? Has watching Will and Grace turned you on to men? Didn't think so. And women are even more bombarded by same sex photos than men. I don't think there is a higher lesbian population than gay male population.

I just disagree with you. That's all.

Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
popatr
Member
Member # 1334

 - posted      Profile for popatr   Email popatr         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, Xavier, you don't get to claim that you haven't heard anyone say they thought their sexuality was a choice anymore.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Snarky
Member
Member # 4406

 - posted      Profile for Snarky   Email Snarky         Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry, Caleb. I totally misread that bit about "you think so, too." However, I still feel that some of your points—that Jacare is incapable of understanding or sympathizing with homosexuals—are invalid, and that you're just trying to paint him as a bigot. I can't say that I speak for him or know exactly how he feels about homosexuals, but Jacare doesn't strike me as the type of person who would have so little compassion. I think you misunderstand his position. You see an unwillingness to allow homosexual marriage and take that to mean that there's a lack of sympathy and understanding on his part, as if sympathy and understanding would make him change his mind. The fact is that since we see it as a sin, no amount of sympathy and understanding will make it right.

[ August 05, 2003, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Snarky ]

Posts: 586 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Snarky
Member
Member # 4406

 - posted      Profile for Snarky   Email Snarky         Edit/Delete Post 
You dig up some of the most random stuff I've ever seen, Kayla. I just thought someone should point that out.
Posts: 586 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Caleb Varns
Member
Member # 946

 - posted      Profile for Caleb Varns   Email Caleb Varns         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Well, Xavier, you don't get to claim that you haven't heard anyone say they thought their sexuality was a choice anymore.
Of course, being a virgin and all he can't really say he's straight, either, can he? [Big Grin]

Especially if in his mind homosex is a sin while homothoughts are not a sin. That would mean sexual orientation can be defined only by sexual acts, in which case he's asexual.

But please, please don't run out and have sex just to prove me wrong.

[ August 05, 2003, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]

Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
I've seen a study of Denzel Washington's face, and it is almost perfectly symmetrical.

Mmmmmm.....

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kayla
Member
Member # 2403

 - posted      Profile for Kayla   Email Kayla         Edit/Delete Post 
Jon Boy, [Big Grin]

quote:
To test whether people are attracted to others who look like themselves, Perrett asked 30 male and female students to participate in a survey. As each person arrived at the test location, someone took his or her picture. Later, each person was asked to rate a group faces of the opposite sex in terms of attractiveness. Results showed that each person consistently found one face among the group particularly more attractive than the others.

Little did they know it was their own.

In each group of pictures, Perrett had included a version of the subject's face that had been changed to the opposite sex. He and his colleagues used a special computer program to feminize or masculinize the face in the photograph of each person. They then hid key characteristics like hairstyle, earrings and clothing. None of the subjects recognized any of the faces as their own.

Instead, what they saw was a very good-looking person

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/attraction020628.html

quote:
"Seeing a beautiful woman triggers a pleasure response in a man's brain similar to what a hungry person gets from eating or an addict gets from a fix, scientists say.

Researchers said the study, published last week in the journal Neuron, shows feminine beauty affects a man's brain at a very primal level, not on some higher, more intellectual plane.

'Beauty is working similar to a drug,' said Dan Ariely of Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management, a co-author of the study.

Researchers showed a group of heterosexual men in their mid-20s pictures of men and women of varying attractiveness, while measuring the brain's responses through computer imaging.

The beautiful women were found to activate the same 'reward circuits' as food and cocaine do. The men had a negative reaction to pictures of good-looking males, suggesting they were threatened by them, study author Hans Breiter said.

Breiter said evidence beauty stimulates these primal brain circuits has never been shown. He said the findings counter arguments that beauty is nothing more than the product of society's values.

'This is hard-core circuitry,' Breiter said. 'This is not a conditioned response.'

Scientists said the findings could have major implications for research into what motivates people.

'We think of these things as a product of a very high level of thought,' said John Mazziotta, director of the Brain Mapping Center at the University of California at Los Angeles, 'and it may be very basic and fundamental.'" (Associated Pess, Richmond Times-Dispatch, November 11, 2001).


http://loper.org/~george/trends/2001/Nov/35.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/beautyandthebrain_011107.html

[ August 05, 2003, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]

Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Caleb Varns
Member
Member # 946

 - posted      Profile for Caleb Varns   Email Caleb Varns         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The fact is that since we see it as a sin, no amount of sympathy and understanding will make it right.
Yes, this is exactly the thing I'm getting at. Your views--and their sources--have put you in a position such that it would be impossible for you to be sympathetic toward the homosexual cause. You can't simply believe amongst your hetero selves that it is a sin and that you don't endorse it and then teach your children the same. You have to do your best to make sure society shuns them at large, by perpetuating their social inequality.

I can only assume that you go with option number two rather than option number one because you simply do not--perhaps cannot--understand how unjust your position really is.

Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geoffrey Card
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for Geoffrey Card   Email Geoffrey Card         Edit/Delete Post 
Right now, the homosexual population of the United States is less than ten percent. Gays are very much a minority, and it is hard to see that gay marriage could have much of an impact on society as a whole.

So, I'm curious ... what do you think the results might be if, sometime in the future, the percentage was more like 40% or 50%? What if gays and gay couples were the majority? Would that be good? Bad? Neutral for society?

Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
*rubs foreheard* Wow. There's the male gay marriage thread, with occasional appearances by Kayla, and the female gay marriage thread, with occasional appearances by TomD.

Interesting.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Snarky
Member
Member # 4406

 - posted      Profile for Snarky   Email Snarky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You have to do your best to make sure society shuns them at large, by perpetuating their social inequality.
Again with the ad hominem attacks. [Roll Eyes] I do not shun homosexual people.
quote:
Your views--and their sources--have put you in a position such that it would be impossible for you to be sympathetic toward the homosexual cause.
That depends on what you define as sympathy, Caleb. Being sympathetic does not require me to agree with someone. You're assuming that because I don't agree with homosexual marriage, I must have no sympathy for homosexuals who want to get married. Do you not see the logical fallacy here?
Posts: 586 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
Jon Boy, I don't know how you would vote should this issue come to the ballot, but from a certain point of view, if you were to vote against gay marriage, you would be "doing your best to make sure society shuns them at large." Probably not how I would characterize it, but I could see someone feeling that way.

I'm curious about your definition of sympathy. If you believe homosexual acts to be sinful, why would you have sympathy for gays wanting to get married? I suppose I understand the "hate the sin, love the sinner" attitude, but I have rarely seen it applied in cases of adultery, theft or murder, to name a few other sins.

Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kayla
Member
Member # 2403

 - posted      Profile for Kayla   Email Kayla         Edit/Delete Post 
Kat, didn't you know? I'm a gay man and Tom is a lesbian. [ROFL]
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Boy
Member
Member # 4284

 - posted      Profile for Jon Boy           Edit/Delete Post 
One day, the Pharisees bring a woman to Jesus and say that she was taken in the act of adultery (of course, it seems they neglected to nab the guy—I wouldn't be surprised if one of them was the guy). Jesus convinces them not to stone her by reminding them that they're all guilty, too (guilty of adultery, probably). Jesus tells the woman to go her way and sin no more.

Is that sympathy? I certainly think so. But not for an instant did Jesus approve of what the woman had done. I try to follow that example. I might not do a very good job all the time, but I try.

[ August 05, 2003, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]

Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AndrewR
Member
Member # 619

 - posted      Profile for AndrewR   Email AndrewR         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But we most certainly choose whom we fall in love with.
I disagree, Jacare. We don't choose who we fall in love with, either. Otherwise, I would choose to fall out of love with someone, and I have yet to manage that.

All we can do is choose how to act upon our feelings.

Posts: 2473 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
Jon Boy, you make a good point. I'm inclined to think of mercy and sympathy as separate phenomena, although they are similar and often go together. This is, of course, a semantic objection, but we were talking about definitions, right?

Thanks for your answer.

Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Boy
Member
Member # 4284

 - posted      Profile for Jon Boy           Edit/Delete Post 
My pleasure, Saxon.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Otherwise, I would choose to fall out of love with someone, and I have yet to manage that.
What an intriguing untold story.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
popatr
Member
Member # 1334

 - posted      Profile for popatr   Email popatr         Edit/Delete Post 
Caleb,
Regarding one of your earlier posts.

I think I'll one day enjoy proving you wrong.

Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geoffrey Card
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for Geoffrey Card   Email Geoffrey Card         Edit/Delete Post 
In my experience, full-on falling-in-love has always been a choice. Someone could pique my interest without giving me any choice in the matter, but the girls I fell in love with were the ones I admired the most and chose to pursue beyond casual attraction. When such a girl became clearly unavailable to me, I would usually find it very easy to let her go and move on.

Now, once a relationship starts, letting go becomes much more difficult. But here again, starting a relationship is a choice.

But that's just my experience. Maybe I'm not romantic enough [Smile]

Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
maui babe
Member
Member # 1894

 - posted      Profile for maui babe   Email maui babe         Edit/Delete Post 
I agree completely Geoff. Despite what Hollywood wants us to believe, you don't fall in love in a vacuum. Falling in love requires, if nothing else, making a choice to spend enough time with someone to decide that you want to spend more time with him/her.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Popatr, weren't you the guy who wrote that story that featured the creepy stalker dude?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
popatr
Member
Member # 1334

 - posted      Profile for popatr   Email popatr         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes--Why?
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 16 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  14  15  16   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2