posted
Jeez, even straight women can appreciate the beauty of other women. Sure, most of the time it's jealousy...
That just seems a silly argument. Any human being has the ability to appreciate the beauty in another. Some are just more willing to admit it than others.
I certainly don't feel my womanhood threatened by gay men.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I did say what I felt--and did not hold back re. some "PC" approach to discussions--and look what it got me!
It got me the schmuck award, that's what it got me!
Mr. Head...
Interesting statement. Here's a question:
From a SECULAR point of view (let's keep religion out of it for a page, if we can)...what IS wrong with homosexuality. And then, what is wrong with homosexual marriage?
But if my previous posts are any indication, apparently no one reads--or, at least, responds to--my posts, unless it is to tell me I am wrong (it happens) or too inflamatory (also happens).
So, a list then: what IS wrong with homosexuality?
1) It's icky. (Well, so is watching your parents doing it. Or, more specifically: you watching your parents, and me watching my parents, etc. Not the other way around...that would be both icky and very, very wrong).
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I did say what I felt--and did not hold back re. some "PC" approach to discussions--and look what it got me!
It got me the schmuck award, that's what it got me!
No no no. I'M the schmuck award holder around here. You can't just swoop in with your gay marriage argument and try to take that from me.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll dedicate this post to Dagonee and his contention that anti-homosexuals are not, in fact, bigots, since so many of them wrap their homophobia (or anti-homosexuality, if that's a preferable term) in the mantle of religion. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, I didn't contend anything. I do happen to contend that mere belief that homosexual actions are sinful does not make one a bigot.
I did ask a question which you still haven?t answered. For the record, that was "Does believing that homosexual actions are wrong/sinful/immoral/whatever make the person holding that belief a bigot?" Not, "Does believing that homosexual actions are sinful plus hating homosexuals or believing God hates homosexuals make the person..." I know you equate the one with the other; most of this post will be dedicated to refuting that.
It's not I who mistake one for the other, sadly enough. But okay, am I correct in assuming you're arguing the love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin bit? I've heard it before as thinly (if at all) veiled homophobia -- maybe you can provide a better defense than others have.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First, let's start out with the essential definition of a bigot. Rather ironically, the term stems from "by God."
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- bigot n. 1. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While these definitions essentially make the case for me, I'll elaborate further. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, neither one does. The first clearly doesn't apply to me, since I support equal civil marriage rights for homosexuals. I also oppose laws making consensual homosexual actions illegal. I oppose discriminating against them in housing or secular employment. So I serve as a counterexample to the contention that all those who believe homosexual actions are sinful are "intolerant of those who differ."
Rob, I'm not sure I follow. You wish to restrict a legal right to your own group, heterosexuals. You wish to exclude homosexuals from this right, in name if not in deed -- and you don't think that restriction on the rights of homosexuals is intolerant?
quote:On the second definition, I don't view my own faith as unquestionably right nor those opposing my faith and beliefs as unreasonable or wicked. My faith in my beliefs is great enough that I try to pattern my life after it and behave as if it were true. But no one who lives by a moral philosophy does any less.
Heh. Finish the definition, Rob. It's not just "A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right," but also "and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked."
Haven't you been declaring that homosexuality is "sinful"? Or do you consider "sinful" not contextually synonymous with either "unreasonable" or "wicked"?
quote:Of course, if we assume you think bigotry is wicked (or, to use your term, despicable), then this definition could apply to you quite well. After all, that would mean you think any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from your belief on the rightness of homosexual actions is wicked. I'm not willing to go this far yet, because I hold high hopes for you acknowledging that a large group of people's motivations and beliefs aren't as simple as you seem to think them to be.
If you want to label me intolerant of intolerance -- go ahead. As it is, though, I'm not the one pushing to ban legal rights for bigots. Or do you consider intellectual opposition to bigoted positions intolerance? I hold high hopes for you acknowledging the difference between opposing bigotry with clear, rational arguments which rely on secular logic and opposing homosexuality with I-say-my-god-says-so arguments which, coincidentally enough, appeal strongly to existing bigotry against homosexuals.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll elaborate further. Bigots are often characterized by their pre-determination of another group, be that group recognized by its socio-economic class, race, sex, or sexuality. Determining that all blacks are criminals, for example, is an obviously bigoted statement -- clearly, not all black people are criminals, and the person declaring thus lacks the experience and/or tolerance to back up his/her unreasonable beliefs. Or so I'd assume; if there are reasons to believe all black people are criminals, I'm open to hearing them, though my personal experience alone disproves the claim's sweeping generalizations.
I hope we can all agree, at least, that making such a pre-determination of any group, be it racial or sexual, is a bigoted act. Is it any less bigoted if you wrap that bigotry in religious context? If I were to claim I believe God believes all blacks are criminals, am I any less a bigot? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We agree up to this point.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, let's switch the focus of this bigotry from black people to homosexual people. If I believe all homosexuals are sinful or indecent or wrong, am I a bigot? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I actually don't know anyone who believes this. I do know there are people who do, but that's not the generally accepted teaching on homosexuality in my Church. And I would say that anyone who thinks "all homosexuals are sinful or indecent or wrong" is a bigot. (Caveat: I think all people are sinful in some respect. I?m taking your meaning to be "all homosexuals are sinful or indecent or wrong as a result of the fact that they are sexually attracted to people of the same sex.)
I agree with you up to this point, with a minor aside on the issue of your religion's stance on homosexuality. You're Catholic, aren't you? And you don't think the Church preaches that "homosexuals are sinful or indecent or wrong"? Though I'm sure some sects are more subtle about the point than others.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, let's switch the focus of this bigotry from black people to homosexual people. If I believe all homosexuals are sinful or indecent or wrong, am I a bigot? If I put that in religious terms, and declare that my God hates fags (or any euphemism thereof), am I a bigot? Or if I utilize a common cop-out and declare that God doesn't hate fags, only faggoty actions -- that is, homosexuals who dare love someone they're attracted to -- am I any less a bigot? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's where we part company on the issue. Your statement here shows a gross misunderstanding of the Christian faith and it's teachings. First, and most importantly, Christians believe that God hates no one.
A mistake. If you've paid any attention to the anti-homosexual campaign being waged these past few years/decades, it's quite clear that many Christians do interpret their religion as God-hates-fags. That's a vocal minority, of course -- but there's also a far more widespread understanding that God-hates/condemns-homosexuality, which is pervasive in almost every religion I know of.
Whether or not you are willing to believe that your god of choice hates homosexuals or homosexuality doesn't reflect every religion. Sadly enough.
quote:Second, everyone commits actions that God hates. To be really bald about it, while believing all blacks are criminals would be bigoted, believing that all blacks commit sins is not bigoted if the person holding that belief thinks that all people commit sins regardless of race.
...which has no bearing on believing all homosexuals are sinful on basis of being homosexual. If you believed all blacks are sinful because they're black, yes, I contend that you are a bigot.
If you want to say all homosexuals are sinful because everyone is sinful, fine -- logical fallacies aside, you're not actively discriminating against homosexuals. But singling out a group and declaring them more sinful than others based solely on their non-harmful identity -- be it black, Hispanic, or homosexual -- is bigotry.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's rather important to note that since the only distinction between a heterosexual and a homosexual is homosexual attraction, declaring that God hates homosexual (faggoty) actions is the equivalent of declaring that God hates homosexuals (fags). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it isn't. Christians believe that everyone is tempted to commit actions that God hates. Are you saying that Christians believe that God hates everyone? Further, Christians believe that everyone is vulnerable to different temptations.
Christians also believe that many sinful actions have the effect of actually preventing fully experiencing the pleasure which is the aim of the temptation's underlying, proper desire. For example, humans seem to have an innate desire to take chances. Properly channeled, this can lead to scientific discovery, acts of courage, and a greater appreciation for life. Improperly channeled, this can lead to excessive gambling which can cause a person to neglect duties of familial care and charity to others as well as lead to personal ruin.
Good question, Dag. If God doesn't hate gamblers or gluttons, why does He hate fags? It's a good point to bring up at the next anti-homosexual rally.
You forget that I'm not the one contending that God hates homosexuals, here. I'm simply addressing the sad reality that many people are stupid or ignorant enough to believe this.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Claims that homosexuals can avoid a life of sin by never acting on their attraction to the same sex are little more than an attempt to stamp out homosexuals by suppressing homosexuality (or vice versa, if it's preferable -- both amount to the same bigoted pre-judgment). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christians, in there better moments, would also like to see an end to premarital sex, greed, abortion, lust, and many other sins, even as they commit them themselves. It's not an attempt to stamp out homosexuality; it's an attempt to encourage people to live a life more in accord with what God intends. Christians believe such a life is potentially happier here on Earth and far better for the ultimate fate of the immortal soul. As such, it is an act of love to help someone choose that life. Emphasis is on "help" and "choose."
So you consider legal non-recognition of homosexual marriage -- hell, even legal persecution of homosexuals, why not -- an act of love?
Heh. Dag, out of sincere interest, exactly what make a heterosexual couple so much more worthy of happiness and satisfaction for the immortal soul than a homosexual couple? This is a point that definitely requires addressing -- you may as well declare that you believe that God says only same-race couples can achieve true happiness and thus better their immortal souls, but pursuing the cessation of interracial marriages through whatever means necessary -- legal non-recognition (or worse), social stigma, religious persecution -- is only an attempt to help that interracial couple choose to recognize how wrong their love for each other is.
It wasn't so long ago that those arguments were in effect, guy. Do you truly not see how they parallel modern efforts to deny rights to homosexuals?
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By pressuring the homosexual into a life of non-offensive celibacy or false heterosexuality -- by removing the homosexual person from his/her love life, even if it means condemning that person to a life of loneliness and/or misery --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christians are called to make sacrifices. This would be a much greater sacrifice than most Christians ever make, but not greater than the sacrifices most Christians (myself included) should make. One of the reasons I hold the stances I do on the law and homosexuality is because I believe that coercion should not be related to a sacrifice.
So, to clarify -- you think someone else living a life celibate and alone because you say God doesn't like the person someone else falls in love with is in accordance with God's preferences?
Seriously?
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (especially if the homosexual person suppresses his/her sexual needs to the point of marriage to a heterosexual of the opposite gender, which extends and amplifies that loneliness and misery to the target's spouse and possible children). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We probably disagree as to whether this is the inevitable result of such actions. I would say that a marriage "which extends and amplifies that loneliness and misery to the target's spouse and possible children" is not the most Christian of acts. But I also am not qualified to say if the net misery and loneliness caused by such an arrangement is better or worse than possible alternatives. (Consider that the children would not even exist as a starting point.)
You're right, forcing someone to deny his/her sexuality and (often) wind up marrying someone they're not attracted to is not an inevitable cause of loneliness, misery, or resent -- but I somehow doubt such feelings are unlikely.
But, out of interest, do you truly believe a situation like what I just described is what your god of choice prefers over a happy, loving couple, if that couple's made up of two people of the same gender?
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By stamping out homosexuals' homosexuality, the homophobe (or anti-homosexual, if it's a preferable term) can effectively stop hating the target, since the target's no longer an active or proud homosexual person. Is this not bigotry? Is this active persecution of homosexuals and their loves not active bigotry? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active persecution would be bigotry. We're talking about mere belief that homosexual actions are wrong here. I am not denying that people who hold that belief often use it justify a further, bigoted, belief that "homosexuals are evil" and use that belief to justify persecution of homosexuality. But the problem is with the second step, not the first.
Okay, then let's stick with the simple belief that homosexuality is wrong. You claim that belief isn't bigoted -- okay.
I believe being black in America is wrong. I'm not bigoted! Not bigoted! I'm not acting on it, I'm just saying, hey, being African-American is wrong. They should go back where they came from if they want to please God -- after all, what with the current Catholic rationale of "natural law," don't they belong in Africa? A clear-cut case of what God wants.
Being foreign is wrong. Why not? Saying Mexicans don't belong in the United States isn't actually xenophobia or racism -- it's just a simple statement of belief!
C'mon, guy.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To reiterate what I've said above, by condemning homosexuals and/or homosexuality (which amount to the same identity) without knowing them, their lives, their partners/spouses, or even their identities, am I a bigot? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you've left homosexual actions out of your identity. It is not a Christian's place to condemn anyone. But believing an action is sinful and stating that belief in an appropriate place is not condemnation.
Ah. Okay, so to update -- it's not being homosexual or being black that's wrong, it's having sex with homosexuals or blacks. If I have homosexual sex or interracial sex, that's wrong -- I'm not being bigoted, it's just a simple fact of what I say God says.
Heh. Dag, guy, can you provide any particular argument that would show that your belief (or those of less worthy people) that homosexual sex is wrong is less bigoted than my belief that interracial sex is wrong?
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If I actively persecute the breeding of black people as I do homosexuals, am I more of a bigot since it's clearly wrong to judge all black people and their loves as unworthy of consummation and marriage due to their shared trait of black ancestry -- but clearly not wrong to judge all homosexual people and their loves as unworthy of consummation and marriage due to their shared trait of loving people whose genetalia don't meet an arbitrary standard? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actively persecuting the breeding of black and homosexuals is bigotry of an equal degree. In fact, I anticipate with horror the day when a genetic marker for homosexuality (or deafness or blondeness or athletic ability or any other criteria) is identified and people start pre-testing unborn children for that marker as a criteria for abortion. It will be interesting to see how societal forces realign themselves at that point.
Ah, so you agree that bigotry against black people is as wrong as bigotry against homosexual people. Good! Let's deny black people marriage rights!
I mean, that's not wrong. It's just my belief that black marriages are more sinful than white marriages -- and of course, that belief should be implemented into law, yes?
If you believe homosexual sex is wrong, and I believe interracial (black, for the purposes of the analogy) sex is wrong, aren't I as justified in denying black people their right to marriage as you are in denying marriage to homosexuals?
quote:Further, the belief that homosexual actions are wrong is not a judgment that homosexual people are unworthy. It is a judgment that sexual consummation of certain loves is sinful.
Heh. Okay, Dag, so homosexual people aren't unworthy -- only homosexual actions. If homosexuals simply don't engage in homosexual actions, then they're every bit as equal as heterosexuals!
Heh.
Act straight and you'll be as equal as the rest of us, eh?
quote: But believing that an action is sinful is not uniquely aimed at homosexuals or even at sexual actions.
Isn't it? I've seen remarkably few laws passed denying gluttons or disrespectful children their marriage licenses. Shouldn't we focus on, oh, adulterers before we start banning homosexuals from marriage? Maybe murderers? Rapists?
Though, after all, if they're heterosexual, how much damage can they do to the institution of marriage, after all?
Heh. Christ.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If actively condemning/persecuting a huge number of the population without ever knowing who they are or what they've done to merit unworthiness of equality isn't bigotry, what is? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is where you've projected far beyond my original question. I would agree that people on an anti-homosexual campaign "actively condemning or persecuting a huge number of the population" are bigots. But that's different from holding the belief that certain sexual actions are sinful, that among those are homosexual actions, and only speaking about it in an appropriate place and manner. Collapsing diverse sets of people into a single group is at the heart of bigotry, Lalo, and you seem dangerously close to it here. Not all Christians who hold the belief at issue here are actively doing anything about homosexuality.
To clarify, are you saying the "diverse sets of [Christians]" who are being collapsed into a single group are being wronged because there are both Christians who say God says homosexuality's wrong -- and there are Christians who say God says homosexuality's wrong, then take it upon themselves to persecute homosexuals?
It sounds almost as though you're saying "I'm a white supremacist [or "I believe interracial sex is wrong"], but I've never burned a cross on anyone's lawn! I can't be racist!"
You seem to be trying to make your case one of principle, not degree -- you don't say God hates fags, you just say God hates homosexual sex. Personally, I don't think God hates blacks, I just don't think races should interbreed. Is it at all possible our beliefs are rooted in bigotry? Or do you have an official reason for believing homosexual sex is wrong beyond I-say-my-god-says-so?
Don't get me wrong, guy, I respect the hell out of you, but I do think you have a blind eye on this issue. It may be that you're just particularly devout and don't question what the Catholic Church tells you to believe, but I can't imagine that you, a lawyer, would accept something without corroborating reasons of your own.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ever since the civil rights movement for racial minorities went through, the term "bigot" has been (rightly) stigmatized. Association with the label -- even if one agrees with all the requisite definitions of the term -- has negative connotations, which is no doubt the principal reason behind the anxiety of the homophobic/anti-homosexual crowd to avoid such a label. After all, if anti-black people are despicable for their bigotry, why doesn't that principle extend to the anti-homosexual crowd? It does. Which is, I believe, why so many people are anxious to emphasize their homophobia's role as a religious tenet rather than an opinion that requires logical justification -- justification which, I might add, nobody here (or anywhere, to my knowledge) has ever been able to provide. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have never rested my claims that this belief is not bigotry on the grounds that it is a religious tenet. I have rested my claims on the fact that there truly is a difference between believe homosexual actions are sinful and hating/condemning/persecuting homosexuals.
You speak for only yourself, more's the pity. Many people have tried to justify their homophobia by writing it off as a religious tenet -- the KKK, I believe, still adheres to the mark-of-Cain argument, which declares black skin a mark of Abel's damned brother, which means God truly does hold white people as the chosen people over black people.
Which isn't at all like declaring God prefers heterosexuals.
You may differentiate between hating homosexuals and hating homosexual sex, Rob, but that you need to enunciate the difference between the two so carefully is rather indicative of their close natures. Many homophobes have tried to declare theirs a case of love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin, but let's take an honest look at what your ideal is. You believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that homosexual sex is immoral. Homosexuals should either marry someone of the opposite sex and try to live as a heterosexual, or live celibate and alone -- which is better than living a long and happy life with someone they love, because you say God says their genetalia isn't enough to His liking.
I would personally be very interested if I had enough votes to condemn your marriage to the woman you love, have it stripped from you, and impose strict social stigmas on you two living together, being publically affectionate, or even having sex together in the privacy of your own bedroom. I'd be interested in seeing your reaction if I had a huge swath of the country behind me to condemn you and your wife to hellfire, or at best declare your love sinful, your marriage invalid, your life with her wrong, and encourage my following to persuade/harass/attack you and your wife into living apart, either alone or with someone more to my liking.
I can't imagine you'd shrug, smile, and you wouldn't oppose me because doing so would be intolerant of my beliefs.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To end this first segment -- yes, Dagonee, bigotry applies to all intolerance of different groups (be they racial or religious or sexual) inspired by no other reason but hatred of their differences. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet, you haven't even attempted to demonstrate that people who think homosexuals actions are sinful are inspired to do so by no other reason but hatred of their differences. And in many threads, people have given reasons why this might not be so. I haven't seen you respond to any of those posts (although I could have missed one) in a way that demonstrates you understand the claims being made.
I'm sure there are other reasons than hatred -- blind adherence to religious dogma, fear, ignorance -- but I have yet to see a logical, reasonable argument which demonstrates why we should deny homosexuals equal rights. And you're a brilliant guy, Rob, but you have yet to show me why your condemnation of homosexual sex should be applied to federal law. Actually, you have yet to even attempt to show me why your condemnation of homosexuality exists at all -- except, of course, that you choose to believe that God says so. Or that you choose to subscribe to a religion which declares such. Whichever you prefer.
Which reasons for anti-homosexuality have I ignored? I usually respond to every argument (even if, in your case, I delay my response a ridiculous amount of time), and I don't think I've missed any I haven't already addressed.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The sooner anti-homosexuals are honest about the requisite prejudice for holding such a position, the sooner this argument will reach a conclusion. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which argument? That homosexual actions are sinful? Or the gay marriage debate? The first will never be settled to your satisfaction.
Yeah. Then white women started marrying black men anyway.
quote:The second, God willing, will be settled in our lifetimes when more Christians start realizing there is no reason to vilify homosexual actions any more than there is reason to vilify other sinful actions. There are many actions which are legal yet sinful. The immorality of an action should be a necessary condition for its criminalization. It is not sufficient. One reason I favor allowing equal civil marriage rights for homosexuals is that the behavior of such a couple is in greater conformance to the ideals of Christian sexuality than a lot of heterosexual actions are. We might be seeking perfection, but that shouldn?t mean we ignore positive steps.
You go, girl. Civil marriage? Have you changed your tune on this? If you wish to afford homosexuals equal rights with heterosexuals under the law -- in name as well as deed -- then we have no quarrel. As I recall, though, you're willing to grant homosexuals equal rights except for the title "marriage," which you wish to restrict to heterosexuals -- how can you justify that, if you hold the position, after that bit you just gave?
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The longer that the anti-homosexual camp continues to insist that its pre-determination of guilt for people it?s never met has nothing to do with bigotry, the longer will people suffer and will Christianity?s reputation be tarnished. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the longer the "pro-homosexual camp" continues to insist that the belief that homosexual actions is a "pre-determination of guilt" the longer will the debate be dominated by name-calling and not rational discourse.
Well, no. I'm not denying Christians their rights, nor am I encouraging social stigmas or persecution against them. As it happens, I do understand traditional Christian arguments against homosexual equality, but I don't need to pretend homophobia, even when mantled in religion, is anything but in order to ensure equality for all citizens.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, but I don't want to see that happen because people were bigoted enough to deny themselves marriage than grant it to homosexuals. Rather, I'd like to see official recognition of the equality of homosexuals, then a change of the legal definition of marriage to civil union.
Unfortunately, when it happens, it'll probably be that homosexual civil unions will have long since been approved and people finally realize that a religious ceremony doesn't belong in government, only then changing heterosexual marriage to civil union.
Ugh. Same end, such different means...
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heck yeah. Let's see if we can't gut the concept of marriage even more. Let's finish it off once and for all! Let's make it nothing more than a stupid contract, and, as such, entirely meaningless, since we will make it as easy as possible to break the said contract as easily and viciously as possible. I mean, we've managed to nearly destroy an institution that has existed as long as human beings. Let's see what happens when we take it away? Maybe we can advocate marrying cars next. Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You forget that I'm not the one contending that God hates homosexuals, here. I'm simply addressing the sad reality that many people are stupid or ignorant enough to believe this.
Yes, but is anyone on this board or in these particular discussions stating that they believe God Hates Fags? I haven't seen a single one.
Constant use of this term and behavior as characterizing those who believe a deed or action is sinful is doing nothing more than ruffling feathers, and perhaps making you feel superior because you're 'enlightened'.
Plus, Lalo, your race analogy doesn't work in everyone's eyes - it's not something that can or cannot be acted upon. Sexual urges, however, (homosexual AND heterosexual) can be. Whether they SHOULD or should NOT be is what's being discussed - not whether they should 'be what they are'.
And the way many see it (in government and not), is that there is no discrimination, becaue in this view, those with homosexual urges have the same exact rights those with heterosexual urges do: every man by law is able to be married to one woman. Every woman is able to married to one man. Legally, "What's Love Got To Do With It?". Religiously, and morally, it's certainly a different question.
The religious 'why' will be different than the legal 'why'. I understand how 'morally' to many it can be understood as discrimination - but legally, it really isn't.
Those with homosexual urges are allowed to marry just as much as those with heterosexual urges are, by the same exact rules. One Man to One Woman.
Whether one thinks they should be able to marry someone of the same gender or not doesn't make it discrimination - it would be adding a rule, not removing one of discrimination.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Digging Holes... it IS a contract. Let it be a contract and for those who want more can have a religious marriage. Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. It is much more than a contract. A civil union is a contract. Marriage is a life-long commitment. The perception that it's "only a contract" shows just how much damage has been done to the idea already.
I also find it infuriating that people seem to think this is about the equality of homosexuals. It isn't. It's about using a very important word to describe something that is very, very far from the definition of that word.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------- You forget that I'm not the one contending that God hates homosexuals, here. I'm simply addressing the sad reality that many people are stupid or ignorant enough to believe this. -------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but is anyone on this board or in these particular discussions stating that they believe God Hates Fags? I haven't seen a single one.
Constant use of this term and behavior as characterizing those who believe a deed or action is sinful is doing nothing more than ruffling feathers, and perhaps making you feel superior because you're 'enlightened'.
Well, no. Would you like to point out any examples where I declared a member of this board hates fags? Rather, I contend claiming God hates homosexuality rather than homosexuals is an issue of degree, not of principle. You can, as Dag has shown, make extraordinarily subtle differentiations between the two, but those seem lost on the vast majority of those against homosexual equality. And frankly, I'm not sure they're wrong in that respect -- exactly why is this differentiation made? How do you justify declaring homosexuality wrong but back off from declaring homosexuals wrong? If little else, at least those with spine enough to declare homosexuals cursed by God are consistent.
quote:Plus, Lalo, your race analogy doesn't work in everyone's eyes - it's not something that can or cannot be acted upon. Sexual urges, however, (homosexual AND heterosexual) can be. Whether they SHOULD or should NOT be is what's being discussed - not whether they should 'be what they are'.
Again, no. Racial analogies don't work -- interracial analogies do. If I fall for a black woman, how is that unlike Telp falling for another man? And exactly how do you justify declaring his love immoral and sinful and not declaring my love such?
All I ask is consistency.
quote:And the way many see it (in government and not), is that there is no discrimination, becaue in this view, those with homosexual urges have the same exact rights those with heterosexual urges do: every man by law is able to be married to one woman. Every woman is able to married to one man. Legally, "What's Love Got To Do With It?". Religiously, and morally, it's certainly a different question.
The religious 'why' will be different than the legal 'why'. I understand how 'morally' to many it can be understood as discrimination - but legally, it really isn't.
Those with homosexual urges are allowed to marry just as much as those with heterosexual urges are, by the same exact rules. One Man to One Woman.
Whether one thinks they should be able to marry someone of the same gender or not doesn't make it discrimination - it would be adding a rule, not removing one of discrimination.
Heh. You're right! So I hereby propose a new law, which grants marital legal privileges to a contract made between one person and one white man. Why not? Everyone can marry, so long as they marry a white man! It's not discriminatory at all! This is what marriage is about.
Heh. Yeesh. Taal, to clarify, you propose that marriage between one heterosexual and one homosexual grants both parties full equality in letter and spirit of marital laws? And if you are, can I please see you next launch into a speech about how homosexual equality will cheapen and destroy the institution of marriage?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And marriage hasn't been an institution since the beginning of humanity. Love is a survival trait. Out in the wild a family has a greater chance of surviving with two parents than with just one. Humans have the genes for both life-long-mating and for being promiscuous. Some have one more than the other, but for the most part we have both and so can either mate for life or flit from one flower to the next. So in the beginning you have couples staying together for sexual relations and love and then when kids come along, especially for the woman, you have all these new hormones coming into play bonding them to the children. Well... as rituals and ceremonies were invented as a way for humans to recognize a change and that something important was happening, some were made for the event of a couple falling in love and having kids. Marriage. Or bonding ceremony or whatever. Certain Eskimo tribes have what we might think of as odd “marriages”. They are open to all. A friend comes over for dinner… hey sleep with my wife! It’s like a handshake. That and more members of your tribe and more hands in the field. As religion was invented and absorbed rituals marriage got sucked in too. So “Marriage” was an invented ritual to make the community aware that a new couple was formed.. .and for other males and females not to get involved… jealousy being another human instinct…sometimes tempered by whatever culture you are indoctrinated in.
Marriage is not just a Judeo-Christian thing… it has existed in many forms. We are still going to have kids. We are going to probably breed ourselves into oblivion at the rate of reproduction now. How on earth will allowing gay folk to marry stop straight people from marrying??? I never understood that argument. Men and women are still going to live together and have kids. You don’t need a so-called “institution” to command it. It’s going to happen whether we want to or not…because it’s a biological imperative. To me it seems the same old story of people being afraid of the unknown (not necessarily a bad thing).
[edit for spelling]
[ September 05, 2004, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, er, heh, I'm not sure if digging_holes is being facetious or not, but just in case...
quote:Heck yeah. Let's see if we can't gut the concept of marriage even more. Let's finish it off once and for all! Let's make it nothing more than a stupid contract, and, as such, entirely meaningless, since we will make it as easy as possible to break the said contract as easily and viciously as possible. I mean, we've managed to nearly destroy an institution that has existed as long as human beings. Let's see what happens when we take it away? Maybe we can advocate marrying cars next. [Roll Eyes]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
No. It is much more than a contract. A civil union is a contract. Marriage is a life-long commitment. The perception that it's "only a contract" shows just how much damage has been done to the idea already.
I also find it infuriating that people seem to think this is about the equality of homosexuals. It isn't. It's about using a very important word to describe something that is very, very far from the definition of that word.
You think homosexual marriage will "gut the concept of marriage"? Will make it "meaningless" and on the same level as marrying cars?
Wow. Heh. I'd go into the history of marriage -- women traded like cattle to build alliances -- and point out how recent the definition of marriage as a romantic relationship is, much less the definition of marriage as an interclass concept, much less as an interfaith concept, much less as an interracial concept, but heh, wow.
Exactly how will granting homosexuals the right enjoyed by all heterosexuals to marry the one they love "gut" marriage or render it meaningless?
Heh. No. You must be joking. And since you're Kylie's friend, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
posted
People can have sex with whom and however they want. It's none of my business what happens behind your bedroom door. If you want to live with each other for the rest of your lives, you're welcome to do so.
That being made clear, marriage is not about sex. Marriage is not about romance. And it'snot about getting half the booty when you divorce. It's about building something. Building a family. Having children. And yes, obeying God.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think gay "marriage" is going to destroy marriage. Divorce already delivered the fatal blow. This is just a heinous attempt to take away its good name now that it's on its last heels.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why is it ideal that religious ceremonies not be performed by what's supposed to be a secular government?
So right now the government is performing a religious ceremony because it calls it marriage instead of a civil union?
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Exactly how will granting homosexuals the right enjoyed by all heterosexuals to marry the one they love "gut" marriage or render it meaningless?
I'll walk you through it Lalo.
Rattling off previous perversions of "marriage" does not make this one any more acceptable. Marriage is between one male, one female. Period. This is not the first attempt to kill marriage, nor is it the worst, as I've just said. It's just the last.
And I don't care if you're Kylie's friend.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That being made clear, marriage is not about sex. Marriage is not about romance. And it'snot about getting half the booty when you divorce. It's about building something. Building a family. Having children. And yes, obeying God.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think gay "marriage" is going to destroy marriage. Divorce already delivered the fatal blow. This is just a heinous attempt to take away its good name now that it's on its last heels.
What you're talking about is your own version of marriage, your deeply Christian one. At the same time, you're denying the validity of every other version. Which is very nice.
And very fundamentalist.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right. My view of marriage is deeply Christian, and I am denying the validity of every other version of it. So I'm a fundamentalist. I can live with that. Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well then, what about the Jewish version of marriage? Oh, wait. They have divorce! What a pervesion that is...
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interracial analogies don't work because human "races" are a very superficial thing. We are not substantially different from one another. Reproductively, all human races are completely compatible. At times, there are cultural biases against such unions, but biologically, there is no difference between the union of a black man to a white woman, or an Inuit man to an Aboriginal Australian woman, or what have you. In fact, such heterogenous unions can be far healthier than some unions between closely-related humans.
But there are some very REAL differences between male-female sex, male-male sex, and female-female sex, culturally, psychologically, and biologically. In fact, we only use the same word for those three acts because they involve similar emotions, and similar kinds of stimulation. In reality, the latter two pairings lack the equipment to complete the specific act commonly referred to as "sex" by the first pairing.
Every living human on this earth is the product of a male-female union. Everyone has a mother and a father. Not all heterosexual couples can have children, but all children are the product of heterosexual couplings. That is a completely unique feature of the heterosexual relationships within our society that makes them stand out from other sexually-charged relationships.
It must be possible for us to look past political correctness and emotion for just one moment to note this difference. I mean, it's real. It's there. Wishing really hard won't make it go away.
And please don't misread me. I'm not saying anything insulting about homosexuals here; I'm not denying your ability to love one another or function as happy, viable relationships. What I'm saying is, this debate will go nowhere if we plug our ears, sing la la la, and blind ourselves to the hard truth. Women and men feel attracted to one another and pair up for a reason. On an individual level, they do it because they feel strong emotions of love and desire. But on a species level, they HAVE those feelings because humanity needs to have a next generation. Our bodies, from the genetic level to the physiological level, are built specifically to accomodate heterosexual sex, and only coincidentally support other means of sexual fulfillment.
So when people single out the male-female sexual union as a unique relationship among all possible human relationships, they aren't just making something up out of custom and bigotry. The distinction is real and biological. There is a reason why our culture promotes and supports it and sets it apart. If you think that reason needs to be rethought, fine, we can have that debate. But please quit trying to pretend the distinction isn't there. It's insulting to everyone's intelligence.
[ September 05, 2004, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But on a species level, they HAVE those feelings because humanity needs to have a next generation. Our bodies, from the genetic level to the physiological level, are built specifically to accomodate heterosexual sex, and only coincidentally support other means of sexual fulfillment.
Yup. That is true. The sex drive is the drive to reproduce. A biological instinct. But marriage is a cultural event. Changing the cultural event will not change humanity's biology.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Interracial analogies don't work because human "races" are a very superficial thing. We are not substantially different from one another. Reproductively, all human races are completely compatible. At times, there are cultural biases against such unions, but biologically, there is no difference between the union of a black man to a white woman, or an Inuit man to an Aboriginal Australian woman, or what have you. In fact, such heterogenous unions can be far healthier than some unions between closely-related humans.
But there are some very REAL differences between male-female sex, male-male sex, and female-female sex, culturally, psychologically, and biologically. In fact, we only use the same word for those three acts because they involve similar emotions, and similar kinds of stimulation. In reality, the latter two pairings lack the equipment to complete the specific act commonly referred to as "sex" by the first pairing.
Well, no. If you're referring to penetration, all couples are capable of it in one fashion or another, especially in today's world of sexual equipment. But why does this matter?
I fail to see how sex determines the ability to love. Or why these "very REAL differences" you fail to cite somehow incapacitate homosexual couples from the true love heterosexual couples enjoy by virtue of their biology.
quote:Every living human on this earth is the product of a male-female union. Everyone has a mother and a father. Not all heterosexual couples can have children, but all children are the product of heterosexual couplings. That is a completely unique feature of the heterosexual relationships within our society that makes them stand out from other sexually-charged relationships.
Well, no. While all children are born of a woman, that doesn't mean heterosexuals are the only ones capable of producing children -- lesbians can artifically inseminate, and homosexual men can adopt to raise children.
quote:It must be possible for us to look past political correctness and emotion for just one moment to note this difference. I mean, it's real. It's there. Wishing really hard won't make it go away.
What "political correctness" claims women can't produce children? And who wishes it were otherwise?
quote:And please don't misread me. I'm not saying anything insulting about homosexuals here; I'm not denying your ability to love one another or function as happy, viable relationships. What I'm saying is, this debate will go nowhere if we plug our ears, sing la la la, and blind ourselves to the hard truth. Women and men feel attracted to one another and pair up for a reason. On an individual level, they do it because they feel strong emotions of love and desire. But on a species level, they HAVE those feelings because humanity needs to have a next generation. Our bodies, from the genetic level to the physiological level, are built specifically to accomodate heterosexual sex, and only coincidentally support other means of sexual fulfillment.
So when people single out the male-female sexual union as a unique relationship among all possible human relationships, they aren't just making something up out of custom and bigotry. The distinction is real and biological. There is a reason why our culture promotes and supports it and sets it apart. If you think that reason needs to be rethought, fine, we can have that debate. But please quit trying to pretend the distinction isn't there. It's insulting to everyone's intelligence.
So, to summarize -- humanity perpetuates itself through reproduction, ergo solely heterosexual relationships are worth promoting or supporting and setting apart.
What distinction are you talking about? That women produce children? And who has ever pretended it were otherwise?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
More specifically, humans come about because of the meeting of a sperm and an unfertilized egg. Which can happen without coupling. Just FYI. It is an oversimplication to simply point out biology alone in this day and age of artificial insemination, sperm donation, egg donation, surrogate mothers, adoption, fertility drugs, invitro fertilization, turkey basters and so on. Biologically speaking, I don't think anyone has argued that it takes a sperm and egg to create a child and a woman to carry that fertilized egg for 9 months and then give birth to a baby. Anti-gay legislation is actually going to do more harm than good for reproductive rights because you are going to limit marriages to what, only those who can have children? That would effectively elimate seniors who remarry after a spouse dies, couples who have no interest in children, couples who can't have children and yes, gay men and women who want to marry someone of the same gender. If people want to cover their ears and deny that the reality of reproduction has long left the realm of just the bedroom, sing la la la and be done with it. But don't insult people's intelligence by assuming that there is only one way to go about the creation of a human life. If you are going to take it to its simplist form, go all the way...sperm and egg. At that level, biology doesn't care if there is a marriage, a donor or if the person of egg or sperm even raise the child. All that matters is this: Is the person or people who take the responsibilty of raising that child loving, caring and capable? If yes, then it doesn't matter if the child has two women, two men, one of each or one or the other. Everything else is not biology, it is social constructs.
posted
Lalo, you are arguing that gay "marriage" is just as valid as heterosexual marriage. It isn't, for all the reasons that Geoff mentioned, and alot of others that he didn't mention. Are you deliberately trying to miss the point?
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
We're speaking about state policy. As state policy, the truth is that there shouldn't be any mention of marriage at all. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Let all denominations have their own little marriages.
And yes, if a gay club wants to have their own marriage club, it should be as valid as a Church's marriage. (Read: both should be meaningless in terms of law.)
The point is that both hetrosexual couples and gay couples should be given Civil Unions.
quote: Marriage is a religious ceremony. Let all denominations have their own little marriages.
That is COMPLETELY false. A lot of what this argument is about is all the other things that society offers married couples....the right to share property, receive tax credits/breaks, the right to make medical decisions....among aother things...
Marriage wasn't originally the provenance of religious groups. As a matter of fact, religions originally wanted nothing to do with marriages...they felt that it was a purely secular institution, and they were concerned with spiritual matters.
I believe it wasn't until the middle ages that the church became interested in performing marriages....before that they were indifferent at best.
So it isn't a religious thing that is being discussed here at all.
posted
Lalo, your ability to read and comprehend other people's posts is a testament to the failure of modern education
quote:If you're referring to penetration, all couples are capable of it in one fashion or another, especially in today's world of sexual equipment.
I suppose if you're referring to "penetration," then any individual with a finger and a nostril can do it I was referring to "sex," which is an entirely different matter.
quote:I fail to see how sex determines the ability to love. Or why these "very REAL differences" you fail to cite somehow incapacitate homosexual couples from the true love heterosexual couples enjoy by virtue of their biology.
I'm not sure what post you think you're responding to. Could you point out where I say that homosexuals are unable to love? In fact, I'll give you ten extra credit points if you can find the paragraph where I make the exact opposite statement.
quote:Well, no. While all children are born of a woman, that doesn't mean heterosexuals are the only ones capable of producing children -- lesbians can artifically inseminate, and homosexual men can adopt to raise children.
Artificial insemination is the union of a male sex cell with a female sex cell. It can't be done without a man. And adoption does not "produce" a child. Did you sleep through the sex ed class where they talked about where babies come from?
quote:So, to summarize -- humanity perpetuates itself through reproduction, ergo solely heterosexual relationships are worth promoting or supporting and setting apart.
I didn't take it that far. There are many human relationships that are set apart, promoted, and protected for one reason or another. The mother-child relationship, for instance, gets a lot of special treatment, often at the expense of the father-child relationship (another serious blunder).
My point wasn't to recommend a course of action, but to highlight the fact that this is not entirely an issue of egalitarianism. If your position is, "People should be able to marry whomever they want, without relevance to the human reproductive process," that makes me ask, "Then what is the purpose of marriage and the nuclear family, if they are now suddenly irrelevant to human reproduction?"
People love to scoff at the idea of reproduction these days. Like there is something low and animal-like about it. But cultures, ideas, values ... everything that defines our lives is carried on by our children, and how they are raised. When people are encouraged to form stable homes, rather than mating serially and casually, they may complain. But their children have a better chance at becoming stable, happy adults.
So marriage, as it stands (or, I suppose, as it once stood), has real value to society. If we are to redefine marriage as "a union of any two people for any purpose", it becomes a meaningless term, and many segments of our culture will lose the benefits that it entails.
Personally, I'm not too worried about my own Mormon subculture. We still place a lot of emphasis on marriage, family, and healthy child-rearing, and we are remarkably successful at it, relative to the larger societies we inhabit. But I'm really not too thrilled about the idea of living with the next generation of children raised in those societies, as the value of marriage and family continues to drop.
You know, at the moment, I regard gay marriage (or at least, civil unions) as an inevitability. And the attempts to block it too often go way overboard — denying insurance benefits to gay partners? What, are these people insane? My goal here isn't to try and deny rights to gays, or keep the gay man down, or whatever dramatic struggle in which you see me as your opposition. What I want is for everyone to stop and take notice if the way we're arguing. For the sake of getting a privilege extended to homosexual couples, you are abandoning all reason and logic, and going off on completely insane idealogical diatribes, denying things as obvious as elementary human biology. This doesn't help your cause, and it doesn't help humankind. If homosexuals feel they need to marry one another, for whatever purpose, then we can talk about it. But this road you're going down, Lalo, degrades us all.
quote:What distinction are you talking about? That women produce children? And who has ever pretended it were otherwise?
Heh heh. Yes, I think we're definitely dealing with a case of someone sleeping through sex ed. Lalo, women don't produce children. They gestate children. Women and men together produce children I can draw you a diagram if you like.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
I've got to tell you, that post wasn't worth the wait at all. I’m very disappointed.
quote:Rob, I'm not sure I follow. You wish to restrict a legal right to your own group, heterosexuals. You wish to exclude homosexuals from this right, in name if not in deed -- and you don't think that restriction on the rights of homosexuals is intolerant?
Since the fact is I don't wish to restrict a legal right to my "own group," and this utter mischaracterization of my position, stated multiple times on this board and in this very thread, is repeated and relied on throughout your post, I'm going to give you a chance to take a deep breath and consider.
Remember, my entire post was a response to your assertion that the mere belief that homosexual actions are sinful makes one a bigot. Not that believing homosexual actions are sinful plus a whole bunch of other things you choose to stack on top it. Not even believing homosexual actions are sinful plus a whole bunch of other things some Christians choose to stack on top of it.
I will respond specifically to a few points, though:
quote:You're Catholic, aren't you? And you don't think the Church preaches that "homosexuals are sinful or indecent or wrong"?
No, it doesn't. I've had 12 years of CCD and done a lot of reading over the years. I've talked to a lot of priests about the subject. I've never heard anyone in the Catholic Church state that homosexuals are sinful or indecent and wrong, exepct in the generic "everyone is sinful" contexts. EVER.
You want a concrete example? My brother stopped receiving Communion after he came out (his choice). He really wanted to receive at my wedding, however, so he went to talk to priest about it. Know what the priest said? "Why do you want to starve yourself?" Then he pointed out what every single Catholic says every time they receive: "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed."
quote:Whether or not you are willing to believe that your god of choice hates homosexuals or homosexuality doesn't reflect every religion. Sadly enough.
Here's where your post departs from the conversation. Remember, we're talking about the mere belief that homosexual actions are sinful. I know this doesn't reflect every religion. But it does reflect my religion as it's officially taught. It also reflects a lot of others. And it reflects the actual beliefs of an awful lot of people.
I'm not claiming, nor have I ever claimed, that every person professing to be Christian states it the way I have here. That's why we're talking about a very restricted question. Does mere belief that homosexual actions are sinful make one a bigot?
As to the rest of the post, since almost all of it seems to be based on some premise that I want to deny homosexuals legal rights, I'm going to let you take a look back at what I've posted and what you've posted and see if you want to extract the parts that are actually a response to me out of the misaimed diatribe.
quote: That is COMPLETELY false. A lot of what this argument is about is all the other things that society offers married couples....the right to share property, receive tax credits/breaks, the right to make medical decisions....among aother things...
Marriage wasn't originally the provenance of religious groups. As a matter of fact, religions originally wanted nothing to do with marriages...they felt that it was a purely secular institution, and they were concerned with spiritual matters.
I believe it wasn't until the middle ages that the church became interested in performing marriages....before that they were indifferent at best.
So it isn't a religious thing that is being discussed here at all.
Kwea
Yeah. a mere 1000 years of marriage being a religous ceremony...
I'm not really sure what you're saying, though. I maintain that since marriage has a religious connotation it should be kept out of government, and instead everyone should have what we call Civil Unions.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: How do you justify declaring homosexuality wrong but back off from declaring homosexuals wrong? If little else, at least those with spine enough to declare homosexuals cursed by God are consistent.
"Hate the sin, love the sinner" is a very simple concept of Christianity. It's not a matter of "degree". If we were limited to only one option regarding our feelings toward a person that does wrong in our eyes, that option being hate, then there wouldn't be a single relationship between any two human beings on this planet. Not only that, but there wouldn't be a hope for salvation among Christians.
I can't stand it when my son tells me a lie. I do everything in my power to squash the habit early on by rewarding honesty. I do it because I hate lying. To take that to the next step and imply that I hate my son would be a pretty bad tactic, and would leave everyone with any experience with a parent-child relationship to call foul.
I am not saying that my relationship with a homosexual equates to a parental relationship. My point here is that it's very possible to hate what someone does and continue to love the person.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I considered this, and realized that I would not refer to my son as a "liar" but rather a kid that has lied, and will probably lie again. I was torn when it came to labeling with the term "homosexual".
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, no. If you're referring to penetration, all couples are capable of it in one fashion or another, especially in today's world of sexual equipment. But why does this matter?
I fail to see how sex determines the ability to love. Or why these "very REAL differences" you fail to cite somehow incapacitate homosexual couples from the true love heterosexual couples enjoy by virtue of their biology. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose if you're referring to "penetration," then any individual with a finger and a nostril can do it I was referring to "sex," which is an entirely different matter.
Again, well, no. Every couple, heterosexual or homosexual, is capable of having sex.
What you've -- surprisingly enough -- failed to answer is why this matters at all. If I have an accident at work and become impotent, would you recommend I never be allowed to marry?
quote:I'm not sure what post you think you're responding to. Could you point out where I say that homosexuals are unable to love? In fact, I'll give you ten extra credit points if you can find the paragraph where I make the exact opposite statement.
In this thread about homosexual equality, you enter and declare that humanity perpetuates itself through reproduction. "This debate will go nowhere if we plug our ears, sing la la la, and blind ourselves to the hard truth" -- that "women and men feel attracted to one another and pair up for a reason."
And that's where you left it.
Exactly what was your point, Geoff? I pointed out how inane your declaration of reproductive biology is, given all couples are capable of raising families in one form or another. You've provided absolutely nothing of substance which confirms or denies homosexuals' right to equal treatment under the law.
Should I have expected you to?
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, no. While all children are born of a woman, that doesn't mean heterosexuals are the only ones capable of producing children -- lesbians can artifically inseminate, and homosexual men can adopt to raise children. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artificial insemination is the union of a male sex cell with a female sex cell. It can't be done without a man. And adoption does not "produce" a child. Did you sleep through the sex ed class where they talked about where babies come from?
Ha ha! I sure did, Geoff!
Somehow I doubt sperm banks are going to dry up tomorrow, Geoff. Lesbians can have children without having sex with men -- homosexual men can have children through surrogate mothers, or raise a family without giving birth to one. Your declaration that children can be produced only through heterosexual "coupling" is wrong and, frankly, inane. Exactly what do you think you've contributed to the debate?
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, to summarize -- humanity perpetuates itself through reproduction, ergo solely heterosexual relationships are worth promoting or supporting and setting apart. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't take it that far. There are many human relationships that are set apart, promoted, and protected for one reason or another. The mother-child relationship, for instance, gets a lot of special treatment, often at the expense of the father-child relationship (another serious blunder).
My point wasn't to recommend a course of action, but to highlight the fact that this is not entirely an issue of egalitarianism. If your position is, "People should be able to marry whomever they want, without relevance to the human reproductive process," that makes me ask, "Then what is the purpose of marriage and the nuclear family, if they are now suddenly irrelevant to human reproduction?"
Except, as I've pointed out twice now, being able to reproduce through heterosexual sex is not inherently necessary to raising a family. Lesbians can, again, artificially inseminate -- homosexual men can adopt. Exactly how is the "purpose of marriage and the nuclear family" threatened by this?
quote:People love to scoff at the idea of reproduction these days. Like there is something low and animal-like about it. But cultures, ideas, values ... everything that defines our lives is carried on by our children, and how they are raised. When people are encouraged to form stable homes, rather than mating serially and casually, they may complain. But their children have a better chance at becoming stable, happy adults.
Heh. Yes, you can't go anywhere these days without hearing some jackass carrying on about reproduction.
I agree. So let's encourage stable, happy homes for these children to grow up -- there are a lot of homosexual couples waiting for the legal right to adopt children to raise as their own.
quote:So marriage, as it stands (or, I suppose, as it once stood), has real value to society. If we are to redefine marriage as "a union of any two people for any purpose", it becomes a meaningless term, and many segments of our culture will lose the benefits that it entails.
Implying, of course, that homosexual couples aren't interested in raising families.
Geoff, someone who used to be a Hatracker has chosen to marry and not reproduce. Has his marriage damaged the institution of marriage? Has marriage become a meaningless term because he hasn't chosen to raise children?
Or how about Dan_Raven? He chose to adopt a child. He's not reproducing -- is he damaging the institution of marriage?
What you don't seem willing to understand is that heterosexual sex is not a fundamental necessity or characteristic of love, nor of raising a family. Homosexual couples can raise children, as heterosexual couples can. So either provide some reasoning on this topic or stop harping about reproductive capacity -- I doubt you're going to lobby to ban marriage from men with deficient sperm counts or from women incapable of bearing children. Why single out homosexuals for your campaign?
Or do I already know why?
quote:Personally, I'm not too worried about my own Mormon subculture. We still place a lot of emphasis on marriage, family, and healthy child-rearing, and we are remarkably successful at it, relative to the larger societies we inhabit. But I'm really not too thrilled about the idea of living with the next generation of children raised in those societies, as the value of marriage and family continues to drop.
You know, at the moment, I regard gay marriage (or at least, civil unions) as an inevitability. And the attempts to block it too often go way overboard — denying insurance benefits to gay partners? What, are these people insane? My goal here isn't to try and deny rights to gays, or keep the gay man down, or whatever dramatic struggle in which you see me as your opposition. What I want is for everyone to stop and take notice if the way we're arguing. For the sake of getting a privilege extended to homosexual couples, you are abandoning all reason and logic, and going off on completely insane idealogical diatribes, denying things as obvious as elementary human biology.
Wow.
Geoff, do you always feel it's necessary to misconstrue your opponent's argument when debating over this topic? Nowhere have I "[abandoned] all reason and logic, and [gone] off on completely insane idealogical diatribes." Or could you cite an example of where I've done either?
And where have I "[denied] things as obvious as elementary human biology"? You seem unwilling to acknowledge the fact that heterosexual sex is not key to reproduction, not with modern technology, and you have yet to specify why this would matter at all.
So far, Geoff, you've provided nothing but empty accusations, pointless insults, and inane declarations of how reproduction can work. You have yet to substantiate a single point -- or have you made any points, aside from insulting me and implying that if homosexual couples are granted legal equality, you're "really not too thrilled about the idea of living with the next generation of children raised in those societies, as the value of marriage and family continues to drop."
Ugh. I'm not sure why I expected better.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So when people single out the male-female sexual union as a unique relationship among all possible human relationships, they aren't just making something up out of custom and bigotry. The distinction is real and biological. There is a reason why our culture promotes and supports it and sets it apart. If you think that reason needs to be rethought, fine, we can have that debate. But please quit trying to pretend the distinction isn't there. It's insulting to everyone's intelligence. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, to summarize -- humanity perpetuates itself through reproduction, ergo solely heterosexual relationships are worth promoting or supporting and setting apart.
What distinction are you talking about? That women produce children? And who has ever pretended it were otherwise? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heh heh. Yes, I think we're definitely dealing with a case of someone sleeping through sex ed. Lalo, women don't produce children. They gestate children. Women and men together produce children I can draw you a diagram if you like.
Ha ha! Oh, you got me, Geoff. Whoo! Is my face red! So that's how it works...
I'm not sure why, but I expected better from you. Are you so incapable of defending the position that homosexuals don't deserve equality with heterosexuals that you'll resort to insulting my intelligence and, albeit high-lariously, my knowledge of sexual biology?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Artificial insemination is the union of a male sex cell with a female sex cell. It can't be done without a man."
Actually, this raises a somewhat intriguing point -- because it CAN be done, and has been done, without a man. Not in humans, of course, to my knowledge, but in research animals.
Our understanding of genetic engineering has advanced to the point where we can in fact CREATE zygotes pretty much out of whole cloth. So what does THAT mean for this argument? If it is in fact possible for science to impregnate someone without requiring male input, does that merely mean that this argument is invalid or does that mean that science has gone too far?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rob, I'm not sure I follow. You wish to restrict a legal right to your own group, heterosexuals. You wish to exclude homosexuals from this right, in name if not in deed -- and you don't think that restriction on the rights of homosexuals is intolerant? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the fact is I don't wish to restrict a legal right to my "own group," and this utter mischaracterization of my position, stated multiple times on this board and in this very thread, is repeated and relied on throughout your post, I'm going to give you a chance to take a deep breath and consider.
Remember, my entire post was a response to your assertion that the mere belief that homosexual actions are sinful makes one a bigot. Not that believing homosexual actions are sinful plus a whole bunch of other things you choose to stack on top it. Not even believing homosexual actions are sinful plus a whole bunch of other things some Christians choose to stack on top of it.
Hmm. Maybe I should re-consider. Rob, do you consider people bigots who believe all interracial relationships are immoral?
If they aren't, neither are people who consider homosexual sex sinful. Both condemn loving relationships they have no familiarity with on basis of the skin or sex characteristics of the parties involved. Both believe the parties in the relationship should date another race/sex, based on nothing but pre-determined judgement that any sexual action between the two is immoral.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether or not you are willing to believe that your god of choice hates homosexuals or homosexuality doesn't reflect every religion. Sadly enough. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's where your post departs from the conversation. Remember, we're talking about the mere belief that homosexual actions are sinful. I know this doesn't reflect every religion. But it does reflect my religion as it's officially taught. It also reflects a lot of others. And it reflects the actual beliefs of an awful lot of people.
I'm not claiming, nor have I ever claimed, that every person professing to be Christian states it the way I have here. That's why we're talking about a very restricted question. Does mere belief that homosexual actions are sinful make one a bigot?
Good question. Does mere belief that interracial sex is immoral make one a bigot?
I'll leave the Catholic bit alone, since it's, as I said, a minor aside.
quote:As to the rest of the post, since almost all of it seems to be based on some premise that I want to deny homosexuals legal rights, I'm going to let you take a look back at what I've posted and what you've posted and see if you want to extract the parts that are actually a response to me out of the misaimed diatribe.
You're right, I'm assuming you hold now the position you held then, that homosexuals deserve seperate-but-equal civil unions -- but not marriage. Segregation was unequal in the fifties, and I hold the same holds true today.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Women and men together produce children I can draw you a diagram if you like.
You may have diagrams, but Lalo has polaroids.
Geoff, I understand where you are coming from. Since its inception marriage has been a way of ensuring the survival of our species. Therefore, I can see why some people believe reproductive unions should be valued over non-reproductive unions.
But is reproduction an absolute value or a relative one? Certainly our planet has more than enough human beings; and at the rate we're going, in a hundred years or so there might be more human beings than this planet could support.
Might there be a point where reproduction is no longer as important as other aspects of marriage such as love or compaionship?
Edited: missed a smiley there.
[ September 06, 2004, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Though the question's rather moot anyway, given homosexual couples can reproduce as well -- if not as easily -- as heterosexual couples can. I fail to see how reproductive capacity is your criteria for marriage, especially when I doubt you're willing to deny marriage rights to impotent heterosexuals.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, where did Dag state that he wants to take any rights away from homosexuals or deny them any? From what I remember (I'm not going back and reading this whole thread again), he supports civil unions for everyone.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
