posted
Homosexuals can get civil unions that give them the benefits of marriage, but I guess they really want the word "marriage."
Suppose the government were to entirely get out of the marriage business and gays started saying that they were married to each other. Then those opposed to homosexuality can scoff and say "yea, sure."
However, if the government were to grant to gays the legal right to "marry" then it makes it harder for anyone to scoff at homosexuality since the government legitimized it.
Is this really the end goal of the "gay marriage" push...a way to make homosexuality acceptable?
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because it's unnatural and deviant behavior.
The interesting thing about this response is that you can make it and still think you've got the moral high ground.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: So is posting on Hatrack. What's you point?
Communicating with other people using technology is not "unnatural." The act of communication isn't unnatural. The act of using/creating technology isn't unnatural either (for humans.)
quote: he interesting thing about this response is that you can make it and still think you've got the moral high ground.
Why should I concede moral superiority to those trying to legitimize a social and biological abnormality as healthy and acceptable?
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Why should I concede moral superiority to those trying to legitimize a social and biological abnormality as healthy and acceptable?" I'm not saying you should concede it. I'm saying that I'm amused that you think you have it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
When Gay Marriage supporters lost in California, they secretly blamed Latinos and Blacks. They then tried again in a state without Latinos and Blacks. They chose Maine. And failed again.
That's 31 fails and 0 wins. When will they get the message?
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: "Why should I concede moral superiority to those trying to legitimize a social and biological abnormality as healthy and acceptable?" I'm not saying you should concede it. I'm saying that I'm amused that you think you have it.
You claim of moral superiority has been noted.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clive, in 30 years you'll be yelling at the television and telling the adopted kids of your gay neighbors to "gerroff your lawn".
The Black Civil Rights leaders ignored talk like yours in the 1950s and gladly they did. And while there are still folks (and Louisiana justices of the peace) who don't accept that the civil rights movement granted black citizens the same rights and privileges as white citizens, that doesn't mean the law has to support their prejudice.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There isn't a difference between whites and blacks that justifies legalized discrimination. There's a difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality that justifies the government not legitimizing the former.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clive, have you not read the scientific studies that show that homosexuality is completely natural and present in all human cultures across all times, as well as in other species?
Perhaps it seems unnatural to you only because you don't have those particular feelings.
Studies show that the people who are the most anti-gay are often the ones who do have those feelings, and wish for social reasons to suppress or refute them. So perhaps the issue matters so much to you for that reason.
In either case, you're badly mistaken. About 10% of the population is gay. As well rail against left-handedness, as they did in days gone by, trying to force kids to be right-handed against their nature.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both sides seem to think gay marriage is a way to legitimize homosexuality. Otherwise I doubt there'd be such a political storm over terminology.
I actually don't think it is an effective way to legitimize it, at least in the minds of the people. People have to see for themselves or be shown that it is legitimate; adjusting the way the government uses a word won't do that.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because it's unnatural and deviant behavior.
And here I thought homosexuality occurred in nature, thus making it - for some - natural by definition.
And of course, "It's unnatural and deviant," even if it were true - which of course it isn't, the former is obviously untrue and the latter completely an opinion of yours - neither are reasons for our government to deny equal status to law-abiding taxpaying homosexuals.
This is America, and we're supposed to need reasons to do that, at least reasons beyond, "Ick!"
quote:Why should I concede moral superiority to those trying to legitimize a social and biological abnormality as healthy and acceptable?
You ought to stop using terms like 'social' and 'acceptable'. Both of them mean whatever we as a human society want them to mean. When you use them in this argument in this fashion, what you're really saying is, "It's unacceptable and abnormal because we say it is." That's not an actual reason.
Biological is, as I've said above, not correct either, but at least you're getting down to strictly rational areas. It's not a 'biological abnormality' anymore than any other uncommon social/sexual activity. But I'm curious, though, in what ways is homosexuality unhealthy? And just to save time, for the purposes of this argument you don't get to use problems caused by society's intolerance of it, because as I've already said, that's arbitrary.
quote:There isn't a difference between whites and blacks that justifies legalized discrimination. There's a difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality that justifies the government not legitimizing the former.
For all the difference you claim is there between the two situations - race relations and sexual-preference relations - the arguments against equal rights for the latter are strangely...identical...to the arguments formerly used against equal rights for the former.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:People have to see for themselves or be shown that it is legitimate...
I think the belief is that same-sex marriage will encourage homosexuals to come out of the closet and reveal themselves as ordinary citizens capable of having stable, healthy, societally-valuable relationships, which will effectively show people exactly that.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, I'm all for government getting out of the marriage business altogether and would be perfectly content with that solution. I don't know if other pro-SSM people agree, but it seems reasonable to me as long as government really does step out and does not allow discrimination based on family
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: There isn't a difference between whites and blacks that justifies legalized discrimination. There's a difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality that justifies the government not legitimizing the former.
You say that now, but give us some time. If the black rights movement had given up this easily, we'd still be drinking from separate water fountains.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think the belief is that same-sex marriage will encourage homosexuals to come out of the closet and reveal themselves as ordinary citizens capable of having stable, healthy, societally-valuable relationships
This is exactly right. Although laws are not passing at this moment in time for SSM I would think in less than a decade all states will allow SSM. A human being attracted to, and wanting to give their love to, another human is not deviant behavior. Clive, if you are a real person and not someone just trying to rile people up for fun on an internet forum I would challenge you to seek out the groups you want to deny marriage to and talk with them. You don't have to discuss your opinions on SSM but try to get to know them as people and see if your beliefs still hold up. Or you can continue to post meaningless rants for the attention you get.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If my wife is hit by a car and in the hospital I can go there, tell them I'm her husband and we're married, show no other proof and be admitted to see her.
A gay man with a civil union going to see his partner in the same situation better have his "civil union" paperwork in hand and his lawyer on speed dial.
I don't have the info or a great link handy, but civil unions DO NOT provide all the same benefits as marriage (here's one link that has a little info on it: http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm). Civil unions aren't even "separate but equal" they are "separate and UNequal")
Most of the homosexual people I know don't care if they're allowed to have a "marriage" or not. What they care about is that whatever they get has identical benefits to heterosexual couples.
That's why I think the government should define "civil union" for all - heterosexual or homosexual - and leave "marriage" to be a completely religious/church thing.
And, by the way I believe that stating that homosexuality is "unnatural and deviant behavior" is in itself unnatural and deviant behavior. But since that's just my opinion it's as useful to rational discussion as much as the original statement by Clive is - not at all.
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Clive, have you not read the scientific studies that show that homosexuality is completely natural and present in all human cultures across all times, as well as in other species?
A lot of perversion and sickness was present in human cultures. That doesn't make it healthy behavior. Just because we're capable of something doesn't mean we should sell it as normal and healthy.
quote: Studies show that the people who are the most anti-gay are often the ones who do have those feelings, and wish for social reasons to suppress or refute them. So perhaps the issue matters so much to you for that reason.
Haha.
quote: In either case, you're badly mistaken. About 10% of the population is gay. As well rail against left-handedness, as they did in days gone by, trying to force kids to be right-handed against their nature.
"10% of people are gay" is a convenient and false statistic.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: For the record, I'm all for government getting out of the marriage business altogether and would be perfectly content with that solution. I don't know if other pro-SSM people agree, but it seems reasonable to me as long as government really does step out and does not allow discrimination based on family
I think this is the best solution. The government should have an official mechanism for recognizing couples (civil unions) but leave control of the religious ceremonies to those who want them. If homosexual couples want the religious aspect as well then it becomes a problem for them to resolve with their church and its other constituents. This would help take the public spotlight off of certain religious groups (ex: Mormons) and could end up being a more effective way of bringing about gay marriage. Creating social pressure by making a personal appeal to the local community (ex: appealing to a local congregation) is likely to be more effective than marching in a demonstration as it avoids marginalizing those who you are negotiating with.
edit: I still think implementing gay marriage through the government is a good solution. I just like Christine's better.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
By all means, continue to reply to rational arguments with subjective opinion - 'perversion' and 'sickness' - and to claim one statistic is a lie without, of course, offering any of your own to actually disprove it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because it's unnatural and deviant behavior.
And here I thought homosexuality occurred in nature, thus making it - for some - natural by definition.
Are these other creatures that engage in homosexual behavior engaging in sexual acts analogous to those which gays practice? Or is mere bonding between same sex creatures being interpreted as homosexual behavior in order to push an agenda?
quote: You ought to stop using terms like 'social' and 'acceptable'. Both of them mean whatever we as a human society want them to mean. When you use them in this argument in this fashion, what you're really saying is, "It's unacceptable and abnormal because we say it is." That's not an actual reason.
Yes there is: People of the same sex are not sexually complimentary. The acts in which they engage in are a perversion of biology.
quote: Biological is, as I've said above, not correct either, but at least you're getting down to strictly rational areas. It's not a 'biological abnormality' anymore than any other uncommon social/sexual activity. But I'm curious, though, in what ways is homosexuality unhealthy? And just to save time, for the purposes of this argument you don't get to use problems caused by society's intolerance of it, because as I've already said, that's arbitrary.
Heterosexual sex has a biological function whereas gay sex doesn't. It's not arbitrary.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Clive, have you not read the scientific studies that show that homosexuality is completely natural and present in all human cultures across all times, as well as in other species?
A lot of perversion and sickness was present in human cultures. That doesn't make it healthy behavior. Just because we're capable of something doesn't mean we should sell it as normal and healthy.
Instead of posting one-liners in response to everyone's objections, how about you post how you feel about homosexuality and why. If you think that it's a "perversion and [a] sickness" then explain why. You currently don't seem to be putting any effort into actually convincing people as to why your view has merit.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: A lot of perversion and sickness was present in human cultures. That doesn't make it healthy behavior.
No, but it does make it "natural", doesn't it? Or maybe you need to define natural for us, since you're obviously using a definition most of us aren't familiar with.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: By all means, continue to reply to rational arguments with subjective opinion - 'perversion' and 'sickness' - and to claim one statistic is a lie without, of course, offering any of your own to actually disprove it.
That which is offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The particular statistic came from Kinsey who interviewed men in prison and then extrapolated the results.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: You ought to stop using terms like 'social' and 'acceptable'. Both of them mean whatever we as a human society want them to mean. When you use them in this argument in this fashion, what you're really saying is, "It's unacceptable and abnormal because we say it is." That's not an actual reason.
Yes there is: People of the same sex are not sexually complimentary. The acts in which they engage in are a perversion of biology.
There is plenty of evidence that homosexuality is a product of nature so calling it a "perversion of biology" doesn't make much sense. I also don't see why it matters.
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote: Biological is, as I've said above, not correct either, but at least you're getting down to strictly rational areas. It's not a 'biological abnormality' anymore than any other uncommon social/sexual activity. But I'm curious, though, in what ways is homosexuality unhealthy? And just to save time, for the purposes of this argument you don't get to use problems caused by society's intolerance of it, because as I've already said, that's arbitrary.
Heterosexual sex has a biological function whereas gay sex doesn't. It's not arbitrary.
So what? Why is it's classification as a biological function related to whether or not we should allow gay marriage? My reasons for supporting gay marriage are completely orthogonal to whether or not homosexuality is a biological function and I suspect that's true for other people here as well. Why does biology matter here?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: A lot of perversion and sickness was present in human cultures. That doesn't make it healthy behavior.
No, but it does make it "natural", doesn't it? Or maybe you need to define natural for us, since you're obviously using a definition most of us aren't familiar with.
"natural" as in "intrinsic and inseparable." No human society ever needed homosexual unions to thrive whereas we need heterosexual ones to maintain society and pass down our legacy.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: A lot of perversion and sickness was present in human cultures. That doesn't make it healthy behavior.
No, but it does make it "natural", doesn't it? Or maybe you need to define natural for us, since you're obviously using a definition most of us aren't familiar with.
"natural" as in "intrinsic and inseparable." No human society ever needed homosexual unions to thrive whereas we need heterosexual ones to maintain society and pass down our legacy.
Okay but that's not how "natural" is normally (if ever) used. It would have been more productive if you brought up the issue of society first. That would have considerably focused this discussion.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Clive, if you had a same-sex couple living on your street, and they were allowed to legally marry with all of the benefits, how does that impact your life?
You can still find their behavior unnatural. You can still look down on them. You can still argue that they're perverted. You can still get married and divorced.
They are not hurting you. They are not hurting your children. They are not infringing on any of your rights. They are happier, and are being treated as equal citizens.
The 'unnatural' and 'perverted' argument doesn't hold weight. What other reason have you to deny them marriage?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Here's a better question, Clive: why do you want to scoff at homosexuality?
Because it's unnatural and deviant behavior.
Clive, how long have you been relying on this argument? I assume you've been doing so for years and years and years. Have you simply not had it explained to you that it's a patently false argument that comes off as completely ignorant?
Or have you had this demonstrated to you and simply refuse to acknowledge that fact?
Or are you confused about the issue?
I mean, let's not mince words here. If you really think this, you're being incredibly dumb. It's like when supporters of creation science belt out the timeless "evolution is just a theory!" statement. It's the same here. "Evolution is unnatural!"
People who want gay acceptance and gay rights in this country are very very empowered when people like you can't move beyond falling into this sort of trap. And you've been doing this for how many years, now?
Seriously! I'm asking the question in all seriousness! Another question, even! Do you not understand how what you wrote easily demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of what 'deviance' actually entails?
__
EDIT
Nevermind the whole asking questions biz, he's just waffled around them completely as of 900 MST, so I'm just going to dump this here for kicks..
__
HEY KIDS! IT'S A QUICK LOOK AT WHY CLIVE'S REHTORICAL AND LOGICAL FOUNDATIONS ARE PRETTY MUCH HOPELESSLY FLAWED
by spumco
HAVE YOU HEARD these soundbites before! Yes you have! A lot of folks just love to lean on them when they are trying to make an argument against homosexuality that passes any sort of secular test! Let's take a look!
1. It's unnatural! Oh no! it's the poster child of the most-often used argument to nature!
2. It's unhealthy! By any metric used to define the unhealthiness of being-gayness, the same is functionally true of being-poorness. The unhealthiness argument is intractibly stuck in what it necessarily damns unless you put in a bunch of illogical double standards. Especially considering that it's much easier to 'fix' being poor than it is to 'fix' being gay.
3. It's deviant! When somebody uses this one, it's a pretty big blunder. It essentially establishes that they don't have a grasp of what "deviance" really means. They're grasping for pseudosecular and 'scientific' reasons to legitimize their moral opposition to homosexuality. If they understood what the actual definition and working practice of interpreting deviance was — in fact, if they actually even understood what the word really meant, instead of crudely fitting it as a word meaning 'thing what is wrong!' they would wisely avoid making this statement because they would know that an argument predicated on this sort of statement is really damn dumb. They would realize that they're making an argument based on circular reasoning. Deviance is a subjective status dependent on the mores and beliefs of an individual culture. Saying "Homosexuality should not be accepted because it is a deviant act" is pretty much literally saying "Homosexuality should not be accepted in America because it is not accepted in America." In addition, when someone uses 'Homosexuality is deviant!' as part of an argument as to why homosexuality should be legitimized in society, they are embarrassingly using the exact same logic that can be and is used to defend things which are indefensible to anyone who isn't a cultural relativist. "Racial intermarriage is deviant!" is an argument predicated on the exact same fallacious logic that was equally worthless fifty years ago.
..
which leads us to the REAL reasoning behind all this.
4. It's unholy! DUN DUN DUNNNNNN This one's a special case. You're not going to encounter it very much from people who are trying to secularly legitimize their argument, because it's essentially an admission of the baldly theocratic motivations behind the anti-gay movement in America, and they know it. They can't rely on 'it's unholy!' to pass intolerance laws, so they do exactly what they think they can get away with to have their religious intolerance pass a secular test.
quote:Are these other creatures that engage in homosexual behavior engaging in sexual acts analogous to those which gays practice? Or is mere bonding between same sex creatures being interpreted as homosexual behavior in order to push an agenda?
quote:Yes there is: People of the same sex are not sexually complimentary. The acts in which they engage in are a perversion of biology.
They're sexually compatible among each other, I dare say. I really don't see where you get the authority to claim you know better what is sexually complimentary between two individuals than those two individuals themselves do.
Stop using 'perversion' as an argument. It's subjective, it's arbitrary, and until you explain why it's not in a persuasive and rational manner, it's not bolstering your argument, you're just repeated a failed argument. However, for the sake of argument, let me ask: if it was 'biologically perverted', would it matter? The exact same sexual act between heterosexuals faces no restrictions or claims of being so perverted it must be legislated*, while among homosexuals it's supposedly so dangerous and bad we can't let it be tolerated.
quote:Heterosexual sex has a biological function whereas gay sex doesn't. It's not arbitrary.
And what about couples who either choose not to have children or are, one or both, sterile and have no children? No biological function there, except to...well, come to think of it, exercise, pleasure, intimacy, etc., between the couple which is the exact same purpose it serves among homosexuals as well.
Why are childless couples granted marriage but homosexual couples aren't? No biological purpose to the former that doesn't exist in the latter. And since you're so keen on repeating it, I'll say again: "It's perverted" is not actually an argument.
This is why folks suspect you might be a troll, Clive. I'm not sure if you are, but it's because these are really, really fundamental arguments to the questions involved, and you crop `em up like they're the first daisies in spring.
*Some such laws are still on the books, but they are thankfully archaic.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: "natural" as in "intrinsic and inseparable." No human society ever needed homosexual unions to thrive whereas we need heterosexual ones to maintain society and pass down our legacy.
Let's say you were a lawyer. I could use the exact same logic you're using now to say "No human society ever needed lawyers to thrive whereas we need farmers to maintain society and pass down our legacy. Ergo, being a lawyer is unnatural, and wrong."
In addition, no human society needs the internet to thrive. In that mind, what the hell are you doing on the internet! Stop being unnatural, it's wrong!
In addition: the 'perversion of biology' is a completely bogus argument as well. Us eating cooked meat is a perversion of biology. It's a fairly major one, in fact. Us drinking cow's milk is a perversion of biology. Heterosexual couples having oral sex is a perversion of biology. The notion that 'perversion of biology' proves the wrongness of any of these acts is exactly as hollow as the notion that it makes any argument against homosexuality that passes any sort of a secular test.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: There is plenty of evidence that homosexuality is a product of nature so calling it a "perversion of biology" doesn't make much sense. I also don't see why it matters.
It is a perversion of biology the same way being born with nine fingers is a perversion of biology. It isn't good and healthy to be born with nine fingers. Why then pretend that being homosexual is good and healthy?
quote: So what? Why is it's classification as a biological function related to whether or not we should allow gay marriage?
The benefit of marriage to society is in bringing children to this world and attaching them to two people who feel a biological urge to take care of and protect them. Gay marriage fundamentally cannot result in children to whom the gays feel biological attachment to. Maybe the gay men will adopt, or maybe one of them will use a surrogate mother, in which case, one of the partners loses out. Pretty much the same thing with lesbians. Point is, adoption/sperm bank/surrogacy are imperfect, and society saying that two men marrying is as respectable and healthy as a man and a woman marrying undermines the functional purpose of marriage.
Moreover, gays have a different conception of "marriage" then do heterosexuals. For instance, male gay couples are supposedly FAR more likely than heterosexual couples to engage in "open relationships." By allowing these sort of people to marry we will fundamentally alter the meaning and purpose of marriage.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clive isn't going to listen to any of you unless you first try and understand where the argument is coming from.
I think most of us Hatrackers are not on this side, but it's worth exercising our skills of tolerance, sensitivity, compassion, and especially, persuasiveness, to see if we can help someone (with the caveat that they are open and willing) to see a new perspective.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is a perversion of biology the same way being born with nine fingers is a perversion of biology. It isn't good and healthy to be born with nine fingers. Why then pretend that being homosexual is good and healthy?
OK, I'm done taking you seriously, and barring some very untroll-like behavior, well, you're derogated to the troll category. Being born missing body parts has an obvious, easily tested and easily observed negative impact on a human being completely divorced from society. Less coordination being the most obvious example. You can't say the same about homosexuality. Hell, not only have you not proven the same about homosexuality, you haven't even made any arguments that, if you substantiated them, would prove or even provide evidence for your conclusion.
quote: Moreover, gays have a different conception of "marriage" then do heterosexuals. For instance, male gay couples are supposedly FAR more likely than heterosexual couples to engage in "open relationships." By allowing these sort of people to marry we will fundamentally alter the meaning and purpose of marriage.
This is a profoundly stupid argument as well, and seals the troll status. We allow completely promiscuous men and women to get married all the time. We're going to continue to allow it. The government has no business intervening.
I know it's hard to resist poking at this sort of thing, and heaven knows I often don't resist it myself, but I say we leave Clive to his thread and don't feed the troll anymore.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously, being dense doesn't make someone a troll. Having bad arguments predicated on bogus logic doesn't make you a troll. You could just be 'a person who seriously believes in bad arguments predicated on bogus logic'
Clive is just particularly adamant about his very weak, easily refuted position. Does that make him a troll if he's genuine about his beliefs?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clive, I actually agree that homosexuality is not ideal - not because it isn't natural, but because I'm skeptical about how good a family unit it produces.
But on the other hand, you have to face this from the perspective of homosexuals. Is it fair to make a public statement, that homosexuality is not ideal, and concretize that philosophy by not extending them recognition by the rest of society (in the form of marriage), just to make that point?
Yea, you may not be thrilled about being gay, but it's out there. Do you empathize with that portion of the population? Are you prepared to tell them, face to face, that they are not IDEAL?
And there are many families that aren't ideal out there - are we prepared to look a gay couple in the eye and seriously give them this explanation when our society is full of unideal marriages?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being a sterile couple sure isn't ideal either, but the only people who use that as a grounding for the sort of logic which would put adoption technically into the Clive-Scoffable-Range of Biological Nonoptimization (i.e., no marriage for sterile couples!) based on his own logic are, uh, received more harshly than people who just want to keep the gays out of their hallowed tradition.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
So are the girrafes having anal sex with each other or merely bonding?
I remember years ago walking home from school and passing on the sidewalk two elementary school boys who seemed to be immigrants from South Asia. They were holding hands in the way that Western romantic couples do, but I'm pretty certain that in their culture such behavior carries no homosexual implications. It's as if scientists with ax to grind are observing similar, innocent behavior in other creatures and then claiming "Ah, homosexuality occurs in nature! So it's normal and okay after all!"
quote: They're sexually compatible among each other, I dare say. I really don't see where you get the authority to claim you know better what is sexually complimentary between two individuals than those two individuals themselves do.
They think they're sexually compatible because they're confused and sick. Unlike you people I refuse to pretend that confusion and sickness is healthy and normal.
quote: Stop using 'perversion' as an argument. It's subjective, it's arbitrary, and until you explain why it's not in a persuasive and rational manner, it's not bolstering your argument, you're just repeated a failed argument. However, for the sake of argument, let me ask: if it was 'biologically perverted', would it matter? The exact same sexual act between heterosexuals faces no restrictions or claims of being so perverted it must be legislated*, while among homosexuals it's supposedly so dangerous and bad we can't let it be tolerated.
Most heterosexual people find the acts we're talking about loathsome and don't practice them. But I think in general there's a difference between heterosexual couples expanding their repertoire and homosexuals making their primary sexual practices what is merely kinky behavior among normals.
quote: And what about couples who either choose not to have children or are, one or both, sterile and have no children? No biological function there, except to...well, come to think of it, exercise, pleasure, intimacy, etc., between the couple which is the exact same purpose it serves among homosexuals as well.
Sterile/infertile people don't threaten heterosexual people because their sterility/infertility stems from a biological flaw in their sexual organs, not from the fact that they're trying to use those sexual organs inappropriately.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clive, the strongest arguments for homosexual marriage have absolutely nothing to do with whether homosexuality is healthy or normal. This has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread and you still haven't addressed it. You need to start explaining why the issues you bring up matter.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: [QB] I remember years ago walking home from school and passing on the sidewalk two elementary school boys who seemed to be immigrants from South Asia. They were holding hands in the way that Western romantic couples do, but I'm pretty certain that in their culture such behavior carries no homosexual implications. It's as if scientists with ax to grind are observing similar, innocent behavior in other creatures and then claiming "Ah, homosexuality occurs in nature! So it's normal and okay after all!"
Clive, does it have to be laid out in extremely unerring wording?
Throughout nature, there are male animals that have sex with other male animals. It is male animals sticking their male penises into the male anuses of other males. They are copulating. Sometimes you have female analogues but they are understandably much harder to interpret as being so blatantly gay as what you get when there is documented penis-in-butt action. It has been documented in many species that there is homosexual attractions between like-gendered individuals of certain species.
quote:They think they're sexually compatible because they're confused and sick. Unlike you people I refuse to pretend that confusion and sickness is healthy and normal.
Ah, you believe this only because you're confused and sick. </worthless-subjective-caveat-judgment>
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: And what about couples who either choose not to have children or are, one or both, sterile and have no children? No biological function there, except to...well, come to think of it, exercise, pleasure, intimacy, etc., between the couple which is the exact same purpose it serves among homosexuals as well.
Sterile/infertile people don't threaten heterosexual people because their sterility/infertility stems from a biological flaw in their sexual organs, not from the fact that they're trying to use those sexual organs inappropriately.
This argument doesn't seem to address people, like me, who CHOOSE not to have children. I have no flaws in my sexual organs and without much effort, I could probably have five more babies. So if I decide to have sex with my husband anyway, is that then an inappropriate use of my sexual organs?
Just trying to work out the definition of "inappropriate use of sexual organs."
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most heterosexual people find the acts we're talking about loathsome and don't practice them.
"Most INSERT ASSUMED NATURAL GOOD GROUP HERE people find the acts we're talking about loathsome and don't practice them."
Cool, it's essentially an argument you could have levied at INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE not more than half a century ago. Obviously, exactly like how it proved that interracial marriage was wrong back then, it proves homosexual sex is wrong now!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
