-
Hi conservativecave,
I'm testing out my new site rgument.com with a really controversial topic: "Same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed". I've posted here as well as a popular LGBT forum in the hopes of finding people on both sides of the divide. Please help me build a list of the best arguments on either side of this fascinating debate. Thanks!
P.S. If you have any suggestions as to the functionality of the site I'd love to hear them.
-
Why?
Our civilization developed as the greatest in the world without it.
-
Legal or Allowed? And if you mean allowed, allowed by whom?
-
NEW CHEW TOY ALERT!!!!!!!!!! NEW CHEW TOY ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdsuUlEP57g&feature=related[/youtube]
-
I get the sense that someone is trying to get a homework assignment done for free . . .
-
OK, best arguments:
1. As an institution marraige is not an expression of love no matter how doe-eyed the lovers stare at each other. It is about obligations that remain long after the hormonal rush has worn off. If people want expressions of their love they should get matching novelty t-shirts. A marriage is society's way of stating it has recognized a state of affairs that exists uniquely between two people. The remainder of society is forbidden to interfere with them and they are compelled under threat of legal sanction to remain loyal to each other. If either of them breaks the terms of that agreement society will take legal action in favor of the remaining partner.
Granted, no-fault divorce and common law marriage weaken this but that is not an argument for further weakening
In the end society--all societies, universally throughout time--have marriage. It isn't about endorsing love but protect society from indiscriminate behavior.
2. the LBGTWTFBBQ community is not dealing honestly with society. First they deny plain facts: homosexuality can be acculturated as many cultures in history have done so. Obviously Christians etc reject this acculturation and it is their freedom of conscience to do so but the BLT community denies that it even happens to avoid the debate or having to swear against eforts to recruit.
Second, the WWRPD (What Would Ru Paul Do) community claims they are born this way (see the above) then claim they somehow exert free will when they wish to prove their love and devotion vis-a-vis marriage.
Liars should have their social agendas dismissed out of hand.
3. Marriage is not a right as the list of people and things you cannot marry is longer than the list of people you can marry. Marry is a privilege granted by society. This penchant by many (including some conservatives and libertarians) to declare every policy preference a "right" is nonsense. If society is asked if it wishes to litigate divorces amongst gays society has the right to say, "No, we do not wish to burden our courts as we do not recognize anything there that could not be settled in civil court." No further justification is needed.
More than a "right to marry" there is the right to self-governance. Laws passed without the consent of the majority of those they would govern is called tyranny. The C3PO community already has every other right bestowed upon all Americans as protected by the Constitution. They are free to petition, campaign etc but let's not have any nonsense about "right to marry".
-
Human civilization seems to have gotten along perfectly well without it for about 10,000 years. Why change now?
-
I say you (We have in Canada) make it legal because thats better them hearing people whine about it. Quite honestly my opinion on this can be summer up in one phrase..."I don't give a ****".
We made it legal and it failed to hurt anything, people forgot it was an issue and moved on.
-
I say you (We have in Canada) make it legal because thats better them hearing people whine about it...
So if people whine to change it back?
-
Fascinating?
No.
Repugnant?
Most definitely.
:fuelfire:
-
I say the government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. It's none of their concern.
-
I say the government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. It's none of their concern.
I can go for that. +1.
-
Marriage is between a man and a woman, more often than not, sanctified by the couple's religious choice.
Same-sex couples should be allowed to have a legal union. Requiring lawyers to split it up, including alimony and child custody, visitation and support. Let them have to jump through the same legal hoops that hetero couples do getting a divorce.
-
I say you (We have in Canada) make it legal because thats better them hearing people whine about it.
I hope you never have children.
-
I say you (We have in Canada) make it legal because thats better them hearing people whine about it. Quite honestly my opinion on this can be summer up in one phrase..."I don't give a ****".
We made it legal and it failed to hurt anything, people forgot it was an issue and moved on.
I feel the same way only I am not in Canada. If homosexuals want to get married, I.DO.NOT.GIVE.A.RAT'S.ASS.
-
Let the queers get married. Why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us.
Of course there must be provision that any entity opposed to such things cannot be compelled to perform the service.
-
I would say that most homosexuals love only themselves and sex...and want to form some legal bond so they can avail them selves of the perks and freebies afford married couple...health insurance etc.. But the biggest prize will be the government freebies they will become entitled too SS, survivor benefits, and primary care giver benefits for their HIV infected sex partner.
...and old Snuggle Bunny hit it out of the park....worth a reread.
-
OK, best arguments:
1. As an institution marraige is not an expression of love no matter how doe-eyed the lovers stare at each other. It is about obligations that remain long after the hormonal rush has worn off. If people want expressions of their love they should get matching novelty t-shirts. A marriage is society's way of stating it has recognized a state of affairs that exists uniquely between two people. The remainder of society is forbidden to interfere with them and they are compelled under threat of legal sanction to remain loyal to each other. If either of them breaks the terms of that agreement society will take legal action in favor of the remaining partner.
Granted, no-fault divorce and common law marriage weaken this but that is not an argument for further weakening
And your argument for restricting this to heterosexual relationships is?
In the end society--all societies, universally throughout time--have marriage. It isn't about endorsing love but protect society from indiscriminate behavior.
And it's somehow harmful to promote monogamy amongst homosexuals, how?
2. the LBGTWTFBBQ community is not dealing honestly with society. First they deny plain facts: homosexuality can be acculturated as many cultures in history have done so. Obviously Christians etc reject this acculturation and it is their freedom of conscience to do so but the BLT community denies that it even happens to avoid the debate or having to swear against eforts to recruit.
Can you produce evidence, other than irrelevant historical evidence, to prove that this is taking place?
I can produce evidence that Christians have engaged in genocide. That historical evidence isn't proof that modern Christians do so.
Second, the WWRPD (What Would Ru Paul Do) community claims they are born this way (see the above) then claim they somehow exert free will when they wish to prove their love and devotion vis-a-vis marriage.
What does one have to do with another? You were born heterosexual, were you not? Are you then proving that you *choose* to be heterosexual when you make a choice to marry?
I agree- relationships are a choice. I suppose a homosexual person could make the choice to never have sex, never engage in a relationship, live and die alone. But why should they?
Liars should have their social agendas dismissed out of hand.
I agree.
3. Marriage is not a right as the list of people and things you cannot marry is longer than the list of people you can marry. Marry is a privilege granted by society. This penchant by many (including some conservatives and libertarians) to declare every policy preference a "right" is nonsense. If society is asked if it wishes to litigate divorces amongst gays society has the right to say, "No, we do not wish to burden our courts as we do not recognize anything there that could not be settled in civil court." No further justification is needed.
In our Country, this has been decided by the courts as false, during trials to determine the legality of prohibiting marriages between blacks and whites.
Marriage has been deemed a right.
More than a "right to marry" there is the right to self-governance. Laws passed without the consent of the majority of those they would govern is called tyranny. The C3PO community already has every other right bestowed upon all Americans as protected by the Constitution. They are free to petition, campaign etc but let's not have any nonsense about "right to marry".
The right for blacks and whites to marry had to be established without the consent of the majority, as the majority opposed the measure.
-
Human civilization seems to have gotten along perfectly well without it for about 10,000 years. Why change now?
Marriage in it's current conception hasn't existed for that long.
-
I say the government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. It's none of their concern.
Agreed. H5.
-
Marriage is between a man and a woman, more often than not, sanctified by the couple's religious choice.
Same-sex couples should be allowed to have a legal union. Requiring lawyers to split it up, including alimony and child custody, visitation and support. Let them have to jump through the same legal hoops that hetero couples do getting a divorce.
According to what document?
If you're saying marriage is a religious rite, then why is the government protecting it? Seems like a blatant violation of the Constitution.
-
I would say that most homosexuals love only themselves and sex...and want to form some legal bond so they can avail them selves of the perks and freebies afford married couple...health insurance etc.. But the biggest prize will be the government freebies they will become entitled too SS, survivor benefits, and primary care giver benefits for their HIV infected sex partner.
...and old Snuggle Bunny hit it out of the park....worth a reread.
You're alleging I don't love my son?
I didn't love the Country when I served in it combat?
I didn't love the men and women who served along with me?
I don't love my partner in the same way you love yours?
I don't love my dog?
I don't love dog training and the sport of Schutzhund?
I don't love the Mariners?
I don't love the Seahawks?
I don't love nacho cheese?
I don't love many of the same exact things that you love?
-
i agree, who gives a shit????
-
Marriage has been deemed a right.
Anyone can deem it any way they like. If it was really a "right", I wouldn't have had to wait until I was 43 and found a willing partner to do it.
People have as much "right" to get married as they do to play professional polo. Sure, it's possible, and legal, and everything, but you still need the skills and the right equipment. Including a horse. No matter how hard you try, you can't play polo with two riders-- or two horses.
Unless, of course, a court "deems" you can. Then woe betide the bigot who dares to spew such hate speech as "two men and no horse cannot play polo." Right?
-
Anyone can deem it any way they like. If it was really a "right", I wouldn't have had to wait until I was 43 and found a willing partner to do it.
People have as much "right" to get married as they do to play professional polo. Sure, it's possible, and legal, and everything, but you still need the skills and the right equipment. Including a horse. No matter how hard you try, you can't play polo with two riders-- or two horses.
Unless, of course, a court "deems" you can. Then woe betide the bigot who dares to spew such hate speech as "two men and no horse cannot play polo." Right?
Never heard of water polo, huh?
Voting is a right. Still can't do it until you're 18, and a citizen.
Just because something involves restrictions, doesn't mean it isn't a right.
I have the right to own a gun. Provided I can afford one.
Or is gun ownership not a right because the Founding Fathers didn't distribute a firearm to every citizen, and sufficient ammunition on a yearly basis to make gun ownership worthwhile?
Is freedom of the press not a right, because not everyone can afford their own publication?
Is the right to be free in your effects from unreasonable searches and seizures not a right if you're too poor to own a home?
-
According to what document?
If you're saying marriage is a religious rite, then why is the government protecting it? Seems like a blatant violation of the Constitution.
I think of marriage as more of a religious rite.
If a Catholic man and a Catholic woman are married by a priest in the Catholic Church (I don't believe it is required for the wedding ceremony to be held within the Church walls)...the Catholic Church recognizes the marriage. While the civil courts may divorce the couple, the couple remains married in the "eyes of the Church" unless they apply to the Church, for an annulment and it is granted by the Church. Only after an "annulment by the Catholic Church", is either party allowed to marry another Catholic by a Catholic priest and for the Church to recognize the marriage. Either party is legally allowed to remarry, and be legally married by the laws of the state, but without an annulment by the Church, those marriages are not recognized by the Church.
If one individual of the couple is Catholic, and the other is not...and they are not married by a Catholic priest...they are not married in the "eyes of the Church". They do not require an annulment by the Church to remarry another Catholic (provided that individual is considered "single" by the Church) by a Catholic priest.
(I hope I explained that correctly. I know the Church's system, just hope I explained it clearly. The Catholic Church makes a LOT of money from annulments. My step-sister had one, my half-sister did, M did.)
I guess the government is involved because it requires government intervention by the civil court system to legally acquire a divorce.
FYI....per Wiki...only because it was the most recent update of the sites I checked.
Common-law marriage can still be contracted in eleven states (Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire (posthumously), Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah) and in the District of Columbia.
Common-law marriages can no longer be contracted in the following states, as of the dates given: Alaska (1917), Arizona (1913), California (1895), Florida (1968), Georgia (1997), Hawaii (1920), Idaho (1996), Illinois (1905), Indiana (1958), Kentucky (1852), Maine (1652, when it became part of Massachusetts; then a state, 1820), Massachusetts (1646), Michigan (1957), Minnesota (1941), Mississippi (1956), Missouri (1921), Nebraska (1923), Nevada (1943), New Mexico (1860), New Jersey (1939), New York (1933, also 1902–1908), North Dakota (1890), Ohio (1991), Oklahoma (Nov. 2010), Pennsylvania (2005), South Dakota (1959), and Wisconsin (1917).
The following states never permitted common-law marriages: Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, California, and Wyoming. Note that common-law marriage was never known in Louisiana, which is a French civil or code law jurisdiction, not an English common law jurisdiction. As such, it is a former Council of Trent jurisdiction.
-
eh, go ahead and let them get married.......let them be as miserable as the rest of us :fuelfire:
-
I say the government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. It's none of their concern.
Exactly!
-
Religious institutions should be allowed to determine whether or not to marry gays, but as for the civil courts, I also really don't care. I'd rather two gays be in a committed, exclusive relationship than promiscuous, and that is how I feel about heterosexuals as well.
Marriage has been defined, as still is in some parts of the world, as between a man and up to four women. I personally find that more abhorrent than two guys or two gals marrying; to me that guy is just a man whore. Also, if my marriage were ever to fail due to infidelity, it wouldn't be because my husband decided to start screwing some guy.
-
Religious institutions should be allowed to determine whether or not to marry gays, but as for the civil courts, I also really don't care. I'd rather two gays be in a committed, exclusive relationship than promiscuous, and that is how I feel about heterosexuals as well.
Marriage has been defined, as still is in some parts of the world, as between a man and up to four women. I personally find that more abhorrent than two guys or two gals marrying; to me that guy is just a man whore. Also, if my marriage were ever to fail due to infidelity, it wouldn't be because my husband decided to start screwing some guy.
H5 for most of it, but it seems counter-intuitive that committing to a monogamous relationship is somehow being a man-whore.
-
H5 for most of it, but it seems counter-intuitive that committing to a monogamous relationship is somehow being a man-whore.
You misunderstood my post...the man whore comment was in regards to men who are married to FOUR women at the same time a la Islam. They certainly don't allow their women the option of marrying four guys at a time. That's not a monogamous relationship-that's a guy getting his jollies with more than one woman AND blessed by his religion. Just one of the many reasons I dislike Islam so much.
-
Never heard of water polo, huh?
Two different games, like American Football and Australian Rules Football (that ***** game for pre-teen girls they call "football" in the EU etc. doesn't even qualify). But you knew that...
Voting is a right. Still can't do it until you're 18, and a citizen.
Something you can do without the agreement and participation of another person. But you knew that...
Just because something involves restrictions, doesn't mean it isn't a right.
I would argue the opposite, that a real "right" cannot be restricted by anyone who claims that you have it.
I have the right to own a gun. Provided I can afford one.
Agreed.
Or is gun ownership not a right because the Founding Fathers didn't distribute a firearm to every citizen, and sufficient ammunition on a yearly basis to make gun ownership worthwhile?
Precisely the opposite of my point: for it to be a right, you must be able to do it yourself, alone, without help or hindrance from anyone else be they individual or government.
Is freedom of the press not a right, because not everyone can afford their own publication?
Freedom of the press is the right to publish whatever you can publish, however you can publish, without fear of the government punishing you for the content. But I think you knew that, too.
Is the right to be free in your effects from unreasonable searches and seizures not a right if you're too poor to own a home?
Everyone, no matter how poor, has some private place. Not to be gross, but a naked man has the right to free from unreasonable search and siezure of the contents of his ass-crack.
But you knew that, too, right?
-
And your argument for restricting this to heterosexual relationships is?
Homosexuality is not new and yet it has not been given social sanction but the most advanced civilization in history.
Why?
And it's somehow harmful to promote monogamy amongst homosexuals, how?Can you produce evidence, other than irrelevant historical evidence, to prove that this is taking place?
I reject the claim on its face. If the idea were to be promoting monogamy the same voices would be promoting mongamy among heteroes but their other actions do everything to tear down monogamy and ridicule nuclear families.
I can produce evidence that Christians have engaged in genocide. That historical evidence isn't proof that modern Christians do so. What does one have to do with another?
Because permission leads to action. The savages in the M.E. repeat to themselves how it is OK to take sexual slaves from among the conquered so they have no qualms about raping female reporters.
Granted, there is a far cry between gays and savage Islamic rapists but since you introduced such analogies it seemed fitting.
You were born heterosexual, were you not? Are you then proving that you *choose* to be heterosexual when you make a choice to marry?
I can choose my sexuality. There is no part of my physical anatomy that differs from any other male's. Ditto for every male homosexual.
I agree- relationships are a choice. I suppose a homosexual person could make the choice to never have sex, never engage in a relationship, live and die alone. But why should they?
Or maybe they have chosen the lifestyle because it physically feels good.
Or maybe they are psychologically mal-adjusted due to some trauma (child sexual abuse victims are more likely to engage in homosexuality).
Or maybe they are psycho-physiologically defective the way a diabetic suffers from his condition.
Which of those possibilities deserves force of law?
In our Country, this has been decided by the courts as false, during trials to determine the legality of prohibiting marriages between blacks and whites.
False analogy.
As I noted, homosexuality can be acculturated, learned, a reaction to trauma or imbalance.
Race is none of those things.
Marriage has been deemed a right.
And it can be undeemed just as easily.
It can also be restricted. Just as speech is a right but vocally advocating violence is not permitted.
The right for blacks and whites to marry had to be established without the consent of the majority, as the majority opposed the measure.
And while the practical result is socially agreeable it would have been far more effective if the laws were overturned in their proper place: the legislature.
If legislation is incapable of imparting morality, so much more so judicial diktat. At least legislation enjoys (for the most part) the consent of the majority.
-
Homosexuality is not new and yet it has not been given social sanction but the most advanced civilization in history.
Why?
For the same reason that slavery receiving sanction is something that has recently ended.
-
As I noted, homosexuality can be acculturated, learned, a reaction to trauma or imbalance.
Prove it.
-
I can choose my sexuality. There is no part of my physical anatomy that differs from any other male's. Ditto for every male homosexual.
Or maybe they have chosen the lifestyle because it physically feels good.
Or maybe they are psychologically mal-adjusted due to some trauma (child sexual abuse victims are more likely to engage in homosexuality).
Or maybe they are psycho-physiologically defective the way a diabetic suffers from his condition.
Which of those possibilities deserves force of law?
You cannot prove a single one of these assertions, and in fact several have been proven to be patently false.
-
I reject the claim on its face. If the idea were to be promoting monogamy the same voices would be promoting mongamy among heteroes but their other actions do everything to tear down monogamy and ridicule nuclear families.
Example?
-
You cannot prove a single one of these assertions, and in fact several have been proven to be patently false.
Abstract
In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls. Suggestions for future research were offered.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=11501300&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google
Example?
Who promotes gay marriage: conservatives or liberals?
Do liberals at any point in their culture promote heterosexual monogamy or propose laws to strengthen marriage?
For the same reason that slavery receiving sanction is something that has recently ended.
Slavery in the western world has had its ebbs and flows; so I'm not sure what you're on about.
This mania to equate homosexuality to race is incomprehensible but fine, I'll but.
Tell me: why was interracial marriage outlawed?
I'm going to suggest because people thought it was wrong/immoral.
Once it was permitted was it considered immoral?
Nobody thinks so today.
Do people blanch at the sight of interracial couples?
Nope.
Are there more interracial couples today then when the laws were in effect?
yep
So permission leads to action.
-
So you're saying that people who thought interracial marriage was immoral were correct?
-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=11501300&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google
You're aware that the entire cohort methodology is flawed in and of itself, and that specific study has been rejected overwhelmingly as having flawed methods, to include the definition of "sexual abuse" as having been a variety of sexual experiences that come nowhere near clinical abuse.
The study was conducted by asking people at Gay Pride rallies to fill out a survey.
Oh, and the leader of the study you cite [Templer], also thinks black people are inherently less intelligent than white people, at a biological level. [A point of view generally known as racism.]
Furthermore, the study draws an unsupported conclusion.
It assumes that a perceived correlation between childhood abuse and homosexuality is equal to a causation of homosexuality by abuse.
It completely ignores the possibility that gender non-conforming children are more likely to be sexually abused, and that homosexuality causes abuse, not vice versa.
Oh look, a study that supports just that idea:
That queer kids are more likely to be abused, by virtue of the fact that they are queer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15982145
-
http://www.conservapedia.com/Sexual_abuse_being_a_contributing_factor_for_homosexuality
The authors of the above medical journal article entitled Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons also stated that childhood sexual molestation may not be a causal factor for homosexuality and that the abuse molestation may be occurring after the individual is a homosexual and the medical researchers speculated that the victims of molestation may be engaging in behaviors that put them at greater risk for molestation.
-
I reject the claim on its face. If the idea were to be promoting monogamy the same voices would be promoting mongamy among heteroes but their other actions do everything to tear down monogamy and ridicule nuclear families.
Do you hear me advocating anything other than monogamy?
-
I say the government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. It's none of their concern.
+1
-
I say the government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. It's none of their concern.
Indeed! I couldn't agree with you more.
-
While it seems this was a hit and run post started by a newbie, it was well worth it to read "WWRPD" by snugs. :rofl:
-
Do you hear me advocating anything other than monogamy?
Well, that's 1.
Now how about the rest of the liberal political and cultural establishment?
So you're saying that people who thought interracial marriage was immoral were correct?
No. I'm saying the comparison is asinine. Sexual proclivity =/= race.
That liberalization of marriage an its effect on social norms is an existential fact. I'm merely noting that fact not making any judgment as it its rightness or wrongness but if you must know my first real relationship was inter-racial and I still carry a torch for her to this day.
My entire point in this thread is that "gay marriage" is a fiction. Gay is not the same as black. You even concede one minute acculturate homosexuality exists then the next minute you beg to know if heteros can choose their sexual orientation. We haven't even mentioned situational homosexuality (I try not to because if anyone makes a crack about naval service Thor gets so upset he stops posting Lady Gaga to charge in and tell us how thilly we all are).
If you want to petition in favor of it, so be it, such is your right. It is also the right of other to petition against it.
Now let me ask you: Which is more important, gay marriage or ruling a majority against their consent?
-
Acultural homosexuality has existed historically, yes.
In the same sort of cultures where battlefield rape of conquered armies was an acceptable practice.
Historical evidence of something isn't equatable to present culture.
I personally don't advocate gay marriage. I'd be much happier to see the government stop endorsing religion in violation of the Constitution, and un-involve itself in marriage entirely. Civil unions should be the standard for ANYONE who wants legal recognition of a family unit.
-
No. I'm saying the comparison is asinine. Sexual proclivity =/= race.
That liberalization of marriage an its effect on social norms is an existential fact. I'm merely noting that fact not making any judgment as it its rightness or wrongness but if you must know my first real relationship was inter-racial and I still carry a torch for her to this day.
My entire point in this thread is that "gay marriage" is a fiction. Gay is not the same as black. You even concede one minute acculturate homosexuality exists then the next minute you beg to know if heteros can choose their sexual orientation. We haven't even mentioned situational homosexuality (I try not to because if anyone makes a crack about naval service Thor gets so upset he stops posting Lady Gaga to charge in and tell us how thilly we all are).
If you want to petition in favor of it, so be it, such is your right. It is also the right of other to petition against it.
Now let me ask you: Which is more important, gay marriage or ruling a majority against their consent?
So are you actually trying to argue that sexual orientation is simply a matter of culture?
-
Acultural homosexuality has existed historically, yes.
In the same sort of cultures where battlefield rape of conquered armies was an acceptable practice.
Historical evidence of something isn't equatable to present culture.
Baseless and improbable.
To claim no society can undergo acculturation is simply unprovable. In your desperation to link race and homosexuality you have also inadvertantly betrayed the fact that a society can be acculturated to change deeply held views, i.e. racism, once acceptable, is now a universally reviled trait.
Please tell me by what stroke of imagination can something be continually portrayed and pleasurable, acceptable and even beneficial and not gain broader practice?
Even though you were contradicting yourself you implied earlier that heteroes were born the way they are when you questioned whether or not I or any other hetero chose their lifestyle. Did humanity suddenly evolve a homophobic gene to prevent such acculturation (and do you really want to play THAT line of argument)?
I personally don't advocate gay marriage. I'd be much happier to see the government stop endorsing religion in violation of the Constitution, and un-involve itself in marriage entirely. Civil unions should be the standard for ANYONE who wants legal recognition of a family unit.
The debate appears to be over what constitutes a family unit. Even civil unions must be defined by what will and won't be recognized as legitimate by the courts. In matters of civil law there is tremendous latitude as to what private parties may voluntarily agree to between themselves but conversely there is a broad range contracts that are forbidden.
And yes, the government can regulate marriage on behalf society both in agreement with and opposition to religion. That is why there are such things as age of consent, forced marriage, anti-incest and anti-polygamy laws.
The fact is, there is a debate. The "traditional marriage" side has not agitated for this debate because until recently they did not have to and even now they are merely fighting a holding action. It is the pro-gay marriage (PGM) side that has agitated to compel government into the realm of marriage. The debate is here; it will not go away until the PGM ceases their protest. Yet, they have every right to protest but the protest itself forces the issue into the hands of courts and legislatures.
If you really want to see government out of the marriage business maybe your argument is with those who forced the issue in the first place.
So are you actually trying to argue that sexual orientation is simply a matter of culture?
I'm sure some homosexuals endure a physcho-physiological malady the same way diabetics or epileptics have to endure their conditions. But to claim homosexuality CANNOT be acculturated is to deny the avalache of historical and anthropological evidence affirming the fact.
-
I'm sure some homosexuals endure a physcho-physiological malady the same way diabetics or epileptics have to endure their conditions. But to claim homosexuality CANNOT be acculturated is to deny the avalache of historical and anthropological evidence affirming the fact.
What avalanche of evidence?
The existence of societies where the open practice of homosexuality was or is virtually nil, does not constitute good evidence that sexual orientations of individuals can be influenced or altered by social pressures. I'm somewhat reminded of the time Ahmadinejad was asked about homosexuality in Iran as he gave a speech in the US, and he replied, "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country." Sure, maybe the open practice is non-existent - and even the clandestine practice is probably very small (because if they get caught, they might be executed) - but doesn't mean there are any less men who are sexually attracted primarily to other men (same goes for women).
-
What avalanche of evidence?
The existence of societies where the open practice of homosexuality was or is virtually nil, does not constitute good evidence that sexual orientations of individuals can be influenced or altered by social pressures. I'm somewhat reminded of the time Ahmadinejad was asked about homosexuality in Iran as he gave a speech in the US, and he replied, "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country." Sure, maybe the open practice is non-existent - and even the clandestine practice is probably very small (because if they get caught, they might be executed) - but doesn't mean there are any less men who are sexually attracted primarily to other men (same goes for women).
Aren't you late for your 83rd trimester abortion appointment, Wilbur? Shaddup and let the adults talk, mmkay? :foff:
-
What avalanche of evidence?
The existence of societies where the open practice of homosexuality was or is virtually nil, does not constitute good evidence that sexual orientations of individuals can be influenced or altered by social pressures...
The Spartans for startin's. They were trained to seek sexual release with their fellow warriors.
Ditto the Romans, Greeks, Babylonians and others to varying degrees between their cultures.
Much of the biblical proscriptions, i.e. not cutting the corners of the beard, are intended to distinguish the Hebrew from his neighboring pagans because male pagan temple prostitutes cut their facial hair to excentuate their boyish features.
Ask any soldier deployed to Afghanistan about the local custom of "Man-Love Thursday." They see women as objects of sexual gratification, only pro-creation. Sex for fun comes from their fellow man.
IIRC, one Australian or SE Pacific aboriginal tribe has the young boys fellate each other and drink semen so as to facilitate their growth into men.
NOTE: This is not an exhaustive list.
QUERY: If homosexuality has so much approval and acceptance amongst liberals why does the prospect of acculturated homosexuality frighten them so much? I mean, if it's OK, if there is nothing wrong with it, if it isn't unhealthy, if it is admitted homosexuals derive deep fulfilling pleasure from their actions then exactly WHY do their defenders grow either pale with dread or red with fury at any suggestion others might of their own free will join such activities?
-
Hi conservativecave,
I'm testing out my new site rgument.com with a really controversial topic: "Same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed". I've posted here as well as a popular LGBT forum in the hopes of finding people on both sides of the divide. Please help me build a list of the best arguments on either side of this fascinating debate. Thanks!
P.S. If you have any suggestions as to the functionality of the site I'd love to hear them.
I have read a few comments to you and I have to say this is most complicated.
What is two people wish to marry and not have sex, does this make the marriage invalid???
What about people that are handicapped, paralyzed from the waist down, can they not get married???
Then every so often we read of 80 year olds in nursing homes that get married so they can share the same living quarters.
As far as I know there is nothing in the law that says getting married to same or different sex has to involve sex.
-
What avalanche of evidence?
The existence of societies where the open practice of homosexuality was or is virtually nil, does not constitute good evidence that sexual orientations of individuals can be influenced or altered by social pressures. I'm somewhat reminded of the time Ahmadinejad was asked about homosexuality in Iran as he gave a speech in the US, and he replied, "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country." Sure, maybe the open practice is non-existent - and even the clandestine practice is probably very small (because if they get caught, they might be executed) - but doesn't mean there are any less men who are sexually attracted primarily to other men (same goes for women).
What about the fact that in those places where the lifestyle is accepted as normal, they're not procreating enough to continue their existence? Every country it's treated as normal is a country that's on a death spiral and only growing due to immigration, most of the time by people of a religion that would just as soon cut your f'n head off. Sweden, Belgium, England, France, etc., etc., etc. ALL dying.
-
Wasn't there just a post about San Fagsico and how their young population is dwindling??
Why, yes, there was: http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,57004.0.html
Case in point.
-
“Should same-sex marriage be legal?†When we speak of “legal†we mean government laws. There are really two government¬s involved: federal and state. The federal government’s current primary role is providing financial benefits to couples with marriage licenses issued by the states. I would argue that the federal government should not be involved in marriage or civil unions.
The federal government began its involvement in marriage about 80 years ago and its subsidies to couples with marriage licenses have been accumulating over the years. There is no evidence that the institution of marriage is stronger now than it was 80 years ago. There is no indication that federal subsidies have helped strengthen¬ed the institution of marriage.
The vast bulk of these subsidies go to our more affluent couples. We could justify ending the federal government’s involvement in marriage with the argument that married couples in financial distress get very little federal marriage monies, if any, and that government marriage subsidies go mostly to affluent married couples who do not need it.
Do these subsidies provide incentive for couples to get a marriage license? It is hard to imagine a couple in their twenties and in love deciding to get a marriage license because the wife might be able to collect 50% of the husband’s Social Security when they are in their sixties.
Getting the federal government and state government out of the marriage/civil union business would be a graceful way to end the same-sex marriage debate.
-
The Spartans for startin's. They were trained to seek sexual release with their fellow warriors.
Ditto the Romans, Greeks, Babylonians and others to varying degrees between their cultures.
Much of the biblical proscriptions, i.e. not cutting the corners of the beard, are intended to distinguish the Hebrew from his neighboring pagans because male pagan temple prostitutes cut their facial hair to excentuate their boyish features.
Ask any soldier deployed to Afghanistan about the local custom of "Man-Love Thursday." They see women as objects of sexual gratification, only pro-creation. Sex for fun comes from their fellow man.
IIRC, one Australian or SE Pacific aboriginal tribe has the young boys fellate each other and drink semen so as to facilitate their growth into men.
Well, again, this just speaks to the fact that some certain sexual behaviors are malleable by social pressures in certain people - but not necessarily one's genuine sexual desires. There are also plenty of examples of gay men who have married women - had children. This, however, is not good evidence that the man really had a heterosexual orientation.
Still open is the possibility that one's sexual desires, either homosexual or hetero - have a strong basis in heredity. And that's exactly what is suggested by quite a lot of research. Some of the most notable examples of such research, are the various twin studies.
QUERY: If homosexuality has so much approval and acceptance amongst liberals why does the prospect of acculturated homosexuality frighten them so much? I mean, if it's OK, if there is nothing wrong with it, if it isn't unhealthy, if it is admitted homosexuals derive deep fulfilling pleasure from their actions then exactly WHY do their defenders grow either pale with dread or red with fury at any suggestion others might of their own free will join such activities?
Do gay men really fear straight guys taking a trip to the dark side? Doubt it!
They certainly will get upset when you suggest that *THEY* chose their orientations, and for some reason, that makes it right to marginalize them. The whole "its a choice" thing, is basically used as an excuse to dismiss their concerns.
But of course, that whole can of worms is a fallacy to begin with. Who cares if the actions were the result of choice or biology? The most probable answer is that its *all* biology - from your sexual orientation, to your taste in food and music. The libertarian free-will types have absolutely no way to determine which actions of a person actually originated from whatever mysterious and magical realm one's free choices are supposed to originate from, and which actions are the products of biological and/or environmental causation. The only thing they can say is that they havent found a specific material cause for a particular action or choice - and that therefore, maybe it came from "the will" - and therefore it should be blameworthy in some way? That's ridiculous.
-
What about the fact that in those places where the lifestyle is accepted as normal, they're not procreating enough to continue their existence? Every country it's treated as normal is a country that's on a death spiral and only growing due to immigration, most of the time by people of a religion that would just as soon cut your f'n head off. Sweden, Belgium, England, France, etc., etc., etc. ALL dying.
So homosexuality is the root cause behind all these nations drop in fertility? Just what does homosexuality have to do with the shrinking size of modern families?
-
So homosexuality is the root cause behind all these nations drop in fertility? Just what does homosexuality have to do with the shrinking size of modern families?
I don't remember saying a damn thing about it being the root cause. I simply posted a correlation and I do think they have something to do with one another.
-
I don't remember saying a damn thing about it being the root cause. I simply posted a correlation and I do think they have something to do with one another.
Fertility rates, and the various causes of their rises and drops, are extremely complicated... everything from economics to birth control and a million other things... I remain unconvinced, to put it mildly, that treating a tiny homosexual population as equals has anything to do with how many kids heterosexual couples chose to have.
-
Fertility rates, and the various causes of their rises and drops, are extremely complicated... everything from economics to birth control and a million other things... I remain unconvinced, to put it mildly, that treating a tiny homosexual population as equals has anything to do with how many kids heterosexual couples chose to have.
Fertility rates don't seem to be dropping in the Muslim immigrants, only the left-wing thinking natives who think Ted and Fred getting it on in the park is normal.
For the record, I have no problem with homosexuals. I don't, however, want it to be known as "the norm" and I don't want us to wind up sacrificing our moral decency to appease a small sector or our society. I have two best friends who are gay and have been with each other for twenty years. They don't throw it up in your face and live decent lives. Lives that should be lauded as decent. What do we see instead? Idiots in assless chaps wearing pink boas parading all downtown in "pride" parades in front of children. That shit needs to f'n stop. If you don't want to be seen as a hedonistic freak, then stop ACTING like a hedonistic freak. There are NO straight people that I know that see what happens with loose women at Mardi Gras as "normal". I don't think most people would ostracize gay people if they just lived their damn lives like everyone else and stopped throwing shit up in their faces. Those aren't the ones doing a disservice to their sexual status. You're gay. We get it. Now STFU. We don't care.
-
Fertility rates don't seem to be dropping in the Muslim immigrants, only the left-wing thinking natives who think Ted and Fred getting it on in the park is normal.
For the record, I have no problem with homosexuals. I don't, however, want it to be known as "the norm" and I don't want us to wind up sacrificing our moral decency to appease a small sector or our society. I have two best friends who are gay and have been with each other for twenty years. They don't throw it up in your face and live decent lives. Lives that should be lauded as decent.
What do we see instead? Idiots in assless chaps wearing pink boas parading all downtown in "pride" parades in front of children. That shit needs to f'n stop. If you don't want to be seen as a hedonistic freak, then stop ACTING like a hedonistic freak. There are NO straight people that I know that see what happens with loose women at Mardi Gras as "normal". I don't think most people would ostracize gay people if they just lived their damn lives like everyone else and stopped throwing shit up in their faces. Those aren't the ones doing a disservice to their sexual status. You're gay. We get it. Now STFU. We don't care.
Gay's were ostracized even more harshly in times when ass-less leather chaps and pride parades would have been absolutely unthinkable. So I really don't think that's it.
As MP_Sarge suggested earlier, encouraging homosexuals to take part in monogamous marriage may actually help change some of that "in your face" culture, and perhaps even the promiscuity.
-
Gay's were ostracized even more harshly in times when ass-less leather chaps and pride parades would have been absolutely unthinkable. So I really don't think that's it.
As MP_Sarge suggested earlier, encouraging homosexuals to take part in monogamous marriage may actually help change some of that "in your face" culture, and perhaps even the promiscuity.
Put both your sentences together and tell me if together they make a BIT of damn sense. There is nothing monogamous being promoted at ANY "pride mob rally".
-
...not that that strawman about how they were treated in the past has anything to do with what is actually being discussed. I suppose you'll excuse away how those idiots acted at BK in PCB because, "well, should have seen how THEY were treated in the 1800's". :whatever:
-
Put both your sentences together and tell me if together they make a BIT of damn sense. There is nothing monogamous being promoted at ANY "pride mob rally".
The question is, then... do those people represent the beliefs and the attitudes of the majority of the homosexual population?
I'd think the only types you'd get to show up for a parade, are the in your face types.
-
...not that that strawman about how they were treated in the past has anything to do with what is actually being discussed. I suppose you'll excuse away how those idiots acted at BK in PCB because, "well, should have seen how THEY were treated in the 1800's". :whatever:
Your claim was that people reject them because of their "in your face" attitude - I brought up the past, because the history of homosexuality and its persecution basically show us otherwise... homosexual persecution and marginalization has a long history that extends far back beyond the birth of the first gay pride parade.
-
The question is, then... do those people represent the beliefs and the attitudes of the majority of the homosexual population?
Honestly? I don't believe they do, so why the HELL are we supposed to show these "gay pride" parades as normal for gays and tap dance around the issue so we don't offend anyone? Seems to me gay people should be pissed the hell off if they were all shown to act like those clowns.
-
Your claim was that people reject them because of their "in your face" attitude - I brought up the past, because the history of homosexuality and its persecution basically show us otherwise.
What happened in the past has nothing to do with the present. These parades aren't about rights.
-
The question is, then... do those people represent the beliefs and the attitudes of the majority of the homosexual population?
I'd think the only types you'd get to show up for a parade, are the in your face types.
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa200/DefiantSix/shut_up_bitch.jpg)
-
Honestly? I don't believe they do, so why the HELL are we supposed to show these "gay pride" parades as normal for gays and tap dance around the issue so we don't offend anyone? Seems to me gay people should be pissed the hell off if they were all shown to act like those clowns.
We arent - we're supposed to give people, like the friends that you mention, the benefit of the doubt that they are honorable and decent people who do their best to live good, decent, happy lives.
Endorsing same-sex marriage or respecting homosexuality does not mean one has to tolerate assless chaps in the public square - and I doubt *most* homosexuals feel any differently.
-
What happened in the past has nothing to do with the present. These parades aren't about rights.
I agree - but I'm not saying we should give homosexuals the right to marry based on parades.
-
Fertility rates don't seem to be dropping in the Muslim immigrants, only the left-wing thinking natives who think Ted and Fred getting it on in the park is normal.
For the record, I have no problem with homosexuals. I don't, however, want it to be known as "the norm" and I don't want us to wind up sacrificing our moral decency to appease a small sector or our society. I have two best friends who are gay and have been with each other for twenty years. They don't throw it up in your face and live decent lives. Lives that should be lauded as decent. What do we see instead? Idiots in assless chaps wearing pink boas parading all downtown in "pride" parades in front of children. That shit needs to f'n stop. If you don't want to be seen as a hedonistic freak, then stop ACTING like a hedonistic freak. There are NO straight people that I know that see what happens with loose women at Mardi Gras as "normal". I don't think most people would ostracize gay people if they just lived their damn lives like everyone else and stopped throwing shit up in their faces. Those aren't the ones doing a disservice to their sexual status. You're gay. We get it. Now STFU. We don't care.
You know, what you have said above...is what creates the biggest problem for most gay people, with straight people.
The small percentage who go out and flaunt their stuff, and do overt public displays of "gayness" - can't even call it "affection", as it's more of an "in your face, look at me doing the wild thing with my partner of the moment". Whereas the majority, go to work, raise families, have social events, etc, etc, etc, just like straight people. And, just like straight people, behave in a normal way befitting the situation they are in.
It's that small percentage's behavior that paints all with the same brush. No different than any other group being portrayed by the actions of a few.
I work with a couple of gay guys, neither one of which would walk bare-assed down a public street, or act like they are going to have sex right out there in front of everyone.
One has been in the same relationship for at least 25 years. They adopted 2 bi-racial children as infants, the one has been a Realtor for about 16 years and the other one is an accountant.
The other one, as been in a couple of very long term relationships in the 14 years that I have known him, and been devastated when the first one ended...just as if he got a divorce. He's been with his current partner close to 10 years. He was a teacher for years before he became a full-time Realtor. I didn't even know he was gay for several months after I started working in the same office with him. Now, I don't know if it's more obvious because he is more obvious or because I know that he is gay.
I don't give a rat's patoot what a gay couple does in the privacy of their own space. Just as I don't care what straight couples do. It's none of my business.
But I don't want to see anyone....straight or gay...doing the wild thing. Or their naked tushies...unless I make the decision to do so.
I made my first venture into a strip club, EVER....in Key West, about 6 years ago....I found the whole experience fascinating!! But it was MY choice to go there.
It's one thing to put one's ADULT self into situation to see crazy, blatant, sexuality by either sex regardless of sexual orientation, (Mardi Gras in NOLA or Fantasy Fest in Key West)...it's a totally different situation to have it unknowingly show up right in front of you, with or without children in tow.
-
I made my first venture into a strip club, EVER....in Key West, about 6 years ago....I found the whole experience fascinating!! But it was MY choice to go there.
Pics, or it didn't happen. :popcorn:
-
I agree - but I'm not saying we should give homosexuals the right to marry based on parades.
I don't believe gays have a "right" to marry. I don't believe straight people have a "right" to marry. I also don't believe a government has a "right" to recognize a marriage. Marriage is a union between two people. That's it. The government has no business getting involved, and there's no reason it has to be defined as a "right".
-
Pics, or it didn't happen. :popcorn:
Can't take pics in a strip club.
I think I have a couple from when I went to The 801 Bourbon Bar to the cabaret show, if that counts.
I had a front row seat. Very embarassing when one of the performers looks at you...early in the show, and says...."Honey, you've never been in a place like this before have you?" I'm sure it had nothing to do with the slightly stunned look on my face and my eyes as wide open as possible, being accompanied by 4 other women who had all seen drag shows before, and 2 gay guys we "picked up" at the Hot Pepper Store...and every one of us slightly intoxicated. O-) I had a blast!!
Ran in to him a couple of months later, when we were both at the Delta counter getting tickets to get the heck out of Dodge before Wilma hit. I only recognized him by his voice....who knew under all the makeup looking like Bette Midler was a little, slightly balding, cherub faced 40 year old? He on the other hand recognized me as the "virgin visitor" who tipped realllllly well. :shucks:
-
Oh, it was a dude strip club?
I strongly rescind my request.
-
Oh, it was a dude strip club?
I strongly rescind my request.
:hammer:
Strip club was women....Teasers.
801 Bourban Bar is a predominantly gay bar, with a drag show upstairs.
Garden of Eden is the top floor of The Bull and Whistle....it's a clothing optional for patrons.
All are on Duval.
I thought you had been to Key West.
-
I don't believe gays have a "right" to marry. I don't believe straight people have a "right" to marry. I also don't believe a government has a "right" to recognize a marriage. Marriage is a union between two people. That's it. The government has no business getting involved, and there's no reason it has to be defined as a "right".
Well, truth be told, I do believe gov't is in the business of promoting stable households that provide, among other things, easy transfer of wealth and many of the other sorts of things that we traditionally give to married couples. I'm all for detaching that sort of thing from the term "marriage", and essentially getting gov't out of the marriage business, and into the "civil union, or whatever" business. Many people in this thread have echoed similar sentiments, and I am encouraged by that. We probably have some common ground there, despite out disagreements.
But, the pragmatist in me, doesnt ever see gov't getting out of the marriage business - so the next best thing in my book is extending gov't marriage rights (or privileges, if you want to call them that) to those who, by all accounts, really should have them, including homosexual couples.
-
The FairTax would alleviate the need for all that at the federal level.
-
What happened in the past has nothing to do with the present. These parades aren't about rights.
You are so right about that one rebel.....
Though this not about homosexuality, but we have topless parades, where women form a group and parade around topless in some of our major cities. This is legal in Maine btw..
.......or women who take off half of their shirts to nurse their babies in public....
They do it for attention..............
-
The FairTax would alleviate the need for all that at the federal level.
I would love to have a simple VAT tax, end of story. That way, as I purchase a product or service, I know up front how much I'm getting screwed for, instead of this insiduous drip, drip, drip of hidden taxation.
-
Well, truth be told, I do believe gov't is in the business of promoting stable households that provide
In your opinion, what does the federal government do to promote "stable households"?
-
Well, truth be told, I do believe gov't is in the business of promoting stable households that provide, among other things, easy transfer of wealth and many of the other sorts of things that we traditionally give to married couples.
Tell us what you think about welfare, Head Start, public housing, subsidized home heating, subsidized child care, etc.
Don't liberal transfer trillions of dollars in wealth in the name of promoting family stability?
-
Tell us what you think about welfare, Head Start, public housing, subsidized home heating, subsidized child care, etc.
The money that the federal government hands out should be based on need and not based on whether a couple has a marriage license.
-
In your opinion, what does the federal government do to promote "stable households"?
Well, at least one thing they do is require states to recognize legal marriages between heterosexual couples.
-
Well, at least one thing they [federal government] do is require states to recognize legal marriages between heterosexual couples.
How does this recognition contribute to "stable households"?
-
Hi conservativecave,
I'm testing out my new site rgument.com with a really controversial topic: "Same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed". I've posted here as well as a popular LGBT forum in the hopes of finding people on both sides of the divide. Please help me build a list of the best arguments on either side of this fascinating debate. Thanks!
P.S. If you have any suggestions as to the functionality of the site I'd love to hear them.
What you're talking about is an impossibility anyway. Marriage is a committed relationship between two individuals of the opposite gender. You can't legalize a contradiction.
-
Many people in this thread have echoed similar sentiments, and I am encouraged by that. We probably have some common ground there, despite out disagreements.
Seriously, this has me puzzled. What did you expect? Everyone at a conservative site to say all gay people should have their heads on pikes? We're not liberals talking about "Reichthuglicans", as those idiots like to say. "Most" people don't have a problem with gay people. They have a problem with what the agenda-driven gay groups show us to be the gay lifestyle and how it's supposed to be normal. You want to show it as somehow normal, show a show on my buddy Ken and Joe. Scratch that, after 20 years they fight more than any couple I've ever seen.
I have another question, why do you guys support liberal groups who support Muslims and not Jews? Israel doesn't hang gay people for being gay. Homosexuality is not compatible with the Islamic faith. It's not with the Christian faith either, but we aren't beheading gay people. Islam was born of the sword. Christianity was not. You don't see the problem there?
As for me, I know 3 gay people. One is a retired USAF MSG and now a teacher, one of the 300 Master Certified teachers in GA, and the couple, one was in the AF and the other was a Navy Corpsman who is a Desert Storm veteran. All three are conservative. "My" opinion is that we shouldn't ostracize gay people because many of the ones that DO vote Democrat ONLY do it for one issue. Gay rights. Well, I'm a FairTax supporter. That would get rid of a lot of it. As for visitation rights to hospitals, you're right. It's f'ed up. Should something happen to Joe, damn right Ken, his partner of 20 years, should be able to visit him.
-
....and that's just my opinion, not the opinion of Conservative Cave, it's affiliates, or any of it's members.
Camichiwa.
-
Seriously, this has me puzzled. What did you expect? Everyone at a conservative site to say all gay people should have their heads on pikes? We're not liberals talking about "Reichthuglicans", as those idiots like to say. "Most" people don't have a problem with gay people. They have a problem with what the agenda-driven gay groups show us to be the gay lifestyle and how it's supposed to be normal. You want to show it as somehow normal, show a show on my buddy Ken and Joe. Scratch that, after 20 years they fight more than any couple I've ever seen.
I have another question, why do you guys support liberal groups who support Muslims and not Jews? Israel doesn't hang gay people for being gay. Homosexuality is not compatible with the Islamic faith. It's not with the Christian faith either, but we aren't beheading gay people. Islam was born of the sword. Christianity was not. You don't see the problem there?
As for me, I know 3 gay people. One is a retired USAF MSG and now a teacher, one of the 300 Master Certified teachers in GA, and the couple, one was in the AF and the other was a Navy Corpsman who is a Desert Storm veteran. All three are conservative. "My" opinion is that we shouldn't ostracize gay people because many of the ones that DO vote Democrat ONLY do it for one issue. Gay rights. Well, I'm a FairTax supporter. That would get rid of a lot of it. As for visitation rights to hospitals, you're right. It's f'ed up. Should something happen to Joe, damn right Ken, his partner of 20 years, should be able to visit him.
I wish I could give you a super high five, because a regular one just isn't enough to do. :cheersmate: :cheersmate:
-
I say the government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. It's none of their concern.
I agree...everyone gets a civil union and leave marriage to the churches and who they want to marry
-
As for visitation rights to hospitals, you're right. It's f'ed up. Should something happen to Joe, damn right Ken, his partner of 20 years, should be able to visit him.
It's just as f'ed up for straight couples who aren't married...regardless of how long they have been together.
If I didn't have a medical power of attorney for M...I would not have been the one making decisions 5 years ago when he was hospitalized. I got the MPOA before he went into the hospital. I was the one making all of the decisions. No one else.
Really pissed off his daughter. :-)
On the other hand...he's alive.
He's healthy.
And he's sober.
5 years ago last Friday.
Obviously... I made the right decisions.
For him.
For me.
For my children.
maybe not for his children. :whistling:
-
Scratch that, I know 4 gay people personally. The 2nd in charge at my company is a lesbian (If you guys would see her, you'd understand). "Pete" is also, and I don't know if this properly describes her expertise as she advises the Pentagon and the NSA, an "SME" in COMSEC. She was a drill sergeant a year before I was even born. She's a retired US Army CW3. She used to be a staunch Democrat and liberal, but has stated she's becoming more and more fiscally conservative with age. She's still socially liberal, but that's no threat to me as it means nothing to my wallet or life.
Anyway, heading to my gay conservative friends' house. OH MY! I'm a conservative! How the hell can this be! I'm supposed to want them all burned at the stake! :panic:
I hang out with conservatives. Black, white, yellow, gay, straight, doesn't f'n matter to me. I cannot, however, hang out with liberals, though Ken does tend to get into the conspiracies about mass coffins in storage during the Clinton Admin alot.
-
I agree...everyone gets a civil union and leave marriage to the churches and who they want to marry
The government needs to get out of the civil union business as well. There is no reason couples with marriage licenses or civil unions should get more benefits and money from the government than single people or couples without marriage licenses/civil unions.
-
I have no problem with civil unions, I have a problem with the term marriage though, but that might be because marriage has always been between a man and a woman. I do think gay people who are in long-term relationships need some type of protection.
-
I have no problem with civil unions, I have a problem with the term marriage though, but that might be because marriage has always been between a man and a woman. I do think gay people who are in long-term relationships need some type of protection.
What kind of special "protection" do you think that heterosexual couples need that single people do not need?
-
What kind of special "protection" do you think that heterosexual couples need that single people do not need?
?
Umm, legal marriage pretty much protects heterosexual couples, so if gay people can't marry and are in a long-term relationship they need some type of protection in reference to assets, visitation if their partner is in the Hospital etc. that's why I don't have a problem with civil unions.
-
The government needs to get out of the civil union business as well. There is no reason couples with marriage licenses or civil unions should get more benefits and money from the government than single people or couples without marriage licenses/civil unions.
Oh, that's why you asked me that question. Well the same can kind of be said for me, hubby and I don't have kids, why should such a huge part of my property taxes go towards schools I don't use? and if we had kids I'd send them to Catholic School anyway and essentially would have to pay twice for schooling. And because I don't have kids I'm not getting any tax credits like Parents do.
There's always something out there for people to gripe about LOL.
-
?
Umm, legal marriage pretty much protects heterosexual couples, so if gay people can't marry and are in a long-term relationship they need some type of protection in reference to assets, visitation if their partner is in the Hospital etc. that's why I don't have a problem with civil unions.
How do you think assets are protected? A patient (married or single) in a hospital is likely to want someone come to visit. I suggest that every patient be allowed to designate permitted visitors. Martial or civil union status should not be a criteria. Equality for all people.
-
How do you think assets are protected? A patient (married or single) in a hospital is likely to want someone come to visit. I suggest that every patient be allowed to designate permitted visitors. Martial or civil union status should not be a criteria. Equality for all people.
I'm down, but if your ass is in a car crash and, after arriving, induced into a coma so it can help you heal, um, do you think you're gonna have the time to wake up in enough time to start designating?
-
We aren't talking about conscience people here. Someone conscience can designate whomever the hell they want to come visit. I could have call girls visiting me. It's my choice as a paying patient.
-
We aren't talking about conscience people here. Someone conscience can designate whomever the hell they want to come visit. I could have call girls visiting me. It's my choice as a paying patient.
If someone, married or single, really cares about hospital visitation if unconscious, medical decision making if incapacitated, then he can prepare advance instructions, living will, durable power of attorney. It is much better than relying on the default provisions of marriage law.
-
So far no one has mentioned that some States recognise what is called Common Law marriage between a man and a woman that have lived together for some time.
One can get into real trouble from hoodwinking the public with this.
I know of 2 sad tales about the mess one can get into---both couples had been together for 30+ years when it was found that the woman had been collecting on their departed first husbands SS payments and or pensions. Both woman knew that if they remarried they would have to give up the payments so they just told everyone they had remarried. When the woman died it became a nightmare for the men who survived them, wills were contested, step children came into the picture and took money, property EVERY thing they and the kids mother had bought together out from under them.
Marriage is to protect both partners not just woman and their children. [OR does it] Then the mess one gets into without really thinking about it.
Coworker hit retirement age and went to apply for SS. she was asked if she wished to collect on her own or her ex husbands She had not seen the man in 20 years and had no idea he was dead or remarried.
Now the kicker, the new wife had been married to her ex for 10 years or so and was collecting his survivor benefits, this came out of the blue for the newest wife and everything went to court. This was a real mess for the latest widow as her hubby had been married to his first wife for 20+ years and had 7 kids by the first wife. Who was more entitled to his SS checks his pension, and assets, first or second wife???? His 7 kids wanted in on the money and he had not made out a will.
Why and how this turned out I have no idea, but Anyone that marries a man or women needs to be prepared for some big time shocks down the road if they have children by an ex spouse or been married to another more then 10 years.
Why in HELL gays want to get married is beyond me, or come to think about it heterosexuals ----who do or don't get caught up in all of this have no guarantee of anything, once a partner or spouse dies---there will be trouble on the way.
-
The government needs to get out of the civil union business as well. There is no reason couples with marriage licenses or civil unions should get more benefits and money from the government than single people or couples without marriage licenses/civil unions.
Every society across the globe throughout all history disagrees with you.
Maybe you're just smarter than they are.
-
The company that I work at is a Fortune 17 corporation. It has adopted some of the most liberal, loosely-defined rules toward identification of "spouse" or "partner" that I've ever seen.
Gays, lesbians, trannies, they ALL enjoy the SAME benefits as married employees. There is not ONE difference in how benefits are determined. Even bereavement includes blood and marriage-relatives from your gay or lezzie "partner".
My company is no different from many I've seen. I've seen these corporations fall all over themselves to be inclusive and accepting of that abnormal lifestyle to the point that it's ridiculous.
Case in point: My company posted on its intranet all kinds of "LGBT Recognition" bullshit back in the late fall. But they completely forgot about Veterans Day on Nov. 11.
When I saw that, I was incensed. I fired off an email to the entity responsible at 7 a.m. that morning and questioned the so-called "inclusiveness" that the corporation's masters and policymakers spout off on a regular basis. By 10 a.m., somebody had posted some kind of lame "Happy Veterans Day" thing on the intranet. It was hurriedly written and insincere, but they did put something up.
A response to me on my questions? <crickets>
Society itself dictates what sort of ramifications an individual endures because of lifestyle choices. You want to name your kid Dweezil? Then be prepared for your kid to be ridiculed at school. You want to paint your house purple? Then be prepared for a lawsuit if you live in an area that forbids that kind of thing. You want to pick your nose and eat your boogers in public? Then be prepared to be ostracized.
For the gays and lesbians that live their lives quietly and without pretense, a civil union might be a compromise that we can live with. But marriage? No friggin' way, Ray. Marriage has its roots in society as a union between man and woman.
Those who are pushing for marriage for these people, gay and straight alike, are trying to have it both ways.
There's a price to pay for being abnormal. You want to be weird? No problem, but stop trying to push for something that society decrees you can't have.
-
The company that I work at is a Fortune 17 corporation. It has adopted some of the most liberal, loosely-defined rules toward identification of "spouse" or "partner" that I've ever seen.
Gays, lesbians, trannies, they ALL enjoy the SAME benefits as married employees. There is not ONE difference in how benefits are determined. Even bereavement includes blood and marriage-relatives from your gay or lezzie "partner".
My company is no different from many I've seen. I've seen these corporations fall all over themselves to be inclusive and accepting of that abnormal lifestyle to the point that it's ridiculous.
Case in point: My company posted on its intranet all kinds of "LGBT Recognition" bullshit back in the late fall. But they completely forgot about Veterans Day on Nov. 11.
When I saw that, I was incensed. I fired off an email to the entity responsible at 7 a.m. that morning and questioned the so-called "inclusiveness" that the corporation's masters and policymakers spout off on a regular basis. By 10 a.m., somebody had posted some kind of lame "Happy Veterans Day" thing on the intranet. It was hurriedly written and insincere, but they did put something up.
A response to me on my questions? <crickets>
Society itself dictates what sort of ramifications an individual endures because of lifestyle choices. You want to name your kid Dweezil? Then be prepared for your kid to be ridiculed at school. You want to paint your house purple? Then be prepared for a lawsuit if you live in an area that forbids that kind of thing. You want to pick your nose and eat your boogers in public? Then be prepared to be ostracized.
For the gays and lesbians that live their lives quietly and without pretense, a civil union might be a compromise that we can live with. But marriage? No friggin' way, Ray. Marriage has its roots in society as a union between man and woman.
Those who are pushing for marriage for these people, gay and straight alike, are trying to have it both ways.
There's a price to pay for being abnormal. You want to be weird? No problem, but stop trying to push for something that society decrees you can't have.
So are you saying that anyone that is abnormal needs to keep to themself, ???? Lots of abnormal out there, the blind, the deaf and those in wheel chairs or need a cane to walk.
Who is to choose what is normal for humans, is there a normal way for a gay to act, a bipolar to act, how about a killer or a thief, is there some way they should act.??
Do we rid ourselves of the people that make a living by being something but what they are---No more movies, all actors out of a job.
Take away all people that write books based on their imagination, they are definitely not normal like you and me.
It is the abnormal different people that become artists and composers, those like Einstein that was as abnormal as one can get.
Don't jump to far EUPHER, there are bound to be millions of people in this world that will consider your life style, odd an aberration, evil or totally useless to human kind.
-
For the gays and lesbians that live their lives quietly and without pretense, a civil union might be a compromise that we can live with. But marriage? No friggin' way, Ray. Marriage has its roots in society as a union between man and woman.
The problem with civil unions is they are state by state - and there is no federal mandate that other states recognize them, like with marriage. If you get married in one state, every state has to recognize it... though we'll see what happens with Obama's posture regarding DOMA (the bill signed by Clinton which gave states permission to not recognize same-sex marriages).
Society itself dictates what sort of ramifications an individual endures because of lifestyle choices. You want to name your kid Dweezil? Then be prepared for your kid to be ridiculed at school. You want to paint your house purple? Then be prepared for a lawsuit if you live in an area that forbids that kind of thing. You want to pick your nose and eat your boogers in public? Then be prepared to be ostracized.
Those who are pushing for marriage for these people, gay and straight alike, are trying to have it both ways.
There's a price to pay for being abnormal. You want to be weird? No problem, but stop trying to push for something that society decrees you can't have.
Society is often wrong and irrational about the sorts of social pressures it exerts upon people or groups, and does so to the great harm of many. So I don't know why the heck you think its the duty of homosexuals to simply sit there and quietly accept scorn and ridicule, etc, all for the courtesy of not making YOU feel uncomfortable or weird.
-
Every society across the globe throughout all history disagrees with you.
Maybe you're just smarter than they are.
State government marriage licenses have only been around for a century or so. The US federal government has only been involved in paying financial marriage benefits for about 80 years. What do you think these marriage subsidies have accomplished in the last 80 years?
-
The company that I work at is a Fortune 17 corporation. It has adopted some of the most liberal, loosely-defined rules toward identification of "spouse" or "partner" that I've ever seen.
Gays, lesbians, trannies, they ALL enjoy the SAME benefits as married employees. There is not ONE difference in how benefits are determined. Even bereavement includes blood and marriage-relatives from your gay or lezzie "partner".
The small company that we started had a different approach. Our employees had diverse family situations. In the interest of fairness and simplicity, we paid 100% of our health care insurance for each employee but zero for family members, wives, girl friends, partners, children, divorced spouses, etc. Married employees got no greater compensation by virtue of being in a romantic relationship. We gave a set number of "personal" leave days that employees could use as they wished: sick, vacation, mental health days, bereavement, or I don't feel like working days. We did not have to make judgments about our employees personal lives. Was he really sick? Was it really his ex-wife who died?
-
Ofer...
I suppose "trannies" (not that it's against the rules here, but FYI, that word is deeply offensive and considered hate language by the trans community, Eupher. Anyway...)
I suppose transgender people shouldn't be permitted to marry, work, have relationships, or leave the house at all, huh?
-
The problem with civil unions is they are state by state - and there is no federal mandate that other states recognize them, like with marriage. If you get married in one state, every state has to recognize it... though we'll see what happens with Obama's posture regarding DOMA (the bill signed by Clinton which gave states permission to not recognize same-sex marriages).
Bingo. There is no federal mandate. And there shouldn't be. Tenth Amendment, anybody? If a liberal haven like New York wants to adopt policies that favor gays over straights, gays should flock there in droves, leaving the rest of the country relatively gay-free. Straights living there who don't favor such policies should move. The individual states have power -- or rather, they used to.
What's so difficult about this?
Yes - we'll see what happens with DOMA -- the federal law passed by a liberal pretending to be centrist and flat-out denied and refused by a socialist/marxist.
Society is often wrong and irrational about the sorts of social pressures it exerts upon people or groups, and does so to the great harm of many. So I don't know why the heck you think its the duty of homosexuals to simply sit there and quietly accept scorn and ridicule, etc, all for the courtesy of not making YOU feel uncomfortable or weird.
Here, Wilbur, you fail again to see the point. Let me try again -- and I'll type slowly so you and your buddy Christian Miller can follow along:
Society is what society is. It has a life and a breath all its own. In a free society, intangibles like morality and values and ethics impacting the human condition (like the butt buddies and rug munchers, for example) cannot and should not be directed by government. This is where you liberals get lost.
Federal government is, by definition, a necessary evil. I believe that the fed. government has a role -- stipulated by the Constitution and limited by the Constitution. No more, no less.
When you start looking toward The Great Evil That Is Government to dictate to us what we (society) can and cannot do with each other, we have lost. We've lost our freedom and our ability to take accountability for ourselves. Without taking it too far off topic, we've seen this in the black community over and over again. Many blacks, having been told over and over again that The Great Evil That Is Government is the answer to all our problems, they begin to look to that entity rather than solve their own problems using their own keen intellect.
You libs are so worried about the fudgepackers and rugmunchers that you want to throw out EVERYBODY ELSE'S freedoms because of a few who have trouble establishing their own sexuality.
Society deals with these things in the way that society does. No amount of liberal legislation is going to change that -- but I have to give you libs your due.
You sure as hell are trying hard.
Now, Wilbur, you and I have been over and over this stuff. This is, by far, your pet issue. Somebody gins up a thread on gays, and you waltz in after weeks of absence and page after page after page, you ask your questions and state your opinion. Fine. This is the way you roll.
You aren't going to change my stance on this issue, and I seriously doubt that my stance won't affect you either. So this will be my last post directed toward you on this issue.
-
Ofer...
I suppose "trannies" (not that it's against the rules here, but FYI, that word is deeply offensive and considered hate language by the trans community, Eupher. Anyway...)
I suppose transgender people shouldn't be permitted to marry, work, have relationships, or leave the house at all, huh?
The word "tranny" is deeply offensive, eh? Sorry - not in my world. It is what it is.
Maybe it should be flagged by the software and bleeped out.
You've got a vested interest in the issue. I do not, except that people who have issues with their birth sex to the point that they're taking definitive action to change their sex (to which they're fully free to do in a free society) are no more "entitled" to marriage, work, relationships, or leaving the house privileges than I have.
I am not going to knuckle under to some kind of PC agenda that intends to compel me to look upon such people as being "special". They are not.
-
The same can be said for any offensive word.
If it doesn't bother you, and you don't mind that it's considered offensive by the population you're referring to, carry on.
So, who *should* transgender people be allowed to marry?
Kudos for correctly labeling the issue as one of sex and not gender [H5, actually], but I'm curious why you think sex always equates to gender?
-
The small company that we started had a different approach. Our employees had diverse family situations. In the interest of fairness and simplicity, we paid 100% of our health care insurance for each employee but zero for family members, wives, girl friends, partners, children, divorced spouses, etc. Married employees got no greater compensation by virtue of being in a romantic relationship. We gave a set number of "personal" leave days that employees could use as they wished: sick, vacation, mental health days, bereavement, or I don't feel like working days. We did not have to make judgments about our employees personal lives. Was he really sick? Was it really his ex-wife who died?
Congratulations. You have the freedom to set your own benefits, and arrange them in any way you choose. Small companies almost always don't have the same resources as larger corporations, so benefits are likely to be structured in such a way to give the biggest bang for the buck.
Your employees are free to work in your company, or leave based on all the criteria, to include benefits. If your intention is to build a company that is extremely tolerant for the issues you listed, you are free to do so. Other companies are also free to take a harder stance.
I've worked in both types of situations and after 13 years of working and building and searching for the ideal working situation for me and my wife - post Army-retirement - I found it. And I'm happy with it.
Those who wring their hands and cry "Woe is me!" because their bennies don't allow for this or that are barking up the wrong tree when they're looking for sympathy from me.
If they don't like their situation, they're free to change it.
That's the way it works.
-
So are you saying that anyone that is abnormal needs to keep to themself, ???? Lots of abnormal out there, the blind, the deaf and those in wheel chairs or need a cane to walk.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I said no such thing. What I said is that SOCIETY has its own ways of dealing with things.
Who is to choose what is normal for humans, is there a normal way for a gay to act, a bipolar to act, how about a killer or a thief, is there some way they should act.??
Society chooses -- and there's nothing you can do about that. Liberals do their best to mandate morality by legislation. That is what offends me -- in effort to "protect" those who are different, liberals want to curtail the freedoms of others.
Do we rid ourselves of the people that make a living by being something but what they are---No more movies, all actors out of a job.
Huh? Have you been smoking crack?
Take away all people that write books based on their imagination, they are definitely not normal like you and me.
Based on your comment just above, the jury's still out as to whether you're "normal" or not.
It is the abnormal different people that become artists and composers, those like Einstein that was as abnormal as one can get.
In a free society, people are free to be themselves WITHOUT government interference. Einstein was a clerk in some government office when he wrote the paper on his Theory of Relativity. Mozart died at the age of 34 after having written hundreds of compositions in his short life. He did so because he was gifted and he had people who depended on him for support.
So when people do what they're good at, that doesn't mean they're abnormal. When you start equating personal behavior with career and work, you're on dangerous ground.
Don't jump to far EUPHER, there are bound to be millions of people in this world that will consider your life style, odd an aberration, evil or totally useless to human kind.
I sincerely doubt you're in a position to dictate to me where I jump, how far I jump, and when I jump. And I have news for you, since you're a noob:
Being a musician by education, background, and training, I'm already an aberration -- particularly since I'm a low brass player. :-)
-
Being a musician by education, background, and training, I'm already an aberration -- particularly since I'm a low brass player. :-)
Ain't THAT the truth!!!! :whistling:
-
The same can be said for any offensive word.
If it doesn't bother you, and you don't mind that it's considered offensive by the population you're referring to, carry on.
In your desperation to show me the error of my ways, you throw up your hands in disgust. Sorry -- I just don't play the PC game.
By your standards, am I supposed to fall all over myself in anger and frustration, being offended, hurt and otherwise beside myself because someone calls me a "knuckle-dragging tuba player"?
Your cross to bear is not mine as well. While I wish you well, don't expect me to adopt all manner of sensitivities to your plight. You've thought the issue through, and you've made your choice.
Now it's up to you to live with it.
So, who *should* transgender people be allowed to marry?
Good question. In a free society, though, they should hook up with whomever they choose. But with people in your situation, why is being "married" such a big deal? Isn't making the transition to the other sex/gender/whatever the overriding concern? What is it about a piece of paper that says "Married"? Why is that so important?
Kudos for correctly labeling the issue as one of sex and not gender [H5, actually], but I'm curious why you think sex always equates to gender?
Well, I guess that means I'm not the boorish buffoon after all. Sex, gender, it's all the same to me. One person is born with a set of equipment just like someone else of that same gender.
There's the "mental" element to that that is the great clarion call to which we all should muster. Or so says the PC crowd.
-
So much to respond to here.
Gotta drop the dog off at the groomer. I'll get back to this.
-
Society is what society is. It has a life and a breath all its own. In a free society, intangibles like morality and values and ethics impacting the human condition (like the butt buddies and rug munchers, for example) cannot and should not be directed by government. This is where you liberals get lost.
Federal government is, by definition, a necessary evil. I believe that the fed. government has a role -- stipulated by the Constitution and limited by the Constitution. No more, no less.
When you start looking toward The Great Evil That Is Government to dictate to us what we (society) can and cannot do with each other, we have lost. We've lost our freedom and our ability to take accountability for ourselves. Without taking it too far off topic, we've seen this in the black community over and over again. Many blacks, having been told over and over again that The Great Evil That Is Government is the answer to all our problems, they begin to look to that entity rather than solve their own problems using their own keen intellect.
What in the hell are you talking about?
Either you believe the fed gov't has the power to regulate forms of marriage, or you don't. If you don't, that's fine - we'll get rid of heterosexual marriage at the federal level as well, and nobody gets their cake. But if you do, then there's nothing qualitatively different between the desire for a heterosexual marriage to be recognized by the gov't, or a homosexual marriage. Either they are both inappropriate "handouts" or "federal entitlements run a muck", or neither are. Which is it?
In fact, you have it exactly backwards - the traditionalists here (ie, status quo fed gov't position on marriage, no same-sex marriage) are the ones wielding the fed to impose their ethics and morals upon others with the force of law.
You libs are so worried about the fudgepackers and rugmunchers that you want to throw out EVERYBODY ELSE'S freedoms because of a few who have trouble establishing their own sexuality.
Uh yea..... Bob and Steve getting married really unfairly impinges upon your individual liberties.
Society deals with these things in the way that society does. No amount of liberal legislation is going to change that.
Yea, well society changes. You should pay some mind to how its changing now. If the current trajectory continues, it won't be the homosexuals who are "dealt with by society" - it will be you :)
Have fun with that!
-
Wilbur.....there is one huge, gaping hole in your argument when you base it on "government handouts" to hetro married couples. These "handouts" are based in the income tax laws, and you're making the assumption that the money belongs to the government, and not the individual (or couple) to start with. Tax laws ebb and change......there have been recent times where it was MORE expensive from a tax perspective to be married (i.e. "marriage penalty") than others.
The fundamental concept is that presently the government allows married couples to keep more of their own money, as an incentive to create and maintain nuclear families.......
Cut the crap with the "handouts" argument......it doesn't wash here.
doc
-
Wilbur.....there is one huge, gaping hole in your argument when you base it on "government handouts" to hetro married couples. These "handouts" are based in the income tax laws, and you're making the assumption that the money belongs to the government, and not the individual (or couple) to start with. Tax laws ebb and change......there have been recent times where it was MORE expensive from a tax perspective to be married (i.e. "marriage penalty") than others.
The fundamental concept is that presently the government allows married couples to keep more of their own money, as an incentive to create and maintain nuclear families.......
Cut the crap with the "handouts" argument......it doesn't wash here.
doc
So then you'll agree that same-sex marriage would not necessarily confer a financial advantage all of the time - it would change with the ebb and flow of tax laws - and is therefore is not really an issue about government handouts or entitlements as Eupher tried to suggest.
Well, on that we agree - so your post would be more aptly aimed at Eupher, not me.
-
In your desperation to show me the error of my ways, you throw up your hands in disgust. Sorry -- I just don't play the PC game.
By your standards, am I supposed to fall all over myself in anger and frustration, being offended, hurt and otherwise beside myself because someone calls me a "knuckle-dragging tuba player"?
So why is the "n" word prohibited here?
Good question. In a free society, though, they should hook up with whomever they choose. But with people in your situation, why is being "married" such a big deal? Isn't making the transition to the other sex/gender/whatever the overriding concern? What is it about a piece of paper that says "Married"? Why is that so important?
This thread is about marriage.
I'm asking who transgender people should be allowed to marry, if at all.
It's relevant to the discussion, don't you think?
Well, I guess that means I'm not the boorish buffoon after all. Sex, gender, it's all the same to me. One person is born with a set of equipment just like someone else of that same gender.
Ah, so you *do* think anatomy determines gender.
So what gender are intersex people, then?
For that matter, who should intersex people be allowed to marry, if at all?
-
So then you'll agree that same-sex marriage would not necessarily confer a financial advantage all of the time - it would change with the ebb and flow of tax laws - and is therefore is not really an issue about government handouts or entitlements as Eupher tried to suggest.
Well, on that we agree - so your post would be more aptly aimed at Eupher, not me.
Actually no.....I believe that same-sex "marriage" is not a marriage at all......roughly analogous to a "marriage" between a man and a goat.. Whether or not the government in its wisdom chooses to confer favorable taxation on couples in conventional marriages is an issue of what our elected leaders foist on us. It certainly isn't an element in any discussion to support or not support the issue.
Our government likes to use tax law to "force" behavior that they deem desireable, such as driving silly electric cars......personally, I favor a "flat", or "fair" tax system where the individual through their actions personally drives their tax liability, however I digress......
doc
-
"... we'll get rid of heterosexual marriage at the federal level as well, and nobody gets their cake."
Well said. Let's get the feds out of both the marriage and civil union business. I think it is hard to justify federal involvement in marriage or civil unions on a philosophical or practical basis. I cannot see where the federal "cake" programs have improved marriages or family life over the 80 years since they started. This federal marriage cake goes to our more affluent couples. For example, my wife does not qualify for Social Security on her own yet collects $9,000 per year from Social Security only because she is married to me. Great for us, but hardly fair to some needy elderly unmarried person who does not qualify for Social Security.
-
If anything, government involvement has weakened the institution of marriage.
I know of many, MANY individuals who've rushed to marriage prior to a deployment, largely because of the financial incentives to do so, where otherwise they might have chosen to wait. It's especially prevalent in the Reserve/Guard components where the person's "full-time" job offered no incentives for marriage, but upon being mobilized, there were numerous incentives.
Not to mention the many people who remain in bad relationships for fear of losing access to their own children by government order, should they divorce.
-
Actually no.....I believe that same-sex "marriage" is not a marriage at all......roughly analogous to a "marriage" between a man and a goat..
That's simply semantics.. in other words, you're talking about the word "marriage", and not the actual things.
And definitions of words are a matter of social convention... we can call relationships between men and men, men and women, and men and goats all marriages if we really want to and agree too.
But the important part of the debate is about the nature of those things (the things to which the words refer) and our stances towards them, not the words we use to refer to them.
-
Ofer...
I suppose "trannies" (not that it's against the rules here, but FYI, that word is deeply offensive and considered hate language by the trans community, Eupher. Anyway...)
I suppose transgender people shouldn't be permitted to marry, work, have relationships, or leave the house at all, huh?
What makes you think that one can go through life without ever being offended?
-
I don't.
And I was neither asking, nor implying, that Eupher should avoid use of the word.
Simply pointing out that the word is considered offensive, as I've encountered a good many people who were genuinely unaware that the word is offensive, and wouldn't have used the word otherwise.
[Black people don't have the right to go through life without being offended, either, but that doesn't mean it's good etiquette to run about tossing the N-word around.]
It's rather hard to take a stance on this board, that no one should ever curb their speech to avoid offending someone, since the TOS/TOU clearly prohibit racial slurs.
Regardless, if y'all want to use the word tranny, or any other offensive word, rock on. I was just pointing out that it *is* an offensive word. What you do with that info is entirely of your own choosing.
[Can I call Jesus a Zombie now?]
-
Offensive to whom?
Not I.
I don't find the word faggot, queer, homo or the "N" word offensive either.
-
Offensive to whom?
Not I.
I don't find the word faggot, queer, homo or the "N" word offensive either.
And yet, the N word is prohibited on this board.
Perhaps you should be asking the Admins why *they* think people can go through life without being offended.
And I *personally* don't find the words offensive, either [with the exception of the N-word.]
You'll see me use the word faggot, queer, homo, etc, multiple times elsewhere in my post history.
-
And yet, the N word is prohibited on this board.
Perhaps you should be asking the Admins why *they* think people can go through life without being offended.
And I *personally* don't find the words offensive, either [with the exception of the N-word.]
You'll see me use the word faggot, queer, homo, etc, multiple times elsewhere in my post history.
I don't care why the Admins have decided to ban/filter the N word. It's their board, they can make any rules they want to.
Perhaps they are worried about offending some people, but not others. I don't know, nor do I care.
-
Yet you cared about my mention, specifically to Eupher, that a word was offensive.
The board rules restrict your speech.
I said nothing to you, did nothing to restrict your speech, and IN FACT, didn't even SUGGEST to Eupher that he restrict his own speech voluntarily.
I merely commented that a word he used is viewed by the target of that word as offensive and hateful, in case he was unaware- many people are.
Yet, you are wholly disinterested in that which effects you, and overly interested in that which does not.
-
Yet you cared about my mention, specifically to Eupher, that a word was offensive.
The point of that was to point out that what might be offensive to one, is not necessarily offensive to another.
I for one refuse to live life walking around on proverbial egg shells and worry about offending others. Hell, it wasn't all that long ago when the gay merely meant happy.
Now, thanks to the delicate sensibilities of some, that is now considered to be an offensive word.
Screw that. I refuse to modify my word usage because it might be offensive to a few.
-
The point of that was to point out that what might be offensive to one, is not necessarily offensive to another.
I for one refuse to live life walking around on proverbial egg shells and worry about offending others. Hell, it wasn't all that long ago when the gay merely meant happy.
Now, thanks to the delicate sensibilities of some, that is now considered to be an offensive word.
Screw that. I refuse to modify my word usage because it might be offensive to a few.
I agree.
I am a transsexual who doesn't find tranny to be an offensive term.
And a gay man who doesn't find faggot, homo, or queer, to be offensive.
My partner, who is black, doesn't find the N-word offensive.
I think at this point we're a bit like two dogs fighting over a bone. We don't actually disagree- you misinterpret my motives for mentioning to Euph that a word is seen as offensive by a certain group of people, a fact which he may or may not have been aware, especially since I'm a member of that same group, and use the word freely.
Frankly, I think prohibiting the use of racial slurs has a negative effect on society.
I prefer to see racist bigots coming. If we let them use their hateful language, we have advance warning.
-
I agree.
I am a transsexual who doesn't find tranny to be an offensive term.
And a gay man who doesn't find faggot, homo, or queer, to be offensive.
My partner, who is black, doesn't find the N-word offensive.
I think at this point we're a bit like two dogs fighting over a bone. We don't actually disagree- you misinterpret my motives for mentioning to Euph that a word is seen as offensive by a certain group of people, a fact which he may or may not have been aware, especially since I'm a member of that same group, and use the word freely.
Frankly, I think prohibiting the use of racial slurs has a negative effect on society.
I prefer to see racist bigots coming. If we let them use their hateful language, we have advance warning.
Oh hell... Let me complete the hi-jacking of this thread.
You say you are a transexual and a gay man.
Are you a woman trapped in a man's body? Or are you merely an effeminate male that prefers to look like/dress like a woman? Or is it something else?
I once worked with a retired Army SMG that dressed like a woman after retirement. He remained married to his wife of over 20 years.
-
I have XX chromosomes, and was assigned female at birth.
I lived 26 years as a woman, to include 8 years of military service as a woman.
I was also married to a man for 7 of those years, who passed away in 2009.
Since leaving the military, I have physically transitioned my body so that it is in line with the male psychology I have had since childhood, and I live as a man.
I am legally and socially male, while retaining XX chromosomes, as obviously they cannot be changed.
If we're accepting the descriptor of "woman trapped in a man's body" for transwomen, then I would be described as "a man trapped in a woman's body".
I personally reject that terminology as accurate for my experience, since I dispute that physical biology determines gender. [In other words, I dispute that having XX chromosomes automatically makes a person female.]
-
I have XX chromosomes, and was assigned female at birth.
I lived 26 years as a woman, to include 8 years of military service as a woman.
I was also married to a man for 7 of those years, who passed away in 2009.
Since leaving the military, I have physically transitioned my body so that it is in line with the male psychology I have had since childhood, and I live as a man.
I am legally and socially male, while retaining XX chromosomes, as obviously they cannot be changed.
If we're accepting the descriptor of "woman trapped in a man's body" for transwomen, then I would be described as "a man trapped in a woman's body".
I personally reject that terminology as accurate for my experience, since I dispute that physical biology determines gender. [In other words, I dispute that having XX chromosomes automatically makes a person female.]
Just to make sure I understand. You were born a female and have had your body surgically modified to resemble a male? And you describe yourself a gay man?
If you are sexually attracted to males, why not just keep the female body you were born with?
-
Because my life is about far more than sex.
[Not that it's relevant, but I'm not exclusively attracted to men.]
-
Because my life is about far more than sex.
[Not that it's relevant, but I'm not exclusively attracted to men.]
I didn't mean to infer that your life was totally about fornication. Mine ain't either.
But you referred to yourself as a gay man... In today's world, that typically indicates a marked preference for same gender sexual activities. Words mean things.
What part of your psychological make up made you opt for a male body? What is it that made you want to surgically alter your body to mimic the alternate gender from what you were born with? Could you have not simply remained a bi-sexual female?
-
No, I could not simply have remained in the body I was born with, because that body was always incorrect for me.
I was born with a male brain that requires testosterone to function optimally (as all male brains do), and living in an incorrect body, and an incorrect gender, was not healthy.
Anymore than you could live as a woman if you woke up tomorrow in a woman's body.
-
I had a faggot go for my nuts in CA years ago. I beat him up really bad. left him laying on the ground with blood pouring out his mouth. don't know if he lived or died. and don't give a ****.
-
That's what happens when you sexually assault someone.
Not sure what that has to do with marriage, though.
-
And yet, the N word is prohibited on this board.
Perhaps you should be asking the Admins why *they* think people can go through life without being offended.
And I *personally* don't find the words offensive, either [with the exception of the N-word.]
You'll see me use the word faggot, queer, homo, etc, multiple times elsewhere in my post history.
I'm confused, I personally wouldn't use the word "tranny" I would refer to them as transexuals or transgender, you said that "tranny" can be seen as offensive, but then you turn around and say you don't find the words that are commonly used purposely to be offensive towards gay people such as the words I quoted above, and you have no problem using them at all?
-
I have XX chromosomes, and was assigned female at birth.
I lived 26 years as a woman, to include 8 years of military service as a woman.
I was also married to a man for 7 of those years, who passed away in 2009.
Since leaving the military, I have physically transitioned my body so that it is in line with the male psychology I have had since childhood, and I live as a man.
I am legally and socially male, while retaining XX chromosomes, as obviously they cannot be changed.
If we're accepting the descriptor of "woman trapped in a man's body" for transwomen, then I would be described as "a man trapped in a woman's body".
I personally reject that terminology as accurate for my experience, since I dispute that physical biology determines gender. [In other words, I dispute that having XX chromosomes automatically makes a person female.]
I don't know how you can be considered a "hermaphrodite" if you were born with XX chromosomes. There are different syndromes that can cause people to be "hermaphrodites" but they have chromosomes such as XXY etc.
-
I have XX chromosomes, and was assigned female at birth.
You are female.
-
I have XX chromosomes, and was assigned female at birth.
...I personally reject that terminology as accurate for my experience, since I dispute that physical biology determines gender. [In other words, I dispute that having XX chromosomes automatically makes a person female.]
Then you're rejecting proven science.
The thing is that you're rejecting God and how He placed you here on Earth. As Jesus said (and Jesus was at least a prophet/ teacher, at a minimum) (paraphrased) Be hot or cold. If you're in the middle of the road, I will spew you out of my mouth.
-
MP Sarge,
Please accept this advice. God is drawing you to Him.
You can find peace in Him. True peace.
-
Oh my!
Now I'm sorry I revisited this thread.
-
No, I could not simply have remained in the body I was born with, because that body was always incorrect for me.
I was born with a male brain that requires testosterone to function optimally (as all male brains do), and living in an incorrect body, and an incorrect gender, was not healthy.
Anymore than you could live as a woman if you woke up tomorrow in a woman's body.
MP_Sarge it would be a fantasy come true to wake up as a male with all the fixings and say about 25 years old with my past life memory's as a woman intact.
What fun, I would run right out and pee my initials in the snow, Wave that Willey about and experiment with it every which way to Sunday. Problems I would encounter is learning how to man fart, questions about should I shave my beard and checking out my hair line, am I going Bald? How to dress this new toy, right or left side.
I assume that with my past memory's intact I would be a gay male, Mother would be very happy she allways wanted a boy child.
But then this fantasy comes down to earth when I see pictures of Chere's daughter Chez now that she is a he. For the life of me I cannot understand how the transformation has done Chez any good, he is grotesque.
Why do woman think that they need to change their sex when today both sexes can work in and do the same thing the other sex is doing.???
The body is just the Vessel to carry about our brain, one can live as any sex they want without turning the tables on biology, You of all people should know that when you breed two dogs together the result is Puppy's, not Sheep.
Has anyone thought that if one is insecure in their sex it may be the product of less hormones of their designated birth sex. Why not try extra hormones of estrogen for woman that may have the totestone higher then normal, heck woman at menopause get estrogen so the totestone jump due to lack of estrogen causes the growth of facial hair, disapearing boobs or in men getting man boobs.
Ads on tv tell of "Low T" and a pill that boosts it up. So perhaps down the line people will not need radical surgery to change their looks, just a pill to inhance their looks.
Oh yes, a question, why do so many Gay men lisp ????? What does sexual prefference make Brney Frank or Thruman Capote talk like that.????
-
What fun, I would run right out and pee my initials in the snow, Wave that Willey about and experiment with it every which way to Sunday. Problems I would encounter is learning how to man fart, questions about should I shave my beard and checking out my hair line, am I going Bald? How to dress this new toy, right or left side.
:lmao:
-
Speaking of the word tranny.
When I was younger that was merely an abbreviation for the word transmission.
ex. I need to change the tranny fluid in my car. I rebuilt the tranny in that Ford last month. etc.
But now it is considered offensive by some.
Go figure.
-
MP_Sarge it would be a fantasy come true to wake up as a male with all the fixings and say about 25 years old with my past life memory's as a woman intact.
What fun, I would run right out and pee my initials in the snow, Wave that Willey about and experiment with it every which way to Sunday. Problems I would encounter is learning how to man fart, questions about should I shave my beard and checking out my hair line, am I going Bald? How to dress this new toy, right or left side.
I assume that with my past memory's intact I would be a gay male, Mother would be very happy she allways wanted a boy child.
But then this fantasy comes down to earth when I see pictures of Chere's daughter Chez now that she is a he. For the life of me I cannot understand how the transformation has done Chez any good, he is grotesque.
Why do woman think that they need to change their sex when today both sexes can work in and do the same thing the other sex is doing.???
The body is just the Vessel to carry about our brain, one can live as any sex they want without turning the tables on biology, You of all people should know that when you breed two dogs together the result is Puppy's, not Sheep.
Has anyone thought that if one is insecure in their sex it may be the product of less hormones of their designated birth sex. Why not try extra hormones of estrogen for woman that may have the totestone higher then normal, heck woman at menopause get estrogen so the totestone jump due to lack of estrogen causes the growth of facial hair, disapearing boobs or in men getting man boobs.
Ads on tv tell of "Low T" and a pill that boosts it up. So perhaps down the line people will not need radical surgery to change their looks, just a pill to inhance their looks.
Oh yes, a question, why do so many Gay men lisp ????? What does sexual prefference make Brney Frank or Thruman Capote talk like that.????
Problems I would encounter is learning how to man fart
especially in the pool. it does takes practice
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T_1tSWVak8[/youtube]
and teach your kids not to eat that yellow snow :-)
-
MP_Sarge it would be a fantasy come true to wake up as a male with all the fixings and say about 25 years old with my past life memory's as a woman intact.
What fun, I would run right out and pee my initials in the snow, Wave that Willey about and experiment with it every which way to Sunday. Problems I would encounter is learning how to man fart, questions about should I shave my beard and checking out my hair line, am I going Bald? How to dress this new toy, right or left side.
I assume that with my past memory's intact I would be a gay male, Mother would be very happy she allways wanted a boy child.
But then this fantasy comes down to earth when I see pictures of Chere's daughter Chez now that she is a he. For the life of me I cannot understand how the transformation has done Chez any good, he is grotesque.
Why do woman think that they need to change their sex when today both sexes can work in and do the same thing the other sex is doing.???
The body is just the Vessel to carry about our brain, one can live as any sex they want without turning the tables on biology, You of all people should know that when you breed two dogs together the result is Puppy's, not Sheep.
Has anyone thought that if one is insecure in their sex it may be the product of less hormones of their designated birth sex. Why not try extra hormones of estrogen for woman that may have the totestone higher then normal, heck woman at menopause get estrogen so the totestone jump due to lack of estrogen causes the growth of facial hair, disapearing boobs or in men getting man boobs.
Ads on tv tell of "Low T" and a pill that boosts it up. So perhaps down the line people will not need radical surgery to change their looks, just a pill to inhance their looks.
Oh yes, a question, why do so many Gay men lisp ????? What does sexual prefference make Brney Frank or Thruman Capote talk like that.????
It's PUPPIES and MEMORIES !!!!!
And Cher's daughter's name is Chaz !
And it's Truman Capote !!!!!
:maddernhell:
-
MP_Sarge it would be a fantasy come true to wake up as a male with all the fixings and say about 25 years old with my past life memory's as a woman intact.
What fun, I would run right out and pee my initials in the snow, Wave that Willey about and experiment with it every which way to Sunday. Problems I would encounter is learning how to man fart, questions about should I shave my beard and checking out my hair line, am I going Bald? How to dress this new toy, right or left side.
I assume that with my past memory's intact I would be a gay male, Mother would be very happy she allways wanted a boy child.
But then this fantasy comes down to earth when I see pictures of Chere's daughter Chez now that she is a he. For the life of me I cannot understand how the transformation has done Chez any good, he is grotesque.
Why do woman think that they need to change their sex when today both sexes can work in and do the same thing the other sex is doing.???
The body is just the Vessel to carry about our brain, one can live as any sex they want without turning the tables on biology, You of all people should know that when you breed two dogs together the result is Puppy's, not Sheep.
Has anyone thought that if one is insecure in their sex it may be the product of less hormones of their designated birth sex. Why not try extra hormones of estrogen for woman that may have the totestone higher then normal, heck woman at menopause get estrogen so the totestone jump due to lack of estrogen causes the growth of facial hair, disapearing boobs or in men getting man boobs.
Ads on tv tell of "Low T" and a pill that boosts it up. So perhaps down the line people will not need radical surgery to change their looks, just a pill to inhance their looks.
Oh yes, a question, why do so many Gay men lisp ????? What does sexual prefference make Brney Frank or Thruman Capote talk like that.????
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-shocked035.gif)
-
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-shocked035.gif)
Yeah, that too.
:mental:
-
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-shocked035.gif)
Snicker :lmao:
-
I feel the same way only I am not in Canada. If homosexuals want to get married, I.DO.NOT.GIVE.A.RAT'S.ASS.
Me too.
-
I don't care why the Admins have decided to ban/filter the N word. It's their board, they can make any rules they want to.
Perhaps they are worried about offending some people, but not others. I don't know, nor do I care.
Speaking as an Admin of this board to all of you, rich_t is absolutely correct in that we make the rules and signing up to post here means that you agree to them.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to account for every perceived insult or slight and we would drive ourselves insane trying to do so. Our Admin Team and Mod Staff use their judgment to decide what is and isn't a violation of TOS and we deal with each situation as it presents itself. Our goal is to provide a discussion board that is mostly about politics and a little about everything else in the world. We state in the Board Rules that we have a Conservative editorial bias and it should come as no surprise to anyone that some topics are more explosive than others.
We also DO NOT want to heavily moderate the board and look to each of you to use your discretion as adults and behave accordingly. So far, this thread hasn't gone off the rails. Let's keep it that way.
-
MP Sarge,
Please accept this advice. God is drawing you to Him.
You can find peace in Him. True peace.
You're right.
He most certainly did speak to me, in the form of Rabbi Elliot Kukla.
I am as G-D made me.
It is you, not I, that refuses to accept the truth of what He made.
-
Then you're rejecting proven science.
The thing is that you're rejecting God and how He placed you here on Earth. As Jesus said (and Jesus was at least a prophet/ teacher, at a minimum) (paraphrased) Be hot or cold. If you're in the middle of the road, I will spew you out of my mouth.
Quite the opposite, actually.
The existence of known intersex disorders is scientific proof that nothing is as simple as penis = boy and vagina = girl.
What gender do you propose intersex persons to be?
Further, the brain is sexually dimorphic- that is, we have structures in the brain that are associated with male or female.
Guess what scientists find when they scan the brain of a transsexual person.
Sexually dimorphic structures that are identical NOT to their birth biology, but to the gender they wish to transition to.
In other words, their body may be perfectly male or female (to include an absence of chromosomal abnormality), but somehow, their brains are the exact OPPOSITE of their bodies.
If you can accept that G-d allows children to be born with both a penis and a uterus, why are you unable to allow the possibilty (even when it is supported by medical evidence) that G-d could also allow a child to be born with a male brain and a female body?
-
So, basically you're saying that we're (humans) no better than some mutated animal, on the whole. An aberration. Oh, just FYI, I don't believe fully in psychiatry or psychology. At best, they're a pseudo-science.
-
No, I'm saying that our biology is not always as simple as you're making it out to be.
If a person is born with a penis an XX chromosomes, are they male, or female?
We know, for a fact, that this occurs. People can, and are, born with the biology I just described.
Why is it such a leap to think someone can be born with a male brain, and a female body.
This isn't psychology or psychiatry. It's biology.
-
Why is it such a leap to think someone can be born with a male brain, and a female body.
True, brain scans do show a difference in male and female brains, but I wonder if anyone has done a comparison to see if that shows up in someone claiming to have gender identity disorder.
-
They have.
That's what I've been saying.
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/5/2034?ref=hanzuo.com
And yes, people who have a gender identity that is the opposite of their biological sex are found, in brain scans, so have sexually dimorphic features that correlate to their gender identity and are opposite their biological sex.
In other words, they literally have male brains in female bodies (and vice versa).
-
Well, if one BELIEVES in God, then they would follow the premise established in Genesis.
Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
I see no mention of he-shes, its or any other aberration of man or woman.
Under that premise, you are either 1.) a hypocrite, if you follow any established religion or 2.) a non-believer.
-
Well, if one BELIEVES in God, then they would follow the premise established in Genesis.
I see no mention of he-shes, its or any other aberration of man or woman.
Under that premise, you are either 1.) a hypocrite, if you follow any established religion or 2.) a non-believer.
What Genesis say about genuine hermaphrodites?
-
Well, if one BELIEVES in God, then they would follow the premise established in Genesis.
I see no mention of he-shes, its or any other aberration of man or woman.
Under that premise, you are either 1.) a hypocrite, if you follow any established religion or 2.) a non-believer.
So then, you deny the existence of intersex disorders completely.
And no, the Jewish belief is that G-d created one being, both male and female, essentially a hermaphrodite, which he divided to create the Adam and Eve. It's a central tenant of Jewish faith.
http://www.jewishanswers.org/ask-the-rabbi-category/jewish-texts/the-chumash-five-books-of-moses/adam-and-eve-story/?p=2537
When Gd created Adam, it was originally a hermaphrodite, a being that was both male and female, and then Gd saw fit to split that original being into two, Adam and Eve, each one of them possessing half of that original soul.
That belief is what Jews base the sanctity of heterosexual marriage upon- reuniting that which was divided in creation.http://www.jewishmarriageinstitute.com/2009/04/hello-world/
-
What Genesis say about genuine hermaphrodites?
That the first human G-d created was one.
-
FURTHERMORE, Jewish Rabbinic literature discusses SIX different sexes or genders:
Zakhar [male]
Nekevah [female]
Tumtum [sometimes male and sometimes female]
Androgynos [neither male nor female]
Saris [born male, but later develops into female]
Aylonit [born female, but later develops into male]
-
Must have some more Harmony Central Political Forum sappers here.
Let's see, gay marriage? Check.
Next, you'll have whine-athons about Christianity and how awful it is for gays.
My opinion - as a states' rights conservative:
1. The legal definition of 'marriage'is solely within the jurisdiction of sovereign states.
2. The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to define marriage for all fifty states.
If Vermont wants gay marriage, fine. If Louisiana doesn't want it - fine.
The tricky question would be if Louisiana can deny full faith and credit to
Vermont marriages?
A states' rights view says the other states can deny Vermont marriages legal validity within their own jurisdiction.
-
I'm confused, I personally wouldn't use the word "tranny" I would refer to them as transexuals or transgender, you said that "tranny" can be seen as offensive, but then you turn around and say you don't find the words that are commonly used purposely to be offensive towards gay people such as the words I quoted above, and you have no problem using them at all?
What's confusing about that?
The words are intended to be offensive, and many people DO find them offensive. I happen not to.
-
I don't know how you can be considered a "hermaphrodite" if you were born with XX chromosomes. There are different syndromes that can cause people to be "hermaphrodites" but they have chromosomes such as XXY etc.
I never said I was.
Also, the term you are looking for is intersex, not hermaphrodite.
-
MP_Sarge it would be a fantasy come true to wake up as a male with all the fixings and say about 25 years old with my past life memory's as a woman intact.
What fun, I would run right out and pee my initials in the snow, Wave that Willey about and experiment with it every which way to Sunday. Problems I would encounter is learning how to man fart, questions about should I shave my beard and checking out my hair line, am I going Bald? How to dress this new toy, right or left side.
I assume that with my past memory's intact I would be a gay male, Mother would be very happy she allways wanted a boy child.
But then this fantasy comes down to earth when I see pictures of Chere's daughter Chez now that she is a he. For the life of me I cannot understand how the transformation has done Chez any good, he is grotesque.
Why do woman think that they need to change their sex when today both sexes can work in and do the same thing the other sex is doing.???
The body is just the Vessel to carry about our brain, one can live as any sex they want without turning the tables on biology, You of all people should know that when you breed two dogs together the result is Puppy's, not Sheep.
Has anyone thought that if one is insecure in their sex it may be the product of less hormones of their designated birth sex. Why not try extra hormones of estrogen for woman that may have the totestone higher then normal, heck woman at menopause get estrogen so the totestone jump due to lack of estrogen causes the growth of facial hair, disapearing boobs or in men getting man boobs.
Ads on tv tell of "Low T" and a pill that boosts it up. So perhaps down the line people will not need radical surgery to change their looks, just a pill to inhance their looks.
Oh yes, a question, why do so many Gay men lisp ????? What does sexual prefference make Brney Frank or Thruman Capote talk like that.????
I agree, Chaz Bono is unattractive.
He was just as unattractive as Chastity Bono.
Prior to commencing hormone therapy, I had tons of blood-work done, to include a full hormone panel, as does ANYONE receiving hormone therapy legally in the United States by a doctor adhering to the Standards of Care.
I did not suffer from low estrogen. The research that has been conducted comparing people with professed transsexualism has shown that they do not suffer from hormone deficiencies. They also show evidence that their brain is, as you put it, in vessel that doesn't match up.
I haven't, nor will I, have surgery.
I take testosterone injections. That's it.
I also pay for all of that [doctors visits, medication, blood work, etc] out of pocket, so no, I'm not forcing the taxpayer to foot the bill, in case anyone was thinking otherwise.
I didn't change my body to appropriate male privilege.
I changed my body because it didn't match my brain [again, see links re: scientific proof of a biological mismatch between brain and body in transsexual people], and currently medical science has no way of changing neurology. You cannot change the intricate wiring of the brain. But I can take testosterone which, if you take a look at pictures I posted on another thread, makes transmen indistinguishable from any other man, in any setting outside of full undress.
-
What's confusing about that?
The words are intended to be offensive, and many people DO find them offensive. I happen not to.
But you made a point of citing this:
Ofer...
I suppose "trannies" (not that it's against the rules here, but FYI, that word is deeply offensive and considered hate language by the trans community, Eupher. Anyway...)
you pointed out that the word "trannie" can be considered offensive yet you said in another post that you have no problem referring to homosexual's using words they'd deem offensive. Why is it that you made a point of citing 1 word as offensive yet have no problem using words that others might find offensive? Either certain words are offensive or they're not. It's hypocrisy for the black community to take offense to the N word yet turn around and use that word themselves. Unless I read it wrong, you took umbrage at the word "trannie" yet have no problem using words that homosexuals would find offensive.
-
But you made a point of citing this:
you pointed out that the word "trannie" can be considered offensive yet you said in another post that you have no problem referring to homosexual's using words they'd deem offensive. Why is it that you made a point of citing 1 word as offensive yet have no problem using words that others might find offensive? Either certain words are offensive or they're not. It's hypocrisy for the black community to take offense to the N word yet turn around and use that word themselves. Unless I read it wrong, you took umbrage at the word "trannie" yet have no problem using words that homosexuals would find offensive.
My motivation was outlined at length in other posts on this thread.
Also included was the fact that I don't personally find the word "tranny" offensive.
-
I never said I was.
Also, the term you are looking for is intersex, not hermaphrodite.
I'm confused, did you say you were a Hermaphrodite? or not? or are you a woman ie XX chromosone and you just feel you were born the wrong gender? And no, the term I use is the medical term that was used for years, for whatever reason the PC crowd needs to change terms. Hermaphrodite shouldn't be a term that people who suffer from it should be ashamed of, if they're born with XXY chromosone that's how they were born.
-
My motivation was outlined at length in other posts on this thread.
Also included was the fact that I don't personally find the word "tranny" offensive.
If you didn't find it offensive then why make a point of it in your response to Eupher?
-
I'm confused, did you say you were a Hermaphrodite? or not? or are you a woman ie XX chromosone and you just feel you were born the wrong gender? And no, the term I use is the medical term that was used for years, for whatever reason the PC crowd needs to change terms. Hermaphrodite shouldn't be a term that people who suffer from it should be ashamed of, if they're born with XXY chromosone that's how they were born.
No, XXY chromosomes are an intersex condition called Klinefleter Syndrome, and has nothing to do with hermaphroditism.
Hermaphroditism [also known as ovotestes] is a distinct, completely separate form of intersex disorder, and can occur in people with XY chromosomes.
I did not claim to be intersex given our current definition of intersex, no.
I used intersex to demonstrate that biology is not black and white, male and female, and if you can accept that a person can be born with a penis and a uterus, then why is it such a stretch to imagine that a person can be born with a female body and a male brain.
I suspect that as medical science progresses, transsexuals will eventually be definitively diagnosed by medical science as suffering from an intersex disorder, wherein the brain develops separately from the body, most likely due to hormone imbalances during key points in the womb [for which there is already scientific evidence, in studies which measure finger lengths of transmen like myself, and indicate abnormally high levels of testosterone exposure in utero which may have forced the brain to develop as male, while the body did not.]
-
If you didn't find it offensive then why make a point of it in your response to Eupher?
As I've already said once, I explained it previously in other posts on this thread.
Read them.
-
Well here's the medical definition of hermaphrodite:
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hermaphrodite
her·maph·ro·dite (hr-mfr-dt)
n.
An individual having the reproductive organs and many of the secondary sex characteristics of both sexes.
hermaphrodite
an individual whose body contains tissue of both male and female gonads. The ovaries and testes may be present as separate organs, or ovarian and testicular tissue may be combined in the same organ (ovotestis). The ovarian and testicular tissues may be present at the same time (synchronous hermaphrodite) or sequentially (when the sex organs appear one after the other; protandrous when the testes come first, protogynous when the ovaries appear first) See also hermaphroditism.
And I just watched a video talking about the difference between intersex and hermaphrodite and all they ended up discussing was intersex and all they said about hermaphrodites is that it's an outdated term and modern people prefer the term intersex, but that video didn't say there was a difference at all so it comes down to being PC I guess.
-
As I've already said once, I explained it previously in other posts on this thread.
Read them.
I have, and sorry but I'm confused, you say 1 thing in 1 post and another thing in another post and I can't keep it straight at all.
-
So, what I see is a Rabbi interpreting the Jewish "Bible" in order to justify aberrations of humanity, hedonism, and other sexual deviancies. Ya know, Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed for this very thing. It's no wonder that the USA has lost favor in God's eyes.
-
Well here's the medical definition of hermaphrodite:
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hermaphrodite
And I just watched a video talking about the difference between intersex and hermaphrodite and all they ended up discussing was intersex and all they said about hermaphrodites is that it's an outdated term and modern people prefer the term intersex, but that video didn't say there was a difference at all so it comes down to being PC I guess.
No, it comes down to people with XXY chromosomes having Klinefelters, and not hermaphroditism.
People with Klinefelters [and thus, XXY chromosomes] do not have the secondary sexual characteristics of both sexes, so even if the definition you linked was medically accurate [it isn't, it's a gross oversimplification of hermaphroditism], it still wouldn't apply to people with XXY chromosomes, who appear 100% male at birth [normal genitalia for a male child], and who typically aren't diagnosed until puberty or oftentimes later, during attempts to diagnose infertility.
-
So, what I see is a Rabbi interpreting the Jewish "Bible" in order to justify aberrations of humanity, hedonism, and other sexual deviancies. Ya know, Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed for this very thing. It's no wonder that the USA has lost favor in God's eyes.
You realize that's not "a" Rabbi, that's the ENTIRE Jewish faith, right?
Do you no longer consider Judaism a valid faith?
That Adam and Eve were created by G-d as a hermaphrodite has been part of Jewish belief since the time of Philo the Greek.
-
I have, and sorry but I'm confused, you say 1 thing in 1 post and another thing in another post and I can't keep it straight at all.
As I said before, I will say again.
My reason for pointing out that "tranny" is an offensive term was solely because many people are unaware that it is considered such.
Eupher has known me for some time, and as such, I doubted his intent was to be personally offensive to me, which left the possibility that either, he was unaware the term was considered offensive, or was aware that I'm not a big baby and do not object to the use of the word. The former seemed more likely than the latter, so I thought as a matter of courtesy I would mention that the word is considered offensive.
How awkward was it the first time you innocently used a profane word that you didn't realize was profane and offended someone?
-
As I said before, I will say again.
My reason for pointing out that "tranny" is an offensive term was solely because many people are unaware that it is considered such.
Eupher has known me for some time, and as such, I doubted his intent was to be personally offensive to me, which left the possibility that either, he was unaware the term was considered offensive, or was aware that I'm not a big baby and do not object to the use of the word. The former seemed more likely than the latter, so I thought as a matter of courtesy I would mention that the word is considered offensive.
How awkward was it the first time you innocently used a profane word that you didn't realize was profane and offended someone?
For whatever reason I tend not to use terms that I think might be offensive, if someone is gay I call them gay, I don't use other words to describe them.
-
You realize that's not "a" Rabbi, that's the ENTIRE Jewish faith, right?
Do you no longer consider Judaism a valid faith?
Well, I'll run this by my brother in law, a Rabbi. I'll see what he says about it all. The one web page you referenced, seemed as if it was only him trying to explain away things. As I saw it, it was akin to Fred Phelps trying to explain John 13:34.......
-
Is this a better source?
It's a very lengthy tract on the Midrash Haggadah, and quotes directly the portions of the Haggadah wherein it states that G-d created the first human as a hermaphrodite:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=587&letter=M
When you talk to your BIL, ask him about the discussions of the Rabbis in the Midrash Haggadah about the creation of Adam and Eve.
Aish.com is also another great source of Jewish learning: http://www.aish.com/sp/pg/48883387.html
-
I support civil unions. From a legal standpoint, banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. However, I also support traditional marriage and therefore oppose same-sex marriage. There are a lot of legal questions, but same-sex marriage in my view leads to same-sex adoption, which is not in the best interest of the uphold of the American family. So, I do support civil unions if states want to recognize them.
-
I support civil unions. From a legal standpoint, banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. However, I also support traditional marriage and therefore oppose same-sex marriage. There are a lot of legal questions, but same-sex marriage in my view leads to same-sex adoption, which is not in the best interest of the uphold of the American family. So, I do support civil unions if states want to recognize them.
No. Banning same sex marriage is not unconstitutional. States have the authority to ban them.
The legal definition of marriage is solely within the jurisdiction of each sovereign state.
The Federal Government has no power to either ban them, endorse or require them.
Before people talk about rights, they should consider what level of government they are talking about.
The Liberals have won when we automatically default to the Federal Government.
That is exactly what is killing America -- Liberalism's expansion of the power of the Federal
Government at the expense of individual rights and state sovereignty.
The demise of States' Rights is being pushed along nearly as much by Conservatives as by Liberals.
-
Before people talk about rights, they should consider what level of government they are talking about.
The Liberals have won when we automatically default to the Federal Government.
That is exactly what is killing America -- Liberalism's expansion of the power of the Federal
Government at the expense of individual rights and state sovereignty.
The demise of States' Rights is being pushed along nearly as much by Conservatives as by Liberals.
You are exactly right. Congressmen claiming to be Conservatives pushed the Defense of Marriage Act, the Healthy Marriage Initiative and pushed for the large subsidies that the Federal Government pays to people with state issued marriage licenses. The true Conservative, less government approach is to get the Federal Government completely out of the marriage and civil union business. So far no one has explained why these Federal marriage subsides are necessary or even helpful.
-
The OP has exactly one post. I suspect he is yet another Gay Lunatic Liberal infiltrator
who has creeped in the Harmony Central P*** Parade. (http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forumdisplay.php?52-The-Political-Party)
And I suspect this thread will go on fifty pages, minimum.
Next come the threads where gays bay at the moon about Christianity.
And y'all can put that in your China Construction Bank Account.
Next to blacks, these people are the Imam Barack Obamao's most loyal supporters.
I can't wait for 2012.
-
How funny then, that I didn't vote for Obama.
-
How funny then, that I didn't vote for Obama.
Why is that funny?
-
Just the idea that if you're not heterosexual you should vote for Obama [or any Democrat, for that matter].
I'm queer, not stupid.
-
Just the idea that if you're not heterosexual you should vote for Obama [or any Democrat, for that matter].
I'm queer, not stupid.
I didn't know that...
-
Just the idea that if you're not heterosexual you should vote for Obama [or any Democrat, for that matter].
I'm queer, not stupid.
MP-Sarge, I personally want to thank you for enlightening me on a subject I was never taught in medical school.
So much miss information out there in the medical community and what are the every day people to think when they just get word of mouth on the subject.???
First off I was taught that all baby's are conceived as females and it is the hormones or DNA that causes a baby to become male---- others are developed as a female, the fathers sperm decides the sex of the baby.
This becomes complicated when something in the DNA of both parents goes wrong. Who is to say this may be in fact a birth accident or some form of DNA confusion at conception.??? We call a family trait when children inherit diseases of their family's and even a family birth mark, club foot or hemophilia in male children.
There are many story's on the web of children being born --intersex and the parents have to decide on the sex of the child in order to fill out a birth certificate. The doctors bow to the wishes of the parents and operate on the child to remove the offending sex parts and the child is raised in the sex their parents want. How sad that the child was not allowed to grow for a few years and then to make the decision the child's when they become young adults.??
I personally have never known a Gay male or female that was not Gay because of Social issues or trauma. Males that were so abused by woman they can never get close or trust one again. Woman abused or bullied by parents or siblings with brothers or some male that caused them to fear men.
For the change overs the Gays that married and have children and they found later in life that they were not happy in their sex life for what ever reason, it boggles the mind.
Again I say thank you MP---You are shining a light into some very mysterious places that we need to understand and not flat out condemn others.
-
From the Rabbi Brother in Law:
What we have here is some questionable interpretation of Scripture. The Scripture they quote is accurate in that man(Adam) was created first and that woman (Eve) was formed from him. Woman was formed from Adam's rib, the essence of what was man and woman, not the actual sexes were both already in Adam as a complete person. When man and woman joined and called of God into marriage that essence of a complete being is rejoined. Scripture cannot be referring to Adam actually containing both male and female genitalia or woman would not needed to have been created for reproduction. (Which is the purpose of marriage- no childrren exist before the union of Adam and Eve.) They use the Talmud to make their point, but it needs to be understood that the Talmud was not policed on what was included, both pro and cons on any issue are included and many with no Scriptural backing whatsoever. I checked out the second site and could not find what you were referring to. But one of the things that Judaism loves to do is rationalize everything through mysticism. This practice started in the middle ages with the Zohar and influences much of mainstream Judaism today. The Judaism of today resembles more of the corrupt mystical Judaism of the middle ages that it does of the time of the Second Temple and can hardly be used to understand the Judaism of the Second Temple when Jesus lived. Any attempt to do so is either irresponsible or ignorant. To truly understand the Judaism of Jesus day and thereby more clearly understand Christianity in a clearer sense, you have to study out the Judaism of the Second Temple when Jesus lived. This takes more studying than just going to a website, which most people try to do.
As far as the six sexes, one of the observations that I have discovered with modern Judaism, is its liberal tendencies. In reality, to get this doctrine is done so by a famous liberal stunt. That is, introduce a word into a theory by supposition (Hermaphrodtie) and try get it accepted as fact, with little or no proof that the word is applicable to the situation. Once that word gets by with no question, the false doctrines are easily introduced.
There ya have it. Similar to many of the Christian faiths. Things are taken out of context and manipulated for one's own self-satisfaction or to justify their immorality.
-
From the Rabbi Brother in Law:
As far as the six sexes, one of the observations that I have discovered with modern Judaism, is its liberal tendencies. In reality, to get this doctrine is done so by a famous liberal stunt. That is, introduce a word into a theory by supposition (Hermaphrodtie) and try get it accepted as fact, with little or no proof that the word is applicable to the situation. Once that word gets by with no question, the false doctrines are easily introduced.
A text without a context is the pretext for a proof-text.
-
From the Rabbi Brother in Law:
There ya have it. Similar to many of the Christian faiths. Things are taken out of context and manipulated for one's own self-satisfaction or to justify their immorality.
Interesting. He can just reject the Talmud out of hand when it suits him.
Why is his opinion more valid than the hundreds of thousands of Rabbis who have agreed with the opinion held in the Talmud for centuries?
By that virtue, he can also say that it is perfectly Kosher to eat cheeseburgers, which would fly in the face of every single Jew alive.
Because it isn't the Torah that forbids it, it's an "opinion" in the Talmud.
Sorry, but Rabbi or not, he's spitting in the face of Jewish belief and opinion. What sect of Judaism does he belong to that no longer considers the traditional Jewish interpretation of the Genesis story valid?
By removing the belief that Adam and Eve were once one, he is also removing the Jewish argument for the sanctity and holiness of heterosexual marriage.
The six sexes are not "modern" Judaism.
The sex of "tumtum" appears 900 times in the Talmud alone. The Talmud is hardly modern. That statement alone is pretty good illustration of how actively your BIL is misrepresenting things.
__________________________
Now, as far as judging immorality...
What is immoral about someone being born with an intersex disorder?
You never answered my questions- Do you believe that people are born with intersex disorders?
If G-d creates intersex children, who are YOU to question His creation?
If G-d allows innocent children to be born with intersex disorders, how can you be certain that it is completely impossible for someone to be born with a male brain and a female body?
-
All of this is really moot - as the many and varied conditions regarding mixed gender attest, and even if one is not recognizing the "wrong brain in body" thing, Thor's claim that God always creates people of a single distinct gender is completely falsified (for at least ONE reason, but probably two). Dead as a doornail.
-
Should same-sex marriage be legal?
No. They can have Civil Unions. This whole tactic by the LBGTRBWMOPL or whatever the f*ck they want to call themselves is just a way to destroy anything good left in this country.
You must ask the question: WHY is it so important to ruin the purpose of marriage?
-
Must have some more Harmony Central Political Forum sappers here.
Let's see, gay marriage? Check.
Next, you'll have whine-athons about Christianity and how awful it is for gays.
My opinion - as a states' rights conservative:
1. The legal definition of 'marriage'is solely within the jurisdiction of sovereign states.
2. The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to define marriage for all fifty states.
If Vermont wants gay marriage, fine. If Louisiana doesn't want it - fine.
The tricky question would be if Louisiana can deny full faith and credit to
Vermont marriages?
A states' rights view says the other states can deny Vermont marriages legal validity within their own jurisdiction.
Wilbur was confused by my post waaaay back on page 8, so I'll just capture what gurn said in response -- maybe he'll be a little less confused.
I'm just gonna let the "n" word/tranny issue die, in response to MP Sarge. No sense re-hashing that shit all over again.
-
Reading the discussions in this thread have been interesting, however not particularly enlightening......
Many old arguments have been recycled for the umpteenth time. The essence of the OP was "should same-sex marriage be legal........my answer would be a resounding NO. No, so long as it is specifically called "marriage", which has for thousands of years been defined by societies worldwide as a relationship between two humans of opposite gender.
I have absolutely no objections to homosexual "civil unions" which carry all the same privileges as "marriage" in the common usage........religion aside, "marriage" must be defended as an institution that generally benefits a society, and provides stable environments for children and young adults.
Specifically regarding homosexuals (I refuse to refer to them as "gay"......I've known many over the years, and frankly there is little gay about them in the literal sense), I'll try to place a little different spin on this. As close to a "scientific" analysis as I can muster, up until the DSM IV (and the advent of "political correctness"), the prevailing opinion of professionals in the behavioral sciences was that homosexuality (in all of its gender or sexual preference variations) was a mental illness. One can argue whether it is genetic, or acculturated (or a mixture of both), but until the DSM IV was published, the theory was close, if not spot on. The point essentially is that until "PC" set in to the behavioral sciences, homosexuality was abnormal behavior.
The question now becomes whether or not abnormal behavior should be enshrined in law, or society in general.........I will allways maintain that this is a bad idea, the continued "blurring of lines" between what is normal and abnormal will erode the foundations of an ordered society, and result in unintended consequences......generally negative ones.
When I view homosexuality through the logic of a scientist, I can discern absolutely NO distinction socially between a practicing (male) homosexual couple, and a priest (or pastor) molesting alter boys.......the only difference is the age of the participants. One will be "tolerated", and the other will land the adult in prison.........but fundamentally they are no different, both are aberrant behavior.......and always will be.
Societies always seek to create order out of chaos. The inclusion of vast numbers of variant aberrations erodes the order, and ultimately destroys the "society", not unlike aberrant cancer cells will ultimately destroy the host. Therefore, from purely a logical position, granting "normalcy" to homosexuals is a contradiction in terms, and must be resisted.
Does this mean that I advocate violent repression or isolation of homosexuals....no, does that mean that I think that homosexuals should be denied jobs, benefits (with some caveats) visitation rights, the means to cohabitate, the ability to transfer their wealth or possessions to their partners upon death..........no I don't, no more than I would for some individual with Down's Syndrome.
What I DO believe is that homosexuals should not be considered "normal", and since words have meaning, "marriage" is confined to the societal limits of normalcy, and must stay there. I could care less what anyone does in the privacy of their own homes, so long as it stays there. I don't want to be forced to attempt an explanation to my small grandchildren public displays of aberrant behavior.......nor will I tolerate them being exposed to it as a part of the curricula of their primary education.
In an ordered society, lines must be drawn, and limits established.......I've established mine. I grow weary of a tiny fraction of our society constantly clamoring for "acceptance", using the legislatures, courts, and the media. societies, not unlike the water of a lake will seek their own level........that happened for most humans a number of centuries ago.
doc
-
But you made a point of citing this:
you pointed out that the word "trannie" can be considered offensive yet you said in another post that you have no problem referring to homosexual's using words they'd deem offensive. Why is it that you made a point of citing 1 word as offensive yet have no problem using words that others might find offensive? Either certain words are offensive or they're not. It's hypocrisy for the black community to take offense to the N word yet turn around and use that word themselves. Unless I read it wrong, you took umbrage at the word "trannie" yet have no problem using words that homosexuals would find offensive.
MP Sarge was simply making a point he's been dying to make for some time now -- just like this self-expose about his transsexualism in a thread that is supposed to be about so-called same-sex marriage.
-
So you're calling me a liar.
Good to know.
As far as how transsexuality even came up in the first place, it's relevant to the discussion, because if you're limiting marriage to one man and one woman, then at some point we should probably figure out who transsexuals and people with intersex disorders are and aren't/should and shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Strangely, no one seems to want to answer those questions.
So, I'll ask it yet again.
Who is someone with and intersex disorder allowed to marry?
-
So you're calling me a liar.
Good to know.
As far as how transsexuality even came up in the first place, it's relevant to the discussion, because if you're limited marriage to one man and one woman, then at some point we should probably figure out who transsexuals and people with intersex disorders are and aren't allowed to marry.
Strangely, no one seems to want to answer those questions.
No, I'm not calling you a liar. If I wanted to call you a liar, I'd say, "You're a liar."
I don't believe transsexuality is relevant to the issue, and I believe you've been looking for an opportunity -- no matter how slight -- to state your case.
Hey, I'm guilty all the time of hi-jacking threads -- so it's no big deal to me. Go right ahead.
The question is -- should same-sex marriage be legal?
My answer is a resounding NO. Anything after that is gravy. :-)
-
Well, if I'm stating my motives, and you're saying they're something different, I can't help but feel you're calling me a liar.
Okay, you oppose same sex marriage.
That's your right.
Now tell me, what *is* same sex marriage?
If someone with XXY chromosomes marries someone with XX chromosomes, is that same sex marriage?
What if they marry someone with XY chromosomes; is *that* same sex marriage?
-
Well, if I'm stating my motives, and you're saying they're something different, I can't help but feel you're calling me a liar.
Okay, you oppose same sex marriage.
That's your right.
Now tell me, what *is* same sex marriage?
If someone with XXY chromosomes marries someone with XX chromosomes, is that same sex marriage?
What if they marry someone with XY chromosomes; is *that* same sex marriage?
You know, I did read the entire thread from where I left off last Friday (?) and I read your entire dissertation on your situation, your testing, your testosterone, and your decision. Are you reaaaaally trying to write all of that stuff all over again???
-
No, that stuff came up because I was *asked* about it by other posters.
I'm asking a question completely separate from that, that doesn't apply to me at all.
If you're going to say you don't approve of same-sex marriage, you don't think it's relevant to define what "same sex" means?
I'm asking the question because as of yet, no one has answered it.
-
No, that stuff came up because I was *asked* about it by other posters.
I'm asking a question completely separate from that, that doesn't apply to me at all.
If you're going to say you don't approve of same-sex marriage, you don't think it's relevant to define what "same sex" means?
I'm asking the question because as of yet, no one has answered it.
Well....not to butt in between you and Euph.....I'll answer it:
Marriage = A legally recognized relationship between an individual with a fully-functioning (in all regards) penis, with a second individual with a fully-functioning (in all regards) vagina.......
Now, if the wonders of modern medical science can place you firmly in either category......go for it, I'm on your side.
Everything else would be regarded as a "civil union"......
doc
-
No, that stuff came up because I was *asked* about it by other posters.
I'm asking a question completely separate from that, that doesn't apply to me at all.
If you're going to say you don't approve of same-sex marriage, you don't think it's relevant to define what "same sex" means?
I'm asking the question because as of yet, no one has answered it.
Maybe there's a reason for that. Maybe because the question can't be answered.
Sorry -- I'm fresh out of answers. You appear to be a "special case", so if you're trying to tell me that as a transsexual (without the surgery) that you're homo and have a relationship with some guy, ultimately in the end -- physiologically speaking, of course, it's male/female thing.
Or is it?
Beats the shit out of me.
But if you're looking for a "marriage" with said guy, why not just live together? What is it about marriage that's got you all tied up in knots? (no pun intended).
-
Well....not to butt in between you and Euph.....I'll answer it:
Marriage = A legally recognized relationship between an individual with a fully-functioning (in all regards) penis, with a second individual with a fully-functioning (in all regards) vagina.......
Everything else would be regarded as a "civil union"......
doc
doc, this is where MP Sarge pulls out his "I was a female, but the data tell me I'm male" and then proceed to enlighten us with all manner of biblical-based philosophy about how the Jews knew all about varying degrees of the opposite sex in each of us.
So the obvious end game is the "mental" aspect of gender/sex and all that that's cracked up to be.
Again, no pun intended. :-)
-
Once we allow same sex marriage, where does the "marriage" thing end?? Does it end with multiple wives or husbands?? Does it end with a 40 year old man marrying an Eight year old girl?? Or do we even carry it as far as some countries have and allow bestiality to enter the equation??
I'm right along with TV DOC in ALL aspects of his post on the last page. For a couple of Millenia or more, marriage has been between a MAN & a WOMAN.
Ohhh, and MP Sarge, you're free to practice YOUR faith as you see fit or as it allows. Hell, if you want to go worship the trees, go for it. I'll place what my BIL says over some internet "Rabbi" that's bastardizing their religion. At least I know about him. And I'll take HIS credentials over anything you can throw at me. That's one bad thing about the internet.[sarc] Just because it's on the internet must mean that it's true[/sarc] ::) One can find enough "shit" to back up just about any argument. However, one must consider whether or not that "shit" is legitimate.
-
doc, this is where MP Sarge pulls out his "I was a female, but the data tell me I'm male" and then proceed to enlighten us with all manner of biblical-based philosophy about how the Jews knew all about varying degrees of the opposite sex in each of us.
So the obvious end game is the "mental" aspect of gender/sex and all that that's cracked up to be.
Again, no pun intended. :-)
Why am I reminded of "Undergroundpanther" over at DU?!?
You know, some mornings I wake up and feel mentally like an Eagle.......still doesn't mean that I can fly......
doc
-
Why am I reminded of "Undergroundpanther" over at DU?!?
You know, some mornings I wake up and feel mentally like an Eagle.......still doesn't mean that I can fly......
doc
There's only one way to find out. Next time you feel that way, go up to the ninth floor, spread your wings and dive off.
I wouldn't dare say that to a bunch of DUmmie. :-) All over town all you would hear would be thump! thump! thump! Like eggs being thrown against a brick wall.
-
I see it this way. Marriage is between a man and a woman, both having their original working reproductive systems, whether to procreate or personal enjoyment. If two people , two females or two males want to live together, that is fine, it is a civil union..
-
...
Marriage = A legally recognized relationship between an individual with a fully-functioning (in all regards) penis, with a second individual with a fully-functioning (in all regards) vagina.......
...
If you're going to define it so strictly - ie "fully-functioning in all regards" - then that's likely to nullify numerous existing "marriages" between men and women. For example where the male has erectile dysfunction or where either partner is infertile or otherwise impaired and thus no longer "fully-functioning in all regards".
-
If you're going to define it so strictly - ie "fully-functioning in all regards" - then that's likely to nullify numerous existing "marriages" between men and women. For example where the male has erectile dysfunction or where either partner is infertile or otherwise impaired and thus no longer "fully-functioning in all regards".
Perhaps you're correct that my criteria is too narrow......however, I'd argue that technically female infertility is dependent on organs other than a vagina, and erectile dysfunction is imminently treatable......that said, "seahorse913" offered a less stringent definition, which is fine by me.....
doc
-
If you're going to define it so strictly - ie "fully-functioning in all regards" - then that's likely to nullify numerous existing "marriages" between men and women. For example where the male has erectile dysfunction or where either partner is infertile or otherwise impaired and thus no longer "fully-functioning in all regards".
this is true..........because alot of elderly people marry for companionship, and this is where homosexuals have their arguments.
I as a woman , may find another woman attractive, I would not want to marry her, because, I find the physical chemistry would not be there for me. There are certain characteristics that men have that women do not have, that I find appealing
-
Once we allow same sex marriage, where does the "marriage" thing end?? Does it end with multiple wives or husbands?? Does it end with a 40 year old man marrying an Eight year old girl?? Or do we even carry it as far as some countries have and allow bestiality to enter the equation??
Thank You! that's been 1 of my arguments all along, if you start redefining marriage then heck, why can't 3, 4, 5 or more people marry? who are we to say that 5 people can't love each other? it's a slippery slope.
-
Oy, even understanding where the miscommunication came from, it's frustrating. :banghead:
I'm not asking about me, or transsexuals in general.
I'm asking about people who are born with physical or chromosomal disorders that render them not definitively male or female. Babies who are born with malformed genitalia, for example. People with chromosomal mosaicism or Klinefelters. Not people who made a choice to blur their sex and gender, but people who were born that way.
Are we saying that they should only be allowed civil unions, and not marriages?
-
Oy, even understanding where the miscommunication came from, it's frustrating. :banghead:
I'm not asking about me, or transsexuals in general.
I'm asking about people who are born with physical or chromosomal disorders that render them not definitively male or female. Babies who are born with malformed genitalia, for example. People with chromosomal mosaicism or Klinefelters. Not people who made a choice to blur their sex and gender, but people who were born that way.
Are we saying that they should only be allowed civil unions, and not marriages?
There are approximately 4.2 million births in the US every year, odds of having a baby who is a hermaphrodite or intersex are approximately 1 in 25,000, we're talking approximately 168 hermaphrodite or intersex babies per year or 1/200th of 1%, so are you advocating a change in marriage laws because of that small %age?
-
There are approximately 4.2 million births in the US every year, odds of having a baby who is a hermaphrodite or intersex are approximately 1 in 25,000, we're talking approximately 168 hermaphrodite or intersex babies per year or 1/200th of 1%, so are you advocating a change in marriage laws because of that small %age?
Of course. The aberrations must have equality, don't you know?? ::)
-
Seriously Thor? Aberrations? Were talking about infants who were born with health issues. Aberrations? That's what the pro-death crowd would call them, right before they aborted the child.
Ballygrl, I'm not advocating anything.
My personal opinion is that marriage is a religious institution which the government has no business involving itself in. It should be left up to the churches.
If government is going to involve itself, then it should be left to the state, and not the federal, level.
Y'know, small government, religious freedom and state's rights? Sound familiar?
I'm asking questions that are relevant to the discussion. A legal ruling regarding an intersex person marrying could create legal loopholes for other forms of marriage, unless sex is clearly defined.
One man, and one woman, doesn't clearly define sex, since we know medically that not all people are definitively male or female.
If you want to limit marriage only to people who are distinctly, biologically male marrying someone who is distinctly biologically female (XY and XX, respectively), then it is important to say so and avoid legal loopholes which would weaken those limits.
The whole reason the debate over same-sex marriage exists is because so many documents don't specify one man-one woman. Why not learn from history and make sure the documents are specific enough that there needn't be future debate?
-
Just one question here this time.
How many wives did David, Solomon, or Abraham have ???
-
Seriously Thor? Aberrations? Were talking about infants who were born with health issues. Aberrations? That's what the pro-death crowd would call them, right before they aborted the child.
ANY Human born with both sex organs, aka an hermaphrodite, is an aberration. Nowhere in my post did I suggest that the fœtus be aborted. I find it patently offensive that you would suggest that I even inferred that.
I suggest that you learn your vocabulary:
aberration ab·er·ra·tion (Äb'É™-rÄ'shÉ™n)
n.
A departure from the normal or typical.
-
OK, so you want to leave it up to the States to decide? no problem, then if we're going to advocate State's rights in reference to marriage then let's revisit a whole list of other issues that the Government has stuck its nose in, let's start with abortion.
-
OK, so you want to leave it up to the States to decide? no problem, then if we're going to advocate State's rights in reference to marriage then let's revisit a whole list of other issues that the Government has stuck its nose in, let's start with abortion.
Might be worth another thread. This one seems kinda busy with another subject. :whistling:
-
Just one question here this time.
How many wives did David, Solomon, or Abraham have ???
I am not sure how many they had at one time, but that was another culture, time and place in history.
Because of the lack of medical technology and know how, men were expected to have many wives and children. People didn't live as long and cures for diseases were unknown
Whether it is fortunate for us or not, the rules have changed......
-
aberration ab·er·ra·tion (Äb'É™-rÄ'shÉ™n)
n.
A departure from the normal or typical.
By that definition, lefties (as in left handed) are aberrations. So are people with red hair. Should we disallow them from getting married or otherwise marginalize them because of their aberrations?
In fact, I'm pretty sure each of us could find *at least* one biological or personality feature in each of us that could also be called aberrations... I guess we're all in trouble!
-
By that definition, lefties (as in left handed) are aberrations. So are people with red hair. Should we disallow them from getting married or otherwise marginalize them because of their aberrations?
In fact, I'm pretty sure each of us could find *at least* one biological or personality feature in each of us that could also be called aberrations... I guess we're all in trouble!
Do you ever look at a situation/problem/set of circumstances simplistically? Do you complicate everything you're confronted with?
Or are you simply stirring shit?
-
Just one question here this time.
How many wives did David, Solomon, or Abraham have ???
IIRC Solomon was alleged to have had 300 wives and concubines.
Polygamy is prevalent in some countries now, and has a long historical basis in fact. I'm not sure when marriage became defined as between one man and one woman in the Judeo-Christian tradition, since the Bible patriarchs were, for the most part, polygamists.
But, marriages has always been defined as between two or more members of the opposite sex in the same J-C tradition AFA?IK.
-
Do you ever look at a situation/problem/set of circumstances simplistically? Do you complicate everything you're confronted with?
Or are you simply stirring shit?
This is one of the reasons, i am against same sex marrriages, if that we allow those, other people with varying and complicated relationships will want certain priveleges. I have heard that same sex people wanted to get married so they can collect the ss of their partner...to me that was like so you are marrying them for money??
Where do we draw the line?????
-
Do you ever look at a situation/problem/set of circumstances simplistically? Do you complicate everything you're confronted with?
Or are you simply stirring shit?
Stirring shit or raising objections to a particularly bad line of argument? I guess maybe in your book those are one and the same, I don't know. I'm just trying to keep things honest here, because this whole "aberration" business is just silly, and is really only working by equivocation. You guys are using one definition of the word aberration to classify homosexuality/transgenderism/etc, and then assuming another once they have been classified.
As if once you label something an aberration (for being a deviation from the norm), suddenly that proves your point about its moral character... I don't think so. Its language abuse. Aberration does also have a definition that means something like deviation from good morals... but you don't get to just smuggle that in, and declare victory.
The fallacy goes something like this:
Homosexuality/transgenderism/etc are deviations from the norm...
and deviations from the norm are aberrations...
therefore homosexuality/transgenderism/etc are aberrations...
Aberrations are deviations from moral goodness...
and homosexuality/transgederism are aberrations
therefore homosexuality/transgenderism are deviations from moral goodness.
Surely you must see the problem there... its a classic switcheroo.... shifting definitions... hopefully its not too complex for you :)
-
Don't you first have to establish the purpose of sex to determine whether or not a condition is an aberration?
Look at the purpose of a hand and then tell us if left-handedness is an aberration or the purpose of hair to determine if red-heads are an aberration.
-
Stirring shit or raising objections to a particularly bad line of argument? I guess maybe in your book those are one and the same, I don't know. I'm just trying to keep things honest here, because this whole "aberration" business is just silly, and is really only working by equivocation. You guys are using one definition of the word aberration to classify homosexuality/transgenderism/etc, and then assuming another once they have been classified.
As if once you label something an aberration (for being a deviation from the norm), suddenly that proves your point about its moral character... I don't think so. Its language abuse. Aberration does also have a definition that means something like deviation from good morals... but you don't get to just smuggle that in, and declare victory.
The fallacy goes something like this:
Homosexuality/transgenderism/etc are deviations from the norm...
and deviations from the norm are aberrations...
therefore homosexuality/transgenderism/etc are aberrations...
Aberrations are deviations from moral goodness...
and homosexuality/transgederism are aberrations
therefore homosexuality/transgenderism are deviations from moral goodness.
Surely you must see the problem there... its a classic switcheroo.... shifting definitions... hopefully its not too complex for you :)
Wilbur....you are being intentionally and dishonestly obtuse.......however, that appears to be normal for you.....
Let's keep it simple: Marriage is between a "normal" male and a "normal" female, the limits of "normalcy" end there......they cannot honestly be extended to hair color or dominant hand usage.........you are obfuscating.
It's just silly on your part, and immediately takes you out of the debate .
doc
-
Wilbur....you are being intentionally and dishonestly obtuse.......however, that appears to be normal for you.....
Sorry, the obfuscation is coming from the other side here... obfuscations can hide easily in plain, simple language when one is shifting definitions. Unfortunately, they are harder to explain and point out, then they are to make.
Let's keep it simple: Marriage is between a "normal" male and a "normal" female, the limits of "normalcy" end there......they cannot honestly be extended to hair color or dominant hand usage.........you are obfuscating.
Well, marriage - as presently defined, in law - is between a man and a woman - but the discussions is over changing this definition. "Normal" is another morally useless adjective - there are plenty of things about every single individual that could be called "abnormal" - some of those things we have moral obligations to tolerate - some of them we don't. The "normal" or "abnormal" label does not tell us how to respond to them.
-
Stirring shit or raising objections to a particularly bad line of argument? I guess maybe in your book those are one and the same, I don't know. I'm just trying to keep things honest here, because this whole "aberration" business is just silly, and is really only working by equivocation. You guys are using one definition of the word aberration to classify homosexuality/transgenderism/etc, and then assuming another once they have been classified.
As if once you label something an aberration (for being a deviation from the norm), suddenly that proves your point about its moral character... I don't think so. Its language abuse. Aberration does also have a definition that means something like deviation from good morals... but you don't get to just smuggle that in, and declare victory.
The fallacy goes something like this:
Homosexuality/transgenderism/etc are deviations from the norm...
and deviations from the norm are aberrations...
therefore homosexuality/transgenderism/etc are aberrations...
Aberrations are deviations from moral goodness...
and homosexuality/transgederism are aberrations
therefore homosexuality/transgenderism are deviations from moral goodness.
Surely you must see the problem there... its a classic switcheroo.... shifting definitions... hopefully its not too complex for you :)
You're getting hung up in yourself again, wilbur. It's a common thing with you. You post your eternal arguments and questions, never really solving anything, just to see how far you can take the thread.
As has been offered upthread, this issue has been hashed over in this forum repeatedly. Again and again. The only element that was brought into this particular discussion involves trannyism.
Tell you what, wilbur. I'll keep my "particularly bad line of argument" for the simple, real reason that it works for me. I'm rejecting your attempt "to keep things honest here" because, in the end, you're only satisfying your warped sense of reality. And what's so "honest" about your opinion? Other than it's yours and you own it? :whatever:
Aberration is a term whose definition was posted earlier. You want to play word games and insist on beating that dead horse because the word doesn't suit your purpose. Fine, if that's what knocks you out, hey, I can loan you a hammer for increased pleasure if you like.
Fact is, and this you cannot dispute, homos, rugmunchers, and trannies lie outside the norm. That is a statistical fact. That makes those people aberrations -- and that has nothing whatsoever to do with "morals". They are aberrations from a biological point of view, notwithstanding that mental processes are also inherently biological.
Again, wilbur, your attempts to bring your own sense "right" in this very wrong scenario just doesn't square with me. You aren't going to change my mind, because you can't spin it any other way than what I've said. Abnormal, aberration, it's all essentially the same. You want to take the federal government and assign tasks that the Constitution does not permit.
That won't work for me. It'll work for you libs, of course, but it won't work for me.
-
Fact is, and this you cannot dispute, homos, rugmunchers, and trannies lie outside the norm. That is a statistical fact. That makes those people aberrations -- and that has nothing whatsoever to do with "morals". They are aberrations from a biological point of view, notwithstanding that mental processes are also inherently biological.
Hey, guess what?! I agree!! But then again, from a biological point of view, so are redheads, and left handers... Siamese twins - heck, identical twins, maternal twins, you name it. All aberrations.
-
Well, marriage - as presently defined, in law - is between a man and a woman - but the discussions is over changing this definition. "Normal" is another morally useless adjective - there are plenty of things about every single individual that could be called "abnormal" - some of those things we have moral obligations to tolerate - some of them we don't. The "normal" or "abnormal" label does not tell us how to respond to them.
Again, we need to speak to the purpose of a thing to determine what is or is not "normal."
Using a hammer to drive a screw is not normal and renaming the screw a "flanged nail" does nothing to mitigate the impropriety.
"Normal" is another morally useless adjective...
I'm just aching to hear the moral imperative for redefining marriage to include homosexuality.
-
Hey, guess what?! I agree!! But then again, from a biological point of view, so are redheads, and left handers... Siamese twins - heck, identical twins, maternal twins, you name it. All aberrations.
:yourpoint:
-
Again, we need to speak to the purpose of a thing to determine what is or is not "normal."
When you find a purpose for our body parts, let me know! As it is, I see only that there are tasks to which they are particularly well suited, but I see no purpose - no ideal blueprint to which they must conform (or be cast into the realm of moral unworthiness). I have no problem with people using body parts for tasks which they are not particularly well suited, per se... and I'm not sure why I should.
If one wants to try to bring God, and his alleged purposes and designs, into the equation - then fine - one can do that... but those arguments shouldn't be couched in these psuedo-naturalistic terms that try to seem scientific, as happens all the time.
Using a hammer to drive a screw is not normal and renaming the screw a "flanged nail" does nothing to mitigate the impropriety.
I'm just aching to hear the moral imperative for redefining marriage to include homosexuality.
If one values egalitarianism, human rights, those sorts of things - then I believe one has a moral imperative to redefine marriage to include homosexuality. Its simple: its all about rights.
-
You're alleging I don't love my son?
I didn't love the Country when I served in it combat?
I didn't love the men and women who served along with me?
I don't love my partner in the same way you love yours?
I don't love my dog?
I don't love dog training and the sport of Schutzhund?
I don't love the Mariners?
I don't love the Seahawks?
I don't love nacho cheese?
I don't love many of the same exact things that you love?
You don't love the Mariners as much as I love the Red Sox. So there. Why don't you think about THAT one for a while.
-
By that definition, lefties (as in left handed) are aberrations.
I agree.
-
Let's keep it simple: Marriage is between a "normal" male and a "normal" female, the limits of "normalcy" end there......
doc
I would just like to point out...
People who have total sex changes - man to woman, woman to man....do get married...into a heterosexual union. Difficult to do, because of having to show birth certificates, but it has happened.
Another thing to think about....
Just what is "normal" male and "normal" female with regards to a marital relationship?
Is a marriage consummated if one of the two individuals cannot consummate the marriage?
If a woman marries a man who is paralyzed from the mid-chest down, and is physically unable to have sex, the marriage is never consummated....is this a "normal" marriage? Is it a "real" marriage if not consummated?
What about a hetero couple, the woman is a soldier, severely wounded in the abdomen, has her ovaries and uterus removed in order to survive? Is she still a woman? In many cultures, she would not be. How is she now different from a transgender who has gone from man to woman? The plumbing is now the same, the boobs are probably better on the transgender, both have a vagina but no baby making parts. Essentially the injured woman and the transgender are the same by outward physical appearance, and similar internally...but the chromosomes are still different. They can both still have sexual relations.
It used to be grounds for annulment if a marriage wasn't consummated. It probably still is, though annulment has become more available under differing circumstances.
If one insists on using "normal" in describing marriage....it will only create more issues. What is defined as "normal" to one couple, may not be "normal" to another.
Using "normal" to describe marriage is not going to work.
-
If one values egalitarianism, human rights, those sorts of things - then I believe one has a moral imperative to redefine marriage to include homosexuality. Its simple: its all about rights.
Err....there IS NO RIGHT to marriage. It is a legal recognition granted to qualifying individuals (a privilege).
Homosexuals have the same "right" to marry someone of the opposite sex as do you or I.
If you veer into the old tired comparison of homosexual marriage vis-a-vis the civil rights movement brought by African Americans in the last century, you might find yourself the target of my wrath (trust me that's a place you don't want to be)......I'm not in the mood to listen to that tripe all over again.
doc
-
Err....there IS NO RIGHT to marriage. It is a legal recognition granted to qualifying individuals (a privilege).
A distinction without a difference - marriage is a right, driving is a right, to live and pursue happiness is a right.
Some are more fundamental than others, sure, but they are all rights, and in so far as we grant those rights to some and not others, for arbitrary, bad reasons (as we do regarding same-sex marriage) then I think we walk a dangerous line.
Homosexuals have the same "right" to marry someone of the opposite sex as do you or I.
C'mon, really? This old canard has never, and will never deserve acknowledgement.
If you veer into the old tired comparison of homosexual marriage vis-a-vis the civil rights movement brought by African Americans in the last century, you might find yourself the target of my wrath (trust me that's a place you don't want to be)......I'm not in the mood to listen to that tripe all over again.
Well, if you find the comparison so offensive, I can only surmise you must be completely ignorant of all the persecution that homosexuals have had to experience throughout history... yea, sure - in the US, blacks take the prize for the being the most severe victims of sustained persecution - but fact is, gays havent had it easy either. Hell, in the early US, you could be put to death for being gay. And they sometimes were. Our posture towards homosexuals used to be not entirely unlike that of the the Islamic fundamentalist nations.
-
When you find a purpose for our body parts, let me know!...
You are obviously ignorant of anatomy and physiology.
If one values egalitarianism, human rights, those sorts of things - then I believe one has a moral imperative to redefine marriage to include homosexuality. Its simple: its all about rights.
You unilaterally declaring something a human right does not make it so. Again, please demonstrate the moral imperative.
Are you on record endorsing unqualified egalitarianism or are there limits to what a society should accept?
It seems to me if you claim the former you admit some rather noxious behaviors far and above mere homosexuality. If you claim the latter than you admit there are limits and maybe your claims aren't as sacrosanct after all.
-
Marriage in it's current conception hasn't existed for that long.
You have done a fine job debating your position in this thread. Historically this topic usually turns to a heated and quite ugly one. This thread was enjoyable to read on both sides of the issue.
H5.
-
I would just like to point out...
People who have total sex changes - man to woman, woman to man....do get married...into a heterosexual union. Difficult to do, because of having to show birth certificates, but it has happened.
Assuming that set of circumstances, I'd likely have no problem with it, however, what I've seen of gender reassignment surgery yields considerably less that what would be considered a "functional" sex change.
Another thing to think about....
Just what is "normal" male and "normal" female with regards to a marital relationship?
Is a marriage consummated if one of the two individuals cannot consummate the marriage?
If a woman marries a man who is paralyzed from the mid-chest down, and is physically unable to have sex, the marriage is never consummated....is this a "normal" marriage? Is it a "real" marriage if not consummated?
What about a hetero couple, the woman is a soldier, severely wounded in the abdomen, has her ovaries and uterus removed in order to survive? Is she still a woman? In many cultures, she would not be. How is she now different from a transgender who has gone from man to woman? The plumbing is now the same, the boobs are probably better on the transgender, both have a vagina but no baby making parts. Essentially the injured woman and the transgender are the same by outward physical appearance, and similar internally...but the chromosomes are still different. They can both still have sexual relations.
It used to be grounds for annulment if a marriage wasn't consummated. It probably still is, though annulment has become more available under differing circumstances.
If one insists on using "normal" in describing marriage....it will only create more issues. What is defined as "normal" to one couple, may not be "normal" to another.
Using "normal" to describe marriage is not going to work.
"Normal", to me at least, would be defined as the gender to which you were born......discounting disabilities occurring beyond that point. I'm not claiming that procreation is the intended and primary purpose of "marriage", The gender appropriate ability to do so IS.
Regarding the bolded part, the only problem with using normal is establishing the limits......society already has for the most part. Seems that the homosexuals are the only ones having problems with that definition.
doc
-
You have done a fine job debating your position in this thread. Historically this topic usually turns to a heated and quite ugly one. This thread was enjoyable to read on both sides of the issue.
H5.
Agreed.
If he were a ptarmigan he'd almost be tolerable.
Almost.
-
C'mon, really? This old canard has never, and will never deserve acknowledgement.
Only in your somewhat warped worldview......
Well, if you find the comparison so offensive, I can only surmise you must be completely ignorant of all the persecution that homosexuals have had to experience throughout history... yea, sure - in the US, blacks take the prize for the being the most severe victims of sustained persecution - but fact is, gays havent had it easy either. Hell, in the early US, you could be put to death for being gay. And they sometimes were. Our posture towards homosexuals used to be not entirely unlike that of the the Islamic fundamentalist nations.
In the early US you could be put to death for stealing cattle as well......my heart fails to bleed........
doc
-
Well, if you find the comparison so offensive, I can only surmise you must be completely ignorant of all the persecution that homosexuals have had to experience throughout history... yea, sure - in the US, blacks take the prize for the being the most severe victims of sustained persecution - but fact is, gays havent had it easy either. Hell, in the early US, you could be put to death for being gay. And they sometimes were. Our posture towards homosexuals used to be not entirely unlike that of the the Islamic fundamentalist nations.
What group hasn't had it hard? we've evolved very well I think, and if there are problems in the black community that's strictly their own fault. As for gay people? compare how they're treated here and in Iran.
-
A distinction without a difference - marriage is a right, driving is a right, to live and pursue happiness is a right.
No driving is not a "right" , it is a privilege. Marriage is a privliege between two people(prefebly man and woman).
For the sake of argument a civil union is also a privilege.
If you were to look at the Bill of Rights, I don't think driving, marital or civil unions are on that list.
If you feel these are rights, it is a matter of your personal wishful thinking.
-
A distinction without a difference - marriage is a right, driving is a right, to live and pursue happiness is a right.
Marriage requires the mutual consent of the two people involved, and so is not a right. Driving is a privilage.
-
I agree.
I knew if I looked long enough I could fit into a persecuted minority category outside of the generic female one. :tongue:
I did read an article years ago about how we lefties die of accidents more often, due to stuff being tailor made for righties. My high school ROTC rifle team coach made me learn how to shoot righthanded since in the '70's no one seemed to be big on making stuff to fit lefties. To this day, I shoot righthanded and do everything else lefthanded. Hubby writes lefthanded, but does everything else righthanded. Both of our kids are righthanders and looks like the grandson will be the same. Thank goodness we didn't pass the aberration on to our progency. :-)
-
I knew if I looked long enough I could fit into a persecuted minority category outside of the generic female one. :tongue:
I did read an article years ago about how we lefties die of accidents more often, due to stuff being tailor made for righties. My high school ROTC rifle team coach made me learn how to shoot righthanded since in the '70's no one seemed to be big on making stuff to fit lefties. To this day, I shoot righthanded and do everything else lefthanded. Hubby writes lefthanded, but does everything else righthanded. Both of our kids are righthanders and looks like the grandson will be the same. Thank goodness we didn't pass the aberration on to our progency. :-)
I shoot lefthanded, and use a knife and scissors with my right hand.
I, too, bear the aberration of south paw.
-
I knew if I looked long enough I could fit into a persecuted minority category outside of the generic female one. :tongue:
I did read an article years ago about how we lefties die of accidents more often, due to stuff being tailor made for righties. My high school ROTC rifle team coach made me learn how to shoot righthanded since in the '70's no one seemed to be big on making stuff to fit lefties. To this day, I shoot righthanded and do everything else lefthanded. Hubby writes lefthanded, but does everything else righthanded. Both of our kids are righthanders and looks like the grandson will be the same. Thank goodness we didn't pass the aberration on to our progency. :-)
I don't know of any actual military rifles (issued by the military) that are designed for lefties. There ARE rifles and handguns that are designed for lefties, though, at least nowadays.
-
I don't know of any actual military rifles (issued by the military) that are designed for lefties. There ARE rifles and handguns that are designed for lefties, though, at least nowadays.
You lefthanded weirdoes, aberrations all, who shoot lefthanded oughta know that the M16A1 and -A2 offered a Left-Handed Firing Adapter that you'd insert between the carrying handle and the ejection port. :-)
You weirdoes thought it was great, and it worked fine! All those targets died!
:lmao: :rotf: :lmao: :rotf:
-
I don't know of any actual military rifles (issued by the military) that are designed for lefties. There ARE rifles and handguns that are designed for lefties, though, at least nowadays.
I went to high school 1972-76 and then college 76-79, all the time a member of the rifle team and don't remember ever running across rifles for left handers. Maybe things have changed though. Left AD in 1985, still no weapons designed for lefties...hubby didn't leave until 2007 but since he shoots right handed he probably wouldn't have noticed if any leftie specific guns came out in the military.
Practically speaking, when you have an enormous machine/organization such as the Armed Forces, it would be counterproductive to design weapons which could only be comfortably used by about one-tenth of the population. I think my old rifle team coach had it right years ago when he insisted I be the one to conform to the mean average.
-
I shoot lefthanded, and use a knife and scissors with my right hand.
I, too, bear the aberration of south paw.
Oh, the shame! :tongue: :rotf:
-
You lefthanded weirdoes, aberrations all, who shoot lefthanded oughta know that the M16A1 and -A2 offered a Left-Handed Firing Adapter that you'd insert between the carrying handle and the ejection port. :-)
You weirdoes thought it was great, and it worked fine! All those targets died!
:lmao: :rotf: :lmao: :rotf:
LOL, I shoulda read your post before responding to Thor's. Still, who are you calling a lefthanded weirdo, dude? I shoot right handed. :hammer: :-) :rotf:
-
I went to high school 1972-76 and then college 76-79, all the time a member of the rifle team and don't remember ever running across rifles for left handers. Maybe things have changed though. Left AD in 1985, still no weapons designed for lefties...hubby didn't leave until 2007 but since he shoots right handed he probably wouldn't have noticed if any leftie specific guns came out in the military.
Practically speaking, when you have an enormous machine/organization such as the Armed Forces, it would be counterproductive to design weapons which could only be comfortably used by about one-tenth of the population. I think my old rifle team coach had it right years ago when he insisted I be the one to conform to the mean average.
We're pretty much the same age, but I decided against college at the time and went right into the Navy after graduation. I graduated a year early, so I was class of 75. In hindsight, I wished I had attended college, but people weren't too savvy about Social Security benefits back then. My mom passed in July 75, so I would have been eligible for benefits through 23 had I been in college. Lessons learned through the school of hard knocks. (I had been accepted to Texas A&M)
-
LOL, I shoulda read your post before responding to Thor's. Still, who are you calling a lefthanded weirdo, dude? I shoot right handed. :hammer: :-) :rotf:
Yeah, but you're still somehow....tainted. :rotf: :lmao:
:-)
-
Yeah, but you're still somehow....tainted. :rotf: :lmao: :-)
[insert joke about Boudicca's taint here]
-
Assuming that set of circumstances, I'd likely have no problem with it, however, what I've seen of gender reassignment surgery yields considerably less that what would be considered a "functional" sex change.
doc
Not trying to get into an argument with you...
Regarding "what you have seen of gender reassignment"...I don't think you are a medical doctor, are you? I also don't think you are a psychiatrist?
Do you know anyone personally who has had gender reassignment and been told they don't have function?
Or is your statement based on what you have read?
My ex did his general surgery residency at UVA in the late '70's. At that time, UVA was one of the top medical centers in the United States doing gender reassignment surgeries. He participated in those surgeries doing general surgery, plastics, and urology. UVA was pretty successful at creating functioning sexual "parts"...which was why some part of the reassignment surgery was being done on almost a weekly at that time. I was a bi-weekly volunteer at the hospital on the surgery floors. Volunteers were not to go into the rooms of someone who was having reassignment surgery. There was almost always at least one room blocked off.
-
[insert joke about Boudicca's taint here]
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
-
I knew if I looked long enough I could fit into a persecuted minority category outside of the generic female one. :tongue:
I did read an article years ago about how we lefties die of accidents more often, due to stuff being tailor made for righties. My high school ROTC rifle team coach made me learn how to shoot righthanded since in the '70's no one seemed to be big on making stuff to fit lefties. To this day, I shoot righthanded and do everything else lefthanded. Hubby writes lefthanded, but does everything else righthanded. Both of our kids are righthanders and looks like the grandson will be the same. Thank goodness we didn't pass the aberration on to our progency. :-)
When I was learning to shoot - I automatically picked up a weapon and shouldered it to the left. Suffered from a bad case of CHS. Switched to right handed use and was able to put lead on meat.
Everything else is still done left handed.
-
Not trying to get into an argument with you...
Embrace it Deb.....you've been spoiling for a fight with me for months.....not that you'll get one, but it is amusing to watch
Regarding "what you have seen of gender reassignment"...I don't think you are a medical doctor, are you? I also don't think you are a psychiatrist?
Nor have I ever claimed to be either......however, you have absolutely no idea of who or what I know, what I do or study, or what I'm interested in. Nor do you know really anything else about what I am except what I chose to let you know.
Do you know anyone personally who has had gender reassignment and been told they don't have function?
Or is your statement based on what you have read?
Yes I do......several actually......
My ex did his general surgery residency at UVA in the late '70's. At that time, UVA was one of the top medical centers in the United States doing gender reassignment surgeries. He participated in those surgeries doing general surgery, plastics, and urology. UVA was pretty successful at creating functioning sexual "parts"...which was why some part of the reassignment surgery was being done on almost a weekly at that time. I was a bi-weekly volunteer at the hospital on the surgery floors. Volunteers were not to go into the rooms of someone who was having reassignment surgery. There was almost always at least one room blocked off.
Wonderful......however, based on what you've revealed....you are a realtor.......not exactly what I'd refer to as a credible source, were I actually looking to find one......
I'll let you know if I ever need to buy a house in Tennessee.......or perhaps not.......
Just as a reminder, the topic is "Should gay marriage be legal".......
doc
-
[insert joke about Boudicca's taint here]
Hmm, well I did have fish for dinner last night. :-)
I know, I know, this isn't about anything other than gay marriage. Where in the hell is the little shithead who started this convo and then bailed?
-
Where in the hell is the little shithead who started this convo and then bailed?
It was last active four days ago. If it has not replied by now, I do not think it will come back.
-
so can we conclude that gay marriage not be legalized, because marriage is between a man and a woman(reproductive organ functions notwithstanding)?
-
so can we conclude that gay marriage not be legalized, because marriage is between a man and a woman(reproductive organ functions notwithstanding)?
Works for me. It's about time for another one of wilbur's hiatuses anyway.
-
It was last active four days ago. If it has not replied by now, I do not think it will come back.
I really can't stand people who post and run.
-
Hi conservativecave,
I'm testing out my new site rgument.com with a really controversial topic: "Same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed". I've posted here as well as a popular LGBT forum in the hopes of finding people on both sides of the divide. Please help me build a list of the best arguments on either side of this fascinating debate. Thanks!
P.S. If you have any suggestions as to the functionality of the site I'd love to hear them.
http://www.reddit.com/user/gomezuk
http://rgument.com/Same-sex-marriages-shouldn-t-be-allowed/rguments/view/19
Funny, I wonder why I can't seem to find the other side of this discussion. This IS a public forum... anyone can read this thread.
I really can't stand people who post and run.
It's always the hit-and-run types that start bullshit threads like this that suck all the air out of the room and never return. 13 pages of threads on gay marriage. I know! Let's start ANOTHER one. And then wilbur's stupid ass shows up.
-
It's always the hit-and-run types that start bullshit threads like this that suck all the air out of the room and never return. 13 pages of threads on gay marriage. I know! Let's start ANOTHER one. And then wilbur's stupid ass shows up.
I can't help but think of "Mr. Ed" whenever I see Wilbur's posts..... Ohh and that he must think he's special because he can spell his name backwards.
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axS0iGoFTT0[/youtube]
-
Finally, a constitutional argument for teachers poking their students...from DU no less:
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Mar-27-11 07:32 PM
Original message
Wichita teacher convicted of sexing student, fighting for others' rights to sleep with students
Just what teachers need - not.
Finally, someone is sticking up for teachers' rights -- to sleep with their students. A Wichita choir instructor convicted Thursday of having unlawful sex with a student is trying to play martyr for the cause, according to the Wichita Eagle.
Charles Edwards, 30, was teaching at Wichita Northwest High School when he met an 18-year-old female student with whom he later had sex. Now his attorney, Steve Mank, is saying Edwards agreed to the conviction so he could appeal the Kansas law that makes it illegal for teachers to sleep with their students, regardless of age.
Mank told the Eagle that he'll argue the law is unconstitutional when it involves consensual sex with an adult student. Either way, it violates trust and opens the school to a shitload of liability. And parents probably can't wait to rally around Edwards and support his cause.
Edwards' sentencing is scheduled for May 17. Guidelines allow a range, from probation to 17 months in prison.
http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/2011/03/charles_edwards_sex...
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Mar-27-11 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Okay, but the problem with the law is it creates a "class" of persons who do not have equal
protection under the law.
I agree he should be fired and face civil penalties for violating his contract. And certainly what he did was unethical.
But had he not been a teacher, then his sexual liason with this consenting adult would have been considered a legal act.
It's even worse than that: it creates a "class" of persons on both ends of the encounter, because had the woman - emphasis again: grown, adult, woman - not been a student, but he was still a teacher, then the act once again becomes a legal one.
When the law starts treating different classes of people differently for doing essentially the same things, I get very concerned. We've been down this road before, and it wasn't pretty.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x754751
In this case the student was 18 but there are states where the age of consent is 16 or lower. So, does asspuckerlipsblow have a point that the law creates a class that does not enjoy equal protection under the law?
hmmm...
-
Finally, a constitutional argument for teachers poking their students...from DU no less:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x754751
In this case the student was 18 but there are states where the age of consent is 16 or lower. So, does asspuckerlipsblow have a point that the law creates a class that does not enjoy equal protection under the law?
hmmm...
In my opinion, no. Within his official position as a teacher, he is prohibited from having sex with his students. The reasons why are obvious and I won't go there except to say that there is special trust and confidence placed in that person to behave in a way that does not even lend the appearance of partiality. In this sense, all students are a class under the law and deserve a predefined expectation of treatment. Once this special trust and confidence is eroded by a teacher sleeping with a student, the learning atmosphere is eroded itself and becomes sidetracked.
Now, this same guy -- outside his position as a teacher -- is permitted under the law to have consensual sex with another adult, who is not in the position of a student.
It's a fine line, but I think it's clear.
If a teacher has an official capacity with a student, special rules go into effect. If the individuals involved do NOT have an official capacity with one another, it's a whole 'nother ball game. (no pun intended)
-
You are obviously ignorant of anatomy and physiology.
The sun is particularly well suited to warm the earth.... but is that its purpose?
Oh I know the basics of anatomy and physiology, and a little bit beyond. But "purpose" and "function" (ie, a task to which something is particularly well suited) are getting confused here. Purpose implies intent, while function does not, necessarily. So maybe you want to say that our DNA, our hands, our reproductive organs were designed with intent, and purpose, and that to violate the goals of that design is some sort of moral wrong. But at that point one is speaking theology, and is most definitely not speaking scientifically, or medically - as so often these arguments about "abnormality" or "aberrations", etc are dressed.
But maybe our body parts just have some functions, even if they don't have a purpose or if that purpose is hidden or controversial. Perhaps you also want to say its an aberration to use our body parts for functions or tasks to which they are not particularly well suited - or perhaps its an aberration when we don't use them in a capacity that utilizes all their features... but again, who cares? There's no moral component there... or if there is, a better case needs to be made for it, and as of yet, none has.
You unilaterally declaring something a human right does not make it so. Again, please demonstrate the moral imperative.
Are you on record endorsing unqualified egalitarianism or are there limits to what a society should accept?
It seems to me if you claim the former you admit some rather noxious behaviors far and above mere homosexuality. If you claim the latter than you admit there are limits and maybe your claims aren't as sacrosanct after all.
I think perhaps the best way to safeguard rights, is to make sure they are applied to everybody, and can only be restricted for non-arbitrary and justifiable reasons. If you want to call marriage a "privilege"** - fine, but the same thing applies to those too. So far, "arbitrary" seems like the absolute perfect word to describe every single argument against same-sex marriage I have ever seen.
** Though I generally think of privileges as things that can be revoked or given, arbitrarily, e.g. Its a privilege to borrow my car, but not a privilege to have a drivers license - that's a right. Maybe its a privilege to win consent from the person you love for their hand in marriage - but its a right to actually get legally married.
-
Okay, wilbur, using your own logic against you, if driving is a right (which it is not under the law, at least in the six states in which I've had a driver's license), are blind people discriminated against because they're not permitted to drive?
Are restrictions placed on a driver (corrective lenses, for example) also worthy of a lawsuit?
This is where your thinking gets tangled up in reality. :mental:
-
Okay, wilbur, using your own logic against you, if driving is a right (which it is not under the law, at least in the six states in which I've had a driver's license), are blind people discriminated against because they're not permitted to drive?
Are restrictions placed on a driver (corrective lenses, for example) also worthy of a lawsuit?
This is where your thinking gets tangled up in reality. :mental:
Name one right we have which is not subject to limitation? There isnt a single one. Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, etc... Even the right to life comes with behavior-based caveats.
In the case of driving, there are damn good reasons to disallow blind people from driving - blind people would even agree. Its a justifiable, non-arbitrary restriction.
-
Name one right we have which is not subject to limitation? There isnt a single one. Even the right to life comes with behavior-based caveats.
In the case of driving, there are damn good reasons to disallow blind people from driving - blind people would even agree. Its a justifiable, non-arbitrary restriction.
Wrong. It's not a restriction. Blind people are not permitted to have a driver's license. Period.
What part of that is so hard to understand?
One right that is not subject to limitation is my right to worship -- but since you're either an atheist or agnostic, you wouldn't understand that.
-
No driving is not a "right" , it is a privilege. Marriage is a privliege between two people(prefebly man and woman).
For the sake of argument a civil union is also a privilege.
If you were to look at the Bill of Rights, I don't think driving, marital or civil unions are on that list.
If you feel these are rights, it is a matter of your personal wishful thinking.
Its a little shocking and appalling to see conservatives, of all people, make the mistake of thinking that the Bill of Rights is supposed to be an exhaustive enumeration of all of our rights. That couldnt be farther from the truth.
-
Its a little shocking and appalling to see conservatives, of all people, make the mistake of thinking that the Bill of Rights is supposed to be an exhaustive enumeration of all of our rights. That couldnt be farther from the truth.
The truth according to wilbur?
Gad. Methinks you have Lunacy perfectly corralled today, if not always. :mental:
-
Wrong. It's not a restriction. Blind people are not permitted to have a driver's license. Period.
What part of that is so hard to understand?
One right that is not subject to limitation is my right to worship -- but since you're either an atheist or agnostic, you wouldn't understand that.
Well, at this point I'm sorry by trying to clarify what I meant on the point - because now we're just arguing about definitions, as seems to be so often the case here. Right or privilege, I don't care. If you want to call marriage or driving privileges, fine - but that doesn't mean you have the ability to arbitrarily restrict them for any reason you choose.
Marriage - should we be able to arbitrarily restrict it from some types of people from partaking in the institution and not others?! I say no. You need good, justifiable reasons for doing so. And I have never seen a single, good, non-arbitrary reason for denying people of the same gender to marry one another.
-
The truth according to wilbur?
Gad. Methinks you have Lunacy perfectly corralled today, if not always. :mental:
So do you then claim that the Bill of Rights is supposed to be an exhaustive list of our rights??!
If so, Alexander Hamilton is weeping in his grave.
"Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations."
-
Well, at this point I'm sorry by trying to clarify what I meant on the point - because now we're just arguing about definitions, as seems to be so often the case here. Right or privilege, I don't care. If you want to call marriage or driving privileges, fine - but that doesn't mean you have the ability to arbitrarily restrict them for any reason you choose.
Marriage - should we be able to arbitrarily restrict it from some types of people from partaking in the institution and not others?! I say no. You need good, justifiable reasons for doing so. And I have never seen a single, good, non-arbitrary reason for denying people of the same gender to marry one another.
And there we have what's called impasse.
wilbur? The door is that way--------------------------------->
Why don't you use it? If you're so tired of arguing definitions, why are you here? (The question is rhetoric.) I think you're here to stir shit on your pet subjects - your homo and rugmunching friends in particular.
-
And there we have what's called impasse.
wilbur? The door is that way--------------------------------->
Why don't you use it? If you're so tired of arguing definitions, why are you here? (The question is rhetoric.) I think you're here to stir shit on your pet subjects - your homo and rugmunching friends in particular.
Or maybe I'm here because I like to defend some of my strongly held views and possibly expose myself (and them) to differing arguments. Who knows? You sure are interested in getting me out of here... sorry you find a contrary opinion so intolerable! I do find more value, both entertainment and otherwise, from taking my views to places where they *won't* be well received..... while sometimes its a waste of time, posting in an echo chamber almost *always* is.
-
Or maybe I'm here because I like to defend some of my strongly held views and possibly expose myself (and them) to differing arguments. Who knows? You sure are interested in getting me out of here... sorry you find a contrary opinion so intolerable! I do find more value, both entertainment and otherwise, from taking my views to places where they *won't* be well received..... while sometimes its a waste of time, posting in an echo chamber almost *always* is.
Wrong again, wilbur. (You do enjoy being wrong, don't you?)
It's not your views that I find intolerable, wilbur.
It's you.
-
Wrong again, wilbur. (You do enjoy being wrong, don't you?)
It's not your views that I find intolerable, wilbur.
It's you.
OK!
-
Hey Willllllllllllllbuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.......... The Bill of Rights defines what rights the people have in regards to the FEDERAL Government. Perhaps had you not slept through civics class, you'd be able to comprehend that. Under the 10th Amendment, the states are allowed to make their own laws. Got it?? Driving is NOT a "right". Freedom to travel IS a right.
-
Hey Willllllllllllllbuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.......... The Bill of Rights defines what rights the people have in regards to the FEDERAL Government.
It enumerates SOME rights, but in no way defines all or even most of our rights. See the Ninth amendment.
Perhaps had you not slept through civics class, you'd be able to comprehend that. Under the 10th Amendment, the states are allowed to make their own laws. Got it?? Driving is NOT a "right". Freedom to travel IS a right.
Well, again - as I said, I don't particularly care what you want to call it. In the case that you label marriage, or driving, or whatever as a privilege though, it does not mean then, that restrictions can be placed upon those activities at your, (or the gov'ts) arbitrary whim. In other words, if you're going to deny some people the privilege, you better have a good reason for it.
-
really?? so when the cop pulls you over for a traffic violation, depending on the seriousness, he can arrange thru the court to have your license revoked temporarily, therefore taking away your privilege. If it was a "right" to drive, he couldn't do that.....
-
really?? so when the cop pulls you over for a traffic violation, depending on the seriousness, he can arrange thru the court to have your license revoked temporarily, therefore taking away your privilege. If it was a "right" to drive, he couldn't do that.....
Fine - go with that - as long as we all agree that you cannot take away or restrict a persons "privilege" to drive (or to marry) arbitrarily!
In other words, "Its a privilege, not a right" is not an argument.. it doesn't absolve one from having to justify their position...
-
Fine - go with that - as long as we all agree that you cannot take away or restrict a persons "privilege" to drive (or to marry) arbitrarily!
In other words, "Its a privilege, not a right" is not an argument.. it doesn't absolve one from having to justify their position...
You are making my head hurt!!!
-
You are making my head hurt!!!
This is the circular logic for which wilbur is infamous.
After awhile, even he gets confused.
-
The sun is particularly well suited to warm the earth.... but is that its purpose?
Oh I know the basics of anatomy and physiology, and a little bit beyond. But "purpose" and "function" (ie, a task to which something is particularly well suited) are getting confused here. Purpose implies intent, while function does not, necessarily.
So you're saying your kidneys can fill-in for your heart it's just that your heart is merely "better suited" for the function of circulating blood.
Got it.
So maybe you want to say that our DNA, our hands, our reproductive organs were designed with intent, and purpose, and that to violate the goals of that design is some sort of moral wrong.
I'm making no pretense at a theological argument but maybe you ought to.
Jesus saves. Darwin would just let the queers die out.
But at that point one is speaking theology, and is most definitely not speaking scientifically, or medically - as so often these arguments about "abnormality" or "aberrations", etc are dressed.
OK, so there is no "intent" to human anatomy (absurd on its face).
OK
Then there is no intent to whatever hormonal response that makes one man want to poke another man. Their feelings have no intent and moreover, by their own admission they have no control over it. They may as well be salmon instinctually swimming upstream to spawn...only exclusively with other male salmon.
But maybe our body parts just have some functions, even if they don't have a purpose or if that purpose is hidden or controversial. Perhaps you also want to say its an aberration to use our body parts for functions or tasks to which they are not particularly well suited - or perhaps its an aberration when we don't use them in a capacity that utilizes all their features... but again, who cares? There's no moral component there... or if there is, a better case needs to be made for it, and as of yet, none has.
And yet you speak of rights and how I am wrong if I fail to agree.
I think perhaps the best way to safeguard rights, is to make sure they are applied to everybody, and can only be restricted for non-arbitrary and justifiable reasons.
Wow. You have to be one of the most two-face, mealy-mouthed hypocrites cloaked in high-mindedness.
One second you're arguing semantics and grousing about religious overtones disguised in A&P language, then next thing you're doing is arguing what is "justifiable".
Until God be revealed "justifiable" is whatever the **** I say it is or whatever a majority of citizens consents.
If you want to call marriage a "privilege"** - fine, but the same thing applies to those too. So far, "arbitrary" seems like the absolute perfect word to describe every single argument against same-sex marriage I have ever seen.
** Though I generally think of privileges as things that can be revoked or given, arbitrarily, e.g. Its a privilege to borrow my car, but not a privilege to have a drivers license - that's a right. Maybe its a privilege to win consent from the person you love for their hand in marriage - but its a right to actually get legally married.
Find me the court of law that says a drivers license is a right.
really?? so when the cop pulls you over for a traffic violation, depending on the seriousness, he can arrange thru the court to have your license revoked temporarily, therefore taking away your privilege. If it was a "right" to drive, he couldn't do that.....
Actually they can go farther by refusing to ever issue a license.
If someone is in the US illegally they have a right to speedy trial, protections against self-incriminations, the right to representative counsel etc.
But they do NOT have a right to a DL. The state can refuse to issue one based solely on their status.
-
You lefthanded weirdoes, aberrations all, who shoot lefthanded oughta know that the M16A1 and -A2 offered a Left-Handed Firing Adapter that you'd insert between the carrying handle and the ejection port. :-)
Some of us are abodiginal. I'm left-handed and golf, bat, and fire right-handed. I can't catch with my right hand to save my life though. You can imagine how hard baseball must have been. Throw with my left, catch with my left. Figure that one out. I have no idea why I didn't make varsity.
-
Some of us are abodiginal. I'm left-handed and golf, bat, and fire right-handed. I can't catch with my right hand to save my life though. You can imagine how hard baseball must have been. Throw with my left, catch with my left. Figure that one out. I have no idea why I didn't make varsity.
Don't ever try Wii Bowling then. It wasn't made for the likes of us.
-
Don't ever try Wii Bowling then. It wasn't made for the likes of us.
If I did, would Wii be bowling?
-
So you're saying your kidneys can fill-in for your heart it's just that your heart is merely "better suited" for the function of circulating blood.
Got it.
I'm making no pretense at a theological argument but maybe you ought to.
Jesus saves. Darwin would just let the queers die out.
Not necessarily - a few non-reproducing members of society might be beneficial to the overall reproductive fitness of the population, perhaps. Or homosexuality could be what is called a spandrel, in evolutionary terms, basically ensuring that it will always be around, so long as certain genes remain present in the population - this is the same reason why genetic diseases that kill 100% of those afflicted before reproducing age, remain in the population. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology). Or homosexuality could be completely maladaptive to our reproductive fitness - but that's a hard case to make.
OK, so there is no "intent" to human anatomy (absurd on its face).
OK
I don't get it - you claim to be died-in-the-wool atheist, yet you say its absurd to claim that there is no purposeful intent in the design of human beings (and presumably other creatures). Intent and purpose require a mind. And either nature is mindless, or its not. Which is it? If its the latter, then your theism is showing. If its the former, then you are contradicting yourself in the most perfect way, to suggest that there is purpose in the design of living organisms and their bodily parts, on the part of the blind "designer" we call nature.
Then there is no intent to whatever hormonal response that makes one man want to poke another man. Their feelings have no intent and moreover, by their own admission they have no control over it. They may as well be salmon instinctually swimming upstream to spawn...only exclusively with other male salmon.
And yet you speak of rights and how I am wrong if I fail to agree.
I said, IF one values rights, then one ought to value a right for same-sex marriage. The operative word, being IF. If one does not value rights, well, then the discussion will have to go to a whole different level.
In other words, I'm arguing that same-sex marriage is the most consistent stance in light of some particular values upon which I presume most of us value.
Wow. You have to be one of the most two-face, mealy-mouthed hypocrites cloaked in high-mindedness.
One second you're arguing semantics and grousing about religious overtones disguised in A&P language, then next thing you're doing is arguing what is "justifiable".
Until God be revealed "justifiable" is whatever the **** I say it is or whatever a majority of citizens consents.
So are you cool then, with 51% of the people voting to enslave the other 49%, if they so decide?
-
So are you cool then, with 51% of the people voting to enslave the other 49%, if they so decide?
Hmm, what was the percentage of people who voted for Obama? I'm down.
-
1. I'm not an atheist because I make no presuppositions as such things are not consistent open inquiry.
2. When I use the word "intent" I do not use it from the intelligent design viewpoint. That the heart is the sole means for pumping blood through the circulatory system is fact. It is not a matter of the heart being "better suited" over other organs. No ther organ can fill the role. The heart has no other role. Just because you have somehow managed to supplant higher cerebral functions with colorectal excrescence doesn't make the case that reproductive organs have some ephermal function akin to bestowing lifelong personal fulfillment.
3. You claim this is based on rights. Yet, you cannot/will not define what those rights should be and if those rights are qualified. You even go so far as to re-assert in the face on constant evidence to the contrary that some privileges are rights.
4. Claiming gay marriage is the same as left-handedness or high melanon counts is ridiculous. The former is merely a statistic and the latter is only a variation of kind. Reproductive organs are for reproduction. Any other variation/deviation will fail to produce offspring.
So are you cool then, with 51% of the people voting to enslave the other 49%, if they so decide?
Until God be revealed any "rights" enshrined in our society are little more than fabrications of our own hand.
If 10% of the population decided to enslave 90% they would unless A) God delivers the 90% or B) the 90% reject the 10% even to a contest of arms. When has life ever been otherwise?
Now tell us how it is you demand gay marriage fits into the "consent of the governed" scheme and what if the governed reject the demands of the minority?
Homosexuality is not a moral imperative. Marriage is a social construct invented by humans. Homosexuals have every right heteroes do within the context of constitutional law. If the COTUS does not recognize a right it is beyond the ability of the feds to mandate an outcome becasue the feds can only compel what COTUS allows them to regulate. You are asking the feds to intercede where they have no power.
-
1. I'm not an atheist because I make no presuppositions as such things are not consistent open inquiry.
Ok
2. When I use the word "intent" I do not use it from the intelligent design viewpoint. That the heart is the sole means for pumping blood through the circulatory system is fact. It is not a matter of the heart being "better suited" over other organs. No ther organ can fill the role. The heart has no other role. Just because you have somehow managed to supplant higher cerebral functions with colorectal excrescence doesn't make the case that reproductive organs have some ephermal function akin to bestowing lifelong personal fulfillment.
Tell me, what is the purpose of an ostrich's wing? Or a bat's eyes?
The fact that reproductive organs can facilitate some sort of personal fulfillment most certainly makes that a function that they perform, ipso facto. And its left to our values to judge the import of that function. Similarly, some detached observer might surmise that a function of the heart is to pump blood in order to provide a good environment for the billions of bacteria that live inside our bodies. Or maybe its to facilitate the existence of cancer cells. Or maybe its to keep human minds alive. In fact, it is all those those things - and we only usually think of it, so narrowly, as the latter because that one is simply the most important to us - in our anthropic conceit - not nature's values. Nature - so far as we know, from a scientific or medical perspective - is valueless.
From a scientific perspective, there is no ephemeral ideal of man, to which our bodies and organs must conform - in fact, they always change - that's how evolution works. So there is no moral indiscretion in using body parts for a function for which they are not highly specialized, or refusing to use them for a particular task at which they are highly specialized. Nature doesn't care - its only we who care. In millions of years we won't even be the same species - our descendants will have organs specialized for different tasks... there is no moral imperative on their part to conform to our old mold, as if we're the way its *supposed* to be.
And so from a scientific perspective, accusing homosexuals of using their organs for roles in which they are not highly specialized, tells us nothing morally relevant - at all. We can call them aberrations all we want from a statistical perspective - but again, nothing morally relevant is conveyed. No moral conclusions can be derived from such a categorization.
3. You claim this is based on rights. Yet, you cannot/will not define what those rights should be and if those rights are qualified. You even go so far as to re-assert in the face on constant evidence to the contrary that some privileges are rights.
4. Claiming gay marriage is the same as left-handedness or high melanon counts is ridiculous. The former is merely a statistic and the latter is only a variation of kind. Reproductive organs are for reproduction. Any other variation/deviation will fail to produce offspring.
Again, where is this moral imperative to always use our reproductive organs for reproduction? Do you mean to tell us you use them for nothing else?
Until God be revealed any "rights" enshrined in our society are little more than fabrications of our own hand.
If 10% of the population decided to enslave 90% they would unless A) God delivers the 90% or B) the 90% reject the 10% even to a contest of arms. When has life ever been otherwise?
Ok... but so what - I asked what YOU would do. If YOU value rights, then we can have a conversation about whether same-sex marriage is more or less consistent with principled rights. If you don't, then we need to have another conversation.
Now tell us how it is you demand gay marriage fits into the "consent of the governed" scheme and what if the governed reject the demands of the minority?
Rights often preserve liberties of minorities..
Homosexuality is not a moral imperative. Marriage is a social construct invented by humans. Homosexuals have every right heteroes do within the context of constitutional law. If the COTUS does not recognize a right it is beyond the ability of the feds to mandate an outcome becasue the feds can only compel what COTUS allows them to regulate. You are asking the feds to intercede where they have no power.
They certainly acted like they had that power in the case of miscegenation laws - where the supreme court ruled them unconstitutional, and that states had no rights what-so-ever to prevent mixed race couples from marrying. I'd argue the same in regards to gender.
-
this is going to end up like the abortion thread, lonnnnnnng
-
Ya know...
...I was going to answer point by point but why bother. You like to muddy the water too much.
Let's keep it simple and reduce your argument to its (m)essence.
The fact that reproductive organs can facilitate some sort of personal fulfillment most certainly makes that a function that they perform, ipso facto.
So you're OK with all forms of sexual expression so long as it conveys personal fulfillment?
-
So you're OK with all forms of sexual expression so long as it conveys personal fulfillment?
All I said was that personal fulfillment was one of the myriad of functions that a sex organ can perform.
But at the center of any worthwhile moral system, I believe, should be the well-being of beings with minds... so if such expressions were positive for well-being, then generally yes. If they were bad for well-being, either for themselves or others, they would probably be wrong.
-
All I said was that personal fulfillment was one of the myriad of functions that a sex organ can perform.
But at the center of any worthwhile moral system, I believe, should be the well-being of beings with minds... so if such expressions were positive for well-being, then generally yes. If they were bad for well-being, either for themselves or others, they would probably be wrong.
Sounds like NAMBLA's motto.
-
All I said was that personal fulfillment was one of the myriad of functions that a sex organ can perform.
But at the center of any worthwhile moral system, I believe, should be the well-being of beings with minds... so if such expressions were positive for well-being, then generally yes. If they were bad for well-being, either for themselves or others, they would probably be wrong.
There you go with the double-speak again. Again I have a thousand holes to punch through but let's confine this to a singular point.
If there is no intent/purpose--be it bio or theo-logical--how can there be such a thing as well-being?
-
Sounds like NAMBLA's motto.
Only if you think sex with underage boys is good for their well-being.....
-
Only if you think sex with underage boys is good for their well-being.....
There are those who argue it is.
-
There are those who argue it is.
The UN is all for it.
-
The UN is all for it.
In wilbur's haste to argue there is no intent in biology and something should only be outlawed if it is bad he contradicts himself and forgets/neglects to account for the fact that NAMBLA et al argue their preferences convey a positive good.
-
In wilbur's haste to argue there is no intent in biology and something should only be outlawed if it is bad he contradicts himself and forgets/neglects to account for the fact that NAMBLA et al argue their preferences convey a positive good.
And Muslims will argue that beating their wives is good for their well-being. Most people do try to make cases for their own preferences are positive goods, so what? It doesn't matter what they argue, it matters what is objectively true.
-
And Muslims will argue that beating their wives is good for their well-being. Most people do try to make cases for their own preferences are positive goods, so what? It doesn't matter what they argue, it matters what is objectively true.
And some people, wilbur among them, argue simply for the sake of arguing. :whatever:
-
And Muslims will argue that beating their wives is good for their well-being. Most people do try to make cases for their own preferences are positive goods, so what? It doesn't matter what they argue, it matters what is objectively true.
What is objetively true is the fact that the most powerful civilization in human history became such based on the monogamous, heteroesexual nuclear family.
-
There you go with the double-speak again. Again I have a thousand holes to punch through but let's confine this to a singular point.
If there is no intent/purpose--be it bio or theo-logical--how can there be such a thing as well-being?
There's just no reason why those two things must be necessary for well-being.
Well-being, Eudimonia, human flourishing, etc are relations between actual states of affairs and desires or values. To the extent that states of affairs coincide with the true desires of mindful creatures, one will have well-being, and fulfillment. Now the question becomes, how does this transcend the subjective? Well, it can if there is something which is universally valued above all else, by human beings, or perhaps even all creatures with minds. And if there is, we can say objective things - rooted in facts about the universe and human nature - about what will or won't lead to well-being,fulfillment and contentment. And science is starting to have lot to say about human happiness and well-being, and what kinds of things *really* do lead to it, and what kinds of things do not.
Health actually works similarly. If we *really* valued being riddled with viruses which cause painful conditions, we would measure health by the number of painful viruses that one had. But we don't. Its an objective fact of human nature, that those sorts of viruses are universally reviled.. so we can say that health is defined, at least in part, to be free of painful viruses. This is objective, and true for everybody.
Just like health, *all* moral systems, even God based, must appeal to some universal desire in order to be persuasive. If I don't value God's will, than can not be a universal moral imperative to follow him, for example. To have any sort of coherent definition of health, or well-being... it *must* start with desires and values.
-
What is objetively true is the fact that the most powerful civilization in human history became such based on the monogamous, heteroesexual nuclear family.
Yea, I'm sure our country's success was directly correlated with a prohibition on same-sex marriages..... or not.
We also rose to power with legion amounts of institutionalized racism up until the civil rights movement... obviously it was racism that made this country great?
-
Yea, I'm sure our country's success was directly correlated with a prohibition on same-sex marriages..... or not.
collection of families = society
collection of societies = civilization
Please feel to form a predominantly homosexual society and we'll see how it prevails over the generations.
We also rose to power with legion amounts of institutionalized racism up until the civil rights movement... obviously it was racism that made this country great?
More false equivalency.
However, it should be noted that ever since liberalism sank its claws into the black family and destroyed the monogamous, hetero nuclear family black society has been all but destroyed.
Families = society = civilization
-
collection of families = society
collection of societies = civilization
Please feel to form a predominantly homosexual society and we'll see how it prevails over the generations.
More false equivalency.
However, it should be noted that ever since liberalism sank its claws into the black family and destroyed the monogamous, hetero nuclear family black society has been all but destroyed.
Families = society = civilization
The Shaker Comunity best known for their wonderful art in furniture making is a good example of what can go wrong in a society that is different from the norm.
No sex= no reproduction to continue the traditions of the comunity. They did adopt children but few as adults stayed, no amount of dancing and shaking would rid them of their natural inclinations. It was only a year or two ago that the last member of the community died at a ripe old age, she left her faith and comunity to become an interesting part of history, the Shaker Village is now a tourest trap.
All kinds of interesting life styles have been tried in history, the Communes of the Hippies, the religious cults,
way back in the times of Greece life styles were toyed with, the Pacifistic comunities that did not last long, up to today ---Nothing has worked but the family, man woman and children society anywhere in the world.
This may be some sort of population control device that God has given to keep the world from exploding from overpopulation, famine and wars definitely remove millions from the Gene pool. The push for abortion is another way to control population as do natural disasters.
Who knows if this behavior is not usefull for mankind in the long run. Abortion and the Soilent Green factor are evil so we believe, and rightly so. However we cannot question God on why Gays exist, there must be some kind of purpose for them to do so.
The word Marriage came about to give legitimacy to the child born from a marriage, a right to claim an estate from parents that had died so the Church or Community would not leave the children without support.
Then marriage usually included a Dowry from the brides family's, this day it is a custom for the brides parents to pay for the wedding. Marriage insured that kingdoms did not fight each other and for a time peace would come about.
It is difficult to see how the Gay comunity can make any claim to the word marriage under the original meaning. I wonder when the Gay comunity will begin to own up to having to build their own traditions , wedding bands on the right hand, Civil Unions, and full Power of Attorney to each partner.?
Nothing is more threatening to straight people then a Gay living under the same traditions as themselves and making us believe they are trying to fool us.
Rant ended for now-----
-
collection of families = society
collection of societies = civilization
...
Families = society = civilization
Great! Let's institutionalize and legitimize same-sex couples... that makes more families = society = civilization.
Please feel to form a predominantly homosexual society and we'll see how it prevails over the generations.
This is simply an experiment that nobody is actually attempting.
Same-sex marriage certainly is not about replacing heterosexual marriage...
Homosexuals generally don't take part in heterosexual marriage - so they arent removing potential mates heterosexuals...
Nobody wants to make society predominantly gay... (not that its really even possible, even if somebody were trying)
More false equivalency.
However, it should be noted that ever since liberalism sank its claws into the black family and destroyed the monogamous, hetero nuclear family black society has been all but destroyed.
And in this case, its generally conservatives (with more exceptions that I thought, given some of the responses in this thread though!) trying to preserve the non-existence of legitimized same-sex relationships, and in so doing, discourage monogamy and the creation of stable homes in the homosexual community.
-
And some people, wilbur among them, argue simply for the sake of arguing. :whatever:
That's because he's so much of a leftie loser that even his hand falls asleep during "private time". It's all that he has left.
-
And in this case, its generally conservatives (with more exceptions that I thought, given some of the responses in this thread though!) trying to preserve the non-existence of legitimized same-sex relationships, and in so doing, discourage monogamy and the creation of stable homes in the homosexual community.
Except gays don't have families. It takes a mother and a father to have a family.
-
Except gays don't have families. It takes a mother and a father to have a family.
What do you call a gay married (in places that allow it) couple with adopted kids?
And as an aside, I don't know about you but I generally think of married couples - even those without kids - as family units.
-
What do you call a gay married (in places that allow it) couple with adopted kids?
Unnatural? A psychiatric train wreck waiting to happen? Counseling and therapy waiting to happen?
-
What do you call a gay married (in places that allow it) couple with adopted kids?
A child without a mother and father.
-
Unnatural?
One might consider adoption, in general, to be "unnatural".
A psychiatric train wreck waiting to happen? Counseling and therapy waiting to happen?
As opposed to... a life in foster care? What data there is on LGBT adoption, suggests there really isnt any higher incidence of psychological problems in kids in gay families, versus kids in straight ones.
-
As opposed to... a life in foster care?
Fake argument.
There are more than enough hetero couples waiting to adopt.
-
Fake argument.
There are more than enough hetero couples waiting to adopt.
No, not really... there are enough hetero couples waiting to adopt white kids with no special needs... but not so much in the other categories.
-
One might consider adoption, in general, to be "unnatural".
You probably would. In general.
As opposed to... a life in foster care? What data there is on LGBT adoption, suggests there really isnt any higher incidence of psychological problems in kids in gay families, versus kids in straight ones.
Care to post a link to your unbiased, completely-devoid-of-LGBT-agenda data and spin?
I'd suggest that the jury is still out on that whole business in that gays haven't been permitted to adopt for all that long (depending on the state, of course).
For example, Missouri's statute on adoption neither bars nor permits LGBT from adoption and the statute has not been challenged in court - yet. Furthermore, that law dates from 2004, which isn't nearly enough time to properly assess whether kids are impacted by gay "parents".
Link (http://www.adoptionpolicy.org/pdf/gaysandlesbian.pdf)
But, it doesn't really matter what the data say. You just want to argue because you like to argue.
What do you do with yourself when you're not arguing with someone? Argue with yourself?
Did you ever convince yourself that you're wrong?
-
No, not really... there are enough hetero couples waiting to adopt white kids with no special needs... but not so much in the other categories.
Impossible.
Liberals welfare, social policies and sexual mores only improve life for minorities.
-
What do you call a gay married (in places that allow it) couple with adopted kids?
:censored: Those kids have 2 males, 2 females having unnatural sex in the next room. They are being taught that this sham is normal. It isn't. That's not a family.
(http://www.usmagazine.com/uploads/assets/articles/38245-meet-elton-john-and-david-furnishs-baby-boy/1295294410_elton-furnish-290.jpg)
lovely ::)
-
:censored: Those kids have 2 males, 2 females having unnatural sex in the next room. They are being taught that this sham is normal. It isn't. That's not a family.
Bingo!
H5.
-
Except gays don't have families. It takes a mother and a father to have a family.
Those of us raised in single parent families would disagree with the last part there.
-
Those of us raised in single parent families would disagree with the last part there.
Surely you understand what he meant by "a mother and a father", meaning a straight heterosexual couple.
That's what he meant. You know that, right? He didn't mean a single straight parent was wrong.
-
Surely you understand what he meant by "a mother and a father", meaning a straight heterosexual couple.
That's what he meant. You know that, right? He didn't mean a single straight parent was wrong.
I don't know that for sure as it wasn't explicitly stated. I sure hope that assumption is correct.
While there was indeed a straight mother and father required to create me - the "family" never included the father - and he'd best pray I never find out who he is either.
-
:censored: Those kids have 2 males, 2 females having unnatural sex in the next room. They are being taught that this sham is normal. It isn't. That's not a family.
"Unnatural".... "abnormal"....
Weasel words.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word)
-
No, not really... there are enough hetero couples waiting to adopt white kids with no special needs... but not so much in the other categories.
Bullshit
-
One might consider adoption, in general, to be "unnatural".
Only if they're an agenda pushing leftist.
As opposed to... a life in foster care?
More are adopted by traditional and stable homes than not, wilbur. Not every foster care child is a base reference for Lifetime or CSI.
What data there is on LGBT adoption, suggests there really isnt any higher incidence of psychological problems in kids in gay families, versus kids in straight ones.
I'm sure you'll be able to produce that data from a non-homosexual, unbiased source.
-
Those of us raised in single parent families would disagree with the last part there.
Then again, there are those of us who were that will tell you how much was missing during those years and how much better it is with both a loving mother and father.
-
"Unnatural".... "abnormal"....
Weasel words.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word)
Big claim from someone who has yet to really back up his bullshit.
-
"Unnatural".... "abnormal"....
Weasel words.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word)
:rotf: :lmao:
wilbur, you're an absolute expert with weasel words! I've rarely seen anybody come close to your skill set! :rotf:
-
"Unnatural".... "abnormal"....
Weasel words.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word)
According to liberals homophobia is the only thing that is unnatural and abnormal.
-
According to liberals homophobia is the only thing that is unnatural and abnormal.
Neither of those words mean anything morally significant, as we have been over ad nauseum. I don't claim to know what all liberals, do, but I don't use those words...
I say homophobia is destructive and bad for human well-being all around.
The more ironic (or possibly sad) part is, that generally those who score higher on the homophobia scale, tend to have "man reactions" in response to homosexual erotica/porn at a far higher rate than do non-homophobic males. Interesting, yes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_homosexuality
The researchers reported that 24% of the non-homophobic men showed some degree of tumescence [ie, erection] in response to the male homosexual video, compared to 54% of the subjects who scored high on the homophobia scale.
-
Neither of those words mean anything morally significant, as we have been over ad nauseum. I don't claim to know what all liberals, do, but I don't use those words...
Neither do you, so what's your point?
I say homophobia is destructive and bad for human well-being all around.
How? We made it this far.
The more ironic (or possibly sad) part is, that generally those who score higher on the homophobia scale, tend to have "man reactions" in response to homosexual erotica/porn at a far higher rate than do non-homophobic males. Interesting, yes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_homosexuality
And so the homosexual community would profit politically if more people dumped homophobia and accepted their erotic feelings.
So then that means society must be reconditioned to no longer scorn homosexual behavior but find it normal and from normal it becomes acceptable.
In other words, you just validated my entire argument throughout this entire thread.
-
How? We made it this far.
Mistreating or marginalizing homosexuals is, while not exactly the same, very similar to racism, or sexism. There is no reason, which is not arbitrary or based in prejudice, with which one can justifiably marginalize them the way we do by, including but not limited to, restricting them from partaking in the institution of marriage - with a partner of their choosing. And when we institutionally exclude, marginalize, or disenfranchise people for arbitrary and prejudiced reasons, its bad for everybody.
And so the homosexual community would profit politically if more people dumped homophobia and accepted their erotic feelings.
And the heterosexual community might benefit from having a few less homosexuals posing as straights... sounds good to me.
So then that means society must be reconditioned to no longer scorn homosexual behavior but find it normal and from normal it becomes acceptable.
"Normal" again - is morally irrelevant, and does speak to whether something should be "acceptable" or unacceptable. I don't care if we call homosexuality normal or not - being 7 feet tall is not normal - but its perfectly acceptable.
In other words, you just validated my entire argument throughout this entire thread.
If your argument thus far has been to jump up and say, "Ahhh-ha! The jig is up! See? The homosexuals want to make it acceptable to be homosexual <gasp>!"... well, I don't know what to say.
Yes, I fully agree that society needs to be reconditioned to find homosexuality acceptable... but for the benefit of everyone, not just homosexuals. I don't know why you think that is some sinister scheme which those on my side of the debate must keep hidden and secret, or why to bring this point to light somehow illuminates the movements diabolical, evil intentions... its the whole freakin obvious point.
-
Mistreating or marginalizing homosexuals is, while not exactly the same, very similar to racism. There is no reason, which is not arbitrary or based in prejudice, with which one can justifiably marginalize them the way we do, including but not limited to, restricting them from partaking in the institution of marriage - with a partner of their choosing. And when we institutionally exclude, marginalize, or disenfranchise people for arbitrary and prejudiced reasons, its bad for everybody.
And the heterosexual community might benefit from having a few less homosexuals posing as straights... sounds good to me.
"Normal" again - is morally irrelevant, and does speak to whether something should be "acceptable" or unacceptable. I don't care if we call homosexuality normal or not - being 7 feet tall is not normal - but its perfectly acceptable.
Evolution arbitrarily marginalizes, disenfranchises, discriminates and exterminates.
In fact, that is ALL evolution really is.
And there is zero morality behind it.
If your argument thus far has been to jump up and say, "Ahhh-ha! The jig is up! See? The homosexuals want to make it acceptable to be homosexual <gasp>!"... well, I don't know what to say.
Yes, I fully agree that society needs to be reconditioned to find homosexuality acceptable... but for the benefit of everyone, not just homosexuals. I don't know why you think that is some sinister scheme which those on my side of the debate try to keep hidden and secret... its the whole freakin obvious point.
Yes, because every other liberal theory on sexual mores has proven such a success.
Remind us again why there are so many non-white children lingering for adoption you need fags to pick up the slack.
Oh, that's right. You made sex about personal fulfillment and freedom so now cities in liberal enclaves are destroyed leading to an epidemic of abortion, disease, divorce, single-parent households, absentee fathers, teen pregnancy etc etc etc.
That's quite a record you've got to run on.
Now, somehow, you want us to believe that based on a worldview that espouses a moral vacuum and mass extinctions that propagandizing a behavior that does not reproduce will be "good" as if such things as "good" really exist and this somehow fills the bill even though that bill is nothing more than your subjective preference with no empirical evidence as a foundation.
-
"Unnatural".... "abnormal"....
Weasel words.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word)
Bullshit, Willllllllllburrrrrrrrrrrrrr The only "weasel" around here is you!!
-
Oh my!
Now I'm sorry I revisited this thread.
I'm not! This is fascinating as all hell! :-)
-
Evolution arbitrarily marginalizes, disenfranchises, discriminates and exterminates.
In fact, that is ALL evolution really is.
And there is zero morality behind it.
As I already explained, evolution is not mutually exclusive the existence of universal values and desires. And those are the starting point for any moral system, whether evolution is true or whether Yahweh created the world in six days - you can't have morals without some sort of value to base it on. And as it so happens, values exist - and I would even say values exist which are universal to all human beings.
So then we can say moral facts exist... facts which are not based on mere opinion, but are rooted in universal facts about human nature. And evolution is true! How bout that!
Yes, because every other liberal theory on sexual mores has proven such a success.
Remind us again why there are so many non-white children lingering for adoption you need fags to pick up the slack.
Oh, that's right. You made sex about personal fulfillment and freedom so now cities in liberal enclaves are destroyed leading to an epidemic of abortion, disease, divorce, single-parent households, absentee fathers, teen pregnancy etc etc etc.
That's quite a record you've got to run on.
Lol, um no. The reasons behind the black community's present dilemmas are complex and varied, and it does them no justice to sit here and exclusively and simplistically blame them all on liberal policy. I don't even think same-sex marriage is best characterized as a purely sexual issue. Its civil rights - and no matter what their present troubles, I'm sure we all agree, civil rights were a good thing for blacks.
As it is, I suspect that the anti-homosexual posture exhibited by many conservatives does exacerbate the woes of that particular community.
Now, somehow, you want us to believe that based on a worldview that espouses a moral vacuum and mass extinctions that propagandizing a behavior that does not reproduce will be "good" as if such things as "good" really exist and this somehow fills the bill even though that bill is nothing more than your subjective preference with no empirical evidence as a foundation.
I've tried to explain my view on morals briefly, and you've given no counterpoints to them.. I think all I can do at this point is recommend you actually read what some modern naturalists have to say on morality... and suffice to say, that your continual assertions of "evolution, therefore no morals" are not impressive.
Maybe start with some Richard Carrier, whose views I borrow heavily from - here's a good, but long read:
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/03/moral-ontology.html
Or here's a long video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dce8mE0q4zA
-
As I already explained, evolution is not mutually exclusive the existence of universal values and desires...
Subjective nonsense.
The entire waste of text is nothing but subjective relativism dressed up as absolutist certainty.
Homophobia is a value and a desire as well. So there.
And yes, liberals do own the blame for the decimation of the inner cities because minorities had intact families. Plenty of people, i.e. Thomas Sowell, note how welfare statism and loose sexual mores destroyed the black family.
Civil rights--in a consitutional sense--is not about sex or even families. It is about political participation. Gays are absolutely entitled to politically participate for those issues that weigh upon their conscience...including legally recognized marriage. In that respect they have every right heteros possess. And the homophobic, being born that way, have equal political rights to counter those efforts.
-
Subjective nonsense.
The entire waste of text is nothing but subjective relativism dressed up as absolutist certainty.
Hardly. Morals are simply facts about what one "ought to do", above all else. And if there are universal facts about what humans value, then you've got your basis for objective human morality. Even God-based morality relies on the existence of such a universal value, implicitly.
You seem to think God solves some problem of morality, based on comments you've made... but I'd argue its inconsistent for you to believe that God makes morality possible, and to reject my premise above about value. One entails the other. If you do accept that premise, then you have to necessarily accept my conclusion that moral facts can exist if there are universal values held by all minds - and that therefore, objective morals are possible on naturalism.... at least assuming there is something universally valued by all things with minds, above all else.
Homophobia is a value and a desire as well. So there.
Yes, but is it something universally desired above all else? I don't think so. If one desires well-being above all else - and I'd say this is universally true of all humans - then one not ought desire to be a homophobe.
-
Hardly. Morals are simply facts about what one "ought to do", above all else. And if there are universal facts about what humans value, then you've got your basis for objective human morality. Even God-based morality relies on the existence of such a value, implicitly.
Yes, but is it something universally desired above all else? I don't think so. If one desires well-being above all else - and I'd say this is universally true of all humans - then one not ought desire to be a homophobe.
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa200/DefiantSix/shut_up_bitch.jpg)
BS'ed because... well, because it feels good to BS you, Wilbur.
-
Hardly. Morals are simply facts about what one "ought to do", above all else.
Please empirically demonstrate what one "ought" to do.
Show me the microscope slide or express the mathematical formula for determining "ought."
Near as I can tell life was an accident. No one and nothing intended it to be here. It exists only by chemical determinance which itself is based on little more than the happenstance of the physical universe existing in the first place. Life as we see it is built on innumerable corpses killed off by shifting climate, disease, starvation, predators, stray rocks from space etc etc etc. Non-Life far outweighs Life as a force within the universe and Death wins all. One day all life will be extinguished with no one to mourn, judge or console. In a billion years--or one-billionth of that time--humanity will cease to exist. It will be consumed or displaced and nothing within the mindless universe will say "here lies a just/cruel race that did/not have gay marriage." Even the appeals to this society rely on the fact that this society itself stands upon a heap of other societies that have long since died out and it was like that ever since homonids started clubbing each to the tune of Thus Spake Zarathustra. If you want "human rights" go complain to those hairy bastards because they started it.
-
Please empirically demonstrate what one "ought" to do.
Show me the microscope slide or express the mathematical formula for determining "ought."
Easy.
"Oughts" can be derived from "is"... in fact, that's the only way to get them.
If one *wants* to drive a nail (the is), then one *ought* to use a hammer.***
If one *wants* to drive a deck screw (the is), then one *ought* to use a drill.
And if you *really* want to accomplish those tasks, its an empirical fact, that you ought not try and use something like a chisel. It won't work. This is exactly how morality works.
If one *values* well-being (the is), then one ought to respect his neighbors property.
If one *values* well-being (the is), then one ought to do allow same-sex couples to marry.
Now, I'd agree.. in all the cases above, what one ought to do is dependent on a subjective desire. But it is true, regardless of one's personal subjective belief, that if one *wants* to drive a nail, one ought to use a hammer***. And its possibly true, that regardless of one's personal subjective belief, that if one values well-being, then one ought to respect his neighbor's property. But what if there are things that *all* people universally desire - above all else? This desire would no longer just be subjective, but a property of *all* human minds. Well, then we can say something empirical about what these minds *ought* to do, given this universal desire, just like we can say something empirical about what one ought to do, if one wants to drive a nail. We then have universal moral imperatives.
This is even how theist morality works. Christianity, for example, has a lot to say about what I *ought* to do, but only if I actually value going to heaven. But what if I value hell? What if I would genuinely rather go there? Then I *ought* to do things that will eventually put me in hell. The only way Christian morality can work for me, is if I actually value going to heaven, period.
You might say that humans only care about well-being because evolution programmed them too... but similarly under theism, you could only say that humans desire heaven because God designed them too. In both cases though, the moral system is rooted in something *real* - objective, universal desires - nothing else. And that is sufficient. It doesn't make sense to dig deeper than that.
And so finally, I do believe there are universal human desires - which all humans really want above all else - namely, well-being. Some people might be mistaken about their own desires and wants, but ultimately I do believe that's what we all seek. And so I believe there are universal moral imperatives.
Near as I can tell life was an accident. No one and nothing intended it to be here. It exists only by chemical determinance which itself is based on little more than the happenstance of the physical universe existing in the first place. Life as we see it is built on innumerable corpses killed off by shifting climate, disease, starvation, predators, stray rocks from space etc etc etc. Non-Life far outweighs Life as a force within the universe and Death wins all. One day all life will be extinguished with no one to mourn, judge or console. In a billion years--or one-billionth of that time--humanity will cease to exist. It will be consumed or displaced and nothing within the mindless universe will say "here lies a just/cruel race that did/not have gay marriage." Even the appeals to this society rely on the fact that this society itself stands upon a heap of other societies that have long since died out and it was like that ever since homonids started clubbing each to the tune of Thus Spake Zarathustra. If you want "human rights" go complain to those hairy bastards because they started it.
This is nice a poetic, but what's the actual argument? Some clearly worded premises and conclusions would help me make sense of it. How does any of this negate the existence of values and desires, upon which morality is based?
***Yes, sometimes nailguns are better, etc, but we don't need to get that nitpicky - there are situations where its empircally better to use a nailgun and where its empircally better to use a hammer.
-
I'm awestruck at the level of insane wilbur goes to, just to state his "case". :lmao:
wilbur, are you ever going to actually spout facts instead of opinions?
:popcorn:
-
I'm awestruck at the level of insane wilbur goes to, just to state his "case". :lmao:
wilbur, are you ever going to actually spout facts instead of opinions?
:popcorn:
I'm sorry, should I be saying stuff like "homophobia is an aberration, and unnatural, and abnormal!!"?? Would that do it better? Are those the kinds of facts you are looking for?
Cuz so far, that's all anybody seems to have.
-
Oh crap. It's almost as bad as statistics.
LOGIC!!!!
*flees in terror*
-
I'm sorry, should I be saying stuff like "homophobia is an aberration, and unnatural, and abnormal!!"?? Would that do it better?
First of all, you're NOT sorry. That makes you a liar.
Secondly, you've managed to rack up 267 posts that contain meaningless drivel.
Congratulations.
-
I swear my 10 year old has better wits than this.
If one *wants* to drive a nail (the is), then one *ought* to use a hammer.***
If one *wants* to drive a deck screw (the is), then one *ought* to use a drill
OK, so what do you want to use the hammer for? Building a house? OK, swell. If one man has a house and another doesn't is the man with a hammer obligated to build a house for the homeless or is a Buick good enough?
One could just as easily use a hammer to rid oneself of nettlesome in-laws if another, more useful, implement were not readily at hand.
That's not morality, you twit, that's utility.
I *want* your land.
I *ought* to use a gun to take it from you.
I prosper.
You're dead.
My values are fulfilled.
You're not around to complain about it.
BTW - I was making the utility argument AGAINST gay marriage at the beginning of th thread, even going to far as to note using a hammer to drive a screw was not useful. Congratulations--again--on proving my point for me.
This is nice a poetic, but what's the actual argument?
Can you point to a single aspect of it that is not true even if stated somewhat poetically?
The argument is: I'm not morally obligated to give you anything nor am I morally obligated to NOT take anything from you. My beneficence--or lack thereof--are strictly matters of personal utility.
-
I swear my 10 year old has better wits than this.
OK, so what do you want to use the hammer for? Building a house? OK, swell. If one man has a house and another doesn't is the man with a hammer obligated to build a house for the homeless or is a Buick good enough?
One could just as easily use a hammer to rid oneself of nettlesome in-laws if another, more useful, implement were not readily at hand.
That's not morality, you twit, that's utility.
True, its not a moral impeditive to use the hammer to drive a nail.. just an imperative - but they work the same way. Moral imperatives are imperatives that supersede *all* others. A moral imperative is the imperative from which follows your want to drive the nail - perhaps you are building a home for your neighbor. And I defined morality as "universal imperatives regarding what one *ought* to do, above all else".
I told you how I defined morality, and why and how I think it exists. If you think that all I've done is just "utility" - well, who cares? I've provided universal imperatives, and that's what we're really after in this debate - imperatives which tell us how to act in regards to gay marriage, human rights, etc. Imperatives that dictate how we ought to act.
If you think morality is something else, its up to you to define it and argue for it. If morality isn't a universal imperative which supersedes all else, then what else can it be, and why should I even care about it?
I *want* your land.
I *ought* to use a gun to take it from you.
I prosper.
You're dead.
My values are fulfilled.
You're not around to complain about it.
Presumably you have taken my land, and attacked me for your own well-being and prosperity. Well, guess what?! The science of happiness is growing a large body of research which says stealing my land at gunpoint *won't be best* for your well-being, and that you'd actually be better off being altruistic work, and building facets of your own personal character if its your own personal happiness you are concerned about. This is stuff we are beginning to study not only with psychology, but with neuroscience, and cognitive science - and we're getting real empirical data about what *really* makes us fulfilled. And so far, it ain't a life of crime and untold riches that makes us happy - and this stuff is true for everybody.
So ultimately, I'd argue your assessment - that killing me at gunpoint - and taking my land - probably isnt what is actually best for your well-being.
BTW - I was making the utility argument AGAINST gay marriage at the beginning of th thread, even going to far as to note using a hammer to drive a screw was not useful. Congratulations--again--on proving my point for me.
Well, here's one point where I may depart from many gay people, though I'm not entirely sure. If one day, we had the technology to switch someone's sexual orientation easily... it just might be best for everyone's well-being to be heterosexual.. maybe. But of course, that's simply a pipe-dream at the moment. So no, your "utility" argument does not work, not today.
Can you point to a single aspect of it that is not true even if stated somewhat poetically?
I can't point to a single part of it that is relevant to my stated case for morality.... which has nothing to do with how temporary or eternal our minds are, or the universe is... but with what our minds objectively value.
The argument is: I'm not morally obligated to give you anything nor am I morally obligated to NOT take anything from you. My beneficence--or lack thereof--are strictly matters of personal utility.
Well, then at this point, you need to tell me - specifically - what a "moral" actually is. If its "what one ought to do, above all else", then I've met my burden, and given you that.
-
And I'm arguing that this "human right" you've invented exists no place except in the minds of the self-interested.
So ultimately, I'd argue your assessment - that killing me at gunpoint - and taking my land - is what is best for your well-being.
Thank Dog for the aptly omitted term.
I hear penance is good for happiness too. Maybe I should kill you first and feel sorry about it later.
Still, "cruelty" in this world seems more the rule than the exception. One would think that if altruism were a moral or pragmatic imperative, or even a superlative, more people would engage in it. You never have to argue a man into eating.
So no, your "utility" argument does not work, not today.
I was arguing the point that having a family requires a functioning penis and vagina working in tandem. No matter how many times you try, male-on-male penis-rectal mating will not produce a child.
But you probably already understood my original point, you just like to play obtuse.
Well, then at this point, you need to tell me - specifically - what a "moral" actually is.
Morality is a subjective fiction. It is only useful to the self-interested as a cooperative agreement. Yet as soon as one party ceases cooperation morality ceases. In one era commanders will ride to the middle of the battlefield to invite each other to take the first volley so as to mitigate the "barbarity" of war for acquiring wealth at another's mortal expense. Then in another era we cry about human rights and bemoan the injustice of Dachau but we'll firebomb hundreds of thousands of civilians into ash because they are inconvenient to that end.
Life always crawls to the lowest common denominator.
-
And I'm arguing that this "human right" you've invented exists no place except in the minds of the self-interested.
And self-interest exists *in every single mind* - which is why its not merely a subjective thing, but an objective property of human brains. Not only that, but barring the exception of diagnosed psychopaths, empathy and interest in the fate of others, exists in every single human mind.
Thank Dog for the aptly omitted term.
I hear penance is good for happiness too. Maybe I should kill you first and feel sorry about it later.
Still, "cruelty" in this world seems more the rule than the exception. One would think that if altruism were a moral or pragmatic imperative, or even a superlative, more people would engage in it. You never have to argue a man into eating.
I was arguing the point that having a family requires a functioning penis and vagina working in tandem. No matter how many times you try, male-on-male penis-rectal mating will not produce a child.
But you probably already understood my original point, you just like to play obtuse.
Morality is a subjective fiction. It is only useful to the self-interested as a cooperative agreement. Yet as soon as one party ceases cooperation morality ceases. In one era commanders will ride to the middle of the battlefield to invite each other to take the first volley so as to mitigate the "barbarity" of war for acquiring wealth at another's mortal expense. Then in another era we cry about human rights and bemoan the injustice of Dachau but we'll firebomb hundreds of thousands of civilians into ash because they are inconvenient to that end.
Life always crawls to the lowest common denominator.
Meh - so what? People can break laws too, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. So people can always act contrary to universal moral imperatives... that does not mean they do not exist. And really, pertaining to *this* conversation, we can really put most of this philosophical crap aside... if we *both* share a value of human rights, we can have a conversation about whether same-sex marriage or whatever else, is consistent with that value. Its that simple.
And you've made several comments to the effect of "Until God is revealed, I have no obligation to do X".... which suggests to me, anyways, that you've got a little more in mind as to what moral value is other than "subjective fiction".
-
And self-interest exists *in every single mind* - which is why its not merely a subjective thing, but an objective property of human brains. Not only that, but barring the exception of diagnosed psychopaths, empathy and interest in the fate of others, exists in every single human mind.
I think you mean sociopaths.
And history seems to be made up of sociopaths because humans have been slaughtering each other without compunction since before they could write it down as history.
Meh - so what? People can break laws too, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. So people can always act contrary to universal moral imperatives... that does not mean they do not exist...
And yet you seem wholly incapable of demonstrating this in objective terms.
Your mania for gay rights is no less subjective than homophobia. Yet, you're demanding people settle debate between chocolate and vanilla by demanding liver-spinach ripple be declared the national flavor.
-
I think you mean sociopaths.
And history seems to be made up of sociopaths because humans have been slaughtering each other without compunction since before they could write it down as history.
In most cases, humans are slaughtering one another out of ignorance - just like you in your example (shooting me for land), most humans actually care about well-being, but are ignorant about how to go about it. There are very few true psychopaths or sociopaths (both sort of the same thing).
And yet you seem wholly incapable of demonstrating this in objective terms.
I gave you an account of objective morality based wholly on naturalism and objective properties human minds - it may be refutable, but so far you have failed to refute it. You have also failed to make a case that your nihilistic moral anti-realism the only logical conclusion from naturalism, and your best attempt so far is to say that we'll die and eventually the universe will end. But you haven't explained why either of these facts entail the non-existence of universal moral imperatives, on naturalism.
My account of morality was not dependent upon the lifespan of human lives, nor on the lifespan of the universe, in any way shape or form. In fact, even if I lived forever, I don't know how this changes the fact that people universally desire well-being.
Your mania for gay rights is no less subjective than homophobia. Yet, you're demanding people settle debate between chocolate and vanilla by demanding liver-spinach ripple be declared the national flavor.
Homophobia is not a universal to all human minds nor is it valued above all else. The desire for fulfillment and satisfaction is.. and whether same-sex marriage (or even homophobia) is or is not good for that end, is an empirical question.
-
Meh, I have to quibble on one point-
The prevalence of personality disorders is steadily increasing.
-
I gave you an account of objective morality based wholly on naturalism and objective properties human minds - it may be refutable, but so far you have failed to refute it.
You've made untestable, unprovable assertions based solely on subjective ideas. There's a reason we aren't arguing over the value of pi...it's testable.
You make these insipid claims that people will be happier if only they think like you do.
You have also failed to make a case that your nihilistic moral anti-realism the only logical conclusion from naturalism, and your best attempt so far is to say that we'll die and eventually the universe will end. But you haven't explained why either of these facts entail the non-existence of universal moral imperatives, on naturalism.
I claim there is nothing within the fabric or history of the universe that gives any hint of morality. I'm sitting here saying unicorns don't exist because there is no evidence of unicorns and you're crying I haven't proven they don't exist, ergo they must.
You aren't an advocate for morality. You're just a ***** who would be eaten by poodles if left to his own faculties so you try and con and badger people into tolerating your existence on your terms. You're a huckster. You're the liberal atheist version of Elmer Gantry.
My account of morality was not dependent upon the lifespan of human lives, nor on the lifespan of the universe, in any way shape or form.
You're right.
It's wholly dependent upon how far up your ass you have to reach for the next steamer.
Your subjective ideas are yours. They are not something I am obligated to heed. If the matter is left to be decided by the government we have fabricated for ourselves I will toss my marker to the side of my preference but I get the feeling you don't like it when people do that because not enough markers end up in your basket. I seriously don't believe you have the means or the will to force them upon me by your own hand so you will instead point and cry while hiding behind the judge's robes.
If only the consent of the governed were a moral imperative.
-
I'll keep this short SnuggleBunny, since this is getting pretty silly...
So far you have failed to even define what you believe morality to be - though you claim quite voraciously that it cannot exist. You dodged the question, by suggesting it was "an absurd fiction", but so far failed to actually define what it is that you reject the existence of..
You claim there is nothing that exists which can have anything to say about how you ought to behave and you scoff and sneer at the thought of any kind of morality actually existing... yet you tell me with a straight face that "its absurd on its face" to suggest that biological imperatives do not exist (ie, you have a penis, therefore you should stick it in vaginas)... and even worse, you offer these "biological imperatives" as possible justifications as to why you shouldn't be expected to tolerate homosexuals. I just can't keep up with all the contradictions..
And nobody is impressed by your internet tough-guy-ism, sorry. It seems to come out in force when you get backed into an intellectual corner.
And of course, you have thus far, also avoided expressing your opinion on human rights - do you value them, or no?
-
You claim there is nothing that exists which can have anything to say about how you ought to behave and you scoff and sneer at the thought of any kind of morality actually existing... yet you tell me with a straight face that "its absurd on its face" to suggest that biological imperatives do not exist (ie, you have a penis, therefore you should stick it in vaginas)...
Go eat a pineapple by shoving it up your ass. We'll patiently wait here for the results but don't expect us to legislate in favor of the act.
and even worse, you offer these "biological imperatives" as possible justifications as to why you shouldn't be expected to tolerate homosexuals. I just can't keep up with all the contradictions..
No one called it a biological imperative except you trying to hoist a strawman.
Life is NOT an imperative. Hetero sex is NOT an imperative.
They simply are.
That being said homosexuals are NOT a "sin"...whatever that might be but neither is accepting them an imperative.
It's only an argument between chocolate and vanilla.
It's subjective.
It is quite true you cannot produce children except by hetero sex. Any exception to this has supposedly only happened once.
All you have done is claim you prefer one flavor of "morality" over another and absent anything other than your subjective preferences you have demanded that I claim them as my own.
Well, I don't...and neither do a lot of other people.
You are free to appeal to the democracy of the ballot. We choose the ballot because it is less messier than the democracy of the bullet.
There are no unicorns and I am not obligated to place them on the Endangered Species List just because you're afraid my inaction will lead them to becoming extinct.
And of course, you have thus far, also avoided expressing your opinion on human rights - do you value them, or no?
I value them the way I value traffic lights and library numbering systems.
But this isn't so much my obligation to prove. You're the one making a positive claim.
-
You've made untestable, unprovable assertions based solely on subjective ideas. There's a reason we aren't arguing over the value of pi...it's testable.
You make these insipid claims that people will be happier if only they think like you do.
You aren't an advocate for morality. You're just a ***** who would be eaten by poodles if left to his own faculties so you try and con and badger people into tolerating your existence on your terms. You're a huckster. You're the liberal atheist version of Elmer Gantry.
Bravo, sir, a very accurate summation of our resident debate team reject.
-
It's only an argument between chocolate and vanilla.
It's subjective.
No, it isnt. If I say object X has property Y, then I'm making an empirical claim about the world - not a subjective one. Even if I say, the poster named Wilbur has a favorite color, and that color is blue - I'm making an empirical claim, even though its a claim about a subjective belief. If I say that all human beings have a favorite color, I am also making an empirical claim, but again about subjective beliefs.. But if true, it is universally, objectively true for all human minds that they contain subjective beliefs about favorite colors. Independent of anyone's opinion, it would be true that everyone has a favorite color.
And in the case of the moral argument I presented, I am making such a claim about all minds - that there is a universal desire for well being, fulfillment, and satisfaction inherent in all minds... and this is universally true, independent of a personal opinion. Maybe you think it false... but that's another matter... if true, the nature of the moral argument I provided, provides an account of universal moral imperatives, independent of anyone's subjective opinion.
Its not a matter of opinion whether minds value well-being... and its not a matter of opinion whether certain behaviors, more than others, will or won't lead to increased well-being for every mind who practices them.
-
Claims are not the same as facts.
That men eat is a fact. What men like to eat is a claim.
Saying that what men like to eat some how undergoes a metamorphosis into what they "ought" to eat and that what they like to eat "ought" to be provided to them or by virtue of their preference no other man "ought not" impede their preferred consumptions is where your pontificating falls flat.
OK, so people like to be fulfilled and satisfied. That is NOT the same as saying whatever makes a man feels fulfilled and satisfied is to be condoned and sanction by any other person who similarly likes to be fulfilled and satisfied. "He likes it, I must endorse it" is not a moral statement.
It's an idiotic statement.
If you are such an advocate for satisfaction and fulfillment then why do you argue in favor of imposing a policy preference on majority of the population that will do nothing to improve their lives, its absence is no detriment to them, would be passed against their consent and--if all other liberal theories on societal reconstruction are any indicator--will probably act to further decay their social fabric. Supposedly self-governance is satisfying and fulfilling as well but your advocacy on *that* principle only goes so far.
-
And in the case of the moral argument I presented, I am making such a claim about all minds - that there is a universal desire for well being, fulfillment, and satisfaction inherent in all minds... and this is universally true, independent of a personal opinion. Maybe you think it false... but that's another matter... if true, the nature of the moral argument I provided, provides an account of universal moral imperatives, independent of anyone's subjective opinion.
Its not a matter of opinion whether minds value well-being... and its not a matter of opinion whether certain behaviors, more than others, will or won't lead to increased well-being for every mind who practices them.
Let's extrapolate your "theory" a little further.......
Serial killers derive a sense of well-being, fulfillment, and satisfaction from murdering other human beings without mercy, or consideration. Therefore society should sanction serial murder in order to not interfere with another individuals "universal moral imperative". Empirically, (a word you seem determined to misuse), serial killers are moral and psychological deviates.......(a fact not in question).
Reversing therefore your own "logic", homosexuals are also moral and psychological deviates.......why should society recognize and condone what is "satisfying and fulfillling" to one and not the other??
BTW.....I don't have a "favorite color"........
doc
-
Let's extrapolate your "theory" a little further.......
doc
wilbur will claim the caveat "unless it is harmful to someone else" so he can claim that the act of the serial killer are exempt from your proposition. So long as no conscious party is injured by the act it should be condoned.
Of course, this must mean necrophilia and bestiality are OK much to the relief of Twilight fans everywhere.
-
Claims are not the same as facts.
That men eat is a fact. What men like to eat is a claim.
Saying that what men like to eat some how undergoes a metamorphosis into what they "ought" to eat and that what they like to eat "ought" to be provided to them or by virtue of their preference no other man "ought not" impede their preferred consumptions is where your pontificating falls flat.
OK, so people like to be fulfilled and satisfied. That is NOT the same as saying whatever makes a man feels fulfilled and satisfied is to be condoned and sanction by any other person who similarly likes to be fulfilled and satisfied. "He likes it, I must endorse it" is not a moral statement.
It's an idiotic statement.
If you are such an advocate for satisfaction and fulfillment then why do you argue in favor of imposing a policy preference on majority of the population that will do nothing to improve their lives, its absence is no detriment to them, would be passed against their consent and--if all other liberal theories on societal reconstruction are any indicator--will probably act to further decay their social fabric. Supposedly self-governance is satisfying and fulfilling as well but your advocacy on *that* principle only goes so far.
What does "ought" even mean? If it does not mean something along the lines of "has a rational reason, above all else, to act", I simply don't know what meaning the word can have.
Part and parcel of the nature of values, is that they give us rational reasons to act in certain ways. Hence, from values, comes "ought". Just like you ought to use a hammer, if you want to drive a nail, you ought to treat your neighbors well, if you value well-being, etc.
If "ought" means something else to you, I don't know what it could possibly be - and if it is in no way connected to human value or desire, I don't know why it should be something any moral theory is required to account for.
Gotta go now, will get to the rest later.
-
What does "ought" even mean? If it does not mean something along the lines of "has a rational reason, above all else, to act", I simply don't know what meaning the word can have.
ought
–auxiliary verb
1. (used to express duty or moral obligation): Every citizen ought to help.
2. (used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like): He ought to be punished. you ought to be ashamed.
3. (used to express propriety, appropriateness, etc.): You ought to be home early. We ought to bring her some flowers.
4. (used to express probability or natural consequence): That ought to be our train now.
–noun
5. duty or obligation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ought
-
I only use "ought" because you did. Don't throw out a term then complain someone uses it to discuss the issue in your context. That makes you either dubious or too stupid to recognize your own words.
Again you retreat to the utilitarian argument. But anyone can easily enough say if you "value" offspring you "ought" to use sexual organs in the manner to which they are best suited to the exclusion of all other anatomical features.
If man values happines and fulfillment then he "ought" to be religious as study after study demonstrates the utility of religion in securing and enhancing personal happiness.
But I make no claims about the "ought" of anything. There is no "Man ought to live" commandment because man was never meant to be alive. His existence, while empirical fact, is only chemical mechanisms born of happenstance of physicality existing "just-so." The individual life is predicated upon one particular sperm outpacing millions of other on the one night mama didn't swallow.
Take a look at those paintings of the evolution of man and tell me which one of the furry little bastards gained the capacity and obligations of "ought".
Just your species?
Someone else further down the chain who--golly!--is already extinct?
"ought"?
heh
Man may value being alive but that is really nothing more than a psycho-physiological reflex built up over millions of years of evolution. Any species lacking a biological reflex to survive probably hasn't, ipso facto. Man may find certain tools and practices have greater utility in maintaining his life and he'll try to scarf-down as many double-dip sundaes and squeeze off one more orgasm to make his life seem a little less futile and tedious but at the end of the day...
...so what?
If man was never meant to be alive he sure as shit wasn't meant to be happy and the universe's unrelenting assault on the life it mindlessly, haphazardly spawned proves that.
I reject the unicorn of ought.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ought
wilbur wants to toss out words then when people start using them he wants to quibble about what they mean.
His tactic isn't so much about proving his point but to distract the dialogue from allowing you to prove your point.
-
....snip...
His [wilbur's] tactic isn't so much about proving his point but to distract the dialogue from allowing you to prove your point.
Apart from the ridiculous nature of wilbur and his "arguments", I'd suggest that wilbur's tactics qualify for Trolldom.
-
First ponies, now unicorns?
I ****ING LOVE THIS BOARD!
-
First ponies, now unicorns?
I ****ING LOVE THIS BOARD!
didja get the "skittle-shitting" part?
-
wilbur wants to toss out words then when people start using them he wants to quibble about what they mean.
His tactic isn't so much about proving his point but to distract the dialogue from allowing you to prove your point.
Oh, I know. I had to remind the little Nazi bitch-boy several times in the abortion thread just how much he didn't own the language.
-
I only use "ought" because you did. Don't throw out a term then complain someone uses it to discuss the issue in your context. That makes you either dubious or too stupid to recognize your own words.
Again you retreat to the utilitarian argument. But anyone can easily enough say if you "value" offspring you "ought" to use sexual organs in the manner to which they are best suited to the exclusion of all other anatomical features.
If man values happines and fulfillment then he "ought" to be religious as study after study demonstrates the utility of religion in securing and enhancing personal happiness.
But I make no claims about the "ought" of anything. There is no "Man ought to live" commandment because man was never meant to be alive. His existence, while empirical fact, is only chemical mechanisms born of happenstance of physicality existing "just-so." The individual life is predicated upon one particular sperm outpacing millions of other on the one night mama didn't swallow.
Take a look at those paintings of the evolution of man and tell me which one of the furry little bastards gained the capacity and obligations of "ought".
Just your species?
Someone else further down the chain who--golly!--is already extinct?
"ought"?
heh
Man may value being alive but that is really nothing more than a psycho-physiological reflex built up over millions of years of evolution. Any species lacking a biological reflex to survive probably hasn't, ipso facto. Man may find certain tools and practices have greater utility in maintaining his life and he'll try to scarf-down as many double-dip sundaes and squeeze off one more orgasm to make his life seem a little less futile and tedious but at the end of the day...
...so what?
If man was never meant to be alive he sure as shit wasn't meant to be happy and the universe's unrelenting assault on the life it mindlessly, haphazardly spawned proves that.
I reject the unicorn of ought.
wilbur wants to toss out words then when people start using them he wants to quibble about what they mean.
His tactic isn't so much about proving his point but to distract the dialogue from allowing you to prove your point.
Circumstances decide the OUGHT factor. Depends on where you were born and or the mental stability of those that go against the flow.
Jerrery Dommer was inprisoned for eating human flesh in our society, in parts of the world this is perfectabley normal.----The Soccer players that had a plane crash 20 years ago and ate the deceased and survived on their bodys caused such an uproar in South America that the Pope had to intervien and declare that in life threatening conditions this was exceptable, and to have starved to death with refusing to eat avaible food to survive could be considered sucicide.
In Asia where people sell their children to the sex trade, this is exceptable, in England this is a no-no.
In the Middle East civilized behavior is, full of very strange contridictions. On one hand becoming a homosexual is a death sentince, but the youth is encouraged to get their sex release from each other as long as there is no overt homosexul intentions.??? Then to explain the dancing boys--This is a very odd culture, at times the OUGHT seems to me that men are sinning if they love or care for one woman and their daughters.
-
Circumstances decide the OUGHT factor...
Situational morality is just as vaporous as the conventional kind. What situational morality usually lacks is an ungirding *why* one thing is preferrable over another and *what* are the guidelines for determining such things.
BTW (not just VestalVirgin1) - there's no need to quote an entire post to show which one you are referring to; please feel free to truncate as I have demonstrated.
-
Bunny,
Oh good grief. Anybody arguing in good faith is interested in clarifying definitions and understanding the meanings of the words his conversant is using. So I attempted to clarify, since it seems like you're using some of these words differently that I am. In case you hadnt realized, the term "moral" (and subsequently the term "ought") are terms whose definitions are highly controversial in philosophy, so one needs to be *really* specific. That's why I provided a definition of morality - and further down the line I provided a definition for "ought". So far you havent even given me any inkling as to what you think morality should even be defined as. How am I supposed to give any credence to your claims that it cannot exist?
And... anyone arguing in *really* good faith, doesnt expect to put everything perfectly the first time, and even expects to modify their arguments as time goes on, in light of what their opponents say. So in retrospect, I could be a little more clear about my definitions... so lets settle on this, right now:
Moral duy: "A rational reason (ie imperitive) to act, that supercedes all other reasons to act".
Ought: "To possess a moral duty" So "ought" really expands too, "to possess a rational reason to act, that supercedes all other reasons to act".
Now I don't know about you, but I think those *definately* exist (unlike unicorns). And really, what else are we supposed to ask for from a moral theory? It doesnt matter, whether we "matter" to the cosmos - I don't know why you're so preoccupied with that red herring. Things matter to minds - and if there is *something* that matters to all minds - universally - then it matters objectively to all beings with minds. That's how morality becomes objective - that's the *only* way it can become objective.
There is simply no reason anyone ought to do anything, if on some level they don't value actually value doing that thing. There would be no reason to act, and hence, no reason they "ought" to act.
It makes no difference whether the cosmos "meant for us to be happy". It makes no difference whether a God wants us to be happy - it matters what *we value*. Values are what provide *rational reasons* to act. And rational reasons to act are the foundations of a moral system. And if we all share the same - or a similiar - core value, which is valued above all else - then we have all share the same underlying rational reasons for action, that supercede all others. We have a universal morality.
Now maybe, for some reason or another, you don't want to call that morality, but for the life of me, I can't possibly imagine what "morality" actually means to you, if not that? Maybe this time you'll finally provide a definition of it, and we can see if it makes sense?
-
That you want [fill in the blank] legalized finds itself a subjective preference. It holds no sway over me or anyone else.
I've already stated religion improves man's happiness yet you would be the last person to claim a person "ought" to be religious. You will instead cop to "if they choose" because supposedly man "ought" to be allowed to make up his own mind about his religious beliefs. So while man "ought" to be happy, man "ought" to be able to choose to be unhappy. But even those who do choose religion, though they be happy, have been devalued in your mind and they "ought not" disagree.
Says who?
You, apparently.
And you seem quite willing to use the force of the government they chartered to compel them against their happiness.
Because that is what you "ought" to do.
Says who?
You, apparently.
-
That you want [fill in the blank] legalized finds itself a subjective preference. It holds no sway over me or anyone else.
I've already stated religion improves man's happiness yet you would be the last person to claim a person "ought" to be religious. You will instead cop to "if they choose" because supposedly man "ought" to be allowed to make up his own mind about his religious beliefs. So while man "ought" to be happy, man "ought" to be able to choose to be unhappy. But even those who do choose religion, though they be happy, have been devalued in your mind and they "ought not" disagree.
Says who?
You, apparently.
Well, you do raise an interesting point, that religion does seem to confer some marginal benefits to believers... resistence to depression, a better ability to heal from disease and sickness.
But there have been studies that have shown that secular groups who have similar church-style community support systems gain similar benefits. But aside from that, its not so clear that religion increases well-being overall.. despite the few obvious benefits it does provide. Religion also creates a divisive world, where people are often discarding useful knowledge gained (in say, the last 2000 years), in favor of the proclamations of ignoramouses from the ancient desert. A few marginal benefits aside, this probably comes at a tremendous cost to humanity. So I just really doubt that religion is the optimal solution to the depression problem, or to the sickness problem... it gets a few things right, sure.. but its not clear that those things are part and parcel of religion - or that religion is necessary for us to get those benefits.
And you seem quite willing to use the force of the government they
chartered to compel them against their happiness.
Because that is what you "ought" to do.
I'm also quite willing to use the government to compel you to respect the rights of black people. There simply are no good reasons, which are not arbitrary or based in irrational prejiduce to exclude homsoexuals from the institution of marriage. If you can provide some, I'd love to hear them (I asked for this before, you have failed to provide).
-
I'm also quite willing to use the government to compel you to respect the rights of black people. There simply are no good reasons, which are not arbitrary or based in irrational prejiduce to exclude homsoexuals from the institution of marriage. If you can provide some, I'd love to hear them (I asked for this before, you have failed to provide).
Who says it is arbitrary and irrational?
You, apparently.
So let's start demanding a typed thesis on why people vote for each position they do. No good thesis? You can't vote for it. Thus spaketh Zura-thrust-up.
You should tell the Christians that just because their sky-friend told them something was wrong they aren't allowed to petition for a policy because the fact it came from their sky-friend makes it irrational and aribtrary.
Or maybe you'll run it through your bullshit filter first to make sure what they value comports with what you value so you can be the earth-friend who checks and vetoes the sky-friend whenever he gets out of line.
-
Back on page 4 I wrote:
...Ask any soldier deployed to Afghanistan about the local custom of "Man-Love Thursday." They [do not] see women as objects of sexual gratification, only pro-creation. Sex for fun comes from their fellow man.
Today at the Dump I found:
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu May-12-11 10:12 PM
Original message
Afghanistan Human Terrain Team Pashtun Homosexuality Report
Afghanistan Human Terrain Team Pashtun Homosexuality Report
Key Observations
- Aculturally-contrived homosexuality (significantly not termed as such by its practitioners) appears to affect a far greater population base then some researchers would argue is attributable to natural inclination.
- Some of its root causes lie in the severe segregation of women, the prohibitive cost of marriage within Pashtun tribal codes, and the depressed economic situation into which young Pashtun men are placed.
- Other root causes include a long-standing cultural tradition in which boys are appreciated for physical beauty and apprenticed to older men for their sexual initiation. The fallout of this pattern of behavior over generations has a profound impact on Pashtun society and culture.
- Homosexuality is strictly prohibited in Islam, but cultural interpretations of Islamic teaching prevalent in Pashtun areas of southern Afghanistan tacitly condone it in comparison to heterosexual relationships in several contexts.
- Pashtun men are freer with companionship, affection, emotional and artistic expression, and the trust bred of familiarity with other men. They often lack the experience of these aspects of life with women.
- This usurping of the female role may contribute to the alienation of women over generations, and their eventual relegation to extreme segregation and abuse.
…
Findings
Military cultural awareness training for Afghanistan often emphasizes that the effeminate
characteristics of male Pashtun interaction are to be considered “normal†and no indicator of a
prevalence of homosexuality. This training is intended to prevent servicemembers from reacting
with typically western shock or aversion to such displays. However, slightly more in-depth
research points to the presence of a culturally-dependent homosexuality appearing to affect a far
greater population base then some researchers would argue is attributable to natural inclination.
To dismiss the existence of this dynamic out of desire to avoid western discomfort is to risk
failing to comprehend an essential social force underlying Pashtun culture—one with a variety of
potential implications upon the efficacy and applicability of ISAF efforts and on the long-term
future of Afghan society.
HTT is often approached for advice by US and British servicemembers who report
encounters with men displaying apparently homosexual tenancies. These servicemembers are
frequently confused in the interpretation of this behavior. The British newspaper article below
may be written with an attempt at humor, yet the Marines quoted typify the reaction often seen in
servicemembers upon their initial encounters with Pashtun males. As HTT has observed with
frequency while on patrols in Helmand and Kandahar provinces, these men are outwardly
affectionate toward both one another and male ISAF members, are extremely gentle in their
demeanor and touch, and have often taken great care in embellishing their personal appearance
with fingernails dyed red, hair and beards hennaed in careful patterns, and eyes very occasionally
subtly outlined.
full report here (has link to 18 page pdf report):
http://publicintelligence.net/afghanistan-human-terrain... /
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1092947
-
Back on page 4 I wrote:
Today at the Dump I found:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1092947
Sounds like Pashtan Muslims are democrats....hippo-critters.