Homosexual Marriage

[Frozen Beat]

I believe that same sex marrige was allowed in Canada, because it was a thing of "freedom."

Yeah right.

[Tokzic]

Originally Posted by Frozen Beat

I believe that same sex marrige was allowed in Canada, because it was a thing of "freedom."

Yeah right.

letting people do what they want to do is definitely not a freedom

I think both sides of this debate are ridiculous. The religious gay folk apparently want their union to be holy - so why do you need an official priest to do that? Holy is in the mind, so have yourself put some religious meaning into the ceremony and you have yourself a marriage.

The people who are fighting against it are worse. They're trying to keep a definition unchanged. Honestly, what does it matter? We get it, you're homophobes and think that gay relationships are lesser than straight ones, but that's no reason to refuse two people the right to do something anyone straight could do. It doesn't taint your marriage. You have no reason to refuse it.

In essence, both sides are just trying to fight for some extra meaning put into something that's subjective. If you tell yourself your union is holy, then it is. If you tell yourself that gay marriages aren't holy, then they aren't. Problem solved.

[Grandiagod]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

I think both sides of this debate are ridiculous. The religious gay folk apparently want their union to be holy - so why do you need an official priest to do that? Holy is in the mind, so have yourself put some religious meaning into the ceremony and you have yourself a marriage.

NEWSFLASH: Marriage isn't intrinsically religious, and that's not why gay people want marriage.

Honestly, that's one of the most ignorant arguments i've heard an intellegent person use.

Gays want marriage for A) Economic equality B) Social equality.

[sayuncle990]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

In essence, both sides are just trying to fight for some extra meaning put into something that's subjective. If you tell yourself your union is holy, then it is. If you tell yourself that gay marriages aren't holy, then they aren't. Problem solved.

I think killing people and drinking the blood of newborn infants is holy.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by sayuncle990

I think killing people and drinking the blood of newborn infants is holy.

Their practice affects only them. Your practice affects other people who have not consented to your belief. If you found someone else who felt that you killing them was holy, then the two of you are perfectly welcome to engage in that behavior.

Otherwise, your comparison is simply invalid.

Godsend....eesh, where to begin. I'll go with your response to me first, then your response to Grandiagod.

This comment reflects a disturbing and contemptuous approach regarding those who may sincerely disagree. If you won't acknowledge the validity of opposing arguments, your opinion is discarded as pure biased conjecture.

Give me a counterexample. Any counterexample with any evidence whatsoever. "Marriage is for procreation"? Heterosexuals where one partner is impotent or barren are allowed to marry. "Children need a mother and father to be raised properly"? Heterosexual single parents are allowed to adopt, parents are allowed to keep their children after a divorce or being widowed. Every objection you can raise for why homosexuals should not be allowed to get married can be countered with a situation among heterosexuals that duplicates the "reason why not"

There is nothing contemptuous in that statement, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't attack other users in that way.

If homosexuals are allowed to marry, it could make it easier for them to adopt. Aside from the molestation issue, what about the poor child who has to grow up without a mother? Do you know how important the bond is between a male child and his mother? I'm sure a few kids could make it through ok, but the majority would be hopelessly emotionally scarred.

Please prove a statistically significant correlation between homosexuals and child molestation. You will also need to provide the same numbers with reference to heterosexual molesters, and thus demonstrate a clear superiority in the number of molestation cases per capita by homosexuals versus heterosexuals.

What about the poor child who had to grow up without a mother? I know many children whose mother died in childbirth, or while they were very young, and their father did not remarry. The -majority- turned out perfectly fine. Please provide some kind of evidence that enough of them suffered horribly that you could claim the majority did?

Wouldn't this contradict all natural and hereditary notions?

Homosexuality having both genetic and environmental causes doesn't necessarily imply that homosexuality is straight-up hereditary. For example, one of the suggested potential contributing factors towards homosexuality in males is that when a woman is pregnant with a male child, she produces a hormone that acts to keep estrogen from the fetus, allowing it to develop the traits generally associated with testosterone. However, each male child she has continues to degrade her body's ability to produce that hormone. As a result, there is a correlation between having many male children, and having the youngest of those male children be more prone to homosexuality, or at least, being born exhibiting more feminine traits than previous children. Hey look, genetics that isn't heredity.

If homosexuals are simply misunderstood individuals who just want to be accepted, and who would never knowingly choose a path that would result in alienation from family, rejection by friends, disdain from the heterosexual world, why on earth would they choose to have a parade?

Why do black people call one another ****er? Why do feminists participate in 'take back the night' rallies? Why do christians include religious nativity scenes in secular Santa Claus Parades?

These people don't want to be accepted "In spite of" doing "bad" things. These people want to be accepted for who and what they are, as they are. Mind you, I maintain that every Gay Pride Parade has set back the Gay Rights movement by 5 years, because there is a fine line between "This is what I am, accept it" and "This is what I am, choke on it" but as Grandiagod said in response to this already, there is a strong movement -in- the Gay RIghts movement to -stop- that kind of over-the-top show for precisely the reason you are concluding -all- gays must espouse.

With that said, I don't particularly agree with your suggestion that "the only objection to homosexuality is some misguided appeal to religion". In fact, I find it more than a little disingenuous.

The concept that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman is religious. The concept that marriage is only for procreation is religious. The concept that homosexuality is morally deviant is religious. I'd like to hear what objections you have to homosexuality that can't be traced to the Judeo-Christian concepts of morality and virtue.

***************

Alright, on to Grandiagod.

Aside from your intelligence in question, this statement adopts preconceived implications to the effect of discarding all counterarguments without intention to consider, and sheer blatant dismissal.

No it doesn't. It suggests that even in a condition wherein you want to claim that all beliefs are subjectively valid, some beliefs should be considered more seriously than others. For example, there are many logical issues that present themselves right away in the face of a claim that the moon is made of cheese. Namely, that everything we know about cheese suggests that it is impossible. Likewise, everything we know about rock suggests that it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the moon is made of rock, -especially- since we can provide a large amount of evidence that the moon is made of rock, and none that the moon is made of cheese.

Actually, the FRI’s analysis shows most of those who engage in homosexuality are a result of direct recruitment by seduction or molestation, wherein the clarity of this correlation (though perhaps not this one in particular) is undeniable.

I can find no mention anywhere online of a group called the "FRI" unless you mean to suggest that these are studies conducted by "Fellows of the Royal Institute" Please provide more information about the group whose work you are trying to use to discredit someone's opinion.

I suppose one could argue that demanding gay marriage is a just another way to secularize and demoralize our nation - as if America isn't already a sexually immoral one. Marriage between man and woman is, and always has been, the fundamental building block of society.

So you -do- in fact support Grandi's analogy of taking children away from families where one parent dies? You want to insist that the only "right" way for a family to function is with one male parent and one female parent? I think you'll find many many counterexamples of perfectly moral and reasonable people who grew up outside the nuclear family model.

It adheres perfectly with the discussion by demonstrating the inadequacy of referencing wildlife activity as a means of justification. As far as your usage of words like "biased, insulting", I'm afraid I can only sympathize. In any case, if you sincerely take offense, I excuse you from commenting any further. One who reveals his intimacy beyond closed doors be soully responsible for all negative feedback that follows.

You didn't actually answer to the claim you quoted in order to answer to it. He said that the comparison was invalid because homosexual sex is consentual and the examples of baby-eating and abusive pedophilia are non-consentual. Your response completely failed to address his point, so I'm wondering why you even quoted it. Also, "reveals his intimacy beyond closed doors" meaning what exactly? Are you claiming that homosexuals, unique from heterosexuals engage in all of their intimate activities in full view of the rest of the world? I've seen more heterosexual intimacy out in the world than homosexual intimacy by a huge margin.

If you're suggesting that simply "being visibly homosexual" in public (Holding hands etc) is somehow offensive and should be done in private lest they "be soully[sic] responsible for the negative feedback that follows" It follows from that statement that someone being visibly jewish, or visibly Hindu is responsible for any negative feedback that follows from it.

Those who extend this into their social lives have effectively sexualized all aspects of their existence.

So someone who is a christian, and lives like a christian in public as well as in private has "christianized" all aspects of their existence. Is this equally offensive and wrong to you? What about a woman who is a feminist and has thus "feminized" all aspects of their existence? Either the practice is generally correct to you or generally incorrect to you, and you can't pick and choose to allow people to be influenced by only one aspect of their life.

Look at hesterosexual men in bars. Are you suggesting that by flirting with the women in the bar, they have "sexualized" their entire life? By pointing out to friends that a 'hot chick' has walked by, they've made their entire existance about heterosexual sex? I think that's ridiculous.

People self-identify by nationality, by religion, by gender, by class, why should also including sexuality somehow make this process "bad"?

Second,
your willigness to defend the validity of homosexuals more or less implies your indulgence in such activity, than one who sincerely displays opposition. Sorry, your childish defense mechanisms only preveal for the simple minded. Suffice it to say, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

This is your one and only warning or I will ban you, and ban you hard. This kind of judgement of other users of this forum is completely and utterly unacceptable. I will defend the validity of homosexuality all day long, because I believe it is perfectly valid. I am utterly heterosexual. I'd say "feel free to call me a liar" about that, but then I'd be trolling you to get banned, because frankly, if you call me a liar about that, you are going to get banned.

This forum is not for users to make ignorant assumptions about other users, it is not a forum for users to accuse other users of lying, and it is not a forum for users to try and come off superior to other users for "seeing through them"

As is evident to anyone reading, along with anyone who's acknowledged science's consensus, homosexuality is not a natural attribute, nor is it a subconscious entity.

I don't know which 70-80's era scientist you are channelling here, but you are incorrect. Science is showing more and more the very correlation you seem to be claiming is being actively disproven.

You are calling everyone who defends homosexuality ignorant, by claiming that science has somehow "proven" something that it utterly has not proven, and in fact is generating more and more counter-evidence to every year.

You are throwing a stone right now. Your house is also made of glass. You should watch that.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

letting people do what they want to do is definitely not a freedom

Of course it is. It may be the case that some freedoms infringe upon other freedoms; for instance , your ability to point a gun in my face and pull the trigger. In this case we prohibit that freedom, since doing so permits maximum liberty.

In essence, both sides are just trying to fight for some extra meaning put into something that's subjective. If you tell yourself your union is holy, then it is. If you tell yourself that gay marriages aren't holy, then they aren't. Problem solved.

They aren't holy to you, at least. But there are more than two sides to this, and more problems than simply the one you named (Although perhaps not many).

Originally Posted by Grandiagod

NEWSFLASH: Marriage isn't intrinsically religious, and that's not why gay people want marriage.

Honestly, that's one of the most ignorant arguments i've heard an intellegent person use.

Gays want marriage for A) Economic equality B) Social equality.

It was a fallacy of excluded middle. But it was partially correct. Do economic and social equality come from the government, Grandi? Also, why are they desirable and why should they be given?

Originally Posted by sayuncle990

I think killing people and drinking the blood of newborn infants is holy.

Then we have no choice but to interfere with your religious practices. But murder and saying mean things aren't quite in the same boat.



ok, now for, um... thing

Originally Posted by A_Godsend

Actually, the FRI’s analysis shows most of those who engage in homosexuality are a result of direct recruitment by seduction or molestation, wherein the clarity of this correlation (though perhaps not this one in particular) is undeniable.

This is ridiculous. You were getting on someone's case for not examining an argument before dismissing it. Now you're trying to get the same person to accept an argument uncritically. If the study you are talking about actually is Science, then it is deniable. It may be correct, but falsifiability is the mark of science. So to say that someone doesn't need to bother trying to falsify it is the height of arrogance, uncritical thinking, and (in this case) hypocrisy.

I suppose one could argue that demanding gay marriage is a just another way to secularize and demoralize our nation - as if America isn't already a sexually immoral one.

These comments need some rather serious explaining.

Marriage between man and woman is, and always has been, the fundamental building block of society.

This is false, the nuclear family is not present in every society, and almost certainly hasn't been around as long as human society has. The fundamental building block of society would probably be broader anyways; something like "human resources" perhaps.

Furthermore, if it was, in fact, genes and not environment which caused the twins homosexuality, one would expect 100% of identical twins to both be homosexual... instead of 52%.

So either we do not fully understand genetics, the causes are social, the causes are supernatural, or there is an alternate, non-genetic biological etiology for the condition.

It adheres perfectly with the discussion by demonstrating the inadequacy of referencing wildlife activity as a means of justification.

True. Unfortunately, the conversation has moved beyond that now. So you'll have to start facing the arguments that are adequate.

Heterosexuals only question one's sexual orientation if they leave themselves in question; that is, if they openly display taunting, stereotypical personality features that suggest it

These aren't the same thing. A person could "leave themselves in question" quite easily by, say, not stopping to ogle a female when their coworkers do. Or perhaps they aren't interested in sports. Many of the stereotypical personality features of which you speak don't have anything to do with sexuality at all. You use awfully big words, for instance (perhaps not very well). Have you been called gay for that yet? If not, I stand surprised.

Second, your willigness to defend the validity of homosexuals more or less implies your indulgence in such activity, than one who sincerely displays opposition. Sorry, your childish defense mechanisms only preveal for the simple minded. Suffice it to say, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Yeah, so much for that critical mind of yours...

Seriously, you start out yelling at others for not taking your argument seriously, and then here you are, saying that another person's willingness to contradict you about whether or not homosexuality is bad, demonstrates that they are homosexual and therefore bad.

...yeahhh, ok. Top notch critical thinking there.

As is evident to anyone reading, along with anyone who's acknowledged science's consensus...

Science has not reached a consensus about this.

Irregardless, I still fail to detect a significant correlation; where merely being your ethnicity clearly infringes upon no one in any case, public sex-activity and disorderly conduct are significant disturbances.

Let's say your 15% number is somehow accurate, and somehow implies what you think it does. In that case, the 15% would deserve no disrespect, would they?

Originally Posted by A_Godsend

First, one could easily correlate the sanctitude of marriage with the biological necessity of reproduction

What's so necessary about it?

Second, homosexuality can be regarded as morally deviant on the grounds of one's deliberate alternation of the natural merely to fulfill their sexual satisfaction.

What's immoral about this?

Such comments attempt to degrade one's argument by asserting its illegitimate basis, perpetuate animosity, and merely beg the essential questions. I've said it before and I'll say it again: pure biased conjecture.

In which case it's your job to correct it. You claim anti-homosexual feelings don't stem from a Judeo-Christian background. This is something you need to establish. "bias" is a stupid allegation, because any critical opinion will inevitably exclude other opinions. That doesn't make it bad.



Oh, here's something special...

Dev defends the arrogance displayed in Grandi's comments "No it doesn't. It suggests that even in a condition wherein you want to claim that all beliefs are subjectively valid, some beliefs should be considered more seriously than others..."- Aside from the fact that this belabors the obvious, you fail to correctly interpret its connotation- resting on the assumption that all contrary opinions be immediately rendered substandard and disregarded- the clarity of this arrogance is demonstrated right in his moon-cheese analogy.

I actually agree with this Devonin. I'm sorry, but I think you got a little out of hand.

Although his general disposition certainly doesn't make it any easier.

To me, this is so utterly transparent that I consider any further discussion of this matter to be futile.

Here's another pretty grand instance of hypocrisy, for example.

Au contraire, I merely provided an adequate demonstration of the issues entailed with using wildlife phenomena as evidence for the validity of homosexuals. Obviously, for one to make the contrast, one is also entitled to use instances of immoral nature as a legitimate counterexample to such assertions.

True, but irrelevent. The nature example was invalid. The debate had moved on though; perhaps a little disjointedly, defaulting to arguments of consent and natural rights certainly segways a little jerkily from trying to use empirical justification, but nonetheless a new argument was presented which you indeed failed to address.

But as a matter of fact, recent polls documented only 15% of gays and lesbians reported intimate relationships in their own residence.

I would need to see how the polls were conducted. This could mean any number of things. It might mean 85% of homosexuals have sex in public. It might mean 85% of homosexuals don't have sex. Hell, it might even mean that 15% of documented homosexuals responded to the poll. Remember, this is math, so the other 85% would simply be individuals who don't have sex in their own residence. That doesn't imply that they have sex elsewhere. You're thinking of things in terms of what you consider positive opposites (public vs private, in this case) rather than in terms of a positive status versus a negative/nonexistent status.

As we all know, constructive and insightful criticism can help one to refine, clarify or correct one's ideas, and I've never held myself forth as an a priori exception.

You sure seem to have done so. Multiple times.

I did not claim that science has entirely "disproven" or disregarded such ideas, but one can only speculate in such a light without supporting empirical data (though it does violate Occam's Razor).

I'm not sure how it violates Occam's Razor. Please clarify. The existence of genetic processes we don't understand contains Ontological commitment, but almost certainly not more than any competing theory, and surely not more than an argument stemming from belief in God.


And now I start getting ready for work. Yay 50 hour weeks!