Marriage, Back door laws and policies, and tolerance issues

Remove all ads!

Thanks for the visual, Skippy!

 

Then all heterosexuals choose to like people of the opposite gender, and if they claim they are born with it (or given it by god), it is a crock of horseshit.

 

So all those people claiming I'm a homophobe are actually guilty of a Strawman arguement...

So Credibility is in the eye of the beholder? I want some statisitics on Homosexuality here. The Government should be a credible source (or at least any debate of that would be in the AoLS). But one can easily claim anything they don't like is from a biased source and disregard it, so I guess I'm wasting my time asking someone to back up a ludicrous claim...

I'm not so sure of that. We have the power to change our desires. I've DONE that. I spent my 20's desiring little more than booze and dope. I gave up these desires in favour of a higher priority. It is NOT easy, but it is possible.

Which is why it should not be criminalized. Which is why I have tried to figure out a solution that would see them have civil rights without provoking the majority religious faithful. But US law also demands the protection of religion, which is why I'm asking that the separation of Church and State be reflected in the language by which these rights are granted to Homosexuals.

Considering that I get hassled worse when I try to step out from behind that platform, get used to it. I can't be bothered to give a damn about whether they get their rights or not...

It's more than "just one friend". That one friend in particular was very talkative about his lifestyle, but he was not the only gay person I knew. I believe that I knew other gay people without knowing that they were gay. That's not something I ask about when I meet someone new...

That's a different case there. If the standing orders are for no sexual acts while at sea, then doing so was violation of an order. You weren't kicking them out because they were homosexuals, but because they failed to follow orders.

Again, that's LEGAl rights, so the civil components can and should be extended to them, but the state has NO constitutional authority to force this into the religious and moral arena. That's why separate but equal is the best the Constitution will allow for.

Sure. It's such an obvious choice that they may not realize that it's a choice, but it fits.

 

Uh....no. The straw man fallacy involves misrepresenting an argument and attacking that misrepresentation rather than addressing the argument that was presented. Accusing you of homophobia on the basis of things you actually said is not a straw man. In fact, it isn't even a fallacy. It may not necessarily be correct (some people can be overly sensitive where matters of race, gender, or sexuality are concerned*), but it still isn't a fallacy.

Sexual orientation isn't an addiction, Gnarff. I'm not addicted to women, but am attracted to them...and was attracted to them well before my first middle school slow dance (let alone losing my virginity) and I'm sure you were, too. Find me a alcoholic who has never had a drink and we'll talk about your comparison.

* but, to be honest, I don't see hypersensitivity as the source of such arguments in this case...

 

But that still doesn't prove your argument... you said you have only talked to one gay person about the situation... or do you talk to everyone about gay marriage and then assume some of them are gay based on their responses?

Tell that to black people and women and see how well of a response you get.

 

As Saber mentioned "separate but equal" is not equal -- that has been proven historically. Only "equal" works. The states are not forcing any religion to conduct gay marriages -- that argument is moot. Basically, we're back to the idea that you don't like gays being able to use the word "marriage." "I don't like it so it must be bad" is not a valid precept for an argument.

I would argue against that statement as well -- the desire never goes away. In this case you are talking about addiction. An addict never loses the desire, it is a constant (and admirable) fight to suppress the desire. You did not give up the desires, you gave up feeding those desires. That said, I do not agree with the analogy -- I do not believe homosexuality is an addiction.

I think a marginally better analogy would be comparing homosexuality to Tourette syndrome or any other issue (bipolar or ADHD perhaps) which cause a person to act different from the norm. The cause of these issues are not completely known and thee is no treatment to completely "cure" the condition -- only the symptoms are treated. Basically, something inside the brain is slightly different (not wrong, but different) triggering responses not considered "normal" by some random group of people.

 

But then again, I never said I was addicted to pot or booze. I enjoyed it, but I functioned just fine without it.

My point is that I know more than just one gay person. My information is not based off of only one example. I've NEVER had a gay person tell me that they had no choice in the matter.

But there is no action involved with race or gender. There is one with homosexuality...

Then come up with something, but the religious have Marriage. Homosexuals should have the civil rights associated with marriage, but not the ordinance of Marriage itself. The government only has authority over the civil aspects, not the religious aspects.

One, it's a religious thing, and as such, it's not just me that's offended by that idea. Two, where does the first ammendment enter this debate. You keep talking about separation of church and state, well, it goes both ways. You won't let me have the laws of the country written by my church, the state should stay out of religious doctrine and ordinances--including marriage. I've been arguing that the only difference between Marriage and Civil Union is the role of religion, be it overtly blessing the marriage or quietly approving it. The only inequality is in perception, and the government can do less than jack squat about that.

Again, I was not an addict, but I did enjoy it. It's not like I was drunk or high everyday. I had to choose between a source of entertainment (intoxicants) and my faith.

While I still reject any arguements that homosexuality is any form of Mental illness or disfunction. I reject the deterministic arguements that suggest that homosexuals have no choice in the matter. I can believe that the choice of a partner of the same gender would be easier for them, but denying that it is a choice is a dangerous proposition...

But the tics and noises associated with Tourette Syndrome ARE "wrong" in terms of normal function, and in some cases they can be dangerous or disruptive. Further, research has shown that with Tourette Syndrome, it is possilbe to suppress the symptoms when it would be most problematic. I can't get a driver's liscence because I can't keep a vehicle in a straight line, but nobody is arguing that my rights are being violated (not that I would want them to). Likewise, Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, and I don't see why that should be changed when the civil rights anf priveledges can be extended without changing that. It would have much less conflict involved too...

 

But how many gay people DO you know? Like actual, out of the closet gays, not ones you assume are gay. You have, thus far, only mentioned one who you said claimed to be gay.

 

No. Even athiest have marriage. Marriage is not the sole property of religion. Marriage has existed before christianity, muslim, islam, and even judism (at least according to the archeological and historic record -- with the exception of one book). It has always been tied to property rights, even in the old testiment.

Your argument is simply over the definition of a word and your belief the word is divine. You can believe that if you want. But the government does not. The government does not accept that any religious organization is the "owner" of that particular word. Marriage has come to have a specific meaning with regards to property rights -- that means it is a legal definition. And religion can do jack squat about it (other than pay for advertisement that misrepresent the issue to influence voters).

 

I take issue with this one -- stating their position on an issue and expressing their opinion on the possible consequences of a certain vote is not "misrepresenting" the issue, even if you disagree with them deeply.

 

It IS misrepresenting the issue - they are saying marriage is only a religious institution, while in reality, the government (US at least) legally made it a non-religious ceremony - or else non-believers would not be allowed to be married.

 

I do not believe that is what they said -- all major and most minor religious groups today accept the validity of marriages conducted by secular authorities -- certainly the ones I believe T2Bruno is referring to (the LDS ads in the California plebiscite) are from a group that I know for a fact has never said that a marriage performed by a secular authorities is invalid.

While I haven't seen the ads in questions (links, please!) they likely said that marriage is sacred (not the same as religious in this context by a long shot) and that the bill under discussion would be detrimental to society as a whole were it to pass.

PS: If when I see the ads they do contain flat out lies (as opposed to differences of opinions) I will be glad to admit it.

 

I was looking for ads against gay marriage and found this instead:


Haha I found it amusing.

 

Blast -- I'll have to wait until I get home to view it -- my school server blocks embedded files.

 

That's just too funny, Saber.

 

That was kinda amusing, and quite accurate.

 

Aagh, I don't have time to make the more detailed response I wanted to here but I'll try for a Readers Digest version.

My reasoning for "discriminating" (as DR puts it) against homosexuals by not wanting their unions to be classified as marriages is as follows: I do not believe that as a society we should be required to societally endorse a deviant behaviour. To me, homosexuality is a deviant behaviour -- as DR stated it is only 3% of the population who are gay. Even if he is quite wrong, and if we triple that number we still get 9%, which is a tiny minority. This minority deviates form what the norm is. There are several other sexual deviations that we as a society do not accept -- polygamy, bestiality (sorry, I know that one really pisses some people here off and believe me I am not trying to piss you off here), even masturbation (though really as a society we don't get into that one as much as we used to -- it's kept as a private matter.) I would argue that marriage is not so much as a sacred, holy institution as a societal one, and it is the society that determines what deviations it will and will not accept.

The idea that homosexuality will damage society is present in most arguments. I subscribe to this theory in that marriage is a social construct designed primarily (not solely) to create a family unit. Married heteros who do not choose to reproduce notwithstanding, the marriage construct is one that supposes that in the majority (possibly in only the plurality these days in Western societies) of cases there will be offspring. Despite feminist ramblings to the contrary, I believe that psychoscience has shown that the best bet for well adjusted children is to have a strong male figure and a strong female figure in the childs life -- parents, we call them. Neither sex is more important than the other. But a same sex marriage cannot provide that, even if they adopt. Now there are many cases that can be cited of gay couples raising kids and things turn out OK, but overall I think two heterosexual parents is the best way for children to be raised.

I know the scenario of lousy hetero parents vs. loving gay ones has been raised, but it to me is a false choice -- the scenario is quite contrived and biased, there are other choices and society frowns deeply on lousy or abusive hetero parents.

Anyhow, the bottom line is that to me and others like me, the behaviour is so out there, so deviant, that we cannot societally accept it. As I have stated before, we turn a blind eye to it and don't intrude on their private lives, but giving our societal blessing to the behaviour to me is the same as giving societal blessing to something like polygamy, which most people here adamantly oppose (though we don't oppose multiple partners nearly as strongly, something which I've always found odd.)

 

Of course it is deviant behavior - it deviates from the norm. So do a lot of things that society condones: abstinence (society portrays those who abstain from sex as pure and moral), most sexual behavior (rarely in media do you solely see the "missionary" position in sex), dipping french fries in ice cream... pretty much anything that most people don't do but society finds no fault with. Deviancy does not mean 'bad,' it means 'not average.'

Also, can you show me examples that prove your point about children being better off because of two heterosexual parents?

 

The studies to which I am referring (I am sorry I have no links, I read about them in a paper years ago) noted that children from intact, nuclear, heterosexual familes tended to be better adjusted and more successful than those from other kinds of families. Other studies have noted that the influence of parents of both genders is hepful in better adjusted kids. The context of the whole thing was that fathers should be more involved in the lives of their children, rather than leave all child rearing responsibilities to the mother, while not undermining the importance of a mother figure in the child's life as well.

I hear what you are saying about deviations -- some we accept as a society, some we most certainly do not. It depends on how radical the deviation is and how harmful it is to the society. Since many non-religious societies historically have also reserved marriage for heterosexuals only, I postulate that they found through trial and error that homosexual behaviour did not benefit their societies.