Homosexual Marriage

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: JohnMK If you are not born homosexual or bisexual, it's probably very difficult to understand by empathy. I'm glad you're willing to to give each his own, namguy69, but there's still some kind of misunderstanding out there if you truly feel it's wrong. Sincere indifference makes much more sense, IMO.

I'm not sure we need emotion on this issue. I think that emotion has already been gone through. We've been going around on this since at least the 80's.

People aren't seeing the injustices that they saw with blacks as opposed to gays. We've not seen the hose turned on them so to speak.

Marriage is a territorial thing. Many don't want it tampered with. This goes for the new generation coming up, too. Not all young people are of like mind.

I think gay marriage will give attorney's a lot more clients. It could jeopardize Social Security, and the old people don't want to hear that one, so I'd say it's probably more of a money issue to a lot of folks. Companies will have to offer more benefits,or take benefits away because lots of people will end up with partners because you can't prove you are gay, that would be discriminatory.

On one side you have those who will benefit from it. On the other side you have those who fear what it will do to our society. Many think it will do nothing harmful, but I've never seen anything that was totally beneficial to all. That may be why it's taking so long. People really want to be sure before they commit. There's no way to see but how other countries are doing with it. You have to figure that most of Europe is Socialistic, so they have slagging economies, high unemployment, high taxation, that sort of thing.

I'd say that if it was totally benign it would not be an issue.

I'd say fraud would be the number one issue with it. This is a big country, and people are always trying to get something for nothing.

Why would people pretend to be gay? Because money and benefits is a motivator sometimes, and you can't prove it. There's no gay test.

[JohnMK]

A statement of fact is not an appeal to emotion. Being able to put yourself in another's mind, for a moment, is a skill that depends on certain anatomical constructs of the brain being in-tact and fully-functional. The functioning of this system is a gradient, and not simply on or off. Since a heterosexual male has no experience of having been attracted to a male in the same intense way he's attracted to females, it's probably very hard to relate, and to the extent that they think all minds think just like theirs (in the extreme case, this might be evidence of autistic tendency), they might simply not believe homosexuality is a genuine phenomenon, i.e. "they're just lying." I can understand such people.

e.g.:
Mirror neuron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second, feeling that something is wrong is quite different from saying it doesn't interest me. Wrong seems to imply some kind of universal wisdom, and at worst, the adherence to a conditioned and irrational revulsion.

[Vladmirt]

i must agree fully with JhonMK. i agree that the word wrong is ver different from doesn't interest me. i admitt to being straight however i still think it is not our place to decide love. if two people love each other than i don't see what can be so wrong about that. and if the issue of the bible comes up, so what. you wouldn't tell a passionate painter not to paint, and you shouldn't tell a man in love with a man not to love. i believe that you are indeed straight, Marylin Monroe, and because of that i don't think you can understand what it is they feel, and doubt if you were crooked you wouldn't understand their point of view. until you can i suggest you think of it in a different light. this is a form of racism. not because of gender or ethnicity but because of orientation, and if you see fit to say they are wrong because of their orientation, then go ahead and start saying that i am wrong because i look middle eastern.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Vladmirt i must agree fully with JhonMK. i agree that the word wrong is ver different from doesn't interest me. i admitt to being straight however i still think it is not our place to decide love. if two people love each other than i don't see what can be so wrong about that. and if the issue of the bible comes up, so what. you wouldn't tell a passionate painter not to paint, and you shouldn't tell a man in love with a man not to love. i believe that you are indeed straight, Marylin Monroe, and because of that i don't think you can understand what it is they feel, and doubt if you were crooked you wouldn't understand their point of view. until you can i suggest you think of it in a different light. this is a form of racism. not because of gender or ethnicity but because of orientation, and if you see fit to say they are wrong because of their orientation, then go ahead and start saying that i am wrong because i look middle eastern.

You are talking about love, and I'm not.

I didn't say they were wrong, maybe you have me confused with someone else. :(

[dilligras]

My gay friends and I have an understanding: They don't hit on me and I don't hit them.

Other than that, we have fun hanging out, getting loaded, and maiking fun of the "normals", girls, other gay friends, other so-called normal friends, each other, and generally everyone else of any and all persuasions.....it's just what we do best.

A few of them can still laugh about the "gay marriage issue", knowing that not many of their number spend long with one partner, regardless of media spin to the contrary.

We occasionally argue about one thing or another relating to their lifestyle choices, (when we discuss it at all) but few will deny that it is neither safe nor healthy, when viewed under the klieg lights of stark reality.

The only other "problem" I have with them is when they get half-naked and go prancing down Main Street to celebrate their "arrival" to mainstream America. No, I don't have a problem with their wanting to party--just with the fact that they seem to think that the street is the appropriate place for such excesses of sexual display.

I would find it just as inappropriate if the Baptist congregation stripped down to their skivvies at the Fourth of July Picnic.

But hey, maybe that's just me. :)

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: cul This investment of state authority is in itself is a breach of the separation of church and state clause, but because it has gone on for so long, it seems completely normal and is almost never questioned.

I agree with your take on the constitutionality of state marriage licensing. It's none of the state's damn business.

I say that people should be married if they say they are, no license required. If they want a preacher, fine. But I don't see how a license from the state and a judge saying a few phrases is any more of a marriage than two folks proclaiming their eternal commitment.

On the other hand, I think that marriage is an ancient tradition that resists change...

[JohnMK]

Quote by: dilligras A few of them can still laugh about the "gay marriage issue", knowing that not many of their number spend long with one partner, regardless of media spin to the contrary.

If people of all persuasions had been allowed (say, for the last 2000 years) to legally marry and furthermore to do so without social reprobation (at least in coupling), perhaps a grand tradition and precedent of longer-term relationships might have arisen amongst homosexuals. Your observation, and the implication that you're taking from it, evidence your ignorance of sociological phenomenon. The fact that you don't bother raising the issue of equal protection and application of the law is, however, far more disappointing.

Regarding behavior in public places that the general public view as highly offensive, I agree with you.

[Matts]

Quote by: dilligras My gay friends and I have an understanding: They don't hit on me and I don't hit them. ... We occasionally argue about one thing or another relating to their lifestyle choices, (when we discuss it at all) but few will deny that it is neither safe nor healthy, when viewed under the klieg lights of stark reality.

Whatever it is that dilligras' supposed "gay friends" do, is not a valid argument against anyone's "lifestyle choices" but their own, if even theirs. This vacuous discourse about (male) homosexuality as an unhealthy lifestyle is what I refer to as the framing of homosexuality. The indiscriminate reference to individual instances of homosexuality in terms of "lifestyle" enforces a conceptual marriage between two logically separable frames of reference: (1) individual homosexual acts and individual homosexual relationships and (2) some supposedly uniform "homosexual lifestyle." This kind of spin is designed to distort people's perception of what is actually referred to by words like "gay," "homosexual," etc, because these general-reference words are used as synonymous with spesific subcultural conditions like "gay culture."

"Gay culture" is logically other than "homosexuality" and only a fraction of homosexual practices ever occur in contexts which could reasonably be referred to as a standard lifestyle. Statements about gay culture (whatever that is) are never rationally acceptable as statements about homosexuality.

The confusion about frames of reference in anti-homosexual discourse is what allows people like dilligras to pretend that idle references to some unspecified "lifestyle choices" made by "gay friends" constitute a valid argument against homosexuality as such regardless of the specific expression it assumes. However, saying that the "lifestyle choices" made by a certain group of homosexuals are "unhealthy" is not a rationally acceptable description of homosexuality in general. That sexually transmitted deseases are not transmitted from one healthy male to another healthy male in a monogamous relationship remains a biological fact unchallenged by dilligras' loose references to the choices made by his "gay friends."

[namguy69]

Quote by: JohnMK A statement of fact is not an appeal to emotion. Being able to put yourself in another's mind, for a moment, is a skill that depends on certain anatomical constructs of the brain being in-tact and fully-functional. The functioning of this system is a gradient, and not simply on or off. Since a heterosexual male has no experience of having been attracted to a male in the same intense way he's attracted to females, it's probably very hard to relate, and to the extent that they think all minds think just like theirs (in the extreme case, this might be evidence of autistic tendency), they might simply not believe homosexuality is a genuine phenomenon, i.e. "they're just lying." I can understand such people. e.g.: Mirror neuron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Second, feeling that something is wrong is quite different from saying it doesn't interest me. Wrong seems to imply some kind of universal wisdom, and at worst, the adherence to a conditioned and irrational revulsion.

I stand in no judgement or in the way of choice of anyone, and I don't believe anyone can. Now personally I'm a Christian man, i.e. ' re-born,' now I'm not a holy roller, I want get that straight. I follow the Bible (KJV) but that's my personal belief. Now according to the bible gays are condemned, I know your thinking this guy is a nut case, well maybe so. My earthlybeing says, live and let live according to how people wish to. My heart felt fellings is that being gay is wrong, however publically, once again to each their own. Best I handle it.

[PatrickHenry]

Could I ask you guys to debate gay marriage, not homosexuality per se? Thanks...

[Matts]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Could I ask you guys to debate gay marriage, not homosexuality per se? Thanks...

I know, I know, but you must understand that it is hopelessly difficult to completely isolate the discussion about gay marriage from a more general discussion about homosexuality, because ideas about gay marriage are necessarily intertwined with notions about homosexuality.

[Fonceai]

There really isn't much to debate.

Legally, since all genders are equal, then gender shouldn't matter in marriage.

Making gay marriage illegal is establishing differences between genders.

Not legalizing it, however, is avoiding the issue.

[namguy69]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Could I ask you guys to debate gay marriage, not homosexuality per se? Thanks...

I have explained my position on it, I wouldn't know what else to say. As I mentioned before, to each their own, including gay marrage. I will certainly debate you...but I believe I explained it all. Thank you for the response

[Captain Chaos]

Anything can be rationalized.

No matter how much rationalization goes into denying homosexuals of marriage to each other, I believe the underlying motivation is religious hatred of homosexuality.

Yet one more bad thing about conservative religion.

[Fonceai]

Why blame religion?

Plenty of people hate gays and it has nothing to do with religion.

[dilligras]

Quote by: JohnMK If people of all persuasions had been allowed (say, for the last 2000 years) to legally marry and furthermore to do so without social reprobation (at least in coupling), perhaps a grand tradition and precedent of longer-term relationships might have arisen amongst homosexuals.

Perhaps, perhaps not.........pure conjecture, however, rather than a valid reflection of reality, evidencing a grasp of either "sociological phenomenon" or logical debate.

Your observation, and the implication that you're taking from it, evidence your ignorance of sociological phenomenon.

Implication? Me? I'm honored that you consider me capable of perceiving such subtleties, steeped in ignorace as I am.

The fact that you don't bother raising the issue of equal protection and application of the law is, however, far more disappointing.

Sorry to disappoint, but I had no idea that I was expected to comment on every single facet of an issue before posting. But now that you've asked, I will glady do so.

I told my gay golf buddy awhile back that he should sue under exactly that provision of the Constitution, because if a man and woman can be deemed as married under common law, simply by cohabitating and declaring a spousal relationship, then it is illegal to deny that ability on the basis of gender alone. It is discriminatory to do so, by any standard not involving religious belief.

In other words, if you want to get married in a church, abide by their rules; otherwise a judge or ship's captain should be sufficient to the task.

And no, I don't buy Bill O'Reilly's position that the equal application rule would apply to those other abnormalities, like bestiality and polygamy, just because one may find relief there for gays seeking to publicly declare their unions.



-----

Quote by: dilligras My gay friends and I have an understanding: They don't hit on me and I don't hit them. ... We occasionally argue about one thing or another relating to their lifestyle choices, (when we discuss it at all) but few will deny that it is neither safe nor healthy, when viewed under the klieg lights of stark reality. Whatever it is that dilligras' supposed "gay friends" do, is not a valid argument against anyone's "lifestyle choices" but their own, if even theirs.

Nor did I suggest otherwise. Your writing belies the inference of an ignorance of the language that your "argument" would suggest, however, so I will eschew the claim of a shortcoming of reading comprehension on your part--leaving me only with the inescapable conclusion that, malice aside, you naturally tend toward the argument of straw.

This vacuous discourse about (male) homosexuality as an unhealthy lifestyle is what I refer to as the framing of homosexuality.

Vacuous discourse? Gee, I love that kinda talk. But could you raise the level of condescension just a bit?

If you could, I would be forever in your debt, as I am struggling with my own delusions of intellectual self-importance and would greatly appreciate any assistance you may provide in that regard.

The indiscriminate reference to individual instances of homosexuality in terms of "lifestyle" enforces a conceptual marriage between two logically separable frames of reference: (1) individual homosexual acts and individual homosexual relationships and (2) some supposedly uniform "homosexual lifestyle."N This kind of spin is designed to distort people's perception of what is actually referred to by words like "gay," "homosexual," etc, because these general-reference words are used as synonymous with spesific subcultural conditions like "gay culture."

Ooooo, very nice. I find your use of tropologous verbosity quite amusing, albeit somewhat obtuse in its design.

Indiscriminate reference? I object to this characterization, as all my references are highly discriminating, my spindifferously oppugnant messenger of discord.

I mentioned no individual or specific acts, in an attempt to generalize from the specific, which, if I interpret your musings correctly, is your charge.

But in the interest of clarity, subjugating propriety, I will only say that my mention of the gay lifestyle's inherent dangers reference only current realities, vis a vis AIDS and its likely appearance in the lives of those who insist on the indiscriminate release of ejaculates into each other's hirsute nether regions.

To attempt to censor with ridicule, by complaining that one unfairly warns of this deadly likelyhood when pointing to a few cases, is to pervert logical argument in a desparate ploy to support the unsupportable with what can best be described as blatant, ideologically driven propaganda.

There is more than one way to foist selfishly motivated agendas on a public whose senses are dulled by a litany of leftist absurdities, eh, Myrtle?

"Gay culture" is logically other than "homosexuality" and only a fraction of homosexual practices ever occur in contexts which could reasonably be referred to as a standard lifestyle. Statements about gay culture (whatever that is) are never rationally acceptable as statements about homosexuality.

Surely, you jest. I think one could fairly say that "gay" and "homosexual" have EXACTLY the same meanings, simply because the community itself absconded with the word "gay", as a more desireable epithet than "queer", which was in common use at the time. Maybe you can sell that crap of yours to someone who wasn't around when it happened, but as for me, you may ring up a "no sale" on your Malibu Barbie Bikini Boutique cash register, 'cause I ain't buying anything from your flea market.

The confusion about frames of reference in anti-homosexual discourse is what allows people like dilligras to pretend that idle references to some unspecified "lifestyle choices" made by "gay friends" constitute a valid argument against homosexuality as such regardless of the specific expression it assumes.

People like me? My, my. aren't we the aloof and superior moderator of what is real and what is pretense?

If you can back up the spinmobile several leagues, you'll notice that I never used the reference to my friends as proof of anything. I make my argument against the safety of anal sex based solely on its likely transmission of disease..........or will you now postulate that homosexuals are not the overwhelming victims of AIDS because of their proclivity toward such behavior?

Oh wait.............but the fact of disproportionate levels of this deadly disease among gays proves nothing about any specific person, so it is to be discounted as irrelevant to any discussion of the "lifestyle", is that how the logic goes?

However, saying that the "lifestyle choices" made by a certain group of homosexuals are "unhealthy" is not a rationally acceptable description about homosexuality in general. That sexually transmitted deseases are not transmitted from one healthy male to another healthy male in a monogamous relationship remains a biological fact unchallenged by dilligras' loose references to the choices made by his "gay friends."

Yes, it appears that IS how the logic goes.

And your argument that disease is not spread by healthy people is made entirely of straw, since no one here ever suggested such. I did mention my friends acknowledgement that, as a group, they tend not to stay in one relationship very long, usually a year or two at most. No doubt there are some who do, but by and large, they constitute the pitiful minority of those willing to forgo the "soap opera" that results so often from unmitigated self-indulgence.

And men, gay or no, are nothing if not self-indulgent. Alas, I speak with authority on this, rest assured.



As you were.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonceai Why blame religion? Plenty of people hate gays and it has nothing to do with religion.

Because the major religions are strongly against homosexuality, and that drives the hatred. It is not the only cause, but it is still a driving factor.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Dilligras Vacuous discourse? Gee, I love that kinda talk. But could you raise the level of condescension just a bit? If you could, I would be forever in your debt, as I am struggling with my own delusions of intellectual self-importance and would greatly appreciate any assistance you may provide in that regard.

LOL!

[Lotharia]

Marriage is something that is defined by its society. It's about time for this society to revise the definition.

[namguy69]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Anything can be rationalized. No matter how much rationalization goes into denying homosexuals of marriage to each other, I believe the underlying motivation is religious hatred of homosexuality. Yet one more bad thing about conservative religion.

Why do they hate it?