Homosexual Marriage

[dilligras]

Depending on condoms is like inviting terrorists to live in your neighborhood:

You may get along fine for quite a while, but it only takes one mistake to kill you.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: dilligras Exactly so! I recommend it for ALL my friends, gay or straight. Thank you for noticing. [Token reference to thread topic to placate PH] The people who benefit most from gay marriage are gays who thereby increase their odds of avoiding infection, and divorce lawyers (for reasons so obvious as to make redundant their mention). [/Token reference to thread topic to placate PH] .

So you are for gay marraige? Wonderful! Finally, we have reached the point of agreement on the actual topic of this thread.

And as for me and my gay friends, most of our relationships are monagamous, and last up to 6 months to 3 years. While that might not seem long, most "living together" relationships I see usually end because of the barrier they reach concerning legal ownership(guess what might solve that issue!).

Depending on condoms is like inviting terrorists to live in your neighborhood: You may get along fine for quite a while, but it only takes one mistake to kill you.

You'd have to be pretty stupid/ignorant/careless to make a mistake, but w/e.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Zinkovich So you are for gay marraige?

Haven't you been listening? Go back and read post #3356, then report back here to grovel, prostrate before my liberal aura.

From the post:

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.

Wonderful! Finally, we have reached the point of agreement on the actual topic of this thread.

As if the goal here is to agree on anything. Besides, where's the fun in that?

And as for me and my gay friends, most of our relationships are monagamous, and last up to 6 months to 3 years. While that might not seem long, most "living together" relationships I see usually end because of the barrier they reach concerning legal ownership(guess what might solve that issue!).

Anecdotal evidence? I have one friend who has lived with the same partner for 3 or 4 years, I think, but they have not been monogomous, so I don't think it counts for much.

But that says little about the group as a whole either, does it?

Need I remind us that one cannot logically generalize from a few specifics to reach a correct conclusion about the whole?

Apparently, I need.

You'd have to be pretty stupid/ignorant/careless to make a mistake, but w/e.

Obviously, you do not adhere to the belief that stupidity, ignorance, and carelessness are the singular domain of man? And the overwhelming evidence throughout history to the contrary is to be completely ignored?

Is logic just another thing to pervert for agenda? Do the Darwin Awards not speak volumes?


Ludicrous on the face of it.


.

[Zinkovich]

As if the goal here is to agree on anything. Besides, where's the fun in that?

Sorry, not to agree. To reach understanding. Your future posts obsfucated the context of your position through connotation, making it difficult for me to see where you stand.

So I continued to pester you, and now I understand where you're coming from. Isn't that a good thing?

Anecdotal evidence? I have one friend who has lived with the same partner for 3 or 4 years, I think, but they have not been monogomous, so I don't think it counts for much. But that says little about the group as a whole either, does it? Need I remind us that one cannot logically generalize from a few specifics to reach a correct conclusion about the whole? Apparently, I need.

I was posting it not to indicate anything about homosexuals as a whole, but about to say something about me and my friends as homosexuals.

Because I know that me and my friends exist as monogamous homosexuals, I know that the possibility of homosexuals being monomagous exists in the first place. I was trying to demonstrate that homosexuality is not hopeless when it comes to becoming a less promiscuous "lifestyle" for some adherents.

Obviously, you do not adhere to the belief that stupidity, ignorance, and carelessness are the singular domain of man? And the overwhelming evidence throughout history to the contrary is to be completely ignored? Is logic just another thing to pervert for agenda? Do the Darwin Awards not speak volumes?

Should those who do not do things stupidly, be discounted as legitimate examples of what could be if those who were ignorant were not so about certain issues?

My post does not serve as a denouncement or a denial of the existence of the ignorant and stupid, but as a nod to their potential to no longer be so if they were to be properly educated by society and properly pressured to protect themselves correctly by both their peers and by popular culture.

What we should not do is allow them to stew in further ignorance. They must be educated on correct methods of protection, instead of JUST being told that avoiding sex altogether would be the optimal method of doing things.

[Frank_Wolcott]

I have a proposition to make. Homosexual marriage is considered a highly controversial topic (or so it seems.) The issue is that of marriage rights recognized by the state or government. Are these considered the rights of the individual as well as a group of persons? And if so, could this issue have a precedent of equal nature with which we could judge the benefits or detriments of? I speak of the civil rights of issues of the 1950s. At that time, the rapid integration of an ethnic group into a society with which they were previously not identified with caused great political and social upheavel. I believe that homosexual marriage also ascribes to this same line of thought. I believe that we must judge what the worst outcome could be (via said precedent) in order to determine the viability of a movements such as this. I recognize that each contrasts differnces that would not make this an entirely plausible idea. However, this is a social/political movement that involves a certain minority group. This also involves such a minority group deriving government benefits from such an action. It is also based upon the individuals ethical stance (or so it would seem).

For the record, I have no moral or political objection to homosexual marriage.
I would greatly appreciate someones thoughts upon my philosophy. Thank you for your future input.

[dilligras]

BTW, Mr. Zinkovich, I would be greatly idebted to you if you would allow me to consider you another of my gay friends, as some here are apparently under the impression that such a phenomenon is to be viewed as unverifiable, and thus improbable.

I find such skepticism simultateously understandable and ironic, given that, as I type, my cross-dressing Dr. of Optometry next door neighbor plays Christmas carols on his baby grand piano. The mood is quite festive around this small apartment today.

Merry Christmas, to all.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: Frank_Wolcott I have a proposition to make. Homosexual marriage is considered a highly controversial topic (or so it seems.) The issue is that of marriage rights recognized by the state or government. Are these considered the rights of the individual as well as a group of persons? And if so, could this issue have a precedent of equal nature with which we could judge the benefits or detriments of? I speak of the civil rights of issues of the 1950s. At that time, the rapid integration of an ethnic group into a society with which they were previously not identified with caused great political and social upheavel. I believe that homosexual marriage also ascribes to this same line of thought. I believe that we must judge what the worst outcome could be (via said precedent) in order to determine the viability of a movements such as this. I recognize that each contrasts differnces that would not make this an entirely plausible idea. However, this is a social/political movement that involves a certain minority group. This also involves such a minority group deriving government benefits from such an action. It is also based upon the individuals ethical stance (or so it would seem). For the record, I have no moral or political objection to homosexual marriage. I would greatly appreciate someones thoughts upon my philosophy. Thank you for your future input.

The negative connotation does not exist for as large of a majority as it did in the issue of blacks in the fifties and sixties. Keeping this in mind, while I do think it might cause upheaval, it would not be anywhere near significant as the upheaval during Martin Luther King Jr's march for rights.

Also, keep in mind the prejudice towards homosexuals is much too subtle and much less barbaric than the one towards blacks were. I am sure if homosexual marraige were to be legalized, there would not be, for example, the lighting on fire of homosexual bars while the police do nothing(like there definately was for black communities and churches in the 50's and 60's). All truly significant actions by the opposition would probably occur on the political and legal level, by my opinion.

At least, I hope so. I hope we have moved beyond the barbaric prejudicial response of the 50's and 60's. I, at least, don't see it.

[Frank_Wolcott]

What has been said against legalizing homosexual marriage so far? In my ignorance, I see it as simply a couple choosing to solidify their bond together in some sort of ceremony. I see nothing wrong with this. Even if you don't agree that homosexual marriage is right, I do not think that you should prevent two people from expressing their love for one another. One might say that by that logic, I could say that we should not prevent something if we think it is not right. However, any sane person would see that this is an act of LOVE not war, violence, hatred, or otherwise. The last thing the world needs is the legal suppression of love.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: dilligras BTW, Mr. Zinkovich, I would be greatly idebted to you if you would allow me to consider you another of my gay friends, as some here are apparently under the impression that such a phenomenon is to be viewed as unverifiable, and thus improbable.

I don't know you personally. Sorry, maybe you can call me a "homosexual internet acquaintance", instead, if you wish to use me as an example.

No offense. I'm just rather specific in my usage of the word "friend" because I fear devaluing the concept of friendship.

I find such skepticism simultateously understandable and ironic, given that, as I type, my cross-dressing Dr. of Optometry next door neighbor plays Christmas carols on his baby grand piano. The mood is quite festive around this small apartment today. Merry Christmas, to all.

One thing about people is that they like to feel incredible. Given this, it is unsurprising that the existence of some persons may be hard to believe to those of us who do not know them(Hell, some pirates were thought of as myths until certian historical discoveries were made- for example, did you know blackbeard used ot light these cannon-fuse type things on the side of his beard to generate smoke around his person during battle? Madness!).

That said, you cannot expect others to necessarily trust your anecdotal experiences as indications of broader attitudes(much less trust it for tis degree of truth or falsity at all). Now then, I think your experience can perhaps be taken as indicicative of a minor attitude amongst your immediate group that has the potential to become a major one, but not necessarily as a majority. The state of majorities lies within the intellectual realm of sociological study rather than personal experience, hence my earlier studies/reports.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Zinkovich Sorry, not to agree. To reach understanding. Your future posts obsfucated the context of your position through connotation, making it difficult for me to see where you stand.

I'm sorry, I can't make heads nor tails of this.......my apologies for being obtuse, but how could a "future post" be known to do anything? Connotation?


"Speak up!..........ah say quit mumblin', boy......ah cain't heah a thing while you're under that four-legged chicken, son....."[/Foghorn Leghorn]

So I continued to pester you, and now I understand where you're coming from. Isn't that a good thing?

Well, its not bad, but that isn't how I define good. It's about a 3.5 on the exite-o-meter.

For perspective on that value, let me say that my standard response to the question, "how are you?" is, "about an 8.5", and that a 10 would involve something like winning the lottery that I don't play while simultaneously reaching orgasm.

I was posting it not to indicate anything about homosexuals as a whole, but about to say something about me and my friends as homosexuals. Because I know that me and my friends exist as monogamous homosexuals, I know that the possibility of homosexuals being monomagous exists in the first place. I was trying to demonstrate that homosexuality is not hopeless when it comes to becoming a less promiscuous "lifestyle" for some adherents.

Don't be silly, who would ever question the probable existance of monogamy among any sexual orientation? Sex is, after all, all about attraction, which intuitively promotes adherence. I never would infer such improvement was immpossible, so demonstrating otherwise is unnecessary, though not particulary objectionable. Just not very profound, given what is at stake for those not among the "improved" sector of the population.

Should those who do not do things stupidly, be discounted as legitimate examples of what could be if those who were ignorant were not so about certain issues?

I was not only referring to misuse of condoms (or non-use) but also to the fact that even if they are used correctly in every instance of exposure, they are anything but inherently reliable as a barrier to pregnancy for heteros, right? Then it cannot be considered reasonable to expect a perfect product when the consequence might be the taking of life, rather than the mere invonvenience of creating one.

My post does not serve as a denouncement or a denial of the existence of the ignorant and stupid, but as a nod to their potential to no longer be so if they were to be properly educated by society and properly pressured to protect themselves correctly by both their peers and by popular culture. What we should not do is allow them to stew in further ignorance. They must be educated on correct methods of protection, instead of JUST being told that avoiding sex altogether would be the optimal method of doing things.

A laudable motive, I agree. It is only the method's apparent ignorance of the realities of human behavior, with so much at risk, that is the problem for me.



.

[Zinkovich]

I'm sorry, I can't make heads nor tails of this.......my apologies for being obtuse, but how could a "future post" be known to do anything? Connotation?

When you started going on about "lefty" media and homosexual "lifestyles", I wan't sure if your previous post was an honest one or one that served as a "hey, I'm reasonable" segue into you making yourself look like you understand where gays are coming from.

Nothing against you, I do it a lot. Ever since I read my first Worldnetdaily article(or was it my first freerepublic post?) I've been a bit paranoid when it comes to one's true honesty on where they intellectually stand.

Well, its not bad, but that isn't how I define good. It's about a 3.5 on the exite-o-meter. For perspective on that value, let me say that my standard response to the question, "how are you?" is, "about an 8.5", and that a 10 would involve something like winning the lottery that I don't play while simultaneously reaching orgasm.

Jesus, you have high standards. My 10 is "drinking tea while watching Heroes and reading my books during commercials". Perhaps I need to raise my standards a bit.

Don't be silly, who would ever question the probable existance of monogamy among any sexual orientation? Sex is, after all, all about attraction, which intuitively promotes adherence. I never would infer such improvement was immpossible, so demonstrating otherwise is unnecessary, though not particulary objectionable. Just not very profound, given what is at stake for those not among the "improved" sector of the population.

The best way to make sure the ignorant are not "at stake" is to make them no longer ignorant, rather than attaching culture negativities to those who are not ignorant but also fall under the group being impersonified as an example of this "promiscuity".

And no, I am not saying you are the one doing such a thing, necessarily. What I am instead saying is that is what is currently being done on the cultural level by the some of those who are politicially "right".

I was not only referring to misuse of condoms (or non-use) but also to the fact that even if they are used correctly in every instance of exposure, they are anything but inherently reliable as a barrier to pregnancy for heteros, right? Then it cannot be considered reasonable to expect a perfect product when the consequence might be the taking of life, rather than the mere invonvenience of creating one.

Most studies show the failure rate to average one percent. Fluid transmission, when used correctly, is downright nonexistant as well. I have already posted studies to demonstrate this as the accepted conclusion amongst those who do deal statistical majorities in terms of experience.

That being said, with improvements in manufacturing and design we will someday likely reach a point where the chance actually does go down to zero. Research is, in fact, currently being done in attempts to do so.

A laudable motive, I agree. It is only the method's apparent ignorance of the realities of human behavior, with so much at risk, that is the problem for me.

If someone has sex with an HIV infected person and wears a condom, they will most likely not catch the HIV infection. Keeping this in mind, educating people about condoms and encouraging widespread us will lower the stakes, while abstinence woold simply ask them to ignore the ability of them to "take bets"(which in and of itself is something that ignores human behavior).

-Edit for removal of obscenity for fear of moderation reprisal and for my horrific sentence structure.

[dilligras]

I think a more equitable solution, given the religious connotations tied to the word "marriage", would be to press for equity under the law using some other term and ensuring that any benefit under the law to a hetero couple is also available to a homo one, no matter what it's called.

I see no need to illogically confront an already antagonistic majority, possibly causing a whiplash reaction that can only divide our countrymen further.

Why not do what works, instead of insisting on hard headed, in-your-face confrontation?

Why promote hate, when love will do so much more?

Can selfish need for justification of one's abnormal choices outweigh a desire for cooperative change?

Why antagonize needlessly, thereby lessening the sense of community in our society?

Alas, the Gay Pride parades do not portend well in this regard.


.

[Zinkovich]

Silence does not allow for chance. Meekness only allows for further establishment of the current bleak situation concenring mutual understanding.

That being siad, gay pride parades do seem to show a distinct lack of tact and respect.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Zinkovich Silence does not allow for chance. Meekness only allows for further establishment of the current bleak situation concenring mutual understanding.

You lost me again on the first epitaph....and it is not out of meekness that I implore cooperation, but rather a sense that the world would be a much better place for all, if we could only be so considerate of each other's space as to not go out of our way to antagonize.

That some do so from a position of inferior number, seems masochistic, if not suicidal.

Rather to cajole with appeal to reason and fairness from such a position, than to bite the ankle, daring the club to one's head, n'est pas?

That being siad, gay pride parades do seem to show a distinct lack of tact and respect.

I knew there was hope for you.

[samsara15]

dilligras: What is an abnormal choice? I'm hetro, yet there are those out there who would ban some relatively commonplace hetro practices as abnormal as well. Oral sex, anal sex, and so forth. How far should a society bend to favor the intolerant?

[dilligras]

Quote by: samsara15 dilligras: What is an abnormal choice? I'm hetro, yet there are those out there who would ban some relatively commonplace hetro practices as abnormal as well. Oral sex, anal sex, and so forth. How far should a society bend to favor the intolerant?

"Abnormal" is any behavior that deviates from the norm, which is a statistically derived value, not a morally derived one. In that gays make up less than 3% of the population, it is an accurate term for that behavior.

I don't have access to any statistics on the breakdown of any particular sex acts or the "and so forth" you mention, and of course one does not need to be gay in order to engage in homosexual acts--just as one need not be hetero to have sex with their opposite number.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: samsara15 dilligras: What is an abnormal choice? I'm hetro, yet there are those out there who would ban some relatively commonplace hetro practices as abnormal as well. Oral sex, anal sex, and so forth. How far should a society bend to favor the intolerant?

How far should a society bend to favor deviant behavior?

I'm not seeing this as intolerant. I see it as being cautious.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe How far should a society bend to favor deviant behavior? I'm not seeing this as intolerant. I see it as being cautious.

If they are not harming others, society does not need to worry about it - for the most part. If two guys wanna do each other up the bum, then that is an issue that comes between them and their bums. Society only needs to worry about it when dangerous sexual practices start spreading disease.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: dilligras "Abnormal" is any behavior that deviates from the norm, which is a statistically derived value, not a morally derived one. In that gays make up less than 3% of the population, it is an accurate term for that behavior. I don't have access to any statistics on the breakdown of any particular sex acts or the "and so forth" you mention, and of course one does not need to be gay in order to engage in homosexual acts--just as one need not be hetero to have sex with their opposite number.

I disagree. Abnormal is only appropriate if you look at the denotation of the word. Abnormal also carries a connotation of something being harmful. If I were to say "redheads are abnormal" it would come across as implying that there is something wrong with redheads. That would be an unfair statement.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Captain Chaos I disagree. Abnormal is only appropriate if you look at the denotation of the word. Abnormal also carries a connotation of something being harmful. If I were to say "redheads are abnormal" it would come across as implying that there is something wrong with redheads. That would be an unfair statement.

Well, I can't be held responsible for negative connotations another MIGHT infer from an accurately used word that describes a deviance from a norm. Oops!! There's that word, "deviance"! I just can't seem to get away from sounding critical, eh?

Too bad.

If you have other words that have the same overtly succinct meanings, without the "negative" connotations, please, by the mighty halls of Valhalla, enlighten your beleaguered servant, that I might finally achieve that most cherished condition known as tolerance.

And to refute your cl