2009-10-18, 03:32 | Link #81 | |
blinded by blood
Author
|
Quote:
What is now termed a legal "marriage" in America should be renamed a "civil union," regardless of whether it is for a hetero- or homosexual couple. The argument against gay marriage in the US is almost wholly built upon the definition and the ownership of the word "marriage." If the government were to relinquish ownership of the word, the religious nutcases wouldn't have a leg to stand on, and more states would be able to allow gay and lesbian couples the same rights and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy. Edit: And I just want to add, the whole "choice vs. no-choice" argument is wholly defeatist. It doesn't matter. Even if it was a choice, it's wrong for people to forcibly impose their will upon others. You know, maybe I like sleeping with other girls. It's not like I have to do it in order to continue to live. I could choose to have sex with men (and hate it) or choose not to have sex at all! But I choose to live the way I want to live. My lifestyle doesn't hurt anyone or intrude upon anyone. To violently force me to live otherwise is, on so many levels, just fucking wrong.
__________________
|
|
2009-10-18, 05:46 | Link #82 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
|
Quote:
(but still not in Alabama) But yeah, laws vary widely by state. And while Iowa allows same-sex marriage, it was not put up to a vote, unlike California where it was legal for a while until enough there was enough pressure to form and pass Prop 8. In fact: "Iowa legislators hurried to pass a local Defense of Marriage Act to prohibit marriage between gay and lesbian couples to avoid a similar court challenge." It's only because of the ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court that it's still legal. But there are idiosyncrasies even within each state. Even Iowa does not look so progressive when you see how Chris Handley is facing up to 20 years in prison just for buying "obscene" manga Quote:
I don't know any Dutch but maybe the language uses a more accurate and gender neutral term by using the "homo" prefix to refer to homosexuality which may be why you don't have that male/female split perception in the first place. Quote:
Quote:
In fact, it's only very recently in the last couple of years that many states have explicitly banned same-sex marriage by amending their state constitution in reaction to Massachusetts' legalization of same-sex marriage (then subsequently legalized in Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and will be in New Hampshire next year). But even without the issue of same sex marriage, the issue who gets to marry and the rights of women have been very spotty and downright unconstitutional (federally) IMO in the past and have changed over time. See here. BUT if you actually do the reverse, where you do treat it as a piece of paper and let the people handle however they want to interpret that: Quote:
(Note that this would not mean you can't have tax breaks for having children. They would be treated as 'dependents' as they currently are now for anyone, married or not. You just would not have a different legal status simply by being married nor benifits by law) |
|||||
2009-10-18, 06:03 | Link #83 | |
Protecting the Throne
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Asia Tour
Age: 32
|
Quote:
I think that the family is what composes the basic structure of an individual. Now when you meant puppy love I think that already pertains to those small crushes adolescents have and that is the exact period where most growing individuals would wonder why they don't seem to be fancying members of the opposite sex and instead seem to be crushing on same sex people. That would start around 10 or 11 years old I believe. So that shows that there was plenty of room of raising and lots and lots of experiences that could occur in the earlier 8-10 years of a child. I do not believe that homosexuality is determined solely by genetics only and I really do not plan to dismiss that idea as of now. I would lean more to the environmental factors.
__________________
|
|
2009-10-18, 06:27 | Link #84 | ||
Emotionless White Face
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
edit, in french. Haven't checked if all the infos are exactly the good ones, but must be: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariage..._fran.C3.A7ais You might not be able to understand french, but before saying that the legislation is useless and what not, I hope you will read the informations about it in french or in english, the laws related to it, and try to understand it and how it works. Quote:
Last edited by Narona; 2009-10-18 at 06:54. |
||
2009-10-18, 06:36 | Link #85 | |||
Protecting the Throne
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Asia Tour
Age: 32
|
Quote:
Next, what do you mean by "heterosexual" upbringing or upbringings where heterosexuality is encouraged? Can I ask for some examples? Sorry if I misunderstood but I'm thinking you mean that parents raise their children to be attracted to the opposite sex? When I was in my elementary years, my mom didn't go like "Oh look honey isn't that little boy over there cute? You should talk to him." And about homosexuality being vilified, I'll have to take a statement from someone else who posted in this thread. Parents don't usually bring up discussions regarding homosexuality with their children unless they actually see one with their children. And if whether homosexuals repress or flaunt their true orientation, this points to genetics? Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||
2009-10-18, 08:01 | Link #86 | ||
Disabled By Request
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2009-10-18, 08:42 | Link #88 | ||
Honyaku no Hime
Fansubber
Join Date: May 2008
Location: In the eastern capital of the islands of the rising suns...
|
Quote:
I'm seeing too much of the girl/girl side of things to fully believe its 100% 'born with it' without the environment, incl the media playing a big part in terms of social attitudes, the relaxation of them, the access to more information because of the internet and the desire to 'experiment'. There's too many grey areas to cleary define it almost 100% eitherway. But, that's to be followed up in the sexuality thread if someone wanted to continue off that. However, in an attempt to follow from Vexx's post earlier, please copy your posts (if you don't wish to delete them here) to the relevant threads. Sexuality - For discusson on sexual origin Religion - For various religions and their views on homosexuality. Opening poster mentioned that a thread based off almost the same topic was locked 4 years ago, and I doubt it's gonna be the case because of flaming here, since the GC bunch are respectable for most part, but cause it dips into too many side paths which as I'm seeing is turning into a lot of personal posts between groups of pple. :\ So ideally topics regarding the law of marriages, vs civil union, the definition of marriage within a religious instituion and out for each country around the world or for each state of America would be more apt perhaps? I'm curious to see how the law and homosexuality has developed for other countries in the last 50 years in all honesty and would love to hear from each of you what the local cultural attitudes are like. (As narona mentioned a French example which kinda surprised me to see they view marriages as civil unions for the default, without the religious aspect) Perhaps, that'll also help diffuse some of the tension in here while things go waaaay off track. Quote:
Respecting choices and posts with opposing views or for views, listening and checking out the differences to global views offers a more level playing field that outright have a spat about who's 'right' and who's 'wrong'. Play nice now.
__________________
Last edited by Mystique; 2009-10-18 at 08:59. |
||
2009-10-18, 08:43 | Link #89 | ||
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
Quote:
I highlight this question not to conflate homosexuality with other issues of sexual morality, but to point out that it's not necessarily straightforward to say that homosexuals are merely different from the heterosexual majority. Pro-gay groups are making certain assumptions that aren't always examined closely. And, more on topic, if we already accept that homosexuals are "different", then why should they ask to be treated the same as heterosexuals with respect to "marriage"? They could ask for civil unions — to be legally "married" in the eyes of the state — instead of something closely associated with traditional/religious views of what constitutes a "family". These are questions worth asking, because they lie at the heart of objections from the "conservative" camp. It's ad hominem to paint them as irrational "nutjobs" without seriously considering why they hold their points of view. It's often hypocritical to verbally attack people who don't support gay behaviour and same-sex marriage for being "narrow-minded bigots". When it comes to things that we firmly believe to be right, would we be anything other than uncompromising in our stand? So, all I ask for is more civility towards those who hold the opposing view — who are, ironically, very much the intimidated minority in this thread. |
||
2009-10-18, 12:34 | Link #90 | ||||||
Disabled By Request
|
Quote:
And now for the punch-line: there exists such a thing as bisexuals. What do you make of that? If that's no word for gray-area, I don't know what is. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
2009-10-18, 13:21 | Link #91 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
Which is why I say fine. Let's reserve traditional marriage for heterosexual couples and allow churches to deny marrying gay couples, which they can already do. AND let's remove marriage from being a function of the state to be function of the church. By doing so, we also remove all of these legal benefits reserved only for heterosexual couples in most states today, IF we cannot grant them to homosexual couples as well. While everyone is different, the law isn't supposed to be concerned about that (especially at the federal level which can override state). At a fundamental level of the US constitution and Bill of rights, it just cares about granting equal rights and privileges and limits what government can do, of which some say we have strayed very far from. For everything else, the law don't treat homosexual people, nor people of various gender, age, or race any differently. So why do so when it comes to marriage? Note that this does not mean that the law requires people view each other equally. You simply must grant people certain rights without discrimination. But you still have very much the right to preach to the public on the evils homosexuality. The law grants everyone the right to point fingers at everyone else saying they're gonna go to hell. Quote:
To address the other part about reasons behind such legislation, I suppose it's different in France. Here, there's really no psychological concerns, or concern for being "fit to be parents" (which sort of makes sense to me since it's possible to be married without ever having children too). I mean in the US, anyone can get married--mentally unstable, homeless (no offense), criminals, whoever--as long as they're straight. Quote:
|
||||
2009-10-18, 13:22 | Link #92 | |
Shameless Fangirl
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 34
|
Quote:
If someone believes killing people for personal gain is right, I can refrain from insulting them, but it doesn't make me a hypocrite if I do or simply get annoyed at them. Likewise, I don't randomly throw insults at people who believe that men are stupid, women should do nothing but bear children or that gay people are sinful; but if I did, "hypocrite" would not be the word that applies. I regard asexuality as another prove that in most cases, you can't change your sexual orientation. There are a lot of asexuals who thought something was wrong with them and tired to "fix" it, but what they learned in the end was that that's just how they are, and that as long as they are happy, that's perfectly all right. A sexual orientation is not a morally relevant factor, and therefore, heterosexuals and homosexuals should be treated the same as long as there is no other morally relevant difference. If there are Christian gay communities, let them have their own branch of the religion if you must, but let them marry in church. It's not like the bible doesn't get constantly interpreted differently already.
__________________
|
|
2009-10-18, 14:21 | Link #93 |
✖ ǝʇ ɯıqnɾl ☆
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mortuary : D
|
People are social animals, we have been existing together for survival even before creation of society . We still have the reminiscent of that herd mentality . Marriage in its earliest form was a just a union for existence (reproduction and survival) . Marriage was more of an understanding or in the most basic vulgar way marking your territory . Marriage became a social process of sorts with the creation of society . Marriage became a union of two souls in the presence /approval of eyes a deity . Over the period of time the religious aspect/ritual of marriage became a lot stricter . But in core it was a union of two souls . The highest authority or law in ancient times has always been the deity at that time . That still lingers in our psyche, either for the sole reason of approval from a higher power or traditional aspect of it . When two people form that union and decide to spend a large part of there lives together . Irrespective if they are married or not it doesn't belittle the emotions involved or love . Marriage in modern times is associated more with ritual / tradition than the religious aspect of it . Marriage also sets in approval of the couple in eyes of society . So process of marriage religious or legal in just a elaborate ritual to elevate the love two people share . Marriages doesn't increase loves between couples it actually decreases it . With marriage, partners take each other for granted ... and thats just dulls out the fireworks IMO . So why is marriage such an important issue for same sex couples ??? . They are madly in love so being married or not doesn't change anything . Same sex couples have always existed on the fringes of society due to there orientation . For once they want to be accepted for who they are . Marriage is a ticket to that ... Refusing marriage of same sex couples is basically an underhanded way of displaying unapproval of there orientation and union . Live and Let Live should have been the motto in these troubled times . But we just cant be happy for people as they are . We have to insult there love/bond/union by denying social acceptance / religious acceptance or at times both when it comes to marriage .
__________________
Last edited by Zu Ra; 2009-10-18 at 14:34. |
2009-10-18, 14:34 | Link #94 | ||
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
It always important to remember that there is nothing intrinsically right about believing that homosexual sex is normal and that homosexuals are just people with different sexual preferences. As you've pointed out yourself, it's merely another point of view, one that has gained increasing popularity in today's "liberal" society — which is why it's not completely wrong for some Christians to claim that their views are being violently silenced by a strident pro-gay agenda. One only needs to look at the kind of verbal abuse being hurled at conservative "anti-gay" groups to see why they feel as though they are under siege. When considering debates over morality, it's critical to be aware of the different axioms that lead to the different sets of beliefs that each individual holds dear. It's as easy to attack the assumptions of the pro-gay camp as it is to ridicule the so-called "outdated" views of traditional/religious people. Or, to put it another way, why is it necessarily "progressive" to adopt a pro-gay agenda? In the view of conservative people, such an agenda would be regressive instead. To me, the concept of "harm" lies at the heart of any debate over morality. An act of evil is something that causes harm to an individual or a group of people. Yet "harm" itself is a word that is in dire need of a stronger definition. What must happen before harm is rendered? In the eyes of the law, "harm" extends beyond just physical damage and includes intangible damage as well, such as to mental well-being or a person's reputation, to name but a few examples. So, when homosexual people attempt to adopt traditional institutions, such as "marriage", it's not hard to see why they would inevitably offend many people. Just like how they view homosexuality to be a perversion of human nature, conservatives view the granting of marriage to same-sex couples as a perversion of a cultural tradition that sanctifies the union between a man and a woman. Therefore, such people cannot simply sit idly by and allow a minority group to cause damage — harm — to their way of life. We are fond of saying that we shouldn't impose our ways of life on other people. Well, if you think about it from the other point of view, you could say that pro-gay groups are attempting to force their values on the heterosexual majority. Hence the potential ugliness that such debates can arouse. Quote:
Seriously, how often do you see atheists or agnostics giving religiously-inspired beliefs fair say? As we've already seen in such threads on this forum, it has become a norm to attack religious people for being deluded, and therefore not "rational" (hur hur hur, they believe in entities that can't be empirically proven to exist, therefore they must be mad). All this is not to say that I necessarily agree with the conservative view against homosexuality and same-sex marriage. It is, however, my attempt to show that while I may not agree with what they say, I will staunchly defend their right to say it. |
||
2009-10-18, 15:03 | Link #95 | |||
Shameless Fangirl
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 34
|
Quote:
Quote:
If I don't believe in it, then there's not much room for discussion. The Christian (and not all Christians think being homosexual is a sin, by the way) will say that that's how God wanted it, and I will say that if there is no God, then he can't have wanted it that way. And then we will get into a religious debate on how likely it is that Christianity is right. Quote:
Hm... but I wonder... how can you defend this "hate the sin but not the person" thing when the bible states you should murder homosexuals? And if you don't take it literally, then how can you be sure homosexuality is a sin at all?
__________________
|
|||
2009-10-18, 15:03 | Link #96 |
blinded by blood
Author
|
They can say whatever they want.
They cannot legislate it though. And seriously, they cannot possibly argue from the same basis as we can. The LGBT community is hardly championing laws and constitutional amendments that would prevent heterosexual people from getting hitched. That would be intruding upon their lifestyle. I don't know a single lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered person who would believe banning heterosexual marriage was anything but lunacy. But it's pretty easy for the other side to accept taking our rights away. Very fair and impartial, don't you think? Like I said, they can say what they want. They just can't legislate it.
__________________
|
2009-10-18, 15:25 | Link #97 |
Disabled By Request
|
To them, it may be a perversion of nature, but only because they were taught by a book written 2 millennia before they were even born (one that's been butchered beyond recognition over time, if I may say so). The problem with religion is that a lot of things just don't hold out within modern civilization where there are so many things whose concept was never even imagined when the bible was written. Homosexuality has existed for a very long time and, despite what I said earlier, there is _some_ scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic. By definition, that is entirely natural. In other words, to a Christian, God's perfect creation came out wrong.
I think it depends entirely on what their Point of View of what is natural and what isn't. I can understand why they believe it's more natural for a man and a woman to unite (without having to mention the specifics), but when you have scientific proof regarding homosexuality, that also can't be diregarded as natural. But then again, we all know how science and religion have always been at odds over many things, like evolution and the shape of the universe, but that's a discussion for another time. My point is, religion is but one gargantuan point of view for masses who, over the course of history, have needed a certain source with which to form their own opinion. The fact of the matter is, the bible or any religious text is no longer the sole source of information on which an individual can create their point of view. Considering the hyper speed at which information goes around the world today, people can compare different sources that can come in contrast with the first source. An example is science. Another is what they see with their very own eyes. It is up to the individual to believe which source is more reliable and which one isn't. The problem lies in the fact that there are people who prefer to rely on a single source rather than multiple ones. Conflicts between the church's views and more modern ones have existed all throughout history, like my example of evolution and the center of the universe, the former of which is still being debated today. The problem here, as you suggested, lies in what is considered natural and what isn't. Feelings of love are considered entirely natural, but what gives anyone the right to define love? Love can take as many forms as there are people on the planet, and that's quite a number. One point of view cannot possibly encompass all of those forms, and it rejects the idea that love can exist between people of the same sex because the sexual act should involve a man and woman to promote childbirth. But let me pose this question: if the bible's idea of love is based on the sexual act of intercourse to make children, is it implying that sex defines love? That is but one definition of love in billions, and as things are today, we know that sex can never define love. Just go watch a pr0n flick and you'll see what I mean. Sex is just a feeble action compared to real emotions. Perhaps that is the reason Christians feel they are attacked by the more liberal arguments proposed by modern society. The writings of the bible never took account of the great amount of change that occurred since its inception. That is why some people believe it is progressive thinking to act in favor of this change of outlook. The bible, being a single point of view shared by a collection of authors, failed to take account of all the different forms love could take. That is why some people believe it is progressive thinking to do such a thing, or try to at any rate. To religious hardliners, it can be deemed as regressive thinking because it goes against their idea of nature, but that was at a time when science was hardly able to explain the wonders of the world. I agree that an act of evil is an action that causes harm to an individual or a group of people, but what makes harm inherently evil is deliberate harm, not accidental or perceived harm. When homosexual couples attempt to adopt these traditional values of marriage that you speak of, I honestly believe they have every right to do so. After all, is it not the bible itself that promotes every human being should be treated as equal? Or was God lying when it said everyone is equal beneath the eyes of the Lord? The only reason religious hardliners are offended is because they want to be offended by other people's actions which they perceive to be unnatural and thus harmful to their way of life. Gay couples do not want to get married to attack other people's point of view, but because they love each other. That is not deliberate and thus cannot be classified as evil. Like I said before, the bible states that the natural union of marriage is between man and woman for the purpose of childbirth. But like I said, childbirth (hence sex) is not the sole definition of love. It is but one in billions. The majority group, therefore, only considers their actions harmful simply because they let it be harmful to their way of life. Realistically speaking, it's a marriage between two people who, by the end of the day, have no realistic effect other people's lives. Their marriage isn't killing anyone. Love can never be harmful to anyone. |
2009-10-18, 15:51 | Link #100 |
Shameless Fangirl
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 34
|
Leviticus 18:22 - "And if a man lies with mankind as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
@Yoko Takeo: Nice posting, by the way. Even though a consequentialist would argue that something can be evil even if it wasn't intended to be harmful. For example, if someone believes they are saving my soul by burning me, I would still consider the act very much evil due to a failure regarding epistemic duty.
__________________
|
Tags |
discussion, homosexuality, human rights |
|
|