|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Harm in Homosexuality? | |||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes responds to The Dread Dormammu:
quote:quote: Um, surely you're not suggesting that gay people made a simple choice to be gay, are you? A soldier chose to be in the military knowing full well that he might be sent off to war, that he will have his life strictly regimented, and that quite possibly he will be asked to do something he wouldn't normally do. Asking gay people to "curb their behaviour" that everybody else is allowed to do and is a seemingly important part of the typical person's psyche does cause them direct harm. "We're very sorry you like to breathe, but we've decided that the oxygen is only for us."
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? You make it sound like being gay is akin to having a craving for potato chips. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes writes:
quote: Excuse me? When has begging ever been productive when it comes to rights? Those in power will only bestow privilege upon those they consider to be unworthy when they think there won't be any disadvantage to them to do so. We had to fight a war when it came to race. Women had to be locked up in prison and go on hunger strikes to get the vote. Rights have always had to be fought for and forced upon those who cannot stand the thought of giving those rights to others. If you could convince the other side that they're wrong just by talking to them, then there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
quote: "Separate but equal." I thought you said you were desperate to get your rights. Since separate but equal doesn't get you your rights, why are you fighting for it? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes writes:
quote: You need to look at the voting results again and view them in context. The only state in this election cycle that had any actual resistance to the anti-marriage amendment was Oregon. And it was in Oregon that the statute passed by the slimmest of margins. When the initiative started, the polls said it would pass by 27 points. The campaign against moved those numbers 19 points. It is because people put up a concerted resistance that people changed their minds.
quote: How do you alienate someone who agrees with you? The only way to do that is to find something that you disagree about. If someone claims to be for equality but doesn't want to actually grant it, then he isn't for equality. He wasn't "alienated" because he was never in agreement with you to begin with.
quote: Incorrect. I don't know where you've been getting your information, but you are quite mistaken. The exact opposite occurred. When a concerted effort was made to show the bigotry of the situation, the population changed their minds. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jazzlover_PR responds to pink sasquatch:
quote:quote: Since when? When was it determined that gay people have more anal sex than straight people? First, you seem to be fixated on male homosexuals. Second, you seem to think that just because a person is gay, that somehow makes him more likely to enjoy anal sex than someone who is straight.
quote: But it doesn't make it wrong, either. You need to show that it is wrong. Since the participants who are directly involved don't seem to have a problem with it, why are you throwing a fit?
quote: What does this have to do with homosexuality? Surely you're not saying that gay people carry sexually transmitted diseases that straight people don't, are you? Remember: HIV is a heterosexual disease.
quote:quote: They've been posted here over and over and over again. Go to the World Health Organization (you remember them...they're the ones that wiped out smallpox throughout the world.) Look it up.
quote: Yep. After heterosexual sex comes IV drug use. The two of them together account for over 90% of all cases of HIV infection. And that doesn't even take into account mother-to-child transmission or blood transfusions. It turns out that male-male sexual activity is actually not that big of a vector when it comes to HIV. And, of course, lesbians have the least risk of contracting HIV sexually. So if we're going to give god's blessing based upon whether or not you can catch HIV, then lesbians are the chosen people. As I said before, you seem to be fixated on gay males. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jazzlover_PR writes:
quote: There are at least three logical errors here: First, you are assuming that your personal experience generalizes to the world at large. Second, you are assuming that because the HIV-positive people you know are often gay, then gay people are often HIV-positive. Third, you are confusing IV drug use with sexual activity.
quote: Excuse me? Are you seriously saying that the act of having sex with someone of the same sex creates HIV? Again, you seem to be fixated on gay males. Lesbians have the lowest incidence of sexually transmitted HIV and yet, they are constantly engaging in homosexual sex. If you're claiming that the definition of "unnatural" is connected to HIV transmission, then heterosexual sex is "unnatural" since it is the most common form of HIV transmission and female-female sex is even less likely to transmit the virus than male-female sex. But in the end, HIV infection cannot occur if the people involved do not have the virus. If two men don't have it, it doesn't matter how many body fluids they swap or how they go about swapping them. There is no HIV to transmit so their activity cannot cause transmission.
quote: Then by your definition, homosexuality isn't wrong, either, because it helps those who are gay. Sexual expression is an important part of the human psyche and to force people to repress it does them terrible harm. Therefore, since letting gay people express their sexuality helps them, why are you trying to harm them by stopping them? You wouldn't do that with a straight couple, so why are you going into apoplexy simply because the couple is two women?
quote: You're not just a homophobe, you're a cretin. Are you incapable of saying, "No, thank you"? Dude, I'm sorry about your penis. Perhaps you should consider some therapy to deal with your issues regarding people finding you sexually attractive. Do you often have trouble with people paying you compliments? Do you often find yourself overreacting and resorting to violence?
quote: You know, those who are most homophobic are quite often gay, themselves. Their irrational behaviour is the result of self-loathing. Are you trying to tell us something? Question: What do you think a woman who finds you sexually revolting should do when you "touch her or say something fresh to her or look at her the wrong way"? Are you incapable of simply saying, "Thanks, but I'm not interested"? Why do you feel as if somehow your masculinity has been threatened simply because someone you don't find sexually appealing finds you to be so? I'm really sorry about your penis, but you need to get some help. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Tusko responds to me:
quote: Indeed. But just because two things involve the word "sex" in it doesn't mean they have any relation to each other beyond that word. In the end, it simply means that we get bogged down in comparing gay people to the mentally ill, those who are forced into certain sexual activity, those who are assaulted, etc., etc., when the point is to compare a gay couple to a straight couple. So stop bringing in alternatives that you know have emotional baggage attached to them. In this forum, someone was trying to say that "reparative therapy" should be taken seriously due to all the people who were "confused" about their sexuality. As I said then, oh, please. Can we just ignore the insane, incarcerated, in dire straits, and in employment and simply concentrate on what we would consider an average couple where the two people happen to be of the same sex? We would never immediately jump to a conclusion that a heterosexual person is straight because of a "bad experience" or is "confused" about his sexuality or was forced into it because of rape or is only doing it as a prostitute because he's desperate and needs to pay the bills or is an actor in porn and doing it as a job or anything else along those lines. So why do we immediately jump to those conclusions when regarding gay people? Yes, those people are out there. There are quite a number of "gay for pay" porn stars. Sex happens in prison and it is usually same sex for obvious reasons. Sexual addiction and other mental conditions can play with your sexual activities. But none of that is relevant to the typical gay person. Why do we always jump to the unusual and bizarre when it comes to gay people? We don't claim that the average straight person is like what you see in a Girls Gone Wild video. We don't claim that all straight people have sex in the streets the way they do at Mardi Gras in New Orleans. And despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of pederasts are heterosexual, we don't claim that the typical straight person is a pederast. So why is it whenever homosexuality is brought up, people want to compare them to porn stars, Southern Decadence, and the molesters of Dirkhising? Those are atypical. They exist and they are interesting to discuss, but they are not representative. We're talking about gay people and how they compare to straight people. What do pederasts, sado-masochists, necrophiliacs, or pornographers have to do with it? Is there something about being gay that makes one more likely to be any or all of the above?
quote: When pedophilia is always brought up in a discussion about homosexuality while shrimping is never brought up in a discussion about heterosexuality, then yes, you are specifically conflating homosexuality with pedophilia.
quote: Then why did you bring it up? If you weren't trying to compare homosexuality to pedophilia, why did you bring up pedophilia? Wouldn't the obvious comparison to Sigfried and Roy's relationship be Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins' relationship? A famous, entertainment couple who have been around for a long time but have never married? How does one possibly think that child molestation has any sort of connection to the "non-destructive, loving kind of relationship" we were talking about?
quote: But why child molestation? Why is it [I][B]ALWAYS[/i][/b] child molestation? If you want to talk about "harm" in a relationship, why not do it with logical respect to the relationship with which you are comparing in the first place? We're comparing gays to straights. So let's talk about exploitative relationships that happen between adults since we were starting with adults in the first place. Since we know that pedophilia is nearly impossible to discuss without emotional baggage coming along for the ride, why choose it as the shining example of comparison? Of all the possible ways in which a relationship can be exploitative, pedophilia is the best one to use? It's a knee-jerk reaction: Homosexuality? Well, then, pedophilia. Those who find homosexuality to be wrong have so tightly tied the two together that even people who don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality can't help but immediately jump to pedophilia when talking about it. It's in their mind. The two are connected. In essence, I'm going for the "atheist" attitude. That is, atheists don't go around deliberately and specifically thinking, "I don't believe in god." They don't set aside parts of their day to contemplate their lack of belief in god. It simply never enters their mind until somebody brings it up. So why do people connect homosexuality and pedophilia? Even if to vehemently denounce the idea that gays are after your children, there is the feeling that we need to make that statement. Instead, a person who doesn't see the connection would never consider it important to make that statement unless somebody else brought it up. There's no need to make a point of disconnecting the two because they're already disconnected. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jazzlover_PR responds to me:
quote:quote: You really can't figure out why? You use them primarily for speech now, but you were talking about "original purpose." You were claiming that because something was being used for something other than the "original purpose," then that means it is a horrible thing. Not only are your vocal cords used for something other than their "original purpose," they have been contaminated and perverted so that we use them primarily for something other than their "original intent." How twisted and sick is that? The vocal chords were present long before any organism ever used them for speech. We call them "vocal cords" because we went from our personal, current view of the world before figuring out their history and "original purpose."
quote:quote: What I am saying is that your desire to equate morality with "original purpose" and "exit, not entry" and such leads to such ludicrous things as not using your penis for anything except urination. It is an organ of excretion, not of sex. But if you agree that your penis can be used for both urination and sex, why do you get so upset over the anus and rectum being used for both defecation and sex? Surely you aren't saying that sex is only for procreation, are you? Are you truly going to say that masturbation and oral sex are just as evil and unworthy of "social sanction" as anal sex? Since the most common forms of sex are manual and oral sex, we've got a big problem. Everybody, then, is an unnatural pervert using their sex organs for pleasure instead of procreation. Are you seriously saying that a heterosexual couple who does not like penis-vagina sex but instead engages strictly in oral and manual sex is harming society? That they need to be ostracized? That there is something wrong with them? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes responds to me:
quote:quote: No, it shows that your analogy is meaningless. You see, people have a sexual orientation. It doesn't matter what we call it. We are dealing with something much more fundamental.
quote: Irrelevant. Whether or not the society is Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or atheist, the fundamental issue is "food." Food is universal and applies to all living being regardless of their religious affiliation.
quote: Incorrect. That is exactly what we're talking about: There is a fundamental urge to pair-bond in humans. Whether we call it "marriage" or something else, we are referring to something basic.
quote:quote: What, pray tell, is different about the relationship between people that is dependent upon the sex of the participants? You're saying that gay people don't love each other the way straight people do.
quote: Incorrect. I've mentioned Boswell's book before. Same-sex marriage is quite old. The Catholic Church even has a rite for it.
quote:quote: Um, please explain to me how your arguing for "a different name on a legal contract giving the exact same rights" as something that is "possible" is not arguing for "separate but equal." Since we know that there is no way to ever have "a different name on a legal contract giving the exact same rights," how is that ever "possible"?
quote: The only way to do that is to treat them identically...which requires calling them the same thing. Whether that term is "marriage" or "civil union" is immaterial. However, the term needs to be identical or there will be legal discrepancies between the two.
quote: Right. Have you read the work? Have you read the text of the rite? To call it something other than "marriage" is to fall into the same semantic argument.
quote: Excuse me? A ritual of marriage between same-sex couples performed by the most traditional religion in the world is somehow not a "traditionally defined" marriage?
quote: Nice try, but I was not the one saying that finding a religious rite was justification. That was you. You were the one saying that there was no religious recognition of same-sex couples until recently and that that was justification to say that recognizing same-sex couples today is some sort of change to the "traditional" idea. Therefore, this example of a Catholic ritual recognizing same-sex couples that originated in pre-modern times and lasted for hundreds of years refutes your claim. That this is also justification for other things is irrelevant because I am not saying that your claim of "need to find a religious precedent" is correct. I am simply saying that since you find it to be a justification, then you have no claim to say that same-sex marriage is "modern." Burden of proof, holmes. You know better than that.
quote:quote: (*chuckle*) And just what, specifically, did I say about polygamists? Where did I ever say that polygamists shouldn't demonstrate? You seem to be confusing my statement that the justification for same-sex marriage is not applicable to polygamy since same-sex marriage does not change anything in the administration of marriage whereas polygamy necessarily does. The very first thing is simply to define "what on earth is 'polygamy'"? Do you mean hub-and-spoke or do you mean maximally interconnected?
quote: No, I don't recall saying that at all. Are you sure it was me? I have never said anything about polygamy and breaking the law.
quote: To paraphrase Inigo: I do not think I said what you think I said. There is no need to revise my stance since I never took any other.
quote:quote: (*sigh*) We're back to the insane, incarcerated, or in dire straits argument again. Can we stop trying to portray the outliers as if they were typical? Suppose there were a man my sister is married to such that no other state would ever dream of claiming that they're not married. Now, replace my sister with me. What possible justification could there possibly be to say that we wouldn't be married? It isn't because of age differences or familial relationships or mental status or anything else. All we've done is switch the sex of the participants. If we leave this to the states, we will never achieve parity.
quote: And since that will never happen, state-by-state declarations of "civil unions" are worthless.
quote: Actually, many of them did. That's why the lawsuits that originally happened (Hawaii and Alaska) were filed where they were: There were no laws on the books that prohibited same-sex marriage. Hawaii was chosen not only because the definition of marriage did not state the sex of the participants, but also because the Hawaii Constitution has an Equal Rights clause that says rights cannot be denied on the basis of sex. That's why everyone knew that the HSC was going to rule that same-sex marriage had to be allowed under Hawaii law and why they had to pass a constitutional amendment in order to stop it. You literally do not know what you're talking about, holmes.
quote:quote: Wait a minute...you just said that opposite sex was not mentioned in the law books. Now you're saying that it was. Which is it? And let's be honest here, race was mentioned in the law books as a pre-req. That's the entire point behind Loving v. Virginia. It was ILLEGAL to be a mixed-race, married couple in Virginia. They got married in DC, if I recall correctly, and Virginia tried to impose penalties upon them because of it. It wasn't that they simply wouldn't give you a license but rather that it was a crime to do so.
quote:quote: Non sequitur.
quote:quote: No: Yes and yes. If everybody thinks that something is inherent to everyone, then nobody bothers to make a point of it. Take abortion. You will notice that nobody bothered to deal with it at the founding of this country because at the time, it was legal. So long as it happened before "quickening," there was no question of the criminality of it: There was none. That was part of the argument before the SCOTUS regarding Roe v. Wade. The claim was that since the Constitution doesn't mention anything about abortion, it can't possibly be a right, but that's because nobody thought it was important enough to mention. As the old cliche goes, the Constitution doesn't say, "Congress shall make no law preventing a man from sleeping on his left side." Well, of course you can. It isn't mentioned because it's obvious.
quote:quote: "Separate but equal." Since it will never be equal so long as it is called something different, why are you arguing for calling it something different. Please tell me that this argument is not about you saying that there should be only one term but that you don't care if it is "civil union" or "marriage." I agree...whether or not the legal term for a contract between two consenting adults is called "civil union" or "marriage" is irrelevant. The important thing is that the term used for a mixed-sex couple must necessarily be the same term used for a same-sex couple. Otherwise, it's "separate but equal" which we know from long experience means they are not equal.
quote: But if you're calling the mixed-sex contract "marriage" and the same-sex contract "civil union," then they are not the same thing and thus you don't have the rule of law on your side. The only way to make sure that a same-sex marriage is legally equivalent to a mixed-sex marriage is to call them both the same thing. Whether that same thing is "civil union" or "marriage" or "blunderbuss" is irrelevant. The important thing is that they are called the same thing because the law will treat different names differently.
quote:quote: Non sequitur.
quote: You assume they agreed on the general aim.
quote: Indeed. There is also a thing called "Uncle Tom." When you are faced with an all-or-nothing situation, it is disingenuous to point out that other things are shades of grey. Things are equal or they are not. There is no inbetween. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes writes:
quote: Incorrect. At the time of Loving v. Virginia, 16 states, nearly one-third of the nation, had miscegenation laws on the books. It was only in November of 2000 that Alabama finally got rid of its miscegenation law. And 40% voted to keep the ban. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes writes:
quote: Well no, you don't have the same rights. That's why they're different. If you don't have a motorcycle driving license, you are not allowed to drive a motorcycle on the streets. Motorcycles have different rules to follow than cars. For example, in California, motorcycles are allowed in the carpool lanes. For a car, you have to have the stated number of people in the car. There are stretches of freeway in California where if you are an 18-wheeler, you must drive in certain lanes. Too, you have to stop at the weigh stations when they're open. If the laws were the same for all the vehicles, then the license would be the same. In California, for example, there is a difference between the M1 and M2. M2 only lets you drive a moped or a motorized bicycle. M1 allows you to drive any two-wheeled motorcycle as well as any M2-class vehicle. Even the process of application is different between cars and motorcycles: For a motorcycle, if you are under 21, you must take a CHP training course (and if you pass, you don't need to take the DMV driving test.) If you are over 21, you can either take the CHP course or take the DMV test. For cars, everybody over 18 needs to take the DMV driving test. There's a reason the legalese says, "Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate." Those mean different things.
quote: True. But this isn't about "opinion." This is about the legal status of a contract. If they aren't referred to by the same name, then they are legally distinct and therefore not equal. If they were equal, they would be called the same thing. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes writes:
quote: That's because we live in the real world, not this fantasy hypothetical of yours. If you could guarantee that every legal proceeding everywhere across the entire country into perpetuity would always and forever say "marriage or civil union," then you might have a case. In the real world, however, such a distinction cannot be made. And in the actual practice of law, even this hypothetical isn't valid. The law is predicated upon words. If you are using different words to describe something, then you necessarily mean that there is a distinction between them. Otherwise, legally, you would call them the same thing. So even if we could guarantee that every time a person wrote a law they said, "marriage or civil union," and even if we could guarantee that every law that currently exists was rewritten to read, "marriage or civil union," legally the two would not be equal precisely because you aren't using the same term to refer to them. Eventually, there would be an actual claim that there is a legal distinction between the two that must be recognized.
quote: That isn't the way the law works. By using different terms, you are legally saying that there is a distinction and thus there necessarily exists something that applies only to one and not the other. Otherwise, you would use the same term for both. There's a reason why it's "do not fold, spindle, or mutilate." Those terms do not mean the same thing.
quote: In other words, instead of fighting this battle and resolving it once, we have to fight it every single time a law is written in every single municipality, county, state, and national forum. So much for equal rights. If you have to keep fighting for them, then they aren't rights. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes writes:
quote: (*ahem*) You do understand the difference between a homosexual act and homosexuality, yes? By the logic you just provided, most everyone in prison is homosexual. You do understand that pedophilia is distinct from homosexuality and one cannot claim that a pedophile is homosexual simply by looking at the sex of the children who are molested, yes? Now, I can understand while the child can have psychological problems from same-sex molestation. Given the stigma attached to homosexuality and the feelings of having brought it upon oneself (both internally and externally claimed), I am not surprised that the victim of same-sex molestation may have some issues. But just because the molestation was carried out by someone of the same sex doesn't mean that the molester was gay. In fact, studies show that of non-family molestation, while girls are more likely to be the victims of "sexual abuse" overall, boys are more likely to be the victims of physical sexual abuse. That is, girls are victims of peepers and flashers while boys are more likely to be touched. This is not surprising given the way we treat boys and girls differently: We think nothing of sending our boys out alone with a non-family member while we hover like hawks over our girls. Boys are more likely to be touched because they are more accessible. And since pedophiles don't really see children as male or female, they don't view themselves as gay even when they are molesting children of the same sex. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Lizard Breath writes:
quote: Logically impossible. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Lizard Breath writes:
quote: Where does the Bible state that we are only supposed to procreate and that everyone is supposed to procreate? After all, if god meant for there to be a lot of people, then he would have created a lot of people. Instead, he created two and let the rest happen on its own. Where do you get off saying that this means that god meant only heterosexuality? Since god was content to let the procreation happen all on its own, why is it impossible for god to let the sexuality happen all on its own, too?
quote: Actually, we have a lot of say about that. Nutrition is key. You may have noticed that college students tend to be taller than the average person. That's because college students tend to have better nutritional histories than those who don't go to college (since good nutrition also boosts learning skills) and better nutrition means you are less likely to experience stunted growth. Remember: You're the one saying that unnatural = wrong. If you can come up with reasons why things that are unnatural aren't wrong, then you need to explain why homosexuality doesn't also fit this pattern (not to mention that you need to explain why homosexuality is unnatural). Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
General Nazort writes:
quote: Again, the US throws a loop in everything when you are trying to compare homosexuality and heterosexuality. It's pretty much the last place on earth where HIV is transmitted primarily by homosexual sex. Even Europe flipped over to primarily heterosexual vectors back in 1999. In other words, Africa is not atypical. It is the norm. It is the US that is the bizarre outlier. And, the US is following the rest of the world. Heterosexuals make up the only group of HIV infection vectors that are increasing. The only reason homosexual men make up the largest group of those with HIV in the US is because of the highly unusual state of HIV first coming into the US through the men-who-have-sex-with-men vector.
quote: Yes, please do. Infections among men who have sex with men are down. Infections among heterosexuals are up. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024