|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common) | |||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
My point was that sexual preference might not be as immutable as you seem to be suggesting. However, your point assumes that rape is fun. Problem is, I read this study a while back... it alleged that maybe 10% or so of rape victims actually don't like it. Sounded weird to me, but hey. Can't argue with science.
O rly? [stupid internet catch-phrase in response] While it isn't explicit, it certainly looks like you are claiming that people are unable to choose to be gay. No... I am claiming that there are people who are unable to choose their sexuality. And that if this is the case, then trying to say that homosexuality is a choice is stupid. I'm pretty sure I've said that, like, fifteen or sixteen billion times at this point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
However, your point assumes that rape is fun.
No, it doesn't. "I think you might be able to be forced into it. Or at least forced into it not being so bad, and then gradually learn to like it..." Little known fact... rape victims are constantly saying, "gee, it was bad at first, but after a while it was great!"
Well, you've backed up from your original position now so I'll rest my case. If you say so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
My issue with gay marriage doesn't really have much to do with sexuality per se, the issue is that sexuality, which is something we can't know of a person, is going to be used in a basis for legal agreements. We also can't say whether or not someone's really straight. But you have no problem with heterosexual marriage... just the gays. And, of course, your arguments are not based on bigotry, blah blah blah, same old shit, different month. Edited by Dan Carroll, : grammar costs nothing Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Personally, I don't believe it is homophobic (as others do) to make my claim, because I support civil-union rights for gays. Oh come on, now. You didn't even wait a full day before repeating this one. If you're gonna be all disingenuous, at least do it with a little style.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
I wish you put as much effort into actually understanding what I’m saying as you do into just trying to be a smartass. Don't worry, I've got time to do both.
That sounds like something that someone might say after being in an arranged marriage, in which the sex could be described as rape if we were so inclined. I'm sure the arranged marriages of the world are full of lesbian women who became straight after their husband forcibly dicked them enough times. All they really needed was a good hard fuckin' anyway, when you get down it. Am I right, boys? WOO!
So change your ”are constantly saying’ to ”have said’ and you have a point that I could agree with. But it would still be far from the point that I originally was making: that sexuality is not immutable. Oh, that's right. My original argument, apparently, was that human sexuality is completely immutable 100% of the time. I forgot about that. But in my defense, I never said it. So you can see how it might slip my mind.
Heterosexual marriage used to be redundant. Marriage, and the laws around it, ”grew-up’ being heterosexual. To simply insert homosexual marriage in there too is throwing a curveball that the laws are not prepared for. Hey, you two guys? You can get married. Wow, that was hard.
Typical liberal response: if you don’t agree with the way that I think then you are [insert derogatory term]. Same old shit for real. You said that you want to prevent gay marriage, because we can't confirm the sexuality of those involved. The exact same thing is true of heterosexual marriage, but that... well, you don't have a problem with that. The only difference? Gays. Little hint... supporting an essentially bigoted idea, then getting called on it, doesn't mean you scored some message board point. But if it'll really make you happy, I can whip you up a photoshop image of a scoreboard with a "1" under your name. Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
In not so many words that IS what your post said. What else did you mean by this line in Message 75: That if homosexuality is a choice, he'll have no trouble choosing it. His existing desires will be no obstacle.
I looks like you are saying that if he is doesn't like the gay sex then one can NOT choose to be gay. Yeah, you already said it looked like that waaaay back in post 81. And I clarified waaaay back in post 85, just on the off chance it was too confusing. Why you're still on about it all this time later, I got no idea.
If you say... It is easier to say I said something when you posit the existence of a parallel universe in which I may or may not have said it. It does mean not talking about the things I said in this reality, though.
Oh, I'm not saying it would be hard to insert homosexual into marriage, thats the easy part. I was talking about the ramifications, which it seems like you think there are no negetive ones. The only ones to which you've ever pointed are ones that already exist for heterosexual marriage. Again... only difference? Gays.
Wrong, thats not the only difference. Cool. Feel free to share the rest anytime.
Also, not being able to confirm their sexuality is just a minor point, not really my reasoning for prefering a different name for the agreement. *shrug* It's the one to which I was responding when this line of argument started.
You're really good at spinning what people say to make it easier to mock them. Have you found a way to use those skills for your own, perhaps monetary, benefit in real life? You could be a writer or something. I earn a small amount of money from my webcomic, but nothing to write home about. It spins the writing of a man much smarter than all of us put together... but doesn't change his ideas or words. Just shows them from another angle. *raises eyebrow*
Calling an idea bigoted because you don't agree with it doesn't mean that it is. I'm not calling it bigoted because I don't agree with it. I'm calling it bigoted because it singles out a minority subset of the population for discrimination.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
That's what I disagree with. (heh, especially if his desire is to not be gay) Don't see why. He doesn't want it now, but he can go ahead and choose to, apparently.
My, or his, trouble choosing to be homosexual doesn't mean that other poeple will also have a problem making the choice, especially when I've seen people do it, althoug that in itself is debatable. You saw people choose homosexual arousal? Hot. Regardless... I've repeated my response to this so many times, and it's clearly not being read. This time, I think I'll post a passage from a review of a Beck album, and see if you notice the difference. Think back to your first memories of Beck. Remember what he was like back in 1994? A floppy haired bohemian playing a leaf blower on stage. Rapping on MTV about being a loser, minutes after getting your attention with a single called "MTV Makes Me Want to Smoke Crack". See Beck on MTV's 120 Minutes with guest host Thurston Moore, giving nonsensical answers to every question during the interview, and then jamming with Moore and Mike D., using a mini-tape player and making bizarre sounds. Hear Beck singing about Satan giving him a taco. Think of him doing an old-fashioned folk-blues song one minute, sloppily rhyming over fuzzy hip-hop beats the next. Remember him stumbling his way into stardom, seeming like his whole career consisted of stumbling from one whim to the next, rolling along like a free-wheeling prankster. That Beck is no more.
I've already gone over homo-marriage in other threads. Yeah. And you never gave any examples problems that didn't exist in heterosexual marriage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Calling that "marriage," however, flies in the face of tradition. Where did you purchase your thirteen year old child-bride? How much did you pay for her? Has she squeezed out enough puppies to work the family farm yet? You should probably beat her a few times if she hasn't.
It is the gays and not the straights who are wrong-minded on this issue. If they had any grace at all they'd give it a break. Oh, those uppity queers. What will they do next?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Where's the harm in that? Where's the cause for indignation? Why do you keep re-asking questions that have already been answered? Is there some sort of traumatic memory loss involved? You should see a doctor. You're in a dangerous age bracket; don't take risks with your health. Once that's finished, you should try reading up on Brown v. Board of Education. You see, it's been almost 53 years since the US Government caught up to the idea that separate is inherently unequal. One would think this would be enough time for everyone else to wrap their heads around it. But here we are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Please! I am having avery hard time imagining that the framers of our Consitution were out to protect "the rights" of gays to get married. Actually, the amendment in question wasn't written by the framers of the constitution. You don't seem to know too much about US law, either. But no... given that the framers owned slaves, I'm guessing they weren't too up on the idea of civil rights in general.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
But I support civil-union rights for gays. I occasionally wonder if people hung around Selma in the fifties, and said, "What? I think we should let them sit at the back of the bus! It has nothing to do with racism, it's not like I wanna make them walk or anything."
But I don't think the lawmakers need pass special laws protecting their rights to call themselves whatever the want to. Do you? Actually, we already have that law. It's called the first amendment. But that's okay, because we're not talking about the right to call yourself something. We're talking about recognition of a marriage, which the Supreme Court has already identified as a fundamental right of all Americans. You are recommending a course of action in which we continue to deny a minority that fundamental right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Why is it "bigotry" to question the touchy details that differentiate nature from nurture”from genetic predisposition to choice? It's interesting how, every time you get boxed into a corner on choice, you say, "No, no, I think it's probably genetic." Then, a few hours later, you pipe up again with choice.
I am almost certain that being gay, eventually, will be ENTIRELY a matter of choice by way of gene therapy. I am almost certain that, eventually, Hari Seldon's plan for the galaxy will ensure that we don't have to worry about any of this. But in the meantime, perhaps we could focus less on sci-fi futures, and discuss the here and now?
How does that make me a bigot? That doesn't. Neither does what you ate for breakfast this morning. Your desire to maintain institutionalized discrimination does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Gays do have the right to get married. Its just that marriage in the US is between a man and a women. The 14th amendment is not being violated. This exact same argument got shot down in Loving v. Virginia, when it was argued that everyone had the same right to get married, but that marriage was between two members of the same race. Try again. Everything about this argument is shit that got settled half a century ago.
The 14th amendment doesn't give gays the right to change what marriage is. If existing laws (such as what the government will and will not recognize as marriage) violate the constitution, the laws have to be re-written. That's how the system works.
Why not create a type of legal agreement that marriage would be a subset of and then let gays enjoy the benefits of the newly created type of legal agreement? So, in other words, give them a special, assigned seat elsewhere in the same bus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
I can't fake being black like I could fake being gay. I could have sworn that this was just a minor point, and not really your reasoning for prefering a different name for the agreement. But okay, let's head back to it. People can fake being straight. So according to this logic, heterosexuals shouldn't get married. But you're not against heterosexual marriage, you're just singling out homosexuals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Now this is philosophically rich! I guess we know which side Hoot Mon would have rooted for in Loving v. Virginia. I astounds me when people bring up (or in this case, cheer on) the exact same arguments that were used by the pro-segregation side in the civil rights movement, and then follow it up with, "how is that bigoted?" Edited by Dan Carroll, : for more snark
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024