Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common)
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 102 of 306 (375545)
01-08-2007 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Fosdick
01-08-2007 7:51 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
You know, some people would argue that the separation of men's and women's restrooms is somehow limiting their rights and freedoms.
Who?
I will concede that I have seen firsthand the plight of transexuals who experience vilification from both the straight and gay communities when it comes to single sex use only areas (bathrooms, women's events, etc), but there are no laws per se restricting use of a men's bathroom by women or vice versa. I do it all the time. Lots of women bemoan the fact that the lines for women's bathrooms are usually inifinitely longer than for the men's, but they take no action because of cultural constraints (and for some, I suppose, fear for safety in certain places) not because some law says they cannot use the men's room or because they will be beaten or prosecuted just for using it. I've even experienced having men using the women's room outside of gay clubs (where it happens all the time and no one cares).
Others might insist on having rights to their children's diaries.
This delves into the "your rights end where mine begins" area. Children, as it stands, do not have many of the rights coveted by the American adult population, a fact which I have a hard time reconciling regarding some rights (locker searches in school, free speech rights in school, the right not to be assaulted by their parents in the name of "discipline"). The privacy of one's mind should be sacrosanct in our culture, however, because it is the only thing that is completely our own.
To bring it back to topic, the right to violate the privacy of another's mind has nothing to do with gay rights, unless we encounter a day when brain/genetic scans to weed out homosexuals becomes compulsory.
Right now, however, this "right" is not analogous to homosexual rights.
The Hells Angels say their rights are abused if they can't have fist fights in the parking lot.
Again, not analogous.
I would argue that people who want to be involved in a fight should be able to (ie Fight Club ) because the assault is not hurting anyone who does not want/expect to be hurt.
The right to fight ends when an unwilling participant is involved. Hmmm...maybe it is analogous (in a grossly loose sort of way). Homosexual behavior does not affect anyone who is not involved, unless you choose to be affected by claiming that it is hurting your marriage or your fragile, glass made god's sensibilities, or you get offended when some guy/girl hits on you (do you get so offended when someone of the opposite sex whom you are not attracted to hits on you, too?) or some such other BS.
As for the whole marriage deal, I have said this before here, but I will say it again. I do not particularly care if my relationship with the woman I love is called "marriage" or not as long as I get the same rights entitled to me as heterosexual couples do. However, I know that many people do care and I will fight for their right to use that word. It is just a word, after all. I also recognize most religious institutions' unwillingness to recognize homosexual unions. That is their right and I would not want the state to force that recognition upon them, just as I would not want the church to force the state not to recognize the "civil" marriages of gays.
I hope to review some of the biology posts and respond...I do not wish this thread to unravel into solely a debate about gay marriage since it is only half of the OP.
People say a lot of things.
Yes, they certainly do, which is why it helps to swim through alot of the BS, look at both sides, really consider both sides and then make an educated decision instead of an impulsive one based on someone's anecdotal conclusions (including mine).
Edited by Jaderis, : forgot to quote the last bit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Fosdick, posted 01-08-2007 7:51 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Taz, posted 01-09-2007 3:32 AM Jaderis has replied
 Message 125 by Fosdick, posted 01-09-2007 2:08 PM Jaderis has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 104 of 306 (375577)
01-09-2007 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Taz
01-09-2007 3:32 AM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
I'm afraid that the issue is more complicated than that
Oh, yes, I am well aware of that. What I am stressing is that "marriage" is a word. The symbolic meaning we each give to the word is different. I had no idea that it held such sacred meaning (as in a man and a woman united under god with such fierceness) until I counseled gay and lesbian couples who wanted the the term applied to them.
I was raised to question everything. Marriage means to me people uniting their lives to a common purpose, whether it be kids, art, love, or whatever.
I didn't know until much later in life that "marriage" was restricted. Most people don't. They don't even have to ask "why?" because their definition is already fulfilled.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Taz, posted 01-09-2007 3:32 AM Taz has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 230 of 306 (376128)
01-11-2007 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Fosdick
01-09-2007 8:46 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
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.
I hope not to seem too overly-emotional in this exclamation, but how DARE you speak of grace when you compare the actions of gay people wanting the right to love the person they love and the actions of "Christians" who throw the specter of hell (along with beer bottles and other hurlable objects) in our faces as we respectfully ask for a right which should be a natural right under our Constitution!? How DARE you say that we do no have the right to show our faces and our hearts to the nation (and I know you have not personally said this as yet on this thread, but you may as well have with the above statement) and say we are "shoving our 'lifestyle' down your throats when we do!?
So grace to you is bowing down to the powers that be and saying thank you for not killing us or beating us or jailing us? That we should back down now that we have gained some nominal "rights" and call it even? Just so you can feel more comfortable? Just so your fucking internal dictionary isn't altered?
I don't think so.
Don't speak to me of grace when I have walked with my head held high with blood running down my forehead and beer soaking my shirt trying not to cry because some asshole thought he had the right to hurt me for holding hands with another woman. Don't speak to me of grace when I had to hold my boiling temper when the cops in my neighborhood told my friend who had just been beaten nearly senseless (and after I had to help drag her from underneath a car where she had fled to escape the blows) that she should be "more careful next time." Don't speak to me of grace when you saw the protesters/supporters of the killers lining up at Matthew Shepherd's killers trial and the "angels" who chose to line up in front of them to shield the family from the hatred of those people.
I/we wouldn't have to burst your precious little bubble if only we could live our lives the way we wish without the "permission" of the likes of you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Fosdick, posted 01-09-2007 8:46 PM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by crashfrog, posted 01-11-2007 10:40 AM Jaderis has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 231 of 306 (376129)
01-11-2007 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Fosdick
01-10-2007 12:20 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
"You people?" You mean the ones with ordinary principles and biological predispositions? You know, when the lawmakers sit down to make laws in any state I would hope they have priority lists to work from. The item "gay marriage" is not nearly as urgent as things like public education, highway maintenance, gun control, corporate crime, environmental protection, port security, and a bazillion other matters. I look forward to the day when mittens for homeless children and birth control for feral cats reach the top of any state's priority list
Yes, yes, I look forward to that day, too, believe me, but the side that opposes gay unions and/or marriages keeps getting in the way.
Most homosexuals (contrary to popular belief) are quite content with civil unions as long as the benefits conferred match letter for letter the benefits conferred upon heterosexual unions. For some, marriage is a sacred word that they want to use to define their relationship, on both sides. I have an easy solution for that. Call it whatever you want. If I was married (hehe) to the term marriage I would call my relationship a marriage no matter what the government chose to call it. If you do not accept the term marriage applying to homosexual relationships, DON"T CALL IT THAT no matter what the government chooses to do. Since when does the governement dictate the definitions you use (excepting "imminent" and "threat" and "is" )?
Until you can convince your state legislatures and your fellow citizens to support gay civil unions and or/ marriages, we won't see alot of mittens for homeless kids because so many supposed "Christians" are swayed by the fear-mongering people in the pulpits and become single issue voters dedicated to opposition of rights instead of aligning themselves with those who would actually support money for homeless kids and kittens.
Nice imagery by the way...way to pit gay people against needy kids and kittens (I send money and volunteer time for Habitat for Humanity, the ASPCA and Housing Works in NYC...just as a side note).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 12:20 PM Fosdick has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 232 of 306 (376132)
01-11-2007 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2007 2:37 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
I can't fake being black like I could fake being gay.
Sure you could. It's kinda like that skit by Eddie Murphy on SNL, but in reverse.
But, seriously. That brings up an experiment.
Why don't you try acting gay (not sexually, mind you, but whatever you might perceive as "acting" gay) for a week. Try to gauge the different looks and attitudes people give you. Maybe come June go to a gay pride parade, too, but on the "side" of the gays and try to experience it as we do. I know it's not an election year or if legislation might be upcoming in your area/state, but maybe next time there is, try going to the capitol and stand with the homosexuals (even for a brief time) just to see the "other side" from our point of view. You may feel that your opinions are quite indifferent to the whole affair and see this whole thing as no big deal, but when you see the hatred and malevolence that we see, you may stop to consider why we fight the way we do. Or maybe not. I cannot predict such things, but if you think it so easy to pretend to be gay...please be my guest. Try it out. See how it feels to actually be me (instead of worrying about getting your BMX buddy health insurance).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 2:37 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Fosdick, posted 01-11-2007 11:40 AM Jaderis has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 233 of 306 (376135)
01-11-2007 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Dan Carroll
01-10-2007 8:25 PM


Dan Carroll
Will you marry me?
J/K
Just thanks for your wit on this and other threads. I always get excited - hey...hey!! - when I see your avatar. I know that much laughter and gaiety (if you will excuse the pun) will ensue and it makes me happy and brings my heat down a notch.
In other words, you rock!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-10-2007 8:25 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-11-2007 10:20 AM Jaderis has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 234 of 306 (376139)
01-11-2007 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2007 3:52 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
But marriage is not defined as being between two people of the same race. Thats why it got shot down, IIRC. It is, however, defined as between a husband and a wife. It is not the exact same argument. Try again
Marriage to you is only defined as between a man and a woman, but, aparently, to the judge in the original case of Loving v. Virginia, marriage was defined by a matter of race.
Your dictionary may define marriage in a certain way, but do you get offended by waiters in a restaurant saying that they are "marrying" ketchup bottles or salt shakers? Are you up making the signs right now to oppose the use of the word "marriage" (or a variant of) in front of "TGI Friday's?"
Marriage has many varying definitions which change as the language changes.
So, can I expect you at my niece's restaurant tomorrow protesting the use of "marriage" as it pertains to condiments?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 3:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 235 of 306 (376140)
01-11-2007 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2007 3:58 PM


Re: 14th Amendment
Marriage is by definition for heteros, there's nothing to change. Homos were singled out, or not considered, when marriage was created. There would be no benefit to faking being straight as marriage is already for that, its the default, faking it addsnothing. Opening marriage up for gays is changing it to where faking would have a benefit, it is totally different.
Blacks were also not considered in the original laws of the constitution. Neither were non-property holders (at least in regards to voting) or women.
The original laws were and are open to revision as is said in the Constitution. No society is static.
BTW, how is faking a heterosexual marriage any different?
I think I have told this story before, but I have a straight uncle and a lesbian aunt who loved each other so much as friends that they decided to get "married" in order to grant benefits to their kids (yes they did have sex to have kids...this was before the advent of test tube babies) because he had a job building Boeing jets and wonderful benefits. They both have outside relationships (the uncle straight and the aunt lesbian in case you were confused) and a strong friendship, but they "duped" the system. Should that make all heterosexual relationships invalid?
Of course not...for you it would have to be one (probably yourself trying to fake it for your bike pal) person faking it enough to invalidate the whole prospect of gays wanting to have a real lifetime commitment with the one that they love. That's bullshit.
PS...speaking of "faking it," You might want to read about "passing" in the African-American community. Did you know that Lena Horne, Jennifer Beals, et al, were "black?" Passing was (and I suppose in some circles, still is) a huge factor in "making it" whether it be in show-biz, marriage, politics or whatever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2007 3:58 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Taz, posted 01-11-2007 1:00 PM Jaderis has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024