|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
AndyGodLove  Suspended Member (Idle past 5795 days) Posts: 18 From: Wentworth Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3318 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Jesus Christ, hoot, did you just selectively ignore my post 90 regarding brain comparason between various groups in regard to their sexuality and gender?
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Oops! Serves me right for not reading the thread, but I linked to a BBC article about the same research in post 111, which is where this subtitle comes from. Not surprisingly, I was replying to one of Hoot's posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4742 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
I don't ignore it. I'm simply showing that this qualifier fails to explain why something is illegal or legal in the first place. Incest, between two consenting adults, is legal. Consent does not remove anything. Prostitution is between two consenting adults. It does not remove anything. Having an extra-marital affair is between consenting adults. Consent does not remove anything. Consenting to have Jack Kevorkian assist in suicide is between consenting adults. Consent does not remove anything. Therefore, consent between adults is not the sole qualifier here. I have pointed this out, time and again, but it seems to be ignored. It should stand to reason then that people who want gay marriage also need to give a reason why one is rejected and the other accepted, as long as we're dealing with consenting adults. So what I am saying now, and have been saying throughout this thread, is you picking one invariably denies the others rights under the very pretenses you advocate homosexual marriage. If barring two consenting adults from marrying is bigoted, then so is barring any other consenting adults for any other reason. Understand now? There certainly would have been an easier way to make that argument ” like saying so. But you could have saves yourself the effort. It is not in evidence that anyone on the pro self-determination side of this argument thinks any of those situations should be illegal.
It clearly can not be assumed that all, plus gay marriage, are not covered by the "Consenting Adult" umbrella. Kindly There is a spider by the water pipe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
There certainly would have been an easier way to make that argument ” like saying so. But you could have saves yourself the effort. It is not in evidence that anyone on the pro self-determination side of this argument thinks any of those situations should be illegal. That isn't the point of the exercise. The point is understanding why it is this way to begin with. By understanding it, you will in turn be able to understand the rationale of people who find homosexual marriage objectionable.
Incest: The possibility of increased birth defects could give cause for incest to be kept illegal Most people, it seems to me, that are on the side of homosexual marriage are also on the side of other hot topics, like abortion. Since when is a fetus born with birth defects a care for the pro-abortionist crowd? Or if they are, it seems a bit hypocritical. Its kind of like a pro-choice advocate complaining about women that smoke while pregnant. If its her choice, through and through, then what she does while the child is in utero shouldn't be cause for alarm if she smokes.
Prostitution: Who hasn't heard the arguments for legalizing prostitution a zillion times. Where it has been legalized little harm seems to have come from it. That's debatable whether little harm comes of it. There aren't many well-adjusted prostitutes out there. Aside from feeling sorrow for the (wo)man trapped in prostitution, there is also the factor that many people see it as a blight on civilization.
Adultery: It's legal I'm not sure where you are from, but in the United States its illegal. There is no jail time for it, but since it is viewed as a legal contract, the one caught in adultery will surely lose in the preceding divorce.
Assisted suicide: This has gone back and forth a few times in the last twenty years with "mind your own beeswax" as its clarion call. The issue with these things is not to get your personal opinion on the matter. The point of the exercise is to provide you with evidence that consent between adults is not the end-all, be-all.
It clearly can not be assumed that all, plus gay marriage, are not covered by the "Consenting Adult" umbrella. I'd be content with finally dispelling the notion that I'm refering to homosexuals as necrophiliac paedophiles, as it has never been my intent to do so. But I think people finally are starting to see what angle I was coming from. In the final analysis, if you consider yourself a homosexual and want to marry someone of the opposite sex, I won't stop you. I'm just offering a scenario on why we might not want to leap in to it. You may think that everything will turn out just fine, and that may very well be the case. For your sake, I hope you are right. Its not like I want to be cynical about it, its just that I am cynical about it. Rest assured though that in all likelihood, homosexual marriage will be allowed in all Western nations by the year 2020. So I wouldn't worry about it too much if I were you. “I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4742 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Most people, it seems to me, that are on the side of homosexual marriage are also on the side of other hot topics, like abortion. Since when is a fetus born with birth defects a care for the pro-abortionist crowd? Or if they are, it seems a bit hypocritical. Its kind of like a pro-choice advocate complaining about women that smoke while pregnant. If its her choice, through and through, then what she does while the child is in utero shouldn't be cause for alarm if she smokes. Just because one believes that stupidity is a natural human right does not mean one is not allowed to recognize nor criticize it as stupid. It would be hypocritical to grant stupidity the status of a natural human right and ban it.
That's debatable whether little harm comes of it. There aren't many well-adjusted prostitutes out there. Aside from feeling sorrow for the (wo)man trapped in prostitution, there is also the factor that many people see it as a blight on civilization. Maladjustment is a natural human right. Else we’d be able to go around adjusting people. I, too, think prostitution is a blight on civilization; wherein, the purveyors, practitioners and patrons are a despicable lot. However, the purveyors, practitioners and patrons, naturally, see it differently. What I can’t see is where this difference of opinion should be settled within the legal system. By all means ” not literally of course ” fence it off and leave a lovely, innocent world for the decent folk to inhabit, but let the seedy folk plant their seed.
I'm not sure where you are from, but in the United States its illegal. There is no jail time for it, but since it is viewed as a legal contract, the one caught in adultery will surely lose in the preceding divorce. There is a world of difference between something being a cause of action and being illegal. A person who cant find the bath tub will also be on the short end of the divorce stick.
The issue with these things is not to get your personal opinion on the matter. The point of the exercise is to provide you with evidence that consent between adults is not the end-all, be-all. An important consideration had you anyone arguing that it was. Self-determination, the starting point for human rights, isn’t even an end-all-be-all argument. It can be overruled by lack of consent for example. I’ve got a strange sense that you’ve put the cart before the horse, but I can’t quite put my finger on it ” yet.
I'd be content with finally dispelling the notion that I'm refering to homosexuals as necrophiliac paedophiles, as it has never been my intent to do so. But I think people finally are starting to see what angle I was coming from. I don’t think anyone was saying you thought homosexuals deviant interests bleed over into forcibly sodomizing dead, underaged, same-sex animals any more then the rest of us. But that to in any way equivocate the peaceful activities of Gay folk with any activities other than the peaceful activities of straight folk for determining their treatment under the law is a flawed argument to say the least. Here, to equivocate, does not mean to say they are alike in all ways, but that they have some similarity which can be used to treat them in a like fashion. It’s not fair.
[qs]In the final analysis, if you [one] consider[s] yourself [himself]a homosexual and want[s] to marry someone of the opposite [same ” I would think] sex, I won't stop you [him]. I'm just offering a scenario on why we might not want to leap in to it. You may think that everything will turn out just fine, and that may very well be the case. For your sake, I hope you are right. Its not like I want to be cynical about it, its just that I am cynical about it.[/qs] Justice delayed is justice denied. It is not so much that I think everything will turn out fine ” which I do ” but that we have gained a maturity as a society that we must accept that the burden of proof is now upon our shoulders to show that we are defending something vital from true harm if we are going to deny anyone their individual right to self-determination for even a minute more. Everyone deserves to live in peace. Kindly There is a spider by the water pipe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4702 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
I understand that you have a lot of people to whom you must respond. Therefore, I can't hold it against you that you forgot or missed(since you didn't respond to that part of my post) that I have already said the two not being anything alike (choice vs non-choice)is irrelevant. Perhaps I should have compared the marriage between a Muslim and a Catholic. It is not illegal now but perhaps it should be or at least have a different name like "mixed faith union". Religion is a choice just like homosexuality and shouldn't be a protected right by your standard.
By invoking an "interracial marriage" comparison to "same-sex marriage" you are assuming they are actually comparable. I don't believe they are, simply because that which causes a black man to be black is not anything like that which causes a gay man to be gay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 638 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: Well, if you find same gender marriage objectionable, don't marry someone of the same gender. One couple that got married in California this last week was a lesbian couple that had been togather 40 years. And after 4 years of observation, we see how horribly gay marriage has affected Massachusetts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PMOC Member (Idle past 5780 days) Posts: 41 From: USA Joined: |
That isn't the point of the exercise. The point is understanding why it is this way to begin with. By understanding it, you will in turn be able to understand the rationale of people who find homosexual marriage objectionable. That wasnt the point either. The point was taking two analogous scenarios and comparing one, but not the other, to a non analog...which was pretty much the whole crux of your argument. I don't care about your moral distinctions. I can freely discard them, just as you freely discard mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3318 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
ramoss writes:
Correction, 50+ years. I'm pretty sure this beats hoot's 1 year hetero marriage as he confessed in this thread. One couple that got married in California this last week was a lesbian couple that had been togather 40 years. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5526 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
AdminNosey, I am complying with your admonition. I made a shot at it in the proposed thread: On The Causes of Sexual Orientation.
”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5526 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Taz writes:
Taz, it's good stuff. Could you bump it to the proposed thread: "On The Causes of Sexual Orientation"? Jesus Christ, hoot, did you just selectively ignore my post 90 regarding brain comparason between various groups in regard to their sexuality and gender? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
That wasnt the point either. I know what my own intentions are.
I don't care about your moral distinctions. Okay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5526 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
FO writes:
That's probably the most bigoted post on this thread. Shame on you! Your fallacy flag is flapping on the pole. Gays and blacks are like penguins and Chevorlets: they are not at all comparable. And don't we basically know the loci for skin pigmentation? So, if anything, I guess we're closer to a cure for being born black than we are for being born gay. Should we fix that one for you Hoot Mon? I mean, who in their right mind would want to be born black when they could be born white instead? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4216 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
FO writes: And don't we basically know the loci for skin pigmentation? So, if anything, I guess we're closer to a cure for being born black than we are for being born gay. Should we fix that one for you Hoot Mon? I mean, who in their right mind would want to be born black when they could be born white instead? That's probably the most bigoted post on this thread. Shame on you! Your fallacy flag is flapping on the pole. Gays and blacks are like penguins and Chevorlets: they are not at all comparable.I guess I find it stunning to the point of disbelief that anyone in this day and age could seriously consider even for a millisecond that homosexuality is a choice. I feel that FO was being sarcastic ref his statement before your quote:
I guess I find it stunning to the point of disbelief that anyone in this day and age could seriously consider even for a millisecond that homosexuality is a choice. I agree, why would anyone want to be a homosexual and be denied rights and be attacked by right-winged bigots and even be killed, in the name of God, by even more right-winged fanatics. Edited by bluescat48, : missing part Edited by bluescat48, : spelling There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4171 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes: Really? Have you read some of the posts by Hoot Mon? Besides...it's your stupid fucking idea to "cure" homosexuals. I just figured you'd want to help out all minorities with your brilliant plan idea...that's all. That's probably the most bigoted post on this thread. So then, Hoot Mon...what makes you think that a homosexual would want to be "cured" any more than a black person would want to be "cured"? Edited by FliesOnly, : to add the question at the end.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024