Gay Marriage

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.

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.

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.

• Incest: The possibility of increased birth defects could give cause for incest to be kept illegal; though, I know a woman who has a defective gene of some sort who keeps having kids (six) without clavicles and severe brain disorders. No one dares suggest she stop having kids. I'd put the burden on the government to sustain its ban.
  ​
• 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.
  ​
• Adultery: It's legal; and in large part due to the government figuring out it has no business involving itself with the peaceful activities of consenting adults.
  ​
• 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.

It clearly can not be assumed that all, plus gay marriage, are not covered by the "Consenting Adult" umbrella.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

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. 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. 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. 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 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.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

Correction, 50+ years. I'm pretty sure this beats hoot's 1 year hetero marriage as he confessed in this thread.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

AdminNosey, I am complying with your admonition. I made a shot at it in the proposed thread: On The Causes of Sexual Orientation.”HM

Taz, it's good stuff. Could you bump it to the proposed thread: "On The Causes of Sexual Orientation"?”HM

I know what my own intentions are. Okay.

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.”HM

I feel that FO was being sarcastic ref his statement before your quote: 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 partEdited by bluescat48, : spelling

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

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.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.