Gay Marriage

Believe what you want about the ultimate disposition of gays if you want, but know that there are more constructive ways of getting your point across.Or did you think homosexuals were going to come running to Jesus this way?

---

“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

I suspect Andy here is a troll. So he may or may not actually believe what he is espousing here.

An internet troll is someone that intentionally says things to cause dissension. What I am saying is that this Andy fellow may not actually believe any of the hateful statements he's made. He may have said it just to be a jerk for the sake of being a jerk. Does that make sense? In which case, don't take it personally.

Heh... Mine too, ironically enough. Sure, we can discuss that if you'd like. Would you like me to get the ball rolling? I would first start out by asking if we are understanding premises here about the nature of discrimination.What constitutes as legitimate discrimination? Is it simply exclusion? For instance, if a convicted felon is imprisoned, could we say that they are being discriminated against and are systematically having their freedom taken way?Or could we say that the deaf are being discriminated against by the music industry? Are the blind discriminated against by magazine companies who refuse to make brail magazines?Answer those questions and we can take it from there. There is a moral to the questions. An analogy or illustration will appear later.

---

“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

Here's the thing though with sexual orientation. Are some people more or less "sexually oriented" towards pre-pubescent teenagers? Do some people have some sort of natural affinity for the pre-pubescent?Or similarly, it is not a mystery that when being committed to someone in a monogamous relationship, you still biologically find other people attractive. That doesn't all of a sudden evaporate when being a serious relationship. Despite the "orientation," the law doesn't seem to yield to that, as it would bear no relevance to infidelity in the eyes of the court. The law won't give a whit about that.I think we have to ask the same kind of questions in regards to homosexual marriage, otherwise its being disingenuous to the premise.It is easy to indict DOMA as a case of discrimination. But it would be just as easy, all things being equal, to say the same things about other things this society deems as an unlawful sexual vice. How then does someone pick one without denying the other? Because if they cannot, then it is a case of hypocrisy AND discrimination. You have to appreciate the fact that no comprehensive evidence has ever been presented showing that any society has ever allowed homosexual marriage. You can't very well say that it is was changed to deny them that right when you haven't substantiated that they ever had the right to begin with.I therefore think that those making claims that it is being denied a posteriori is barking up the wrong tree. If you really want homosexual marriage, just request that the definition legally be changed. It had to be officially clarified in lieu of a societal shift. Its not somehow evidence that it was different in the past. It is one of those axiomatic, face-value things. Defining marriage as being between one man and one woman was once a needless tautology, since it was so self-evident before what a marriage constituted and what it didn't constitute. It was only when people of the same sex started wanting to be married did the need for clarification come up.It is kind of like legal disclaimers. You ever see an legal disclaimer, like the smoke alarm on an airplane? Have you ever read the stipulations on that thing? "Do not touch, disable, break, thwart, etc, etc, this device." You ask, why not just keep it simple? Why not just say "Don't go near this thing or you will be prosecuted?" Its because the human mind will search for ways to usurp the law by cleverly playing a game of semantics. This then necessitates that ever angle be covered for clarification.So, it is not that marriage somehow used to mean that members of the opposite sex married before, rather it means that it needs clarification now in lieu of the societal shift. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typos

---

“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

Then what about polygamy or incest, since all parties are seeking to enter in to a contract of their own volition? What about prostitution? Both parties agree to exchange sex for money.You say that it isn't legal, and therefore is moot. But you overlook the fact that homosexual marriage is illegal. That would be hypocritical, not to mention discriminatory, to allow one and deny the others. You don't see the flaw in this? Homosexual marriage is illegal, and therefore nullifies your premise. That would mean, according to your own qualifier, that denying homosexual marriage does not qualify as discrimination.

---

“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

That's not what I asked you. This is some what of a scientific question. Here, read it again and answer appropriately:

quote:

---

Here's the thing though with sexual orientation. Are some people more or less "sexually oriented" towards pre-pubescent teenagers? Do some people have some sort of natural affinity for the pre-pubescent?

​

Or similarly, it is not a mystery that when being committed to someone in a monogamous relationship, you still biologically find other people attractive. That doesn't all of a sudden evaporate when being a serious relationship.
  —NJ

---

You are misinterpreting what I have written. These first two questions are about biology, not sociology. Yes, you are. I'm saying that allowing homosexual marriage on the pretenses of it being discriminatory will invariably leave other groups feeling discriminated against. I am questioning how you can allow for one, but not the other, in order to utilize the discrimination argument. That's like saying paedophilia is only illegal because of paedophiliac bigots. It doesn't answer the question. Why should Oscar Wilde's lover, a boy, have been denied on the same moralistic grounds? I mean, they just wanted to love each other, right? The age disparity, as they might argue, was pretty much incidental to their feelings. Obviously they do if you are going to say that marriage is a right granted by the government in the first place. Its like saying that the Preamble, where it says we are entitled to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness, extends to anything that makes us happy. Drugs make people happy, but it is not a Constitutional right to do them. To say that it is is a clear manipulation of the vagueness of some of the Constitution.Homosexual marriage may offer some happiness to homosexuals, but then so would dual marriages for polygamists, marrying sisters for the incestuous, marrying dogs for the bestialists, adultery for the adulterers, or anything else under the sun. DOMA was unanimously passed by a body of Republicans and Democrats, and passed in to law by Bill Clinton. I hardly think you say this is some Republican conspiracy, especially when all of history is against you on this, never mind the history of the United States. Who exactly are "you assholes?" Nice ad hominem, by the way. Let me say this again. If you can prove that ever, anywhere, in the history of the world, that homosexuals where allowed to marry, then and only then can you begin to say that marriage has been redefined. There isn't a shred of evidence showing that homosexual marriage was ever accepted in the first, anywhere in the world, at any point in history, in order to even nominally substantiate your claim. No, Flies. You know that isn't true, which is why actors like Rock Hudson felt the need to hide his homosexual tendencies. Are you honestly saying that any homosexual couple could have walked in to any courthouse or any church and get married before the evil republican conspiracy came about? Are you honestly going to assert that, especially when only 30 years ago, homosexuality was considered to be a pathological sexual disorder? I don't give a damn if they do or don't. I'm simply giving you something to chew on, namely your own bigotry, hypocrisy, and irrational rationale. If the courts decide that homosexual marriage is Constitutional, then okay. We are simply going over the legality of it. And thus far, your argument is completely emotive, vapid, and devoid of anything substantive.But again, I have to ask why civil unions are not being pushed since its a win/win situation. Both parties would be happy. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

---

“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

I've again been censored by the people in the smoke-filled rooms. So I'm going to put my muzzle back on. "Bad Nemmy, bad!"

I really am astonished that people still think that I am equivocating when I am SO obviously NOT. The singular thing that I am doing is trying to get people to see that their relative views on morality contradict itself when it comes to accepting homosexuality, but not accepting anything else. They have NO logical basis for defending one, but denying the other. Isn't that the very indictment for heterosexuals that believe marriage should be between one man and one woman? Uh, yeah, I'm pretty sure it is.I'm not allowed to show them the absurd hypocrisy, without being slandered as something that I know I am not?To be perfectly honest I am open to the notion of gay marriage and of homosexuality in general. I am not going to say that it is some abomination of the devil, or anything like that. I'm not here to hurt people's feelings, but I'm also not here to be so politically correct that I can't question the veracity of something.What I am going to do, and have been doing for a long while now, is question its validity and to examine the societal problems that may be associated with rejecting or promoting it. Because quite frankly, I don't know what is true and what is false! I would think this is healthy and inquisitive behavior for someone searching for answers.To no avail. I speak respectfully, they speak with scathing hatred. I use no epithets, they can't get enough of them. I don't use ad hominem, they plow me in the ground. I don't speak disparagingly about their beliefs, all they do is use hate-filled words and terminologies.But I'm the bigot?!?!?!I'm the one who gets suspended?!?!?Nice. This is turning out to be a fine display of censorship and hypocrisy.

---

“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

How can you honestly read what I have written and come to the conclusion that you have? Seriously... This is a serious question. How can you read what I wrote and make comments like that?What does paedophilia have to do with homosexual marriage? Absolutely nothing. Good thing I wasn't attempting to equivocate.A large number of paedophiles are not homosexual: Correct. Good thing I wasn't saying they were.Paedo's come in all shapes, sizes, backgrounds, yada, yada: Roger that. Can't disagree with you there. Good thing I never said otherwise.I want everyone to listen, and listen good, because this is beyond ridiculous. My angle on homosexual marriage is coming to you from a moral perspective. If all things are relative, then to exclude something LIKE paedophiliac marriages, but demand inclusion of homosexual marriages, makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, all it does is affirm sheer hypocrisy and the illogical.You say that it is wrong to only allow heterosexuals to marry. Okay, that's fine. Lets go with that. Lets examine it in a healthy way. But don't you think that maybe, just maybe, you are taking back with the left hand what you gave with the right? If only allowing heterosexuals to marry is bigoted, then why isn't it bigoted to bar a brother and a sister to marry if they want?Then some superficial qualifier is given, and they use a useless tautology, like, "but it is illegal." Well, so is homosexual marriage. You aren't giving me any actual reason why it should be accepted or why anything under the sun shouldn't be accepted. Does that not make sense, honestly? That's a perfectly legitimate and rational question.Many people say that your sexual preferences are formed in the womb, and that expecting homosexuals to deny their most basic instincts is cruel. That's cool. That's a great question, and an honest one. Lets examine that! However, if I say that wouldn't it be really easy for paedophiles to say that they born that way, pretty much an improvable scapegoat? Who's to say that they aren't, and we're just being cruel by barring them.How in the hell is asking that question equivocating!?!? How does that question somehow turn in to me saying that homosexuals are pedophiles? It doesn't, so stop misconstruing it! I'm beginning to believe it is intentional.Lastly, if all things are relative, and if I'm considered bigoted against homosexuals, you are bigoted against me. Think about that deeply for a minute, then remove your foot from your mouth.Are we all clear on Nemmy's stance now? Am I going to be suspended again for daring to utter a word that could be construed as offensive, all the while I'm called a "bigot" or an "asshole," and nothing happens to them?Can we now all have a nice and productive conversation?(Just to let you know bluescat, this reply was not solely to you. I am speaking mostly in generalities here. So please don't think that I am accusing you of things that you haven't done. Thanks for listening).Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

---

“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

*sigh*You didn't read anything I wrote, did you?I won't even dignify this with an answer. Just take special notice to the subtitle. That's all that needs to be said.

What grand and cosmic arbiter arbitrates this? It is if you have a relativist outlook. Incest, prostitution, etc, can be between two consenting adults. Why do you suppose they aren't legal, especially if they don't "hurt" anyone else? ("Hurt" in this instance being very vague and undefined).

---

“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

I don't think its a coincidence either. I think its intentional, to try and derail my premise.

---

“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

If women choose it for themselves, then aren't they allowed to make decisions without your morals interfering with them? That's debatable, but alright. First of all, I didn't say they were morally equivalent. I went out of my way to dispel the notion. When I said it is a moral argument, I am asking how the people who claim discrimination can justify their position without jeopardizing it in the process.In any case, the argument concerning homosexual marriage is one of asking whether or not it hurts society. For instance, a bloodsport does not hurt you, if you aren't in the ring. But it may hurt society as it callouses people to needless carnage. It may glorify violence, which may not be directly harmful to you, but may be indirectly.

---

“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

Think of it this way, Taz, and then maybe you might finally begin to understand where I'm coming from.There are only so many illustrations one could give about homosexuality, since it best can be juxtaposed by other forms of sexuality. I think you are aware that I'm fond of illustrations, metaphors, parables, and the like to begin with. So there should be no mystery there.There are only so many things human beings can copulate with to begin with, and consequently, people seem to have an aversion to all of them!So the premise of homosexuality is that it is a completely natural occurrence, and to try and force them to be sexual towards the opposite sex is like trying to swim upstream. Well, okay, I can appreciate that argument. But the problem is that this has never been substantiated scientifically, so while I can certainly accept the theory, I am not completely convinced. I'm also not convinced that isn't, either, so that should make you happy to some degree.Now, if you were to ask a paedophile how long he's had these sexual feelings towards pre-pubscent boys or girls, he may say that he's always "felt" that way. So if I ask you how you know that is either true or untrue, or whether or not its a justification, you saying that I'm equivocating is the last thing I wanna hear. Because for starters, you aren't even answering a legitimate question, and secondly you are manipulating what I'm saying.I can only surmise that it is intentional since we've been over this a few times in the past.If you can't tell exactly what I'm doing, I am turning the tables around to get everyone to think about their argument either from a scientific, philosophical, or moral stance. As of now, emotive arguments seem to be the fuel driving this bus. And quite frankly, I don't what it "feels" like for them, so it is difficult for me to sympathize with that aspect. I want something substantive so that I can understand it.As to the rationale, its inconsistent and illogical. If I call somebody out on the inconsistency or the failure to employ logic, why must my intent, which is explicit, be manipulated to mean something it so obviously doesn't -- the equivocation of homosexuals to other things? My questions are geared towards searching for weaknesses in logic. That is primarily what I am doing. It almost has less to do with the topic than it does debating.I think you know by now that if I feel a certain way, I'll just flat out tell you. If I really had a gigantic problem with homosexuals I would just tell you. So I will just be brutally honest right now, and tell you exactly how I view the situation.In a few words, I view it tentatively.Part of me thinks that maybe it is psychological, part of me thinks it could be something like a transvestite, where the sexual components might have been crossed. I mean, why do men find women attractive, and why do women find men attractive in the first place? There are multiple reasons, I'm sure. So it is conceivable that a man would find another man attractive in a sexual way at some point, no fault of his own. And should I receive some sort of definitive answer confirming that, I will wholly accept it.The other thing is that I like to debate. That's why I'm here. I'm not trying to make a difference in the world. Perhaps I should be, but I'm here for my own selfish reasons. Some people like video games, I like intellectual debate. I also seem to gravitate towards the underdog position because its a challenge. It may seem to you like I'm out to get gay people, but I'm really, truly, and honestly not. I really don't care all that much to be perfectly honest. Again, perhaps that I should, but I don't.Its only when the subject comes up do I speak about it. It just so happens to come up often here.In any case, I have apologized, even when I didn't particularly feel like I had to, to a few people. I apologized to Berberry. I wasn't out to hurt his feelings, I was just debating. I apologized if he misunderstood me, or if I allowed myself to say things I shouldn't have out of frustration. He accepted my apology and we even made plans to go out to lunch when he was coming out to Los Angeles on a trip. He never ended up calling because I think he couldn't make it all the way to California. Regardless, the point is that I had no problem with hanging out with him. His homosexuality would have been nothing to me.I agree that many Christians flame homosexuals with more ferocity than other things, and I don't agree with it. If the Judeo-Christian ethic is true, then his sin would be no more wrong than my own sins. And who am I to judge? I'm a piece of crap, as far as I'm concerned. I have high standards for myself, and I often don't live up to my own expectations.Long story short, I'm not trying to piss anyone off. I'm not trying to offend people. I'm debating. I'm also learning in the process about my views and how to learn about others views. I'm wrestling with ideas, especially one's that I have not come to a sure answer for. Homosexuality is one of them.In the meantime, I am sympathetic somewhat to the plight facing homosexuals. At the same time, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the plight of those offering a caveat. To me it seems like civil unions would be a good place to start, because it offers a compromise that both parties shouldn't reasonably object to... at least in my opinion, anyhow.I hope that cleared the air as much as possible.

---

“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