User Tag List

First 1234513 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 319

  1. #21
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    Gay marriage or marriage between two persons of the same sex can not be because marriage is by definition a relationship between two members of the opposite sex, sorry if that hurts anyones feelings but check the dictionary.

    As to why it would be a bad idea to attempt to change the meaning of the word, change the social institution and change the cultural norm, I can think of a number of concise reasons:-

    - Enduring social institutions and norms which are vital for generation on generation transmission of experience, the reproduction of society and social functionalism, you meddle with those are your peril, its not the same as changing the days the shops are open or where you can buy liquar.

    - The real issue is parity of esteem, should there and can there actually be parity of esteem between the heterosexual majority and the homosexual minority? Is it within the gift of government and society, through difficult and possibly very costly adjustments in the most vital and enduring social institutions, to deliver that?

    No. I really dont think so. There is a long history of this in the conflict and co-existence of other minorities and majorities and the study of minority-majority relations which are perhaps less important now due to marginalisation would really prove fruitful to anyone considering the minutia of this topic. Basically for the individual who is well adjusted to their identity no especial external recognition or response to their identity is going to be necessary, for the one which is other directed none is ever going to suffice or satisfy.

    - Why does marriage between a man and a woman exist in the first place? There are myriad reasons and norms, including norms to do with inheritance and property, norms equated with romantic love and affective bonding, from a strictly scientific and materialist perspective it could be considered a legal sanction of a bio-chemically addictive bond which persists to permit child birth and child raising.

    What's not really in question and persists no matter what way the institution is reimagined or reinvented by different communities or cultural backdrops is naturalistic aspect of heterosexuality, biologically and usually psychologically males and females are sexual compatible with one another, they also have monogamous relationships. So effectively marriage existed in fact before it was linguistically and legally sanctioned and became a norm. I dont see compelling evidence for it existing as a norm already or if it did to give it recognition and thereby make it normative.

    The origins of homosexuality are consisted, sometimes even between homosexuals and sometimes definitely by bi-sexuals or pomo-sexuals who do not accept the idea of binary divisions in sexuality or sexual dichotomies, whether it is a consequence of bio-chemical responses, genetic make up, physiology or culture to me sometimes appears besides the point but what I would suggest can not be contested is that there is a huge profile, particularly political, given to what is a small community of individuals and which by its very nature logic would suggest ought to be one which would receed in numbers over time.

    What is the big deal about that? Well, in part it corresponds to the issue of sufficiency and parity of esteem which I mentioned earlier but it also to me is a very, very serious issue from the perspective of private conscience and individual sovereignty, you can be a conscientious objector to just about anything presently, and behave accordingly, but not to homosexual behaviour.

    It is a seperate topic and one I've mentioned before, only to be labelled a bigot and provoke the vitriol of many, but while I'm sure there is a minority of individuals who are happy, well adjusted psychologically and socially whose same sex attraction and sexual behaviour is unaccompanied by risk taking behaviourial norms or other key indicators of maladaption to me, without prejudice, this appears to be the minorities minority. There is a major, major issue as to whether or not the homosexual community itself is yet ready to police itself and reconsider the fact that its historical status as ostrichised and oppressed has allowed it to become a lightening conductory or umbrella for many who are ill or deviant. I dont think it is and for the most part the heterosexual majority isnt able or willing to take that role for fear of being accused of bigotry, at least that's what comes to light when homosexual couples abuse children they have fostered and social workers are investigated following the incident, as has happened in the UK. Similarly individuals in homosexual welfare organisations are prosecuted for their roles in peadophile rings, while leaders of gay rights campaigns like Peter Thatchell campaign for the "sexual rights of adolescents/children" suggesting that the age of conscent criminalises.

    Given that backdrop I dont think I could support anything which promotes homosexuality as normative, including revision the most enduring and successful social institution there's been.

    Now you can consider this and go away and think about it or you can dismiss me as a bigot, probably a "bible basher" or similar liberal stereotype, a closet bigot who's good at rationalisation and sophistry. That's going to be your choice at the end of the day.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mkenya View Post
    Marriage is a social institution. Since it is simply that, then shouldn't those who engage in the institution be able to say what is and what isn't acceptable withing that institution? Obviously, people have decided (at least for the time being) that gay marriage is not acceptable within this institution.
    This institution you are speaking of is a national, legal institution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mkenya View Post
    Should the institution be forced to change simply because a minority think that it should?
    No, it should change because, at this time, it does not treat all citizens equally. A church can decide not to marry homosexual people due to religious reasons, but not the state. What you call marriage is a legal term, not a religious one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    I'll tell you what happens.. after fighting for their civil rights to obtain "equality" and thus granted them.. For some reason, there is still a culture of "treat me special, because I am different"..
    You seem to confuse equality before the law with equality of people's individual characteristics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    There is still a Gay pride parade.. which is apparently politically motivated.. except now there is no need..
    There are still feminists. There are still black civil rights activists. The law is not everything. Hell, there are still people who hate jews.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    SO now a gay parade is a celebration of sexuality .. which is fine.. except all over the place around here , things like valentines day now considered politically incorrect because they don't promote all sexualities.
    That sounds rather silly indeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    If equality is obtained.. Then what right do gays have to claim a distinct culture based on sexuality?
    You are all Americans, what right have people of Italian ancestry to claim a distinct culture? Burn down Chinatown!

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    Then you could say hetero relationships are also a "distinct culture" and thus marriage is part of that culture that gays had no right challenging.
    In churches. Homosexual people who want to be married in a christian church are clearly out of their mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    SO the issue now is.. You are gay.. so fucking what?? Put it away and act normal.. because you are normal right?
    No more parades.. No more rainbows.. no more culture of sexuality..
    You are a special interest group or you are aren't . Having both is bullshit and will just breed more intolerance.
    I believe there is a sociological need for such things as parades, although I find them ridiculous myself.

  3. #23
    Senior Member guesswho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Savage Brain View Post
    You'll never get an entirely logical argument against gay marriage because there are none; every argument that goes against gays getting married is based of fear and irrationality, nothing else.
    You'll never get an entirely logical argument against gay marriage? Seriously?

    Here is a logical argument:
    2 men get married, after a while, they decide their lives are empty without a child so they adopt one.
    The child obviously won't be asked if he wants 2 dads.

    But he grows up, he will feel weird at school when he's asked about his parents. Other kids are going to make fun of him, since he comes from a different family. He will grow up to hate his situation. It is a possibility.

    Nobody asked him if he wants 2 parents of the same gender. Maybe he does not want that.

    Of course this operates on the premise that after gay marriage will be OK, the next thing on the list will be gay adoption.

    I'm just saying I wouldn't want to have 2 dads, would you want that?

  4. #24
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shimmy View Post
    What follows is not an answer to, but a broadening of the question:
    Marriage is just a social institution. Nothing logical about it.
    I think the point of legal marriage was to succinctly embody a particular collection of rights and privileges to reinforce a family institution as well as provide a stable base for child-rearing. I've seen someone argue on another forum that marriage itself is obsolete since all of these rights could be handled separately but the case wasn't yet compelling to me... it just seems easiest to bring them together into a package.

    Unfortunately, there's a lot of social/religious baggage that has been attached to marriage that also confuses the issue... including the same-sex thing. Based on the definition above, the gender of the two parties has no relevance to their ability to maintain a family unit or their ability to raise children (via adoption if not natural birth).

    And because of some inconsistencies between states and how marriage is treated, it kind of makes gender look entirely irrelevant. For example, I am part of what is now (legally) a "same-sex" union in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage. Why? Because I changed my legal gender at 17 years of marriage and so my marriage is basically "grand-fathered" in -- the legality of the marriage occurred at the moment the marriage was instituted rather than affected by later events. As long as I stay married to my current spouse, I'm a woman who is legally married to another woman in the state of Pennsylvania. Which leads to the following question:

    How can my marriage be considered "moral and good" and legal for 17 years, and then overnight, because I changed the gender flag on my legal identification, suddenly I would not have been able to marry this person? We are the same people who created a legal union with each other all those years ago, the same people who established a viable and secure household, the same people who raised three healthy and productive children... and just because of a character on my driver's license, I would have been told that that was impossible for me and perhaps even immoral, and certainly not as good as all those het marriages, even if divorce is still pretty commonplace among hets.

    ...When you look at it through that light, i all just seems kind of silly.

    Quote Originally Posted by guesswho View Post
    You'll never get an entirely logical argument against gay marriage? Seriously?

    Here is a logical argument:
    2 men get married, after a while, they decide their lives are empty without a child so they adopt one.
    The child obviously won't be asked if he wants 2 dads.

    But he grows up, he will feel weird at school when he's asked about his parents. Other kids are going to make fun of him, since he comes from a different family. He will grow up to hate his situation. It is a possibility.

    Nobody asked him if he wants 2 parents of the same gender. Maybe he does not want that.
    I didn't want a father who was an alcoholic either, but I didn't get any choice in the matter.

    I didn't want a mother who was so into religion (along with her entire side of the family) that I didn't get the understanding I needed to grow the way I should have and feel unconditionally loved, but I didn't get any choice in the matter.

    I didn't want to live in the middle of the country with no friends growing up, but I didn't get any choice in the matter.

    Every kid feels weird about his or her parents in some way.

    And with this, it's only weird because society says it's weird.
    If there were enough families in society who accepted it, then suddenly it would not be weird.
    Your logic is the same logic that was used to say that interracial marriage was wrong.
    Or that a foreign family moving into the neighborhood was wrong.
    Or that marrying across religious lines was wrong.

    I think the children's feelings do have to be acknowledged, so they can be taught how to deal with those feelings; but making a child's feelings of not fitting in to be the basic litmus test for whether a social change is beneficial or not seems to be a large distortion to me, since children will always feel different about any change.

    Of course this operates on the premise that after gay marriage will be OK, the next thing on the list will be gay adoption.
    I'm just saying I wouldn't want to have 2 dads, would you want that?
    Well, here's the question: If you HAD been raised by two dads...you would be a different person, you'd hopefully have two parents you felt loved you, and even if you felt "different" from your peers because of it and wished to be "normal," I'm pretty sure your feelings would not be exactly as they are now on the matter because it would be all that you knew.

    And this is what we're seeing in the culture. Early in a social change, the kids who are different feel VERY different. After enough families/situations change, the kids feel less and less different because it's more and more common. Eventually diversity becomes commonplace, and there's no longer a stigma. It's a lot more common nowadays to see two dads or two moms, and kids are becoming more accepting of it. Give it another thirty years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight
    What happens in a place where Gay Marriage is legal??

    I'll tell you what happens.. after fighting for their civil rights to obtain "equality" and thus granted them.. For some reason, there is still a culture of "treat me special, because I am different".. There is still a Gay pride parade.. which is apparently politically motivated.. except now there is no need.. SO now a gay parade is a celebration of sexuality .. which is fine.. except all over the place around here , things like valentines day now considered politically incorrect because they don't promote all sexualities.

    If equality is obtained.. Then what right do gays have to claim a distinct culture based on sexuality?
    Then you could say hetero relationships are also a "distinct culture" and thus marriage is part of that culture that gays had no right challenging.

    SO the issue now is.. You are gay.. so fucking what?? Put it away and act normal.. because you are normal right? No more parades.. No more rainbows.. no more culture of sexuality..
    You are a special interest group or you are aren't . Having both is bullshit and will just breed more intolerance.
    What's with all the hostility?

    We're not at that stage in our culture yet.

    I think your comments will appear far more reasonable when same-sex marriage is not socially stigmatized in the manner you seem to be stigmatizing it right here. It would be like telling feminists to STFU in the 80's before they actually had accomplished all the necessary social change.

    At that point, it would merely become "diversity" just like being black or Chinese or Buddhist or Amish or whatever and subject to the same social ebb and flow.

    But I think it's a two-way street. Gays seem hostile to you because they feel culture has shifted some but still possesses some inequities; meanwhile, you are speaking in hostile ways about gays in return because you're resisting the very change they want to promote. Let the change occur, and then they won't be in your face.

    Quote Originally Posted by perfectgirl View Post
    I really don't care about clever or values. I care about what's real and more importantly, logical. Gay marriage is not logical. .... Biologically speaking, if you can prove your case, I'm willing to listen to you. Otherwise, I'm not...
    Biologically? Really? Okay.

    Read Joan Roughgarden's "Evolution's Rainbow," for starters.
    Chapter 8, "Same-Sex Sexuality."
    Homosexuality as a *natural* part of many different animal species has been documented for a number of decades. In fact, with some species (such as bighorn sheep), males who do NOT have sex with other males are considered the species anomalies by the researchers.
    It ain't a rarity, it's actually part of the variation within specied behavior.

    Animals don't have politics or sexual-identity issues, they're just responding out of natural instinctive behavior. Meanwhile, human beings are still biological animals but possessing self-awareness, so we can choose to override natural instincts at times.

    Rationally, then, it seems precedented in the animal kingdom to accept at least a partial biological basis for homosexuality. And the choice to override it would then be a moral issue (an exercise of will based on personal values). So yes, this discussion IS all about morality and the level of imposition of one person's values on another, and how to find some sort of balance. If you're taking a confrontational stance on this matter, it can't be because homosexual preferences are rationally wrong; they just are.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #25
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by guesswho View Post
    2 men get married, after a while, they decide their lives are empty without a child so they adopt one.
    The child obviously won't be asked if he wants 2 dads.

    But he grows up, he will feel weird at school when he's asked about his parents. Other kids are going to make fun of him, since he comes from a different family. He will grow up to hate his situation. It is a possibility.

    Nobody asked him if he wants 2 parents of the same gender. Maybe he does not want that.

    Of course this operates on the premise that after gay marriage will be OK, the next thing on the list will be gay adoption.
    As you noticed, that is an argument against gay adoption, not gay marriage.

    However, I trust that people who want to have a child will think about the consequences of them having a child. They will think twice when they are Israelites in Iran; they will think twice when they are Japanese in China; and they will think twice when they are homosexuals in Bigotville.

    If we decided what should be allowed by imagining the worst possible outcome of its legalization, there would be no cars, no microwaves, no alcohol, no cigarettes, no guns.

    In the film, the kids were all right.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Gay marriage or marriage between two persons of the same sex can not be because marriage is by definition a relationship between two members of the opposite sex, [...] check the dictionary.
    Okay, let's check a dictionary:
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...m/Gay+marriage

  7. #27
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Pretty much all the arguments I've heard over the years boil down to gay marriage:

    • encourages deviancy/immorality - this starts with the assumption that homosexuality is inherently dangerous, immoral, and unhealthy, and therefore any non-negative legal recognition of homosexuality is bad. Usually one needs to ignore most scientific studies and believe that gay people can be made straight and that being gay in inherently unhealthy. This argument tends break down when one thinks about whether one would want one's daughter marrying a closet case, and whether forcing homosexuality into the shadows is really healthiest for all concerned. Often the driving force behind this argument is a personal emotional revulsion to the idea of gay sex: the "ick!" factor.
    • lacks the ability to procreate - that is, "marriage is for people who can procreate on their own." Except clearly it isn't in practice... it's open to the infertile, elderly, people who never plan to have kids, etc. Plus, gay people in practice raise kids, anyway (lesbians find sperm donors, gay men adopt or pay a surrogate mother, etc).
    • is not traditional - that's not how we've done it in the past, and change is dangerous (insert references to religion, quotes from historical figures, and slippery-slope arguments—bestiality! polygamy! pet rocks!—here). This works best if you ignore changes to marriage over the centuries (move away from polygamy, coverture, marriage as a consequence of rape, being expected to marry one's brother's wife if he died, etc.). Also, often confuses the legal institution of marriage with the religious one, and fails to note that religions are free to recognize or not recognize legal marriages (see catholics and not recognizing remarrying after a divorce).
    • is against the will of the people - this is often the argument of people who believe that gay marriage should be up for a popular vote. This avoids the whole rightness/wrongness and turns it into more of a popularity contest. Helps here if one doesn't think too hard about unpopular minorities (racial/religious/other) in the past, and has never heard the phrase "tyranny of the majority."


    Arguments about gay people adopting or having children are often similar, although studies show they do as well as children raised by straight couples (at least here in the US). Plus, children are always saddled with advantages/disadvantages they didn't choose (poverty, parents with emotional issues, poor schooling, etc)... one would need to show that having gay parents is more harmful than the other burdens we allow parents to saddle children with.

  8. #28
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    You can make a logical arguement against gay marriage (you can make a logical arguement against just about anything, really); its just that such arguements rely on the social sciences (which are highly open to question on the matters of cause and effect, and this is coming from a big fan of the subject matter), and are not particularly convincing in light of the principles which liberal democracies are based upon.

  9. #29
    Senior Member IndyGhost's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEI
    Posts
    2,399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mkenya View Post
    Maybe...
    Homosexuality is biologically counter productive. Obviously we'll never get rid of it homosexuality entirely (it's probably a natural part of the human psyche) but since it's unnatural it shouldn't be tolerated. Allowing gay marriage would be tolerating it. <- if you can accept that, then all that remains is proving homosexuality as biologically counter productive.

    As humans our goal is to pass on our genes in order to sustain (and ultimately improve) our species. Allowing gay marriage would not discourage people to not pass on their genes by not seeking someone who would enable them to do so. (I don't expect anyone to get that..In other words, allowing gay marriage would not discourage homosexuality. This "not-discouraging" would allow people who would otherwise start families to not start families..instead they'd just live with their gay partner and perhaps adopt children.) By them not passing on their genes, they are ultimately not making the species as great as it could be. (Gene variety, gene competition etc etc). So, gay marriage should be discouraged. By allowing gay marriage you do not discourage it..which ultimately hurts the whole species.
    How is this an argument against gay marriage then, if it neither encourages or discourages homosexuality? It'll continue on regardless.

    I'm also shocked by the need to discourage homosexuality. Am I the only one here that took a biology course in college?? Mutations occur in the course of evolution, and mutations itself are neither good nor bad. Many mutations over the course of life on earth have been quite productive, eventually leading us to 2-legged, upright, mostly hairless homo-sapiens. Others have been negative, such as sickle cell anemia and other examples. And others are completely neutral... such as sticky or dry earwax or homosexuality. A homosexual on it's own may not necessarily be capable of carrying out it's individual genes to the next generation, and in that way may not be successful... but evolutionarily, it keeps happening and neither severely detriments the individual's health. In societal roles, it doesn't always play out successfully... but this is why we need to be more open to it. We lend out our hand to those who are unsuccessful evolutionarily because they are blind or deaf, etc. (and I don't necessarily mean to liken being gay to being blind), but we don't discourage the blind by killing them off or telling them they cannot marry as they might carry on the genes for blindness for the offsprings to come.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mkenya View Post
    Hmm..how about this one...
    Marriage is a social institution. Since it is simply that, then shouldn't those who engage in the institution be able to say what is and what isn't acceptable withing that institution? Obviously, people have decided (at least for the time being) that gay marriage is not acceptable within this institution. Should the institution be forced to change simply because a minority think that it should? People's opinions on homosexuality (even if non logical) entitle them to create institutions that express their beliefs. Institutions like marriage are simply extensions of that (others would include Islam, Christianity, vegeterianism (?) etc). As long as gay people can "marry" (although they can't use that term since it implies that the actual institution of marriage accepts homosexuality (may I propose garriage?) ) and are afforded equal rights to those that are married, then why force an institution to change to meet the needs of the minority, especially when 1)it doesn't have to 2) it doesn't want to 3) it is of no consequence in the end?

    Basically, the majority say no gay marriage...so no gay marriage. If you have a problem with it, create your own marriage (ie civil unions, right?) but we want it made clear that our marriage is different from yours. Doing otherwise is basically forcing the majority to adapt to the minority..basically forcing your beliefs onto people who have clearly rejected them.
    To the bold: yes! Isn't this the story of freedom and happiness and life and liberty, etc. etc.? The majority used to believe that blacks weren't allowed in a white's only restaurant... they truly believed that this was right. It doesn't make it so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    What happens in a place where Gay Marriage is legal??

    I'll tell you what happens.. after fighting for their civil rights to obtain "equality" and thus granted them.. For some reason, there is still a culture of "treat me special, because I am different".. There is still a Gay pride parade.. which is apparently politically motivated.. except now there is no need.. SO now a gay parade is a celebration of sexuality .. which is fine.. except all over the place around here , things like valentines day now considered politically incorrect because they don't promote all sexualities.

    If equality is obtained.. Then what right do gays have to claim a distinct culture based on sexuality?
    Then you could say hetero relationships are also a "distinct culture" and thus marriage is part of that culture that gays had no right challenging.


    SO the issue now is.. You are gay.. so fucking what?? Put it away and act normal.. because you are normal right?
    No more parades.. No more rainbows.. no more culture of sexuality..
    You are a special interest group or you are aren't . Having both is bullshit and will just breed more intolerance.
    What???? They have equality parades in the pursuit of achieving equality and diminishing ignorance. It's a celebration of who they are. And I suppose they will continue in the same way that feminist are consistently fighting and the way that black's are consistently fighting. Perhaps another 100 years down the road when true equality exists for these groups and the need for recognition no longer is needed, these fights and separation of groups will diminish.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Gay marriage or marriage between two persons of the same sex can not be because marriage is by definition a relationship between two members of the opposite sex, sorry if that hurts anyones feelings but check the dictionary.

    As to why it would be a bad idea to attempt to change the meaning of the word, change the social institution and change the cultural norm, I can think of a number of concise reasons:-

    - Enduring social institutions and norms which are vital for generation on generation transmission of experience, the reproduction of society and social functionalism, you meddle with those are your peril, its not the same as changing the days the shops are open or where you can buy liquar.

    - The real issue is parity of esteem, should there and can there actually be parity of esteem between the heterosexual majority and the homosexual minority? Is it within the gift of government and society, through difficult and possibly very costly adjustments in the most vital and enduring social institutions, to deliver that?

    No. I really dont think so. There is a long history of this in the conflict and co-existence of other minorities and majorities and the study of minority-majority relations which are perhaps less important now due to marginalisation would really prove fruitful to anyone considering the minutia of this topic. Basically for the individual who is well adjusted to their identity no especial external recognition or response to their identity is going to be necessary, for the one which is other directed none is ever going to suffice or satisfy.

    - Why does marriage between a man and a woman exist in the first place? There are myriad reasons and norms, including norms to do with inheritance and property, norms equated with romantic love and affective bonding, from a strictly scientific and materialist perspective it could be considered a legal sanction of a bio-chemically addictive bond which persists to permit child birth and child raising.

    What's not really in question and persists no matter what way the institution is reimagined or reinvented by different communities or cultural backdrops is naturalistic aspect of heterosexuality, biologically and usually psychologically males and females are sexual compatible with one another, they also have monogamous relationships. So effectively marriage existed in fact before it was linguistically and legally sanctioned and became a norm. I dont see compelling evidence for it existing as a norm already or if it did to give it recognition and thereby make it normative.

    The origins of homosexuality are consisted, sometimes even between homosexuals and sometimes definitely by bi-sexuals or pomo-sexuals who do not accept the idea of binary divisions in sexuality or sexual dichotomies, whether it is a consequence of bio-chemical responses, genetic make up, physiology or culture to me sometimes appears besides the point but what I would suggest can not be contested is that there is a huge profile, particularly political, given to what is a small community of individuals and which by its very nature logic would suggest ought to be one which would receed in numbers over time.

    What is the big deal about that? Well, in part it corresponds to the issue of sufficiency and parity of esteem which I mentioned earlier but it also to me is a very, very serious issue from the perspective of private conscience and individual sovereignty, you can be a conscientious objector to just about anything presently, and behave accordingly, but not to homosexual behaviour.

    It is a seperate topic and one I've mentioned before, only to be labelled a bigot and provoke the vitriol of many, but while I'm sure there is a minority of individuals who are happy, well adjusted psychologically and socially whose same sex attraction and sexual behaviour is unaccompanied by risk taking behaviourial norms or other key indicators of maladaption to me, without prejudice, this appears to be the minorities minority. There is a major, major issue as to whether or not the homosexual community itself is yet ready to police itself and reconsider the fact that its historical status as ostrichised and oppressed has allowed it to become a lightening conductory or umbrella for many who are ill or deviant. I dont think it is and for the most part the heterosexual majority isnt able or willing to take that role for fear of being accused of bigotry, at least that's what comes to light when homosexual couples abuse children they have fostered and social workers are investigated following the incident, as has happened in the UK. Similarly individuals in homosexual welfare organisations are prosecuted for their roles in peadophile rings, while leaders of gay rights campaigns like Peter Thatchell campaign for the "sexual rights of adolescents/children" suggesting that the age of conscent criminalises.

    Given that backdrop I dont think I could support anything which promotes homosexuality as normative, including revision the most enduring and successful social institution there's been.

    Now you can consider this and go away and think about it or you can dismiss me as a bigot, probably a "bible basher" or similar liberal stereotype, a closet bigot who's good at rationalisation and sophistry. That's going to be your choice at the end of the day.
    Marriage is only defined as such because of it's refusal to open up it's door to a bigger picture. Basically, what you're telling me is that unless a man and a woman decide to have a child, they should not be legally sanctioned together. Also, marriage isn't only for the religious. It's become a governmental "thing" as well. Atheists still marry, and not under the holy ghost or under God, but in the eyes of society are recognized as united. I could understand if a church did not want to marry a homosexual couple, but why not the courts?

    Also, homosexuality is genetically a natural occurring thing, and not someone acting in a devious way. I've had gay friends tell me, "Why on earth would I CHOOSE to be gay?" It's typically something they've recognized in their self from a very early age. Going back to my topic about mutations earlier, (which once again, does not imply is a negative, as mutations are naturally occurring phenomena) is that there are a few different reasons for why homosexuality occurs... naturally. For some, it's an attraction towards the same sex pheromones, as opposed to the opposite sex pheromones. This is typically where you'll see a gay male or gay female act in accordance with the proper sex they are assigned, yet attracted to the similar sex. Then there is the genetic confusion of the chromosomes, where internally one might be XX, externally they are XY. This is where you see the flamboyant gay male, or even in some cases, the desire to become a female.

    Tell me that if you were born gay in this day and age that you truly would not feel at a disadvantage, or unwelcomed by your community at large to be who you are and perhaps have some angst that society is telling you that it is wrong to be who you are and to love who you do.

    We've made the world more accommodating to those born with other abnormalities, so why not those born with sexual abnormalities? I think the world of science really needs to showcase that homosexuality is not deviant behavior, or a negative mutation. We don't punish those born without a leg, but rather help them to get around, paved the path of equality in the career world, etc... so why not the same for the homosexual who wants to spend his or her life with whomever they so choose?

    Quote Originally Posted by guesswho View Post
    You'll never get an entirely logical argument against gay marriage? Seriously?

    Here is a logical argument:
    2 men get married, after a while, they decide their lives are empty without a child so they adopt one.
    The child obviously won't be asked if he wants 2 dads.

    But he grows up, he will feel weird at school when he's asked about his parents. Other kids are going to make fun of him, since he comes from a different family. He will grow up to hate his situation. It is a possibility.

    Nobody asked him if he wants 2 parents of the same gender. Maybe he does not want that.

    Of course this operates on the premise that after gay marriage will be OK, the next thing on the list will be gay adoption.

    I'm just saying I wouldn't want to have 2 dads, would you want that?
    One of my closest friends was raised by two lesbians. Honestly, I think this made her the amazing person that she is. Her many siblings seem to show absolutely no resentment towards it either.
    "I don't know a perfect person.
    I only know flawed people who are still worth loving."
    -John Green

  10. #30
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    one would need to show that having gay parents is more harmful than the other burdens we allow parents to saddle children with.
    This; they would also need to demonstrate that such harm is mostly inherent, rather than the result of societal abuse.

Similar Threads

  1. [ENTP] The Limits of Awesomeness (alternatively, Common ENTP Issues)
    By Qre:us in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-09-2011, 10:23 AM
  2. The issues of fatherlessness.
    By guesswho in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-02-2011, 12:40 AM
  3. The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
    By teslashock in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 04-12-2010, 02:51 PM
  4. So what's really the big deal about Gay marriage?
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 222
    Last Post: 12-19-2008, 12:06 PM
  5. Gay marriage, adoption, related issues -- Take 2
    By Zergling in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 01:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO