User Tag List

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 52

Thread: From homosexuality to homogenity

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array Lark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009

    Default From homosexuality to homogenity

    The one time champions of diversity and respecting any and all ways of life have decided everyone should be the same:

    he said the legislation should also allow heterosexual couples to have a civil partnership: "I think we should just have both for everybody. It should be exactly the same for everybody."
    So what's you're view, wanting to conform and be the same appears to be the new black, what you do make of this particular political vogue and fashion?

    The one size fits all, standardised, samery is it the ultimate destination for any and all understanding of equality? Should we have wheelchairs for all?

    Or does it make sense to argue that homosexuality and heterosexuality are really just the same when homosexuals prefer partners of the same sex and heterosexuals prefer partners of the opposite sex? Perhaps, you know, they really are not the same thing and that's alright?

    Oh I'm so full of questions, if only I had some young people ask, young people have all the answers, never err and are a positive oracle in comparison with age, experience, learning and tradition, dont you think:

    Younger people can't understand what all the fuss is about," he said.
    Intellectually at least commentary in the UK is pretty much fucked.

  2. #2
    jump Array sleuthiness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    54 so/sp
    IEI Ni


    Depends on where UK's priorities lie, whether in casting dentures or football trampling deaths.

    I'd been convinced for a solid two months that the larger media held no sway over you.

    thinking of you

  3. #3


    Well my impression, even if everyone gets a civil union, is that you can still have a special heterosexual marriage in the Catholic (or whichever) church. And for people who are religious, that is what really matters. Being united in God's eyes. At least that is my impression.
    Your kisses, sweeter than honey. But guess what, so is my money.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Array pinkgraffiti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    748 sx/so


    what is your question exactly? you seem jealous.

    also: there are no homo/heterosexual couples, only couples of the same or different sex (and homo/heterosexual people). or else where would you put the bisexual? bisexual couples? lol

  5. #5
    He pronks, too! Array Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    One sx/sp


    I don't see any sign that any heterosexual is being forced to have sex with someone else of the same sex as them. I only see homosexuals and heterosexuals beings given the same options and thus do not see any good reason for anyone to be bothered by this.

    And as for complaining about the government changing the definition of marriage, it is quite simple. If marriage has any relationship to the law at all, the government should have the power to change it. If you don't like that, then you should be satisfied with marriage that has no legal significance or identity of any kind.
    Go to sleep, iguana.

    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  6. #6
    darkened dreams Array labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    4 sx/sp
    INFp None


    It depends on what resolution you are viewing the concept. I think on the most basic level marriage between two consenting adults is going to be the same process whether hetero or homosexual. On a high level of resolution, there are not any two marriages alike. I know if I married a man or a woman, my own sense of the process would be equivalent in terms of love and devotion.

    I think it would be ideal if at the state level there was a more generalized concept of partnership, and then people can individually add their own social and religious expectations on top of that general legal, state pairing. I think at the state level, marriage should be more flexible and simple in terms of requirements, and then on the added religious level it can be whatever people want it to be.

    To use your metaphor: instead of thinking about giving everyone a wheelchair, you provide access ramps that allows anyone to enter whether on foot, in a wheelchair, walking with a cane, hauling a harp, etc. The access is simple and general so that it provides entrance regardless of the individual specifics of mobility.
    The first man to raise a fist is the man who's run out of ideas. H.G. WELLS
    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. FEYNMAN

    If this is monkey pee, you're on your own.SCULLY

  7. #7
    Strongly Ambivalent Array Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007


    He's clearly saying that the options of marriage or civil union should be available to all- not that everyone should choose the same thing. How is allowing both options for anyone that wants them in any way contrary to diversity or respecting other ways of life?

  8. #8
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Array Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    New Zealand is now the 14th country to legislate for same sex marriage.

    Here it is interesting that the main opposition to same sex marriage comes from the churches, mosques and synagogues.

    In fact the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils have called for a national referendum on same sex marriage, and says only religious people should be able to vote.

    And Keysar Trad, the assistant secretary of the Federation of Islamic Councils, said: ''Marriage is a religious union under God, it has always been and should always be. God sets the rules, not Parliament.''

    And naturally as this is part of the Islamic project to replace Parliament with Sharia and establish Islamic Supremacy.
    There is NOTHING--absolute nothing--half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats. Simply messing.
    Click on

    And to understand the internet click on

    Enter the Maelstrom with Marshall McLuhan by clicking on

  9. #9
    AKA Nunki Array Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    451 sp/sx
    INFp Ni


    There's a difference between providing a service to different kinds of people and attempting to equate different kinds of people to each other. If a restaurant owner provides each of his customers with the same menu, he isn't stating that each of his customers is the same; he's merely giving each of his customers the same set of choices (if this situation entails any homogenization, it is a homogenization of the restaurant owner himself, who chooses to act similarly under diverse circumstances when it might be more natural, if less efficient, to treat each customer differently). In its most basic sense, to allow different people access to the same choice is not even to assume that different people are equally endowed to pursue that choice; it's merely to refrain from hindering them.

    Why stop at giving same-sex marriages a different name from opposite-sex marriages? Let's create new terms for marriages with certain age, race, and name configurations, as well. And let's not stop there, either; let's keep going until we have an entire library full of volumes bursting with names for different types of marriage. Or better yet, every time someone gets married, we could have the priest or judge fill in a blank on a form with a term of his own invention, and this term could be checked against a database of marriage synonyms to ensure that it hasn't already been invented. This would do a great deal to stamp out that nasty homogenization business, at least in the area of marriage. The next thing to deal with would be birth certificates (it's absolutely appalling that countless unique souls have entered this world in so many unique ways, only for it to be said of them all that they were "born.")
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  10. #10
    Alchemist of life Array Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    5w6 sp/sx


    As the title of the OP's linked article reads, there certainly has been "Too much time spent on gay marriage." Legislatures should just approve it already and be done with it, so they can move on to things that don't have such a straightforward and obvious solution. A civil partnership is all the government should be providing to anyone, gay or straight, regardless of what we choose to call it. Every adult should have the right to designate one life partner of his/her choice. Period. OK, this denies legal sanction to polyamorous relationships, but that has obvious financial ramifications that don't pertain to monogamous gay relationships, so one step at a time. Anything beyond civil (i.e. legal) recognition is not the government's to give. That comes from churches, cultural groups, familes, friends, etc. The law should not say anything about that.
    Hope is the denial of reality. It is the carrot dangled before the draft horse to keep him plodding along in a vain attempt to reach it. We should remove the carrot and walk forward with our eyes open. -- Raistlin Majere

Similar Threads

  1. still not against homosexuality?
    By INTP in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 01-13-2011, 03:57 PM
  2. Israel: Progressive Homosexuality Laws
    By 01011010 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 10-16-2009, 03:25 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