User Tag List

View Poll Results: Do you think same-sex marriage should be legal?

Voters
135. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes and I'm an NF.

    48 35.56%
  • Yes and I'm an NT.

    51 37.78%
  • Yes and I'm an SP.

    10 7.41%
  • Yes and I'm an SJ.

    4 2.96%
  • No and I'm an NF.

    5 3.70%
  • No and I'm an NT.

    4 2.96%
  • No and I'm an SP.

    2 1.48%
  • No and I'm an SJ.

    7 5.19%
  • I don't know and I'm an NF.

    2 1.48%
  • I don't know and I'm an NT.

    1 0.74%
  • I don't know and I'm an SP.

    1 0.74%
  • I don't know and I'm an SJ.

    0 0%
First 81617181920 Last

Results 171 to 180 of 258

  1. #171
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    This is a case about two groups of people:

    1) Heterosexuals
    2) Homosexuals

    Group #1 has rights that group #2 does not.

    Nothing more.
    Nothing less.

    Decades ago the same problem existed with two other groups:

    1) Whites
    2) Blacks


    The same solution will prevail.
    This analogy only exists if you believe that homosexual behavior is not a choice. Ethnicities are forced upon individuals from birth.

  2. #172
    Senior Member Warm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    723

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    So this is about sex, and not about marriage, right?

    Because, call it a hunch, I don't think banning same sex marriage is going to stop people of the same sex from... having sex.
    Of course, banning same-sex marriage is not going to stop homosexual intercourse. I never said that it would. My thing is if homosexuals want to carry on their relationships (with or without sex), that's their business. Like I've said more than once, heaven and hell don't belong to me even if I do know that it's wrong. Don't ask me to say that it's okay for homosexual couples to have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, though. Nope.
    "Your voice is like chocolate...dreamy."
    --WildHorses

  3. #173
    Senior Thread Terminator Aerithria's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Warm View Post
    I wonder what makes something like that instinctual. What makes any behavior instinctual to some but not to others?
    There are many different theories. In this case, it's usually attested to being one part genetics, one part environmental, but mostly it's a mixture of both. I'm not sure your stance on it, but if you are one to accept its genetic component, gay marriage should seem like a great idea. If they marry each other, they can't suppress themselves, pass on their genes, and subsequently further the homosexuality epidemic. Gay marriage takes out two at a time! And note: they won't annoy straight people as much, once they no longer need to demand for their rights.

    There are many people who have same-sex attractions but suppress them.
    Yeah, and those people have every right to choose to do so. However, just because something can be done doesn't mean it should. And there are some gay people who've tried to suppress themselves, but can't. For a comparable analogy, try forcing yourself to be exclusively homosexual because some other group's values (which you may or may not agree with) state that being straight is wrong. Is that a fair request? Most people wouldn't think so, and they'd be right. And yet, when they aren't in that position, it seems reasonable to make that request to others.
    [insert funny quote/saying/etc.]

  4. #174
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    See, I remember this one lawsuit in a history book I read.

    There was this religious group who performed animal sacrifices as a part of their religious rituals. The 'normal' folks around them thought that this was terrible and wrong, and sought to make legislation to stop this practice. However, the legislation was overturned by a lawsuit because there were animals being slaughtered just a few miles away for commercial purposes, and outlawing one form of slaughter and not the other was declared as wrong by the courts, as long as these people doing the animal sacrifices were not breaking any other laws (like sacrificing humans, importing illegal animals for sacrifices, leaving out corpses that would be against disposal code, etc.)

    The 'normal' people still thought that these animal sacrifices were sick and wrong, but there was nothing they could do to stop it, because they partook in the slaughtering of animals, however for different reasons.



    ...crap. You know, that was such a long story that I think I forgot my point.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  5. #175
    Senior Member Warm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    723

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aerithria View Post
    However, just because something can be done doesn't mean it should.
    That's my point. Just because people CAN choose to give in to homosexual desires doesn't mean they should.
    "Your voice is like chocolate...dreamy."
    --WildHorses

  6. #176
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Warm View Post
    That's my point. Just because people CAN choose to give in to homosexual desires doesn't mean they should.
    but... we're not talking about desire, we're talking about marriage...
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  7. #177
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    See, I remember this one lawsuit in a history book I read.

    There was this religious group who performed animal sacrifices as a part of their religious rituals. The 'normal' folks around them thought that this was terrible and wrong, and sought to make legislation to stop this practice. However, the legislation was overturned by a lawsuit because there were animals being slaughtered just a few miles away for commercial purposes, and outlawing one form of slaughter and not the other was declared as wrong by the courts, as long as these people doing the animal sacrifices were not breaking any other laws (like sacrificing humans, importing illegal animals for sacrifices, leaving out corpses that would be against disposal code, etc.)

    The 'normal' people still thought that these animal sacrifices were sick and wrong, but there was nothing they could do to stop it, because they partook in the slaughtering of animals, however for different reasons.

    ...crap. You know, that was such a long story that I think I forgot my point.
    I believe you're referring to the 1993 case of Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. That case brings up issues related to the First Ammendment protections of religious freedom.

  8. #178
    Senior Thread Terminator Aerithria's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Warm View Post
    That's my point. Just because people CAN choose to give in to homosexual desires doesn't mean they should.
    The choice is a lot more difficult when the act itself is what you perceive to be natural. For gay people, heterosexuality is what's odd, though funnily enough, most of them choose not to comment on that. And for them, choosing not to partake in those activities is like choosing to breathe through your ear. The only people who can actively choose to be straight are the people born more towards the middle of the spectrum, such as bisexuals.

    And I apologize, I don't think I'm being clear with my point: yes, I realize that gays and lesbians do not have to follow through with their desires. But it's unfair for someone who is naturally straight and doesn't have to make the sacrifice to demand it from others.
    [insert funny quote/saying/etc.]

  9. #179
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Wow, did you really compare gay people to your neighbor's dog on heat? Nicely done. Very cogent and polite form of argument.

    Not cogent because by your own (once again weak) analogy, the only people who desire people of the same gender would be those who haven't tried hetero sex (empirically FALSE). Majority of gays (poor folks, they didn't know better) have in fact slept with people of the same gender and decided - not so much. Also, yes, do leave out the entire bisexual community because as usual, you'd like them to just choose a side right since they can. Alternatively, your analogy suggests that gay people desire their own gender because enough heteros aren't available (Again, empirically FALSE. Also, thanks for calling the entire community prison b****es. We sure do appreciate it :-).

    Since YOUR INTERPRETATION of the bible is just right and there's no other interpretation possible - such a logical view and so open to discussion. I will not question your belief system. Not being able to question it implies that it is so weak and there is so much fear associated with questioning it because it may all just fall apart on questioning.

    However, I do have a request. Please do not paint God in your own narrow image as a selfish (only allow people into heaven who accept that he/she is the only God), narrow-minded and completely lacking compassion God (only straight people who were born in countries where Christianity was preached and followed and were naturally blessed with desires for the opposite sex get to be people of faith and go to this lovely heaven).

    Having discussed your analogy, let's try a little tenderness, shall we? The last poster beat me to the punch on this one, wicked smart one that she is. I'll still repeat it in slightly different words.

    Let's try a counterfactual. Since you believe that the bible is just right and there is no questioning it. Also, such a believer in free will that you are, try empathy. Try putting yourself in the shoes of those you ask to change what to them is a basic desire, similar to your own.

    Let's imagine the world reversed. It's a world where God made heterosexuals the norm and one interpretation of the bible (I will continue to belabor this point as previous posters have with a strict reading really implying male rape of other males) would have said that heterosexuality would be wrong. No discussion. Simply wrong. Now you live in a world where what you know as an innate desire is against what society sees as the prevailing set of beliefs. Would you be able to use your most endearing form of free will and suppress your desire to be with people of the opposite gender? Please answer this honestly and do think about it because what you are asking of the gay community is a very profound suppression of desires and rejection of their path towards pursuing happiness. This implies that you not only suppress your heterosexual desires but perhaps go through a course at a local church in practising homosexual desires. Try dating a homosexual or two because the world has decided that's how you should live. How does your life look now? And remember, some people are okay with you having sex with your girlfriend/boyfriend but please don't flaunt it in public, don't hang out with children and don't even THINK about making your commitment public and trying to get the same rights as your homosexual brethren because that is simply wrong.

    I know this is a tricky question ---
    If you answer yes to being able to "control" your desire for the opposite gender then you have either
    1. said yes to a life of celibacy or
    2. just confessed to bisexual desires. Nice, examine that.

    If you said no to being able to control your desires, then please have a little more empathy for the LGBT community and a little better understanding of human desire. That's not too much to ask for.
    Last edited by ergophobe; 05-21-2009 at 11:37 PM.

  10. #180
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    I believe you're referring to the 1993 case of Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. That case brings up issues related to the First Ammendment protections of religious freedom.
    Oh yeah!

    That was fun to read about.


    Anyway, doesn't the protection of gay marriage also fall under the first amendment? However, in this case, it would be under the establishment clause. A heterosexual couple can get married without the approval of any church. Why can't a gay couple? Wouldn't limiting them to 'civil unions' under the grounds that 'marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman' be considered in violation of the establishment clause, because of what it is 'sacred' according to?

    Can straight couples get civil unions?

    Then again, all of this is moot if you're gay and don't live in the USA.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

Similar Threads

  1. What way do you think the former USA will be carved up?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-31-2017, 05:09 PM
  2. What MBTI type do you think is the hardest to be?
    By OrangeAppled in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 09-02-2010, 02:04 AM
  3. What MBTI type do you think is the EASIEST to be?
    By Such Irony in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-27-2010, 09:22 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