Please explain how this is relevant to either marriage or even sodomy??
Diehard Heteros 1, Homos 0
- Thread starter Jr_Bullit
- Start date
I think at this point, as in all our discussions with regards to homosexuality, we have broadened our arguments to include all areas where they are either approved of or rejected against, and each of us are using our own points of view to either defend, hold up as example, or look down upon said examples.
We aren't talking about the recent decision in VA, or about marriage in general, or sodomy laws...I guess you might could say we're just meandering around the argument.
Fortunately this isn't an actual debate
We'd all lose!We'd all be disqualified. I think the implication was that homosexual people are more likely to sexually abuse children and therefore should not get married...Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
I think at this point, as in all our discussions with regards to homosexuality, we have broadened our arguments to include all areas where they are either approved of or rejected against, and each of us are using our own points of view to either defend, hold up as example, or look down upon said examples.
We aren't talking about the recent decision in VA, or about marriage in general, or sodomy laws...I guess you might could say we're just meandering around the argument.
Fortunately this isn't an actual debate
Actually is it even true that homosexual people are more likely to abuse minors?
I've been reading this thread and mildly participating and I don't think anyone asserted that homosexuals are more likely to abuse children.
don't believe so, but they do receive United Way funds.
harvey milk public school is therefore a no-no.
they get it, all right. Don't have numbers handy, but seems that figure would be one query away. What is baffling is that in 2001, joe leiberman lobbied on behalf of NOI to receive federal funds. If you've ever heard a rant from calypso louie or one of his henchmen, the NOI regards judaism as a "gutter religion". They are also anti-catholic. Curious.
That's good then.
you can say incest, polygamy, & age of consent laws are irrelevant & sacrosanct, but you won't convince me they're not the next target(s).
the blade (pdf)
says you.
and that's the rub: for state laws are being passed making such an arrangement illegal
DOMA laws state-by-state
the catholic church doesn't help squelch that charge.
While I agree that sometimes slippery slope arguments are beneficial, can you honestly provide proof that such a thing will happen? In general most of your arguments against homosexuality are based on what you think will happen next.
Yes, it is quite possible to dredge up innumerable references to this or that depending on what side of the argument you stand on. We can sit here all day and just throw references at one another. But how about, rather than throwing around references and squealing "slippery slope" at the top of your lungs like a stuck pig, you really think about the fact that these are consenting adults and you have no right to judge them or hinder that which makes them happy. Their lives have NO impact on yours, or on any other heterosexual.
The issues in the Catholic Church over the past years 1) have occurred with the minority of priests and 2) are a result of an unusual community that they live within. They are denied all sexual pleasure with a woman, heterosexual men already know better, and the Church for centuries offered a safe haven for individuals who just don't quite fit the norm. It's a shame that happened, but do not ever assume that men who commit sexual crimes against male children are in any way similar to the rest of the homosexual population.
You make leaps of judgement that are absolutely baffling in so many ways. They are similar sure, but the similarities you draw are connections on the thinnest of strings and cannot be proved, only intimated and suggested. One of the most frustrated types of arguing there is. You say nothing that is concrete, you simply suggest at dirty things in the shadows and hope that your "suggestions" are enough to give your argument sway.
I believe this statement to be incorrect JrB.
I beleive it alters the entire concept of what a family is to only appease the wants of a very minor percentage of the people in this country. I think when you inconvience the majority to please a very few, you're twisting the entire concept of democracy. Most people dont want gays to marry because their beleifs are similar to mine.
How are you inconvenienced by homosexual marriage?
We discussed earlier whether or not marriage falls under religious or civil, or even if it should. I believe the general agreement (at least no one disagreed with this) is that heterosexual couples who are NOT religious simply want to have the ability to express their feelings to their mate in a symbolic ritual that has been around for quite some time. They want the civil union and the rights that go with it to still be available. They want to have a "name" to put to it. The name we have always associated with it is Marriage.
This idea only bothers the religious folks who feel that this loosening of the "term" if you will denigrates their own acts of devotion, when in fact the divorce rate, adultery rate, and so on have done a fine job on their own of destroying this so called "sanctity of marriage".
See here's where I get stuck...maybe my definition of Marriage is off somewhat:
Marriage is, in one sense, an expression of devotion between two individuals where they declare, before their "god" that they will take care of one another until the day that they die. It is also a joining of properties between two individuals so that they might prosper and create little babies to bestow their wealth upon, a contract if you will.
A Civil Union is something that is done by the state, it often goes hand in hand with Marriage, and we don't think of it as anything but Marriage. This is where your property is legally intermingled, where you receive all the legal benefits that go hand-in-hand with Marriage.
So if marriage is basically nothing more than a contract, with some loving thingies thrown in, in what way exactly is allowing homosexuals to marry directly impacting your enjoyment of your own marriage?
I mean, if you are devoted to your wife and love her dearly, then in no way does anothers expression of love to their partner in any way weaken your own declaration of love. Does that make sense? Nor does their claim to a mutual contract and certain types of legal benefit illegitimize your own.
Did I explain that okay? I've been distracted by customers so this may have sounded rather rambling...
Why do you say i'm using a slipperly slope when the ACLU is actually making the argument?
ned beatty reference aside, take a breath.
believe what you are about to read, for it is true:
i'm not judging their behavior, nor am i even capable of hindering them from what makes them happy.
loss? or failure to award?
point is, for every gay couple who could then receive SS, Medicaid, Medicare, the cost of these benefits would be levied upon you, me, them. This is just one aspect where - yes, indeedydo - it affects me.
"unusual"? There are far more catholics than gay couples in this country. What would that make gay couples? More unusual?
i'm confused. Which is it? Similar, or not similar?
here i was thinking that citing court decisions & posting links to legislation, news reports, & policy statements were "concrete".
silly me.
Everyone arguing about a definition of something that is rooted in religion?
Calling a gay union, "marraige" is like saying this sentence is written in red. We are arguing the definition of a word. Many believe marraige is between a man an a woman. Many people are resistant to call that color red becuase they can clearly see it as blue. No amount of discussion will convince traditional blue thinkers that the blue is now red.
Just because you are trying to change a definition to fit your situation doesn't mean the definition should change. Traditionally, marriages have been the joining of man and woman. That is the true definition of marriage. What we are doing is defining a union in the eyes of the government....not marriage.
I beleive this following idea has been stated before in this thread and in previous attempts at threads like this......
Call the union in the governments eyes something different. It can not be "marriage" if church and state are not to coexist. Gay couples "marrying" is wrong to many people. If they want a civil union along with hetero couples in the eyes of the government than I think people would be less prone to deny them that right.
Give them the right to 1/2 the others possessions to fight for a child in court (saw that on the news this morning. Lesbian couple seperating and in the midst of a custody battle) let them visit their loved ones in the hospital along with family.
Rhino
Calling a gay union, "marraige" is like saying this sentence is written in red. We are arguing the definition of a word. Many believe marraige is between a man an a woman. Many people are resistant to call that color red becuase they can clearly see it as blue. No amount of discussion will convince traditional blue thinkers that the blue is now red.
Just because you are trying to change a definition to fit your situation doesn't mean the definition should change. Traditionally, marriages have been the joining of man and woman. That is the true definition of marriage. What we are doing is defining a union in the eyes of the government....not marriage.
I beleive this following idea has been stated before in this thread and in previous attempts at threads like this......
Call the union in the governments eyes something different. It can not be "marriage" if church and state are not to coexist. Gay couples "marrying" is wrong to many people. If they want a civil union along with hetero couples in the eyes of the government than I think people would be less prone to deny them that right.
Give them the right to 1/2 the others possessions to fight for a child in court (saw that on the news this morning. Lesbian couple seperating and in the midst of a custody battle) let them visit their loved ones in the hospital along with family.
Rhino
Oh yeah - to Burly - had another thought on the subject...
I think part of the reason this one is a tough subject is I sit on the opposite side of the fence...
In what way is Marriage a complete validation of your love for a person? Isn't it basically a contract you enter into in order to legitimize your partnership in the eyes of your family/friends/community? If this is so, then it is also true that you do not need marriage to have a successful and loving relationship that lasts a lifetime.
So for me, Marriage is already a hollow institution and I see no reason to deny the rights of marriage to those who would like to have it and see it for a value that to me is completely foreign.
I think part of the reason this one is a tough subject is I sit on the opposite side of the fence...
In what way is Marriage a complete validation of your love for a person? Isn't it basically a contract you enter into in order to legitimize your partnership in the eyes of your family/friends/community? If this is so, then it is also true that you do not need marriage to have a successful and loving relationship that lasts a lifetime.
So for me, Marriage is already a hollow institution and I see no reason to deny the rights of marriage to those who would like to have it and see it for a value that to me is completely foreign.
Amen, Rhino.
Now convince $tinkle that is a good idea...
Now convince $tinkle that is a good idea...
Listen,
THE PEOPLE dont want it. THE PEOPLE understand that if you give an inch, you lose a mile. Once you allow gay marriage, then it becomes a whole helluva lot more.
All of a sudden there are gay couples in text books. There's gay appreciation month. Gay this and gay that. I dont mind that people are gay, i mean damn, it aint like they can help it i dont think, but seriously, why should my kids be subjected to a bunch of PC garbage that this will all create?
And then there's the whole slippery slope that Stinkle is harping on, on top of it all.
I just dont see the point of all the trouble to please a few.
It's ok, because there are less of them than of us. I mean giving the minority equal rights just doesn't make sense when it might make a few people in the majority feel bad, or possibly be inconvenienced.
After all the majority in this situation have god on their side, and well that makes everything ok.
I remember a time when "the people" wanted things like seperate drinking fountains for blacks.
Yes, but that's exactly the point. The community doesnt want it legitimized.
Just for fun, mentally place yourself in Alabama 40 years ago, replace gay with negro, and realize how much you sound like Bull Connor...
i think you are too young to remember that, but anyway, times changed and people realized descrimination based on race was wrong.
african americans have grown to be a very big part of the country, whereas gays are just a small minority distinguished only by how they have sex and always will be. theres no need to rewrite history on their behalf.
:
Hah, your right but I know it happened.
but anyways, times will change and people will realize descrimination based on sexual preferance is just as wrong.
"Hinder that which makes them happy", now in a general sense, where do we get off on this sense of intitlement to do whatever we want just because it makes us "happy". This I would argue (outside the whole gay marriage issue) is one of the fundamental issues that is rotting the foundation of our culture, this "intitlement" mentality.
I agree with Burly on this, when it's in text books and taught as an "alternate" lifestyle or whatever is when it impact "normal" people.
On a somewhat related side note: I find it very interesting that when ever I have engaged in this debate or similar one regarding those with "morally relative" philosophies that they tend to point to the majority as the general "rule" or "truth" making body in their mode of thought. Why is it then, this minority (homosexuals) are permitted to redefine what is "normal" in our culture? If the majority believe it to be wrong or "abnormal" then why change how things are?
Alright - I'm gonna try your nifty trick of breaking apart a post...it's much neater that way...I've admired it for some time...and I must apologize if this is short/not well done because ...well I'm at work and quite frankly I'm spending too much time on this 
.
Besides, since Everyone has to contribute to SS, shouldn't everyone, in theory have a right to collect on it? Gay or not?
.Historically your arguments on this subject have always pointed to the Slippery Slope argument. You rely upon materials that you find to validate the argument, and that's great! really it is, it shows that you can read those statements that directly agree with your own logic but are unwilling to consider arguments that oppose it.
Very true, but you do support and argue for legislation that would hinder the rights of another group of people for no other reason than that it morally is against your own personal definition of what is sacrosanct. Thus, by weight of support alone, you are fully capable of hindering them from that which makes them happy. And by supporting said agreements that only coincide with your own personal logic you are judging another person's behavior.
Lol...oh darlin, I hope you're an awful lot older than I am, because you see if you're within a certain age group, the liklihood that the Social Security that is yanked from your paycheck is actually any form of security for you is slim to none...unless you get injured now and can no longer work. And if you're old enough to already be collecting on these things, well then hush, because you're no longer contributing to the pool and leave it to us idealistic youngsters to continue to support your arse.
Besides, since Everyone has to contribute to SS, shouldn't everyone, in theory have a right to collect on it? Gay or not?
Ah yes, but you see the indecencies which you reference are only perpetrated by the priests, not by the young boys, not by other practicing catholics. So, by your argument, you're saying there are FAR more priests that molest young boys than there are gays? Somehow I think that's rather absurd. And the "unusual" situation I was referring to is the obligation of a priest to not engage in an sexual act with a "woman" thus many individuals of a not okay personality have viewed the church as an "okay" place to be where their indiscretions could at least be kept reasonably quiet. Definitely not okay, but not a representative of other homosexuals. These are pedophiles for the most part and not healthy people.
No way he made fun of me earlier in the thread.
See below (cut from earlier in this thread)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by $tinkle
sorry i went on & on, but trust me i kept it brief. I feel like Rhino rambling all over the place. (but at least i can spell )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LMAO!
rHNio TsuJ gots'da
No they wont. Because preferring the wrong sex is wrong. Being black isnt.Originally posted by Tenchiro
Hah, your right but I know it happened.
A man is born with a penis. A woman is born with a vagina. The two are biologically and sociologically compatible. Its clear as day. When you stray from that simple fact, everything gets gray. Two people can have gay sex, sure, but that doesnt mean the rest of society has to be accepting or even should be. Thats not the way we're designed.
Whose community? Yours or mine? What if my community, which is primarily heterosexual, wants their few friends to have similar rights and my community might just outnumber yours...
The majority of the populace may very well be heterosexual, but don't assume the majority of heterosexuals is in agreement with you regarding the rights of others.
So...you find it repulsive when two women have sex? Or do you only have issues with male homosexuality?
JrB, there is no "may very well be heterosexual" the term you're looking for is "is heterosexual" and I dont assume. Check whatever polls you like.
I am sorry I got side tracked after ...my community....is primarily heterosexual....
You are primarily hetero Jr_B? :devil:
chicka-bow-wow
I dont believe that i said anything is repulsive. Homosexuality in general is what Im speaking about.
Biologically speaking yes, man and woman were meant to be together. But Biology is science, and as we all know religion has very little to do with science.
Arguments based in religious indoctrination can't be won with science, because science has nothing to do with morality.
Ah, the biological argument. Do a quick google, and you'll see that one has been debunked as well. Homosexuality occurs in nature as well.
And men and women being sociologically compatible? I'd say you're living proof against that one...
Hah, Silver owes me a beer! :devil:
sorry my bad..............meant to edit a previous post
Uh...homosexuality out in nature is just like a dog with 5 legs out in nature. I wouldnt call that debunking anything.
Okay...since I'm all questions today and not a lot of logical answers
Why is the US really one of the few states where this is an issue?
We're kind of in the middle between religion-based governments, and liberal governments that let their people be sexually free.
I think we're just too damned uptight. Who cares...or why should we care? If my kids learn about homosexuality in a text book in school, I should hope I've raised them well enough that they'll talk to me about it.
And knowing our school system in the US, it's not like some go-getter teacher is gonna plop such material in front of a child's face without first having gained your consent. Remember sex ed? yeah your parents had to approve you attending that too.
And to be perfectly honest, I do like Rhino's suggestion...keep Marriage for the religious people, and for the rest of us make it a civil union type thing. If a homosexual can find a religion that approves of their marriage, then they can get married.
Why is the US really one of the few states where this is an issue?
We're kind of in the middle between religion-based governments, and liberal governments that let their people be sexually free.
I think we're just too damned uptight. Who cares...or why should we care? If my kids learn about homosexuality in a text book in school, I should hope I've raised them well enough that they'll talk to me about it.
And knowing our school system in the US, it's not like some go-getter teacher is gonna plop such material in front of a child's face without first having gained your consent. Remember sex ed? yeah your parents had to approve you attending that too.
And to be perfectly honest, I do like Rhino's suggestion...keep Marriage for the religious people, and for the rest of us make it a civil union type thing. If a homosexual can find a religion that approves of their marriage, then they can get married.
What countries allow gay Marriage JrB?