Homosexuality

[Demiurge]

I'm just saying that I don't think that "upsetting the majority" is a very good reason for being against it. It sure is to a pandering politician but for this discussion, I think it's a poor argument to use.

If a ruler is going to go against the wishes of the masses, he should have a good reason for it, for the sake of maintaining the state. He shouldn't foster their contempt to please a minority; that's just not good politics. I never said that the masses were always right. I'd rather talk about how things are and how they can be than bullshit about a bunch of quixotic "oughts."

 

[Iridium]

You know, believe it or not, the Christian family unit was once a very powerful asset to the social and economical well-being of this nation. As we become more progressive, we lose values - values which, of course, are invented, not inherent - but values that were beneficial to the morale and general well-being of the nation. This is the same reason that Christianity is necessary - for the intellectually astute, there is no reason to fall back on such archaic moral beliefs, but for the stupid, average American, there is little more preventing him from doing what the hell he wants than "The Good Book," and promises of damnation or salvation. Religion is used as a tool to control the masses, and it is a damn effective one. Repealing the beliefs of millions of Christian Americans is a very difficult thing to do, and attacking (yes, literally, attacking) their most valued principles (such as marriage) will only further polarize the populance.

 

[Kenneth R.]

SilentSong, you're horrible! You're a Christian, but at the same time you are horribly subjectivist. You think gays have the right to marry, something most Christian scholars don't agree with, because "the choice is theirs," but don't think I have the right to smoke marijuana. You never take criticisms to heart, but remain on your high-horse the entire time. Goddamn.

horrible? i have no notion of treating such people any differently than i would my friends. they deserve a right to live, and not be subjected to abuse. God will judge them, in a way he sees fit. i already said, tolerance, not acceptance. if they want to call themselves married, then i won't abuse them for it. you fail to see the difference between the two subjects. a drug addiction is a different thing than a psychological decision. surely you can see that one is much more harmful to oneself than the other.

 

[Iridium]

That's not the point. The point is that its their choice to do something you disagree with, but it's not my choice to do something you disagree with. Marijuana is only psychologically addictive, and only to the weak-minded - I actually stopped smoking about three days ago (I need my mind livid for school), and plan to abstain for the next ten months or so. I have had no urges or cravings.

 

[Demiurge]

Please cite the amendment dealing with gay marriage(or marriage in general, for that matter).

This should be good, folks.

 

[Demiurge]

I must call you to cite your document and weave your argument from it. I do not have the time or the energy(nor should I be required to) to construct your case for you. Are you referring to the bill of rights or what?

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

I am against gay marriage, since a normal marriage is beneficial to society and therefore deserving of financial benefits. A homosexual union will doubtfully create a model (or even a properly functioning) individual if they choose to adopt - this is not deserving of financial benefits.

Beneficial how? Technically, at this rate of population, people aren't going to make it much longer at all, especially relatively speaking, if you mean "beneficial" as in creating more people.

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

I give up. I don't have the knowledge on this particular subject to create a sensible argument, and I know when to admit I don't know something ass opposed to carrying on with a weak argument.

Here's my stance. People are fucking stupid, to put it bluntly. Since these people make up a majority, they elect stupid fucking people. Regardless of whether or not gay marriage is right, just, or warranted, it's not happening anytime soon, and I don't think it's going to happen without forceful action, the same as any other civil rights event in the US, or anywhere else for that matter. I see more chance for civil unions sooner, but I still doubt it will happen anytime soon.

I see your annoyance with the sense of "entitlement" created in the US, "if you have something I have to be able to have it," but I would say that based on the United States' history, the events of today are only natural, whether you consider them in violation of the laws of the United States or not.

 

[Demiurge]

I see your annoyance with the sense of "entitlement" created in the US, "if you have something I have to be able to have it," but I would say that based on the United States' history, the events of today are only natural, whether you consider them in violation of the laws of the United States or not.

I am completely confused by the above.

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

Blacks couldn't vote, they campaigned and protested until they were able to vote. Same for women. Blacks were segregated and not given the same priveleges as whites, hence they protest and campaign until the injustices are alleviated. Gays aren't allowed to marry and therefore don't receive the same benefits as heterosexual married couples....

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

Back to the original question, and I have no data for this, it is simply what I believe. I agree with others in that Homosexuality has a biological element and an environment related aspect. However, it is not a conscious choice or a "lifestyle."

 

[Demiurge]

I was referring specifically to the passage I quoted. If the response you've provided is an explanation of the text in quotation, you sure had a bizarre way of putting in the first time around...

What is your point, exactly? It seems that you're trying to tell me that it's possible for gays to be permitted to marry by law. I know. My original point was that the natural world is neutral and no entity has "rights" as a condition of its existence, gays included. The idea that they are entitled to marry by nature somehow is one to be dispensed with. From here, I take a pragmatic approach. Giving gays the ability to marry is more trouble than it's worth for the state in general. That it's possible doesn't make it suitable for implementation in the present or at any time in the future.

 

[10293847]

I just want to make a comment.

I notice that a lot of gays are whiny liberals who grew up in the 60's and 70's and enjoy playing the victim, who like fighting for some kind of "movement", like they did for minorities forty years ago. Their bored people that even when their already accepted, still feel the need to prance around and yell at you that their gay, like you're going to be offended.

Sorry, I live in San Francisco. I deal with this shit all the time.

 

[Xorv]

I wonder if there will ever be a time when being gay is cool. The new trend. Just like punk is with America's youth. 40 years ago being called a punk was like being called a faggot in this day and age. Now it's not a movement anymore, but a fashion style?

 

[Demiurge]

Lesbianism is already trendy.

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

I wonder if there will ever be a time when being gay is cool. The new trend. Just like punk is with America's youth. 40 years ago being called a punk was like being called a faggot in this day and age. Now it's not a movement anymore, but a fashion style?

Have you not been watching television lately?

 

[Iridium]

I live in San Francisco as well. I'm a big fan of the don't-ask, don't-tell policy, but for some reason, I usually recognize homosexuals anyway by their antics.

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

Demiurge, I don't really understand why you're talking about "natural" rights in relation to anything. It's obvious that the United States is not about "survival of the fittest," which is why we do things like harbor refugees. There are laws to protect the weak and to attempt to make everyone as equal as possible. My point is that it was never a majority decision to give a minority group rights. It took forceful action. What the US does is cater to minority groups (or try to make it look that way). I understand your personal philosophy on this issue, but that isn't the philosophy that the US uses.

Also, to me the idea of not providing people rights because people aren't comfortable with the idea of two men having sex with each other (which they're going to do with or without marriage) seems rather silly.

 

[Demiurge]

Demiurge, I don't really understand why you're talking about "natural" rights in relation to anything.

I suspect this is because you don't know what is meant by "natural rights."

My point is that it was never a majority decision to give a minority group rights. It took forceful action.

The force is too weak and there is no relative consensus. Actually, I'd guess most Americans are against gay marriage as are most elected officials. Gay marriage will not be recognized in all states without tyranny on the part of the federal government, which is fractured and incapable of acting on the behalf of gays.

Also, to me the idea of not providing people rights because people aren't comfortable with the idea of two men having sex with each other (which they're going to do with or without marriage) seems rather silly.

I don't find it silly at all. When you strip the matter bare, you see that they only have rights as provided by law and no such right has been provided.

 

[Demiurge]

It's interesting to note that gays don't seek equality under the law, but special treatment.