stirring the pot some more

[Alucard]

Just wanted to see what everybody's take on this was. I read in the news today that a fairly large coalition of people are trying to get a "Federal Marriage Amendment" added to the constitution here in the U.S. This amendment would make same sex marriages illegal across all fifty states. I'm a heterosexual male and I think this is ridiculous. Who cares if they want to get married, is it really going to hurt anybody? What really bothers me is that there are a bunch of religious groups in this coalition. They want the government to make these people second class citizens because they are doing something which their religon says is wrong. pathetic.
Heres the full story: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010710/us/marriage_amendment.html

 

[Heliologue]

when dealing with homosexuality, we have to consider the legal and religious aspects.

legally, i don't think the government has any right to tell people that they can't get married if they're the same sex. what people do is people's business. so while i am a heterosexual male (and a christian) and think that homosexuality is rather silly (sorry, but it kind of is), i also beleive that people's sexual preferences are their own business, unless it involves underage children, etc.

however, what scares is me is the growing number of religious groups and churches that will dither their dogmas enough to fit same-sex marriages in the "OK" column. while the government can recognize same-sex marriages as a matter of course, there shouldn't be any church in the world willing to marry gays, unless those religion are watering down the bible and their sacrosanct codes.

what it really is, is religions are now catering to the public, so that their only function, rather than saving souls, is givving thumbs up to any practices formerly held in contempt by the traditional church. in that case, it becomes not so much a church but another figurehead governmental institution.

 

[Heliologue]

Xtokalon:

when you refer to Roman Catholic Church, are you referring to Christianity in general, or the specific Catholic faith?

I'm not a catholic, I'm a Lutheran, which seems to me to be much more sensible that catholicism. of course, I'm biased, but much of the self-serving agendas and herd-like tyranny that anti-christians cite seems specific to the Catholic church (which encourages its members not to read the Bible).

i find a lot of discrepancy in the Catholic faith, such as the deification of Mary, and the belief in Purgatory.

 

[Lina]

"homosexuality is rather silly (sorry, but it kind of is)" -- Saturnix.

This is ridiculous. everyone gives their little opinions about homosexuality, disregarding the fact that people are born that way, just as most people are born heterosexual. if the bible says otherwise, it's just one more example of how irrelevent the bible is to reality. the battle for gay rights is the modern battle for black rights. it's as simple as that. in ten or twenty years, people will be bending over backwards to deny being homophobic. (even though some people will always be homophobic, just as some people will always be racist, regardless of common sense.) it's so obvious to anyone with half a brain that homosexuals aren't choosing some devious sexual lifestyle any more than straight people are. ugh, i hate this topic, because people are still allowed to say the most ignorant, uneducated, uninformed things about gays.

 

[Protocol]

Yes, the united states of america, the land of the free, except for sexual preference, and except for free medias, and except for freedom of religion. Indeed.

One amusing piece of information is that same-sex marriage has always been legal in france - when the laws concerning marriage were written, it was thought so obvious that marrying would be a man+woman thing that sex specification wasn't included. I wouldn't know if it has been tried in practice though.

I wonder if people will one day look back upon this time when people use 'gay' as a derogatory term with the same shame as we now do at various racials slurrs widely used in the same way last century.

 

[Heliologue]

Xtokalon -

i have to disagree. protestant fundamentalist are mainly responsible for the radical bigotry in recent centuries, such as the KKK. However, when I refer to self-serving tyranny, I mean the use of fear as a basis for servitude. (If you don't worship with us, God will damn you). This is largely of Catholicism, who, so I read, try to keep their populace as ignorant as possible of the concepts that Lutherans embrace, which is, as you said, faith alone, grace alone, and Christ alone.... that is, that we are saved by faith (not works) by God's grace (because he's merciful) and that grace is through his son Christ.

Of course, every church is different, and nowadays churches are becoming more like politics, with conservatives, liberals, and independents, each embracing their own set of rules. So what i say might not apply to all Catholics or all Lutherans, so if I've offended anyone.... sorry... I'm generalizing based I've read and experienced.
***************
Lina-

I'm afraid you're melodramatizing a bit....

I would hardly compare Gay Rights to Black Rights, because
1) Gays already have the rights that everyone else does, with the possible exception of marriage, which, as I've said, should be legal but is up to Churches to decide their own stances.
2) Black rights were about recognizing blacks as absolutely human. Gays are not viewed by right-wings as subhumans, but merely people who have made a poor choice of lifestyle.

As to the part about being born homosexual.... I think that's very debatable. Homosexuality is not a cyst or a cleft palette: you can't see it. It is a psychological thing. Most gays decide that they are gay in response to life experiences.

Thirdly, I stand by my statement that homosexuality seems like a silly practice. I never said it was a travesty, or depraved. I said silly, because homosexuality doesn't make sense:

Men have certain organs that correspond with female organs, and when used properly, are used for the proliferation of the species. So by way of nature, heterosexuality is the standard. Since the homosexual coitus cannot produce offspring, it must be understood that homosexuals engage in sex merely for the experience. Since we are one of only two species that have sex merely for pleasure (dolphins do, too) and certainly the only species with homosexuality (dolphins don't swing that way)....
doesn't that seem a bit.... well.... silly?

 

[Protocol]

Lol. You really put your foot in your mouth saturnix:

>it must be understood that homosexuals engage
>in sex merely for the experience

If engaging in sex merely for the experience is a valid criteria, then we're all silly. I trust you never had sex for anything but the sole purpose of reproduction.

What about adoption? And there are certainly people who regard homosexuals as sub-humans. I also trust you have plenty of experience deciding whether you're gay or straight from life experience. >D

As for your nice comparisons to animals: Dolphins and humans, and at least one other primate (baboon or orangutan, I don't recall which), and I'd bet at least a couple of other animals engage in sex for other than reproductive reasons. And homosexual behavious has been observed in several hundred species, though I don't think there is any evidence of exclusive homosexuality at this time. (There's a very simple evolutionist explanation for this if you want to hear it.)

Given all these small points, your post comes across as a heap of unfounded speculation laced with homophobia. Try again? =)

 

[Alucard]

Thanks for the responses everyone. I just wanted to add one more point.


"If they want the benefits of marriage allocated to a wider circle of groups, they need to convince the majority of people that it's the right thing.''


This is a very ignorant statement. The justice system of this country is based around the idea that if you think someone is doing something illegal, YOU must prove their guilt, they don't have to prove their innocence. The homosexual community does not have to convince anyone of anything. If they want this amendment passed then they have to prove why it is needed.

 

[Heliologue]

protocol....

of course, human are a silly species: that's should be more than obvious by now, given our self-destructive tendencies. and yes, of course there are plenty of people who engage in sex merely for pleasure. however, there have to be people who reproduce, or else we would cease to exist. my point was that homosexuality therefore amounts to nothing more than simple hedonism, as with many heterosexuals (i never said they weren't silly, either, but at least heterosexuality can sometimes have a practical purpose)

As to sub-humanity, if there are people like that (and I'm sure there are), then they are the super-conservative moral right, whom I tend to dislike. However, I'm not sure if you've noticed, but (voice drops to a whisper) you can't speak out against gays. Not that I've got anything against them: they haven't hurt me. But any Average Joe who even starts to say that homosexuality is wrong or sinful is pounced on by liberal do-gooders and called a bigot and a hater and accused of "homophobia".

As to the life experience matter.... you can't tell me that babies are born gay. Otherwise you wouldn't have 3rd graders giggling about "boobies": you'd have tykes who are more interesting in finding mom's Playgirl than dad's Playboy. Most homosexual epiphanies occur in late teenhood. I'd hate to believe that it's simply alternate wiring that doesn't kick in until later in life.

And now that I think about it... you're right: the head baboon will sometimes mount a subordinate, but that not for pleasure either: it is on par with dogs putting their tails between their legs.

the last part of your post confuses me....
if only a "couple" of animals engage in non-reproductive sex (i'd like to hear them, by the way, since I've never heard of others)...

and there are hundreds of animals with homosexual behaviors (it must be non-repoductive, right?)...

so why aren't there "hundreds" of animals engaging in non-repoductive sex?

 

[HoserHellspawn]

Hey everybody, you knew I'd be along sooner or later. I'll start with general personal opinion "thread response", then jump into the tangibles/specifics of the current debate.

Homosexuals want to have the ability get married because they feel they have the right to do so - to have their union recognized legally and socially just like everybody else, and they're right. They should be able to - It's a basic personal freedom, sexual preference does not really apply. The (usually evangelical) Conservative Right-wing extremists (and homophobes, and other assorted characters) don't want the allmighty of the sacred word "marriage" tarnished by the evils of homosexuality: The devil's work, and other such things (sorry to come off as condensending and confrontatonal-sounding against christians in general, saturnix, I obviously don't mean you, you seem quite reasonable and open-minded - that's more important). There are other reasons they may have I'm sure - I really don't care.

Here's my point: Let's appease everybody. I usually like to fly in the face of the ultra-conservaties (and the ultra-liberal language police - I don't discriminate that way) wherever I can, but this time I suggest comprimise if for no other reason to end the debate and let people, straight and gay, get on with their respective lives. Don't call it "marriage" (officially, anyways). Give them all of the legal rights that go along with marriage, legally recognize the union, just whip up a marriage license called whatever you want ("life partner" is a popular term, whatever) to appease the fundamentalist christians and get it over with.

"Faggots can't be married, goddammit!"
"Well, they're not married, they're just legally joined as life partners"
"Well, I... blah!"

I don't know if this will work, and I'm asking the homosexuals to acquiesce semantics when they shouldn't really have to in principle, but I think it's a decent comprimise. Whaddayathink?!

Alright, now that that's over with I must say that on an intellectual level I find homosexuality fascinating. It seems to swim against the tide of the basic drive of all life... or does it? Extremists have gone on about how it's the devil's work, evil, blah, blah, blah... and AIDS was a punishment to them, blah, blah, blah (I'm sure there are priests who have AIDS nowadays), but if you think about it, this planet is overpopulated with humans and (let's think hypothetically along the 'you're born gay or straight' lines for a second) wouldn't homosexuality (much like AIDS, but less destructive) in a certain percentage of the population be a great form of evolutionary population control?

I mean, if you think about it, the percentages of homosexual population seem to be increasing more and more relative to the overall population of the planet. People will say "yeah, but look at the Romans - men had sex in the bath houses. And, animals have homosexual sex" and so on. You're right, Protocol, I've read that myself... even seen pictures (more George Carlin! What the hell is it with Carlin references in my posts the past week? Anyways, his male dog shagging and his male cat - quite humerous picture) But this distinction I want to make is between homosexual and homoerotic behavior. Roman men got it on... but do you think any of the were EXCLUSIVELY homosexual like men today? Do you think they didn't have wives and kids back at home? Much like the animals... they shag the same sex, but do you think they don't go shag the other sex when mating season is calling?

I think "exclusive homosexuality" has only been around the past little while, and the numbers grow steadily. The earlier ones, of course, probably had to hide and live against their true impulses and we never heard about a lot of them.

It's sketchy and based on hypotheticals and whatnot (Most gay people I've heard on the topic say they feel they were born gay, sooo...). I think the "are you born gay or do you become gay" debate is almost impossible to wage without gay people present, but we can try to keep going on it if you like. Saternix - they may very well be reaching for playgirls, but do you think we're going to hear about that? Schools are havens and breeding grounds of stupidity, ignorance, homophobia, and political correctness (all simultaneously somehow). No gay kid is going to tell his third grade schoolmates he's looking at playgirls. The sexual epiphanies you speak of happen when people are strugling to find/release/maintain their identities, and that's probably the most comfortable time to come out of the cliched closet everyone likes to mention. I admit this is speculation, but doesn't it make sense?

Anybody more informed than I am feel free to enlighten me, I like knowledge (or at least perspectives). Thanks.

 

[Windom Pearl]

I'm with Hoserhellspawn in all he says. It doesn't have to be called marriage, and I think gays shoud settle to that, as long they still get all the "benefits" gained through marriage. I know this dude who got his gay-relationship approved in a monastery here in Finland, so that he wouldn't be counted living in a common-law marriage because he lives together with a girl. Funny I still don't know if the approval sees them equal with hetero marriage. Don't know about the law here. Though I don't know if it the approval was even ment to be anything compared to marriage.

About homosexuality in general, about a year ago I spent lots of time introspecting if I would like to have sex with a man. In my life I've kissed several men, about three times the women I've kissed. With and without tonque But I didn't find any lust in it, not once. But it's interesting still...On the other hand if I'll ever want to try what it feels to get it in the ass, I'll do it with a woman with a dildo tied to her waist. And note, I'm not kidding here.

But to get it short here, homosexuality is OK to me, and should be seen as nothing less than heterosexuality.

 

[Lina]

saturnix:

so much of your reply shows that you're completely uneducated on this topic ("Gays already have the rights that everyone else does, with the possible exception of marriage"). this is so glaringly false (read the fucking papers) that i'm not going to comment on it.

kids are not taught at a young age the homosexuality even exists. everything around them encourages man-woman. even IF they felt it at a young age, most wouldn't know what the hell to do with it and would probably feel ashamed. i'm sure you remember how bad kids tease each other at that age for being different.

the reason i say IF they felt it is because i personally don't remember having sexual thoughts about my male classmates until at least middle school. touching "boobies" on a dare is entirely different from wanting to tittie-fuck them. (pardon the language.)

most of the gays that i have talked to have memories of feeling different very early on. this was not something that they decided to do in high school as a way of revolting against their parents. yes, it is trendy among some groups (goths at my high school) to declare they're homosexual as a way to scare their parents, but hopefully you have the intelligence to decipher these idiots from the majority of quietly gay people out there.

hoser:

i agree with much of what you say, BUT i highly doubt this is something new. the reason it seems new is because it's becoming more and more acceptable to admit to it. a great uncle of mine lived a long, lonely life because he couldn't admit to the world that he was gay. he was just as gay then as he would be today if he was alive.

as for whether guys have sex with each other in roman times was just for fun, hmmm, maybe some of it but also much of it was a complete lifestyle. eunichs? homosexuality is also common in much of shakespeare's work.

 

[Mikael is God]

ITS SO SIMPLE OH MY FUCKING GOD

its so simple.....

Gay people can't not be gay..... they cant just change and start liking women....... its the way they are..... its not like they changed their mind and decided to like men only, thats impossible... example : you cant train yourself to get a boner when a man is giving you a lap dance.... and train yourself not to get a boner when a woman is giving you one...... its jus the way you are....... i mean fuck!!! what the fuck is wrong with these idiotic catholics(not the non idiot ones).... these guys want to get fucking married so let them..... its not their fault they dont like women!!!! So why ruin their life.... and give them any less rights then the rest of the population... just becuase of this thing they were born with!?!?!? I mean... have i been sitting in a dark room for the past 10 years or does this sound logical? And government just should have nothing to do with religion...... why dont people stop wasting their time on such idiotic issues such as this... and start worrying about things that matter..... like diseases and shit

 

[Heliologue]

lina:

i have yet to see "straight" and "gay" bathrooms, or "gay" and "non-gay" sections in restaurants. I'm not aware of any laws that say gays can't vote, or own land. My comments to you before were mainly because i felt the comparison to black rights was a bit crass, because the Civil Rights Movement was about basic freedoms, and the Gay Pride Movement is simply about the legal and social recognizance of an alternate lifestyle.

as to the life experience topic, there's just one thing that confuses me about its naysayers...

if people are born gay, then homosexuality must be the result of a certain gene(s). Right? Nothing else would explain its residence that early. So if homosexuality is genetic, then it must be passed through childbirth.....? Doesn't make much sense, does it? Especially considering that the number of homosexuals in the world seems to be rising


Xtokalon:
You're right, of course: it's very possible that the Catholic church today or the members of the Catholic Church today are very different from the Catholic church that Martin Luther described and spoke out against in 1544.

and there very well might be bad protestant churches. it all depends on individual experience, i guess. if the twentieth century is about anything, it's blurring social/religious/moral/political lines

 

[luke]

How did I sleep through all this? And so many missed opportunities for needling and flaming...Ohh, I'll just have to make it up now.

Apparently there are still several states where it is illegal for women to marry horses.
Unfortunately I can't even use my favourite scapegoat, and say the problem is solely American.

Saturnix, have you ever heard the saying, 'It is better to have everyone believe you are a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.'? Such reactionism is usually attributed by psycologists as the manifestation of fear.
To put a different spin on it, I will make alternative parallels. If being gay is something people choose, it is no different than people choosing to listen to a certain music (ie: Opeth). It doesn't harm anyone (unless you believe in that playing Judas Priest backwards crap) and hence should not remain a corcern for the public. It does not affect job production, intelligence or quality of character (although it appears there are plenty of ignorant staight people, hmmm) thus it could be reasoned that denying a same sex couple marriage is comparable to denying Opeth fans the same.
If If being gay is something a person is born with, we should consider this: It would seem to be that the majority of people who have a bone to pick with homosexuals (dammit Hoser, stop laughing) are those proporting their religious beliefs. Strange that people who would allocate the responsability for the creation of life would miss the fact that if God did create all, he created homosexuals too. God is Love.

On homophobia, an anecdote on conformity might help people understand. Recently, the local high school conducted hair colour tests. Being slightly homogenic, all Japanese people have naturally black hair. As elsewhere, it is popular for people to dye their hair another colour. The students who failed the hair colour tests were forced to dye their hair black again. Fortunately there are no caucasian students at the local high school, as this undoutedly would have caused confusion. While there may be valid reasons for wanting everyone to have the same hair colour (personally haven't figured them out yet, though) there seems to be a missing link in the logic which draws a correlation between hair colour and acedemic performance. Which brings me to question the role of authority played by responsible officials.

So in tangent...
No one concerns themselves with people who choose not to have sex, although this would seem just as if not more unnatural than homosexuality.

Ahh, it's issues like these which make me slightly ashamed to be human.

 

[Heliologue]

Luke.... good point, but I think maybe I'm being attacked for something I never said.

Gay people are productive members of society just like straight people. I never questioned that. Nor do I believe it is anyone's business what people do in their bedrooms. I thought the bill to make same-sex marriages illegal (yes, that's what this thread was about!) was a silly piece of typical nosy bigotry.

What really got me in trouble on this board was saying that I believed homosexuality to be out-of-place, nature-wise. Never mind that it was an opinion, just like homosexuality is a preference. But pro-gays took that to heart, in typical liberal fashion, and suddenly I seem to be an ignorant gay-basher.

(God also made Hitler, you know)

 

[The Wanderer]

Originally posted by saturnix


however, what scares is me is the growing number of religious groups and churches that will dither their dogmas enough to fit same-sex marriages in the "OK" column. while the government can recognize same-sex marriages as a matter of course, there shouldn't be any church in the world willing to marry gays, unless those religion are watering down the bible and their sacrosanct codes.
[/B]

you're talking like christianity is the only religion out there that has to deal with that. you seem smart enough to know that is not the case....Religions can do what they want and their herds can do that as well but religion should have absolutley no place in public policy.

 

[The Wanderer]

Originally posted by Lina
"homosexuality is rather silly (sorry, but it kind of is)" -- Saturnix.

This is ridiculous. everyone gives their little opinions about homosexuality, disregarding the fact that people are born that way, just as most people are born heterosexual. if the bible says otherwise, it's just one more example of how irrelevent the bible is to reality. the battle for gay rights is the modern battle for black rights. it's as simple as that. in ten or twenty years, people will be bending over backwards to deny being homophobic. (even though some people will always be homophobic, just as some people will always be racist, regardless of common sense.) it's so obvious to anyone with half a brain that homosexuals aren't choosing some devious sexual lifestyle any more than straight people are. ugh, i hate this topic, because people are still allowed to say the most ignorant, uneducated, uninformed things about gays.

I dont think people are made any way. i think it is their enviroment, their surroundings, the way they respond to certain stimuli, socialization and growth. i dont think there is a biological or genetic tendency towards either. and current research is on my side on this one. neihterone is right and neither one is wrong. it is a part of who a person is and that is what matters. people should celebrate their individuality. they should recognize the things that have happened along the course of their lives that make them who they are. christianity stifles that which is one reason why i am not a christian and why i am against it. i dont hate christians, but i do find it kind of sad, but they should enjoy it cuz that is the course they have chosen and part of what makes them them. there is no sin.

 

[Heliologue]

trust me, i am NOT confused, but I'm a little bit offended. besides the fact that what I've posted (I would hope!) isn't offensive, because it was very tame by a lot of standards, and I tried my hardest to present an argument that was objective and scientific.

however, and i've said this, i feel that I am getting flamed regardless. you seem to be sure that I am attacking my fellow debators for responding and arguing, when that is in fact not the case. I only question reasoning, because I want to know more. I don't think that I have, at any point, sunk to attacking anyone's character, but I HAVE endured such attacks myself, being called, amongst other things, uneducated, ignorant, and "homophobic".

I LIKE arguing - I have no reason to bitch at other people for keeping me well stocked in conversation.

where have i gone wrong?

 

[HoserHellspawn]

When I was in high school I wrote and directed with three buddies of mine a sketch-comedy style play called Roundbucks... it all took place in a coffee shop (hence the obvious name). In the first scene, this drunk bum character stumbles in and starts to bother all of the customers, and there's funny little interactions between him and a family, the clerk, and various other customers. At one point, we throw a couple of prissy coffee-drinking yuppies into the scene, just to attack that social stereotype a bit. However, the way my actors portrayed that, they came off as being gay. Nothing was said about homosexuality, nothing was mocked, they were just there and (apparently) a stereotype of homosexuality. I had stereotypes of everybody you could possibly imagine in that play - but this was the only one that was an issue. I was shouted at by one of the drama teachers, called a gay-basher, told my play would never go on stage again, was forced to write letters of apology, and became astranged from the drama department... I was the top drama student in the school the previous year. Anyways, the play did go on once more, but only after I altered the script to make those characters blatantly (BLATANTLY) heterosexual. This was just fine with them. Is is just me, or was the school the homophobes, not me?

So, simultaneous with all I've said above I don't like the politically correct witch hunts that go on at the drop of a pin either. Interpret from the above story what you wish in application to the conversation at hand...

Incidentally, I thought you all might find this both humerous and ...informative. That's Norm the cat. I love his expression in this photo, it's like "So... I hear stock prices are down..."