Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 19, 2007 14:51:39 GMT -4
Well Jason, it's a good thing Christianity doesn't consider people named "Jason" immoral or you would be up a creek without a paddle wouldn't you? Would you still agree with that logic if you were the one being discriminated against? Behavior can be immoral. A mere name cannot.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 19, 2007 15:18:17 GMT -4
you are completely incapable of considering hypothetical situations, aren't you?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 19, 2007 15:22:20 GMT -4
Only if you believe that all arguments against homosexual marriage must be religious in nature. Eh? You proposed a religious argument against homosexual marriage, specifically that it would be unconstitutional per the 1st amendment establishment clause, and my rebuttal was that such an interpretation makes anything proscribed by any religion just as unconstitutional. As to your secular argument, any legal issues related to the children of a homosexual couple, either adopted or related to only one partner, are not different than those of a heterosexual couple with the same circumstances. And "only a man and a woman can marry" is functionally no different than "only a white male protestant can vote."
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 19, 2007 15:23:47 GMT -4
you are completely incapable of considering hypothetical situations, aren't you? If a hypothetical situation is too far divorced from reality then there is no value in considering it. But, if you insist, if my church were to somehow determine that having the name "Jason" is immoral then my most likely course of action would be to change my name.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 19, 2007 15:33:13 GMT -4
I do in fact consider homosexuality itself, and other gender identity disorders, to be mental health problems. Based on what evidence? No, I said they're more prone to suicide. They are not more prone to clinical depression, the biological version. They are, however, hounded by people who, oh, consider their relationships invalid, consider them mentally ill, and think they are immoral for falling in love.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 19, 2007 15:55:52 GMT -4
I do in fact consider homosexuality itself, and other gender identity disorders, to be mental health problems. Based on what evidence? Lesbian activist Camille Paglia: "Homosexuality is not 'normal.' On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm. ... Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. ...No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous...homosexuality is an adaption, not an inborn trait. Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. However, habit is refractory, once the sensory pathways have been blazed and deepened by repetition - a phenomenon obvious in the struggle with obesity, smoking, alcoholism or drug addiction...helping gays to learn how to function heterosexually, if they wish, is a perfectly worthy aim. We should be honest enough to consider whether homosexuality may not indeed be a pausing at the prepubescent stage where children anxsiously band together by gender...current gay cant insists that homosexuality is 'not a choice,' that no one would choose to be gay in a homophobic society. But there is an element of choice in all behavior, sexual or otherwise. It takes an effort to deal with the opposite sex; it is safer with your own kind. The issue is one of challenge versus comfort." -Paglia, Camille. Vamps and Tramps, 1994, pp. 67-92 While I don't necessarily agree with everything Ms. Paglia says, I do agree that homosexuality is not "natural", I agree that it is basically habbit-forming, and I give currency to the idea that it may be a pausing at a prepubescent attitude towards the other gender; and I agree with the idea that it takes more effort to deal with the opposite sex. A study was done of participants of a "gay-pride" celebration. Gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did a comparison group of heterosexual men and women. 46% of gay men in comparison to 7% of heterosexual men. 22% of lesbian women in comparison to 1% of heterosexual women. Did this molestion contribute to the identification of gay or lesbian in adulthood? 68% of the men and 38% of the women did not identify as gay or lesbian until after the molestation. Behavior that may have been the result of molsetation cannot be considered normal. (The study was by M.E. Tomeo, et. al., "Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual persons," Archives of Sexual Behavior 30:5 (2001), 535-541.) Homosexual men often report name-calling, feeling rejectied, and being excluded by their peers in their youth - before they identified themselves as homosexuals. Their identification as such may in part be the result of these childhood traumas. In homosexual men there appears to be a disconnect between them and their fathers as well as an overconnect with them and their mothers. A study by Bell, Weinstien & Hammersmith found that 72% of homosexual men recalled feeling very little or not at all like their fathers. (Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women.) If homosexual behavior may be attributed to such problems, is it not itself a problem? Perhaps not a very strong case, I admit, but it's not a politically correct topic and so doesn't have as many possible information sources as the counter position.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 19, 2007 16:00:51 GMT -4
taken from the religion: good or bad thread
I agree to certain restrictions, yes. Consent is of course number one. Other restrictions like financial stability shouldn't be forced on people but should be left to the responsility of the couple.
Believe it or not, every couple has their own reasons for getting married. And I still contend that if child-rearing was so important as you say it is, couples unable to produce children would not be granted marriage rights.
Well, you've basically said that child-rearing is another factor and you've stressed that it apparantly is the chief purpose legally for getting married. I can tell you right now that most people I've talked to about the legal side of marriage look forward mostly to paying less taxes on their pay checks. Plus, inheritance is as you should obviously know is not only delegated to offspring. And in today's society, with rampant overpopulation and high life expectancy, reproduction is not so important anymore when it comes to building a family. Allowing homosexuals to marry will not suddenly cause reproduction rates to drop. Straight men and women won't just suddenly run off and turn gay and get married. Taxes won't go up, the stock market won't crash, in fact Jason, nothing bad will happen at all.
Yeah, that's the way it really worked wasn't it. All the wives were just hunkey dorey with the idea and felt no pressure at all in that intensely patriarchical setting to bow to their man's will. Your attempts to blindly defend plural marriage are a new low for you.
On what basis do you restrict marriage to two genders? You refuse to give me a real reason for that one.
Yeah that's pretty much what I expected from you. You don't have an answer to "why?". "Just because" is not an answer, it's an excuse. It's what children say when they don't know the answer to a question.
Your "just because" answer shows pretty clearly that you were taught by your religion to blindly discriminate against homosexuals, and because you are timid you never asked why. You never once questioned any of the rules, and I know that because you don't have a reason to discriminate against homosexuals. Why is it immoral, Jason? Why is it wrong? You don't have an answer. Either you tell me because your religion says so and admit you are a puppet, or you tout some tired idea that it's against nature, an idea that you read off some pamphlet and decided without question that it's true because it aligns nicely with your predetermined beliefs and continue denying your true nature.
Yeah, I figured you didn't have an answer to that one either. Nice diversion, though. As long as you dismiss the hypothetical question you don't have to think about it too long, do you?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 19, 2007 16:15:08 GMT -4
If homosexual behavior may be attributed to such problems, is it not itself a problem? Not if they are happy with being gay. Even if you are correct that it is a choice, and I find that extremely difficult to believe, it doesn't make a difference. If they choose to be gay and it makes them happy then so be it. I don't have the right to interfere with their lives. If they are not hurting anyone then why should I care? I've seen heterosexual couples who do more harm to society than any homosexual couple. For example, just look at the couples who decide to have half a dozen or more children despite the fact that they are incapable of supporting them.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 19, 2007 16:23:59 GMT -4
you are completely incapable of considering hypothetical situations, aren't you? If a hypothetical situation is too far divorced from reality then there is no value in considering it. But, if you insist, if my church were to somehow determine that having the name "Jason" is immoral then my most likely course of action would be to change my name. So you would rather change who you are than challenge a ridiculous personal discrimination? That says a lot about you. You could say "it's only a name" but how far does that go?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 19, 2007 17:31:52 GMT -4
Not to pick on you, Jason, but you're the only person who said no, so you're the only person with a negative argument to work from. Well he's not actually the only one that said no, just the only one that has admitted it so far. I do find it surprising that the other two don't have the courage to stand up. If I was to vote no I would, but I'm abstaining. Over here we now have the option of a Civil Union which for all intents and purposes is a Secular Marriage. Okay this seems really strange to me because there is a thing called a Will, and that is designed to do exactly this. Perhaps if there isn't a Will it could be a problem, but then large items such as a car or a house etc can be put into join ownership here anyway. Here the main argument revolved about next of kin issues, ie a partner not being able to have family rights in a medical situation and such. I'd note here that de facto (common-in law) couples are still in this boat. Two of my best friends are a de facto couple and if one was hospitalised, the other would not legally have any say in their treatment. I always figured that the best way to over come this is by having a "legal next of kin". This would have solved a huge number of problems that still exist here, such as the possiblity where a teenager who is being abused still has any medical decisions made by the abuser simply because they are next of kin. If they could legally change their next of kin, this could be prevented, and Defacto Couples could also change their next of kin to their partner. I'd note here that all property laws actually apply to any formal partnership after 2 years together anyway, and it is even to the point where after 2 years a couple has to go through a "divorse" unless they have a contract already prepared as to who gets what. This is really the main reasons I'm not bothering to vote, as here the entire question is totally irrelevant. Interesting attitude to be sure. Most people I mention this too either totally ignore the situation, of start thrashing about claiming it's totally different and would lead to mutant children (which while possible, medically the risk is not that much greater that couple in their late 30's having kids which is seen as totally acceptable if not normal today.)
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 19, 2007 17:43:37 GMT -4
Yeah I'm wondering why the other two "no"s haven't spoken up either.
Does that grant the same legal rights as a marriage? And I have to ask, do you support homosexuals getting civil unions?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 19, 2007 18:13:25 GMT -4
Well, you've basically said that child-rearing is another factor and you've stressed that it apparantly is the chief purpose legally for getting married. No, I'm contending that that was the chief reason for providing legal recognition to marriage in the first place. From that original reason grew the rights and benefits currently connected to it. I'm not sure what to make of this comment. Are you sure? The taxes and stock market bit is unlikely, but I'm not sure you can say that nothing bad will happen. So I guess we'll both just refuse to answer each other's question then? I restrict it on the basis of that's what marriage is - man and woman together. Any other relationship doesn't fit the definition of marriage. Well, a more extensive version of "why isn't blue red" would be "because the very characteristic that defines blue as blue also prevents it from being defined as red." Is there any need to get personally insulting here? My religion does not descriminate against homosexuals. It does state that homosexual behavior is sinful but also that human beings are not slaves to their genes and environment, but can change if they chose to do so. My true nature? Are you one of those pop psychologists who assumes that anyone who speaks out against homosexuality must themselves be a closeted homosexual? Yes my opinion is primarily a religious one. Does the fact that I agree with my religion's opinion on the matter mean I am of necessity a puppet? If I agree with my religion's position on anything must I therefore be a puppet? Why is it immoral? Primarily because it gets in the way of behavior that is moral and provides us with the most personal growth and happiness during our lifetime - marrying a member of the opposite sex and raising a family together. That's one of the big objectives of this life. Why can you not get with a member of your same gender and raise a family? Well you can't create children together for one thing. For another, the two genders are complimentary. Taking one out of the family means that the specific qualities that gender brings to the family are absent. Single parents are not strictly immoral in my view, but their children are missing out on the benefits they would have if they had two parents. Even absent children (either because you can't have any or you chose not to have any), a marriage only provides the spiritual development necessary to what we are supposed to acheive in this life if both genders are present in the relationship. They are equal but different, and it is vital to our own growth to learn to deal with those differences rather than to ignore them. Homosexuality is also immoral because it is often (pehaps always) selfish at its base. It is a method of finding sexual gratification without the complications of dealing with a person of another gender who thinks differently from you and without the possible responsibility of raising children. In this respect it is lazy and self-indulgent. And it is an outgrowth of pride, in that you are asserting that you are correct where society, nature (the darwanistic view that reproducing is the ultimate purpose of life), and God are wrong. In short, homosexuality is immoral because it cannot ultimately make us happy. It is a counterfeit for the relationship that will give us happiness, and we may manage to decieve ourselves for some time, perhaps for our entire life, but the ultimate consequences of our self-indulgence cannot be avoided. Yes it's primarily a religious viewpoint. Does that of necessity mean it is invalid? I did think about it quite a bit actually. In my view gender is irrevocably tied to one's identity. Basically, it's a quality of our spirits as well as our bodies. So attempting to transfer one's mind (and presumably one's spirit) to a body of the opposite gender is at its base unnatural and will lead to problems. Assuming you could do brain transplants, why not deposit the brain in a body of the same gender and avoid adding yet another complication to the obviously difficult psychological adjustment the person would already have to go through? In any case, assuming such mind-switching were possible, it is the gender of both mind (and spirit with it) and body that is important to fulfilling the requirement that two genders be present for a marriage. If we want to get really crazy and theorize a woman with the brain of a man and a man with the brain of a woman I still think they would have the problem of not being able to function properly in their new bodies but I would have to say it would fulfill the letter of the law. Okay, now you can all decry me as a religious nutcase. I did suggest the title of any other thread discussing homosexuality should be "Jason is a bigoted homophobe, and here's why."
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 19, 2007 18:13:49 GMT -4
Does that grant the same legal rights as a marriage?
The only differences that I can see in Marriage and Civil Union is that Civil Unions aren't technically supposed to take place in a church (some allow it, some don't) but then even Marriage isn't a church based thing nowdays, and that Civil Union partners can't legally call their partner their spouse, but since the term partner is almost universally used to represent a girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/wife/defacto partner/same sex partner these days, that is pretty irrelevant as well.
And I have to ask, do you support homosexuals getting civil unions?
Well since almost the entire purpose of the introduction of the Civil Union was for that reason, the question really is pointless, it's like asking if I support swimming in a public pool. If the question is did I support the legislation to create a Civil Union, then no I didn't, but I didn't oppose it either. The reason I didn't support it is because I believe that there would have been far better ways to have achieved what was wanted, such as the "legal next of kin" idea I posted above, and that all the Civil Union legislation actually does is recreate law that already existed and affected de facto and same sex couples anyway, so in most ways it was really totally redundant and we could have introduced legislation that actually solved the problems and a helped a lot of other people at the same time, which this doesn't. In the end we have a Government cop out bowing to a minority group (the actually number of same sex couples that have used the Civil Union is quite small and fact the last figures I have seen more hetro couple have under gone it) rather than getting to the root of the problem and fixing it there.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 19, 2007 18:19:30 GMT -4
By the way, I really want to point out here that under NZ laws, after two years together ANY couple is treated as if they are married as far as property rights go. I know I have posted this previously but I really want to push this home. That included Same Sex couples. The ONLY difference between De Facto and Married (pre-Civil Union) was the Next of Kin issue. I have a feeling that there had even been a bill put through allowing Same Sex couple adoption pre-civil union so there was only the Next of Kin issue outstanding, and frankly I think that it would have benefitted more people bringing that in than Civil Unions have.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 19, 2007 19:56:22 GMT -4
human beings are not slaves to their genes and environment, but can change if they chose to do so. You seem to argue the reverse later on, that being born with male genes, for example, does in fact enslave one, and limit their choices. Please quantify. Yes, I'm certain homosexual couples always agree with each other about everything. Yes, not one homosexual has ever expressed a desire to raise children. I would think a member of the LDS Church, more than most, would be less inclined to submit to the judgement of society so easily. Homosexuality occurs in nature. "Darwinism" assigns no purpose, ultimate or otherwise, to life. I have yet to hear from God on the issue. And those whom you include in that "us," those that chose to be heterosexual because that is what makes you happy, are by all means welcome to continue. Forcing you to choose otherwise, that would be immoral. But does the "gender" of the spirit always match the physical configuration of the gonads?
|
|