|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 19, 2007 20:05:17 GMT -4
Yes, not one homosexual has ever expressed a desire to raise children.
Huh? I might be missing your point here. Same sex Couples adopting kids (or their partner adopting the other partner's child in a lesbian/children from previous marriage relationship) is a HUGE issue in the gay community.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 19, 2007 20:38:15 GMT -4
Huh? I might be missing your point here. Sorry, my sarcasm might have been too deadpan for detection. I was rebutting Jason's characterization of homosexuality as a lazy, selfish dodge of parental responsibility.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 19, 2007 22:09:41 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. According to my belief I was male before I had genes, so the point stands. Quantify what women have that men don't, or vice versa? I don't think anyone has ever fully understood that. It's the homosexual deciding against society in the sentence, not myself. Where it is a maladaption that serves no useful purpose (and perhaps a harmful one) to the animal in the "survival of the fittest" struggle to pass its genes on to the next generation. Have you asked Him? Nearly always. There are some few poor souls who are born with malformed sexual organs. Nevertheless they did have a gender before they were born in an imperfect body. I've basically had my say here. I'd love to hear from the other two people who voted "no".
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 19, 2007 22:26:26 GMT -4
He won't return my calls.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 19, 2007 22:37:44 GMT -4
According to my belief I was male before I had genes, so the point stands. Only insofar as you expect your belief to trump any science--or, indeed, anyone else's belief. Duh--men have a Y chromosome! Seriously--I find this particular belief sexist as well. You can't quantify what women have that men don't. I was raised by a single parent. What do I feel I missed out on? Well, my dad, for one. Not a dad; my dad. He died when I was six, and I still miss him, more than twenty years later. I had male role models, and I loved them all, too. (My two strongest male role models both died when I was in college.) My mother still doesn't date; I didn't have a stepfather. However, even if I had, I still would have missed my dad. I missed out on some attention because my mother was very busy; if I'd had a stepmother, I would have gotten more attention just as much as if I'd had a stepfather. I can think of nothing that I missed by just having my mom where it would have mattered who my mother got involved with after Dad died. And I think you're wrong. I think society has decided against homosexuals--though, as we all know, not all societies by any stretch. I think people who are leading perfectly healthy lives (Camille Paglia is full of crap on a lot of subjects) are being marginalized. My genetic conditions prevent me from a lot more things than being gay would. I disagree. I think there's an obvious evolutionary advantage to homosexuality, and I think there's a very clear reason it's so prevalent in penguins--in other words, in animals that survive in some of the most brutal conditions on Earth. The support of more than just the parents helps the offspring survive to have offspring of their own. If it were so detrimental as you believe, there wouldn't be homosexuality in the wild, and there is, whether you like it or not. She's fine with it; She thinks that love between two consenting adults is sacred no matter what bits the adults come with. Tell that to my sister's best friend Kat. I dare you. She'll tell you what it was like when people looked at her and saw Adam. Then again, you probably won't listen to her any more than you listen to me when I tell you what suicidal depression feels like. I would, too. I find it cowardly to say that you don't think people are deserving of certain basic human rights and then fail to defend your choice.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 19, 2007 22:46:59 GMT -4
I find it cowardly to say that you don't think people are deserving of certain basic human rights and then fail to defend your choice. Since when was marriage a basic human right? If it was anyone could marry anyone else without it being licensed. They can't, so it's not a right, it's a privilege. Now if you want to argue that it's a privilege that should be given to anyone what wants it, that's fine, but in doing so you have to argue for all forms of non-allowed marriage as it currently stands, not just one form (i.e. polygamy, incest and so forth.) Otherwise all you are doing is upholding other forms of discrimination in a "basic human right".
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 19, 2007 23:34:30 GMT -4
Quantify what women have that men don't, or vice versa? I don't think anyone has ever fully understood that. So then how do you know that there are differences, if you can't define them? I understood that. I just found your defense of societal conformity amusing. Nor does the human appendix, but it still occurs in nature. Got His e-mail address? Cel #? P.O. Box? And your evidence for this is...? Wow, you actually brought up the intersexed before I did. So, do they get a free pass to love whom they choose, because they cannot know their "true" gender, or are they to be condemned to a life of chastity, for the same reason?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 20, 2007 0:49:09 GMT -4
Nor does the human appendix, but it still occurs in nature.
Actually this is debated. It's now becoming thought that the appendix is in fact no useless and is a highly specialised organ related to our immune systems. Exactly how is not known, but it is known that it has a highly developed blood flow and lymphatic cell structure. Whatever it does however, we can live without it, but then this is the same with a lot of our lymthatic system.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 20, 2007 1:05:36 GMT -4
Since when was marriage a basic human right? If it was anyone could marry anyone else without it being licensed. They can't, so it's not a right, it's a privilege. Now if you want to argue that it's a privilege that should be given to anyone what wants it, that's fine, but in doing so you have to argue for all forms of non-allowed marriage as it currently stands, not just one form (i.e. polygamy, incest and so forth.) Otherwise all you are doing is upholding other forms of discrimination in a "basic human right". Being loved is a basic human right. Being given equal protection under the law is a basic human right. I've found, in my personal experience, that someone always ends up getting hurt in a polyamorous situation, but you're certainly entitled to have one, provided everyone in the situation is equal and everyone in the situation is in it voluntarily. As for incest . . . . I don't think they're parallel. I have a hard time justifying this belief; I'm perfectly aware that, provided the pair don't actually breed together--or get damned fine genetic counseling before they do!--there's nothing biologically wrong with it. And I know that I'm leaving myself open to being called a hypocrite for saying it, but very seldom are incestuous relationships voluntary on both sides. They're usually, well, abusive. I can understand falling in love with another woman. Easily. For one thing, I often like women better. However, I cannot imagine falling in love with someone I've had a familial relationship with all my life. I suppose it would be different if I hadn't been raised with that person. However, I'm uncomfortable with the idea. It's different to me, though I cannot define why.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 20, 2007 3:05:51 GMT -4
Being loved is a basic human right.Ehhh, I'd put it more that t is a right to love and be loved. Otherwise we might have certain people demanding they get some loving. Being given equal protection under the law is a basic human right.I agree, as you might have picked up in my previous posts, it's just I think that there better ways to do it that what is being proposed. (eta: I was meaning to add in here that under the idea of allowing gay marriage then it really does nothing to deal with the disparity in the law anyways, since couples such as you and Graham don't get any protection regardless of how long you are together, which to me sux. Surely it's better for the law to just treat all long term relationships like a marraige rather then fiddling.) I've found, in my personal experience, that someone always ends up getting hurt in a polyamorous situation, but you're certainly entitled to have one, provided everyone in the situation is equal and everyone in the situation is in it voluntarily.Nah, I'm likely to have enough trouble dealing with just one women telling me what to do all time. I added that one in for Jason. As for incest . . . .
I don't think they're parallel. I have a hard time justifying this belief; I'm perfectly aware that, provided the pair don't actually breed together--or get damned fine genetic counseling before they do!--there's nothing biologically wrong with it. And I know that I'm leaving myself open to being called a hypocrite for saying it, but very seldom are incestuous relationships voluntary on both sides. They're usually, well, abusive.
I can understand falling in love with another woman. Easily. For one thing, I often like women better. However, I cannot imagine falling in love with someone I've had a familial relationship with all my life. I suppose it would be different if I hadn't been raised with that person. However, I'm uncomfortable with the idea. It's different to me, though I cannot define why.And again fair enough, but in realising that, you need to realise that other people, and no I'm not one, don't feel that way about incest, while some people do feel that way about homosexuality. Hopefully it's a point that has made you think though, which is what I was trying to do. We all have prejustice, it's just a matter of where they fall, and whether they are a result of the currently accept social norms. For instance I wonder how many of those that voted yes would have done so 40 years ago, and if we'd been raised in the southern US states during the 1920's, would our attitudes towards Afro-Americans be different to what it is today? I think that much of what we believe is what we are trained to believe and things outside of that make us uncomfortable. Sometimes it's handy to think outside of the box and see things from another person's point of view..
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 20, 2007 4:55:32 GMT -4
Oh, believe me, there's no subject on which I have an opinion that I haven't put a lot of thought, and usually a lot of research, into. Remember, I even chose my religion after careful study of the options!
It's not so much that there isn't equal protection under the law for me and Graham as there is for married couples; if I wanted that, I'd just get married. It's more that I'll lose the care that I so desperately need if I do get married, because Graham makes too much for me to keep my benefits if I marry him.
My best friend's mother is bisexual, leaning strongest toward lesbian. She was in a long-term relationship with a woman who has a terror of wills, as a lot of people do. Had something happened to her, her legal next-of-kin would have been a distant cousin she's met a half-dozen times and doesn't like, who wouldn't respect her wishes because his religious values mean he'd keep her on machines.
I had a friend in high school whose dad died intestate, as indeed did my own father. In both cases, probate was relatively easy, because they were married at the time of their deaths. People do. They shouldn't--but I will if I die now, because I don't know what I'm doing and I can't afford a lawyer to handle it for me. (The lawyer I have is my disability lawyer.) I've got a friend who's just become a lawyer, and I may be able to work out a trade with her, but the exchange of property won't be simple.
Marriage has been about a lot of things throughout history; having it be about love is a relatively new idea. Even having it be about children isn't universal. Marriages were mergers. Ideally, there would be children born of the union, but if there weren't, the families would still be united and things could be worked out from there. (Unless, of course, the family in question was the Tudors!)
Yes. A lot of my feelings are based on emotions and love of friends. True. Actually, it's why I'm not to jazzed about polyamoury; I've seen too many people get hurt by it, and not in the clean way of most breakups. These wounds fester. However, I've also put a lot of thought and a lot of study into it.
I think one of the fundamental complications stems from the fact that one side sees homosexuality as being about sex and the other sees it as being about love. We don't choose who we love, though we do choose who we have sex with.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jun 20, 2007 6:33:02 GMT -4
love is different between loving a sister and other love that has sexual linkages.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jun 20, 2007 6:36:09 GMT -4
I think th e greek Plato was right saying that not even ordinary people can marry if they have serious health problems, so let alone people having psychological and social problems .. imagine a homosexual father, instead of getting treated, teaching his son how to be a nice , gentle women. Imagine this son growing up and gowng to the army and telling the commander: Sir, I think you've got nice moustache
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 20, 2007 10:42:42 GMT -4
Yes it's primarily a religious viewpoint. Does that of necessity mean it is invalid? Not invalid to you, or anyone who shares your religious beliefs, but why should that effect those who don't share your beliefs? Basically what you are saying is that EVERYONE should be govered by your religious standards... No thanks. Now if you want to argue that it's a privilege that should be given to anyone what wants it, that's fine, but in doing so you have to argue for all forms of non-allowed marriage as it currently stands, not just one form (i.e. polygamy, incest and so forth.) Otherwise all you are doing is upholding other forms of discrimination in a "basic human right". I am really surprised at your failed reasoning here, Phantomwolf. This same "excuse" was used to argue against mixed race marriages.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 20, 2007 11:57:33 GMT -4
I've found, in my personal experience, that someone always ends up getting hurt in a polyamorous situation, but you're certainly entitled to have one, provided everyone in the situation is equal and everyone in the situation is in it voluntarily. So you believe it's wrong because people get hurt. Is there any way you can prove it? My basic attitude towards homosexuality is the same, and I've been asked to prove it.
|
|