Same sex marriage
20 Jun 2011, 9:00 pm
ridiculous rules that deny nature -
ridiculous religious riles, no less
Thou shalt not kill whoever or whatever getteth in thy way or annoyeth thee
Thou shalt not take whatever thou desirest, no batter whose it may be.
Thou shalt not lie in such a way as to defraud or harm thy neighbour
And then the other contrary to nature rules -
Forbidding involuntary servitude - denying people the right to sex with the very young - sadism - experimentation with human subjects - selling people worthless goods.
Let's face it, my nature urges me to sneak into your home, go through your private papers, and eat food from your refrigerator. I'm not joking - that IS a feature of my nature.
Why should I deny my nature just because of some ridiculous religioius or societal rules?
MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland
20 Jun 2011, 9:08 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
off-topic: well then perhaps male aspies who have staring problems or inability to look someone in the eye should not get preferential treatment or anything different then a NT who also has the same issues, and punished accordingly if they make other people, particularly women, uncomfortable.
I would need to address that more specifically, actually.Quote:
on-topic: I understand the spirit of the statement and the emoted rant is fine, but the heartless mind still deserves some level of civility.
It is not an "emoted rant." I do not owe any civility to a homophobe. I see them as low-bred trash, and the world has no use for them.I blame poor racial hygiene.
yes but anyone who opposes gay marriage(right or wrong) is labeled a homophobe, which is an emoted way of responding since it is justified hate that animates the response. Your hate and incivility might be justified, but at least acknowledge the emotion-basis for the response.
I can see how there can be exceptions, but the same people who keep shooting down gay marriage are also shooting down bills aimed at trying to control bullying or to add gay people to already existing laws protecting racial minorities and the disabled.
So the simple fact of the matter is that I see opposition to same-sex marriage as an assault on my rights that deserves to be addressed with whatever force is necessary to suppress it. It is not up for discussion. It is not something I intend to compromise on. I will crush and destroy any conversation on it in which someone is suggesting that I should live under one law while someone else lives under another, period, and I have proven this.
It's not something that I am going to be nice about. If you think you've seen me being mean, you haven't seen me after I've been provoked on this subject.
I know that there is genuine hatred amongst a good many people who oppose gay marriage. But - like you are acknowledging - hatred does not animate everyone who opposes gay marriage, like myself. I have had rich and rewarding friendships with the great many gays and lesbians who God has brought into my life (I believe it was divine because my life has never been the same since) and have flirted with my own non-rigid heterosexuality so I could care less about who you love.
I actually do believe in the male-female ideal as a cultural bias instead of male-female / male-male / female female, but simply opposing gay marriage gets you called a bigot, zealot, and homophobe. You can't tell me that emotions and hatred of the assumed bigot is not what animates people to call others a homophobe.
What if you - as I do - oppose brother-sister love, do I call you a syblingphobe? What if there are three loving males in the relationship? It is okay for you to call me someone opposed to gay marriage a homophobe, but won't tolerate being labeled a polygamyphobe? We seemed to be allowed our bigotries so long as we are both bigoted in the same direction. People who throw around the term homophobe should at least be intellectually honest and consistent and drop all bias's unless it is between two consenting adults.
Well maybe the issue is no one ever seems to have a good reason why gay marrige should not be allowed, religious reasons do not cut it.
I've made largely non-religious arguments for why society should continue to hold the male-female bias that we have.
The religious argument from my reading of conservative/reform judaism for male-female love is largely the same as its case against incest. Forget that you might produce ret*d offspring - that might appeal to many today as health is being used to gage morality(healthy being moral, unhealthy being immoral) - but from a biblical perspective, it is irrelevant and unimportant. Treating the stranger well was what made Abraham the father of many nations and many religions. Whereas in many cultures, children are the focus of getting married, the reform/conservative outlook on torah readings of the story of Abraham, Noah, and Adam and Eve is that marriage is for the two who married. They were instructed to go forth and multiply but it isn't the purpose of marriage. One pervading theme of marriage is to learn to love someone who is different from you and the opposite sex
But that was also constructed on a completely different outlook: You marry, and then you love or learn to love the other.
_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,916
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
20 Jun 2011, 9:13 pm
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
off-topic: well then perhaps male aspies who have staring problems or inability to look someone in the eye should not get preferential treatment or anything different then a NT who also has the same issues, and punished accordingly if they make other people, particularly women, uncomfortable.
I would need to address that more specifically, actually.Quote:
on-topic: I understand the spirit of the statement and the emoted rant is fine, but the heartless mind still deserves some level of civility.
It is not an "emoted rant." I do not owe any civility to a homophobe. I see them as low-bred trash, and the world has no use for them.I blame poor racial hygiene.
yes but anyone who opposes gay marriage(right or wrong) is labeled a homophobe, which is an emoted way of responding since it is justified hate that animates the response. Your hate and incivility might be justified, but at least acknowledge the emotion-basis for the response.
I can see how there can be exceptions, but the same people who keep shooting down gay marriage are also shooting down bills aimed at trying to control bullying or to add gay people to already existing laws protecting racial minorities and the disabled.
So the simple fact of the matter is that I see opposition to same-sex marriage as an assault on my rights that deserves to be addressed with whatever force is necessary to suppress it. It is not up for discussion. It is not something I intend to compromise on. I will crush and destroy any conversation on it in which someone is suggesting that I should live under one law while someone else lives under another, period, and I have proven this.
It's not something that I am going to be nice about. If you think you've seen me being mean, you haven't seen me after I've been provoked on this subject.
I know that there is genuine hatred amongst a good many people who oppose gay marriage. But - like you are acknowledging - hatred does not animate everyone who opposes gay marriage, like myself. I have had rich and rewarding friendships with the great many gays and lesbians who God has brought into my life (I believe it was divine because my life has never been the same since) and have flirted with my own non-rigid heterosexuality so I could care less about who you love.
I actually do believe in the male-female ideal as a cultural bias instead of male-female / male-male / female female, but simply opposing gay marriage gets you called a bigot, zealot, and homophobe. You can't tell me that emotions and hatred of the assumed bigot is not what animates people to call others a homophobe.
What if you - as I do - oppose brother-sister love, do I call you a syblingphobe? What if there are three loving males in the relationship? It is okay for you to call me someone opposed to gay marriage a homophobe, but won't tolerate being labeled a polygamyphobe? We seemed to be allowed our bigotries so long as we are both bigoted in the same direction. People who throw around the term homophobe should at least be intellectually honest and consistent and drop all bias's unless it is between two consenting adults.
Well maybe the issue is no one ever seems to have a good reason why gay marrige should not be allowed, religious reasons do not cut it.
I've made largely non-religious arguments for why society should continue to hold the male-female bias that we have.
The religious argument from my reading of conservative/reform judaism for male-female love is largely the same as its case against incest. Forget that you might produce ret*d offspring - that might appeal to many today as health is being used to gage morality(healthy being moral, unhealthy being immoral) - but from a biblical perspective, it is irrelevant and unimportant. Treating the stranger well was what made Abraham the father of many nations and many religions. Whereas in many cultures, children are the focus of getting married, the reform/conservative outlook on torah readings of the story of Abraham, Noah, and Adam and Eve is that marriage is for the two who married. They were instructed to go forth and multiply but it isn't the purpose of marriage. One pervading theme of marriage is to learn to love someone who is different from you and the opposite sex
But that was also constructed on a completely different outlook: You marry, and then you love or learn to love the other.
That is what marrige is in those religions, there is no reason society should stick to that. I do not consider religious reasons valid reasons to have a male-female bias as you call it. And what about people who for whatever reason cannot perfectly conform to their 'gender' I mean just because society has been constructed a certain way does not mean it is the right way. I mean sure maybe not everyone who holds these kinds of veiws about homosexuals takes any extreme action, but the mindset does tend to encourage the idea that homosexuals are lesser people and deserve less.
20 Jun 2011, 9:37 pm
MarketAndChurch wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Sexual orientation and sexuality are fluid, but that's not quite the same thing as saying it's a choice.
if men and women aren't "fixed" (not including people were born rigidly homosexual), then allowing homosexual marriage will increase homosexuality. Saying that most people are or not is up for debate, but if one takes the position that it is not fixed, and that it is culturally biased (in some cases, cultures who strictly embrace familism are more often opposed to homosexuality)
gay advocates fully acknowledge this. That is the reason they don't settle for civil unions. Like I told Mox earlier,
Quote:
Gay Marriage isn't about gaining the ability love or to get acceptance. You can already do that without marriage. It's about liberalizing(freeing) our definitions of sexual preferences and arrangements.
- I uphold male-female love as the idyllic societal bias that we culturally shape people towards.
Quote:
Civil Unions can be changed to include all the benefits of marriage, and gays will still not want it over marriage. (you might be logically consistent and settle for a civil union if it offered all of those benefits, but most gays won't, and for the reasons I said above.) A pervading belief amongst advocates is the outlook that the sexism, racism, xenophobia, islamophobia, intolerance, bigotry, and zealot-like ways of society are systemic to a culture that not only tolerates it, but is supportive of it. If one adopts this worldview, the common approach is to fundamentally change society to a more "healthier" social culture that is more tolerant and more equal. The intentions, motivations, and what animates people to fight for and against this is more then just about two gay people who wish to marry legally(note the number of people who don't want a civil union even if the full benefits and rights of marriage were offered), and to deny that is to either be dishonest or unaware.
They were always quick to note violence in the media, so to raise less violent boys, we exclude toy guns and swords from the things available for them to play with - just as we - to combat sexism - give our daughters gender neutral toys like trucks to fight sexist bias in our daughters upbringing. The same worldview is at play here. To create the less homophobic world, gays and their large heterosexual supporters will achieve that with gay marriage, which I too would support if I didn't believe that - for the overwhelming majority of us - the human being does not have a fixed orientation.
Please see what I have bolded and italicized. It's important to recognize the distinction between 'fluid' and 'choice' within this context. One does not mean the other.
Nobody has a fixed orientation, but preferences are not a choice in and of themselves. After all, you can't detest chocolate ice cream and one day decide it will taste good just because you want it to. You may, one day, have a change in your taste buds and end up liking it after all, but there is no choice involved... except the choice to try it again after you've decided you didn't like it.
_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.
MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland
20 Jun 2011, 9:40 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
off-topic: well then perhaps male aspies who have staring problems or inability to look someone in the eye should not get preferential treatment or anything different then a NT who also has the same issues, and punished accordingly if they make other people, particularly women, uncomfortable.
I would need to address that more specifically, actually.Quote:
on-topic: I understand the spirit of the statement and the emoted rant is fine, but the heartless mind still deserves some level of civility.
It is not an "emoted rant." I do not owe any civility to a homophobe. I see them as low-bred trash, and the world has no use for them.I blame poor racial hygiene.
yes but anyone who opposes gay marriage(right or wrong) is labeled a homophobe, which is an emoted way of responding since it is justified hate that animates the response. Your hate and incivility might be justified, but at least acknowledge the emotion-basis for the response.
I can see how there can be exceptions, but the same people who keep shooting down gay marriage are also shooting down bills aimed at trying to control bullying or to add gay people to already existing laws protecting racial minorities and the disabled.
So the simple fact of the matter is that I see opposition to same-sex marriage as an assault on my rights that deserves to be addressed with whatever force is necessary to suppress it. It is not up for discussion. It is not something I intend to compromise on. I will crush and destroy any conversation on it in which someone is suggesting that I should live under one law while someone else lives under another, period, and I have proven this.
It's not something that I am going to be nice about. If you think you've seen me being mean, you haven't seen me after I've been provoked on this subject.
I know that there is genuine hatred amongst a good many people who oppose gay marriage. But - like you are acknowledging - hatred does not animate everyone who opposes gay marriage, like myself. I have had rich and rewarding friendships with the great many gays and lesbians who God has brought into my life (I believe it was divine because my life has never been the same since) and have flirted with my own non-rigid heterosexuality so I could care less about who you love.
I actually do believe in the male-female ideal as a cultural bias instead of male-female / male-male / female female, but simply opposing gay marriage gets you called a bigot, zealot, and homophobe. You can't tell me that emotions and hatred of the assumed bigot is not what animates people to call others a homophobe.
What if you - as I do - oppose brother-sister love, do I call you a syblingphobe? What if there are three loving males in the relationship? It is okay for you to call me someone opposed to gay marriage a homophobe, but won't tolerate being labeled a polygamyphobe? We seemed to be allowed our bigotries so long as we are both bigoted in the same direction. People who throw around the term homophobe should at least be intellectually honest and consistent and drop all bias's unless it is between two consenting adults.
Well maybe the issue is no one ever seems to have a good reason why gay marrige should not be allowed, religious reasons do not cut it.
I've made largely non-religious arguments for why society should continue to hold the male-female bias that we have.
The religious argument from my reading of conservative/reform judaism for male-female love is largely the same as its case against incest. Forget that you might produce ret*d offspring - that might appeal to many today as health is being used to gage morality(healthy being moral, unhealthy being immoral) - but from a biblical perspective, it is irrelevant and unimportant. Treating the stranger well was what made Abraham the father of many nations and many religions. Whereas in many cultures, children are the focus of getting married, the reform/conservative outlook on torah readings of the story of Abraham, Noah, and Adam and Eve is that marriage is for the two who married. They were instructed to go forth and multiply but it isn't the purpose of marriage. One pervading theme of marriage is to learn to love someone who is different from you and the opposite sex
But that was also constructed on a completely different outlook: You marry, and then you love or learn to love the other.
That is what marrige is in those religions, there is no reason society should stick to that. I do not consider religious reasons valid reasons to have a male-female bias as you call it. And what about people who for whatever reason cannot perfectly conform to their 'gender' I mean just because society has been constructed a certain way does not mean it is the right way. I mean sure maybe not everyone who holds these kinds of veiws about homosexuals takes any extreme action, but the mindset does tend to encourage the idea that homosexuals are lesser people and deserve less.
Why not?
That is fine that you don't consider them valid, but why not?
For people who don't meet that because they are rigidly homosexual, or can't conform to their sex, then you allow them to be together and give them every known material and service right known to straight couples like the ability to visit one another if their partner were hospitalized, etc. But you do this while leaving intact the definition that societies ideal - for the vast majority of us - is to pair up and live a life with the opposite sex.
Just because it's change doesn't mean its good change.
One then needs to adopt a more advanced mindset that you can love lovable people regardless of orientation and regard them as equal to you and the both of you(you and your gay friend) can still uphold the male-female standard for the vast majority of society whose sexuality is not fixed.
_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.
20 Jun 2011, 9:41 pm
One more point... why does it matter if it's a choice or not? We all make choices every day, and unless those choices impact someone else in a severely negative way (child abuse, domestic abuse, murder, theft... etc) the government cannot tell us we aren't allowed.
_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.
20 Jun 2011, 9:45 pm
Philologos wrote:
When the quoted text gets to that many strokes of the scroll button it is time for me to go him and for others to think about cutting the quotes up smaller.
*nod* Neatly trimmed is always appreciated.
_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,916
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
20 Jun 2011, 9:50 pm
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
off-topic: well then perhaps male aspies who have staring problems or inability to look someone in the eye should not get preferential treatment or anything different then a NT who also has the same issues, and punished accordingly if they make other people, particularly women, uncomfortable.
I would need to address that more specifically, actually.Quote:
on-topic: I understand the spirit of the statement and the emoted rant is fine, but the heartless mind still deserves some level of civility.
It is not an "emoted rant." I do not owe any civility to a homophobe. I see them as low-bred trash, and the world has no use for them.I blame poor racial hygiene.
yes but anyone who opposes gay marriage(right or wrong) is labeled a homophobe, which is an emoted way of responding since it is justified hate that animates the response. Your hate and incivility might be justified, but at least acknowledge the emotion-basis for the response.
I can see how there can be exceptions, but the same people who keep shooting down gay marriage are also shooting down bills aimed at trying to control bullying or to add gay people to already existing laws protecting racial minorities and the disabled.
So the simple fact of the matter is that I see opposition to same-sex marriage as an assault on my rights that deserves to be addressed with whatever force is necessary to suppress it. It is not up for discussion. It is not something I intend to compromise on. I will crush and destroy any conversation on it in which someone is suggesting that I should live under one law while someone else lives under another, period, and I have proven this.
It's not something that I am going to be nice about. If you think you've seen me being mean, you haven't seen me after I've been provoked on this subject.
I know that there is genuine hatred amongst a good many people who oppose gay marriage. But - like you are acknowledging - hatred does not animate everyone who opposes gay marriage, like myself. I have had rich and rewarding friendships with the great many gays and lesbians who God has brought into my life (I believe it was divine because my life has never been the same since) and have flirted with my own non-rigid heterosexuality so I could care less about who you love.
I actually do believe in the male-female ideal as a cultural bias instead of male-female / male-male / female female, but simply opposing gay marriage gets you called a bigot, zealot, and homophobe. You can't tell me that emotions and hatred of the assumed bigot is not what animates people to call others a homophobe.
What if you - as I do - oppose brother-sister love, do I call you a syblingphobe? What if there are three loving males in the relationship? It is okay for you to call me someone opposed to gay marriage a homophobe, but won't tolerate being labeled a polygamyphobe? We seemed to be allowed our bigotries so long as we are both bigoted in the same direction. People who throw around the term homophobe should at least be intellectually honest and consistent and drop all bias's unless it is between two consenting adults.
Well maybe the issue is no one ever seems to have a good reason why gay marrige should not be allowed, religious reasons do not cut it.
I've made largely non-religious arguments for why society should continue to hold the male-female bias that we have.
The religious argument from my reading of conservative/reform judaism for male-female love is largely the same as its case against incest. Forget that you might produce ret*d offspring - that might appeal to many today as health is being used to gage morality(healthy being moral, unhealthy being immoral) - but from a biblical perspective, it is irrelevant and unimportant. Treating the stranger well was what made Abraham the father of many nations and many religions. Whereas in many cultures, children are the focus of getting married, the reform/conservative outlook on torah readings of the story of Abraham, Noah, and Adam and Eve is that marriage is for the two who married. They were instructed to go forth and multiply but it isn't the purpose of marriage. One pervading theme of marriage is to learn to love someone who is different from you and the opposite sex
But that was also constructed on a completely different outlook: You marry, and then you love or learn to love the other.
That is what marrige is in those religions, there is no reason society should stick to that. I do not consider religious reasons valid reasons to have a male-female bias as you call it. And what about people who for whatever reason cannot perfectly conform to their 'gender' I mean just because society has been constructed a certain way does not mean it is the right way. I mean sure maybe not everyone who holds these kinds of veiws about homosexuals takes any extreme action, but the mindset does tend to encourage the idea that homosexuals are lesser people and deserve less.
Why not?
That is fine that you don't consider them valid, but why not?
For people who don't meet that because they are rigidly homosexual, or can't conform to their sex, then you allow them to be together and give them every known material and service right known to straight couples like the ability to visit one another if their partner were hospitalized, etc. But you do this while leaving intact the definition that societies ideal - for the vast majority of us - is to pair up and live a life with the opposite sex.
Just because it's change doesn't mean its good change.
One then needs to adopt a more advanced mindset that you can love lovable people regardless of orientation and regard them as equal to you and the both of you(you and your gay friend) can still uphold the male-female standard for the vast majority of society whose sexuality is not fixed.
Why not? maybe because I don't like intolerance based on stupid reasons, religion to me is just a way of trying to control people. Also if people want to pair up and live with the opposite great, but why should the people who want to do the same with the same sex be denied the privelige? And what do you mean people who cannot conform to their sex......I don't particularly conform to my gender so should I be denied marrige as well?
MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland
20 Jun 2011, 9:57 pm
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Sexual orientation and sexuality are fluid, but that's not quite the same thing as saying it's a choice.
if men and women aren't "fixed" (not including people were born rigidly homosexual), then allowing homosexual marriage will increase homosexuality. Saying that most people are or not is up for debate, but if one takes the position that it is not fixed, and that it is culturally biased (in some cases, cultures who strictly embrace familism are more often opposed to homosexuality)
gay advocates fully acknowledge this. That is the reason they don't settle for civil unions. Like I told Mox earlier,
Quote:
Gay Marriage isn't about gaining the ability love or to get acceptance. You can already do that without marriage. It's about liberalizing(freeing) our definitions of sexual preferences and arrangements.
- I uphold male-female love as the idyllic societal bias that we culturally shape people towards.
Quote:
Civil Unions can be changed to include all the benefits of marriage, and gays will still not want it over marriage. (you might be logically consistent and settle for a civil union if it offered all of those benefits, but most gays won't, and for the reasons I said above.) A pervading belief amongst advocates is the outlook that the sexism, racism, xenophobia, islamophobia, intolerance, bigotry, and zealot-like ways of society are systemic to a culture that not only tolerates it, but is supportive of it. If one adopts this worldview, the common approach is to fundamentally change society to a more "healthier" social culture that is more tolerant and more equal. The intentions, motivations, and what animates people to fight for and against this is more then just about two gay people who wish to marry legally(note the number of people who don't want a civil union even if the full benefits and rights of marriage were offered), and to deny that is to either be dishonest or unaware.
They were always quick to note violence in the media, so to raise less violent boys, we exclude toy guns and swords from the things available for them to play with - just as we - to combat sexism - give our daughters gender neutral toys like trucks to fight sexist bias in our daughters upbringing. The same worldview is at play here. To create the less homophobic world, gays and their large heterosexual supporters will achieve that with gay marriage, which I too would support if I didn't believe that - for the overwhelming majority of us - the human being does not have a fixed orientation.
Please see what I have bolded and italicized. It's important to recognize the distinction between 'fluid' and 'choice' within this context. One does not mean the other.
Nobody has a fixed orientation, but preferences are not a choice in and of themselves. After all, you can't detest chocolate ice cream and one day decide it will taste good just because you want it to. You may, one day, have a change in your taste buds and end up liking it after all, but there is no choice involved... except the choice to try it again after you've decided you didn't like it.
For clarification
the chocolate ice cream is more a personal choice of preference that is spared societies input on whether to like chocolate or not. Society may tend to associate good feelings in general about sweet treats, but they don't play favorites - unless its the health types trying to wee you off of your diabetic-inducing cravings for less-sugary/fatty alternatives that are healthy or natural.
If perhaps society begin a campaign on behalf of vanilla and against chocolate then the scenario may be a bit more relevant, but even then, it is a sweet treat and most people who already like will continue to like it irrespective. Society taking a position against marijuana seems to have had little affect on the rise of usage and positive cultural prevalence in society. The point is that if you are raised in a certain way with certain definitions of what manhood means, who you should love, your position on family, women, life, the state, etc. you will more then likely fall in to line with whatever the social norm is. genders and functions of gender are a result of societal construct.
The more appropriate example is if one were to be dropped into a native french-speaking country, one would adopt french whether it was your preference or not. If one is raised in a french speaking country, and the norm is for men to never be seen with their shirts off publicly, then there is a high likelihood that this societal preference will win out and we will never see you publicly with your shirt off.
_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.
MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland
20 Jun 2011, 9:58 pm
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Philologos wrote:
When the quoted text gets to that many strokes of the scroll button it is time for me to go him and for others to think about cutting the quotes up smaller.
*nod* Neatly trimmed is always appreciated.
*noted - I'll edit it down a bit
_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,916
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
20 Jun 2011, 10:14 pm
MarketAndChurch wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Sexual orientation and sexuality are fluid, but that's not quite the same thing as saying it's a choice.
if men and women aren't "fixed" (not including people were born rigidly homosexual), then allowing homosexual marriage will increase homosexuality. Saying that most people are or not is up for debate, but if one takes the position that it is not fixed, and that it is culturally biased (in some cases, cultures who strictly embrace familism are more often opposed to homosexuality)
gay advocates fully acknowledge this. That is the reason they don't settle for civil unions. Like I told Mox earlier,
Quote:
Gay Marriage isn't about gaining the ability love or to get acceptance. You can already do that without marriage. It's about liberalizing(freeing) our definitions of sexual preferences and arrangements.
- I uphold male-female love as the idyllic societal bias that we culturally shape people towards.
Quote:
Civil Unions can be changed to include all the benefits of marriage, and gays will still not want it over marriage. (you might be logically consistent and settle for a civil union if it offered all of those benefits, but most gays won't, and for the reasons I said above.) A pervading belief amongst advocates is the outlook that the sexism, racism, xenophobia, islamophobia, intolerance, bigotry, and zealot-like ways of society are systemic to a culture that not only tolerates it, but is supportive of it. If one adopts this worldview, the common approach is to fundamentally change society to a more "healthier" social culture that is more tolerant and more equal. The intentions, motivations, and what animates people to fight for and against this is more then just about two gay people who wish to marry legally(note the number of people who don't want a civil union even if the full benefits and rights of marriage were offered), and to deny that is to either be dishonest or unaware.
They were always quick to note violence in the media, so to raise less violent boys, we exclude toy guns and swords from the things available for them to play with - just as we - to combat sexism - give our daughters gender neutral toys like trucks to fight sexist bias in our daughters upbringing. The same worldview is at play here. To create the less homophobic world, gays and their large heterosexual supporters will achieve that with gay marriage, which I too would support if I didn't believe that - for the overwhelming majority of us - the human being does not have a fixed orientation.
Please see what I have bolded and italicized. It's important to recognize the distinction between 'fluid' and 'choice' within this context. One does not mean the other.
Nobody has a fixed orientation, but preferences are not a choice in and of themselves. After all, you can't detest chocolate ice cream and one day decide it will taste good just because you want it to. You may, one day, have a change in your taste buds and end up liking it after all, but there is no choice involved... except the choice to try it again after you've decided you didn't like it.
For clarification
the chocolate ice cream is more a personal choice of preference that is spared societies input on whether to like chocolate or not. Society may tend to associate good feelings in general about sweet treats, but they don't play favorites - unless its the health types trying to wee you off of your diabetic-inducing cravings for less-sugary/fatty alternatives that are healthy or natural.
If perhaps society begin a campaign on behalf of vanilla and against chocolate then the scenario may be a bit more relevant, but even then, it is a sweet treat and most people who already like will continue to like it irrespective. Society taking a position against marijuana seems to have had little affect on the rise of usage and positive cultural prevalence in society. The point is that if you are raised in a certain way with certain definitions of what manhood means, who you should love, your position on family, women, life, the state, etc. you will more then likely fall in to line with whatever the social norm is. genders and functions of gender are a result of societal construct.
The more appropriate example is if one were to be dropped into a native french-speaking country, one would adopt french whether it was your preference or not. If one is raised in a french speaking country, and the norm is for men to never be seen with their shirts off publicly, then there is a high likelihood that this societal preference will win out and we will never see you publicly with your shirt off.
I have not fell in line with the social norms or even the beliefs I grew up with, and am I obligated to? I don't think so. I guess as someone who was picked on, shunned and disliked for being different(though in my case it was more related to my lack of social skills and just general weirdness.) I can see how these kinds of beliefs might be harmful to homosexuals, as it only encourage intolerance.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,916
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
20 Jun 2011, 10:24 pm
chrissyrun wrote:
cave_canem wrote:
What other things are you saying it is tied to?
I am saying that it is tied to the power of our nation. That if we have less people being made by our people, we will have less power.
and what exactly is so great about 'our people' as you put it........I am not much of a nationalist so I really have no sense of 'we must make more babies to create more national power'. I guess.
20 Jun 2011, 10:27 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
Actually animals do exibit homosexual behavior....and sex does not have to be for pregnancy if that is all it is for you cool, but don't push it on othe people and then act like you're high and mighty because you don't have sex for pleasure. And the entire world is not going to turn homosexual, so relax there will still be pleanty of people willing to have sex for reproduction purposes.
And naturally speaking humans are not even defined to two genders, that is another thing your religion probably wants you to think is 'un-natural' and wrong. And I really do not think a few biased people from ancient times know much about people today so though the bible has some value as a historical document it should not be taken litterally. What I also find funny is how a lot of christians pick and choose what they want to follow such as homosexuality being wrong but completely ignore most everything else.
And the only thing that defined 'normal marrige' is society and quite frankly I am sick of this societies close mindedness. and finally some straight people cannot have children, some people that end up with an undefined gender probably cannot naturally have kids either so yeah get off your high horse.
Really?! Because I've never heard of that, and those animals are stupid.
You didn't read everything that I wrote.
chrissyrun wrote:
(Oh, and within a normal marriage, it is ok to "enjoy" sex with one partner that they love, but the problem is...the gays feel guilty for not being in marriage and have sex: so they want the marriage thing. However, it is not right for them even if they are married because they can NEVER have children naturallly and thus are skewing the ultimate purpose of sex)
See my argument. It doesn't have to be just for procreation, but that is ultimately what it is made for.
I am not acting high and mighty, I am stating my opinion. Did I ever say that I was better than the people. No, it is just that normal marriage is the correct option. Not the people....THE ACTION.
Who knows if the whole world is going to go gay. It's the last days anyways, anything can happen.
YES, MAN AND WOMAN. There are a few people who are accidentally born with both the parts, but there are tons of medical anomalies. It is defined that way, what else would it be defined as?
They do though, can't you see that they had the same problems. Sodom and Gomorra had gay people too, and a few other places that I can't remember right now. They would know, but you would just like to follow the latest trend instead of following what is tried, tested, and true...and recorded for our help!
Um, NO! I follow pretty much follow everything in the bible. Or I try my best, and the D+C and the book of Mormon, and the pearl of great price, and my prophet and leaders with modern day revelation who say that gay marriage is wrong. I am not trying to be prideful, I have sinned. I am not perfect. BUT, I ALWAYS try to repent because I am trying to become more godlike. I am trying. And that is really judgmental of you. If you don't even know what is in the bible, how can you know if I am following it?
No, normal marriage has been in religion for many years and the family is the unit of heavenly Father that brings us closer to perfection...since you brought it up. Our cultures have been that way for 1000's of years, but it has only been recently (and way back when in the bible) when people decided to defy it.
But it is all about intent!! !! If the people can't have kids, most of them have tried!! !
20 Jun 2011, 10:30 pm
MarketAndChurch wrote:
For clarification
the chocolate ice cream is more a personal choice of preference that is spared societies input on whether to like chocolate or not. Society may tend to associate good feelings in general about sweet treats, but they don't play favorites - unless its the health types trying to wee you off of your diabetic-inducing cravings for less-sugary/fatty alternatives that are healthy or natural.
If perhaps society begin a campaign on behalf of vanilla and against chocolate then the scenario may be a bit more relevant, but even then, it is a sweet treat and most people who already like will continue to like it irrespective. Society taking a position against marijuana seems to have had little affect on the rise of usage and positive cultural prevalence in society. The point is that if you are raised in a certain way with certain definitions of what manhood means, who you should love, your position on family, women, life, the state, etc. you will more then likely fall in to line with whatever the social norm is. genders and functions of gender are a result of societal construct.
The more appropriate example is if one were to be dropped into a native french-speaking country, one would adopt french whether it was your preference or not. If one is raised in a french speaking country, and the norm is for men to never be seen with their shirts off publicly, then there is a high likelihood that this societal preference will win out and we will never see you publicly with your shirt off.
Um... no. You either like the taste of something or you don't.
While I agree most things happen to be a societal construct, and that consistent exposure to something like chocolate ice cream can cause one to develop a preference for it, this is not the same as it being a choice.
I find it interesting that you ignored that.
_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.
