Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
ps
climber
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2010 - 01:56pm PT
|
People will always disagree on what is morally right or wrong. There will be a spectrum.
I think anyone has the right to do whatever they want with their body, whether right or wrong.
No, I don't think man + man meets the definition of marriage. Or woman + woman.
HOWEVER, I do think people that choose a man + man relationship or woman + woman relationship deserve rights just like a normal married couple making medical decisions, living wills, etc.
I see no reason why both sides can't come to some sort of agreement.
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2010 - 02:09pm PT
|
I see no reason why both sides can't come to some sort of agreement.
There can be no compromise because the moral majority thinks that it would lead to their kids being converted to homosexuality or the earth being destroyed by God because they let it happen. To allow for any legal acceptance of homosexuality is to somehow accept it as being morally OK in their minds so they cannot and will not compromise, constitution be damned.
Dave
|
|
drunkenmaster
Social climber
santa rosa
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2010 - 02:12pm PT
|
prop 8 = hate - simple as that. there is no reason why gay people cant get married - as if marriage is so awesome and meaningful anyway. its so fukn ridiculous and such a waste of time and money i cant stand it and im not even gay. its all about love - what the fuk is wrong with that?? are people scared they or their kids will turn gay?? i really dont think its a choice. and holy fuk who cares?? the world has a lot of people, if some of them dont want to make more babies then wtf is the problem!? prop 8 is lame+evil.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2010 - 02:20pm PT
|
Yeah, "rights" are secondary, they really don't matter.
In fact, rights were such an afterthought that AFTER the Constitution was
written, in their spare time from plowing, they whipped up the Bill of Rights.
If the framers of our Constitution thought that "rights" for minorities where
so important, well then they would have put them in the first draft.
After all, the framers were white and devout Christians were believed in god
and the bible.
And here is what GOD says about homos:
Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." 1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers" Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2010 - 02:24pm PT
|
HOWEVER, I do think people that choose a man + man relationship or woman + woman relationship deserve rights just like a normal married couple making medical decisions, living wills, etc.
A common thread here is that the Proposition Hate supporters think sexual orientation is a choice.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2010 - 02:28pm PT
|
It is interesting to read through these blurbs and see what is implied.
The anti-gay folks seem to be convinced, to lesser or greater degrees - of the following points.
1. There is no such thing as a "natural" gay person, that is, a person who native, instinctual, involuntary preference is same sex. In other words, there are no "authentic" gay people as a natural type. There are only us straight folk who are perverted, or mistaken about who they are and are duped by false or pathological impulses.
2. Sexual orientation is a choice. Any of us could go either way, and I (for instance) favor chicas because I decided to favor chicas. But I could just as easily favor Bruce or Billy if I so choose, just as Bruce or Billy could favor chicas if they so choose.
3. Homosexuality is contagious. We have to stamp it out lest your very son will "catch" it and the next thing you know he'll be buggering little Stevie over there behind the ficus trees.
4. Homosexual relationships imperil and cheapen "straight" marriage. In other words, what happens two houses down (where two gays are shacking up) determines the quality and very practices of what goes down in my house.
That is, the more Bruce and Billy strike up the band, the more the rest of us will start leaning toward the old corn hole.
5. The approval or disapproval of homosexuality actually has some tangible bearing on determining the existence of homosexuality. In other words, if we approve of homosexuality, that very approval will give permission to be gay to those who otherwise would never consider it, or who are straddling the fence on the issue. That is, if we approve of Italians, a lot of Greeks and Puerto Ricans will also become Italians, since ethnicity, like homosexuality, is not about who a person is, but who they want to be.
My conclusion is that this line of reasoning gives people a lot more freedom and power of choice over who they are than in fact is actually the case. Any reputable report on the matter will reveal that sexual preference is almost entirely involuntary, that we're simply "made" one way or another. The anti-gay stance refutes this basic premise entirely, contending that sexual preference is negotiable and is influenced by external forces.
So my question to those folks is: Explain to the group here how, in terms of your own personal experience, your sexual preference has been a choice for you, and how that choice is constantly threatened by the debauchery that Harry and Herbert are doing down the road.
JL
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2010 - 02:47pm PT
|
Nice one, John Long.
|
|
ps
climber
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2010 - 04:59pm PT
|
Gary wrote: "A common thread here is that the Proposition Hate supporters think sexual orientation is a choice. "
I was taught in my genetics class that there is a tension between nature and nurture. It's interesting to think about sexual orientation as totally genetically driven without any influence of environmental stimuli.
IMO, Gary and JL, you are equally biased in your fundamental belief that has not been proven just as much as anyone who believes in the bible. If homosexuality is singularly controlled by a gene, it'll be interesting to see how long it is before the biotech market starts capitalizing on that for prospective parents.
JL wrote: "There are only us straight folk who are perverted, or mistaken about who they are and are duped by false or pathological impulses."
I'll give you my take on this. Evolution developed humanity to require having a male and female to reproduce. This is why the vast majority of people are heterosexual, and this would probably also explain your statement that people believe that homosexuality is a deviation from the standard of heterosexuality. Evolution works for male and female, evolution does not select for male and male relationships, and not female and female relationships.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2010 - 06:00pm PT
|
PS wrote:
I was taught in my genetics class that there is a tension between nature and nurture. It's interesting to think about sexual orientation as totally genetically driven without any influence of environmental stimuli.
IMO, Gary and JL, you are equally biased in your fundamental belief that has not been proven just as much as anyone who believes in the bible. If homosexuality is singularly controlled by a gene, it'll be interesting to see how long it is before the biotech market starts capitalizing on that for prospective parents.
-----
PS: It follows from the above that you feel environmental stimuli has to greater or lesser degrees, influenced your own sexual orientation, or that your sexual orientation possibly has the chance of being influenced in that way if, say, a homosexual lifestyle was "nurtured" in the world.
So I would be interested in hearing, in terms of your own, personal experience, how you might have been nurtured straight or gay, as the case may be.
JL
|
|
Bertrand
climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2010 - 06:08pm PT
|
WOw, so many voices here mischaracterizing the sentiment that made Prop 8 victorious.
Everybody go back and read what PS wrote [edit: about 10 posts back, at 10:56am]. That about sums it up. I too have nothing against homosexual people and no "fear" of them as you reductionists keep saying. I know that marriage, by one definition, simply refers to a joining of two things...and I often use the word that way. (thanks for the etymology, anyway, Skepti.) Nevertheless, when discussing the institution of MARRIAGE, for many of us it simply means the partnership of a man and a woman. For me, there is no "hate" or religion involved at all. And I personally think it is stupid to go around changing historical meanings to accommodate new definitions of family.
Long, man I have so much respect for you...but I will debate you any day on your comment about the "naturalness" of homosexuality. Some men might be genetically inclined to walk a little light on their feet...but there is no evidence that a person can be born gay. Gay people do NOT constitute a minority group the way ethnic minorities do. Instead, it is a behavior, or a personal evolution with unclear causes...but, imho, NOT a class of people for whom special acccommodations need to be made.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2010 - 06:16pm PT
|
Correct!
Homosexuals are NOT born that way, because .....they just can't be.
They CHOOSE to be the way the are.
Even well before puberty, they made a DECISION to NOT be attacked to people
of the opposite sex.
They CHOSE to be laughed at, shunned by former friends once they were "outed",
they knew they could be attacked and beaten.
But they MADE the CHOICE anyway, because seemed like a more interesting lifestyle.
NO WAY were they just BORN gay, like blacks are born black.
|
|
Bertrand
climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2010 - 06:28pm PT
|
Amusing sarcasm Norton. Muddled in there somewhere is a valid point:
Why would anyone choose to be gay?
I have heard this before, and there is no simple answer. But it is simple to notice several other personal evolutions that also have some undesirable factors. Are claustrophobic people born that way? hypochondriacs? Before I sound too insensitive, you'll get my point. A person doesn't always know how he became the person he is...But that doesn't mean everything about him is genetically predestined.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2010 - 06:31pm PT
|
Some men might be genetically inclined to walk a little light on their feet...but there is no evidence that a person can be born gay."
-----
No disrespect intended, but it's worth looking at how a person could ever come to this very mistaken conclusion. Sexual identity is an aspect of psychology, with a very deep research bank, and I defy you to find anything in credible, modern day psychological literature that says "there is no evidence that a person can be born gay."
The most glaring body of evidence is the 10-12% of the population who ARE gay. The overwhelming majority of these people declare that their sexual orientation was entirely involuntary and instinctual, just as it is with straight people. What, are we saying these people don't actually exist, or that they are entirely mistaken about who they are, their impulses and instincts, and it is up to us straight people to determine who they really and truly are - basically they are us, but with their wires crossed, correct?
None of these people, nor yet psychology, is waiting for genetics to "prove" they are gay by way of a gene said to mechanically produces their behavior. This, in turn, goes back to the idea that unless something can be show to be mechanically "produced" by evolution, or to be linked back to our DNA, it cannot be "real." That's the crazy idea that the "genetically predestined," or mechanically evolved is the only viable reality.
JL
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2010 - 06:31pm PT
|
Should we let the diseased change definitions of civilization?
|
|
Bertrand
climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2010 - 06:38pm PT
|
This, in turn, goes back to the idea that unless something can be shown to be mechanically "produced" by evolution, or to be linked back to our DNA, it cannot be "real."
Good point, perhaps being born with a certain disposition isn't necessary to recognize it's legitimacy. I think I get this already, but I will make sure not to sell it short.
It does however, still leave open the question whether homosexuals, as a class of people should be accommodated in a way that changes the definition of the longstanding institution of marriage.
I defy you to find anything in credible, modern day psychological literature that says "there is no evidence that a person can be born gay."
I don't know anything about modern psychology. But I did take genetics in college, and I do some work with gene therapies in my career. In my understanding, very few behavioral traits are 100% genetically predestined (far fewer than what conventional wisdom suggests).
|
|
Bertrand
climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2010 - 06:46pm PT
|
Jolly Roger, I totally agree with everything you said.
Fortunately you did not say that gay couples have to be "married".
|
|
wack-N-dangle
Gym climber
the ground up
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2010 - 06:57pm PT
|
I admire those who are trying to argue rationally, but unfortunately, at times humans seem to be a little irrational. Some non-sequitors to support my point.
I thought this thread needed a little Freddie Mercury.
Also, one of my favorite Barkley quotes. He was asked how he felt about playing with Magic when many players said they wouldn't.
"We're just playing basketball. It's not like we're going out to have unprotected sex with Magic."
JL. I really liked your story about the stolen plane and the trip to the desert. If anyone has a link, it would be cool to have it here.
Finally, it seems that we've come a fair distance, but still have a ways to go. Even our Republican governor supports gay marriage. Maybe it says something about us when a conservative european is more socially liberal than a great number of Americans.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2010 - 07:26pm PT
|
Should we let the diseased change definitions of civilization?
Well, we do let registered Republicans vote.
|
|
Bertrand
climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2010 - 09:01pm PT
|
Apples and oranges, WC any man should be able to marry any woman, there were legitimate civil rights campaigns in the 20th C. to ensure that truly ANY man and ANY woman enjoyed the same rights as others, regardless of others. Those rights exist today. That has nothing to do with changing the definition of marriage from m+w to m+w/m+m/w+w/m+child, etc.
You repeatedly twist other people's remarks to fit into your narrow characterization of the argument against same sex marriage. I am trying to explain to you the sentiment that comes from people who do not hate gays, black people, liberals, or civil rights. But you continue to use your circular reasoning to assume any conclusion opposing yours must come from "hate". I am starting to think it is hopeless discussing it with you.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!