[quote]H factor wrote:
…and I am getting married soon.[/quote]
Congrats!
[/quote]
Thanks. Also most of my gay thoughts come from gay relation all of whom I love wholeheartedly. I would love to see a time where they are free to do what they please and where your religion is not forced to do anything special in that regard. I don’t think that is asking too much. I’d love to see both sides agree on that (similar to religious tolerance) and think it would be better for everyone.
[quote]H factor wrote:
…and I am getting married soon.[/quote]
Congrats!
[/quote]
Thanks. Also most of my gay thoughts come from gay relation all of whom I love wholeheartedly. I would love to see a time where they are free to do what they please and where your religion is not forced to do anything special in that regard. I don’t think that is asking too much. I’d love to see both sides agree on that (similar to religious tolerance) and think it would be better for everyone.
As jj would say I’m probably full of shit…[/quote]
The one thing that always makes me cringe is when people assume it’s only religious people who prevent gays from doing what they please, as you say. I have spent many years as an atheist, among atheists and I have lived/worked in 13 countries and I can tell you that this is not the case at all.
Having been born in Holland the people I have worked and traveled with always assume that because the country’s policy is so tolerant towards gays, drugs, prostitution etc that this is because all Dutch agree. Nothing could be further from the truth. Same goes for Germany, France, Belgium and especially the eastern European countries.
Some of the most cruel and intolerant remarks I have heard were uttered by ‘tolerant’ Dutch/Danes/Swedes etc.
You guys paint the world in black and white, like there’s only two sides to this; the religious who hate gays and the rest of the world who wants them to be free to be who they want to be. The truth is very different and intolerance towards gays is often much more culturally based than based on religion.
I didn’t attack you. And libertarians are pro gay marriage FWIW. [/quote]
Some are. Some aren’t.[/quote]
From the Libertarian party platform:
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
…intolerance towards gays is often much more culturally based than based on religion.[/quote]
Some would say that religion is a culturally driven phenomenon. The problem for religion, is that for most of them, intolerance towards homosexuality is formally adopted and practiced within that religion.
Perhaps Buddhism is the only major religion that hasn’t formally declared homosexuality to be “icky”.
I didn’t attack you. And libertarians are pro gay marriage FWIW. [/quote]
Some are. Some aren’t.[/quote]
From the Libertarian party platform:
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
I’ve posted this numerous times and it gets routinely ignored. Wanting the state to define what consenting adults do in the bedroom and who gets certain treatments is the big government position and contrary to the vast majority of people who are Libertarian.
You guys paint the world in black and white, like there’s only two sides to this; the religious who hate gays and the rest of the world who wants them to be free to be who they want to be. The truth is very different and intolerance towards gays is often much more culturally based than based on religion.[/quote]
I don’t think anyone is actually doing this in this thread. Or if they are I haven’t seen it. I’m fully aware that it is not just the religious who don’t want consenting adults to be free to do as they please.
Most of it in this country though starts and ends with “homosexuality” is a sin and therefore government should make sure gay people can’t get married because the Bible.
Sure many of them will make other arguments so they don’t come off as just using religion, but all of those arguments are highly flawed logically. Which is one reason you are seeing gay marriage start becoming an “old” issue. Logically it doesn’t make sense to oppose it on a lot of the grounds brought up. Although the but gay people can’t make babies one has to be my favorite.
You guys paint the world in black and white, like there’s only two sides to this; the religious who hate gays and the rest of the world who wants them to be free to be who they want to be. The truth is very different and intolerance towards gays is often much more culturally based than based on religion.[/quote]
I don’t think anyone is actually doing this in this thread. Or if they are I haven’t seen it. I’m fully aware that it is not just the religious who don’t want consenting adults to be free to do as they please.
Most of it in this country though starts and ends with “homosexuality” is a sin and therefore government should make sure gay people can’t get married because the Bible.
Sure many of them will make other arguments so they don’t come off as just using religion, but all of those arguments are highly flawed logically. Which is one reason you are seeing gay marriage start becoming an “old” issue. Logically it doesn’t make sense to oppose it on a lot of the grounds brought up. Although the but gay people can’t make babies one has to be my favorite. [/quote]
The arguments against have been far more logical.
A man and woman are the smallest possible biological coupling. Sex and procreation will happen regardless. How orderly that happens has a huge impact on the health of the nation (broken homes versus intact bio homes); tax consumption vs tax production, criminality, etc. The state sees a positive then in privileging the model of men and women coupling with each other in committed relationships. If heterosexuality vanished tomorrow, disaster. If if all intact homes suddenly weren’t tomorrow, chaos. We know heterosexuality, and how it’s ordered, inherently carries with it a crucial and critical impact on the whole of society/humankind. It rises to general welfare.
Homosexuality could vanish tomorrow and it would be a curious news story for a year. So, “fairness” in equating the inherently unequal.
The pro-side side has been pure progressive emotionalism carried by a 5 to 1 positive spin in the news media. I also find it interesting that media/news has so represented them that the American public actually believes gays are a bigger group than blacks.
I didn’t attack you. And libertarians are pro gay marriage FWIW. [/quote]
Some are. Some aren’t.[/quote]
From the Libertarian party platform:
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
I’ve posted this numerous times and it gets routinely ignored. Wanting the state to define what consenting adults do in the bedroom and who gets certain treatments is the big government position and contrary to the vast majority of people who are Libertarian. [/quote]
Because the LP aren’t all libertarians. And it’s a clear progressive sell out for a group of people that supposedly want to turn around and TEAR DOWN state marriage.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If heterosexuality vanished tomorrow, disaster. If if all intact homes suddenly weren’t tomorrow, chaos. We know heterosexuality, and how it’s ordered, inherently carries with it a crucial and critical impact on the whole of society/humankind. It rises to general welfare.
[/quote]
You make some leaps there. Disaster for whom? The planet? Only heterosexuals are capable of having intact homes? There may be studies showing that single parent homes (which I assume are more likely to have a woman in the role) are worse for children than two parent homes but does that imply that both parents have to be of different sexes? And even if there were no more heterosexuals procreation could, and probably would, continue.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If heterosexuality vanished tomorrow, disaster.
Zecarlo Wrote:
You make some leaps there. Disaster for whom? [/quote]
Zecarlo…
If the reproductive act disappeared…
…No, no. You know.
[quote]If if all intact homes suddenly weren’t tomorrow, chaos. We know heterosexuality, and how it’s ordered, inherently carries with it a crucial and critical impact on the whole of society/humankind. It rises to general welfare.
zecarlo wrote:
Only heterosexuals are capable of having intact homes?[/quote]
Well, anal sex and cunnilingus don’t produce children, so yeah there is a missing bio parent in the home. But my point is that the state has a vested interested in trying to provide a model for heterosexuality. Because heterosexuality inherently carries with it a quality that has a MASSIVE impact on humanity as a whole. Homosexuality doesn’t. It just doesn’t. You might as well argue that two 3 or 4 college buddies should be able to marry, with the understanding that their arrangement isn’t remotely connected to romantic notions. Because it’s not “fair” that they’re still left out.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If heterosexuality vanished tomorrow, disaster.
Zecarlo Wrote:
You make some leaps there. Disaster for whom? [/quote]
Zecarlo…
If the reproductive act disappeared…
…No, no. You know.
[quote]If if all intact homes suddenly weren’t tomorrow, chaos. We know heterosexuality, and how it’s ordered, inherently carries with it a crucial and critical impact on the whole of society/humankind. It rises to general welfare.
zecarlo wrote:
Only heterosexuals are capable of having intact homes?[/quote]
Well, anal sex and cunnilingus don’t produce children, so yeah there is a missing bio parent in the home. But my point is that the state has a vested interested in trying to provide a model for heterosexuality. Because heterosexuality inherently carries with it a quality that has a MASSIVE impact on humanity as a whole. Homosexuality doesn’t. It just doesn’t. You might as well argue that two 3 or 4 college buddies should be able to marry, with the understanding that their arrangement isn’t remotely connected to romantic notions. Because it’s not “fair” that they’re still left out.
[/quote]
You do know that even heterosexual couples have reproduced without having sex.
Hell, the fact that the it’s been as pro-homosexual marriage is completely illogical. How is that anti-discrimination? Anti-bigotry? It still implies that out of all imaginative consenting adult arrangements, state marriage must be of a sexual/and or romantic nature. And doesn’t address that it is still “discriminatory” in limiting the number of participants.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If heterosexuality vanished tomorrow, disaster.
Zecarlo Wrote:
You make some leaps there. Disaster for whom? [/quote]
Zecarlo…
If the reproductive act disappeared…
…No, no. You know.
[quote]If if all intact homes suddenly weren’t tomorrow, chaos. We know heterosexuality, and how it’s ordered, inherently carries with it a crucial and critical impact on the whole of society/humankind. It rises to general welfare.
zecarlo wrote:
Only heterosexuals are capable of having intact homes?[/quote]
Well, anal sex and cunnilingus don’t produce children, so yeah there is a missing bio parent in the home. But my point is that the state has a vested interested in trying to provide a model for heterosexuality. Because heterosexuality inherently carries with it a quality that has a MASSIVE impact on humanity as a whole. Homosexuality doesn’t. It just doesn’t. You might as well argue that two 3 or 4 college buddies should be able to marry, with the understanding that their arrangement isn’t remotely connected to romantic notions. Because it’s not “fair” that they’re still left out.
[/quote]
You do know that even heterosexual couples have reproduced without having sex.
Saying, “it just doesn’t,” doesn’t make it true. [/quote]
Oh cool, homosexuals can visit a lab, in super small numbers (only 5% of the total pop. in the first place). Sorry, it’s a snowflake in a snowstorm. You know I’m right. You know the two hypotheticals I put down are instructive about the different natures of the two.
Would the vanishing of homosexuality have an impact on humanity even remotely approaching that of the vanishing of heterosexuality? One would be a crises, and the other an oddity. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. But please, be brave, give an honest answer.
Oh cool, homosexuals can visit a lab, in super small numbers (only 5% of the total pop. in the first place). Sorry, it’s a snowflake in a snowstorm. You know I’m right. You know the two hypotheticals I put down are instructive about the different natures of the two.
Would the vanishing of homosexuality have an impact on humanity even remotely approaching that of the vanishing of heterosexuality? One would be a crises, and the other an oddity. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. But please, be brave, give an honest answer.[/quote]
But it will never go away. It’s genetic. Given that and the fact human beings are by nature social creatures who generally and inherently crave companionship, it’s a social issue which should be dealt with accordingly.
Do you honestly believe the 5% would lead to the vanquishing of heterosexuality as we know it?
If it is genetic, it will all but vanish in developed nations.
First, it would almost certainly become detectable prenatally somewhere down the line. And so, selectively aborted.
Next a gene therapy that most parents will end up choosing. Or, if epigentic, potentially therapies affecting hormonal exposure in the womb.
I don’t care who is checking off what on surveys. When the rubber meets the road, and it comes to choosing if your male child (and vice versa) will at least have the option of being in a committed relationship with the biological mother (and vice versa) of your eventual grandchildren, they will select for heterosexuality the vast majority of the time.
If it is genetic, it will all but vanish in developed nations.
First, it would almost certainly become detectable prenatally somewhere down the line. And so, selectively aborted.
Next a gene therapy that most parents will end up choosing. Or, if epigentic, potentially therapies affecting hormonal exposure in the womb.
I don’t care who is checking off what on surveys. When the rubber meets the road, and it comes to choosing if your male child (and vice versa) will at least have the option of being in a committed relationship with the biological mother (and vice versa) of your eventual grandchildren, they will select for heterosexuality the vast majority of the time.
If it is genetic, it will all but vanish in developed nations.
First, it would almost certainly become detectable prenatally somewhere down the line. And so, selectively aborted.
Next a gene therapy that most parents will end up choosing. Or, if epigentic, potentially therapies affecting hormonal exposure in the womb.
I don’t care who is checking off what on surveys. When the rubber meets the road, and it comes to choosing if your male child (and vice versa) will at least have the option of being in a committed relationship with the biological mother (and vice versa) of your eventual grandchildren, they will select for heterosexuality the vast majority of the time.
[/quote]
Wow, slow down Hitler. [/quote]
Hitler? I’m not pro-choice. I’m telling you what would naturally follow.