How to Explain Gay Rights to Dummies

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Tiribulus:

I don’t disagree that for MANY reasons, the Nation is headed in the wrong direction.

The thing that confuses me is when exactly this almost mythical period was when our Nation exhibited, (both in words AND action), such moral and ethical strength and purity.

In other words; when did this almost “Christian Camelot” exist that we’ve fallen so far from?

Mufasa[/quote]Ya know Muf I’ve known you a loooong time here and I know you do not agree with ANY of the major points I’m making. I had a snide, sarcastic (though not nasty) response floating through my head. I will refrain and hopefully catch up with you later after chest, tris and shoulders. I don’t wanna lose track of Squatting Bear in the other thread though. I was hopin to let little brother Joab have some space, but not much is happnin with he and Raj at the moment so I was thinking of continuing with Squatting Bear later. That guy is a rare sighting.

282

It’s a sincere question, Tiribulus.

I don’t answer all the questions posed to me on this Forum, and most likely never will. If your answer needs to be cynical; or becomes some “question-with-a-question” Q&A…your answer isn’t that important; and we all move on.

Mufasa

283

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
It’s a sincere question, Tiribulus.
Mufasa[/quote]I believe that. I’m not gonna have a lot of time tonight it looks like and if I get some later I owe Squatting Bear first. For now, I am not saying that there ever was a Christian utopian United States wherein maybe even the majority of the populous were actually regenerated members of the body of Christ. However, from the outset Christian models for morality and ethics held sway because the church was far more faithful then. Before the 1960’s it was shameful to get pregnant out of wedlock. There was stigma attached to promiscuity and other related behaviors.

If you’re really interested, read Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America”. The sections where he talks about Christianity, marriage, gender roles, and general interaction between the sexes in the United States during the 1830’s when he was here studying our young country as a political scientist from France.

He talks about how men dare not utter so much as a vulgarity in the presence of a lady lest he be viewed as one who would compromise the virtue of the fairer sex. A boorish non gentleman who’s company may not be wise. Today the women themselves, who are considered mainstream, routinely talk, dress and act like absolute gutter sluts who would have been thought too debased for a brothel in our better days. For instance. Seriously. It’s available online for free. You will think he is describing another planet compared to the whorehouse this country has degenerated into today. The marriage and divorce stats alone inform us as to why we are falling apart. This nation will never be stronger than it’s families. Period.

I don’t have a lotta time now. I’m up for this discussion though if you seriously wanna have it. As best I can. This is a very cursory answer.

EDIT. I wanna make clear that apart from the grace of my beautiful savior? I have been and am every bit as bad as anyone else and probably worse than many. I’ll just say that in my young days before I came to know the Lord I was a pretty boy, long blonde n blue with a serious gift of gab. Not to mention I had drugs and money. I had no problem getting girls to do what I wanted. If God would grant me one wish I would ask Him if I could marry my wife over with both of us being virgins so we could make all those glorious discoveries together just the two of us. I mean that with everything I am man. I am just as guilty as anybody else.

284

[quote]MaudDib wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
‘Marriage’ is no longer ‘marriage’ it’s whatever the gay rights lobby say it is or you’re a ‘bigot’. And they push for more discrimatory laws to stamp out the ‘bigotry.’ You’re the bigot.[/quote]

Cry about it, it’s still going to happen. Right now is the deep south more people 18-25 are pro-gay marriage than people 60+ in New England where gay marriage is legal. It’s a cultural trend, in 20 years no one is going to give a shit about this just like no one thinks twice about interracial marriage anymore.

I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if even the conservative supreme court struck down bars to gay marriage though as they don’t have a good leg to stand on.

As to the pedophilia and bestiality examples, aside from the fact that I find the comparison offensive, it’s also retarded:

  1. Pedophilia is illegal on the grounds that children are not of the age of majority and thus cannot make informed consent to sexual acts. Pedophilia, involving or not involving marriage is always at the very least statutory rape (in the case of older post-pubescent girls below the age of majority) and with actual children fall under special child rape statutes. The legal foundation for sexual assault laws in the US is that having sex with anyone who cannot make informed consent is a violation of their civil rights as well as an attack on their person (ie. assualt).

Please explain to me how two consenting gay adults agreeing to enter into a marriage contract are violating each other’s civil rights or assaulting one another?

  1. Bestiality is a different story. I’m really sad I’ve had to point this out so many times, but it is true, most animals large enough to have sex with could certainly show you if they were pissed off about it. Then you have to explain why your pants are around your ankles and you have a concussion from your horse kicking you. On a serious note though, human - animal marriage is not recognized by the law on the grounds that animals are not recognized as actors under the law, they have owners, they cannot enter into contracts, etc. It seems common sense that extending given contract rights to consenting human adults does not some how magically make animals able to enter into similar contracts but I guess that just goes right over some people’s heads.
    [/quote]

You are talking about the standards of law, but they aren’t permanent and they always change… let’s say 70 years ago in most countries including so called west countries, who could think that sex with the same gender would not be prosecuted and you wouldn’t end up in jail… even people with the most fantasy couldn’t think about gay marriage… The way humanity interprets various phenomenas also changes… and when gay get more and more nowadays so called rights, I have no doubts that pedophilia, just under the different name, will be legalized… and similar will possibly happen with other abnormal genres of sexual attraction… it takes time, we probably won’t see this… but the direction of tolerastophilia, where the world is going now, will take our humanity where it will… it’s not hard to predict… and who is responsible that this isn’t going to happen for us???

286

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
It’s a sincere question, Tiribulus.
Mufasa[/quote]I believe that. I’m not gonna have a lot of time tonight it looks like and if I get some later I owe Squatting Bear first. For now, I am not saying that there ever was a Christian utopian United States wherein maybe even the majority of the populous were actually regenerated members of the body of Christ. However, from the outset Christian models for morality and ethics held sway because the church was far more faithful then. Before the 1960’s it was shameful to get pregnant out of wedlock. There was stigma attached to promiscuity and other related behaviors.

If you’re really interested, read Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America”. The sections where he talks about Christianity, marriage, gender roles, and general interaction between the sexes in the United States during the 1830’s when he was here studying our young country as a political scientist from France.

He talks about how men dare not utter so much as a vulgarity in the presence of a lady lest he be viewed as one who would compromise the virtue of the fairer sex. A boorish non gentleman who’s company may not be wise. Today the women themselves, who are considered mainstream, routinely talk, dress and act like absolute gutter sluts who would have been thought too debased for a brothel in our better days. For instance. Seriously. It’s available online for free. You will think he is describing another planet compared to the whorehouse this country has degenerated into today. The marriage and divorce stats alone inform us as to why we are falling apart. This nation will never be stronger than it’s families. Period.

I don’t have a lotta time now. I’m up for this discussion though if you seriously wanna have it. As best I can. This is a very cursory answer.

EDIT. I wanna make clear that apart from the grace of my beautiful savior? I have been and am every bit as bad as anyone else and probably worse than many. I’ll just say that in my young days before I came to know the Lord I was a pretty boy, long blonde n blue with a serious gift of gab. Not to mention I had drugs and money. I had no problem getting girls to do what I wanted. If God would grant me one wish I would ask Him if I could marry my wife over with both of us being virgins so we could make all those glorious discoveries together just the two of us. I mean that with everything I am man. I am just as guilty as anybody else.

[/quote]

While I don’t always agree with the length you take things religiously Trib…that was a damn fine post.

287

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
‘Marriage’ is no longer ‘marriage’ it’s whatever the gay rights lobby say it is or you’re a ‘bigot’. And they push for more discrimatory laws to stamp out the ‘bigotry.’ You’re the bigot.[/quote]

What if they change the definition of “marriage” to suit homosexual marriage? What would your argument be then?

The word “marriage” comes from very old latin and it was a mix of “state” and “mother”. However, even in modern times, many women marry and never become mothers. Is their use of “marriage” wrong then? Should all “marriage” be set as “pending” until the women become mothers? Two homosexual women can become, naturally, mothers, why is it not allowed then?

Which discriminatory laws are pushed by the “gay rights lobby”?

288

You guys and your retarded use of the word “bigot” is just annoying. Is that the word of the week now in PWI when someone disagrees with you? It was “strawman” not too long ago… Here’s some help:

BIGOT

  • A person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
    ? big ot ed adjective
    ? big ot ed ly adverb

  • A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing sex, race, ethnicity, religious beliefs or spirituality, nationality, language, inter-regional prejudice, gender and sexual orientation, age, homelessness, various medical disorders particularly behavioral disorders and addictive disorders. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.

  • One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

  • a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

  • Bigots, as they are popularly known, are the class of people who is biased towards his own interests, his own class and his own groups. These groups range from people to people. Some comprise religion in this group; the others include the barriers in race or politics. A bigot never tolerates those who differ from his opinion.

These kinds of persons are not a profit to the society but a bigot is a very beneficial person to his own group. It is needless to say that the devotion that one can expect from a bigot towards the group in which he has a position cannot be matched anywhere in the fellow groups. Being completely biased towards his own religion or race, a bigot can even cross his limits to reach beyond the confined rules and regulations of the society to promote and publicize his opinions. This is where a group earns a lot from. Having this kind of intolerable devotion towards the group, the views the group wants to express reach out to a wider audience, only because of the bigots present in completely active state.

The other aspect of a bigot though is not that appreciable. Having the tendency of getting wild if someone else has a different point of opinion other than his, a bigot can never be an active participant in the progress of a country. Such kind of behavior can go unnoticed in smaller issues. But for bigger affairs like religion and race, this attitude costs the country dearly. Let?s take religion for instance. Going by a bigot?s point of view, the only religion that should exist according to him in this world is the one which he belongs to. The other ones seem to be a fallacy for him. That is not the right way to lead a life. In a democratic country, every individual has a right to live and express his emotions and expressions freely, but that does not mean that one starts opposing something he did not like in other?s religion.

Another important aspect on which these kinds of persons differ is a burning issue. The issue is of race. This is a more prominent and more sentimental affair when it comes to the expression of views. It becomes really difficult for a country to handle comments which attack different race. A bigot, though, does not think about it for a moment and the stubbornness he has is difficult to counter. His intolerance of the fact that there might be a person of different race who is better than him is the main problem.

Having understood both the aspects of a bigot, it?s up to us as to which one we would like to stick to.

LMMFAO at you bigots throwing throwing the word around at people trying to promote tolerance and EQUALITY.

289

[quote]Edevus wrote:

What if they change the definition of “marriage” to suit homosexual marriage? What would your argument be then?

[/quote]

There are no ‘definitions’ of words only usages. I was not talking about the word marriage. I was talking about the concept of marriage. So if you are asking me what my argument would be if they managed to destroy the institution of marriage by having their gay unions recognised as ‘marriage?’ My argument would be the same then as it is now. That’s not ‘marriage’ - they may call it ‘marriage’ but that don’t make it so.

No. Has it every been considered ‘wrong’ to refer to married women who don’t have children as unmarried? Please, no more.

No. How about we just leave marriage as it is and always has been eh?

But not to each other. And they can’t marry each other. And I don’t know what you mean ‘not allowed.’ Why aren’t I ‘allowed’ to ‘fly’ a car? You see what I mean? Gay women ARE allowed to marry. Marriage = husband + wife.

[quote]
Which discriminatory laws are pushed by the “gay rights lobby”? [/quote]

You for real?

290

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

“but it’s not NATURAL”. Actually, it is. Take a look at MANY other species in the animal kingdom and you will see plenty of examples of homosexuality/bisexuality/etc…

[/quote]

Your other points aside, this particular claim always annoys the shit out of me. It is total and complete bullshit.

Yes, you can find examples of animals who mimic sexual acts or even attempt sexual acts with same sex members of their own specials or even other species. Pheromones, etc. trigger short term momentary impulses that lead to the acting out of sexual behavior. For a moment! The animals do not them go out and pick out a fucking China pattern together. They do not cohabit a nest, cave or din and decide to live out their lives together.

The whole difference between humans and animals is the ability to override impulse. Gay/homosexual marriage and long term cohabitation is not natural in the animal kingdom, much less in the human kingdom. [/quote]

Of course it’s natural. It’s been going on amongst humans since the beginning of recorded history. Just because it isn’t the norm doesn’t make it unnatural. There are all sorts of things that people do and have been doing for centuries that isn’t common but that is natural. I suppose it really just comes down to what one’s definition of natural is. Birth defects are natural, psychological disorders are natural. In no way am I equating these two examples with homosexuality, by the way. I don’t think it’s a disorder or a birth defect.

The idea that it needs to be natural to be okay smacks of Jim Crow-era ignorance. It’s the exact same argument used to justify banning interracial marriage and the separation of races in general. It’s simply a convenient escape hatch for those who don’t know where else to go.[/quote]

it may be natural, but it is not normal. It is psychosexual disorder, which was only redefined through the APA in the DSM by political manipulation and corruption of the committee with non accredited members.

And if you want to speak technically, case precedent is judicial activism, legislation from the beanch and grounds from removal from the bench according to our constitution, but no one cares about the law anymore. The government walks all over our rights every day.

That being said, the government should have no business in marraige. It is covenant between a man and a woman before God. But the government should also not tell the owner of a business they cannot discriminate against their employees. If they don’t want a trait, they own their busniess and their rights should not be violated to give special priviliges to a group. [/quote]

You have no clue what you’re talking about regarding legislating from the bench and case precedent. Chief Justice Rehnquist was probably the biggest epitome of the Model One approach that the Court has seen in the last 100 years. He was perhaps the most vocal opponent of what he perceived to be Justices legislating from the bench. And perhaps no Justice in the last 100 years relied more heavily on previous case precedent than Rehnquist had. He respected case precedent and even noted in his concurring opinion in Casey v. Planned Parenthood that, while he disagreed with the result of Roe v. Wade he respected the precedent the case established and would apply that precedent in subsequent cases, Casey being the first of them.[/quote]

Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I have no clue. The judiciary is supposed to be the low man on the totem pole, they are to rule on the law, not case precedent. The later leads to judicial activism. So they are to rule on the constitution, but all to often will rule on a precedent set that in fact goes against the constitution.

So to use a precedent to circumnavigate the law, would that or would that not be judicial legislation?

291

Trib and Thunderbolt usually hit the nail on the head with these debates. It is the when the moral backbone has become so degenerated that sexual depravity becomes the norm, that leads to the situation we are in. No one is perfect, but to celebrate immorality is another story. To allow it to destroy our families, our marriages, our contracts with one another. It is all part of the greater scheme that is eating this country. It is the same monster that says it is ok to steal what is not your, to enter a loan you cannot payback, to take money from the government that was forcefully taken from others, without yourself having earned it. It is also destroying our communities, by us not being accountable to the needy (that is the government’s responsibility). The list goes on and on, but they are all part of the greater breakdown of the moral structure of our society.

292

Society, religion, and their resulting morals have ALWAYS changed. There was no “golden era” that we’re moving away from. There was just a different set of physical needs which had different corresponding social answers. Your religion evolved out of those needs and has changed constantly throughout the ages to keep up with the changing needs of each new generation.

I know you are going to argue fervently against this and keep the wool over your own eyes. The fact that you continue to ignore all of the data regarding the development of your own religion and how it’s changed throughout the years (even before this country was founded) has pretty much cured me of my internet addiction.

Thank you.

Now go on back to your regularly scheduled, delusional, self-validating and congratulatory programming.

293

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

…First of all, private agreement about the definition of a type of contract ~200 years ago doesn’t mean anything about legality today and that is EXACTLY why we’re having this conversation…

[/quote]

It absolutely does if original intent carries any import.

If it doesn’t anything goes including all the scenarios I mentioned earlier.[/quote]

I’m going to make a prediction that by the time you’re in a nursing home, those scenarios you mentioned earlier will be happening legally somewhere in the US.

294

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, explain your unjustifiable bigotry against every other form of human relationship, having adopted the homosexual cause. Your whopping inclusion of homosexuals is marginally less ‘bigoted’ than my own position. By a mere one other form of human relationship. And I can justify why hetero marriage is crucial to the nation. Crucial.[/quote]

What other forms of human relationship seek a life long partnership based on the same foundation of love and affection? So long as they involve consensual adult human beings, I really don’t care.[/quote]

So…Olee and her mom?[/quote]

I suppose I should have specified “romantic” love and affection. In any event, incest is a no fly zone as there is too much potential for preadulthood influence, and sexual interference. There are laws against incest, and there are laws against sexual interference, but there are no laws against homosexuality. There are however laws which exclude homosexuals.[/quote]

Sorry. I can shoot this one down with both eyes closed.

Using the logic of those espousing homosexual marriage there is NO reason to deny Olee and her mom the “right” to marry.[/quote]

Except for the afformentioned protection of minors.[/quote]

OLEE AND HER MOM ARE NOT MINORS. They’re not even close.

C’mon, people, many of you are too frickin thick in the head to play in this sandbox. Good grief, wake the fuck up.[/quote]

PREADULTHOOD INFLUENCE AND SEXUAL INTERFERENCE. Olena was at one point a child, in her mother’s care, and allowing her mother mould her into her ideal spouse while raising her and waiting for her “consent” is forbidden. To ensure this doesn’t take place, they are not allowed to marry.[/quote]

But…but…but…now they’re two mature consenting adults. Who do you think you are placing arbitrary restrictions on them? Like Sloth said, you’re just a bigot.[/quote]

Two mature consenting adults where one has held reign over the other’s development. The influence a parent has over a child is undeniable, and to claim that they can make a decision free from this influence even several years after reaching adulthood is rediculous.

Now, if incestuous relationships are the only romantic relationship Olena, and her mother are capable of than I guess I am a bigot, because I certainly do hate people who have inappropriate relationships with their relatives. Shame on me for valueing the safety of children, and the discouragement of their sexual corruption for future gains over the freedomes of adults I guess? Atleast I’m not afraid to admit that I hate such a group though. I doubt there’s too many lesbians incapable of finding a partner who isn’t their immediate relative, but if there are than too bad. Hang em from a tree for all I care.

I should mention by the way, that in my country gay marriage is already legal. It should comfort you to know that no one has married their mother yet. Although there are laws that specifically forbid that.

295

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I bet if I dug around a bit I could post some quotes from some of these folks here declaring how special marriage is and the need for gays to be included in the sacredness, where they discount marriage as a useful institution altogether. I jist betcha[/quote]

They either have, or will, by the time I’m done with them.

They will either

a) Rescind their support for homosexual marriage

or

b) Feeling cornered in their own ‘bigotry,’ declare they support state recognition of any and all imaginative arrangements of consenting adults, regardless of number, romance or none, presence or absence of sexual intentions, etc. Basically, become absurd.

or

c) Admit to wanting to ultimately end state recognized marriage[/quote]

I have Orion down for C. Could the other proponents of state recognized homosexual marriage choose their position.[/quote]

b) is itself absurd. I like pie. I don’t like cake. In no way does my admission of cake hating bear any relavance on the topic of cookies. Nor does it mean that I wish to abolish desert or rescind my support of pies.

Supporting increased eligability for people who love members of the opposite sex in no way extends that support to incest, or friendship to be a valid basis for such a contract to be entered into. Nor does it indicate that marraige by everyone should be invalidated.

298

I don’t have time (or inclination) to read all 10 or so pages, but from the first page or two:

  1. DBCooper has no idea what he is talking about re: Supreme Court precedent. Johnson v. Texas does not establish homosexuality as a protected class.

  2. The public policy of marriage (as compared to the private concept of it) serves some public purpose - it has to, or else we wouldn’t pass a law establishing it as public policy. To date, no one has made a credible argument as to what the public good gay marriage provides to society generally.

  3. The relationships are not the same and never will be. Hold everything else constant and equal in a comparison between heterosexual and homosexual relationship - the companionship and emotional attachment can be equal, the physical expression of love is equal, all of it - they can never be equal because of the presence of one simple and fundamental difference: one relationship creates life and perpetuates society, the other does not. They’re never be equal, and the public policy that recognizes (and deals wth) that difference is not the result of ignorance - it’s wise and rational.

  4. This “progressive” idea that societies have “progressed” to the point of discarding such bigotries is utter nonsense. Just as a society can progress, so can it rot and disintegrate. In fact, nearly every single civilization that made its mark on history ultimately declined - the mere passage of time is not and has never been “proof” that we are better than we were yesterday. This argument is the classic “progressive” dodge - that Time is running down this steady linear progressive path of progressive progress and is stiffarming reactionaries along the way to that glorious utopian touchdown. It’s horseshit to anyone who has picked up a history book and bothered to read the words on the page.

During the decadence and depravity of the Roman Empire, Caligula appointed his horse to the Senate - was that proof of the “progress” that animals deserve the same rights as humans?

299

[quote]Oleena wrote:

Now go on back to your regularly scheduled, delusional, self-validating and congratulatory programming. [/quote]

Weren’t you the one that gave us that brilliant gem that marriage was created so that the government would have an easier time conducting a census on its citizens?

300

You know that wealth/mobility gap?

Stop trying to equate unequal things, and salvage what’s left. Reverse it before it’s too late, if isn’t already. The traditional family was our lifeblood.