[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So while I support my colleges in practice and their ability to care for others, THAT has nothing to do with the morality of sleeping with someone of the same sex.[/quote]
You’re right. Their homosexual nature has nothing to do with their morality. At least we can agree on SOMETHING.
Moral virtues such as kindness, generosity, sharing, honesty, compassion, and bravery have NOTHING to do with being a homosexual or a heterosexual.
And I guess you got me on the RN part. Glad you’re in the biz and all, but it’s a shame you see our colleagues with such an incompassionate and judgmental lens.
Stop right there. No you don’t, Nabisco. They are lesser than you because of their very nature, and they don’t deserve the same ability to marry one another like you can. If you support them as human beings, then you will support the ones who want to get married, because they are just as deserving of the recognition as you are.
Oh yeah, and thanks for the kind words, everybody. As my good friend ZEB has noted, I am a bit soap-box bound about all of this. I guess it’s because it would mean so much to my friends here. Ultra-cool people.
Anyway, I’d love to give all the folks reading this thread (if there are still any LOL) a homework assignment: find a way to somehow watch two girls kissing. If you say “ewww gross” to yourself while seeing two hot girls making out, then you are hopeless. I suggest a sledgehammer to your scrotal area.
What I’m getting at here is that we T-Men should be staunch enough and comfortable enough in our own sexual stuff to also say “maybe it’s not so bad if two guys kiss either”. I’ve seen it, no big deal – it’s nothing like the heart-pounding coolness of two girls rubbing on each other and softly moaning… like one of my roomates (who is currently experimenting with her bisexual side… ) and her pretty little friend from the beach did last weekend on my couch. Pure Wood. Those young ladies are suckers for good vodka and a dare, I tell you… but I digress.
Now. Once we are able to say to ourselves:
“Gayness isn’t really all that profanely weird… it’s not something I would do myself, but what the hell…”
… then it is only a small step to finally let go of that famous “homorepugnance” which my pal ZEB and others are so glad to label themselves with.
Don’t be afraid to hang out with gay people. Some of them are weak, some of them are assholes, but that’s just because there are assholes in all walks of life. Some of the coolest and hardest-working people I know are gay. So what? They are just like you and me… except for that one thing.
Don’t ever confuse your own insecurities with the moral standing of other people. I think that if more people could just get over themselves, then this world would be a better place.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Anyway, I’d love to give all the folks reading this thread (if there are still any LOL) a homework assignment: find a way to somehow watch two girls kissing.
[/quote]
Do we get bonus points if one or both is skirting the border of legal age?
Moral virtues such as kindness, generosity, sharing, honesty, compassion, and bravery
[/quote]
This is why I hate the moralists in the Republican party (not all republicans by any means). This is entirely apart from gay civil unions. Most of them wouldn’t know what morals were if they hit them over the head.
The problem with that one is that first of all we don’t know why gay people are gay. You can scream from the roof tops that they are “born that way” but there is no proof. Hence, how do you know that you are not creating more homosexuals simply by placing them in such an environment.
ZEB, the kids are there already.[/quote]
Yes, and more will be there if gay marriage is legalized.
This first reason is about children. No one has yet proven that a gay couple will not have a negative influence upon children. And it was YOU who stated that gay people would never “choose” this sort of lifestyle. They are somehow trapped in it. That does indeed sound like a tragedy. Why influence children down this unfortunate (according to you) road.
Prsecution of anyone because they are different (unless it’s criminal activity) is wrong! I am against this and you know that.
However, the answer is not to sanction gay marriage. A society does not have to be turned on it’s head in order to prevent discrimation to a few. The answer might be to pass certain laws that prevent such discrimination. And I might add that is being done across the nation!
You honestly do not pay attention to my posts lothario. We are all sinners! Therefore, when I look in the mirror I see a sinner. I honestly do not look at gay people as being any more, or less, a sinner than I do the rest of the world. We are all sinners!
[quote]And I think it was you who stated that no one would want to become a homosexual if they had a choice. Are you condemning an entire generation with this one premature move?
I’m pretty sure that wasn’t me. In fact, ironically, I think that was first brought up in another thread by a gay man who posted after you and I had one of our trademarked arguments. He admitted to flirting with suicide, drugs, etc. And it was because he felt so isolated and unaccepted, remember? Your idea is that we just brainwash him into thinking that he’s not gay anymore. My idea is that we as a society just stop hounding kids like him. Maybe a little reassurance and understanding would do better than being cast out and labelled a “sinner”? Just a thought.[/quote]
Don’t make me search this forum (kidding). Honestly, I am almost positive that it was you who stated that no one “chooses” this life.
As far as “hounding kids like him” I’m not doing that. I am simply debating gay marriage on an Internet forum. I don’t “hound” anyone. And I am not for discrimination of gay people in any way. I think I told you that I have employed openly gay people before (and rented to them). All I care about is if they can get the job done. What they do on their own time is none of my business and I couldn’t care less.
Remember me telling you that?
Now what they try to do relative to changing a societal norm I care about.
Do you know why Proctor and Gamble spends one billion dollars per advertising? The same reason that the next person who runs for President from the democratic, or republican party will spend over 100 million trying to get elected. Because advertising works! When you put something in front of someone on a daily basis you influence their thought process.
IF being gay is somehow a learned behavior, or can be a learned behavior, why would I want to put a child in a home with two gay men?
How many times do we have to hear about the pain that homosexuals go through because they are different before you realize that you just might be creating more problems for children by allow gays to adopt. And maybe most kids would not be effected, then again we don’t know do we?
Again, no one knows for sure why someone becomes gay. It might very well be mostly or all genetic. But then again it might be mostly or all nurture!
Let’s not gamble our childrens future. Let’s wait and get an answer to this question first.
[quote]Lothario hypothesis #1: Maybe a child of two gay parents will be fine, as long as the gay couple is well-adjusted? What we will see with the child is that he will have a greater understanding of a single-gender family, because he/she is part of one. Oh! The tragedy!
Lothario hypothesis #2: Let’s pretend that gayness is solely a choice for a second. My dad was a doctor before he retired, and would have loved it for me to be one too. I decided to not go to medical school. How did that happen? I had the grades. I was raised in a medical atmosphere. I just didn’t want to be a doctor. It wasn’t my bag. I… turned out different than my parents. My two brothers aren’t even in the medical field at all. Go figure.[/quote]
Not going to gamble with children!
Let’s wait and really find out.
I don’t care about strengthening ties of the gay community if it means harming one child. And at this point you cannnot show me any data that proves the gay experience is all genetic. Why would anyone be “for” this idea before we figure out why gay people are gay?
I want to strengthen the ties of the Polygamist community to the rest of the country. When I’m done championing that cause I want to strengthen the incest community to the rest of the country. Yea…I want to make sure that every tiny percentage of minority groups who choose (or who claim they are born that way) to be different are indeed strengthened to the rest of the country.
Do you think the country wants that?
Why would you disregard my two examples: Polygamy and adult incest and run to the “sex with a child” example? You can’t give a good reason why we should not allow Polygamy and Incestual marriage?
Are you for the two above?
Not at all-I plainly put forth two other examples as clearly stated above and you ignored them and ran to the “sex with children” example.
Sorry my friend not into that. I have a very good sexual relationship with my wife. Oops sorry, I don’t want to shock you…I know that traditional relationships are somewhat insulting to you.
I removed the rest of your quote as it does nothing to further your cause and sort of makes you look like a jerk.
[quote]Some of you don’t like the fact that I continue to point out that the number of gays who want to marry are less than 1%. However, I think that is a very important point. And I want to know that once the gates are opened to include this tiny percentage where do we then stop?
I am not talking about NAMBLA now (while there is a good argument as some gay groups are championing that specific organization). I am talking about Polygamists and those who are interested in sanctioning incest (for adults of course).
I don’t think the country should be embracing either anymore than they should be embracing homosexual marriage. I think gay people have proved one very important thing. If you scream loud enough and have enough money behind you, you become important somehow…
Who will be the next group to stand up and become “important?”
So your saying that once we allow gay marriage, then we will necessarily have to legally recognize NAMBLA and incest? In bizzarro world, I guess that makes sense. Maybe the 'ludes are getting to you? :)[/quote]
Do you have “ludes” in your world? I’m sorry for you.
As to the topic at hand: What I don’t want is to see tradition torn down for about 1% of the population. It does not matter if that one percent wants to marry their adult sister, or take on two wives, or marry someone of the same sex!
Now I’m sure you don’t have a crystal ball so how can you tell me that these other two “important” groups who have been discriminated against for…well forever will not rise up and demand the government sanction their “marriage?”
lothario the mystic…SPEAK.
That’s the second time that you have called me that in this post. Perhaps I gave you to much credit when I said that you were not name calling and actually discussing issues.
I am no more a “homophobic” than you are a pervert: “depraved, rotten, warped.”
Could we please just discuss the issues without the name calling?
How do you feel when someone calls one of your friends a “faggot?”
Why does there have to be name calling?
No that’s not the case. I have stated on numerous occasions that if we only went as far as gay marriage that I would be very much against it. The point of brining up Polygamists and those who favor inscest is to make a point. That point being the tiny percentage of gay’s who want legalized marrige is about equal (more or less) to those who would want polygamy or even perhaps incest to be legitimized by marriage.
However, the slippery slope theory is also a good one. Just one more reason to prevent gay marriage.
If that were the exact (and only) argument perhaps.
Women made up half the country! That would be 50% as opposed to about 1% (for gays). Blacks made up about 12% of the country.
In addition to this, as you already know but don’t want to discuss: Blacks are indeed born black (big surprise). Women are …born as women.
Can you tell me with solid proof to back it up that gays are in fact born that way? No you can’t!
Therefore, there are two distinct reasons why blacks and women are different than gays relative to special status.
I want you to tell me why we should not recognize every tiny minority group which puts forth an alternative lifestyle idea and then wants to change a 5000+ year old institution to more legitimize this behavior. IT’S NUTTY!
I have to take my above comments back, unfortunately.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Anyway, I’d love to give all the folks reading this thread (if there are still any LOL) a homework assignment: find a way to somehow watch two girls kissing. If you say “ewww gross” to yourself while seeing two hot girls making out, then you are hopeless. I suggest a sledgehammer to your scrotal area.[/quote]
What lothario is pushing is nothing new. If it feels good, or looks good, then by all means do it! There should be no regard paid to anything that is considered “wrong.”
There is no act or scene that someone cannot get used to, and that’s not the issue anyway. That does not mean that we need to sanction gay marriage. Who cares what two men want to do in the privacy of their own home?
However everyone should care about a tiny fraction of society wanting to change society and it’s traditions to fit their lifestyle.
[quote]Now. Once we are able to say to ourselves:
“Gayness isn’t really all that profanely weird… it’s not something I would do myself, but what the hell…”
… then it is only a small step to finally let go of that famous “homorepugnance” which my pal ZEB and others are so glad to label themselves with.[/quote]
I really want to know who the next lothario will be to step up and take the banner for Polygamy and adult incest. I mean what the heck…I bet they feel alienated right now…
And they also have the same rights as you and I. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex that they like. However, no “speical rules.”
After name calling this is the liberals most famous defense. Nothing is wrong my friends! It’s simply your insecurity! It’s your fault! Now get going and change marriage laws you insecure little jerks…LOL I love that one…
Yes, I agree gay people should get over themselves and realize that they have every right to sleep with whom they desire and no one cares! However, don’t try to change a 5000 year old heterosexual institution into something that it’s not!
By the way, those who kept track of the latest Texas voting know that something like 77% of Texans struck down any hope of gay marriage!
That is the 15th state to pass such a referendum, and by huge numbers! There will be more states which do likewise. With the way the Supreme Court is moving there will be no help coming from that end of the system either.
lothario, I know you live in a world that is quite different than mine. And might I add I don’t care! You can have all the orgies and view all of the homosexual experiences that you want. However, when you come knocking on my door with such a ridiculous proposition as allowing two people of the same sex to marry that one issue then becomes my business. And apparently I stand in very good company in terms of numbers. America does not care what two people of the same sex do in the privacy of their own home (or a group of people in a hot tup either).
However, the message is loud and clear: Gay marriage is not something that America wants or needs. And you and the others have not given any compelling evidence to the contrary!
Moral virtues such as kindness, generosity, sharing, honesty, compassion, and bravery
This is why I hate the moralists in the Republican party (not all republicans by any means). This is entirely apart from gay civil unions. Most of them wouldn’t know what morals were if they hit them over the head.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
You’re right. Their homosexual nature has nothing to do with their morality. At least we can agree on SOMETHING.
Moral virtues such as kindness, generosity, sharing, honesty, compassion, and bravery have NOTHING to do with being a homosexual or a heterosexual.
And I guess you got me on the RN part. Glad you’re in the biz and all, but it’s a shame you see our colleagues with such an incompassionate and judgmental lens.
[/quote]
What is judgmental About me not agreeing with their lifestyle? Don’t I have the right to have my own opinions about things? That doesn’t stop them from doing what they want to do. They can also have whatever kind of union they want and have the same “rights”, i.e. hospital visitation, tax breaks, etc. They just can’t call it marriage as that is a religious institution that does not recognize a same sex union.
Bro, you are putting a lot of words in my mouth that I did not say or imply.
They are not lesser, and it is you, or them that believe being gay is in their “nature” and not a choice. So please don’t but your beliefs on me.
Also, since marriage is founded on a male/female union, anyone, gay or not, can marry anyone else of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination. You, and they, just want the foundation of marriage to be changed and defined in a different manner. So no one is withholding a right that is available, you just want things changed to provide a new right.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Ahhh, drunkenirish. Who would have thought to insult an Irishman by alluding to drinking??? Lorisco, at least I respect Zeb, no matter how crazy he is. You my friend, are a retard who has few equals.
And nice posts Lothario.[/quote]
Now come on, you know I was just joking. You seemed to like it the last time I used it. How would I even know you are Irish? You could have just been a Fighting Irish football fan, which is what I thought until the last post.
Don’t be so sensitive bro! But since it offends you I will not use it anymore.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
“Gayness isn’t really all that profanely weird… it’s not something I would do myself, but what the hell…”
[/quote]
If you can stop patting yourself on the back for a moment, I would like to respond to some of your points.
Why is your moral determination based on what seems “weird” and not a consistent foundation of what is right and what is wrong regardless of your current feelings or situation?
It is this kind of situational morality that contributes to mob mentality. Want to know how a group of supposed intelligent people can get together and riot? It’s because of those situational ethics that change by the situation and make it acceptable to do evil based on how you feel at the time.
[quote]
Don’t ever confuse your own insecurities with the moral standing of other people. I think that if more people could just get over themselves, then this world would be a better place. [/quote]
Since my morality is not based on the situation or what feels weird, it never has anything to do with insecurities.
If you ever find a consistent moral compass (and I hope you do), you will understand that there is a consistent moral standard to live by that doesn’t change based on what others think or what is PC.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You honestly do not pay attention to my posts lothario. We are all sinners! Therefore, when I look in the mirror I see a sinner. I honestly do not look at gay people as being any more, or less, a sinner than I do the rest of the world. We are all sinners! [/quote]
Ah yes, you do like to exclaim that, don’t you? However, the gay person is a special case of sinner for you, according to your stance on this issue. They are special in that they cannot marry those that they love. And you are unyieldingly obstinate in this, despite the fact that (as you put it) there would be so very few gay marriages taking place. Oh the damage!
Yes, the heterosexual traditions of marriage will be forever destroyed once we create a new homosexual one. Wake up, ZEB. If you want to find out what is destroying the institution of heterosexual marriage, I’ll cheat and tell you the answer: divorce.
Honestly now, no side stuff here, no name calling, no nothing… we make this vow to withstand everything that life throws at us, thick and thin, sickness and health, etc. So what breaks that vow? The gay couple down the street? No.
Their marriage is their own thing, just like your marriage is your own thing. It seems that you have this idea that marriage is some nebulous institution, like there’s a building somewhere housing this idea floating around in space that will explode if we make a new building right next to it called “gay marriage”.
And I will save us all a bunch of grey text and scrolling and address the incest/bestiality/polygamy/pedophilia marriage thing right here:
Those are their own things. You draw the similarity between all of these notions, and compare them to the gay marriage idea because of the fact that they are minority ideals. That is where the similarity ends, and you refuse to see this no matter how many threads you and I argue across.
Marrying a sheep or an ostrich is not like two lesbians getting hitched. Likewise for the football team to marry all themselves together, Woody Allen and a ten year old, and two West Virginians born of the same parents. These are all separate things!!! (three exclamation points)
And BTW, a slippery slope argument is NOT a good one. In fact, we learn that the slippery slope argument is one of the weaker kinds, as it is an appeal to emotion and imagination rather than one of appeal to analysis and fact.
I laid all the facts out for you that came to me off the top of my head about good reasons to allow (and maybe even encourage) gay marriage, and as expected, you didn’t like what you saw… and that’s fine.
We all have our own hangups about things… I don’t like beets. They’re nasty no matter how many times I try them. But guess what? That doesn’t mean that other people shouldn’t be allowed to eat them.
I don’t see people that like beets as a threat to myself, and I don’t have to try to keep two beet-loving people from getting married and having more children that like beets, thus adding to the beet-loving population. Sure, if you like beets, then you are very very very weird… by definition. How the hell could you like BEETS!!! EEEWWWW!!!
And it doesn’t stop there. Think about it: the more there are people that like beets, the more popular they will be. I will have to see beets everywhere I go: on salad bars, on advertisements for new kinds of sandwiches, casseroles, soups (shudder)… it will never end. There will be beets everywhere.
So do I act now to keep the beet-loving population from growing, condemning them in their weirdness, or do I just grow the hell up and let the beet-loving people have their beets? The problem is not them, it’s me. It’s MY problem that I am disgusted by beets, and I need to learn to tolerate the sight of them. That’s what grownups do. We don’t sabotage the prosperity of good people who deserve it. Even if they are beet-loving weirdos.
PS I was only partly kidding about the sledgehammer to the nuts thing about not liking lesbo porn. You’re off the hook if you can at least say that today’s powerful image (oh to be a tan line on that girl) makes various bodily parts go flippity flop and others go boing-oing-oing-oing!
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
If you can stop patting yourself on the back for a moment, I would like to respond to some of your points.
Why is your moral determination based on what seems “weird” and not a consistent foundation of what is right and what is wrong regardless of your current feelings or situation?[/quote]
My moral determination is what best serves the interests of kindness, compassion, courage, generosity, and sacrifice. Furthermore, I do this of my own free will, as I can see past my own selfishness to understand that we are all in this life together; if we are to survive in a manner which lends itself to happiness, we must do that which helps our fellow man.
I understand that these concepts are alien to you, because you do not rely on analysis and fact to come to a decision concerning these things in your life. You call what I do “situational ethics” as if that is a bad thing. You do not trust yourself and your point of view concerning reality enough, so you let others make up your mind for you. You surrender yourself to a book. And that is fine… until that book and your spiritual leaders order you to look down on those who do not deserve it.
Your book is a very weak crutch, a line drawn in the sand which deals in absolutes. Thou shalt not kill. I can think of many many situations in which this is the path of folly and foolishness, serving the interests of cowardice rather than courage. And don’t you try to lie to me Nabisco, and say that you can never understand why murder might be a good idea. Because I know you can. You are just as much of a “situational ethics” person as I am… well, perhaps a bit less, but I am not afraid to look truth in the eye and admit that the world is not a system of absolutes. We live in a universe ruled by relativity, and this is the world that your God supposedly made. Time to stop pretending.
[quote]If you ever find a consistent moral compass (and I hope you do), you will understand that there is a consistent moral standard to live by that doesn’t change based on what others think or what is PC.
[/quote]
LOL I can say with some certainty that my moral compass is more consistent than yours or any other christian’s. You guys pretend that there is absolute good and evil, and when you violate your code of absolutes, you call it “sinning”, as if that makes it something other than a relative decision.
PS Thinking in absolutes prevents reason, and THAT, my friend, is what leads to “mob mentality”. Good luck with your pretending.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You honestly do not pay attention to my posts lothario. We are all sinners! Therefore, when I look in the mirror I see a sinner. I honestly do not look at gay people as being any more, or less, a sinner than I do the rest of the world. We are all sinners!
Ah yes, you do like to exclaim that, don’t you? However, the gay person is a special case of sinner for you, according to your stance on this issue. They are special in that they cannot marry those that they love. And you are unyieldingly obstinate in this, despite the fact that (as you put it) there would be so very few gay marriages taking place. Oh the damage![/quote]
Damage? I think there would be greater damage to a long standing tradition and our own heterosexual mores to allow such a thing.
If you are claiming that divorce is bad for marriage I agree. However, that is a separate discussion than allowing gay people to marry. How is opening up a heterosexual institution to gays going to help the institution of marriage? And actually, that is the original question that I asked somewhere at the beginning the thread. Not one person including you has been able to explain how the institution of marriage, or society is helped by allowing such a thing.
Again, you are attempting to confuse the two topics. Perhaps you are using this sort of reasoning: Gay marriage can’t do anymore harm to marriage than what has already taken place. That is a poor argument and unrelated to the actual topic.
That’s not the case. However, what you have failed to do (although you come closer than the other mean spirited bunch) is give solid evidence that gay marriage would be a positive thing relative to the subject matter that I have previously mentioned.
[quote]And I will save us all a bunch of grey text and scrolling and address the incest/bestiality/polygamy/pedophilia marriage thing right here:
Those are their own things. You draw the similarity between all of these notions, and compare them to the gay marriage idea because of the fact that they are minority ideals. That is where the similarity ends, and you refuse to see this no matter how many threads you and I argue across.[/quote]
You are wrong! I do see that there is no similarity with the other things, other than the original deviation between one man and one women who are unrelated of course. But…isn’t that enough?
Yes, separate but equal in that they all deviate from one man and one (unrelated) woman. It’s the deviation that I am interested in.
Call it what you want. If one tiny minority group gets to rewrite the rules for a 5000 year old institution whyu can’t other groups do the same? Your answer for this is probably “who cares if they do.” Well…about 70%+ of Americans care my friend.
I agree and I think that’s a good analogy. Most people have no interest in having sex with someone of the same gender. However, if someone else does have that interest they are allowed to pursue it without any fear of legal repercussion. But, they don’t have the right to change a 5000+ year old institution. Then it becomes the business of every hetersexual person. And as you can see by the latest numbers; we don’t want that.
How do you know Beet loving children would sprout from two Beet loving people? After all most social liberals who want gays to be able to adopt claim that they will have no influence at all on the sexuality of children.
By the way, they can’t have children of their own can they? No…they were not meant for that…They have to adopt.
I have no problem with anyone who wants to eat beets. See we can agree on somethings
However, it is not “my problem” or the problem of 70%+ people who do not want the institution of marriage to include gays. It has nothing to do with thiking that they are “weirdos” or “less than human” or anything else (at least not with me or those whom I know). It has to do with social mores, spiritual tradition and a host of other things which lead me to think that it’s better left alone.
I know that your friends would be happy if gay marriage were sanctioned by our society. But, they (and you) have to give some incredibly good reasons, as yet they have not done so. If they have it would be 70%+ FOR gay marriage.
Perhaps the reason that they have not given good reasons is that there really are none to give!
Your little rant to lorisco is loaded down with falsehoods.
Your logic is faulty. In your view we should have no standard in which to base our own values. Yet, at the same time, you try to push your own standard on us! Come on you have to see the irony. Somehow you want to convince him that his values are bad because they are based on the Bible. But, your values are good because they are based on_______________. Who knows? Um, I’m thinking the Bible beats whatever you have based your values on.
Since much of the law is based upon Biblical laws should we not have societal laws either? Should we all do what we feel like, whatever moves us at the moment?
That is simply ridiculous!
You have certain values (just like the rest of us). What you base those values on is determined by what? What you think is fair on any given day? You are telling lorisco that he basically gives his mind over to a book. Well, what do you give your mind over to in order help shape your own values, Hollywoods Touched By An Angel?" Worldly lusts?
You have learned from what book? What TV show? What code of ethics? Tell us.
Don’t sit there and tell me that nothing has ever influenced you (besides the plight of your gay friends). You have been shaped my friend. Now let’s try to figure out by what.
ZEB: Gay marriage is its own “institution”, as you like to call it. Your principle argument is that we are changing (destroying) heterosexual marriage to accomodate the gay population, but that’s not what is happening at all. Gays won’t have heterosexual marriages… they’ll have gay ones. New thing. Very similar to the old thing, but not the same. There is nothing 5000 year old traditional about two girls marrying each other.
In fact, for the woman to have any say in her marriage is a pretty new development (last few hundred years or so), and I think that the marriage we have now is a bit more fair.
What we will be changing is the way our society views marriage. This is a time for us all to re-examine what exactly is going on in a marriage relationship, and a time to re-evaluate the traditional roles that a man or a woman plays in the partnership… because their relevance is slipping away from us in this modern world.
So many couples go into a marriage with a mis-matched idea of what they will be really doing in their marriage. Those nasty surprises (Hey… I’m not getting laid every day like I thought I would vs. I’m tired of doing everything around the house, this sucks, all he wants to do is watch sports when he gets home from work) make for resentment and communication problems later.
I wonder if gays have an advantage over us here. They are starting this thing fresh, without preconceived notions about gender roles and societal expectations. Maybe they would be better at this thing than us? I know I’m a statistic that’s dragging us down (divorced at the age of 26 after five years of hell) and I have PLENTY of company. I know very very few people of my generation who have stayed married for more than five years.
Change gears, ZEB. Gay marriage (like ostrich marriage or football team marriage) is its own thing… it’s own institution.
Your little rant to lorisco is loaded down with falsehoods.
Your logic is faulty. In your view we should have no standard in which to base our own values. Yet, at the same time, you try to push your own standard on us![/quote]
No, my “standard” is just my evolved superego telling me what allows for maximum happiness for all of us. The more people are happy, the less there are things in life which try to eliminate me, thus increasing my survival. There is nothing supernatural or given from God or any crap like that. Benevolence is its own reward, ZEB.
And there are really cool side effects to living the way I do. People aren’t dumb. They see me and my convictions and values, and trust me as a result. “Wow, man… you really don’t ever lie to me, do you?” or “You know what, you’re the only person I know who can keep a secret…” People open up to me, ZEB, because they know that I am going to look out for them and their interests.
Sometimes it is difficult, because my friends will clash with each other, so I have learned how to be as diplomatic as I can in order to help resolve the silliness that happens sometimes.
What I’m getting at here is that as a result of my “outgoingness” and my firm belief in the values of honesty, kindness, etc., etc., I have a lot of very good friends who enrich my life and make this world a wonderful place for me. In turn, I try to make the world even better for them, and the cycle goes on and on. Acts of kindness and generosity beget other acts of kindness and generosity. Such is the same with acts of courage, acts of helpfulness, acts of… I think you get what I’m saying here.
All it takes is the ability to reach out and help someone else. People will know if you have selfish interests, so have selfless ones.
And now that I think about it, I’m sorry about my anti-christian rant to lorisco. The holier-than-thou mindset gets to me sometimes. When you use “pride” (like christian pride, for example) against someone else, it demeans both you and the thing you are proud of. I’m pretty sure Jesus wouldn’t want you to use him or his teachings to feel all “hoity-toity” anyway. Just a guess.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
ZEB: Gay marriage is its own “institution”, as you like to call it. Your principle argument is that we are changing (destroying) heterosexual marriage to accomodate the gay population, but that’s not what is happening at all. Gays won’t have heterosexual marriages… they’ll have gay ones. New thing. Very similar to the old thing, but not the same. There is nothing 5000 year old traditional about two girls marrying each other.[/quote]
Not quite! If homosexuals want to be able to get married then let it be sanctioned by one of the gay organizations. If that were the case then it would in fact be separate. However, you want it sanctioned by society. Do you see the difference?
Yes, I think marriage has improved in many ways.
The institution of marriage can always be improved. However, I don’t think gay marriage will improve it. And you have given no reasons why it should be accepted.
Again, one has nothing to do with the other. You had a bad marriage so two gay guys will be able to do it better? Sheesh…the logic is missing.
When you are changing the boundaries of the institution of marriage it is not “it’s own institution.” Again, if one of the gay organizations wants to sanction “gay marriage” then they are not changing it.
How comfortable would homosexuals be if a heterosexual burst onto their scene and wanted to change their particular mores?
No, my “standard” is just my evolved superego telling me what allows for maximum happiness for all of us.[/quote]
We would have total chaos if everyone subscribed to this. It might be time to reassess.
Your “do what feels good” philosophy makes no sense and it never has. If drugs make people happy then they should take them right? What happens when someone dies from taking to many drugs? Are the family and friends of that person now “happy” as you say?
Do you think it’s only those who are close to someone who “does what makes them happy in the moment” who can get hurt? Think again!
Your philosophy leads to a short term gain for a very huge long term loss!
Wow you can keep a secret…well that’s really good
Yes, I get it. You are a nice guy who likes to do nice things for people. And you are someone who has based his personal morals on doing good deeds. And making sure that everyone is as happy as they can be.
Do I have it?
You began this thread by kicking Christianity in the teeth. Are you sorry for that too? Is it okay to hate things that are against your personal “feel good” philosophy? How does all that fit into making people happy and doing kind deeds? Maybe you have not thought through that part of your philosophy yet.
I wonder how much long term damage you have done to your “friends” by not really helping them:
