[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
We haven’t ever had gay marriage (substantially), and homophobia has decreased exponentially even in the absence of it.[/quote]
Because correlation = causality
Because I can still catch the clap from some tramp who decides she doesn’t need to be tested or tell people.
Also, promiscuity + safe sex = fun times[/quote]
Mak, I didn’t see you there. You may go.[/quote]
Because he has a good point that’s hard to counter? Why aren’t the dangers enough to counter promiscuity in heterosexuals? This is exactly one of the benefits touted about marriage and a justification given for state involvement and promotion. Where is the evidence it’d be less so for gays?
Because he has a good point that’s hard to counter?[/quote]
Relax. Mak and I go back a ways on this topic, I was just having fun with him. To your point, no, that isn’t a good point that is hard to counter.
Yes, but a particular kind of promiscuity that generates many, many bad things in society - children out of wedlock without family units, paternity problems, sexual jealousy and so forth.
Marriage has never been on the books to “discourage STDs”. And, marriage wouldn’t likely do much to discourage this - after all, if the threat of sickness or death isn’t enough to discourage this behavior in and of itself, why would marriage be any better at it?
The evidence is that the kind of problems heterosexual promiscuity generates are unique to heterosexuals - we don’t worry about gay relationships producing children that no one will take care of, for example.
As an aside, I am also very puzzled by the lineups on this issue - a great many people (not you in particular, Jsbrook) who support gay marriage are social liberals who so often tout, “hey…quit being such a prude…sex among consenting adults is fine…if it feels good, let 'em do it!!”, but then are quick to “need” gay marriage to remedy all the dangerous hedonism that pervades that community from the “if it feels good, let 'em do it!!!” ethic.
Personally, I have yet to see a compelling argument that the gay community “needs” marriage but for one simple reason - cultural affirmation of their relationships as “equal” to heterosexual ones. It is a therapeutic measure - the rest of the arguments appear to be backfilling to try and seek out some justification in addition to the primary goal.
Well, no, see, cause there’s a leak, its just a matter of opinion as to if the problem is a problem.[/quote]
Even if true, how does that help you?
Good grief.[/quote]
Because it makes the point that saying “Marriage should only be between a man and a woman because marriage has always been between a man and a woman” is stupid.
So you can see that allowing gay marriage would cultivate acceptance of gays, yet can’t see that denying them marriage rights cultivates intolerance.[/quote]
No, I don’t believe it would cultivate acceptance of gays - that is precisely what I have been saying. I think the effect would largely be nil.
Don’t make up points of view I don’t ascribe to.
[quote]Easy breakdown: In order to be effective, marriage system must be an internalized norm. The vast majority of society must believe “You should grow up and get married.”
Now, lets throw in there “Gay people are not allowed to get married.”
The conclusion being “You should not be gay.”[/quote]
This is so bad it hurts me to read it. Just because we restrict a public policy that is uniquely tailored to deal with a particular set of circumstances to that one set of circumstances (heterosexual relationships) doesn’t mean we, ipso facto, are expressing and institutionalizing “intolerance” for other relationships outside of that set of circumstances.
If this were true, then policies uniquely addressed to deal with, say, women’s unique health issues (think of the many) that wouldn’t apply to men (because they cannot have those health issues on account of being biologically, well, men) would be “institutionalizing” “intolerance” against men.
Ludicrous.
This desperate bending-over-backwards to make apples look like oranges is simply difficult to take seriously.
So you can see that allowing gay marriage would cultivate acceptance of gays, yet can’t see that denying them marriage rights cultivates intolerance.[/quote]
No, I don’t believe it would cultivate acceptance of gays - that is precisely what I have been saying. I think the effect would largely be nil.
Don’t make up points of view I don’t ascribe to.
[quote]Easy breakdown: In order to be effective, marriage system must be an internalized norm. The vast majority of society must believe “You should grow up and get married.”
Now, lets throw in there “Gay people are not allowed to get married.”
The conclusion being “You should not be gay.”[/quote]
This is so bad it hurts me to read it. Just because we restrict a public policy that is uniquely tailored to deal with a particular set of circumstances to that one set of circumstances (heterosexual relationships) doesn’t mean we, ipso facto, are expressing and institutionalizing “intolerance” for other relationships outside of that set of circumstances.
If this were true, then policies uniquely addressed to deal with, say, women’s unique health issues (think of the many) that wouldn’t apply to men (because they cannot have those health issues on account of being biologically, well, men) would be “institutionalizing” “intolerance” against men.
Ludicrous.
This desperate bending-over-backwards to make apples look like oranges is simply difficult to take seriously.
Nope.[/quote]
How many people do you know think using illegal drugs are immoral?
Because it makes the point that saying “Marriage should only be between a man and a woman because marriage has always been between a man and a woman” is stupid.[/quote]
Uh, no, it says “marriage should only be between a man and woman because marriage exists to only address a certain kind of problem that has been around a millenia that doesn’t exist in other relationships.”
I.e., there is no problem to fix. Arguments over “leak or no leak”, if no water is getting into the house and ruining anything, then there is no problem to fix.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
You need to know who jesus is to call yourself christian.
attraction to sex doesn’t follow this line.[/quote]
Who says there isn’t a pre-existing attraction to Jesus, for the Christianity-orientated? One that isn’t fullfilled until the predisposed person hears of this Jesus. And upon hearing, all the right pleasure and satisfaction switches are tripped in the old gray matter.[/quote]
i really dont think youre that retarded. Christianity is something we’ve invented,not something that biology has. attraction to theism would make sense.[/quote]
You say attraction to theism can only make sense, but apparently different people are attracted to different and specific faiths. So are you dropping the word attraction?[/quote]
Environment and experience as opposed to genetics. They are predisposed to accept a ‘religious’ answer to big questions. Which answer they accept will be based on which religions they are exposed to, how well they are explained and their mental state at the times of exposure.
Someone might move from being a a Catholic to being a Baptist because they didn’t get on with their Priest and felt excluded and were then made to feel very welcome in the Baptist Church (religions picked purely as an example, please don’t read anything into choices.)
Yes, but a particular kind of promiscuity that generates many, many bad things in society - children out of wedlock without family units, paternity problems, sexual jealousy and so forth.
Marriage has never been on the books to “discourage STDs”. And, marriage wouldn’t likely do much to discourage this - after all, if the threat of sickness or death isn’t enough to discourage this behavior in and of itself, why would marriage be any better at it?
Opinon denying a stay. Basically say private citizens have no standing because it’s none of their fucking business and gay marriages don’t harm them. The court rejected the likelihood of success on the merits because they “failed to present even one credible witness on the government interest in Proposition 8.” The court also gave cursory attention to other factors considered in a standing analysis.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
‘Predisposed’ to accept a religious answer. Hmmm…[/quote]
Sorry, should have said possibly. The quotes round religious are meant to imply more than just traditional religion. OF course it could all be from environmental factors. All humans are predisposed to look for patterns and to anthropomorphism.
My mistake. Sexual orientation is not a protected class at the federal level, but can be at the state level and even county (I believe).
It does bring out the idiots: you have been the most vocal.[/quote]
Wait, let’s get this right - you wander in and get every single fact wrong in your post, and then you want to call someone else an idiot? Hilarious.
Because race has been given heightened protection in the constitution via the Reconstruction amendments, the Supreme Court and enacted federal law. It’s a fact - it isn’t my opinion, chuckles. Read up:
These classes are “different”, and have always been.
Let me guess - you have no idea about the various levels of protection under the Constitution for various classes, do you? You simply have no clue - I’m right, aren’t I?
Wouldn’t it just be better if you go learn the basic facts before blabbering incorrect information and then demanding that someone else explain to what you should already know before you open your mouth and declare such things as “race and sexual orientation are no different!!!” and “you don’t know anything about the law!!!”?
I’m embarrassed for you at this point.[/quote]
You are “embarrassed” for me?
I don’t need backhanded insults. Save your “embarrassment” for when you read your own posts aloud.
Are you in high school?
To everyone else,
Race has HISTORICAL PRECEDENT to make it a protected class, because, “historically” (keyword!) race has been at the center of many, many issues.
But to say race and sexual orientation are different is absurd. It makes no difference that “race” is based on genetics and “sexuality” is based on “behavior” (actually, I would argue that sexuality can be based on genetics as well).
Both race and sexuality AND religion AND national origin - and damn well any other class, protected or NOT, federally protected or otherwise - serve as the basis of an individual’s IDENTITY, and thus discriminating against a component of this identity - e.g. race - is the same as discriminating against the person as a whole, against their identity.
Sexual orientation has not been a core issue historically that has led to wars, genocide, political issues comparable to “racial issues.” That’s all, but that’s not good enough to keep sexual orientation from being a protected class, because it is still for many a component of their identity.
Have we found the Gay Gene yet? Until then it is a choice. Sexual Orientation is a choice based on our surroundings. This is both Homosexual and Heterosexual. Both are a choice. I am heterosexual because I like boobies and vaginas. Maybe their are men that like Butts and Penises.
There are many ways to describe why someone choses their sexual orientation, but there is only one way to describe race, and that is by the color of your skin. There is only one way to describe why you are male or female and that is by your genitles. Until one reason is found why you are homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, or beastialitysexual then it is a choice, and not you were born with it.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Have we found the Gay Gene yet? Until then it is a choice. Sexual Orientation is a choice based on our surroundings. This is both Homosexual and Heterosexual. Both are a choice. I am heterosexual because I like boobies and vaginas. Maybe their are men that like Butts and Penises. There are many ways to describe why someone choses their sexual orientation, but there is only one way to describe race, and that is by the color of your skin. There is only one way to describe why you are male or female and that is by your genitles. Until one reason is found why you are homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, or beastialitysexual then it is a choice, and not you were born with it.
[/quote]
wait so there is a hetero gene? Is there an “I like chocolate” gene? Is there an “I hate the smell of fish sauce” gene?
Might be that genetically I am predisposed to certain things.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Have we found the Gay Gene yet? Until then it is a choice. Sexual Orientation is a choice based on our surroundings. This is both Homosexual and Heterosexual. Both are a choice. I am heterosexual because I like boobies and vaginas. Maybe their are men that like Butts and Penises. There are many ways to describe why someone choses their sexual orientation, but there is only one way to describe race, and that is by the color of your skin. There is only one way to describe why you are male or female and that is by your genitles. Until one reason is found why you are homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, or beastialitysexual then it is a choice, and not you were born with it.
[/quote]
wait so there is a hetero gene? Is there an “I like chocolate” gene? Is there an “I hate the smell of fish sauce” gene?
Might be that genetically I am predisposed to certain things.[/quote]
That is what I am trying to say. Protected Classes all have one thing in common and that is genes. There is no gene that determines sexual orientation. There are genes that determine your genitles, and the melinomine (*sp) in your skin. You have no choice in the matter for your sex and your skin color. You have a choice which sexual orientation you are. I am not going to say it is not going to be hard to choose the other way, but it is a choice.
Race, Color, Religion, National Origin, Age, and Sex.
Only one is not determined by genes or place of birth and that is Religion. Religion though is spelled out in the Constitution, so that is why that one is in the list. Sexual Orientation is not spelled out in the Constitution.