'That's So Gay!'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]Mishima wrote:
once again please excuse any poor spelling english is not my first language. Any healthy strong society wants their citicens to produce offspring. Just for dominance reasons. It is a fact that homosexuals exist and existed in every culture - and I dont care if it is genetic, choice or whatever and I don’t have anything against these people. But the praise of homoesexuality is a sign of decline, because it is sex for sex sake with no value for the society. And btw having sex with 10 women and get all the babys aborted is the same thing. Sex for sex sake.

Right now the celebration of the gay lifestyle is just a sign of decadence. And I could not care less if somebody f*cks a male, a monkey, his suitcase or whatever - but there is no worth to that except personal pleasure. I would like to see a society that favours a family (in whatever form) producing offspring, but tolareting any other form of sexuality without advertising it- [/quote]

Why are only things “with value for the society” good? Did you miss out on the last 250 years or so of political philosophy?

Also, when my grandfather died, my grandmother remarried in her 60’s. Since she clearly wasn’t going to have more children, should she not have been allowed to get married?

362

to be honest nothing. I think for a healthy uprising a child needs a man and a woman. and yes I know many couples cannot provide a healthy uprising but htat is another issue. But I think it is not clever to be wiser than nature. man and woman produce offspring and that has to be any good. two males cannot get a baby.

and once again I do not think homosexuality is a disorder or a sin or whatever. It occurs in every culture and is therefore a part of the human society. Every homosexual has the right to be a homosexual.

363

[quote]Mishima wrote:
to be honest nothing. I think for a healthy uprising a child needs a man and a woman. and yes I know many couples cannot provide a healthy uprising but htat is another issue. But I think it is not clever to be wiser than nature. man and woman produce offspring and that has to be any good. two males cannot get a baby.[/quote]

Quite a few researchers have studied this, and it turns out children of gay couples do just as well as children of straight couples.

Also, have you heard of the naturalistic fallacy? Just because something is common in nature doesn’t mean it’s right or the only good way of doing something. You seem to be making that assumption here.

364

[quote]Mishima wrote:
Right now the celebration of the gay lifestyle is just a sign of decadence.[/quote]

This needs to be addressed in a separate post.

What makes you think that gays are only interested in sex, while heteros are interested in sex, love, companionship, and emotional intimacy?

Do you not understand that sexual orientation ties into all of these areas, irrespective of sexual orientation?

My partner and I are in a long term, committed, loving relationship that encompasses the same physical/emotional dimensions that you will find in a heterosexual relationship.

365

without heterosexual intercourse every society would end because there are no children. once again I do not condemn any alternative lifestyle but the main focus of every strong society must be offspring because without children they will vanish.

366

[quote]Mishima wrote:
to be honest nothing. I think for a healthy uprising a child needs a man and a woman. and yes I know many couples cannot provide a healthy uprising but htat is another issue. But I think it is not clever to be wiser than nature. man and woman produce offspring and that has to be any good. two males cannot get a baby.
[/quote]

It’s not a question of whether a child is better off being raised by a man and a woman.

It’s a question of whether a child is better off being raised by a gay couple or a public institution.

Would it surprise you to find out that the research shows children raised by loving gay parents actually thrive? Wouldn’t you consider that a benefit for society?

367

[quote]Mishima wrote:
without heterosexual intercourse every society would end because there are no children. once again I do not condemn any alternative lifestyle but the main focus of every strong society must be offspring because without children they will vanish.
[/quote]

Would granting full legal rights and societal equality to homosexuals significantly affect the amount of “heterosexual intercourse” going on?

368

[quote]Mishima wrote:
without heterosexual intercourse every society would end because there are no children. once again I do not condemn any alternative lifestyle but the main focus of every strong society must be offspring because without children they will vanish.
[/quote]

Again, who is going to take care of the millions of children that aren’t being raised by their parents? Gay couples benefit society by providing a loving home for these children.

369

Mishima: the US population of gays is something like 5%. The population size is slowly growing. We are not in danger of either all becoming gay or giving up biological reproduction. You seem like a decent guy, but you’re worried about something unlikely to happen.

370

quidnunc: I dont want to dismiss any research but I am sceptical. there are studies that claim genetic modified food is good for us and so on. I just don*t think it is clever to outsmart nature just because there my be gay couples who provide a great childhood. That maybe true. But I dont get why you dismiss a very old and very succsesfull model (aka family). You would not be here if that model did not work.

371

[quote]Mishima wrote:
without heterosexual intercourse every society would end because there are no children. once again I do not condemn any alternative lifestyle but the main focus of every strong society must be offspring because without children they will vanish.
[/quote]

Again, who is going to take care of the millions of children that aren’t being raised by their parents? Gay couples benefit society by providing a loving home for these children.

372

full regal rights should come with responsibilty. I was gettng married three weeks ago and I am planning to have kids next year (well I hope I stand up to that hehe)l These kids will pay for my pension and will hopefully be productive a part of society. That is the difference, I think that every gay couple should have rights no problem, that is good. But- and again that soundx harsher than I mean it - there is no value for society for two gay men gettng married.

373

yes because it goes along with tax benefitds

374

forlife@ I get your point. But don*t you think that nature had a plan that a man and an woman is needed to produce children? is any study smarter than all the evolution of mankind?

375

[quote]Mishima wrote:
forlife@ I get your point. But don*t you think that nature had a plan that a man and an woman is needed to produce children? is any study smarter than all the evolution of mankind?[/quote]

Nature had a lot of things planned and you probably don’t follow many of them. Nature intended you to try and procreate all the time. Nature doesn’t have rules against rape in most species. many species will engage in incests with young as soon as they become fertile. Infanticide is common. If you get a fight or flight response, you really and supposed to fight or run.

376

[quote]forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
When someone tries to change my state legislation in order to allow gay marriage, I consider that trying to change me. It is my environment so it very well affects me, even if a minute amount.

Why do you feel justified in enshrining your religious beliefs in state legislation in the first place? Don’t you believe in separation of church and state? Or does that only matter when the religion is something other than your own?
[/quote]

I believe the legislation should be a reflection of the people. Yet, since I think being homosexual should not warrant rites that are otherwise not warranted, you suggest I should stay out of the state. That is discrimination in itself. My faith has influence on my political beliefs.

Funny thing is that the laws do not say it is a crime to be a homosexual. And the Muslim faith is much stricter on such matters than Christianity, I am sure you would rather have Judeo-Christian influence then Muslim. Where you would be killed for being a homosexual. I will explain further my opinions.

[quote]I am not discriminating against them at all, show me how they are discriminated against. And especially show how I discriminate against them.

You’re telling me that being gay is a sin. That’s fine, believe whatever you want. I really don’t care what you think. What I do care about is when you deny me the right to visit my partner in the hospital when he is sick, to have social security benefits if he died, etc. That impacts me far, far more than the “minute amount” that you are supposedly impacted by granting equal rights to gays.
[/quote]

I understand your position here, this is not necessarily a sin/not sin situation. This is the big hospital/insurance industry thing. I understand your feelings about not being able to visit someone in the hospital because you are not “related.” My views on the hospitals and doctors is that it is a corrupted industry (not necessarily crooked or unethical, but not how it should be or whole). I believe that you should be able to visit someone you know in the hospital. If you really want to visit someone, here is a trick, in the hospital if you say you’re their pastor, most of the time they will allow you through as long as there is not a police escort with them.

Well, changing a society by way of changing morals is by far more impacting than not getting SS benefits. I have to admit, I do not believe in SS and the system. It is corrupt as well, and hopefully will collapse. I have not paid SS because of my income sources, so I have never relied on the Social Security system, and do not plan on it. It may be my views and how I grew up, but I would rather live off the land, and sustain, than believe I am progressive and work for the government.

Your statement that because of my beliefs I would not warrant you the rite (if I held sole power to change it) to visit someone you knew in the hospital is wrong. Also, my beliefs on social programs means I do not think you should get benefits if your partner dies, is not because you are gay, it is because I do not want the government to determine who gets help with my money.

377

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:

They aren’t asking you to change. They are asking not to be discriminated against.

So, the only thing you consider change is if I personally change my behavior, well, I call that a little ignorant. When someone tries to change my state legislation in order to allow gay marriage, I consider that trying to change me. It is my environment so it very well affects me, even if a minute amount.

I am not discriminating against them at all, show me how they are discriminated against. And especially show how I discriminate against them.

A change in the laws of your state - a change that doesn’t affect your taxes or job or whatever in the slightest - is trying to “change you?” Couldn’t you use the same reasoning to oppose any legislation whatsoever?

[/quote]

The higher usage and demand for benefits would not only affect my business, but the people who work for me. Hey you get it, good job. I vote no for social programs that cost my employees money.

378

[quote]forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
…something can very well be ethical and a sin at the same time.

Can you offer some examples?

Usury.

If you really believe usury is a sin, does that mean you have never taken out a loan?[/quote]

Yeah, I do. Usury is the collection of excessive interest on a loan. I have taken out loans, but usury is from the loaners part.

379

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Here’s your problem, Chris:

When you want to argue that something ought to be done in a democracy, you need to use justifications that will be meaningful to all reasonable people. For example, you could argue, like some people on this thread, that homosexuality causes disease and depression, and so is a public health threat. That’s untrue, but at least if it were true it would matter to all of us – everybody wants to prevent public health threats.

But appeals to religious truth simply don’t matter to everyone. There are atheists. There are non-Christian religions. There are Christians who don’t interpret the Bible as you do. Even if you’re quite right that homosexuality is a sin in your faith, still for many people that fact is absolutely inconsequential. You’re making the kind of argument that cannot possibly convince anybody not already in your camp.[/quote]

You have to go back farther into the argument, the argument itself strayed to how is homosexuality a sin. I am still observant to the opinion that homosexuality will break down the stability of the American family and one of the important pillars of America.

380

I think all gay people (except the hot lesbians) should be burnt at the stake and/or crucified.