[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
And, yeah, I’ve hooked up with a few guys, never had sex with any of them, though. Whats your point? Let me guess, you’ll try to insult me for it, while still claiming not to be bigoted against homosexuals, right??
[/quote]
Hmm. Remember that hidden “agenda” thing? Upon questioning we see that the advocates of state recognized homosexual marriage wouldn’t stop there. No, they’d redefine the institution beyond simple sexual orientation, but also include any number of people. Or, even including people who have no plans on having a sexual/intimate relationship with each other. Basically, defining marriage so broadly (in the eyes of the law) that is effectively has little to no definition.
If anything, this discussion has served to confirm the “agenda” the pro-homosexual marriage crowd is often accused of harboring.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
And, yeah, I’ve hooked up with a few guys, never had sex with any of them, though. Whats your point? Let me guess, you’ll try to insult me for it, while still claiming not to be bigoted against homosexuals, right??
Hmm. Remember that hidden “agenda” thing? Upon questioning we see that the advocates of state recognized homosexual marriage wouldn’t stop there. No, they’d redefine the institution beyond simple sexual orientation, but also include any number of people. Or, even including people who have no plans on having a sexual/intimate relationship with each other. Basically, defining marriage so broadly (in the eyes of the law) that is effectively has little to no definition.
If anything, this discussion has served to confirm the “agenda” the pro-homosexual marriage crowd is often accused of harboring. [/quote]
It’s not my place to judge the guy. I don’t care what he does or what his tendencies are. God knows I’ve got plenty of my own problems. I’m in favor of homosexuals having power of attorney for their partners, hospital visitation rights, and so forth. I just don’t think they’ve got a right to change the definition of marriage for everyone else, and I think that polygamists Muslims are going to exploit any definitional change that happens as they now are doing in Australia and then we’ll have an even bigger mess on our hands.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
And, yeah, I’ve hooked up with a few guys, never had sex with any of them, though. Whats your point? Let me guess, you’ll try to insult me for it, while still claiming not to be bigoted against homosexuals, right??
Hmm. Remember that hidden “agenda” thing?
[/quote]
So, by having had hooked up with a few guys and found that it wasn’t my thing, and hence I’m not gay, I now have an agenda? Because I found out I’m not gay? What?
If the governments aim is to incentivize procreation and the formation of social units fit to raise children, why shouldn’t it endorse polygamy?
You mean the same way the elderly, or impotent/infertile, or the cases where marriage is a means to citizenship?
Whats to stop you and any random female friend of yours to up and decide to get married?
As I asked above, theres nothing stoping all these random marriages from happening right now.
[quote]
If anything, this discussion has served to confirm the “agenda” the pro-homosexual marriage crowd is often accused of harboring. [/quote]
The agenda that the government should not give special benefits to heterosexual mongamous people? Sure.
The agenda that the government should not give special benefits to heterosexual mongamous people? Sure.
[/quote]
Wait. Now are you arguing the law shouldn’t recognize any form of marriage? Or it should recognize any and all forms of marriage, as long as at least consenting adults are present?
Everything else said was just further confirmation that it’s not about gay marriage, but “anything goes” marriage.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
No, you’re butchering the definition. “homosexuality or homosexuals” is not the same thing as “homosexual sex”.
Well, what is “homosexuality” then? The definition doesn’t necessarily need to include the actual act, but it certainly includes a desire to perform the act. But those who don’t actually perform the act certainly would seem to demonstrate some aversion (there’s that word again) to it and probably won’t be trying to get married to another of the same sex any time soon.
[/quote]
Homosexuality is the attraction of a person to members of the same sex. This includes sexually, romantically, intellectually, etc, etc. To define homosexuals (the people) and homosexuality (the preference) solely by homosexual sex (the act, which may or may not be involved), is a form of bigotry.
Its the same as me deciding its disgusting that Christians, during ceremonies, pretend to drink the blood of Christ and eat his flesh. Certainly, you can see where mock vampiric and mock cannibalistic practices would be disgusting and offensive, right? So should I then define “Anti-christian” as “Anti-vampiric/cannibal”? Especially when a Christian may or may not be involved in the practice? Am I a Christianphobe because I dont like the idea of pretending I’m drinking blood?
Thats not actually the definition, thats your butchered definition.
[quote]
I would call myself and other heterosexuals homophobes who haven’t engaged in any such activity and have not plans to.[/quote]
That would be a mislabel then. Just because a person is heterosexual doesnt make them a homophobe; its possible to have no desire or curiosity to explore something while not being “averse” to it or to people who practice it.
I’m not into BDSM. I’m not even curious about trying it. But I’m not ‘averse’ to it, I don’t judge people based on it, nor do I define them by it. As such, I’m neither a BDSM-phobe nor do I practice it myself.
Because, usually, 49% of live births are female and 51% are male. That leaves a roughly 1:1 ratio of marriagable men to women, not 1:4 (like Mohammed allows) or 1:20 (like an ancient Near Eastern king). What usually happens when there’s a bunch of horny young men running around with few prospects for marriage b/c of artificially restricted supply of women? Ans: crime and strife.
You’re putting more words into the definition than are there. You’re looking at what you perceive as the intent of the words, not the words themselves. The definition, as it’s written, includes all heterosexuals who have no plans for sex with another of like gender.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
If the governments aim is to incentivize procreation and the formation of social units fit to raise children, why shouldn’t it endorse polygamy?
Because, usually, 49% of live births are female and 51% are male. That leaves a roughly 1:1 ratio of marriagable men to women, not 1:4 (like Mohammed allows) or 1:20 (like an ancient Near Eastern king). What usually happens when there’s a bunch of horny young men running around with few prospects for marriage b/c of artificially restricted supply of women? Ans: crime and strife. [/quote]
I remember reading an article somewhere that men being taller than women indicates that, naturally, we’re polygamous. Besides, allowing polygamy would not result in an “artificially restricted supply of women”, since all men would have the opprotunity to attract women, its just that some would be less successful than others.
If anything, monogamy is an artifically abundant supply of women, since it forces women to choose inferior men when the superior man is already involved.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Thats not actually the definition, thats your butchered definition.
You’re putting more words into the definition than are there. You’re looking at what you perceive as the intent of the words, not the words themselves. The definition, as it’s written, includes all heterosexuals who have no plans for sex with another of like gender. [/quote]
No, it doesnt. The definition states “homosexuality and homosexuals” nowhere does the definition state “homosexual sex”. There are plenty of people who have no plans for sex with another of like gender but are not homophobic, since they have no aversion, fear of, or discrimination towards homosexuality or homosexuals.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sloth wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
And, yeah, I’ve hooked up with a few guys, never had sex with any of them, though. Whats your point? Let me guess, you’ll try to insult me for it, while still claiming not to be bigoted against homosexuals, right??
Hmm. Remember that hidden “agenda” thing?
So, by having had hooked up with a few guys and found that it wasn’t my thing, and hence I’m not gay, I now have an agenda? Because I found out I’m not gay? What?
…
[/quote]
A heterosexual doesn’t have to hook up with guys to know it is not his thing. You are in denial. It is shit like this that sets gays back. A gay guy ashamed to be gay.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sloth wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
And, yeah, I’ve hooked up with a few guys, never had sex with any of them, though. Whats your point? Let me guess, you’ll try to insult me for it, while still claiming not to be bigoted against homosexuals, right??
Hmm. Remember that hidden “agenda” thing?
So, by having had hooked up with a few guys and found that it wasn’t my thing, and hence I’m not gay, I now have an agenda? Because I found out I’m not gay? What?
…
A heterosexual doesn’t have to hook up with guys to know it is not his thing. You are in denial. It is shit like this that sets gays back. A gay guy ashamed to be gay.
Be proud of who you are.[/quote]
I’m not in denial about anything. Trust me, if I could just choose to be gay, I would in a heartbeat. And, at one point, since I didn’t have any repulsion to it or aversion to it, I thought maybe I was; so I tried it.
Now, if having done that, to you, classifies me as gay, thats fine by me. But as far as being gay by definition, I’m not.
So even if treating people differently based on race would have a rational basis, it would sill be illegal because race is a heightened category?
Are you actually getting dumber?
The point of race is that we have decided there isn’t a rational basis to discriminate on a racial basis (setting aside the Supreme Court’s blessing of affirmative action).
[/quote]
So, lets say I own a bar, where a lot of white people who, well, aren’t so friendly to black folk like to hang out. I posta help wanted ad in the local paper, for a bartender. A black person applies. Me, personally, I like black people, I have black friends. But, I realize to hire a black person is likely to (a)cause some of my customers to stop frequenting my bar (bad for me), (b)make the customers that do continue to come uncomfortable (bad for the customers), and (c)make the bartender uncomfortable/possibly in danger (bad for him/her).
Would this not, then, be a rational basis for not hiring that person, based on their race?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I’m sorry, I just cant get on board with the arbitary morality that believes a certain way because other people have decided it as such (such as others deciding race is a heightened category, and therefore deserves equality, but sexual preference is not, and therefore does not).
Then you are a foolish anarchist. By your rationale, there isn’t a law that deserves to exist - nearly every law treats “other people” a certain way.
Seriously.[/quote]
So abolitionists should have accepted slavery, since, at the time, the majority supported it? Because other people decided it should be so?
What right did they have to question the majority? Were they foolish anarchists because they formed their own opinions that differed with the majority?
My point wasnt that no laws should exist. My point was no laws should exist, and go unchallenged, or be unchangable, simply because “they decided it should be this way”.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
This really wasn’t unclear. The question related directly to Makavali’s quoted statement, and his position on change and experimentation - thus the “it” wasn’t slavery, but the experimentation and adaptation process that adopted and then rejected slavery.
Too bad I can’t get the equivalent of speaking extra slowly to translate into the typed sentence - that might help you to keep up.[/quote]
And below his answer to that question is my answer.