|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/05/2004 06:35:14 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by moodville:
Ok, I'm confused. Your God says what he is doing is wrong so you are saying what he is doing is wrong. I think what he is doing is not wrong. What makes you right and me wrong? Or even what makes me right and you wrong? Does it even matter what I or you think about how he leads his life? |
Circular logic. Since God cannot be proven, it cannot be proven that the Bible is God's Word. Since that cannot be proven, it cannot be proven that I'm right. Then again, you cannot prove that God does NOT exist, hence cannot prove that the Bible is NOT God's Word - so you can't prove that I'm NOT right. |
Does it really matter if there is proof that he exists or not? It is your choice to believe it and it is my choice not to. I have proof that a lot of people exist, does not mean I have to believe what they say without questioning it.
Originally posted by RonB:
That being said - does it matter what you or I THINK about it. To ME, yes? - but only for me. To YOU?, I don't know, that's up to you. To how he leads his life?, I don't know, that's up to him. |
If you can do whatever you want and I can do whatever I want and he can do whatever he want. What is the problem here?
Originally posted by RonB:
Society can define morals any way it wants to - that won't change my life one whit. Mind you, if society passed a law that forced ME to violate the morals and ethics that form my worldview, then I would have to engage in some civil disobedience. |
Society has passed laws based on religious ideals, ie your worldview. Because of those laws I am forced to act in certain ways. Even something as petty as not being able to buy alcohol on a Sunday. If society passes a law to ban gay marriage then isnt also violating someone's life? |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 07:00:43 PM · #127 |
I have a quick question for everyone...just a question, so don't read too much into it!
Ron has given his basis for informing (and even determining) his ethics and values - the bible (which I think a few of you seem to be uninformed about in your arguments).
I'd like to know, what/who informs your ethics or morals?
Thanks! :0) |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 07:12:02 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by jmritz:
Just for arguments sake I was wondering where the Ceremony of Marriage started. Was it the Church or religions that first started it all or was it the State? Did government invent Marriages? Isn't there a separation of church and state? I thought that the state gave Civil Unions? |
Actually no :) The Constitution says...
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It says nothing about a "separation" of Church and State. The Amendment protects Religion from the government, not the other way around... It merely says that Congress shall not establish a religion, nor will they outlaw the free exercise of one. Somehow, I find it ironic that this is being used as justification for telling children it is unconstitutional to pray. My children will never set foot inside a public school, where this amendment has been twisted and perverted beyond all recognition.
Interestingly enough, a thread named "Freedom of Speech" is finally addressing what the First Amendment says :)
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 07:31:08 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I have a quick question for everyone...just a question, so don't read too much into it!
Ron has given his basis for informing (and even determining) his ethics and values - the bible (which I think a few of you seem to be uninformed about in your arguments).
I'd like to know, what/who informs your ethics or morals?
Thanks! :0) |
I'm guessing my upbringing and life experiences has helped build what I consider to be right and wrong and none of my business. |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 07:57:44 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by RonB:
First - not RAPING children, but sexual activities involving children - like fondling, etc. Then, because eating lobster is not usually considered a sexual activity. Let's face it, homosexuality IS a sexual behaviour. |
Last time I checked, ANY sexual activity between an adult and a minor is rape. That's why one legal border between being a minor and adulthood is called the 'age of consent'. Sexual activity without consent is rape. Is sexually fondling a child not rape in your moral structure?
Second, homosexuality is an attraction to members of the same sex. Actually having sex is sexual behavior. By your logic, my love, social intimacy, shared expenses, and cohabitation with my partner are heterosexual, assuming that sexual activity alone is what makes me homosexual.
So, since I feel you first dodged then made a false claim to avoid responding to my clear inquiry, let me rephrase it for you:
Why do you as a person choose to bring up the worst possible examples of sinful (by your definition) sexuality (pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality) when discussing your rationale for banning same-sex marriage, when there are plenty of less inflammatory examples of sins (even sexual, like adultery, coveting, or having lusted in your heart) that do not provoke as viscerally negative a response in the people you're addressing? You yourself stated that in God's eyes all sins are equal, which puts the burden of your choice to use these examples squarely on your shoulders. I believe you do it to bolster your position by deliberately associating MY behavior with the worst things you can think of, to cast as poor a light on it as possible. If that's not the case, explain yourself.
Message edited by author 2004-11-05 20:00:16.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 07:59:25 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I have a quick question for everyone...just a question, so don't read too much into it!
Ron has given his basis for informing (and even determining) his ethics and values - the bible (which I think a few of you seem to be uninformed about in your arguments).
I'd like to know, what/who informs your ethics or morals?
Thanks! :0) |
For me, it's the hole in the wall that speaks to me at night.
Certainly explains some of my challenge entries.
Cheers
Stu
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 08:15:53 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I have a quick question for everyone...just a question, so don't read too much into it!
Ron has given his basis for informing (and even determining) his ethics and values - the bible (which I think a few of you seem to be uninformed about in your arguments).
I'd like to know, what/who informs your ethics or morals?
Thanks! :0) |
Practical experience and common sense. |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 08:23:16 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I have a quick question for everyone...just a question, so don't read too much into it!
Ron has given his basis for informing (and even determining) his ethics and values - the bible (which I think a few of you seem to be uninformed about in your arguments).
I'd like to know, what/who informs your ethics or morals?
Thanks! :0) |
The excellent example set by my parents, my family, my teachers (many of whom I've had extracurricular relationships with, since my mother works for a school), and my own sense of decency.
Message edited by author 2004-11-05 20:25:28.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 08:25:38 PM · #134 |
Mousie, not to speak for Ron, but I understood his comparison to be a direct rebuttal of the "It must not be a choice because..." argument made in an earlier post.
I thought his argument was sound in addressing this particular aspect of the debate...I wish you wouldn't see it as a personal attack.
If you find it helpful, here's how I saw this part of the debate unfold:
Statement:
Homosexual behaviour must not be a choice since heterosexual males are mostly repelled at the idea of this behaviour.
Rebuttal:
If that is true, it follows that pedophilic behaviour must not be a choice since non-pedophiles are mostly repelled at the idea of this behaviour.
I hope this helps clarify... |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 08:33:27 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Mousie, not to speak for Ron, but I understood his comparison to be a direct rebuttal of the "It must not be a choice because..." argument made in an earlier post.
I thought his argument was sound in addressing this particular aspect of the debate...I wish you wouldn't see it as a personal attack.
If you find it helpful, here's how I saw this part of the debate unfold:
Statement:
Homosexual behaviour must not be a choice since heterosexual males are mostly repelled at the idea of this behaviour.
Rebuttal:
If that is true, it follows that pedophilic behaviour must not be a choice since non-pedophiles are mostly repelled at the idea of this behaviour.
I hope this helps clarify... |
This clarifies the rationale, but not the choice. For example:
If that is true, it follows that adultery must not be a choice since non-adulterers are mostly repelled at the idea of this behaviour.
If that is true, it follows that religious worship must not be a choice since the non-religious are mostly repelled at the idea of this behaviour.
I still posit that the constant trotting out of pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality in relation to homosexulaity is a deliberate tactic aimed at creating an aura of guilt by association.
Message edited by author 2004-11-05 20:34:59.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 08:36:24 PM · #136 |
Wow I leave for a few days and miss out on all the fun. This might take a while but it appears a few responses are in order. Hopefully I will not miss a required response.
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
See here you're holding your own values above the values laid out by the supreme court, which is attempting to hold up the consititutional rights and freedoms of every citizen in your country. |
Actually Jimmy, your wrong, again. My values were not brought into the discussion regarding this. I merely stated a scientific fact of when life begins. A fetus is either dead or alive. If it is growing then it is alive, and human life. It may not as of yet be a sentient being, but it is indisputable life. If you chose to ignore science, then you’re the one showing ignorance.
As for R v W, when life begins doesn’t even seem to be a part of the conclusion, so even if I had brought values into the discussion, your mention of comparing values to the court decision doesn’t hold up, as the decision was not based on when life begins, but rather a woman’s right to privacy and the right to chose. Here, read the conclusion yourself:
“The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman a right to abortion during the entireity of the pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.”
Personally, I think this issue is so far reaching, and people have such passion about it, it’s not something the courts should be deciding. There should be some type of vote on the issue. Let democracy prevail when something is so important.
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
So someone has the right to thrash marriage in a public forum but not in private? Where one can broadcast a totally fabricated marriage based not in love but in monetary terms, and that's OK? And gay lifestyle being 'anti-social'? What's that nonsense? That's OK, 'cause further down you say that we should be out of the bedrooms of the country anyways and that sodomy shouldn't be a law but no gay marriage should be? Are you for real? |
Your point doesn’t really make any sense concerning public and private thrashing of marriages. The gay lifestyle is anti-social. Check the polls. A vast majority of Americans agree. All 11 states where the ban was voted on passed the law. I am sure even more will pass this law as time progresses. As for the sodomy law and the gay marriage issue comparison, your again comparing apples and oranges. The sodmoy law only affects private individuals behind their closed doors. The gay marriage issue intrudes on others rights. As a business owner it’s my right not to hire gays because they practice a sexually deviant anti-social lifestyle by choice. Why then should I be forced to pay insurance benefits to a person’s gay lover? Face it Jimbo, it’s not mainstream behavior, as the gay population would have you believe. They are the extreme minority. I do agree though that perhaps there is a need for a “civil union” to resolve legal disputes between partners that have been sharing assets and such with each other and then decide to split up. If they can’t agree only a court would be a fair arbiter. But to force a business owner to pay benefits for what the majority of Americans believe to be anti-social behavior? How is that fair? I think the only fair solution is to continue to do what’s being done, let each individual state vote on the issue. Let the law of democracy rule. If this state votes to allow it, then so be it.
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Here in Texas sodomy is illegal. Personally I don't think it should be a law as the government has no business in our bedrooms and people should be free to practice their own lifestyle as long as it doesn't intrude on others rights. But the fact remains that it IS A LAW. Which means that if your gay in this state your probably breaking the law which makes you a criminal. Why would we extend marriage rights to those perfectly willing to violate the law? |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
And here you're (and it's YOU'RE not YOUR) making the argument that law is OK because it's a law, yet you call for less government control? If you didn't question your laws you'd probably still have slavery. Would that be OK? You're just proving that you're very confused. |
Sorry for the “you’re your” thing. I don’t always pay attention when typing quickly. Anyway, I never said the law was ok. I just said it was a law. I also said I did not agree with the law. What your missing is that it is a law. Just because we don’t agree with a law doesn’t mean it’s ok to violate that law. I think marijuana should be legal. But it is not. Because it is not legal, I don’t smoke it. If we don’t agree with a law we should question it, and work to change the law using the tools given to us by our founding fathers, not just go violating the law because we don’t like it.
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Is someone in the closet over this issue?
You obviously have never met anyone who is gay, right?
Have you ever J-walked? Or maybe forgot to put your seat belt on? or done Cocain? (like the president of the United States?) Should we impeach the president? he broke the law. maybe we should take your right to marry away because you j-walked once, or maybe you got paid under the table when you were 16 and didn't "claim" that $50 bucks on your taxes. Guess what? The Vice Presidents Daughter is gay, I guess she better not visit Texas huh? we'll have to arrest her for breaking the law.
What you wrote here is complete and total ignorance. nearly everything I've read of yours is based on falsehoods, and fear. You should be ashamed. |
Nope, not in the closet. I love women. Yes, I have met gay people. Yes I have j-walked and forgotten to put my seat belt on. Take a poll friend. You won’t find that a vast majority of Americans think j-walking and not wearing seat belts are anti-social behaviors. So those don’t make good points to this argument. However, your question regarding cocaine does. To answer your question, yes I have done it, and to clarify, the last time was in 1988. I’m damn lucky I never got into trouble for breaking the law in that regard. As for the President, I don’t think there is any proof of that. So you should not be suggesting it. However, if it were proven that he did it, and he lied about it while campaigning, you would have a great case. It certainly would cause a police officer to get fired. Now while the VP’s daughter is openly gay, you’d have to prove she broke a law before you punished her. (A law I don’t agree with remember?) Nothing I have said is based on fear. I am not afraid of gays. I have always considered the term homophobic to be a term that made no sense. A phobia is a fear, yet I don’t know anyone that is afraid of gay people. I just don’t agree with the choices they make, and the way they flaunt those choices in everyone’s face. You don’t see people forming groups like the “Alliance of Heterosexuals” do you? Or running around shouting, “look at us, we’re straight!” I never have understood why gays have to go around flaunting the fact that they are gay. Who cares if your gay. Be as gay as you want. You should be free to make that choice. But don’t go around constantly shoving it in everyone’s face all the time. Oh, and what falsehoods have I spoken? None that I can seeâ€Â¦
Originally posted by jlhudson:
Well first thing the Texas Sodomy law was overturned awhile back.
story |
Ahh, I did not know this. So I guess I did state a falsehood. However, had I known this, I definitely would never have brought it up. My apologies. And it’s a good thing that this was struck down. The government should stay out of our bedrooms.
Originally posted by myqyl:
What business of mine (or yours) is it what two consenting adults do |
It isn’t our business what they do in their bedrooms. Please read above as to how the marriage issue not the sex issue can affect others.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Why then, if the continued existence of that fetus is a threat to the life of the mother, do you not accord her the same right to defend her life by any means necessary? |
Oh no, I definitely agree with you there Paul. If her life is in danger, the obvious course is to save her life first. That is one area where abortion should be allowed. If the Mother’s life is in danger, it’s obvious that she should take priority as she has been alive and experiencing life, and there is no guarantee her child will be able to do the same. She comes first by all means.
Originally posted by Mousie:
How thoughtful of you to decide how I should live my life. When a hospital denies me the ability to visit my sick partner, I'll be sure to send you a thank you letter. How coherent your ideals are, with your clearly stated opposition to any form of divorce, annulment, secular weddings, Vegas weddings, weddings of convenience, or Married By America style TV shows that threaten the 'sanctity' of marriage. Until death do us part, right? How astute of you to recognise my 'lifestyle' as a choice. I applaud you for your choice to set aside your own homosexual curiosities and commit to being a straight and proper social citizen. Congratulations. |
I haven’t made any decisions for you. You’re the one controlling your own destiny. You made your choices. As for a hospital not allowing you to visit your partner, well that’s not right. When and where did that happen? I am shocked to hear visitation was denied. What was their reasoning? Concerning the marriage thing again, please read above. As for choice I know a few gay people. One of them definitely says it’s by choice, while the other doesn’t. There even seem to be scientists on both sides of this issue. Some say born that way, while others do not. At this point the jury is out and evidence is inconclusive. If it is not a choice, then there are only a few alternatives, all of which have not been proven. One option is that it is a psychological problem shaped by one’s personal life experiences. If so, one can seek therapy and hopefully be cured. Another option is that you are indeed born that way. If this is true, then when you consider nature and they way our bodies are designed to reproduce, it would most certainly have to be some sort of birth defect. If this is ever proven, then we as a society should spend some money to research a cure for it just like any other childhood disease. There may be other evidence suggesting it’s something other than these things. If so what are they? Once again don’t get me wrong, I am not saying it is either of these things. I believe it is a choice as the gay person I know best says it is a choice. Plus, since most of the people siding with the gay marriage issue also seem to believe everything their Hollywood liberal idols say, they might want to listen to one big liberal, Anne Heche. Seems that she went from men to women and now back to men again. By her choice I might add. Or maybe she just flipped a coin. As for my curiosities, I assure you they are solely about women and women only. How in the hell one guy can look at another guy’s hairy ass and say, “Oh yea I gotta’ get me some of that”, is completely beyond me. Frankly it sounds insane.
On a lighter note, the mouse photos in your portfolio are pretty cool... good macro subject!
Message edited by author 2004-11-05 20:41:10.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 08:45:19 PM · #137 |
Mousie, I want to be sensitive to what you're saying. Thanks for sharing, I hadn't really thought of the psychological associations that could be subconsciously seeded in people's minds by being uncareful with debate tactics...
That being said, I still think what Ron said was fair and made a good rebuttal to the earlier statement when read exclusively in it's context...but I can understand that it's frustrating for you to yet again hear bestiality and pedophiles mentioned in a debate involving homosexuality - even if it wasn't a direct comparison in any way.
Again, thanks for creating some sensitivity in me by making me more aware of what you have to deal with all the time...
Peace :0)
Mike |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 09:34:28 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
I haven’t made any decisions for you. You’re the one controlling your own destiny. You made your choices. As for a hospital not allowing you to visit your partner, well that’s not right. When and where did that happen? I am shocked to hear visitation was denied. What was their reasoning? Concerning the marriage thing again, please read above. As for choice I know a few gay people. One of them definitely says it’s by choice, while the other doesn’t. There even seem to be scientists on both sides of this issue. Some say born that way, while others do not. At this point the jury is out and evidence is inconclusive. If it is not a choice, then there are only a few alternatives, all of which have not been proven. One option is that it is a psychological problem shaped by one’s personal life experiences. If so, one can seek therapy and hopefully be cured. Another option is that you are indeed born that way. If this is true, then when you consider nature and they way our bodies are designed to reproduce, it would most certainly have to be some sort of birth defect. If this is ever proven, then we as a society should spend some money to research a cure for it just like any other childhood disease. There may be other evidence suggesting it’s something other than these things. If so what are they? Once again don’t get me wrong, I am not saying it is either of these things. I believe it is a choice as the gay person I know best says it is a choice. Plus, since most of the people siding with the gay marriage issue also seem to believe everything their Hollywood liberal idols say, they might want to listen to one big liberal, Anne Heche. Seems that she went from men to women and now back to men again. By her choice I might add. Or maybe she just flipped a coin. As for my curiosities, I assure you they are solely about women and women only. How in the hell one guy can look at another guy’s hairy ass and say, “Oh yea I gotta’ get me some of that”, is completely beyond me. Frankly it sounds insane.
On a lighter note, the mouse photos in your portfolio are pretty cool... good macro subject! |
First, let me answer your questions:
When and where did that happen?
It has happend to a close friend of mine, and similar events are reported in the gay press on a regular basis.
What was their reasoning?
The resoning usually goes along these lines (and did, in my friend's case): You have no legal relationship to the person, therefore you have no visitation rights, nor any right to help decide on potential medical care. Get out.
Second, let me address the issue you bring up about Anne Heche's apparent choice in sexual attraction, and in so doing, respond to a theme brought up repeatedly in this thread. It appears to me that Anne Heche is bisexual, in that she finds both men and women appealing. This is not complicated.
Heterosexual: Attracted to members of the opposite sex.
Bisexual: Attracted to members of the both sexes.
Homosexual: Attracted to members of the same sex.
In my layman's analysis, Anne Heche has a choice in the sex of her sexual partners, not a choice in her sexuality. Just as you so graphically used the example of a man's hairy ass repulsing you (though not all men's asses are hairy, and not all homosexuals find asses, no matter how hairy, appealing), I find a woman's hairy vagina deeply repulsive, even when it's not that time of the month. That is not my choice, any more than I have a choice about my height-related vertigo or distaste for brussel sprouts. It would appear that you don't have a choice in this regard either. Simply because a third individual (Anne Heche, in this example) may find neither a hairy ass nor a hairy vagina repugnant it does not mean that suddenly all sexual preferences are a matter of choice, or that she made a choice to appreciate both. Quite possibly the only thing she's choosing is the person to enter a relationship with, since neither option is particularly unappealing.
I find the characterization of my sexuality as a psychological problem, birth defect, or childhood disease insulting. I am happy with who I am as a person. My sexuality gives me great joy, for it is mine and is part of what made me the man I am today, while giving me pleasure that I celebrate without shame. Is my blond hair a birth defect that's forever associated me with legions of ditzy bimbos, something that should be corrected for it's negative connotations? Or does society need to accept that blonds are not always, as they say, dumb? Your position smacks of eugenics. Frankly, I like being blond, and I like being gay. Do you not get your own gratification from being who you are? So where's the problem?
Finally, for someone who's trying to use a lack of understanding of science to discredit others you have responded to, I would hope you recognise the absurdity of using a survey consisting of two values (your two gay friends) to base your understanding of sexuality as a choice or not. Come back when you have a bigger sample, one that accounts for bisexuality and doesn't cast sexual identity as a choice between two polar opposites.
On a lighter note, those are rats, not mice.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 09:38:20 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Mousie, I want to be sensitive to what you're saying. Thanks for sharing, I hadn't really thought of the psychological associations that could be subconsciously seeded in people's minds by being uncareful with debate tactics... |
I appreciate your sentiment, though I question whether it's a lack of care that actually drives the frequent appearance of such debate tactics.
Thank you for taking the time to address this.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 09:42:51 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Society can define morals any way it wants to - that won't change my life one whit. Mind you, if society passed a law that forced ME to violate the morals and ethics that form my worldview, then I would have to engage in some civil disobedience. |
So people violate laws that force them to violate their own morals and ethics are only committing "civil disobedience" and not a sin. Including those who, if they want to enjoy the full panoply of government benefits conferred upon married citizens, would be forced to marry someone they cannot love.
The reason the Founding Fathers included the "establishment clause" was precisely to prevent the majority from forcing any particular moral prescription upon non-subscribing citizens.
You are fully entitled to live and practice your religion so long as you do not inflict it upon others with government assistance (other than tax exemption ... already quite a priviledge). For example, there is no prohibition on praying in school, as anyone who has ever handed out mid-term exams can testify. What is prohibited is government-sponsored, organized prayer. Please try to see the difference, and how the latter infringes upon the rights of alternate-believers and violates the Constitution, while the former does not.
Many have described "secularism" as a religion, and indeed it can have exactly the same complications.It is mainly different in that it posits the possibility of ethical behavior without the threat of Divine retribution.
Message edited by author 2004-11-05 21:43:41. |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 09:52:01 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
...Anyway, I never said the law was ok. I just said it was a law. I also said I did not agree with the law. What your missing is that it is a law. Just because we don’t agree with a law doesn’t mean it’s ok to violate that law. I think marijuana should be legal. But it is not. Because it is not legal, I don’t smoke it. If we don’t agree with a law we should question it, and work to change the law using the tools given to us by our founding fathers, not just go violating the law because we don’t like it. |
You'd jail the perpetrators of the Boston Tea Party? |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 09:53:01 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
The gay marriage issue intrudes on others rights. As a business owner it’s my right not to hire gays because they practice a sexually deviant anti-social lifestyle by choice. Why then should I be forced to pay insurance benefits to a person’s gay lover? |
In my world, if I were a small business owner, my hiring decisions would be based on the potential performance of an employee and their contribution to my company, not on their private lives.
Good luck competing with the people who think like I do.
Message edited by author 2004-11-05 21:56:36.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 10:00:14 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
The gay marriage issue intrudes on others rights. As a business owner it’s my right not to hire gays because they practice a sexually deviant anti-social lifestyle by choice. Why then should I be forced to pay insurance benefits to a person’s gay lover? |
Not too many years ago, you'd hear the same argument about hiring a white man married to a black woman -- that was illegal too.
So long as the person possesses DNA a la Homo sapiens and is conscious and sane, I (and the Constitution) think you should treat them equally, as human beings. Those were "inalienable" rights the Creator conferred upon us ... who are you to defy God's will? |
|
|
|
11/05/2004 10:09:48 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Not too many years ago, you'd hear the same argument about hiring a white man married to a black woman -- that was illegal too. |
It took restraint not to bring this up myself, I was worried it would dilute my purely business-oriented rationale. :)
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 10:10:59 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
The resoning usually goes along these lines (and did, in my friend's case): You have no legal relationship to the person, therefore you have no visitation rights, nor any right to help decide on potential medical care. Get out. |
Seems like you would have a case concerning the visitation of a friend. What does having a legal relationship have to do with being able to visit someone in the hospital? That is unfair.
Originally posted by Mousie:
Second, let me address the issue you bring up about Anne Heche's apparent choice in sexual attraction, and in so doing, respond to a theme brought up repeatedly in this thread. It appears to me that Anne Heche is bisexual, in that she finds both men and women appealing. This is not complicated.
Heterosexual: Attracted to members of the opposite sex.
Bisexual: Attracted to members of the both sexes.
Homosexual: Attracted to members of the same sex.
In my layman's analysis, Anne Heche has a choice in the sex of her sexual partners, not a choice in her sexuality. Just as you so graphically used the example of a man's hairy ass repulsing you (though not all men's asses are hairy, and not all homosexuals find asses, no matter how hairy, appealing), I find a woman's hairy vagina deeply repulsive, even when it's not that time of the month. That is not my choice, any more than I have a choice about my height-related vertigo or distaste for brussel sprouts. It would appear that you don't have a choice in this regard either. Simply because a third individual (Anne Heche, in this example) may find neither a hairy ass nor a hairy vagina repugnant it does not mean that suddenly all sexual preferences are a matter of choice, or that she made a choice to appreciate both. Quite possibly the only thing she's choosing is the person to enter a relationship with, since neither option is particularly unappealing. |
We'll have to agree to disagree then because every story I have heard about her says otherwise. Shes only been with either one or the other not both. She even said it was her choice. No point in debating this here, we'll never agree on this.
Originally posted by Mousie:
I find the characterization of my sexuality as a psychological problem, birth defect, or childhood disease insulting. I am happy with who I am as a person. My sexuality gives me great joy, for it is mine and is part of what made me the man I am today, while giving me pleasure that I celebrate without shame. Is my blond hair a birth defect that's forever associated me with legions of ditzy bimbos, something that should be corrected for it's negative connotations? Or does society need to accept that blonds are not always, as they say, dumb? Your position smacks of eugenics. Frankly, I like being blond, and I like being gay. Do you not get your own gratification from being who you are? So where's the problem? |
So your saying being gay is normal? Hmmm, nature disagrees with you as your body was designed to reproduce with a woman. My feeling is that if it isn't a choice it is either one of the options I mentioned, or something else thats abnormal. Either way, you feel fine with it because your in denial. As long as you stay comfortable with who you are, that will never change. But again, thats your choice.
Originally posted by Mousie:
Finally, for someone who's trying to use a lack of understanding of science to discredit others you have responded to, I would hope you recognise the absurdity of using a survey consisting of two values (your two gay friends) to base your understanding of sexuality as a choice or not. Come back when you have a bigger sample, one that accounts for bisexuality and doesn't cast sexual identity as a choice between two polar opposites. |
Sounds like your completely disregarding these gay peoples opinions on why they believe they are gay. Not concidering their opinion is being as close minded as some have accused me of being. It's obvious we'll never agree on this issue, and thats fine. It just goes back to what I said in a previous discussion. Most of the time when you have people with passionate beliefs it is a complete waste of time to try and debate the issue because of the inevitability of solipsism .
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 10:13:23 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Anachronite:
...Anyway, I never said the law was ok. I just said it was a law. I also said I did not agree with the law. What your missing is that it is a law. Just because we don’t agree with a law doesn’t mean it’s ok to violate that law. I think marijuana should be legal. But it is not. Because it is not legal, I don’t smoke it. If we don’t agree with a law we should question it, and work to change the law using the tools given to us by our founding fathers, not just go violating the law because we don’t like it. |
You'd jail the perpetrators of the Boston Tea Party? |
Hell no I would not jail them. My comment was speaking in general terms. There are always exceptions to the rule of thumb. They didn't have the tools we have today to change our laws democratically. They had no other choice. They were revolutionaries.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 10:14:31 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by Anachronite:
The gay marriage issue intrudes on others rights. As a business owner it’s my right not to hire gays because they practice a sexually deviant anti-social lifestyle by choice. Why then should I be forced to pay insurance benefits to a person’s gay lover? |
In my world, if I were a small business owner, my hiring decisions would be based on the potential performance of an employee and their contribution to my company, not on their private lives.
Good luck competing with the people who think like I do. |
what if that employees lifestyle offended customers and they started taking their business elsewhere?
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 10:16:11 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Anachronite:
The gay marriage issue intrudes on others rights. As a business owner it’s my right not to hire gays because they practice a sexually deviant anti-social lifestyle by choice. Why then should I be forced to pay insurance benefits to a person’s gay lover? |
Not too many years ago, you'd hear the same argument about hiring a white man married to a black woman -- that was illegal too.
So long as the person possesses DNA a la Homo sapiens and is conscious and sane, I (and the Constitution) think you should treat them equally, as human beings. Those were "inalienable" rights the Creator conferred upon us ... who are you to defy God's will? |
Paul, if you go by God's will, being gay is a sin, a sin that does not deserve special rights extended to those practicing it.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 10:16:46 PM · #149 |
I'm just going to chime in on this with a purely selfish and provoking thought..
THANK PETE I LIVE IN B.C., CANADA AND CAN MARRY WHOMEVER THE HELL I WANT.. fully, and absolutely legally.
With full and absolute rights and benefits afforded any marriage.
Churches that don't want to marry gays, don't have to.. it's that simple.
Wow.. imagine that.. a compromise!
everyone now.. sing with me..
"OH CANADA! OUR HOME AND NATIVE LAND... "
Message edited by author 2004-11-05 22:17:29.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2004 10:17:58 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
As a business owner it’s my right not to hire gays because they practice a sexually deviant anti-social lifestyle by choice. Why then should I be forced to pay insurance benefits to a person’s gay lover? |
Take out the word gay and substitute the minority of your choice : Blacks, Jews, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Italians, Irish. Your basic arguments serve only to de-humanize a minority and so justify discrimination and hatred for them. Hitler did it to the Jews, Americans did it to the Blacks, English to the Irish, Serbs to the Bosnians, Hutu to the Tutsi and so on. Sad, sad, sad. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 09:36:49 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 09:36:49 AM EDT.
|
