Yes I said I wasn't going to post, but once again <span style='color:white'>Next one and a half sentences nuked for flamery.</span> When did you ask your parents about sex? Did your parents have sex in front of you? I don't expect a homosexual couple would have sex in front of kids. Now obvoiously the kid might ask why their guardians are both of the same sex, but thats different altogether. Now. Back to the basic argument.
Do homosexual couples have the right to marry?
The state cannot limit marriage. Period. Doing so is against the constitution. The church CAN limit marriage based on their own disgression, but they have no say in whether homosexual couples can become married by an other source. Homosexuals parenting kids have nothing to do with marriage. Youre arguing trivial matters that don't even relate to the first argument. The only valid argument against it is religion. Topic over.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Aug 15 2003, 08:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Aug 15 2003, 08:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> From a biological / psychological point of view, there's no need for a female person filling out the role of the mother (kept of course for early-age-feeding, but let's assume that can be substituted). Men can be as sensitive as women; the role can just as well be filled by one. Besides, there are lots of people growing up with no (or even worse) a bad mother figure. Few of them show the dysfunctions you brought up.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I also beg to differ; many children with dysfunctional families grow up to become dysfunctional. I think you are ignoring the very physical differences that men and women have in their thought processes. Yes, men can be as "sensitive" (which is a cultural stereotype that gets way too much airtime anyway) as women, but I seriously doubt that their brains can produce the same types of hormones and chemicals that trigger various parts of their physical responses, and ultimately the physical differences in their brains give them entirely different outlooks in life. *edit* <b>my opinion only</b> *edit* Asking a child to grow up having one side of those influences is cruel.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I beg to differ. Parents are not the only possible role models a child can adopt, they're only the most typical. A girl adopted by homosexual males could just as well consider her 'aunt' or any other female in close touch with the family her role model. A cousin of mine was brought up largely by my grandmother as her father left her and her mother at early age, which forced the mother to work from the start. The girl is now 18, she had been as close to my grandmother as her natural mother, and lo and behold, she grew up to be a normal, likeable person. What I'm trying to show here is that our classic 'suburb family' ideal is not the only source of normal citizens, and that personal adjustment for the offspring of a homosexual relationship wouldn't necessarily be as "INFINITELY" hard as you believe. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless you will be able to have daily contact with your closest female or male relative, this is a bad argument. While I agree that it's very possible to grow up normally even without the influence of a member of both sexes, I do believe that this puts the child at a disadvantage growing up. After all, children are most heavily influenced by their parents' behavioral patterns.
I don't have the stamina to keep up with this thread anymore... =P
I'd just like to drop a friendly reminder that homosexual couples who wish to adopt are not monsters who will corrupt and taint the mind of a child. They are, almost entirely, loving, stable parents who intend to bring up a kid in a stable, nurturing environment. Adoption, I'm led to believe, costs more than a BMW in most cases, and involves incredibly rigorous screening. This is a lot harder than a straight woman getting drunk and knocked up on a one night stand, which is perfectly legal. There is no screening process to getting pregnant and having a kid, so straight parents have the possibility of being abusive, unemployed, drug addicted alcoholics, and g4y parents do not.
Also, I sincerely doubt the sexual orientation of parents has much bearing on the orientation of their children. If it did, homosexuality probably wouldn't even exist, because there are so few g4y parents out there. I'm sure 99% of homosexual parents would hope to God their kids would be straight, because no loving parent would wish the kind of prejudice seen in this topic on their kids.
Out of the 200-odd posts in this thread so far, I believe all of them have been theoretical. I may as well bring it home: One statistic on a page Wheeee linked to said that homosexuals make up 50% of all suicides. My godfather was a part of that statistic. He was my mother's best friend, and 10 times a better father to me than my real father, whom I saw about twice a year, ever was. When I was about 14, he drank clorox bleach and electricuted himself because he could no longer live in a world in which he didn't feel welcome. He came from a conservative family, and his own brother abused him as a kid and later disowned him because of his sexual orientation. Bob was not a pervert or a monster -- he was the most caring, respectful man I knew. I simply do not understand how people can provide the social climate in which this can happen and not feel at all responsible for it.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Ulatoh+Aug 15 2003, 08:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ulatoh @ Aug 15 2003, 08:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As i said before, Natures design dictates that a man and a woman are required to copulate, there is not "Plan B" if your Homosexual, <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well "nature's design" has basically been thrown out the window in every othe aspect of life, and it's not as if every male and female are required to make children for the survival of the species, so it's kindof a moot point whatever nature's design is.
<!--QuoteBegin--DiscoZombie+Aug 15 2003, 12:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DiscoZombie @ Aug 15 2003, 12:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> They are, almost entirely, loving, stable parents who intend to bring up a kid in a stable, nurturing environment. Adoption, I'm led to believe, costs more than a BMW in most cases, and involves incredibly rigorous screening. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You are correct. Depending on the circumstances, it can cost twenty to forty thousand dollars for adoption (Just the adoption).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, I sincerely doubt the sexual orientation of parents has much bearing on the orientation of their children. If it did, homosexuality probably wouldn't even exist, because there are so few g4y parents out there. I'm sure 99% of homosexual parents would hope to God their kids would be straight, because no loving parent would wish the kind of prejudice seen in this topic on their kids.
Out of the 200-odd posts in this thread so far, I believe all of them have been theoretical. I may as well bring it home: One statistic on a page Wheeee linked to said that homosexuals make up 50% of all suicides. My godfather was a part of that statistic. He was my mother's best friend, and 10 times a better father to me than my real father, whom I saw about twice a year, ever was. When I was about 14, he drank clorox bleach and electricuted himself because he could no longer live in a world in which he didn't feel welcome. He came from a conservative family, and his own brother abused him as a kid and later disowned him because of his sexual orientation. Bob was not a pervert or a monster -- he was the most caring, respectful man I knew. I simply do not understand how people can provide the social climate in which this can happen and not feel at all responsible for it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My condolences about your godfather; however, I seriously doubt that the fact that he didn't feel welcome was because of a bunch of conservatives that wanted to keep him from marriage. Nowhere did I espouse, or promote, a view that homosexuals are perverts or monsters. Please, I know this is a hard topic for you and you have a good reason to be cynical, but let's not by the same token view everyone that dislikes or disagrees with homosexuality or homosexual marriage bigots that cause people like your godfather to commit suicide. Perhaps your rant should be against people who don't respect other humans as such, and instead focus on the issue. I seriously don't think that the social climate for homosexuals is oppressive or restrictive in any way. By the same argument Jews should be protesting the "adverse social climate" because a select few minority groups commit hate crimes against them. I'm not saying fundamentalist Christians are a small minority, however not all fundamentalist Christians are vocally oppositive (if that's even a word) of homosexuality. They may disagree with it, but most people tend to keep it to themselves.
See, the facts are that any time you are different than the norm, people (especially children) will reject you. I had a very bad experience with this all through elementary and middle school, since I'm a first-generation immigrant from Taiwan. I can understand the feelings of your godfather perfectly, because I went through similar rejection (true, not from my parents, but from almost all of my peers). I spent most of my childhood in the Deep South, in Louisiana. *edit* cough, erm, a vast majority of people there *edit* have some degree of racism or another. Not just caucasians, but "african americans", asians, the whole lot, and sometimes I feared for my physical well-being. Yes, it's very tough, and somehow I managed to deal with it. It's your right to bear a grudge against a societal view that you think isn't fair, but I think you go too far in attributing your godfather's death to *edit* conservative *edit* society in general.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well "nature's design" has basically been thrown out the window in every othe aspect of life, and it's not as if every male and female are required to make children for the survival of the species, so it's kindof a moot point whatever nature's design is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but this is the same type of argument that leads to embarassments like "everyone else is jumping over the bridge, so let's do it too". There are those who wish to respect "nature's design", and for all you know they could be right. It's not as if every male and female are required to make children, true. That has little to do with the argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I also beg to differ; many children with dysfunctional families grow up to become dysfunctional.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My parents are divorced, so I got that prejudice carried towards me a fair share of times. The reality is that it is easier to find failed marriages within environments that increase the likeliness of social dysfunctions (generally the lower social classes). The reversal is however not valid: "Dysfunctional" families, although in any case a hard challenge for everyone concerned, have ultimately little bearing on the social abilities of the children, although the economic and social implications of a divorce can. To repeat: The sheer non-existance of the suburbian ideal family does not promote social dysfunctions. In my special case, I'd even wager it kept me from developing such.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Aug 15 2003, 02:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Aug 15 2003, 02:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I also beg to differ; many children with dysfunctional families grow up to become dysfunctional.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My parents are divorced, so I got that prejudice carried towards me a fair share of times. The reality is that it is easier to find failed marriages within environments that increase the likeliness of social dysfunctions (generally the lower social classes). The reversal is however not valid: "Dysfunctional" families, although in any case a hard challenge for everyone concerned, have ultimately little bearing on the social abilities of the children, although the economic and social implications of a divorce can. To repeat: The sheer non-existance of the suburbian ideal family does not promote social dysfunctions. In my special case, I'd even wager it kept me from developing such. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I vote that we drop the issue of dysfunctional families; both of us only have our personal experiences to go on, and our own biased views towards the world, and making broad generalizations like both of us have gets nowhere.
<!--QuoteBegin--Twex+Aug 15 2003, 01:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Twex @ Aug 15 2003, 01:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> However, such a state does not exist. Why is public nudity illegal? Why is defecating in public illegal? Why public sex? Do these actions hurt anyone?
It's in the state's best interest that behaviour which a significant majority considers obscene stays hidden in the closet where it does not offend. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I suspect g4y couples wishing to adopt aren't such a tiny minority as you adopt (why else would they want marriage rights so badly, besides the tax writeoff?). But I don't have any more hard statistics than you do, so I'll let that slide.
However, comparing public defecation to homosexual marriage is patently absurd. How is two men getting married in a private civil ceremony so offensive to all these people? Public defecation, public nudity, public sex - key word "public". They're illegal because they inflict sights on other people that those people might prefer to shield themselves from. Marriage is NOT generally public, and nobody has to see it if they don't want to.
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 15 2003, 02:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 15 2003, 02:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So you agree that you're homophobic - we're on the same page there, then. The original topic of this thread was about whether it was reasonable to label anti-homosexual-marriage legislation as "homophobic," but it's consisted of what I consider to be a bunch of homophobic people insisting that they aren't homophobic because they don't describe what they feel towards g@y people as fear. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> I just wanted to see if ANYONE would fess up.
So now that I've got you on the line: when you say that you don't think there should be so much acceptance, do you mean you think more people should be homophobic, as you say you are? Do you think that being homophobic makes you in some way a better person, or possessed of better judgement because you have a better-tuned sense of what's right and wrong? Or, given the option to magically change your outlook, do you think you would be better off if you were able to accept homosexuals rather than be repulsed by them? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> i have very few fears.and one of them is admiting to my fears. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> im working on that. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> and if im afraid or disgusted . it generally is linked directly to anger for me. which may sound weird. but if im afraid of something, i get very angry. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> im more digusted then terrified. but it scares me in a sense. i mean if i see a G4y person. i dont run and hide and get scared in that sense. i get irritated and sickened. and i dont like to admit it. but i also get mean and very rude. and that is cause g4ys make me feel completely insecure. So am i homophobic? i consider myself to be in a sense. my friends always call me a homophobe. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
and to anwser your questions ---> i will not cause that may cause people to believe, that i think im better than them. and im <b>not</b> better. so no i wont anwser your questions to avoid offending people. i hope you can respect that. the last question i will anwser. no i'd rather not accept homos. because i could never accept them. its not logical to be g4y. or accept them in my eyes. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 15 2003, 03:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 15 2003, 03:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Twex+Aug 15 2003, 01:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Twex @ Aug 15 2003, 01:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> However, such a state does not exist. Why is public nudity illegal? Why is defecating in public illegal? Why public sex? Do these actions hurt anyone?
It's in the state's best interest that behaviour which a significant majority considers obscene stays hidden in the closet where it does not offend. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I suspect g4y couples wishing to adopt aren't such a tiny minority as you adopt (why else would they want marriage rights so badly, besides the tax writeoff?). But I don't have any more hard statistics than you do, so I'll let that slide.
However, comparing public defecation to homosexual marriage is patently absurd. How is two men getting married in a private civil ceremony so offensive to all these people? Public defecation, public nudity, public sex - key word "public". They're illegal because they inflict sights on other people that those people might prefer to shield themselves from. Marriage is NOT generally public, and nobody has to see it if they don't want to. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, I really don't want to repeat Nem here, but to play devil's advocate I will say this: Who are you to determine what others find offensive or not? Just because you don't equate the two, doesn't mean others don't either. "But it's irrational" you say? People are seldom completely rational. *edit* that's why obscenity laws are decided on a local basis *edit*
<!--QuoteBegin--(SoD)BOO+Aug 15 2003, 12:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ((SoD)BOO @ Aug 15 2003, 12:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> and to anwser your questions ---> i will not cause that may make people believe i think that im better than them. and im <b>not</b> better. so no i wont anwser your questions to avoid offending people. i hope you can respect that. the last question i will anwser. no i'd rather not accept homos. because i could never accept them. its not logical to be ****. or accept them in my eyes. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What if you, for whatever reason, felt similarly toward black people? Would that be something you would want to reverse about yourself, or would you rather not accept them for the simple reason that you didn't accept them?
BTW, homophobia manifesting itself as anger is really the most common case, not the exception. "Phobia" is IMO a pretty inaccurate term for it - people associate it too quickly with "running and hiding" rather than "chasing and lynching".
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 15 2003, 03:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 15 2003, 03:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--(SoD)BOO+Aug 15 2003, 12:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ((SoD)BOO @ Aug 15 2003, 12:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> and to anwser your questions ---> i will not cause that may make people believe i think that im better than them. and im <b>not</b> better. so no i wont anwser your questions to avoid offending people. i hope you can respect that. the last question i will anwser. no i'd rather not accept homos. because i could never accept them. its not logical to be ****. or accept them in my eyes. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What if you, for whatever reason, felt similarly toward black people? Would that be something you would want to reverse about yourself, or would you rather not accept them for the simple reason that you didn't accept them?
BTW, homophobia manifesting itself as anger is really the most common case, not the exception. "Phobia" is IMO a pretty inaccurate term for it - people associate it too quickly with "running and hiding" rather than "chasing and lynching". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've avoided this the whole discussion, but I feel that the race comparison is a poor one. There's not much a black person can do about his race, and we've already gone over the fact that a combination of genetic and social factors may contribute to someone's sexuality. Now then, you can't choose whether to lead a black lifestyle, but you sure can choose not to live a homosexual lifestyle. It's a completely different argument to say "I'm prejudiced against someone who doesn't have a choice" than it is to say "I'm prejudiced against someone who made a choice, which in my opinion was wrong and/or immoral."
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 15 2003, 12:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 15 2003, 12:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, I really don't want to repeat Nem here, but to play devil's advocate I will say this: Who are you to determine what others find offensive or not? Just because you don't equate the two, doesn't mean others don't either. "But it's irrational" you say? People are seldom completely rational. *edit* that's why obscenity laws are decided on a local basis *edit* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wheee, the fact that different people might find different things obscene is why the Constitution tries so hard to guarantee so many freedoms - it's to ensure that a bunch of nutjobs, even if they happen to be in the majority for a while, don't infringe on someone else's rights because they find something offensive.
Obscenity laws apply only to public behavior and publically published works. They do NOT apply to anything that happens in the privacy of your own home (like a quiet civil marriage ceremony). In addition, obscenity laws are never permitted to restrict "obscene" work from being published - that would be censorship. Obscenity laws only provide a way for citizens to press charges against people who have "assaulted" them with obscene material. In other words, if you wanted to apply the principle of obscenity laws to this case (which is still absurd for reasons outlined above), it still wouldn't make it constitutional to forbid marriage - it would only be possible to press charges against a g@y couple who violated community public decency standards by having a flamboyant marriage ceremony in the town square.
And it'd still make the community in question a bunch of homophobes, which was the original point of this topic. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 15 2003, 03:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 15 2003, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I've avoided this the whole discussion, but I feel that the race comparison is a poor one. There's not much a black person can do about his race, and we've already gone over the fact that a combination of genetic and social factors may contribute to someone's sexuality. Now then, you can't choose whether to lead a black lifestyle, but you sure can choose not to live a homosexual lifestyle. It's a completely different argument to say "I'm prejudiced against someone who doesn't have a choice" than it is to say "I'm prejudiced against someone who made a choice, which in my opinion was wrong and/or immoral." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So you're saying that peopel don't have a choice about race, but they do have a choice about genetics and social factors? That makes no sense.
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 15 2003, 12:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 15 2003, 12:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I've avoided this the whole discussion, but I feel that the race comparison is a poor one. There's not much a black person can do about his race, and we've already gone over the fact that a combination of genetic and social factors may contribute to someone's sexuality. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Mmm... evidence points pretty conclusively to genetic factors weighing heavily. Nem did cite evidence for environmental factors, but those, as he himself pointed out, are ones that the individual has no actual control over (hormones during pregnancy, very early upbringing).
Sure, you can be g@y and live the life of a celibate hermit to try to escape it. You can also be born black and undergo medical procedures to make yourself look white.
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Aug 15 2003, 03:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Aug 15 2003, 03:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So you're saying that peopel don't have a choice about race, but they do have a choice about genetics and social factors? That makes no sense. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, genetics you can't do anything about, but there is no proof that homosexuality is purely based on genetics. And you *do* have a choice about social factors, and how they affect you.
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 15 2003, 03:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 15 2003, 03:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 15 2003, 12:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 15 2003, 12:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I've avoided this the whole discussion, but I feel that the race comparison is a poor one. There's not much a black person can do about his race, and we've already gone over the fact that a combination of genetic and social factors may contribute to someone's sexuality. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Mmm... evidence points pretty conclusively to genetic factors weighing heavily. Nem did cite evidence for environmental factors, but those, as he himself pointed out, are ones that the individual has no actual control over (hormones during pregnancy, very early upbringing).
Sure, you can be g@y and live the life of a celibate hermit to try to escape it. You can also be born black and undergo medical procedures to make yourself look white. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Medical (surgical) procedures aren't available to everyone; celibacy is.
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 15 2003, 03:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 15 2003, 03:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--(SoD)BOO+Aug 15 2003, 12:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ((SoD)BOO @ Aug 15 2003, 12:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> and to anwser your questions ---> i will not cause that may make people believe i think that im better than them. and im <b>not</b> better. so no i wont anwser your questions to avoid offending people. i hope you can respect that. the last question i will anwser. no i'd rather not accept homos. because i could never accept them. its not logical to be ****. or accept them in my eyes. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What if you, for whatever reason, felt similarly toward black people? Would that be something you would want to reverse about yourself, or would you rather not accept them for the simple reason that you didn't accept them?
BTW, homophobia manifesting itself as anger is really the most common case, not the exception. "Phobia" is IMO a pretty inaccurate term for it - people associate it too quickly with "running and hiding" rather than "chasing and lynching". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Dont EVEN compare g4ys to being racist. being g4y is not natural. its not meant to be. they cant raise a decent kid. children need a mom and a dad. cause each parent plays an important roll in the childs life. thats why there is women and men, and thats why they are differant, to compliment each other. Being racist is not on the same level as not liking g4ys. I hate people who are racist...(i forgot to mension that above.) and it offends me that someone would compare those 2 things together. im assuming your a Philosopher cause the reasoning you use. i could be wrong but i have a friend thats one who offered a similar arguement. and i know that no matter what you can't win against a one cause there are always more questions. questions to corner the person. but im gonna point out this. you asking me so many questions i feel as an attack on my intellect. and it offends me greatly. i stated before. i dont like g4ys, for obvious reason. think about it. if being g4y was ok there shouldnt be anything to defend.
I should go to sleep, but anyway: At which point in this discussion did homosexuality become something one has to accept blame for? And if everyone homosexual had made that decision on a nice spring morning at the age of 25, they would still have every right to do so; there is no need to discuss possible ways of avoiding homosexuality, because, get this, it is not a crime.
[edit]I'm contemplating a temporary lock of this topic until it can be moved into the reopened Discussion forum (which is days away). Right now, it's going in circles.[/edit]
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Aug 15 2003, 04:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Aug 15 2003, 04:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I should go to sleep, but anyway: At which point in this discussion did homosexuality become something one has to accept blame for? And if everyone homosexual had made that decision on a nice spring morning at the age of 25, they would still have every right to do so; there is no need to discuss possible ways of avoiding homosexuality, because, get this, it is not a crime. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> talk about oversimplification.
*edit* Since when are people not responsible for the results of their own choices? If person number 1's choice of lifestyle offends person 2, it is not person 2's fault for being offended. In fact, if person 1 chose to live a lifestyle blatantly repugnant to person 2, it should not be the responsibility of person 2 to acknowledge or take responsibility for the actions of person 1.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--(SoD)BOO+Aug 15 2003, 03:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ((SoD)BOO @ Aug 15 2003, 03:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Dont EVEN compare g4ys to being racist. being g4y is not natural. its not meant to be. they cant raise a decent kid. children need a mom and a dad. cause each parent plays an important roll in the childs life. thats why there is women and men, and thats why they are differant, to compliment each other. Being racist is not on the same level as not liking g4ys. I hate people who are racist...(i forgot to mension that above.) and it offends me that someone would compare those 2 things together. im assuming your a Philosopher cause the reasoning you use. i could be wrong but i have a friend thats one who offered a similar arguement. and i know that no matter what you can't win against a one cause there are always more questions. questions to corner the person. and not to be rude but there was a philosopher that said the stupid ones ask more questions than the wise have time enough to anwser. im not calling you stupid. not at all. but im gonna point out this. you asking me so many questions i feel as an attack on my intellect. and it offends me greatly. i stated before. i dont like g4ys, for obvious reason. think about it. if being g4y was ok there shouldnt be anything to defend. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 1)Refer to many previous posts before you start opening old arguments about homosexuality being unnatural or harmful to children 2)If I were you I'd leave for a while before I said something while I was angry that I'd regret later.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Aug 15 2003, 04:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Aug 15 2003, 04:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I should go to sleep, but anyway: At which point in this discussion did homosexuality become something one has to accept blame for? And if everyone homosexual had made that decision on a nice spring morning at the age of 25, they would still have every right to do so; there is no need to discuss possible ways of avoiding homosexuality, because, get this, it is not a crime. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> no its not a crime and its also not a crime to have your own feelings and beliefs towards things. as i said before. no ones opinion should matter. its an opinion that it <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<i>Getting</i> married isn't public, but <i>being</i> married is.
And I didn't say that standard obscenity laws should be applied. I used them as an example that the state <i>does</i> make moral judgements and bans certain behaviour even if it doesn't directly "hurt" anyone.
There is no logical reason why nudity is considered offensive. It's a cultural, traditional thing, but the state accepts that and <i>enforces</i> the irrational feelings of the majority in this respect.
When a majority is offended by watching homosexual couples behave as if they were married, the state is compelled to accept that as well.
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 15 2003, 09:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 15 2003, 09:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> talk about oversimplification. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You were clearly stating from the beginning that you take no offense from homosexuality, but refuse them the right for a marriage for a number of reasons we then discussed.
<i>Now</i>, we see you stating that behaviour that keeps homosexuals from commiting homosexual acts is desrieable - sorry, but my point was not an oversimplification, it was trying to point out that you yourself contradict one of the basic assumptions this thread was grounded on.
You can take your time with the answer, BTW, I'm logging off now. Good night.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Aug 15 2003, 04:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Aug 15 2003, 04:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You were clearly stating from the beginning that you take no offense from homosexuality, but refuse them the right for a marriage for a number of reasons we then discussed.
<i>Now</i>, we see you stating that behaviour that keeps homosexuals from commiting homosexual acts is desrieable - sorry, but my point was not an oversimplification, it was trying to point out that you yourself contradict one of the basic assumptions this thread was grounded on.
You can take your time with the answer, BTW, I'm logging off now. Good night. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I do argue for a side if nobody else argues for it.
And for the record, I try to keep my personal beliefs out of a discussion. I do take offense at homosexuality, but I do not take offense at the person who practices it (unless they do it just to **** me off)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wheee, the fact that different people might find different things obscene is why the Constitution tries so hard to guarantee so many freedoms - it's to ensure that a bunch of nutjobs, even if they happen to be in the majority for a while, don't infringe on someone else's rights because they find something offensive. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Obscenity laws apply only to public behavior and publically published works. They do NOT apply to anything that happens in the privacy of your own home (like a quiet civil marriage ceremony). In addition, obscenity laws are never permitted to restrict "obscene" work from being published - that would be censorship. Obscenity laws only provide a way for citizens to press charges against people who have "assaulted" them with obscene material. In other words, if you wanted to apply the principle of obscenity laws to this case (which is still absurd for reasons outlined above), it still wouldn't make it constitutional to forbid marriage - it would only be possible to press charges against a g@y couple who violated community public decency standards by having a flamboyant marriage ceremony in the town square. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
refer to above. Marriage is a public institution, so while the act of getting married may not necessarily be a public event, being married is *edit* within the public eye.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 15 2003, 04:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 15 2003, 04:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I do argue for a side if nobody else argues for it.
And for the record, I try to keep my personal beliefs out of a discussion. I do take offense at homosexuality, but I do not take offense at the person who practices it (unless they do it just to **** me off) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If you don't argue what you believe, and if you argue any side that no one else will, then that means you are just argueing for the sake of argueing. What the hell?
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Aug 15 2003, 04:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Aug 15 2003, 04:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--(SoD)BOO+Aug 15 2003, 03:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ((SoD)BOO @ Aug 15 2003, 03:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Dont EVEN compare g4ys to being racist. being g4y is not natural. its not meant to be. they cant raise a decent kid. children need a mom and a dad. cause each parent plays an important roll in the childs life. thats why there is women and men, and thats why they are differant, to compliment each other. Being racist is not on the same level as not liking g4ys. I hate people who are racist...(i forgot to mension that above.) and it offends me that someone would compare those 2 things together. im assuming your a Philosopher cause the reasoning you use. i could be wrong but i have a friend thats one who offered a similar arguement. and i know that no matter what you can't win against a one cause there are always more questions. questions to corner the person. and not to be rude but there was a philosopher that said the stupid ones ask more questions than the wise have time enough to anwser. im not calling you stupid. not at all. but im gonna point out this. you asking me so many questions i feel as an attack on my intellect. and it offends me greatly. i stated before. i dont like g4ys, for obvious reason. think about it. if being g4y was ok there shouldnt be anything to defend. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1)Refer to many previous posts before you start opening old arguments about homosexuality being unnatural or harmful to children 2)If I were you I'd leave for a while before I said something while I was angry that I'd regret later. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Dont worry im cool. i wont go over the line. and i would have posted in the previous posts but i didnt get the chance to offer my opinion. about homos raising children. they asked for an opinion and i gave you one. and kindly stated that my opinion shouldnt offend people its what i feel. then i get attacked by so many questions some of which could start arguments, and i avoided them. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> im gonna open a post about people hating people who hate ***. whats logical to some may not be to others. peoples veiw points are their own. and its an attack on someone to question their veiw point. i stated my opinion now if you would kindly leave me alone, i would appreciate it very much. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 15 2003, 12:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 15 2003, 12:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Medical (surgical) procedures aren't available to everyone; celibacy is. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You could also be black and wear clothing that covers every inch of your skin. That's available to pretty much everyone.
Celibacy is NOT a realistic option for most people, be they straight or otherwise.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--(SoD)BOO+Aug 15 2003, 04:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ((SoD)BOO @ Aug 15 2003, 04:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Dont worry im cool. i wont go over the line. and i would have posted in the previous posts but i didnt get the chance to offer my opinion. about homos raising children. they asked for an opinion and i gave you one. and kindly stated that my opinion shouldnt offend people its what i feel. then i get attacked by so many questions some of which could start arguments, and i avoided them. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> im gonna open a post about people hating people who hate ***. whats logical to some may not be to others. peoples veiw points are their own. and its an attack on someone to question their veiw point. i stated my opinion now if you would kindly leave me alone, i would appreciate it very much. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If you can believe what you believe, others can quesiton what you belieive. And if you didn't want to get in a n argument, why did you even respond?
Just because someone has the right to a certain opinoin, doesn't mean that that opinion is holy and above debate. IT also means that others have the right to differing opinions and the right to discuss these opinions. If you didn't want to discuss your opinion, you shouldn't have put your 2 cents in, and you certainly shouldn't have kept this argument going.
Comments
Do homosexual couples have the right to marry?
The state cannot limit marriage. Period. Doing so is against the constitution. The church CAN limit marriage based on their own disgression, but they have no say in whether homosexual couples can become married by an other source. Homosexuals parenting kids have nothing to do with marriage. Youre arguing trivial matters that don't even relate to the first argument. The only valid argument against it is religion. Topic over.
Besides, there are lots of people growing up with no (or even worse) a bad mother figure. Few of them show the dysfunctions you brought up.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I also beg to differ; many children with dysfunctional families grow up to become dysfunctional.
I think you are ignoring the very physical differences that men and women have in their thought processes. Yes, men can be as "sensitive" (which is a cultural stereotype that gets way too much airtime anyway) as women, but I seriously doubt that their brains can produce the same types of hormones and chemicals that trigger various parts of their physical responses, and ultimately the physical differences in their brains give them entirely different outlooks in life. *edit* <b>my opinion only</b> *edit* Asking a child to grow up having one side of those influences is cruel.
<a href='http://abcnews.go.com/onair/DailyNews/braingame020731.html' target='_blank'>abc news link</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I beg to differ. Parents are not the only possible role models a child can adopt, they're only the most typical. A girl adopted by homosexual males could just as well consider her 'aunt' or any other female in close touch with the family her role model.
A cousin of mine was brought up largely by my grandmother as her father left her and her mother at early age, which forced the mother to work from the start. The girl is now 18, she had been as close to my grandmother as her natural mother, and lo and behold, she grew up to be a normal, likeable person.
What I'm trying to show here is that our classic 'suburb family' ideal is not the only source of normal citizens, and that personal adjustment for the offspring of a homosexual relationship wouldn't necessarily be as "INFINITELY" hard as you believe.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless you will be able to have daily contact with your closest female or male relative, this is a bad argument. While I agree that it's very possible to grow up normally even without the influence of a member of both sexes, I do believe that this puts the child at a disadvantage growing up. After all, children are most heavily influenced by their parents' behavioral patterns.
I'd just like to drop a friendly reminder that homosexual couples who wish to adopt are not monsters who will corrupt and taint the mind of a child. They are, almost entirely, loving, stable parents who intend to bring up a kid in a stable, nurturing environment. Adoption, I'm led to believe, costs more than a BMW in most cases, and involves incredibly rigorous screening. This is a lot harder than a straight woman getting drunk and knocked up on a one night stand, which is perfectly legal. There is no screening process to getting pregnant and having a kid, so straight parents have the possibility of being abusive, unemployed, drug addicted alcoholics, and g4y parents do not.
Also, I sincerely doubt the sexual orientation of parents has much bearing on the orientation of their children. If it did, homosexuality probably wouldn't even exist, because there are so few g4y parents out there. I'm sure 99% of homosexual parents would hope to God their kids would be straight, because no loving parent would wish the kind of prejudice seen in this topic on their kids.
Out of the 200-odd posts in this thread so far, I believe all of them have been theoretical. I may as well bring it home: One statistic on a page Wheeee linked to said that homosexuals make up 50% of all suicides. My godfather was a part of that statistic. He was my mother's best friend, and 10 times a better father to me than my real father, whom I saw about twice a year, ever was. When I was about 14, he drank clorox bleach and electricuted himself because he could no longer live in a world in which he didn't feel welcome. He came from a conservative family, and his own brother abused him as a kid and later disowned him because of his sexual orientation. Bob was not a pervert or a monster -- he was the most caring, respectful man I knew. I simply do not understand how people can provide the social climate in which this can happen and not feel at all responsible for it.
Well "nature's design" has basically been thrown out the window in every othe aspect of life, and it's not as if every male and female are required to make children for the survival of the species, so it's kindof a moot point whatever nature's design is.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are correct. Depending on the circumstances, it can cost twenty to forty thousand dollars for adoption (Just the adoption).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, I sincerely doubt the sexual orientation of parents has much bearing on the orientation of their children. If it did, homosexuality probably wouldn't even exist, because there are so few g4y parents out there. I'm sure 99% of homosexual parents would hope to God their kids would be straight, because no loving parent would wish the kind of prejudice seen in this topic on their kids.
Out of the 200-odd posts in this thread so far, I believe all of them have been theoretical. I may as well bring it home: One statistic on a page Wheeee linked to said that homosexuals make up 50% of all suicides. My godfather was a part of that statistic. He was my mother's best friend, and 10 times a better father to me than my real father, whom I saw about twice a year, ever was. When I was about 14, he drank clorox bleach and electricuted himself because he could no longer live in a world in which he didn't feel welcome. He came from a conservative family, and his own brother abused him as a kid and later disowned him because of his sexual orientation. Bob was not a pervert or a monster -- he was the most caring, respectful man I knew. I simply do not understand how people can provide the social climate in which this can happen and not feel at all responsible for it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My condolences about your godfather; however, I seriously doubt that the fact that he didn't feel welcome was because of a bunch of conservatives that wanted to keep him from marriage. Nowhere did I espouse, or promote, a view that homosexuals are perverts or monsters. Please, I know this is a hard topic for you and you have a good reason to be cynical, but let's not by the same token view everyone that dislikes or disagrees with homosexuality or homosexual marriage bigots that cause people like your godfather to commit suicide. Perhaps your rant should be against people who don't respect other humans as such, and instead focus on the issue. I seriously don't think that the social climate for homosexuals is oppressive or restrictive in any way. By the same argument Jews should be protesting the "adverse social climate" because a select few minority groups commit hate crimes against them. I'm not saying fundamentalist Christians are a small minority, however not all fundamentalist Christians are vocally oppositive (if that's even a word) of homosexuality. They may disagree with it, but most people tend to keep it to themselves.
See, the facts are that any time you are different than the norm, people (especially children) will reject you. I had a very bad experience with this all through elementary and middle school, since I'm a first-generation immigrant from Taiwan. I can understand the feelings of your godfather perfectly, because I went through similar rejection (true, not from my parents, but from almost all of my peers). I spent most of my childhood in the Deep South, in Louisiana. *edit* cough, erm, a vast majority of people there *edit* have some degree of racism or another. Not just caucasians, but "african americans", asians, the whole lot, and sometimes I feared for my physical well-being. Yes, it's very tough, and somehow I managed to deal with it. It's your right to bear a grudge against a societal view that you think isn't fair, but I think you go too far in attributing your godfather's death to *edit* conservative *edit* society in general.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well "nature's design" has basically been thrown out the window in every othe aspect of life, and it's not as if every male and female are required to make children for the survival of the species, so it's kindof a moot point whatever nature's design is.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but this is the same type of argument that leads to embarassments like "everyone else is jumping over the bridge, so let's do it too". There are those who wish to respect "nature's design", and for all you know they could be right. It's not as if every male and female are required to make children, true. That has little to do with the argument.
My parents are divorced, so I got that prejudice carried towards me a fair share of times. The reality is that it is easier to find failed marriages within environments that increase the likeliness of social dysfunctions (generally the lower social classes). The reversal is however not valid: "Dysfunctional" families, although in any case a hard challenge for everyone concerned, have ultimately little bearing on the social abilities of the children, although the economic and social implications of a divorce can.
To repeat: The sheer non-existance of the suburbian ideal family does not promote social dysfunctions. In my special case, I'd even wager it kept me from developing such.
My parents are divorced, so I got that prejudice carried towards me a fair share of times. The reality is that it is easier to find failed marriages within environments that increase the likeliness of social dysfunctions (generally the lower social classes). The reversal is however not valid: "Dysfunctional" families, although in any case a hard challenge for everyone concerned, have ultimately little bearing on the social abilities of the children, although the economic and social implications of a divorce can.
To repeat: The sheer non-existance of the suburbian ideal family does not promote social dysfunctions. In my special case, I'd even wager it kept me from developing such. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I vote that we drop the issue of dysfunctional families; both of us only have our personal experiences to go on, and our own biased views towards the world, and making broad generalizations like both of us have gets nowhere.
It's in the state's best interest that behaviour which a significant majority considers obscene stays hidden in the closet where it does not offend. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suspect g4y couples wishing to adopt aren't such a tiny minority as you adopt (why else would they want marriage rights so badly, besides the tax writeoff?). But I don't have any more hard statistics than you do, so I'll let that slide.
However, comparing public defecation to homosexual marriage is patently absurd. How is two men getting married in a private civil ceremony so offensive to all these people? Public defecation, public nudity, public sex - key word "public". They're illegal because they inflict sights on other people that those people might prefer to shield themselves from. Marriage is NOT generally public, and nobody has to see it if they don't want to.
So now that I've got you on the line: when you say that you don't think there should be so much acceptance, do you mean you think more people should be homophobic, as you say you are? Do you think that being homophobic makes you in some way a better person, or possessed of better judgement because you have a better-tuned sense of what's right and wrong? Or, given the option to magically change your outlook, do you think you would be better off if you were able to accept homosexuals rather than be repulsed by them? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i have very few fears.and one of them is admiting to my fears. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> im working on that.
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> and if im afraid or disgusted . it generally is linked directly to anger for me. which may sound weird. but if im afraid of something, i get very angry. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
im more digusted then terrified. but it scares me in a sense. i mean if i see a G4y person. i dont run and hide and get scared in that sense. i get irritated and sickened. and i dont like to admit it. but i also get mean and very rude. and that is cause g4ys make me feel completely insecure. So am i homophobic? i consider myself to be in a sense. my friends always call me a homophobe. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
and to anwser your questions ---> i will not cause that may cause people to believe, that i think im better than them. and im <b>not</b> better. so no i wont anwser your questions to avoid offending people. i hope you can respect that. the last question i will anwser. no i'd rather not accept homos. because i could never accept them. its not logical to be g4y. or accept them in my eyes. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
It's in the state's best interest that behaviour which a significant majority considers obscene stays hidden in the closet where it does not offend. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suspect g4y couples wishing to adopt aren't such a tiny minority as you adopt (why else would they want marriage rights so badly, besides the tax writeoff?). But I don't have any more hard statistics than you do, so I'll let that slide.
However, comparing public defecation to homosexual marriage is patently absurd. How is two men getting married in a private civil ceremony so offensive to all these people? Public defecation, public nudity, public sex - key word "public". They're illegal because they inflict sights on other people that those people might prefer to shield themselves from. Marriage is NOT generally public, and nobody has to see it if they don't want to. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I really don't want to repeat Nem here, but to play devil's advocate I will say this: Who are you to determine what others find offensive or not? Just because you don't equate the two, doesn't mean others don't either. "But it's irrational" you say? People are seldom completely rational. *edit* that's why obscenity laws are decided on a local basis *edit*
What if you, for whatever reason, felt similarly toward black people? Would that be something you would want to reverse about yourself, or would you rather not accept them for the simple reason that you didn't accept them?
BTW, homophobia manifesting itself as anger is really the most common case, not the exception. "Phobia" is IMO a pretty inaccurate term for it - people associate it too quickly with "running and hiding" rather than "chasing and lynching".
What if you, for whatever reason, felt similarly toward black people? Would that be something you would want to reverse about yourself, or would you rather not accept them for the simple reason that you didn't accept them?
BTW, homophobia manifesting itself as anger is really the most common case, not the exception. "Phobia" is IMO a pretty inaccurate term for it - people associate it too quickly with "running and hiding" rather than "chasing and lynching". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've avoided this the whole discussion, but I feel that the race comparison is a poor one. There's not much a black person can do about his race, and we've already gone over the fact that a combination of genetic and social factors may contribute to someone's sexuality. Now then, you can't choose whether to lead a black lifestyle, but you sure can choose not to live a homosexual lifestyle. It's a completely different argument to say "I'm prejudiced against someone who doesn't have a choice" than it is to say "I'm prejudiced against someone who made a choice, which in my opinion was wrong and/or immoral."
Wheee, the fact that different people might find different things obscene is why the Constitution tries so hard to guarantee so many freedoms - it's to ensure that a bunch of nutjobs, even if they happen to be in the majority for a while, don't infringe on someone else's rights because they find something offensive.
Obscenity laws apply only to public behavior and publically published works. They do NOT apply to anything that happens in the privacy of your own home (like a quiet civil marriage ceremony). In addition, obscenity laws are never permitted to restrict "obscene" work from being published - that would be censorship. Obscenity laws only provide a way for citizens to press charges against people who have "assaulted" them with obscene material. In other words, if you wanted to apply the principle of obscenity laws to this case (which is still absurd for reasons outlined above), it still wouldn't make it constitutional to forbid marriage - it would only be possible to press charges against a g@y couple who violated community public decency standards by having a flamboyant marriage ceremony in the town square.
And it'd still make the community in question a bunch of homophobes, which was the original point of this topic. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
So you're saying that peopel don't have a choice about race, but they do have a choice about genetics and social factors? That makes no sense.
Mmm... evidence points pretty conclusively to genetic factors weighing heavily. Nem did cite evidence for environmental factors, but those, as he himself pointed out, are ones that the individual has no actual control over (hormones during pregnancy, very early upbringing).
Sure, you can be g@y and live the life of a celibate hermit to try to escape it. You can also be born black and undergo medical procedures to make yourself look white.
So you're saying that peopel don't have a choice about race, but they do have a choice about genetics and social factors? That makes no sense. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, genetics you can't do anything about, but there is no proof that homosexuality is purely based on genetics. And you *do* have a choice about social factors, and how they affect you.
Mmm... evidence points pretty conclusively to genetic factors weighing heavily. Nem did cite evidence for environmental factors, but those, as he himself pointed out, are ones that the individual has no actual control over (hormones during pregnancy, very early upbringing).
Sure, you can be g@y and live the life of a celibate hermit to try to escape it. You can also be born black and undergo medical procedures to make yourself look white. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Medical (surgical) procedures aren't available to everyone;
celibacy is.
What if you, for whatever reason, felt similarly toward black people? Would that be something you would want to reverse about yourself, or would you rather not accept them for the simple reason that you didn't accept them?
BTW, homophobia manifesting itself as anger is really the most common case, not the exception. "Phobia" is IMO a pretty inaccurate term for it - people associate it too quickly with "running and hiding" rather than "chasing and lynching". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dont EVEN compare g4ys to being racist. being g4y is not natural. its not meant to be. they cant raise a decent kid. children need a mom and a dad. cause each parent plays an important roll in the childs life. thats why there is women and men, and thats why they are differant, to compliment each other. Being racist is not on the same level as not liking g4ys. I hate people who are racist...(i forgot to mension that above.) and it offends me that someone would compare those 2 things together. im assuming your a Philosopher cause the reasoning you use. i could be wrong but i have a friend thats one who offered a similar arguement. and i know that no matter what you can't win against a one cause there are always more questions. questions to corner the person. but im gonna point out this. you asking me so many questions i feel as an attack on my intellect. and it offends me greatly. i stated before. i dont like g4ys, for obvious reason. think about it. if being g4y was ok there shouldnt be anything to defend.
At which point in this discussion did homosexuality become something one has to accept blame for? And if everyone homosexual had made that decision on a nice spring morning at the age of 25, they would still have every right to do so; there is no need to discuss possible ways of avoiding homosexuality, because, get this, it is not a crime.
[edit]I'm contemplating a temporary lock of this topic until it can be moved into the reopened Discussion forum (which is days away). Right now, it's going in circles.[/edit]
At which point in this discussion did homosexuality become something one has to accept blame for? And if everyone homosexual had made that decision on a nice spring morning at the age of 25, they would still have every right to do so; there is no need to discuss possible ways of avoiding homosexuality, because, get this, it is not a crime. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
talk about oversimplification.
*edit* Since when are people not responsible for the results of their own choices? If person number 1's choice of lifestyle offends person 2, it is not person 2's fault for being offended. In fact, if person 1 chose to live a lifestyle blatantly repugnant to person 2, it should not be the responsibility of person 2 to acknowledge or take responsibility for the actions of person 1.
1)Refer to many previous posts before you start opening old arguments about homosexuality being unnatural or harmful to children
2)If I were you I'd leave for a while before I said something while I was angry that I'd regret later.
At which point in this discussion did homosexuality become something one has to accept blame for? And if everyone homosexual had made that decision on a nice spring morning at the age of 25, they would still have every right to do so; there is no need to discuss possible ways of avoiding homosexuality, because, get this, it is not a crime. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
no its not a crime and its also not a crime to have your own feelings and beliefs towards things. as i said before. no ones opinion should matter. its an opinion that it <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
And I didn't say that standard obscenity laws should be applied. I used them as an example that the state <i>does</i> make moral judgements and bans certain behaviour even if it doesn't directly "hurt" anyone.
There is no logical reason why nudity is considered offensive. It's a cultural, traditional thing, but the state accepts that and <i>enforces</i> the irrational feelings of the majority in this respect.
When a majority is offended by watching homosexual couples behave as if they were married, the state is compelled to accept that as well.
You were clearly stating from the beginning that you take no offense from homosexuality, but refuse them the right for a marriage for a number of reasons we then discussed.
<i>Now</i>, we see you stating that behaviour that keeps homosexuals from commiting homosexual acts is desrieable - sorry, but my point was not an oversimplification, it was trying to point out that you yourself contradict one of the basic assumptions this thread was grounded on.
You can take your time with the answer, BTW, I'm logging off now. Good night.
You were clearly stating from the beginning that you take no offense from homosexuality, but refuse them the right for a marriage for a number of reasons we then discussed.
<i>Now</i>, we see you stating that behaviour that keeps homosexuals from commiting homosexual acts is desrieable - sorry, but my point was not an oversimplification, it was trying to point out that you yourself contradict one of the basic assumptions this thread was grounded on.
You can take your time with the answer, BTW, I'm logging off now. Good night. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do argue for a side if nobody else argues for it.
And for the record, I try to keep my personal beliefs out of a discussion. I do take offense at homosexuality, but I do not take offense at the person who practices it (unless they do it just to **** me off)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wheee, the fact that different people might find different things obscene is why the Constitution tries so hard to guarantee so many freedoms - it's to ensure that a bunch of nutjobs, even if they happen to be in the majority for a while, don't infringe on someone else's rights because they find something offensive.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, the obscenity laws are to prevent minority opinion from overriding the majority.
True, some "nutjobs" as you call them may be in the majority in terms of general populace, but if a majority group of locals believe that some of what those "nutjobs" accept is obscene, they have the option of making it illegal in their locality. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"(a) whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest...(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and © whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific valu<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> is the Supreme Court decision in Miller vs California, and basically describes the conditions under whether something can legally held to be "obscene."
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Obscenity laws apply only to public behavior and publically published works. They do NOT apply to anything that happens in the privacy of your own home (like a quiet civil marriage ceremony). In addition, obscenity laws are never permitted to restrict "obscene" work from being published - that would be censorship. Obscenity laws only provide a way for citizens to press charges against people who have "assaulted" them with obscene material. In other words, if you wanted to apply the principle of obscenity laws to this case (which is still absurd for reasons outlined above), it still wouldn't make it constitutional to forbid marriage - it would only be possible to press charges against a g@y couple who violated community public decency standards by having a flamboyant marriage ceremony in the town square.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
refer to above. Marriage is a public institution, so while the act of getting married may not necessarily be a public event, being married is *edit* within the public eye.
And for the record, I try to keep my personal beliefs out of a discussion. I do take offense at homosexuality, but I do not take offense at the person who practices it (unless they do it just to **** me off) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you don't argue what you believe, and if you argue any side that no one else will, then that means you are just argueing for the sake of argueing. What the hell?
1)Refer to many previous posts before you start opening old arguments about homosexuality being unnatural or harmful to children
2)If I were you I'd leave for a while before I said something while I was angry that I'd regret later. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dont worry im cool. i wont go over the line. and i would have posted in the previous posts but i didnt get the chance to offer my opinion. about homos raising children. they asked for an opinion and i gave you one. and kindly stated that my opinion shouldnt offend people its what i feel. then i get attacked by so many questions some of which could start arguments, and i avoided them. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> im gonna open a post about people hating people who hate ***. whats logical to some may not be to others. peoples veiw points are their own. and its an attack on someone to question their veiw point. i stated my opinion now if you would kindly leave me alone, i would appreciate it very much. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
You could also be black and wear clothing that covers every inch of your skin. That's available to pretty much everyone.
Celibacy is NOT a realistic option for most people, be they straight or otherwise.
If you can believe what you believe, others can quesiton what you belieive. And if you didn't want to get in a n argument, why did you even respond?
Just because someone has the right to a certain opinoin, doesn't mean that that opinion is holy and above debate. IT also means that others have the right to differing opinions and the right to discuss these opinions. If you didn't want to discuss your opinion, you shouldn't have put your 2 cents in, and you certainly shouldn't have kept this argument going.