Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(oh goody, lets use relativistic discussion foundations then shall we? Since you have already started, I will now respond in kind)
How ethnocentric of you to claim that I don't understand. Is my subjective view not as valid as yours? Apparently, it isn't, apparently the meanings of the words I create are not as accepted as yours? Don't you think it rather mean of you to disagree with me? When I say mean, it is defined in my special place as silly, Also note that disagree is also defined in my special world as hate. So why do you hate me? When I mean hate, In my interpetation of it, I actually means dislike, but then that "to me" also means "misunderstand". So why can you not understand what I am saying? Understand as in, attack in my special place of meaning. You keep attacking me?
Apparently, what you are doing is hating (disagreeing) me.
I love relativism arguments. I can say anything and be just as valid as what anyone else says simply because "relativism" states "There are no absolutes" and guess what? If your thinking that this statement is contradictory in itself, never mind that because in relativism, anything goes, everything is just peachy!
/boggle
I guess what you're doing is more fun for you than addressing my argument.
I don't see a sizeable portion of America demanding gay marriage either, just a very loud minority. In the 2000 census 0.7% were gay men, there is a larger percentage of Native Americans than of gay men...homosexuals made up only 1.02% of the population.
Yes, you choose your sexual behavior. I didn't know there was a membership form I had to sign to be a part of "the heteros". It's a behavior, saying that someone is born that way is as ridiculous as stating that someone is born to be a liar, a thief, a drug addict, a workoholic, a philanthropist, a priest, or a President. We all have choices in life, sexual behavior is just one of many that we make.
Absolutely insane! No one can choose to be hetero or homosexual and you know it! I choose to be monogamous, but I don't choose to only be able to fall in love with a man.
How many people are actually gay is hard to pinpoint. If you ask the Focus on the Family bigots, they'll say something very tiny. I've heard around 5%. So it sounds like what you're saying is, gay people are a minority so who cares?
But you just defined me by my sexual preference...as straight. Homosexuals are called that because of their sexual preference...nothing more. It's not because they like musicals more than the general population (and I don't even think most gays like musicals as much as is stereotyped).
Before you started on your defensive tirade I stated that marriage in the state is nothing more than a legal contract. If you want your state to grant you the same legal rights as "heteros" petition the legislature. I have no problem with gays wanting to be able to make medical decisions or inherit property. I was pointing out that if you take away the "one man one woman" piece than anyone should be able to have that right. There is a separation of what marriage means before God, and what marriage means to the government. I don't see how that's "sticking it" to gays.
I disagree with the "equal rights" argument because the civil rights movement was about infringing on basic human liberties...such as riding a bus or using the bathroom or same schools. I don't see gay students being placed in their own schools or anything of the sort.
But in many states, gay people or people perceived to be gay can be legally fired, evicted, or turned away from businesses. I doubt the latter two happen very often, but most gay people do fear for loss of job if anyone finds out in their place of employment. And even if it's illegal to fire someone for being gay, they can find other ways to do it.
So...in that case, it's possible that couples are equal and should be granted equal rights, in name as well as in actuality? I mean, how does this apply to the subject at hand?
[Moderator Cut: Orphaned comments]
Last edited by madicarus2000; 03-12-2008 at 05:03 PM..
Reason: orphaned reply to deleted comments.
Marriage is a vow that you and your spouse make before God. Whether or not homosexuals can do this...take it up with your Church.
...
For me, the big issue is the breaking down of societal norms. In our Judeo-Christian society it was a man and a woman that married. Now it's gay marriage, but what about bisexual people who want a spouse of both sexes, or the polygamists who demand the right to have more than one spouse, or animal lovers who want the right to have their bestiality partner enjoy legal rights...sounds crazy but once you open the barn door (so to speak)...
Gays are defined as such by nothing more than their sexual practices. I'm very confused about why they need "equality" anyway. What about people with foot fetishes, S&M followers, those "into" latex, swingers...shouldn't they be protected from discrimination as well? Why aren't they marching for equal rights...
Please, what about straights with the same inclinations?
Quite a few strawmen in this argument.
America is not simply a Judeo-Christian society any more and it changes every day. There are other religions and other interests to consider now.
What dose it matter to you what other people do?
I don't see a sizeable portion of America demanding gay marriage either, just a very loud minority. In the 2000 census 0.7% were gay men, there is a larger percentage of Native Americans than of gay men...homosexuals made up only 1.02% of the population.
There were no questions concerning sexual orientation in the 2000 Census. All such data were taken from the nature of the relationship reported by the head of household to each other person in that household. If the reported gender was the same and the relationship was designated as 'husband/wife' or 'unmarried partner', the household was deemed headed by a same-sex couple. There were 658,000 such households. There was considerable controversy among gays leading up to the Census as to whether it would be "safe" for gay couples to answer honestly. The traditionalists felt that it was not safe and did want to run any risk at all of their privacy being compromised. The modernists felt it would be safe and that it was important for gays to be revealed in their true numbers. There are no reliable estimates for how this controversy ultimately resolved itself, but the Census numbers are certainly undercounts to some degree. What is relatively reliably known is that about 25% of adult gay males lives in a couple relationship at any given time, while about 40% of adult lesbians do. This would suggest that there were at least 4.3 million gay adults (1.5% of the total population) in 2000, a number that would have to be increased to include gays who were not a head of household (teens, etc.) and also for whatever the undercount factor might have been. Whatever the actual number, your own estimate of gays being 1.02% of the population is a serious lowball....
There were no questions concerning sexual orientation in the 2000 Census. All such data were taken from the nature of the relationship reported by the head of household to each other person in that household. If the reported gender was the same and the relationship was designated as 'husband/wife' or 'unmarried partner', the household was deemed headed by a same-sex couple. There were 658,000 such households. There was considerable controversy among gays leading up to the Census as to whether it would be "safe" for gay couples to answer honestly. The traditionalists felt that it was not safe and did want to run any risk at all of their privacy being compromised. The modernists felt it would be safe and that it was important for gays to be revealed in their true numbers. There are no reliable estimates for how this controversy ultimately resolved itself, but the Census numbers are certainly undercounts to some degree. What is relatively reliably known is that about 25% of adult gay males lives in a couple relationship at any given time, while about 40% of adult lesbians do. This would suggest that there were at least 4.3 million gay adults (1.5% of the total population) in 2000, a number that would have to be increased to include gays who were not a head of household (teens, etc.) and also for whatever the undercount factor might have been. Whatever the actual number, your own estimate of gays being 1.02% of the population is a serious lowball....
The 1.02% was not my estimate. I appreciate the information regarding the 2000 census; I thought that it was a question on the census since it was listed in the figures. It's always good to know more accurate numbers about anything.
So...in that case, it's possible that couples are equal and should be granted equal rights, in name as well as in actuality? I mean, how does this apply to the subject at hand?
[Moderator Cut: Orphaned comments]
"Couples" being "equal" is not a concept with which I am prepared to wrestle unless some sort of context is supplied.
If you are asking if a married couple is equal to two men or two women (or three men or three women? Or two men and a woman, or two women and five men....et ad infinitum, as some folks on your side of the debate wish for) who choose to call themselves "married", I am not qualified to say. I do, however, feel confident in pointing out that, differing as they do in several obvious ways, they are not the SAME.
"Equal" is a legal term. SAME is a logical one.
I'm not interested in throwing anyone into jail. I am interested in maintaining some sort of collective sanity, however.
Alright, I can see the difference between "equal" and "same." However, I can't see how there are essential differences between hetero- and homo- couples. Differences, yes. But I'm sure there are differences between interracial couples and couples in which both are considered the same race by society, but I don't spend much time mulling over that, nor would I dream of voting to outlaw their marriages for any kind of differences anyone could argue.
Are you saying that gay marriage is a threat to collective sanity?
What is your legal objection to polygamy?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
