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.
I think it is actually generous referring to the condition as homophobia. If it is not fear then it is something more nefarious that is rationalizing the actions of homophobics, such as self-centeredness, or hate. Those folks like to claim that their perspective is something more principled, but that's simply not the case, since they're directing their principles outward, into the family life of other people, rather than applying their principles to their own lives. The inescapable fact is that if you want respect for your beliefs about marriage, then you should live those values, and respect other people living by their own beliefs about marriage, rather than expecting them to comply with yours.
You compare loving committed gay and lesbian marriages to bestiality and child abuse and you think you are being "civil" and expect 'tolerance' from the people you are insulting?
Would you show tolerance to people who would equate your marriage (if you have one) to having sex with animals and children?
How about you explain why your relationship is any different to bestiality, child abuse ....or perhaps necrophilia? I'll be "examining the explanations"
This insulting slippery slope nonsense has been done to death ad nauseum. Try the search feature if you are looking for your cheap thrills.
Notice I didn't call you any names. I didn't need to.
The comparison is that the "Moral Majority" finds each and every last one of those marriage or relationship conditions to be "wrong". I would state that I personally don't find gay marriage to be as bad as bestiality, child abuse (which is not one of the things I mentioned by the way) or necrophilia, but the fact remains that I, and many others out there, find all of the aforementioned conditions to be "wrong". That's the similarity.
As for people who would equate my marriage to those conditions, I would show plenty of tolerance and civility. Such a person would prove to have some very interesting thoughts, that's for sure. Yet I have never encountered one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9162
An extremely stupid, and uneducated post. Why is it people come here from uncivilized, and oppressed places like Romania, and then criticize our country, plus the freedoms our people fought for.
I didn't come from Romania. I'm third-generation American from 3/4 of my family ancestry and fourth-generation American from the other 1/4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9162
Gay marriage supporters don't "draw a line" anywhere beyond what is fair to those how had the misfortune to be be a member of a very oppressed minority. Heterosexual marriage is available to all these other groups mentioned. Nobody chooses to be homosexual, and gay people are entitled to be treated as equals with dignity. Period.
Not everyone agrees with "nobody chooses to be homosexual". I, personally, could produce plenty of counterexamples. But that would derail this thread.
Let's continue the discussion by talking about consent, as I mentioned before. What determines ability to consent? I think it's easily proven that chronological age, alone, does not determine ability nor inability to consent. So what does?
Last edited by Ibginnie; 08-30-2013 at 10:21 AM..
Reason: reply to deleted post
But you also brought up consent. I can live with that being the line in the
sand that I asked about before. Only thing is, why draw that line where it is
drawn? Why use age? Why not use intellectual capacity - as in, come up with a
test designed by psychologists to assess the person's fitness for entering into
the COVENANT (not contract) of marriage, make that a requirement for all people
under a certain age (18? 21?)... and if the person passes, regardless of age,
he/she is allowed to get married. If the person fails, regardless of age, he/she
is not. That'd be a better determiner of ability to consent than age, no?
Uh, no. Would that also hold true if a nine year old wants to drink in bars and live alone? A really smart one who passes your intellectual testing?
I think my problem is that its called marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
Marriage is a secular institution in this country. Why are you so hung up on an English word?
Quote:
I dont see why in a gay relationship it cant just be called a civil union and let them have the same rights and protections as straight couples do.
Separate but equal never is.
Quote:
I see no discrimination in that. Two people of the opposite sex in a relationship IS different than two people of the same sex in a relationship so why shouldnt it be called something different?
Legally, they are not different and thus must use the same legal terminology, otherwise there is an inherent inequality.
Not that there aren't multiple threads out there on this....
1) Should people who wish to marry their close relatives (sisters, brothers, children, parents, first cousins, etc) be permitted to do so? Yes
2) Should people who wish to marry multiple spouses be permitted to do so? Yes
3) Should people who wish to marry "children" be permitted to do so? No, children can't consent.
4) Should people who wish to marry animals be permitted to do so? No, animals can't consent. Although not too long ago some guy on here gave quite the arguement that they could.
What about the children who run our government schools say are old enough to get abortions or birth control pills, without their parents approval, are they old enough to marry?
Well to be fair, a 9 year old could indeed "live alone", if they went to the courts and proved their ability to support themself.
You think a nine year old should be able to sign a lease or a mortgage? I don't.
How about a nine year old dancing in a strip club? A smart 9 year old?
The comparison is that the "Moral Majority" finds each and every last one of those marriage or relationship conditions to be "wrong". I would state that I personally don't find gay marriage to be as bad as bestiality, child abuse (which is not one of the things I mentioned by the way) or necrophilia, but the fact remains that I, and many others out there, find all of the aforementioned conditions to be "wrong". That's the similarity.
As for people who would equate my marriage to those conditions, I would show plenty of tolerance and civility. Such a person would prove to have some very interesting thoughts, that's for sure. Yet I have never encountered one.
Hit the road, Jack.
I didn't come from Romania. I'm third-generation American from 3/4 of my family ancestry and fourth-generation American from the other 1/4.
Not everyone agrees with "nobody chooses to be homosexual". I, personally, could produce plenty of counterexamples. But that would derail this thread.
Let's continue the discussion by talking about consent, as I mentioned before. What determines ability to consent? I think it's easily proven that chronological age, alone, does not determine ability nor inability to consent. So what does?
When did you choose to be heterosexual?
I mean make a conscious decision. Weigh out both options. And make a decision to find the opposite sex more attractive emotionally, and sexually that the same sex.
That is making a choice.
If you never found both equally attractive you didn't make a choice.
Example.
I like honeydew and cantaloupe equally. I might choose on one day to have either.
I dislike hotdogs. I do not eat them ever. So I am not making a choice to eat a hamburger over a hotdog, as I would never have eaten the hotdog anyways. I can not force myself to like hotdogs. I can not choose to like hotdogs.
So either you liked both male and female, and chose to only be with the opposite sex (meaning you were bisexual), OR you only liked the opposite sex, and made no conscious CHOICE to pick them over the same sex (heterosexual).
When did you choose to be heterosexual?
I mean make a conscious decision. Weigh out both options. And make a decision to find the opposite sex more attractive emotionally, and sexually that the same sex.
That is making a choice.
If you never found both equally attractive you didn't make a choice.
Example.
I like honeydew and cantaloupe equally. I might choose on one day to have either.
I dislike hotdogs. I do not eat them ever. So I am not making a choice to eat a hamburger over a hotdog, as I would never have eaten the hotdog anyways. I can not force myself to like hotdogs. I can not choose to like hotdogs.
So either you liked both male and female, and chose to only be with the opposite sex (meaning you were bisexual), OR you only liked the opposite sex, and made no conscious CHOICE to pick them over the same sex (heterosexual).
I really don't think these people grasp the basic logic associated with the ridiculousness of the "It's a choice" argument. If one is claiming they made a choice, it means at some point they found both sexes attractive, which by scientific definition makes them bisexual. But they didn't choose to be bisexual, they already found both sexes attractive.
If they never found both sexes attractive, they never had the ability to make a choice. It was already determined for them.
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.
