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.
That the human body doesn't have to make any adaptations to accommodate homosexuality. The various sexual positions used by homosexuals are used by heterosexuals as well. All the equipment is quite adaptive as it currently exists.
Look, I am a firm believer that every change has a cause. When I look at the world around me, I see irresponsibility. I see immorality. I see depravity.
That complaint has been leveled at any societal change since Socrates was handed a beaker of hemlock for corrupting the youth.
Quote:
While I recognize that these things always existed, they have effectively never been at the level they are now.
You base that on - what?
Quote:
There is no "predestined" number of single-parent families. There is no "predestined" number of children needing to be adopted. There is no "predestined" number of neglectful parents. And these numbers are spiraling out of control in our own lifetimes.
That's - true, and we should do what we can to reduce the numbers. But that doesn't mean we can't take care of the victims as well. You can both have a fire code and fire engines. Arguing against having a fire department because house fires is just a sympom of carelessness and we need to look into better methods of fireproofing is not very helpful to those who are just trying to salvage their family, pets and possessions.
Quote:
And you refuse to even look for the cause of this change. Assuming that these problems are somehow endemic to society. Pretending to yourself that the past "solutions" are in no way responsible for the current epidemic of the same problem we supposed to be trying to solve to begin with.
I refuse nothing. I point out that we have a problem. Here. Now.
Quote:
I don't believe the world was anymore uncaring 2,000 years ago than it is today. People weren't fundamentally different people 2,000 years ago. I mean, I don't know if you are a Christian. But the gospels of the New Testament were based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. And I would argue that they were some of the best "examples" of compassion ever.
And why do you think they're still around? Because they were revolutionary. Because they upended the prevailing order of things. Because they p.ssed off society's elders. Not stoning adulterers? Suggesting that Samaritans were our equals? Hanging out with prostitutes and other disreputable elements? That was the year 20 or so version of "immorality, depravity, irresponsibility".
Quote:
You are pretending that only a government can be caring. But a government cannot be caring. Only people can be caring.
That's why we came up with government "of the people, byt the people, for the people". Because we can arrange things through government.
Quote:
If people are caring, you don't even need a government to be caring.
Yeah, well, that's the problem with charity: When it's needed the most, it's hardest to come by.
Quote:
In almost all cases in the past when someone struggled, you had someone else standing right next to them to help. Children without parents would be raised by other family members. Or other members in society.
This is simply not true. Do you think Dickens just made up stuff? Reality in his time was worse than he depicted. Shall I post the Jacob Riis photos of how the other half lived in New York tenements in the 19th century?
Quote:
In almost all cases of starvation in human history, it wasn't a lack of compassion.
It tended to be a lack of food, yes.
Quote:
You must punish jerks, you must force people to be responsible, there must be consequences to behavior. If there are not, then civilization is lost.
Now who's being the Hobbesian?
Quote:
What bothers me is that I feel like I am forced to take a side.
You poor thing, you. When presented with a moral dilemma, nobody thought to provide an "Other/Don't care" box to check?
Quote:
If the government allows same-sex marriage, then that basically forces everyone to approve of that arrangement.
Not at all. The government ended prohibition without forcing everyone to approve of drinking alcohol. The government ended segregation without forcing everyone to approve of integrated schools.
Quote:
And those who want to "normalize" homosexuality, will feel like they can castigate anyone who says anything poorly about homosexuals.
Saying something "poorly" about as diverse a group as that is prejudiced - and bad manners.
Quote:
And in Europe, they basically have the thought-police brigade. Where there are laws against saying negative things about gays or Muslims or Jews or whatever, because it might upset them. I cringe at the thought of that happening here. But I feel like that is where we are headed.
Oh, please. French and Danish newspapers had the b.lls to print the Mohammed drawings, US ones didn't.
Quote:
While I want the government out of marriage. I don't feel like I am taking a side if I argue that in the near-term the Federal government at least should stay out of it. If the people really want same-sex marriage, I say let it happen naturally. There are already plenty of states where it is happening on its own. And I think the gays are basically winning the argument. But I find it very dangerous and very disconcerting to have the Supreme Court trying to force the institution on the entire nation.
Loving v. Virginia says "Hi" to remind you that bigots tend to lose.
Quote:
Keep in mind, this issue is based on a part of the constitution which has never been believed to grant same-sex marriage at any time in the 150 years it has existed. And it isn't because groups of people haven't pushed for it. Its simply that it was never believed by anyone that it would grant such broad powers to the Federal Government. Especially not by the people 150 years ago who wrote it, or the people 150 years ago who ratified it. Because in 1868 there is no way in hell that anyone would have ratified an amendment to the constitution which granted same-sex marriage. It is illogical to believe otherwise.
The writers of the Constitution, not being complete idiots, didn't go into specifics.
Quote:
If you want to change the system, that is fine. But you should do it properly. Don't do this underhanded crap. When you know for an absolute fact that the Supreme Court is most certainly going to rule in a 5-4 split decision which means absolutely nothing.
It's the system set up by - the Constitution. Ain't life a stinker?
Until it has been proven as fact, you are merely stating your opinion. Homosexuality is not normal. Sexuality alone demonstrates that a man and woman were anatomically designed to be joined together.
There's more to sexuality than the parts fitting. There is something else that accounts for sexuality and that is attraction. If there's no attraction it's simply not gonna happen.
In the absence of government, there is basically no homosexuality. In the
absence of government, families and friends become closer. And there is
basically never need for adoption. There is almost nothing remotely similar to
divorce. And crime of basically all kinds drops through the floor.
Hey, believe it or not there are millions on top of millions of heterosexuals getting some serious shaft. I guess the fact they can get it from both ends with somebody else, under some false institution, kind of fixes everything.
And I'm speaking figuratively here.
How are straight people getting the shaft because of same sex marriage? And it is not a false institution, same sex marriages are just as real as straight marriages. If that is what you mean. You do realize that it is gay people getting the shaft, we pay taxes just like straight people, yet are denied full marriage equality, it is straight people getting special treatment and special rights.
At least my opinion has evidence on its side. If God or evolution wanted to have multiple sexual orientation, the human body would have some changes to accommodate both lifestyles.
Science still can't prove that people are born gay either.
My opinion has evidence too. I and many gays know that we did not choose to be gay, that is our evidence. What is yours?
First, I wish you could go over the last five years of my posts on this forum so you could some of my radical views on marriage and society.
You have to understand my point-of-view is entirely about trying to make society happy and healthy for children. I could really care less about adults. Adults are not my responsibility. What I am concerned about are children because they are the vulnerable ones. They don't get to choose their parents, they don't get to choose their environment. And their parents and their environment will completely shape who they will become. Thus my intention is, how can you make life better for children? Because if you make life better for children, you make life better for adults as well.
My purpose for this quest is a personal one. I came from an environment which was far from ideal. My father is a jerk and was never around. My mother tried to raise me the best she could, but she is not a man. Most of my early life was just chaos. And it left me feeling angry, empty, and ill-prepared for the world. And I guess as a result of my life, I long for happiness, peace, and stability.
So I decided that I should try to find a way to solve the problem. To solve a problem, you first have to find out what the problem is. And when I am trying to understand anything, I ask myself questions. I ask the question then I work through all of the possibilities until I can find an answer which stands up to reason. Then I continue asking question after question to make sure my theory holds up under all circumstances. If I cannot produce a "principle" which stands up "universally" then that principle is unworkable and needs to be rethought.
Now, lets pretend you wanted to produce a better environment for children. How would you do it? Take children away if their parents are neglecting them and adopt them out? My sister has six children, she doesn't raise a single one of them. My mother raised three of them until my mother passed away. When my mother took her three oldest because she was neglecting them, she just went out and had three more. In fact, my sister has a norplant which is running out this year. At any time she could end up pregnant again. She is a meth addict, loser, and she ruins everyone's lives. Is letting her just have endless numbers of children a solution? Is that what we want the world to be?
The problem is, how do you stop it? At one time, I thought it was appropriate for government to do something like "sterilize" my sister, to prevent her from doing further harm. But the problem is, I realized that that is an incredibly bad idea. So, what is the solution?
Well, I decided to go further back in time and look at mine and my sister's life. Maybe that might give me clues to why she is so messed up. Well, as I said, our lives were chaos. And my sister was under immense stress when she was young. My father abandoned my mother before I was born(my sister was two). Then later my mother remarried a guy who was abusive in every concept of the word. And my sister especially suffered by it. Once it was found out, we left. And the anger engulfed my sister for effectively the rest of her life. I don't hate my sister, we used to be basically best friends when we were young. But the emotional trauma she had to endure, and the drug abuse that resulted, turned her into someone I don't even recognize anymore. She is now not much more than a shell that resembles my sister, and it makes me sad.
But what is the solution? There must be a solution. We cannot just accept that this is endemic to humanity? How could I have prevent more people from having to endure such anger and sadness?
If I start to list the necessary ingredients for a stable home, which best prepares kids for life. What would that home look like? And how could you change the world to better promote it?
My logic started first at this point. How could I have practically guaranteed that the man my mother slept with(and thus became my father), was a decent person? You have to understand that I am a very critical person when it comes to relationships. I can tell a relationship that is going to fail practically the moment I meet two people. I always ask myself the question, will these two still be together five years from now? If they have personalities which don't mesh, then I can with certainty proclaim that there is no way that they will be together five years from now. And I want to tell them to "break up", but it isn't like they will listen to me anyway.
And then I'll watch as they pop out a child or two, then split up. I've seen it time and again with friends and family. Sister with kids from four different fathers. Cousins with kids from multiple fathers. Then there is the epidemic of deadbeat fathers. And it seems like in most cases, its this one "type" of guy who just seems to not care. I know one guy who has ten different kids with six different women. And when I asked him if he thought that was normal or acceptable. He acted like that is his job in life, to have as many children as possible(he doesn't take care of them). And then he tells me about his children, and more importantly, he takes credit for their accomplishments, even though he was never around. He taught them nothing. He didn't encourage them, he didn't do anything. But he is just like my own father, takes the credit for anything they do, even though he had absolutely no hand in it.
So how could I better increase the odds of my mother marrying a decent person? Or my sister, or my friends? At first I thought, if only I was made "relationship czar", I would solve the problems. Basically, if everyone had to come to me and ask me for permission to enter into a relationship with anyone else. I could probably reduce divorce rates to near zero. And even more importantly, because I would require such "positive attributes" from people before allowing them to date. And because people would want to date. The secondary effect would be to generally encourage better behavior in all aspects. Obviously, I wouldn't allow people to date who had substance abuse problems, or who were lazy, etc.
But that still didn't seem like a solution, because first, it couldn't happen. And secondly, I couldn't do it alone, and so you would needs tens of thousands of "relationship czars", and that system would inevitably become corrupt. So is there a solution?
Well I thought, what did my grandfather think of my father? Would my grandfather have approved of my father? What kind of man would my grandfather have wanted for my mother if he could have chosen for her? Would "arranged marriages" generally have a better outcome than the current system of marriage? Well, I think if my grandfather would have had the say in who my mother dated. The odds of him being a decent person would have been around 99%.
But, I still cannot accept arranged-marriages, especially the forced kind. Because that of course requires force. So is there a solution which produces positive results, without requiring force? Basically, how can society best "nudge" people in the right direction, without forcing them in the right direction? And is society currently nudging people in the right direction or the wrong direction?
My final analysis and solution is based on this view. The reason why people make bad decisions today, is because they can make bad decisions. The reason why they are so selfish today, is because they can be selfish. We must promote an environment which encourages people to be unselfish. We must promote an environment which encourages people to make smart decisions. And while the "liberal nanny-state" on the surface sounds like it promotes unselfishness. It doesn't. Nor does it encourage people to make good decisions. The entire foundation of big-government liberalism is actually founded on jealousy, selfishness, and irresponsibility. And government promoting same-sex marriage as normal and good, is not a step in the right direction either.
It is thus my view, that the world we want to have, is one in which punishes the selfish and rewards the unselfish. More importantly, it must reward virtue and punish the lack of virtue. And I do not believe that any government can ever adequately reward virtue, nor can it truly punish the lack of virtue. The government invariably punishes both virtue and lack of virtue. But tends to punish virtue more than the lack of virtue.
Only the people can be virtuous. And only the people can expect virtue from those around them. And the good people of the world must feel that they are themselves responsible for promoting virtue.
The government as it stands today, does nothing but protect jerks. And the good people of the world have their hands tied to such an extent that they no longer even want to try. People have effectively "given up", and when they see evil around them, they just walk passed. Because they don't believe it is their problem, or because they feel powerless to do anything about it.
In my view, the only system of government which can be virtuous. Is a government which leaves virtue completely in the hands of the people. Where all members of society are responsible for guaranteeing virtue. Where no member of society can walk passed believing that they aren't responsible, or they are powerless. They must believe if that they don't do something, then no one will.
It is a society where every single person acts like they are responsible for the entirety of society, at all times. As the saying goes, "evil prevails when good men fail to act". The problem with society these days, is that the good men are afraid to speak up. The good men are afraid to do anything. And the jerks, the greedy, and the power-hungry run the show.
In the absence of government, there is basically no homosexuality. In the absence of government, families and friends become closer. And there is basically never need for adoption. There is almost nothing remotely similar to divorce. And crime of basically all kinds drops through the floor.
Is it perfect? Of course not. But I can't imagine the world envisioned by a John Locke or a Rothbard being any worse than the craphole we live in now. And which, you people have no interest in making any better.
How does the government supporting same sex marriage hurt the country and the government supporting it actually makes for better relationships in gay couples and provides them the same support and protections, how is that not a good thing? We pay taxes too and do not get a deduction for being gay and we also have families and children, should they not also be protected? Why only protect and support straight families to spite the gay families, what is the purpose in that? Do you think that gay parented families will seize to exist if only straight families are supported? And taking the kids away is not a good idea, there are already over 400,000 children in foster care and adoption programs, why add to it? But I do feel you are on the right track in that the government has dropped the ball in providing a secure and encouraging enviornment to raise kids in and I see it first hand in the lax in education. I do not care how many types of government there is, but there will always be gay people. We cannot be eliminated or made to hide, we are here all around you, every day.
What I am concerned about are children because they are the vulnerable ones. They don't get to choose their parents, they don't get to choose their environment. And their parents and their environment will completely shape who they will become...
First, I would argue that there is more to "shaping" a child than parentage and environment. That's a bit hyperbolic.
Moreover, there are bounds and bounds of studies which show the benefit of a two-parent household for kids. These studies also prove that the gender makeup of the parents matters nil.
I happen to have family members who are in committed same sex relationships. My sister and her partner have been together 20 years and are very successful, well loved pillars of their community. Together they raised my sister's partner's biological son from infancy. He's now a very successful, very well-adjusted and (as it happens) heterosexual young adult male.
Through my sister I know many other same sex couples raising kids. Kids who are remarkable, well-liked, well-adjusted young people.
I also work in social services and have been involved with numerous same-sex couples who are adoptive parents or foster parents. This is a large number of same sex couples in three different states I have worked. Each of them is an awesome home and they are awesome parents.
Leaving aside the significant number of studies as well as vast anecdotal evidence, what we are left with is you attempting (poorly) to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Which only goes to underscore the facts yet again:
There is no reason to oppose same sex marriage that does not arise from fear, hate, ignorance, bigotry, or some combination of those things.
Not one single reason.
To preclude consenting adult couples from marrying based solely on their gender is the very definition of bigotry and discrimination.
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.
