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.
Hello folks. Most of the people on this thread have been here since the beginning so this statement is for all of you. After a private conversation with a couple of you I have come to realize that my use of the term "natural" could be taken the wrong way and could certainly offend some people. While I will not apologize for my own opinions, I will admit that the use of that word in several situations was rather inappropriate. I would also like to make clear that I don't doubt the fact that the love these people feel for each other is natural. Love is supposed to be boundless, so I suppose the sex boundary is crossable as well. The main theme behind my use of the word "natural" is that for the most part, nature runs on an opposite sex basis. I truly have no problem with gay people or gay marriage. I do have a few gay friends (2) who are in fact married and happy. And they are really great people. But as my friends they also respect my right to have my own opinion about these types of matters and they don't hold it against me. They respect my right to have mine as they have theirs. And it has definitely sparked some heated debates between the three of us. But I treat them with respect as I would treat anyone and I do wish them the best out of life. As I said in my very first post on this thread, to each his own. You all have a good night/day/afternoon!
Well, then, I was asking if you thought transsexual people should be able to get married.
I have to adimt that I haven't given it much thought. I hasten to add that I feel liberated in consequence.
Quote:
What was the purpose of presenting it if it wasn't a counterpoint, then?
Please. Direct experience with a phenomenon is not required for one's views to be relevant. You are coming perilously close to disqualifying anyone but homosexuals from holding views related to political issues related to homosexuals.
Quote:
If marriage exists and is revered and preferred, doesn't it seem logical that most people would want to be married?
I suppose so. Nothing that I know of is stopping them from attaining that condition -- as long as they fit the utterly basic requirement: the union of one man and one woman. Other arrangements may be jerry-rigged, but they won't be marriages in the sense that our culture has defined and defines it. I hasten to add that although you are free to continue to work to change that definition, you will not succeed in enlisting me in your efforts. This is not because I do not respect you or revere your humanity -- it is, rather, because I consider the traditional institution of marriage, imperfect and tattered as it sometimes seems to be, one of the most valuable inheritances from our ancestors to us, as a society and as a culture, and I am reluctant to squander that inheritance to address a relatively recent and specious pheomenon.
I have to adimt that I haven't given it much thought. I hasten to add that I feel liberated in consequence.
Kind of disrespectful to transsexual people, it seems. Though not as much as the assertion that they have some psychological infirmity.
Quote:
Please. Direct experience with a phenomenon is not required for one's views to be relevant. You are coming perilously close to disqualifying anyone but homosexuals from holding views related to political issues related to homosexuals.
It was far more specific than that. You have to get back to the original context. I said I don't see how someone is qualified to decide that one union involves more challenges due to opposed members unless he or she has attempted both. It relates to the larger issue of the thread, yes, but is only one component of the issue. And this would apply to people who considered themselves exclusively homosexual, also--I would ask them if they had tried to maintain a relationship with someone of the opposite sex before they assumed that same sex relationships come with more hardships.
Quote:
I suppose so. Nothing that I know of is stopping them from attaining that condition -- as long as they fit the utterly basic requirement: the union of one man and one woman.
You'd be asking them to alter their identities or be unfulfilled.
Quote:
Other arrangements may be jerry-rigged, but they won't be marriages in the sense that our culture has defined and defines it.
Looks like some have already changed the definition--the altered definition is showing up more and more.
Quote:
I hasten to add that although you are free to continue to work to change that definition, you will not succeed in enlisting me in your efforts. This is not because I do not respect you or revere your humanity -- it is, rather, because I consider the traditional institution of marriage, imperfect and tattered as it sometimes seems to be, one of the most valuable inheritances from our ancestors to us, as a society and as a culture, and I am reluctant to squander that inheritance to address a relatively recent and specious pheomenon.
People of the same sex being devoted to each other is not a recent phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination.
This post has gotten completely off topic. The same back and forth nitpicking has dominated the discussion, and the same blatant disrespect will continually provoke it. Consistent and lucid arguments have fallen on deaf ears and closed, hostile minds. It is, in a few words, pointless, exhausting, and stupid. No one is trying to achieve anything, and no progress has been made. Some of you are like children in your own adult playground, prolonging this diatribe by concocting new ways to out-bs each other.
Kind of disrespectful to transsexual people, it seems. Though not as much as the assertion that they have some psychological infirmity.
I meant no disrespect; I was only expressing my relief at being able to forego this particular bizarre query; if the need to alter one's sexual organs is not a psychologcal infirmity, I don't know what is.
Quote:
It was far more specific than that. You have to get back to the original context. I said I don't see how someone is qualified to decide that one union involves more challenges due to opposed members unless he or she has attempted both. It relates to the larger issue of the thread, yes, but is only one component of the issue. And this would apply to people who considered themselves exclusively homosexual, also--I would ask them if they had tried to maintain a relationship with someone of the opposite sex before they assumed that same sex relationships come with more hardships.
I understand the specificity. It is a fixation which I do not share -- nor do most people.
Quote:
You'd be asking them to alter their identities or be unfulfilled.
The argument could be made that life is a series of unfulfilled desires, and that dealing succesfully with them is a measure of one's maturity.
Quote:
Looks like some have already changed the definition--the altered definition is showing up more and more.
That is regrettable.
Quote:
People of the same sex being devoted to each other is not a recent phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination.
I understand the specificity. It is a fixation which I do not share -- nor do most people.
What are you talking about? I'm trying to address your primary argument against same-sex marriages. You appear to be convinced that men and women are complete opposites in every sense and so a relationship that does not have both could not be comparable.
It also seems germane to address transsexual individuals in this debate. Can a MTF marry a female? Can a FTM marry a female? How do these things fits into your ideology about men and women and the institution of marriage?
Quote:
The argument could be made that life is a series of unfulfilled desires, and that dealing succesfully with them is a measure of one's maturity.
Let's take away the legality of your marriage, then.
Quote:
I never said that it was.
You said it was a recent phenomenon. If you mean the fight for legalized marriage is a recent phenomenon and should be dismissed for that reason, that's quite arbitrary. At one time, every fight for civil rights was new.
This post has gotten completely off topic. The same back and forth nitpicking has dominated the discussion, and the same blatant disrespect will continually provoke it. Consistent and lucid arguments have fallen on deaf ears and closed, hostile minds. It is, in a few words, pointless, exhausting, and stupid. No one is trying to achieve anything, and no progress has been made. Some of you are like children in your own adult playground, prolonging this diatribe by concocting new ways to out-bs each other.
The thread title was a cynical exercise in trollish straight-baiting. The first responses were humorous and light-hearted, and accurately reflected the gravity (or rather, lack of) of the parenthetical query itself. Then the angry and humorless idealogues arrived. Some grew bitter because no one genuflected.
What are you talking about? I'm trying to address your primary argument against same-sex marriages. You appear to be convinced that men and women are complete opposites in every sense and so a relationship that does not have both could not be comparable.
I'm sorry, but you are skipping around from post to post too quickly for me to follow your latest interpretation of what I've posted.
Quote:
It also seems germane to address transsexual individuals in this debate. Can a MTF marry a female? Can a FTM marry a female? How do these things fits into your ideology about men and women and the institution of marriage?
Again, it may surprise you that I have so little interest in the varieties of altered sexuality to which you refer that I honestly don't care if people want to have an extra eye imbedded in their forehead. Just don't give me that troika stare on the bus.
Quote:
Let's take away the legality of your marriage, then.
Irrelevant.
Quote:
You said it was a recent phenomenon. If you mean the fight for legalized marriage is a recent phenomenon and should be dismissed for that reason, that's quite arbitrary. At one time, every fight for civil rights was new.
Nice to see that you conceded the point. Keep in mind that to some people, the struggle for civil rights had a philosophical validity and gravitas which this one lacks.
B and B, I know this is a crucial issue for you and I appreciate your passion. I said my piece at the beginning of this thread, offering what I thought the OP deserved by way of response. My refusal to reject my own views in the face of the day-long tag-team I've been facing may strike some people as belligerently recalcitrant. I hope and trust that you do not share that view, since you have been consistently respectful.
Best wishes. See you on another topic.
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.
A small admission!
Nonsense
