|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Here is a new thread to discuss all things gay. Hopefully it will be inclusive & polite. I think it's fitting to start it up with this story considering what is probably going to happen to the Canada to Allow Same Sex Marriage thread. Quote:
(CBS) A college production tells the story of Matthew Sheppard, a student beaten to death because he was gay.
And soon, it could be banned in Alabama.
Republican Alabama lawmaker Gerald Allen says homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle. As CBS News Correspondent Mark Strassmann reports, under his bill, public school libraries could no longer buy new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or about gay characters.
"I don't look at it as censorship," says State Representative Gerald Allen. "I look at it as protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children."
Books by any gay author would have to go: Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote and Gore Vidal. Alice Walker's novel "The Color Purple" has lesbian characters.
Allen originally wanted to ban even some Shakespeare. After criticism, he narrowed his bill to exempt the classics, although he still can't define what a classic is. Also exempted now Alabama's public and college libraries.
Librarian Donna Schremser fears the "thought police," would be patrolling her shelves.
"And so the idea that we would have a pristine collection that represents one political view, one religioius view, that's not a library,'' says Schremser.
"I think it's an absolutely absurd bill," says Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
First Amendment advocates say the ban clearly does amount to censorship.
"It's a Nazi book burning," says Potok. "You know, it's a remarkable piece of work."
But in book after book, Allen reads what he calls the "homosexual agenda,"
and he's alarmed.
"It's not healthy for America, it doesn't fit what we stand for," says Allen. "And they will do whatever it takes to reach their goal."
He says he sees this as a line in the sand.
In Alabama's legislature, the reviews of Allen's bill are still out on whether to lower this curtain for good.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/26/eveningnews/main691106.shtml
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Republican Alabama lawmaker Gerald Allen says homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle.
And I think his Werthamistic ideas of a society where we censor what we don't agree with are unacceptable. Can I pass a bill to censor his ideas?
Quote:
As CBS News Correspondent Mark Strassmann reports, under his bill, public school libraries could no longer buy new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or about gay characters.
Lemme get this straight - anything written by gay authors, even if the actual content had nothing to do with homosexuality, would be banned?
As for banning content with gay characters - what's that going to accomplish? Exposure to gay characters is not automatically going to turn people gay. Is that what yutzes like this are afraid of?
What's next on his agenda? Kicking homosexuals put of the state or the country? Locking them up?
Quote:
"I don't look at it as censorship," says State Representative Gerald Allen. "I look at it as protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children."
That's pretty much the same excuse given to justify segregation and the Holocaust. I hate to use an overused comparison, but unfortunately, it is an accurate one.
Hyperbolies aside, it's still censorship. He's still censoring content in the name of supposedly protecting hearts and minds and souls and all that - a cause I've already debunked.
Quote:
Allen originally wanted to ban even some Shakespeare.
Gah?
Can any literary majors fill me in on what homosexual content I may have missed in Shakespeare?
Quote:
"I think it's an absolutely absurd bill," says Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
First Amendment advocates say the ban clearly does amount to censorship.
"It's a Nazi book burning," says Potok.
Again, an overused hyperbole, but an accurate one nevertheless.
Seriosuly, how can anyone view this as anything other than unconstitutional?
Quote:
But in book after book, Allen reads what he calls the "homosexual agenda," and he's alarmed.
"It's not healthy for America, it doesn't fit what we stand for," says Allen. "And they will do whatever it takes to reach their goal."
What does this Werthamite think America stands for that is contrary to the so-called homosexual agenda?
Come to think of it, what is this homosexual agenda he's talking about? As far as I know, homosexuals aren't out to turn the whole country gay. They just want the right to practice their own lifestyle.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
I could almost see banning public funds for purchasing books about gay characters.
But books BY gay authors? Just because they're gay?
That's just effed up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
High School was a really lonely time for me. Even though I had friends, I was different in a way that had to be hidden to keep them. Every once in a while I would find a book that may not have had openly gay characters but dealt with the matter very well without mentioning it. I'm assuming that is part of the reason why gay authors would be banned. It would knock out quite a few of those books. It would also take care of somebody maybe enjoying a book and then reading the author's bio & finding out the writer was gay. Kind of goes back to where nothing positive was allowed when it came to anything gay.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
I could almost see banning public funds for purchasing books about gay characters.
Why? I don't understand the reasoning behind that. When all one has to do is turn on the television and see crap like 'Will & Grace'...banning literate works is acceptable?
If karma's a bitch, it will be my bitch!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106
faggot 15000+ posts
|
|
faggot 15000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106 |
Quote:
But in book after book, Allen reads what he calls the "homosexual agenda," and he's alarmed.
What IS the 'homosexual agenda?' My mom claims that pedophilia is part of the 'homosexual agenda' and I still can't figure out what the fuck a 'h.a.' IS. Do gays get together and think up ways to piss off bigots or something? From what I can figure out the homosexual agenda is about openness and exceptance and equal treatment. Very similar to the Women's Liberation 'agenda' of the Civil Rights 'agenda.'
Old men, fear me! You will shatter under my ruthless apathetic assault!
Uschi - 2
Old Men - 0
"I am convinced that this world is of no importance, and that the only people who care about dates are imbeciles and Spanish teachers." -- Jean Arp, 1921
"If Jesus came back and saw what people are doing in his name, he would never never stop throwing up." - Max von Sydow, "Hannah and Her Sisters"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Anbd Matter Eater Man...What is the purpose of this stunt? Really? Are you so fucking desperate to discuss your homosexuality that you absolutely must have a thread to discuss it in here? You know full well this won't end in 'oh well, I guess you guys don't deserve to be treated like animals, let's see what we can do about allowing you some social dignity'. This is going to dredge up the deeper, darker hatred that simmers in here...leading to bullshit about like the public health crisis that anal sex appearantly is. Do you really enjoy watching peple declare how disgusting they really think you are? If this board was capable of moving beyone the 'I think it's icky' or 'God says it's wrong' and look at the central issues of 'will this really affect me at all' and 'shit, these are people just like me'....a discussion might be possible. As it stands, you're just asking for a rehash of the same groundless assaults and personal bigotry. Do you really want this? If you really just need to talk about being gay, try gay.com.
If karma's a bitch, it will be my bitch!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Quote:
Uschi said:
From what I can figure out the homosexual agenda is about openness and exceptance and equal treatment. Very similar to the Women's Liberation 'agenda' of the Civil Rights 'agenda.'
Exactly. If there is one, that'd be the best way to describe it. Anything else is just 'tinfoil hat' speak.
If karma's a bitch, it will be my bitch!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
|
|
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308 |
Quote:
klinton said:
Anbd Matter Eater Man...What is the purpose of this stunt? Really? Are you so fucking desperate to discuss your homosexuality that you absolutely must have a thread to discuss it in here?
You know full well this won't end in 'oh well, I guess you guys don't deserve to be treated like animals, let's see what we can do about allowing you some social dignity'. This is going to dredge up the deeper, darker hatred that simmers in here...leading to bullshit about like the public health crisis that anal sex appearantly is. Do you really enjoy watching peple declare how disgusting they really think you are?
If this board was capable of moving beyone the 'I think it's icky' or 'God says it's wrong' and look at the central issues of 'will this really affect me at all' and 'shit, these are people just like me'....a discussion might be possible. As it stands, you're just asking for a rehash of the same groundless assaults and personal bigotry. Do you really want this?
If you really just need to talk about being gay, try gay.com.
I thought you only wrote posts like that to me.
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Rex...you get the full on, drunk and angry klinton rants. MEM here just got the 'I need coffee' rant. Don't worry, I'm sure I've got some choice words somewhere for you.
If karma's a bitch, it will be my bitch!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,546
Living the dream 15000+ posts
|
|
Living the dream 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,546 |
Quote:
Uschi said:
...My mom claims that pedophilia is part of the 'homosexual agenda'...
Uschi, I do not mean to offend you or your mother in any way. But I do believe that's a very ignorant thing to claim. Pedophilia is an evil thing, the people that commit those acts are sick. This Gerald Allen guy seems a bit too paranoid with this "homosexual agenda" thing. His possible paranoia will only further the hatred against gays (the peaceful ones that are not pedophiles).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Quote:
Jeremy said:
His possible paranoia will only further the hatred against gays (the peaceful ones that are not pedophiles).
Just a little note...most pedophiles are heterosexual.
If karma's a bitch, it will be my bitch!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,546
Living the dream 15000+ posts
|
|
Living the dream 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,546 |
Quote:
Uschi said:
From what I can figure out the homosexual agenda is about openness and exceptance and equal treatment.
Cool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106
faggot 15000+ posts
|
|
faggot 15000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106 |
Not offended at all. It's a point I argue my mom on every occasion I have the time. She's the daughter of Grandpa Bigot so I'm pleased that she grew up with as little bigotry as she did, but it's time to teach an old dog a new trick.
Is Jeremy Disco?
Old men, fear me! You will shatter under my ruthless apathetic assault!
Uschi - 2
Old Men - 0
"I am convinced that this world is of no importance, and that the only people who care about dates are imbeciles and Spanish teachers." -- Jean Arp, 1921
"If Jesus came back and saw what people are doing in his name, he would never never stop throwing up." - Max von Sydow, "Hannah and Her Sisters"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
klinton said:
Anbd Matter Eater Man...What is the purpose of this stunt? Really? Are you so fucking desperate to discuss your homosexuality that you absolutely must have a thread to discuss it in here?
You know full well this won't end in 'oh well, I guess you guys don't deserve to be treated like animals, let's see what we can do about allowing you some social dignity'. This is going to dredge up the deeper, darker hatred that simmers in here...leading to bullshit about like the public health crisis that anal sex appearantly is. Do you really enjoy watching peple declare how disgusting they really think you are?
If this board was capable of moving beyone the 'I think it's icky' or 'God says it's wrong' and look at the central issues of 'will this really affect me at all' and 'shit, these are people just like me'....a discussion might be possible. As it stands, you're just asking for a rehash of the same groundless assaults and personal bigotry. Do you really want this?
If you really just need to talk about being gay, try gay.com.
I just see it differently. If there is no dialogue & no discussion nothing really changes. And I don't understand the "try gay.com" line either. That suggestion could be made for any heated topic here. 
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
Uschi said:
Not offended at all. It's a point I argue my mom on every occasion I have the time. She's the daughter of Grandpa Bigot so I'm pleased that she grew up with as little bigotry as she did, but it's time to teach an old dog a new trick.
Is Jeremy Disco?
I can relate a bit Uschi. One of my uncles is like that but instead of gays it's Jews (& anybody ethnic) that he really hates.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Well, this is a quaint little circle-jerk we have here. It's great how you guys can give each other a pat on the back for agreeing about everything and simply ignoring all of the cons about your conversation, which have already been covered in many a conversation had before this thread. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
I already covered that Pariah. Quote:
klinton said:
This is going to dredge up the deeper, darker hatred that simmers in here...leading to bullshit about like the public health crisis that anal sex appearantly is. Do you really enjoy watching peple declare how disgusting they really think you are?
If karma's a bitch, it will be my bitch!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,546
Living the dream 15000+ posts
|
|
Living the dream 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,546 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
klinton said:
I already covered that Pariah.
Quote:
klinton said:
This is going to dredge up the deeper, darker hatred that simmers in here...leading to bullshit about like the public health crisis that anal sex appearantly is. Do you really enjoy watching peple declare how disgusting they really think you are?
I don't believe I referred your slanted and bias recounts Klinton......Nope. I didn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Well, this is a quaint little circle-jerk we have here. It's great how you guys can give each other a pat on the back for agreeing about everything and simply ignoring all of the cons about your conversation, which have already been covered in many a conversation had before this thread.
I notice you like to use the term "circle-jerk" whenever multiple people with opinions different from your own agree. Which, given the kind of arguments you make about homosexuality(e.g "it's wrong because anal sex can be painful"), happens quite often.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106
faggot 15000+ posts
|
|
faggot 15000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Well, this is a quaint little circle-jerk we have here. It's great how you guys can give each other a pat on the back for agreeing about everything and simply ignoring all of the cons about your conversation, which have already been covered in many a conversation had before this thread.
Nobody forces you to read or post here. Nobody forces me to read through shitpiles of posts on a gigantic thread. Interesting.
Old men, fear me! You will shatter under my ruthless apathetic assault!
Uschi - 2
Old Men - 0
"I am convinced that this world is of no importance, and that the only people who care about dates are imbeciles and Spanish teachers." -- Jean Arp, 1921
"If Jesus came back and saw what people are doing in his name, he would never never stop throwing up." - Max von Sydow, "Hannah and Her Sisters"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Animalman said:
I notice you like to use the term "circle-jerk" whenever multiple people with opinions different from your own agree. Which, given the kind of arguments you make about homosexuality(e.g "it's wrong because anal sex can be painful"), happens quite often.
Yeah, I pretty much just learned of its convenience recently. Like it? 
Seriously though, too often do I come in contact with discussions here that consist of people repeating aguments that have already been debunked within a thread where everyone's just agreeing about everything because they know if they start it up in another thread, their past failed arguments are gonna come back and haunt them. I also visit a lot of partisan boards where people just like to sit back and say "Uh-huh. Yeah. Uh-huh." and don't want to put their opinions to the test (Klinton = Best example). Then this word suddenly came to mind, "circle-jerk"! Man that's catchy--And accurate.
I'm gonna put it in my sig!
Quote:
Uschi said:
Nobody forces you to read or post here. Nobody forces me to read through shitpiles of posts on a gigantic thread. Interesting.
So you wanna talk about it, but you just don't wanna bother reading through the subject in question?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106
faggot 15000+ posts
|
|
faggot 15000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106 |
I really have no preferance either way, but since a new thread has been created (ie-good stepping on point) I might as well join in. That's all I have to say on this little tangent of yours.
Old men, fear me! You will shatter under my ruthless apathetic assault!
Uschi - 2
Old Men - 0
"I am convinced that this world is of no importance, and that the only people who care about dates are imbeciles and Spanish teachers." -- Jean Arp, 1921
"If Jesus came back and saw what people are doing in his name, he would never never stop throwing up." - Max von Sydow, "Hannah and Her Sisters"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Seriously though, too often do I come in contact with discussions here that consist of people repeating aguments that have already been debunked within a thread where everyone's just agreeing about everything because they know if they start it up in another thread, their past failed arguments are gonna come back and haunt them.
Actually, I feel the same way, though clearly towards the opposite viewpoint. I thought Wednesday and co. countered DaveTWB's argument about gay marriage(in the gay marriage thread) quite effeciently, within the first couple of pages, and yet, the thread continued on bringing up the same points again and again for a ridiculous number of pages, even branching off into other threads. That's not to say that there wasn't the occasional interesting point made here and there, but, in my mind, the basic argument had already been settled.
Dave's argument was that same-sex marriage undermines the institution of marriage. His only supporting point to this argument was scripture. That argument doesn't work, because marriage is not purely a religious arangement, nor has it been one for quite some time. There are many people who do not get married in a church, and don't want, need, or care for "God's approval"(his words). I can understand the desire to not have gay marriage forced into churches or temples, but I cannot see the logic in having it kept out of courthouses. This country was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and thus deserve equal rights. Even if legal unions allowed for rights equal to those of marriages(which it does not, and I think that is one of the biggest and most unfortunate misconceptions in this country right now), it's still discrimanitory to create an entirely seperate title for same-sex couples.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Without going into a tangent about who we feel made better arguments than whoever else, I merely wanted to point out that my feelings regarding the matter carry no prejudice. I'll steer clear of Neo-con MBs for the exact reasons stated. I will say, however, that whilst Dave was going over repeated points ad nauseum that I felt his justification for doing so was valid since he was being asked the same questions by other posters who were there since the start. In any event, I, myself, wouldn't file that event under "circle-jerking".
Quote:
Animalman said:
This country was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and thus deserve equal rights.
But here's the clincher Animalman: The fact that society had marital requisites in mind (reproductive sex), combined with the fact that the legal institution wasn't founded while the homosexual rights movement was screaming its presence, marriage simply wasn't created with such a facet, in which case, homosexuals weren't purposely excluded, which speaks against it being an act of discrimination, and, incidently, a smothering of one's rights. The rights merely weren't created, and now that idea is staking root today when there's many scientific implications to note, it has to be considered carefully whether or not this right should actually be created.
Last edited by Pariah; 2005-05-01 3:18 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
But here's the clincher Animalman: The fact that society had marital requisites in mind (reproductive sex)
From what I'm reading, you're saying that reproduction is or was at some point a requirement for marriage. If I'm misinterpreting you there, tell me, because I can't recall ever hearing that being the case. At least, not in the history of this country, and certainly not recently.
Quote:
combined with the fact that the legal institution wasn't founded while the homosexual rights movement was screaming its presence, marriage simply wasn't created with such a facet, in which case, homosexuals weren't purposely excluded, which speaks against it being an act of discrimination, and, incidently, a smothering of one's rights.
Well, while that may be true, I think it's beside the point. Whether or not the institution of marriage was established with the purpose of excluding homosexuals doesn't really matter. What matters is that not only are steps not being taken to include them now that homosexuality has become(for the most part) an accepted part of our culture, but there have been laws passed very recently(within the last six months, infact) specifically designed to assure that they are never included.
I'm not arguing that the creation of marriage was an act of discrimination.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
I realize I'm jumping ahead here, but since we're starting over with topic, I want to touch on some other things about gay marriage. Pre-emptive strike, if you will.
One of the arguments I've heard used against the legalization of gay marriage is that if homosexuality is legalized, it will open a Pandora's box of sorts, and will inevitably lead to the legalization of pedophilia, bestiality, etc. While I definitely don't find any comparison of homosexuality and pedophilia/bestiality to be apt, I do think it is a well-intended concern.
My belief on marriage is that any two consenting adults who wish to be married, should. That, in my mind, should be absolute, therefore excluding a person from marrying underage kids or animals(or your right hand, the example I believe DaveWTB used).
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Animalman said:
From what I'm reading, you're saying that reproduction is or was at some point a requirement for marriage. If I'm misinterpreting you there, tell me, because I can't recall ever hearing that being the case. At least, not in the history of this country, and certainly not recently.
No, I didn't mean requirement. Just forseeable likelihood of the scenario. Currently, I'm not using that as a justification, it's just a reason that homosexuals weren't inclusionary.
Quote:
Well, while that may be true, I think it's beside the point. Whether or not the institution of marriage was established with the purpose of excluding homosexuals doesn't really matter.
I realize that it was beside the point you were trying to make, but it just felt like you were saying the whole concept was born with ideal unequality. Just pointing out that it's not the case.
Quote:
I'm not arguing that the creation of marriage was an act of discrimination.
Alright, that was my mis-interpretation than.e
Quote:
Animalman said:
I realize I'm jumping ahead here, but since we're starting over with topic, I want to touch on some other things about gay marriage. Pre-emptive strike, if you will.
One of the arguments I've heard used against the legalization of gay marriage is that if homosexuality is legalized, it will open a Pandora's box of sorts, and will inevitably lead to the legalization of pedophilia, bestiality, etc. While I definitely don't find any comparison of homosexuality and pedophilia/bestiality to be apt, I do think it is a well-intended concern.
My belief on marriage is that any two consenting adults who wish to be married, should. That, in my mind, should be absolute, therefore excluding a person from marrying underage kids or animals(or your right hand, the example I believe DaveWTB used).
Truth be told Manimal, I really have no wish to go enter into this area of conversation, specifically because I've pretty much already covered it in the other thread, and I don't like making it my penchant to repeat myself.
I won't comment on the ideal of "two consenting adults". I will say, however, that I believe that Pandora's will be opened. One thing that comes to mind, which gives me this idea is a new tone coming from NAMBLA sympathizers (paraphrased) 'Boys understand what they're doing with us, to say they can't consent is idiotic'. This is a dangerous proposition that carries potential for a wide-spread and cultivated ideal. Not only because some of their cases are true (without going into a subject about whether or not kids know the weight of what they would be doing), but because, I find, with each new generation, we come upon younger awareness--And I'm not the only one recognizing it either. Kids are getting smarter, and all it would take is a proper demonstration of book smarts to give the perception of sexual awareness, not to mention a new tune of ad homimem that would create another civil rights movement for boys (and girls).
This is my speculation, but I feel it has merit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
No, I didn't mean requirement. Just forseeable likelihood of the scenario. Currently, I'm not using that as a justification, it's just a reason that homosexuals weren't inclusionary.
I thought you were using it as justification, since you used the term "clincher". I'm a little confused with what you meant by that.
Quote:
Truth be told Manimal, I really have no wish to eo enter into this area of conversation, specifically because I've pretty much already covered, and I don't like making it my penchant to repeat myself.
I can respect that, though I kind of thought that's what this thread was meant for(re-opening the discussion, in a more civil manner). I admit that a lot of what I'm saying now I've said already, probably several times. I just thought that now was the best time to re-say it, before this thread becomes a 100-page marathon and all the important stuff becomes buried in the middle where nobody has the patience to look through.
Quote:
I won't comment on the ideal of "two consenting adults". I will say, however, that I believe that Pandora's will be opened.
I don't mean to ask about your wordchoice, but I feel it's important:
1.Do you mean idea or ideal? I only ask because I don't see it as an ideal-not ideal situation, I wouldn't want there to be a grey area.
2.When you say you won't comment on it, do you mean it in the sense that it's too subjective to actually debate, or that it's too "taboo", and you fear it will sidetrack the discussion? Or something else?
Getting back to the topic, though, allow me to present a hypothetical situation:
In a semi-perfect world, where there were no opportunistic extremist groups(and by that I'm referring to those that would try to push for the legalization of pedophilia and bestiality if homosexual marriage is allowed; which I agree might happen), would you be OK with same-sex marriages in a NON-religious form, pperformed outside from churches/temples/etc.?
Quote:
One thing that comes to mind, which gives me this idea is a new tone coming from NAMBLA sympathizers (paraphrased) 'Boys understand what they're doing with us, to say they can't consent is idiotic'. This is a dangerous proposition that carries potential for a wide-spread and cultivated ideal. Not only because some of their cases are true (without going into a subject about whether or not kids know the weight of what they would be doing), but because, I find, with each new generation, we come upon younger awareness--And I'm not the only one recognizing it either. Kids are getting smarter, and all it would take is a proper demonstration of book smarts to give the perception of sexual awareness, not to mention a new tune of ad homimem that would create another civil rights movement for boys (and girls).
This is my speculation, but I feel it has merit.
I think that sentiment has merit as well. That doesn't mean that I think it's an acceptable justification for discriminating against gays, but I'd be lying if I said that didn't concern me at all.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Animalman said:
I can respect that, though I kind of thought that's what this thread was meant for(re-opening the discussion, in a more civil manner).
Ah yes, but you see, I have not the will power to continue such a chore. It has good intent, but I'm too drained on the subject at this point.
Quote:
1.Do you mean idea or ideal? I only ask because I don't see it as an ideal-not ideal situation, I wouldn't want there to be a grey area.
Hm...I suppose I mean "ideal" since legal consent is definitely the most fought over conviction for people who are pro gay-marraige. They're more absolute in that area, so...yeah. "ideal".
Quote:
2.When you say you won't comment on it, do you mean it in the sense that it's too subjective to actually debate, or that it's too "taboo", and you fear it will sidetrack the discussion? Or something else?
A little bit of both actually. I see it as subjective since I ascertain that homosexuals suffer from a mental disease and that "consentual" implies more than face value. Plus, "consentual" is partly based on the idea that one can then properly choose, in the eyes of the law, to have sex because not only have you matured mentally, but physically. The fact that the sphincter can never actually mature for such treatment as intercourse concerns me in not only the credibility of the decision for who's eligible to maintain a "consentual" opinion, but also the possible flexibility of its context (kids legally having sex at young ages). I realize many people here disagree with that, so, forseeably, it's gonna be addressed immensly. I have no wish to argue it over again. And I was actually just preparing to conceed the argument since the psychological angle is my deciding factor when it comes to legalizing gay marriage and making it a right. I got into it pretty heavily with Jim here. After that, and some other arguments in the "Canada allows" thread, there's not much more I can say on the subject.
Quote:
In a semi-perfect world, where there were no opportunistic extremist groups(and by that I'm referring to those that would try to push for the legalization of pedophilia and bestiality if homosexual marriage is allowed; which I agree might happen), would you be OK with same-sex marriages in a NON-religious form, pperformed outside from churches/temples/etc.?
Speaking from a secularist point of view. Yes. I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't show any disgust, but as long as those couples understand my beliefs as an alternative, I don't really have a problem. To know that you understand something diverse of your current beliefs actually exists is enough for me to stop arguing...Of course I continue arguing most of the time cuz' some of those interpretations about my religion are wrong, but that's irrelevent.
Quote:
I think that sentiment has merit as well. That doesn't mean that I think it's an acceptable justification for discriminating against gays, but I'd be lying if I said that didn't concern me at all.
I think "discriminating" is too strong a word, I understand where you're coming from in the sense that there's inadvertant view discriminatory back-lash since some people think this subject a no brainer (although that can be said for both sides).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
I don't see what the sphincter has to do with consenting. Even if you arrive at the position that participating in anal sex is a health-hazard(which, if performed correctly, it isn't), that isn't a basis for calling the act unconsentual. For starters, hetero couples do it as well, and secondly, how many potentially hazardous activities are legal in this country? A lot.
I just think that's a weak argument. At least with the mental defect argument, there is a scientific foundation for that position(I mean, there are actually qualified people who have taken that side, and they actually have presented something resembling evidence to back up their theories), though I absolutely disagree with it. To my knowledge, that doesn't apply with your other argument.
Beyond that, I don't think we have anything else to argue on this subject. I understand your point of view, you seem to understand mine. I simply must agree to disagree in regards to homosexuality being a mental defect. That's certainly a vast improvement over fighting about things when we know we're not going to change the others' mind.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Oi....Can't turn away. I'm just gonna try and clarify something here and then RUN AWAY!
Quote:
Animalman said:
I don't see what the sphincter has to do with consenting. Even if you arrive at the position that participating in anal sex is a health-hazard(which, if performed correctly, it isn't), that isn't a basis for calling the act unconsentual. For starters, hetero couples do it as well, and secondly, how many potentially hazardous activities are legal in this country? A lot.
What I meant by bringing up sodomy in concordance with the concept of "consent" is that the term implies mental maturity, but as such, walks hand in hand with physical maturity as well. Meaning that if our knowledge came to us a lot faster than our sexual abilities, we'd have two different types of consent: You'd be considered mentally mature at age...10 (for sake of argument) whilst you're body is best prepped for sexual intercourse at ages 18-19. But that physical maturity is always based on straight couple statistics; a man with a woman would be best sutied for sex if they were of the mutual age of 18-19, but there's no real way of saying when someone would be best suited to participate in sodomy. With the fact being that at any age it's physically abrasive, there can be no consentual age for that. Technically, with its current legalization and forseeable generation of much smarter children, kids could get away with sodomy without legal reparation. And eventually, using the same logic I did with pre-pubescence and sodomy, I could further reason that even the orthodox form of sexual intercourse would be valid for use by young girls because sodomy is of the same fashion as pre-mature sexual intercourse--With the female being the pre-mature one.
This is just my attempt at clarification mind you, I'm not trying to start another line of argument. Respond to it as you will, and I'll just do my best not to reply.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
I think this does a good job addressing Pariah's argument in general (although Animal Man is doing fine addressing them specifically) Quote:
Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences. A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.
If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market arms dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage issue.
http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
|
|
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308 |
Quote:
It's a classic scare tactic
Exactly. Anyone who says it will lead to anything like bestial marriage does not valid reason to be against it.
And just to state my opinion, I don't care anymore. A year ago I was against it but I can no longer think of a logical reason to think that way.
My only problem with it is that I think a child should have a mother figure and a father figure in their lives. If a same sex couple does adopt, I think it would be best for the child if they has someone from the opposite sex be in their childs life.
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106
faggot 15000+ posts
|
|
faggot 15000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106 |
Quote:
rex said:
My only problem with it is that I think a child should have a mother figure and a father figure in their lives. If a same sex couple does adopt, I think it would be best for the child if they has someone from the opposite sex be in their childs life.
That's nice in theory, but many kids grow up in single-parent households. If that's ok then, IMO, it should be ok for them to grow up in single-gender-parent households. At least they will have a loving, supportive home and the parents will have an easier time at it.
Old men, fear me! You will shatter under my ruthless apathetic assault!
Uschi - 2
Old Men - 0
"I am convinced that this world is of no importance, and that the only people who care about dates are imbeciles and Spanish teachers." -- Jean Arp, 1921
"If Jesus came back and saw what people are doing in his name, he would never never stop throwing up." - Max von Sydow, "Hannah and Her Sisters"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
I could almost see banning public funds for purchasing books about gay characters.
But books BY gay authors? Just because they're gay?
That's just effed up.
And it's not F'd up to block the use of public funds to purchase books about gay characters?
In my world, that's F'd up, too.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
|
|
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308 |
Quote:
Uschi said:
Quote:
rex said:
My only problem with it is that I think a child should have a mother figure and a father figure in their lives. If a same sex couple does adopt, I think it would be best for the child if they has someone from the opposite sex be in their childs life.
That's nice in theory, but many kids grow up in single-parent households. If that's ok then, IMO, it should be ok for them to grow up in single-gender-parent households. At least they will have a loving, supportive home and the parents will have an easier time at it.
I think it should be the same for single parent households also, but this the the gay thread, not the single parent thread.
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Maybe this thread should be called the "generic straights talk about gays and gay issues" thread.
I'm tired of arguing with str8s about the way I feel, the way I feel I am hardwired, the way I feel gays should have equal protection and recognition under the law that str8s have.
To me, it makes no sense to say that legalizing/recognizing gay marriage/gay unions will open a Pandora's box. I still think the concept of "two consenting adults as defined by law" makes sense. And as such, it would prohibit legalized bestiality (an animal is not an adult human) and pedophilia (again, no consenting adult). And what about incest? Well, if it's between male and female siblings, well, it's a heterosexual issue. And if it's between same-sex relations, well, at least nobody can get pregnant and reproduce.
And those worried about NAMBLA...NAMBLA is, quite frankly, a fringe element (and every group has fringe elements). I have NEVER spoken with another gay man about NAMBLA. I have with several str8 male friends, but never has it come in conversation between me and any of my gay male friends. The gay men I know are not interested in sex with any male under 21. They're not predators, not rapists.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
|
|
|
|
|
