|
Post by dianaholberg on Jul 1, 2007 7:01:56 GMT -5
Wow, I wish I had time this morning to respond -- hopefully later. But let me reiterate that homosexuality cannot be compared to race. One does not choose one's race. One may not choose one's orientation, but one certainly chooses whether or not to act upon it.
Homosexuality is a moral issue. Race is not.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 1, 2007 9:13:56 GMT -5
And just what does Interracial marriage have to do with this topic?
As to my definition it was in my abnormal psych book a year or so back.
I'm still waiting to hear why you think the government needs to endorse those practices.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 1, 2007 17:02:19 GMT -5
And just what does Interracial marriage have to do with this topic? I brought up inter-racial marriage to illustrate two points. One, that the exact same BS was used to argue against inter-racial marriage as is being used to argue against same sex marriage: it is immoral, it will lead to marrying dogs, etc. Two, that the majority were completely against inter-racial marriage when the government, finding no legitimate legal reason to ban it, made bans on inter-racial marriage illegal. As to my definition it was in my abnormal psych book a year or so back. Fair enough. It helps to be on the same page with definitions. I'm still waiting to hear why you think the government needs to endorse those practices. Because they have no legitimate legal reason to justify not endorsing it.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 1, 2007 18:48:16 GMT -5
Um the racial thing is a wholly separate issue. Calming that one social change is equal to another is not logical. It is like arguing that because Prohibition was repelled that all drug laws will one day be removed.
As legal reasons I've yet to hear a significant reason to endorse homosexual marriages and claiming that it is the same as heterosexual marriage is a big stretch.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 1, 2007 19:32:40 GMT -5
Um the racial thing is a wholly separate issue. Calming that one social change is equal to another is not logical. It is like arguing that because Prohibition was repelled that all drug laws will one day be removed. I never once said they were equal. I said they were similar. And they are similar in the ways I have pointed out. As legal reasons I've yet to hear a significant reason to endorse homosexual marriages and claiming that it is the same as heterosexual marriage is a big stretch. Equality under the law. A neat little concept that is mentioned in the Constitution of the United States. Unless there is given a legitimate legal reason that they should not be equal under the law, which has yet to be shown.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 1, 2007 21:41:07 GMT -5
Depending on how you choose to look at a thing I suppose.
From one approach I am so similar to an ape that we ought to put them them in school and make them citizens. Others see apes as something quite different.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 2, 2007 0:59:01 GMT -5
Interestingly enough, that was one of the arguments against allowing women the right to vote and own land.
|
|
doug
Student
Posts: 8
|
Post by doug on Jul 2, 2007 12:22:29 GMT -5
I realise the conversation has moved on quite a bit but I just wanted to clear something.
Diana said "But for some reason here in the U.S.A. the idea of civil partnerships is not enough for activists. They want "marriage" with all the rings and bells"
I hope I've not given the wrong impression because Civil Partnerships in this country are still celebrations. There are still rings, there is still an officiator there is still a couple being celebrated by family and friends.
The truth is any couple of any description could stand up in a public gathering and go through the motions of marriage ceremony and have their friends wish them well whether it was legally recognised or not. The "gay agenda" referred to not just in this conversation but in many I've seen are not demanding the right to have a party; they are demanding the right to be seen as equals in law.
Arguments against homosexuality are many and varied (as this conversation shows) but really they all boil down to the same basic argument: We (straight people ) are better than you (gay people) therefore you don't deserve as much as us-and frankly we're getting just a little sick of it.
This would all be fine if it was just a discussion of theory but does anyone remember Matthew Shepard? The boy savagely beaten and killed in the US in 1998 because he was gay? The boy whose parents have the lovely sight of Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps protesting at their son's funeral in God's name?
Prejudice, whether veiled in the respectable cloak of religion or not is still prejudice. As religious people you may say you would never want to see someone die like Shepard did but the fact is this is the outcome of your philosophy. If you put a whole section of society down, encouraging their continued treatment as second class citizens then you also encourage abuse against them.Why should any one care about them? They don't have any rights and they certainly don't deserve them! Kick em while they're down! Yee Ha!
If the American state continues to ignore the rights of its gay citizens then it continues to offer its implicit support for their second class position
I'm not saying all gay people are perfect and straight people evil incarnate. I just think we need to recognise that the relative social positioning of people has real effects.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 2, 2007 18:38:25 GMT -5
You know there are those who suggest that LSD expands peoples ability to think. should we assume that they are right because other people have been right about something else in the past that was only scarcely related?
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 2, 2007 19:01:44 GMT -5
You know that there are people who want to make same sex marriage illegal simply because the Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination?
They even come up with all manner of non-sense to support their position.
One of my personal favourites is the claim that since Belgium made same sex marriage legal, the number of children born out of wed lock in Belgium significantly increased. Try to figure that one out!
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 2, 2007 22:09:12 GMT -5
I'm not saying their are not some less than smart people opposed to same sex marriage. I've even ran into a website that flat out lied about it. They made up research journals in one case and in another cited a study that was "published" 5 years before the journal started. If the presence of idiots on one side of an issue invalidated that side their would be nothing left to discuss in the world.
|
|
doug
Student
Posts: 8
|
Post by doug on Jul 3, 2007 2:11:53 GMT -5
" You know there are those who suggest that LSD expands peoples ability to think. should we assume that they are right because other people have been right about something else in the past that was only scarcely related? "
I genuinely have no idea what you mean by this point. Could you explain it a little?
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 3, 2007 8:46:07 GMT -5
Mestemia was comparing the homosexual marriage movement to many social movements of the past. I was pointing out that many social movements have failed and would have been quite harmful to society if they had been successful. Their is an implied parallel between the pro drug and pro homosexual marriage movements. Doug I'm sure you won't agree with me on this, but that was the point of the post
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 3, 2007 11:06:02 GMT -5
Actually, I was showing that the same lines of BS were used to ban inter-racial marriage as are being used to ban same sex marriage.
The point being that if they had no legal bearing then, what makes anyone think they will have any legal bearing now?
|
|
doug
Student
Posts: 8
|
Post by doug on Jul 3, 2007 11:24:23 GMT -5
Well Teancum you are right I don't agree. How can you possibly draw any kind of comparison between them? True they are both sub- cultures but I think thats just about where all the similarity ends.
I'd be interested to know what similarities you see?
Mestemia has also asked a very relevant question, how can they same arguments that failed in the past suddenly have merit today?
|
|