InfiniteNow Posted June 13, 2006 Author Report Posted June 13, 2006 Ah Geez Infinite Now... :) I wish this issue would just shrivel up and go away. (distraction indeed)Who cares? Let 'em get married, or at least grant legal entitlements of marriage under Civil Unions. :) Lots of people wish it would "just go away." I believe that's part of the problem. Those that feel strongly on the issue also TEND to be the ones who will vote solely on this issue. They will not vote on environmental issues, economic issues, vision and leadership, but instead will vote on the guy who said what they want to hear. Because of this, there exists an asymmetry in our representation. Now, if the rest of us who feel it shouldn't be an issue would just get off our lazy asses and stand up for something, instead of burying ourselves in the bong and video games, maybe our society wouldn't be travelling down a **** hole. Sorry for the language everyone. It's just so absolutely silly and frustrating to me. People are people so why should it be, that you and I we get along so awfully? :shrug:
InfiniteNow Posted June 13, 2006 Author Report Posted June 13, 2006 Maybe heterosexuality should be the official sexuality of the United States?:shrug:Maybe we should build another fence too... :)
infamous Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 I really don't think this is the case, Infy. I think that those who are polled will say they are against it, but is the sample really representative of our population as a WHOLE? Maybe I'm wrong, and my views are in the minority, but it just seems so ignorant to me. Is this 2006 or 1006?You have every right to disagree InfiniteNow, and I'll fight to see that you retain that right. That's also part of what makes it a Democracy........Infy
InfiniteNow Posted June 13, 2006 Author Report Posted June 13, 2006 You have every right to disagree InfiniteNow, and I'll fight to see that you retain that right. Voltaire reincarnate. :shrug:
TheBigDog Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 At its root "gay" is a choice. It is a behavior that can be engaged in or avoided. Many of our laws are about the behaviors that are accepted as social norms. This issue is about the definition of social norms. As a society we come to concensus about where the boudaries of those social norms exist. In this case we are talking about people who have made a choice. They have chosen a person of the same gender as opposed to picking a person of the opposite gender. Society has a consensus that thiss is not encouraged. As that concensus changes the laws will follow. But (repeating myself) this is not the same as race. Race is not a person's choice. Sexual partner is a person's choice. And the definition of gay implies sexual relations. What the people of this bill want is that ANY two people can be married. We need to be caucious of the precedent that such legislation could put forward. Next in line will be the pedophiles and the incestuous. All societies need boundaries to maintain civility. These are enforced in the guise of laws. With the broad range of people within a society you will always have a healthy debate about where the lines need to be drawn. It is unfortunate when the debate turns into accusations of predjudice from one side, or resorts to comparison's that are not congruent to the issue at hand. Comparison's to race are not congruent - race is not a chosen behavior. People who are against same sex marriage are taking a stand that was not so blurry just a few years ago. It is not that they are radicals trying to insert their opinions into other people's behavior, it is that they do not want the standards of society to be changed by what they deem to be radical behavior. The basis for that moral stand is not the issue. The issue is that there is a line drawn; one group wants it changed and another group wants it to stay. The group that wants the change has the burden of the argument. This whole thing should stay at the state level so people can find a nich of happiness and continue to peacefully coexist. Bill
TheBigDog Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 Maybe heterosexuality should be the official sexuality of the United States?:confused:If you go by marriage laws then it is the official sexuality of all but 4 or 5 countries in the world. We Americans are such radicals. Bill
TheBigDog Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 Natural and unalienable rights, unless your gay? Come on...Gay's have the same rights as heterosexuals. Both both groups can only marry the opposite gender. Bill
InfiniteNow Posted June 13, 2006 Author Report Posted June 13, 2006 At its root "gay" is a choice. It is a behavior that can be engaged in or avoided. Let's suppose for a moment that you are right and it IS a choice (however, this is a science forum, as you well know, and I'd really like to see some evidence of this before allowing you to take such an absolutist stand or perspective)... Why discriminate against this particular choice? Your slippery slope argument about, "What's next? Will we allow hamsters and goats to marry?" seems a bit silly. We made alcohol legal... What next, will we make toxic waste legal to bottle and sell as a beverage?
C1ay Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 At its root "gay" is a choice. I'll bet you can't prove that. Did you actively choose to be attracted to girls or did nature choose for you?
TheBigDog Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 The attraction and the impulse are not the choice. The action is the choice. And the label of "gay" comes from the action, not the impulse. The way people are define as gay is by having engaged in homosexual sex, not by who they find attractive. Bill
Edella Posted June 14, 2006 Report Posted June 14, 2006 At its root "gay" is a choice. Bill This seems to be an opinion Bill, not backed up by science.If there has been a study that shows this is the case, I am unaware of it.Also,it would follow IMO that heterosexuality is a choice too.I can't see how homosexuality would be a choice and heterosexuality not. Don't you need at least two things to choose between?Maybe this has to do with the "default" you mentioned ealier.If sexuality is a choice when is that choice made?When did you chose to be heterosexual?I can remember being aroused by the opposite sex at a very young age,well before I knew that there might be any choice involved.Gay's have the same rights as heterosexuals. Both both groups can only marry the opposite gender.Ha-Ha ,like the old model T "you can have any color as long as it is black." Comparison's to race are not congruent - race is not a chosen behavior.Believing sexuality is not a choice(for all),I think comparisons are fair.For both of us this is opinion,not backed up by science. This whole thing should stay at the state level ...We agree on something Bill!Maybe for different reasons. Ed
Edella Posted June 14, 2006 Report Posted June 14, 2006 The way people are define as gay is by having engaged in homosexual sex, not by who they find attractive.I guess all the young virgins have a clean slate,regardless of who they find attractive.A young man with 40 Husler mags(or gay porn) under his bed: Sexuality Undetermined.
C1ay Posted June 14, 2006 Report Posted June 14, 2006 The attraction and the impulse are not the choice.I think perhaps it may be that the attraction and the impulse are not a choice, not "the choice". The action is the choice. Is arousal a choice when you are attracted to someone? The way people are define as gay is by having engaged in homosexual sex...So what do you call an continent couple? Are they heterosexual only if they decide to have sex? Should marriage be limited to only couples that have sex? How can you decide any of these conclusively? Should we, as a society, just decide what we want the answers to be regardless of what the truth might be?
TheBigDog Posted June 14, 2006 Report Posted June 14, 2006 Is arousal a choice when you are attracted to someone?Sexual behavior is a choice. Are you insinuating that there is no such thing as control of sexual impulses? And then there is no such thing as a sex crime?So what do you call an continent couple? Are they heterosexual only if they decide to have sex? Should marriage be limited to only couples that have sex? How can you decide any of these conclusively? Should we, as a society, just decide what we want the answers to be regardless of what the truth might be?The standard of society is heterosexual. It is not imperative that a couple have sex, but marriage is a CONSENT to having sex. It is implicit in the definition of a marriage. Can a man marry a child? No, because he is not allowed to have sex with a child, and that is implicit in the contract of marriage. Can a boy marry his sister of his parent? No, again because sex is implicit in marriage. Earlier InfiniteNow chastized me for hinting that there is a slippery slope (however weakly :eek: hampsters???) yet here is the evidence of it already. This interpretation of marriage doesn't allow same sex marriage, it makes it a contract between two people stripping away much of the implicit nature of the contract. A marriage is a vow of a shared life between a man and a woman, and in that vow they agree to sexual exclusivity with their partner. The question of if they ever have sex is irrelivent. It is that they promise themselves as part of the vows. Bill
C1ay Posted June 14, 2006 Report Posted June 14, 2006 Sexual behavior is a choice. Are you insinuating that there is no such thing as control of sexual impulses? And then there is no such thing as a sex crime?Sometimes people can control such impulses, sometimes some people cannot. That does not make something a crime in and of itself. A crime is an act that violates the rights of someone else. Two consenting adults of legal age are not violating someone else's rights with the acts they commit with each other. The standard of society is heterosexual. According to who, the majority? If t he majority should decide that slavery is OK should that be the standard as well? Earlier InfiniteNow chastized me for hinting that there is a slippery slope (however weakly :shrug: hampsters???) yet here is the evidence of it already. This interpretation of marriage doesn't allow same sex marriage, it makes it a contract between two people stripping away much of the implicit nature of the contract. A marriage is a vow of a shared life between a man and a woman, and in that vow they agree to sexual exclusivity with their partner. Who's interpretation counts as to exactly what a marriage is? In your view of vows you conveniently avoid the fact that many couples compose their own vows with say nothing about sex and the fact that gay churches perform marriages where they may. You certainly cannot claims that the later involves vows between a man and woman to share a life together. The question of if they ever have sex is irrelivent. It is that they promise themselves as part of the vows.If the question of sex is irrelevant then why does it matter if two gay men or women want to marry, if for no other reason than to enjoy the same legal benefits as other couples? What if they are not even gay? What if two best friends want to marry just for the benefits of marriage?
C1ay Posted June 14, 2006 Report Posted June 14, 2006 Something else to think about. Much of the argument against gay marriage is an argument about protecting the institution of marriage. Isn't today's divorce rates more of an assault on this institution than the desires of others that only want to join it? Perhaps a ban on gay marriage should also carry a ban on divorce if this argument is to have any merit.
Erasmus00 Posted June 14, 2006 Report Posted June 14, 2006 Earlier InfiniteNow chastized me for hinting that there is a slippery slope (however weakly :shrug: hampsters???) yet here is the evidence of it already. This interpretation of marriage doesn't allow same sex marriage, it makes it a contract between two people stripping away much of the implicit nature of the contract. A marriage is a vow of a shared life between a man and a woman, and in that vow they agree to sexual exclusivity with their partner. The question of if they ever have sex is irrelivent. It is that they promise themselves as part of the vows. Given the number of marriages that now end in divorce and the number of extramarital affairs, the meaning of the pact is already weakened. Consider that swinging couples don't even agree to sexual exclusivity. I'd argue that most American marriages DON'T fall into your narrow interpretation. In the decleration of independance, Jefferson pointed out certain inalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. By providing heterosexual couples with legal rights based on their union but denying homosexual couples we effectively deny the homosexual couples the third of these. The fact that these rights have been denied for years doesn't in anyway diminish the crucial fact: our government provides legal privledges to some that it denies to others. No matter what the standard has always been, no matter how long the standard has been that way, our government provides legal privledges to some that it denies to others. We are not all equal under the law. Gay's have the same rights as heterosexuals. Both both groups can only marry the opposite gender. Not if you phrase the right as "the right to marry a person to whom you are attracted." This whole thing should stay at the state level so people can find a nich of happiness and continue to peacefully coexist. Unfortunately, it can't be only at the state level. All states have to honor all other states driver's liscences/marriage certificates, etc. If one state legalizes homosexual marriage then all states will have married gay people living in them. -Will
Recommended Posts