Post Reply
Page 28 of 47  •  Prev 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 ... 47 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Strong Support for Gay Marriage Now Exceeds Strong Opposition
2 years ago  ::  Jun 07, 2012 - 7:12PM #271
Ken
Posts: 33,860

Jun 7, 2012 -- 6:17PM, mainecaptain wrote:

I recall a post in which he stated, he wanted to cure gay people of being gay, like it was a disease. So even if it were proved beyond a shadow of a doubt you are born this way, (which of course they are) Some People would still either want to harm gay people or cure them.


Nasty world out there.



You're right. That's what he said, and I've just been waiting for him to say it again. Now he has. I wonder if he realizes the enormity of what he's saying.


Thank you.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 07, 2012 - 7:32PM #272
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,660

Jun 7, 2012 -- 6:54PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 6:17PM, mainecaptain wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 5:43PM, karbie wrote:



Until somehow God, science and  biologists offer irrefutable proof that being homosexual is a genetic "choice" like eye color, you seem to expect those who are attracted to same gender partners to not have sex.





Not really. I recall a post in which he stated, he wanted to cure gay people of being gay, like it was a disease. So even if it were proved beyond a shadow of a doubt you are born this way, (which of course they are) Some People would still either want to harm gay people or cure them.


Nasty world out there.




Please don't misrepresent what I say.


I have said, at various times, I think the current narrative regarding homosexuality is flawed and essentially irrational and dishonest, and homosexuality probably has dysfunctional elements to it.


I said would expect that at some point, an effective and humane way to reverse homosexuality will probably be discovered.


I've also noted, that current, much vaunted "ex-gay" programs -- usually couched in fundamentalist religion -- don't seem to fit that bill, and probably do more harm than good.


I've never, ever said that I, personally, wanted to "cure" gay people. 




I did not misrepresent your words. You just repeated pretty much what I remember, although obviously I did not remember your exact wording.


There is no reason to reverse homosexuality. It is not like it was hetero to begin with that it would need reverseing. It is a natural state of being. It is supposed to exist. And to say it should be reversed is insulting. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality.




A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 07, 2012 - 8:03PM #273
TPaine
Posts: 9,054

Jun 7, 2012 -- 4:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


A claim of "discriminaton" can't be made unless and until an underlying objective equality is demonstrated. Therefore, your attempts to comare this to heteroxeual marriage is irrelvant and baseless. 


The standards of marriage are, by their very nature, exclusionary. It's like anything else you have to qualify for -- not something that's just handed out like a party favor. 


On what do you base your claim that homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals? Historically the country has moved toward less exclusion. At each step the opposition has claimed that those desiring various rights are not as worthy as those who are have such right because they are inferior in some way. It's fallacious to say that giving non-property owners the right to vote, overturning slavery, allowing women to vote, overturning anti-miscegenation and sodomy laws is acceptable, but allowing two consenting same-sex couples to marry isn't unless you can prove that such couples are not equal to heterosexual couples.


Jun 7, 2012 -- 4:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

But by the same token, why should we base our ideas on those other societies you cited? For example, the homosexuality of Greece and Rome wasn't so much the "sexual orientation" narrative we have today. It was based on a hyper-glorification of masculinity. In which women were regarded as little more than vessles for making babies. Therefore, it was more glorious to have sex with other men. And in pre-Columbian South America, some cultures practiced human sacrifce. 


The ultimate point being, it's foolish to hold up those cultures as some sort of moral compass, while deriding the religions as somehow backward and brutish, because they discourage homosexuality.  


I'm well aware that our laws aren't based upon religion, and I'm fine with that. But neither are our socital moral standards based upon the moral standards of Rome, nor would I particularly want them to be.


They also liked huge orgies, continual drunkeness, and watching people kill one another in the arena as a form of entertainment.



My point was that the idea that homosexual activity should be taboo was based on spread of the Abrahamic religions. Those religion (other than the Bahá'í Faith) according to their holy books allowed slavery, fathers selling their daughters in arranged marriages, stoning rape victims to death, polygamy, pedophilia, and  genocide. Women were considered to be the property of their husbands. The auto de fe was as disgusting as the gladiatorial combat or human sacrifice.


Jun 7, 2012 -- 4:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Wrong again. You can't place anything under the umbrella of "rights" until you can demonstrate it's even a right to begin with. Since marriage is "not about sex," then I think your case for a "right" evaporated.


Whether it is a choice is irrelevant. However, as I pointed out before -- while having a predisposition to homosexual attractions might not be a choice, following through on it is. Perhaps grownups should own that choice and live with the consequences, instead of demanding "rights" based upon it.



Marriage is a right. It is an act granted by government that includes certain perquisites. To allow one group of people to take advantage of those perks but another group based on age, disability, gender, ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, or sexual orientation is discrimination unless you can present evidence that such a listed group is somehow inferior to the others.


Jun 7, 2012 -- 4:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

First, "two people who love each other" is a blantant appeal to subjective emotion. Why should an institution as fundamentally important to the well being of society as marriage be changed, just to cater to sentiments? And again, if sex isn't required in marriage -- then people with a homosexual predisposistion have no substantial beef with the concept that marriage is regulated to opposite-sex partners only. 


Those other things -- hospital visitation, estate transfer, and so on -- can be had in ways besides marriage. And so what if it's more complicated for a non-married couple?


Again, why completely re-tool an entire fundamental institution -- just because it would make things more convienent for a tiny minorty that supposedly has a predispoistion to a certain set of sexual attractions? That's non-sensical on its face.



Actually, I don't understand what is so fundamentally important to the well-being of society about marriage. 50% of all marriages end in divorce. Marriage is not necessary for reproduction. An unmarried couple can raise children as well as a married couple. The beef isn't about sex, it's about the inability of committed homosexual couples to receive the 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges based solely on their gender preference.


As I said, I don't care what the call it (marriage, civil unions, or whatever) as long as everyone participating in committed relationships receive the benefits, rights, and privileges. Sexual and emotional attractions are the basis of all such relationships. Since all marriage (or whatever you want to call it) is based on a predisposition (except for bisexuals) of a certain set sexual attractions is the problem that homosexuals are a minority?


Jun 7, 2012 -- 4:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I'm inclined to agree with you about getting the government out of marriage, and making it civil unions for all. Perhaps that will happen. 


No, rights should not be determined by religious beliefs. But I have not even really brought religion into this, you have.


I'm looking at this as a matter of rational thought and fairness. If you want to have a debate on the subject of homosexuality within a religious framework, then meet me over on the religion boards.


What I'm asking for here is some rational backing for some claims that gay-marriage activism wants to hold up as foregone conclusions -- with no real proof.


Constant comparisions to the struggle to end marriage laws based upon arbitrary standards of skin pigmentation are but one example of said irrational and essentialy dishonest tactics.


I'm still waiting for some sound arguments on your part, instead of appeals to Mildred Loving, Romans, past bigots, or whoever else. 


No, rights should not be determined by religion.  But rights should absolutely not be determined by completely baseless and irrational claims of "equality" that simply does not exist. 


That's neither rational or fair. It's pandering to a completely emotional narrative. 


Like I said, if this was really a matter of reason and factual determination, it would be framed as an issue of self-determination for consenting adults and freedom of choice. Both of which I fully support.


If people predisposed to homosexal desires wish to form lasting unions, or even families, based upon the basic axioms of self-determination and freedom of choice by consenting adults, then bully for them, and, absolutely, more power to them.



I brought up religion because prejudice against homosexuality in various places in the world came about when Christianity and Islam spread to those places. That is documented fact. Further, much of the opposition toward same-sex marriage comes from various religious groups such as Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, the National Organization for Marriage, the Alliance Defense Fund, the Family Research Institute, among others. If you don't believe that this is an equality issue give actual reasons why it is not. Don't just say it's baseless and illogical because you say so. I realize that this discussion is just an intellectual exercise and you are not a person who wants to limit the rights of anyone including those in the LGBT community. At least we can agree on not tying governmental benefits to religious sacraments.

"When it shall be said in any country in the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am a friend of its happiness: When these things can be said, then may the country boast its constitution and its government." -- Thomas Paine: The Rights Of Man (1791)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 07, 2012 - 8:04PM #274
Thetwofish
Posts: 547

Jun 7, 2012 -- 6:54PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 6:17PM, mainecaptain wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 5:43PM, karbie wrote:



MM:


Please don't misrepresent what I say.


I have said, at various times, I think the current narrative regarding homosexuality is flawed and essentially irrational and dishonest, and homosexuality probably has dysfunctional elements to it.


YOU think...and that's supposed to convince those of us who have actually LISTENED to what homosexuals SAY about who they are?  We are polite enough not to call them liars and actually LISTEN.  You choose the other path.  Shame.  And please list your credentials as a clinical psychologist.  What YOU think is of no consequence.  It does not change the truth.  Where have I heard that before?  Oh, yeah...YOU.  Emotions don't change the truth.  Well neither do your thoughts, bub.


I said (I) would expect that at some point, an effective and humane way to reverse homosexuality will probably be discovered.


And I expect that I will sprout wings and fly tonight.  It makes about as much sense.


I've also noted, that current, much vaunted "ex-gay" programs -- usually couched in fundamentalist religion -- don't seem to fit that bill, and probably do more harm than good.


Well, you got one thing right.


I've never, ever said that I, personally, wanted to "cure" gay people.


But you sure think it can be done.  Just wondering why you would even bring it up if you didn't think, deep down, that you wanted to see a "cure" or that, at the very least, it would be a good thing?





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 07, 2012 - 9:00PM #275
Amycain
Posts: 4,380

I like what you've said here Tpaine


Jun 7, 2012 -- 8:03PM, TPaine wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 4:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


A claim of "discriminaton" can't be made unless and until an underlying objective equality is demonstrated. Therefore, your attempts to comare this to heteroxeual marriage is irrelvant and baseless. 


The standards of marriage are, by their very nature, exclusionary. It's like anything else you have to qualify for -- not something that's just handed out like a party favor. 


On what do you base your claim that homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals? Historically the country has moved toward less exclusion. At each step the opposition has claimed that those desiring various rights are not as worthy as those who are have such right because they are inferior in some way. It's fallacious to say that giving non-property owners the right to vote, overturning slavery, allowing women to vote, overturning anti-miscegenation and sodomy laws is acceptable, but allowing two consenting same-sex couples to marry isn't unless you can prove that such couples are not equal to heterosexual couples.


Jun 7, 2012 -- 4:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

But by the same token, why should we base our ideas on those other societies you cited? For example, the homosexuality of Greece and Rome wasn't so much the "sexual orientation" narrative we have today. It was based on a hyper-glorification of masculinity. In which women were regarded as little more than vessles for making babies. Therefore, it was more glorious to have sex with other men. And in pre-Columbian South America, some cultures practiced human sacrifce. 


The ultimate point being, it's foolish to hold up those cultures as some sort of moral compass, while deriding the religions as somehow backward and brutish, because they discourage homosexuality.  


I'm well aware that our laws aren't based upon religion, and I'm fine with that. But neither are our socital moral standards based upon the moral standards of Rome, nor would I particularly want them to be.


They also liked huge orgies, continual drunkeness, and watching people kill one another in the arena as a form of entertainment.



My point was that the idea that homosexual activity should be taboo was based on spread of the Abrahamic religions. Those religion (other than the Bahá'í Faith) according to their holy books allowed slavery, fathers selling their daughters in arranged marriages, stoning rape victims to death, polygamy, pedophilia, and  genocide. Women were considered to be the property of their husbands. The auto de fe was as disgusting as the gladiatorial combat or human sacrifice.


Jun 7, 2012 -- 4:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Wrong again. You can't place anything under the umbrella of "rights" until you can demonstrate it's even a right to begin with. Since marriage is "not about sex," then I think your case for a "right" evaporated.


Whether it is a choice is irrelevant. However, as I pointed out before -- while having a predisposition to homosexual attractions might not be a choice, following through on it is. Perhaps grownups should own that choice and live with the consequences, instead of demanding "rights" based upon it.



Marriage is a right. It is an act granted by government that includes certain perquisites. To allow one group of people to take advantage of those perks but another group based on age, disability, gender, ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, or sexual orientation is discrimination unless you can present evidence that such a listed group is somehow inferior to the others.


Jun 7, 2012 -- 4:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

First, "two people who love each other" is a blantant appeal to subjective emotion. Why should an institution as fundamentally important to the well being of society as marriage be changed, just to cater to sentiments? And again, if sex isn't required in marriage -- then people with a homosexual predisposistion have no substantial beef with the concept that marriage is regulated to opposite-sex partners only. 


Those other things -- hospital visitation, estate transfer, and so on -- can be had in ways besides marriage. And so what if it's more complicated for a non-married couple?


Again, why completely re-tool an entire fundamental institution -- just because it would make things more convienent for a tiny minorty that supposedly has a predispoistion to a certain set of sexual attractions? That's non-sensical on its face.



Actually, I don't understand what is so fundamentally important to the well-being of society about marriage. 50% of all marriages end in divorce. Marriage is not necessary for reproduction. An unmarried couple can raise children as well as a married couple. The beef isn't about sex, it's about the inability of committed homosexual couples to receive the 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges based solely on their gender preference.


As I said, I don't care what the call it (marriage, civil unions, or whatever) as long as everyone participating in committed relationships receive the benefits, rights, and privileges. Sexual and emotional attractions are the basis of all such relationships. Since all marriage (or whatever you want to call it) is based on a predisposition (except for bisexuals) of a certain set sexual attractions is the problem that homosexuals are a minority?


Jun 7, 2012 -- 4:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I'm inclined to agree with you about getting the government out of marriage, and making it civil unions for all. Perhaps that will happen. 


No, rights should not be determined by religious beliefs. But I have not even really brought religion into this, you have.


I'm looking at this as a matter of rational thought and fairness. If you want to have a debate on the subject of homosexuality within a religious framework, then meet me over on the religion boards.


What I'm asking for here is some rational backing for some claims that gay-marriage activism wants to hold up as foregone conclusions -- with no real proof.


Constant comparisions to the struggle to end marriage laws based upon arbitrary standards of skin pigmentation are but one example of said irrational and essentialy dishonest tactics.


I'm still waiting for some sound arguments on your part, instead of appeals to Mildred Loving, Romans, past bigots, or whoever else. 


No, rights should not be determined by religion.  But rights should absolutely not be determined by completely baseless and irrational claims of "equality" that simply does not exist. 


That's neither rational or fair. It's pandering to a completely emotional narrative. 


Like I said, if this was really a matter of reason and factual determination, it would be framed as an issue of self-determination for consenting adults and freedom of choice. Both of which I fully support.


If people predisposed to homosexal desires wish to form lasting unions, or even families, based upon the basic axioms of self-determination and freedom of choice by consenting adults, then bully for them, and, absolutely, more power to them.



I brought up religion because prejudice against homosexuality in various places in the world came about when Christianity and Islam spread to those places. That is documented fact. Further, much of the opposition toward same-sex marriage comes from various religious groups such as Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, the National Organization for Marriage, the Alliance Defense Fund, the Family Research Institute, among others. If you don't believe that this is an equality issue give actual reasons why it is not. Don't just say it's baseless and illogical because you say so. I realize that this discussion is just an intellectual exercise and you are not a person who wants to limit the rights of anyone including those in the LGBT community. At least we can agree on not tying governmental benefits to religious sacraments.





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 07, 2012 - 9:31PM #276
mountain_man
Posts: 38,097

Jun 7, 2012 -- 4:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

....I'm looking at this as a matter of rational thought and fairness.


When did you start?


What I'm asking for here is some rational backing for some claims that gay-marriage activism wants to hold up as foregone conclusions -- with no real proof.


Isn't that called "poisoning the well"?

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 07, 2012 - 9:36PM #277
mountain_man
Posts: 38,097

Jun 7, 2012 -- 5:54PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

...I'm merely saying the narrative for "marriage equality" is an irrational and dishonest sham.


A perfect example of something you brought up; poisoning the well.


There are a myriad of alternatives between those two extremes.


And marriage equality is that perfect middle ground. You live your life as you wish and gays can live their lives as they wish. No one is forcing you into a gay marriage. No one is forcing you to do anything. Gays getting married will have no effect on your life.


And I'm still waiting for a rational argument against marriage equality. Saying you don't like that term is not a rational argument.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 07, 2012 - 9:39PM #278
mountain_man
Posts: 38,097

Jun 7, 2012 -- 6:54PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

...I have said, at various times, I think the current narrative regarding homosexuality is flawed and essentially irrational and dishonest, and homosexuality probably has dysfunctional elements to it.


Again, another perfect example of poisoning the well. It's odd that you accuse others of what you so often do yourself. You have yet to present one rational argument based on current psychology or any medical science to back up your claims. All you have is a belief.


I said would expect that at some point, an effective and humane way to reverse homosexuality will probably be discovered.


No one is looking since there is nothing to cure or reverse.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 07, 2012 - 9:47PM #279
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,660


Jun 7, 2012 -- 6:54PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

..I said would expect that at some point, an effective and humane way to reverse homosexuality will probably be discovered.



As Mountain man stated, no one is looking, because there is nothing to cure, reverse, fix. It would be INHUMANE to try and change what is perfectly natural, and healthy.


And I doubt anyone would want to change if they were fully accepted into society as they should be. Just other human beings trying their best to live their lives.


The only thing that needs a cure or reversal, is the minds of bigots. It would be nice if they could find a cure for that.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 07, 2012 - 10:12PM #280
Ken
Posts: 33,860

Has anyone else reported mytmouse57's post? To characterize gay people as diseased is surely beyond the pale.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 28 of 47  •  Prev 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 ... 47 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook