Jun 8, 2012 -- 6:25PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I'm dubious about the affirmation, enablement and encouragement of homosexuality. 

We are not seeking "affirmation"; we are seeking equal treatment before the law by the government.

As for "enablement and encouragement of homosexuality", neither are really possible. One either is or is not attracted to others of the same gender, and no coaxing is ever going to change that. I mean, have YOU ever said to a neighbor/friend/co-worker, 'You know Tom, I really think you should try guys.'? Do you think that'd work as 'encouragement'?

Meanwhile, 'reparative therapy' "clinics" abound that have as their goal the exact opposite (deterrence at all costs) of what you believe happens (enablement or encouragement), so I think your 'dubiousness' is justified - it doesn't exist and it's delusional to suggest that it does in the first place.

Jun 8, 2012 -- 6:25PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Perhaps that's causing real harm to real people. Enablement isn't "love." In fact, it's about the farthest thing from it.

Again, IF it were happening, you'd have a point. It isn't, and you don't.

Jun 8, 2012 -- 6:25PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

But, I'm also for self-determination and freedom of choice.

You make me laugh.

Jun 8, 2012 -- 6:25PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

 If gay people wish to pair up, more power to them.

Gay people wish to more than "pair up"; they wish for their perfectly legal marriages to be recognized equally by the State.

Jun 8, 2012 -- 6:25PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

If the push to get full legal recognition of gay marriage flies -- then so be it. I might not agree with the reasoning behind it. But I can surely tolerate it.

There's scant evidence that you would "tolerate" it here on these boards.

Jun 8, 2012 -- 6:25PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Freedom and civility rest upon tolerance. 

I do wish you'd embody that thinking in more/any of your posts.

Jun 8, 2012 -- 6:52PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

We've been over this already. If you're looking at this in the strictly legal sense, then I have no legitimate beef to bring to the table*. That is, if the strict legal definition of marriage is -- a contract between two consenting adults, who are not direct blood relatives. 

We've been saying *that from the beginning.

Jun 8, 2012 -- 6:52PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

However, if we talk about it as a matter of principles and values, your attempt to debunk the analogy fails.

A homosexual union lacks the ability for the full biological procreation of children, setting the stage for biological mother-father parenting of the next generation.

Society absolutely has a vested interest in that, and hence, has tended to protect, favor and encourage it. 

In other words, you can't cry foul when society favors something it has a good reason to favor. 

Your entire rebuttal is about a different intitution - parenting - from the one under discussion here - marriage.

Jun 8, 2012 -- 6:52PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Childless heterosexual unions might ride the coat-tails, so to speak. Is that "fair" in the immediate sense? Probably not.

Why ever not? If you're going to compare those famous "apples" with other "apples", you should/can only compare childless couples of EITHER orientation. You fail to do that, which is why we dismiss your 'opinon' that between the two kinds of relationships, one is inherently "inferior". If you use childless heterosexual couples (the only valid comparison), your 'point' disproves itelf. But you won't do that. ALL of your 'defense' is based on "procreation and parenting". You adamantly refuse to even acknowledge that NEITHER procreation nor parenting are requirements of marriage. It is that with which we get "upset" - because your obstinancy enrages us - because it is neither reaonable nor rational. Nor will it be until you concede that makin' babies is NOT a requirement to enter the institution we call civil marriage.

Jun 8, 2012 -- 6:52PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

But still, that's primarily because they represent only exceptions of instance -- not a radical change of principle.

And yet you MAKE the "exception" for some and not for all. That's the inconsistent part we loathe.

Jun 8, 2012 -- 6:52PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Society is dubious and wary toward changes of principle for a reason -- especially when it comes to something as fundamental as marriage. 

No. YOU are "dubious". (You said so a couple of posts ago.) Many others here disagree, so obviously, "society"  does not speak with one accord on the matter, which reduces your claim to, yet again, nothing more than your opinion.

I think homophobia comes from different causes.

I think probably the majority comes from ignorance and lack of experience.  In the 1970s, if I thought about gays at all, I assumed they were oversexed perverts because that was the gist of what I had read in novels.  When I actually got to know people I knew were gay, I realized that they were no different than I was.  I also learned that it was not a choice, they were who they were, just as I was who I was.  I suspect that we are seeing a shift in approval from this demographic as more people come out, and more of us realize that all those perfectly normal people we know are gay. 

I think there are some fundamentalist religionists who lack a good understanding of how their religion really developed and lack an understanding of context and difficulties in translation.  I think this group also tends to lack an internal moral compass and assume that nobody else has internal moral compasses either.  Without external laws, their appetites will apparently overwhelm them and they assume nobody else has any more self control either.  I suspect change in this group will be slow, because they are not interested in Bible scholarship, and science is even worse.

I suspect there are a lot of self-loathing closeted gays out there who are probably the loudest of the naysayers.  I am always astonished when I hear people ask where children will come from if we allow gay marriage.  Well, duh, heterosexuals are not going to get into same sex marriages, so children will come from where they have always come from.  

I think another fairly bitter group is one I'll call the losers, for lack of a better name.  This is the group that for whatever reason, lack of cognitive skills, personality disorders, crappy childhoods, just don't make it well in life.  They need someone to blame and to look down upon and since it is not PC to blame blacks or Jews, they go after gays and immigrants.  They are not likely to change either.

Fortunately the rest of mentally healthy and reasonable educated people are capable of learning that those who are gay are just us.  Not different in any substantial way at all.  Which makes those in the other groups even more agitated because they are becoming a minority and that seems to scare them.  If black and white becomes gray, how can they survive?

Jun 9, 2012 -- 10:30AM, Do_unto_others wrote:

Jun 8, 2012 -- 7:04PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Nevermind.

This is getting too ugly for my taste. 

There's other topics to debate here. As a matter of respect and civility, I think I'll leave this one alone for a while. 

The "libel" charge, I believe, was the "inferior" claim. (I could be mistaken.)

And the diseased/disordered/dysfunctional claim.

Jun 9, 2012 -- 11:00AM, drawout wrote:

Those who do believe homosexuality is a choice may be saying the truth in their own particular case. Homophobia is understandable if you are bisexual and fundamentalist Christian for example. For you it is a choice and you might fear temptation. I think the only valid argument against the peer reviewed scientific consensus that sexual preference is NOT a choice would be for the opponents to admit having strong homosexual urges that they choose to resist.

Somebody published a research study in which nonhomophic men, homophobic men and gay men were shown gay porn. Instead of trusting their self report, they hooked strain gauges up to their penises and let them do the talking. The homophobic men responded to the gay porn in the same way the (drum roll...) gay men did.