Gays in society (split from Boy Scouts thread)

[Pulsar]

Only 3.4% of all people in the U.S. are homosexual.Why should they get special privileges?
If all men are created equal;What are these special "Hate Laws"?
It's just another way to further restrict the freedoms the U.S.A. was founded for.
"Hate Speech" Pls..They've been dumbing publicly-educated students down for close to 20 years now.You can't say "Black man" or "Retarded" anymore.
The hate speech laws are aimed at restricting freedom of religion.People can't discipline their children without going to prison now.Yet they wonder why all-of-a-sudden all this crazy stuff with kids is going on?
Well.. Let's see:You teach them we all came from monkeys,there is no God;You are your own god..Your morality is yours.There are no eternal consequences for doing bad things.Combine Humanistic World View with no corporal punishment;and there ya go.DERP! Columbine-o-rama kids.. wheeee!
/end rambling rant
So..What game is "Smear the queer" called now? LOL

1. It is not special privilege to allow them to have the same legal ability to marry as every heterosexual on the planet.
2. Free speech is not allowed in a number of circumstances. Yelling 'fire' in a theater is one popular example.
3. Are you denying that hate speech exists? Or are you questioning it's affects on people?
4. I believe you just said "Black Man" and "Retarded", hence proving your own statement incorrect.
5. I am unaware of any laws that restrict freedom of religion. You are perfectly free to worship any god, satan, or spaghetti monster you choose.
6. Corporal punishment is not illegal. My sons would be the first to tell you that.
7. We teach those things that we can prove. We do not teach things that require belief. If we did, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus would each need a couple chapters all to themselves.
8. There are many consequences for doing bad things. Jail, Prison, and Death being just a few.
9. One of the two Columbine shooters was a devout Lutheran, and the other was the son of a very religious military father.

You're really going to have to up your debate style if you want to be taken seriously here.

 

[mikeymikec]

Two questions:

How does it hurt society for homosexuality to exist?

How does it hurt society for homosexuals to marry?

 

[bradly1101]

I'm one of them gays. I'm glad for the shift in attitudes, but there will always be the bashers comparing us to beastyality or polygamy.

 

[Vaux]

I ask you again, are Catholic priests doing something that is "not a good or right thing to do"? Are people born with reproduction difficulties immoral people?

If you are born with a birth defect that makes you infertile, should you be told you can't marry because you are doing something not right or good?

I would say that celibacy is probably not a good thing. They can do what they want, but I don't think that is something that should be applauded. People born with reproduction difficulties are not immoral people.

If you are born infertile, you are still allowed to marry. Men and women get together, that's what they do. But you are not allowed to marry the same sex. I explained why in my last post.

It's crazy that you can't say "Discriminating against gays was never right, even when people thought it was."?

I can say that easily. But the problem is, we have different ideas on what we think is discrimination. Not allowing them to marry is not discrimination.

You know some other unnatural things? Driving a car. Talking to someone you can watch on video around the world. Manufactured medicine.

I don't have a problem with those things. And they don't lead to the elimination of the species, so it's not really relevant.

So it's not really about 'natural'. That's looking for an argument to support a position you're predisposed to want to hold and defend.

Well, that's your opinion.

You have no other basis for denying rights.

I have listed many, you just don't agree or you choose to ignore them.

Do you? If you do, say them now or forever hold your peace and stop harming people. No one is asking you to 'cure the gay'. Just to not spit in their face, put them in jail, deny them equal rights.

You should stop that. I have never called for any of those things or "harmed people".

 

[mikeymikec]

I can say that easily. But the problem is, we have different ideas on what we think is discrimination. Not allowing them to marry is not discrimination.

You think that giving one group of people less rights than another isn't discrimination?

Out of the nearest dictionary to hand:

discriminate (TREAT DIFFERENTLY) /dI"skrIm.I.neIt/ verb
to treat a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skin colour, religion, sex, etc

I don't have a problem with those things. And they don't lead to the elimination of the species, so it's not really relevant.

Let's assume for a second that someone's statistic from this thread regarding the number of homosexual people in America being 4% is true. Will this 4% cause the destruction of the species? If they're allowed to get married, how will this change that outcome?

 

[Vaux]

You think that giving one group of people less rights than another isn't discrimination?

Is it discrimination that a man cannot breast feed? Is it discrimination that a woman cannot join the mens football team? Marriage is a club for heterosexual men and women, and that's just the way it is. Or it should be, anyways.

Let's assume for a second that someone's statistic from this thread regarding the number of homosexual people in America being 4% is true. Will this 4% cause the destruction of the species? If they're allowed to get married, how will this change that outcome?

I have already explained why I think it is wrong, despite it only being 4 percent of the population. And that statistic is true, look it up.

It's not always about what harm will come to society by letting gays marry. Perhaps it's harmelss. But that is not people completely base the decision on. Some people have a definition of marriage and what it means and what it represents and how it should be represented. Some people feel that gay culture should not be something so celebrated because it goes against the grain of nature. And by allowing gays to marry, it puts a big stamp of approval on it and some people just aren't willing to do that.

 

[mikeymikec]

Is it discrimination that a man cannot breast feed?

For you to ask this question clearly demonstrates that you don't understand the definition.

Is it discrimination that a woman cannot join the mens football team?

Yes it is.

Marriage is a club for heterosexual men and women, and that's just the way it is. Or it should be, anyways.

That is a statement without any justification or substance.

It's not always about what harm will come to society by letting gays marry. Perhaps it's harmelss. But that is not people completely base the decision on. Some people have a definition of marriage and what it means and what it represents and how it should be represented. Some people feel that gay culture should not be something so celebrated because it goes against the grain of nature.

If someone decreed that you are not allowed to be married (because their definition conflicts with yours), how would you feel about it?

Also, I asked a question earlier that has gone unanswered:

Please create a list of things you did in the last week and explain how many (or even any) of those were "according to nature".

 

[randomrogue]

Answer the following questions:

1. Do you hate gays?
2. Do you think that gay people deserve to be marginalized by society?
3. Do you believe that gays should be denied certain civil rights?
4. Do you think you're better than a gay person?

If you answered YES to any of those questions then you are a bigot. You're a problem.

Now if you're justifying any of the above with the following:

1. I have a friend/family member who's gay
2. Yeah but....

You're still a bigot. There's no excuse.

I find it very interesting that people surround themselves by bigots and don't do anything to either enlighten them or leave them. Surely we've all had those friends who drank too much, were constantly fighting, who were unintelligent, etc and after a while you finally just moved on with your life and found a new friend(s). This was common sense right? The same thing should be true for bigots. Now we can't chose our family but if my family was intolerant bigots I would simply not be around them as often. Maybe a holiday here and there. Friends? If you have friends who are intolerant it's time to chose new ones. Don't let them bring you down to their level.

 

[Vaux]

For you to ask this question clearly demonstrates that you don't understand the definition."

Fine then, if you want to say it's discrimination because of a male can do something that a female can not, then I am ok with that. But its the "especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people" part of the definition that I dont subscribe to.

If someone decreed that you are not allowed to be married (because their definition conflicts with yours), how would you feel about it?

It's not a fair question. Sometimes people tell me I can't do something and they have a good reason and they are right, and sometimes they don't have a good reason and they are wrong. All the laws in this country were made by someone that decreed their view or definition of something and it was voted on by people with opinions.

I didn't create gender. I didn't decide the order of things. If I was gay I would not expect to be able to be married. Marriage has been only between a man and a woman in this country for a long time and some people think it should stay that way.

Please create a list of things you did in the last week and explain how many (or even any) of those were "according to nature".

Sorry I missed this. I probably missed quite a few things. This is a weird question I had to think about for a while. Mirriam Webster defines nature as the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing. It's also the physical world we come from. I don't do things puposely according to nature. But it is my nature to do things according to my character and principles I have learned throughout my life. So I guess my nature plays a part in everything I do. I don't have a list for you.

 

[randomrogue]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome, ancient Mesopotamia, in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

It's an interesting read.

 

[Craig234]

Is it discrimination that a man cannot breast feed? Is it discrimination that a woman cannot join the mens football team? Marriage is a club for heterosexual men and women, and that's just the way it is. Or it should be, anyways.

You're confusing biology and man-made discrimination.

It's not discrimination that only women can give birth - man did not choose that. It is discrimination if you only allow certain women to give birth or treat babies differently.

Women giving birth outside wedlock, their 'bastard' children, used to receive much more negative treatment from society for that than today - that's discrimination.

Discrimination is actually a neutral word. If you prefer a highly trained doctor to a voodoo doctor for surgery, that's dicrimintation - that makes sense. If you prefer to hire someone with a clean criminal record as a security guard over someone with a history of robbery, that's discrimination that makes sense.

Not letting a couple marry is discrimination. You might defend some of it - say you ban a 25 year old from marrying a 5 year old. That's discrimination that makes sense.

Saying gay couples cannot marry is absolutely discrimination, denying them equal rights, as it is to ban a race or inter-racial marriages. The question is, is it justified discrimination?

The answer is no. You say you have provided reasons, but you haven't - substitute 'black' for 'gay' in any of your arguments (except reproducing) and you see how wrong they are.

I have already explained why I think it is wrong, despite it only being 4 percent of the population. And that statistic is true, look it up.

It's not always about what harm will come to society by letting gays marry. Perhaps it's harmelss. But that is not people completely base the decision on. Some people have a definition of marriage and what it means and what it represents and how it should be represented. Some people feel that gay culture should not be something so celebrated because it goes against the grain of nature. And by allowing gays to marry, it puts a big stamp of approval on it and some people just aren't willing to do that.

What you have described is basically the definition of bigotry - one group feeling superior to another and wanting to treat the other worse only for that superiority reason.

It doesn't hold up to examination as anything but excuses for bigotry.

Your entire argument is there - "because it goes against the grain of nature". Except of course it doesn't - it's one way some people are naturally made. All the hate, criticism, shame, judgementalism, condemnation, about how 'wrong' it is is prejudice, bigotry, like with any other bigotry. People used to justify anti-black bigotry with everything from claims of racial superiority to religious arguments that dark skin means they were punished.

All it really was was that people had negative feelings towards another group with whatever cockamamie excuses they could make up to justify discrimination.

The question is how much you can look at the issue honestly and reach the same conclusion?

 

[Craig234]

I would say that celibacy is probably not a good thing. They can do what they want, but I don't think that is something that should be applauded. People born with reproduction difficulties are not immoral people.

So gays are 'not good or right' because they aren't attracted to the opposite sex reducing reproduction, but 'not good or right' is 'not immoral'? You're splitting a fine hair there.

You're punishing gays for being born gay. You're the one who said they're 'not good or right' for having the attraction they're born with - even as you refuse to punish not only others who have exactly the same effect, only stronger (born impotent, they can get married) or those who choose that result (those who choose not to have children, they can get married). But a group who is born gay, but can still have shildren with others and not choose to be gay, you punish by denying them equal rights.

If you are born infertile, you are still allowed to marry. Men and women get together, that's what they do. But you are not allowed to marry the same sex. I explained why in my last post.

Because of bigotry, as I explained in each post.

I can say that easily. But the problem is, we have different ideas on what we think is discrimination. Not allowing them to marry is not discrimination.

Of course it is, see my previous post that explains that.

I don't have a problem with those things. And they don't lead to the elimination of the species, so it's not really relevant.

And neither does homosexuality in any way threaten the elimination of the species.

And even on that you're inconistent. People born impotent and people who choose not to reproduce - as long as there aren't too many - don't 'lead to the elimination of the species', either. Yet you fail to treat them the same as gays, even though out of that list gays are the most likely to reproduce. Give me a reason bigotry isn't the reason for you only treating gays with that negative judgement and punishment to be treated as second class by not getting equal rights to marry who they love.

Well, that's your opinion.

And you have offered nothing to show it's not correct.

I have listed many, you just don't agree or you choose to ignore them.

No, I've shown they're excuses for bigotry. Things like it's been that way a long time, or people don't want to give them approval, are not valid justifications for discrimination.

You should stop that. I have never called for any of those things or "harmed people".

The only one you have done on that list is to harm people by denying them the right to marry the person they love, the equal treatment by society. That is harming.

But all those things on that list have been done to gays for the same bigotry you are defending. It's only a question how you harm them for that reason.

 

[Retro Rob]

Editted just now (not trying to ninja anyone, I just found a better way to say what I meant):

I have a real problem with a couple of things you said.

1. Marriage is sacred.
2. People are doing it (trying to get married) just because they see others do it.

I'm telling you that:

1. Marriage is not sacred. Marriage implies many aspects of a LEGAL relationship in the eyes of the government, not the least of which includes sharing of health plans at places of business, joint tax returns, and many other perks. Please explain why you think this LEGAL relationship should be denied to others who want to get married?

You don't get the play the sacred card, because a man and woman not even living together can get married. In fact, a man and woman can get married the day they meet. Go to Las Vegas.

So your religious viewpoint that marriage is sacred is a non-starter. Religious viewpoints are absolutely no reason to bar people from obtaining equal legal footing. Love is not required for marriage either.

2. See above for various legal reasons that people would want to be considered married, other than your obvious cop-out of 'because they see other people doing it'.

Sorry Rob, but it's clear that your religion is biasing everything you say and is coloring your view of the world in a very negative way. You're throwing up barriers where none should exist, and are attempt to deny people equal rights because you don't agree with their sexual preferences. Or at least, that's the way it appears.

Actually, your lack of reading made my head explode -- read my last paragraph. This isn't a pitch to restrict marriage laws to only hetero couples -- the post was only made to address possible loopholes.

Actually, that's the point. You're trying to narrow the definition of the word 'Marriage' to your religiously filtered view. That's not possible anymore, because the word Marriage includes a host of legal ramifications as well that you should not be able to deny others just due to your religious views.

If marriage is so unsacred, then why even have it? Is it just for federal benefits?

You get married to show your lifelong commitment to the other person -- that's what makes it sacred because you're making a permanent promise to only be with that one person. I know religious terms scare you, but you can't redefine something just because you don't like how people view it.

It is sacred -- why do you think people call sex outside of marriage "cheating"? Marriage is sacred and special, and we don't need constant and needless additions to it because of whiny people who think they're entitled to everything because others can do it.

You should meet qualifications to have your marriage legally recognized and it needs to have limits to avoid women abuse and exploitation, but you don't care about that, do you?

I remember watching this part on Lion King where after the King was killed by his brother, the uncle was heir to the thrown since the son was exiled. The new King, not imposing any limits on the food his subjects consumed, nearly drove the entire lion pride and other animals to the brink of starvation in a relatively short period of time under the liberal promise "you'll never go hungry again!!"

He let them do as they wanted. Eventually, the exiled son returned, reclaimed his throne from his foolish uncle who was killed, and restored the land.

The moral: impose limits on marriage and it would never become a haven of exploitation and mistreatment.

 

[Vaux]

You're confusing biology and man-made discrimination.

Same sex marriage is a biology issue. That is the reason why it can't happen. Not a discrimination issue.

Not letting a couple marry is discrimination.

Disagree. The simple fact of being a couple does not entitle you to be married.

Saying gay couples cannot marry is absolutely discrimination, denying them equal rights, as it is to ban a race or inter-racial marriages.

No it isn't. Interracial marriages are not the same as same sex marriages. The issue is male and female, not color.

substitute 'black' for 'gay' in any of your arguments (except reproducing) and you see how wrong they are.

Again, wrong. There is nothing about being black that detrimental to the human race.

"because it goes against the grain of nature". Except of course it doesn't - it's one way some people are naturally made.

Yes, they are naturally made. Many people have been naturally made........with a defect. Which means, they were made not the way they are supposed to be.

We are beginning to talk in circles and this doesn't seem to be a productive debate anymore.

 

[mikeymikec]

Fine then, if you want to say it's discrimination because of a male can do something that a female can not, then I am ok with that. But its the "especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people" part of the definition that I dont subscribe to.

Did you study English at school? Did they say "this word means xyz, or whatever you want it to mean of course"?

It's not a fair question.

Who said anything about fair? A bunch of bigots are coming along and said that their definition of marriage conflicts with another group's, so the latter group aren't allowed to marry.

If I was gay I would not expect to be able to be married.

Why not? Hetero couples get married because they want to publicly declare their long-term commitment to each other. Homosexual couples want to do the same thing, not for it to be called something else because some people think their love is different in some sort of conflicting way. I suspect that you would be insulted if you wanted to get married and someone said you couldn't because they don't think that your love for your partner is quite the same as their love for theirs.

I disagree with how a lot of married couples act in their marriage but I'm not feeling the need to shove my opinion down their throats or attempting to marginalise/discriminate against them in society.

Marriage has been only between a man and a woman in this country for a long time and some people think it should stay that way.

You're repeating yourself. This does not make a sound argument.

Mirriam Webster defines nature as the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing.

It is natural for homosexual people to feel attracted to their own gender. You would vote to say that some people shouldn't do things that are natural to them, despite the fact that their behaviour with others is completely consensual and doesn't harm you or society in any way.

But it is my nature to do things according to my character and principles I have learned throughout my life.

And if I use your explanation then what's your problem with homosexual people doing what is natural to them with consenting partners? It's natural for them to love whom they love and therefore also natural that they may want to publicly commit in the long-term to that relationship.

 

[Vaux]

So gays are 'not good or right' because they aren't attracted to the opposite sex reducing reproduction, but 'not good or right' is 'not immoral'?

I said people born with reproduction difficulties are not immoral. If a woman is born not able to have children then I don't see how morals have anything to do with it.

You're punishing gays for being born gay.

It certainly is not punishment. If we are saying that they are born gay, then unfortunately for them they were born with a trait that does not allow them to be married. Kind of like being born black. You don't get to be white. Well, unless your Michael Jackson.

You're the one who said they're 'not good or right' for having the attraction they're born with - even as you refuse to punish not only others who have exactly the same effect, only stronger (born impotent, they can get married)

Yes. They are still male and female. They are still programmed to be attracted to one another and have relations. This is how the human species is made to function.

But a group who is born gay, but can still have shildren with others

How many gay people are doing this? Isn't the point of being gay is that you like men, not women? Why are the gay guys having sex with women? Are they gay or not?

And even on that you're inconistent. People born impotent and people who choose not to reproduce - as long as there aren't too many don't 'lead to the elimination of the species', either.

We have been over this and I am tired of repeating myself.

 

[mikeymikec]

nvm

 

[Retro Rob]

I have a question for people who are for polygamy -- would it be ok for your mate to bring another person into your marriage? If you're a straight man, would you allow your wife to marry 2 other guys?

If not, why are you discriminating?

 

[Vaux]

Did you study English at school? Did they say "this word means xyz, or whatever you want it to mean of course"?

Yeah ok. That was rude but whatever.

Homosexual couples want to do the same thing, not for it to be called something else because some people think their love is different in some sort of conflicting way.

Yeah that is real touching and all, but it doesn't really matter how much love they have for each other. Unfortunately, that isn't a requirement. But being a different sex is.

I disagree with how a lot of married couples act in their marriage but I'm not feeling the need to shove my opinion down their throats or attempting to marginalise/discriminate against them in society.

Don't pretend like there is no issue that you don't vocalize about or feel is wrong or right. And I don't know about shoving my opinion down their throat, I mean last I heard people were voting on gay marriage amendments. That means my voice shouldn't be heard and I should keep my opinion to myself?

So it's natural for homosexual people to feel attracted to their own gender. You would vote to say that some people shouldn't do things that are natural to them, despite the fact that their behaviour with others is completely consensual and doesn't harm you or society in any way.

If you are saying people are born gay, then I suppose they have a natural attraction to each other. But as I have stated before, this is not natural behavior for the human species. Something went wrong in the process, and these oddities showed up. If these two oddities can be in love, hey whatever. But just don't pretend that is the way that it's supposed to be, because it's not. Oh, and saying it doesn't harm society is speculation on your part. It could be argued that the increasing popularity of the gay culture has a negative effect on future generations who treat this abnormal behavior as something wonderful. Raising kids in a same sex family still has a lot of questions surrounding it as well.

I am about done with this subject. I keep talking in circles and it's evident that no progress is being made on either side.

 

[mikeymikec]

I have a question for people who are for polygamy -- would it be ok for your mate to bring another person into your marriage? If you're a straight man, would you allow your wife to marry 2 other guys?

If not, why are you discriminating?

This question might not be directed at me (because while I wouldn't regard myself as "pro polygamy", I consider myself to be open-minded and not wanting to discriminate/marginalise purely because someone else's views don't coincide with mine), I'll have a crack at a response.

In sexual relationships, IMO consent (and capacity to give consent) is one of the most important factors, if not the most important. I think that pretty much answers your question. I think if one loses the concept of consent then a lot of concepts in relationships go haywire and things get very complicated.

If it came to a vote I'd probably abstain. I'm neither pro or against polygamy. My personal opinion is that it makes relationships unnecessarily complicated and therefore less likely to last, but I'm not going to get on a soapbox about it or marginalise/discriminate because of my opinion.

 

[Zivic]

as far as I am concerned this is all BS. Gays have always had the right and opportunity to marry.... unfortunately for them, they had to marry a person of the opposite sex.

I think this whole argument is a bunch of crap and another example of the squeaky wheel getting the grease

 

[Retro Rob]

Who said anything about fair? A bunch of bigots are coming along and said that their definition of marriage conflicts with another group's, so the latter group aren't allowed to marry.

You're actually wrong here. Gay people "came along" wanting to be included in marriage.

For the longest time, only hetero couples were marrying, then gays came along wanting to marry (in this country, anyway).

Just sayin'... you have it backwards.

 

[Retro Rob]

This question might not be directed at me (because while I wouldn't regard myself as "pro polygamy", I consider myself to be open-minded and not wanting to discriminate/marginalise purely because someone else's views don't coincide with mine), I'll have a crack at a response.

In sexual relationships, IMO consent (and capacity to give consent) is one of the most important factors, if not the most important. I think that pretty much answers your question. I think if one loses the concept of consent then a lot of concepts in relationships go haywire and things get very complicated.

If it came to a vote I'd probably abstain. I'm neither pro or against polygamy. My personal opinion is that it makes relationships unnecessarily complicated and therefore less likely to last, but I'm not going to get on a soapbox about it or marginalise/discriminate because of my opinion.

I understand that, but you're not answering my question.

If your mate wanted to bring several partners into your marriage (same or opposite sex, or both) would you be cool with that? They're at the age of consent, and you have to allow it because it's law.

Would you be cool with that?

 

[Zivic]

Who said anything about fair? A bunch of bigots are coming along and said that their definition of marriage conflicts with another group's, so the latter group aren't allowed to marry.

and I bet you could find people into bestiality and pedophiles that would have conflicting definitions of marriage as well. should we just open it up and let anyone marry anyone or any thing?

 

[Vaux]

as far as I am concerned this is all BS. Gays have always had the right and opportunity to marry.... unfortunately for them, they had to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Quoted for truth.