Maggie Gallagher giving up on optimism

[Charles Kozierok]

You're taking that out if context. That wasn't meant to be directed at homosexuals but humans in general. And I am right about that - that's the one of the buggest fundamental difference between us an animals. That's all I was implying.
...
Actually I thought we switched topics when I stated my piece about extraordinary humans. I was no longer speaking of homosexual persons, but desires generally. You even engaged me in that topic. My bad then.

You're either dodging the issue again, or extremely confused.

You say it applies to "humans in general", but it's only homosexuals that are asked to suppress their innate sexual desires. So when you say "Our freedom to reason and choose based on sound reason is something out animal counterparts don't have" -- you ARE speaking of homosexual persons.

But there is no "sound reason" for people to choose to make themselves miserable -- nor for society to force them to be miserable when they aren't harming anyone else -- and you know it, which is why you are no longer discussing this issue in good faith.

 

[Retro Rob]

You're either dodging the issue again, or extremely confused.

You say it applies to "humans in general", but it's only homosexuals that are asked to suppress their innate sexual desires. So when you say "Our freedom to reason and choose based on sound reason is something out animal counterparts don't have" -- you ARE speaking of homosexual persons.

But there is no "sound reason" for people to choose to make themselves miserable -- nor for society to force them to be miserable when they aren't harming anyone else -- and you know it, which is why you are no longer discussing this issue in good faith.

??? If they are being asked to suppress their sexual desires, it wasn't by me, unless you're saying I typed that out some where.

I honestly wasn't taking about them anymore. That's the part that's causing confusion. That's why I'm wondering why you think Im dodging. I wasn't speaking of them anymore. I really though you and I started speaking in general about humans, seriously.

 

[sandorski]

Where's the demarcation line between Animal and non-Animal? The only distinct feature of Humans vs other Mammals is level of Intelligence. Everything Physical in a Human is also present in many other Mammals, other Animals also have many of the same Physical attributes as Humans, other Animals have various levels of Intelligence, other Animals exhibit Emotions, other Animals have various levels of the capability of Communication, etc etc.

So where is this line and why do people automatically assume it is at Humans, when Dolphins and other Animals exhibit uniquely sophisticated attributes in comparison to other Animals?

If we are not Animals, then what are we? Plants? Elements? Celestial Bodies?

 

[werepossum]

You've been polluting this thread with disingenuous, bigoted, rambling nonsense. Every post from you has been a stream-of-consciousness mess that has failed to make any point for provide a basis for any assumption. You've dodged, you've projected, engaged in fallacy and non-sequitur, but you are unwilling or--more likely--unable to say WHY discrimination against homosexuals is OK.

So answer the damn question:

I disagree with Rob 100% on this issue, but he's gone out of his way to be respectful to others here, and as probably 99% of AT disagrees with him he is to be commended for not simply flaming everyone. It's not easy to be the 1%. (Well, unless it's THE 1% - that looks pretty easy.)

To answer your question, there is no justification, but that doesn't happen. In today's American society gays are perfectly free to be openly gay - which makes our not allowing their marriages to be recognized by government seem especially spiteful. We allow a same sex couple to live together and raise children together, and yet we deny them the basic rights, privileges and security of government-sanctioned marriage. Bizarre that we allow the part that some argue is a detriment to society and yet bar the thing that should be without question of value to society.

 

[GreenMeters]

I disagree with Rob 100% on this issue, but he's gone out of his way to be respectful to others here, and as probably 99% of AT disagrees with him he is to be commended for not simply flaming everyone. It's not easy to be the 1%. (Well, unless it's THE 1% - that looks pretty easy.)

To answer your question, there is no justification, but that doesn't happen. In today's American society gays are perfectly free to be openly gay - which makes our not allowing their marriages to be recognized by government seem especially spiteful. We allow a same sex couple to live together and raise children together, and yet we deny them the basic rights, privileges and security of government-sanctioned marriage. Bizarre that we allow the part that some argue is a detriment to society and yet bar the thing that should be without question of value to society.

Calling someone an idiot isn't going out of his way to be respectful.

And while I appreciate you answering the question, Rob is the only one who said, within the context of homosexuals masquerading as straight, that there are "sound reasons" for humans to ignore their natures, so his is the only answer I'm interested in seeing.

 

[Retro Rob]

Calling someone an idiot isn't going out of his way to be respectful.

And while I appreciate you answering the question, Rob is the only one who said, within the context of homosexuals masquerading as straight, that there are "sound reasons" for humans to ignore their natures, so his is the only answer I'm interested in seeing.

I never said we have "sound reasons" to "ignore our nature".

I said sound reasoning keeps us from being dominated by "nature" because we're humans, not animals. If you want to read something that's not there or continue to misquote me, have at it...

 

[Retro Rob]

I disagree with Rob 100% on this issue, but he's gone out of his way to be respectful to others here, and as probably 99% of AT disagrees with him he is to be commended for not simply flaming everyone. It's not easy to be the 1%. (Well, unless it's THE 1% - that looks pretty easy.)

To answer your question, there is no justification, but that doesn't happen. In today's American society gays are perfectly free to be openly gay - which makes our not allowing their marriages to be recognized by government seem especially spiteful. We allow a same sex couple to live together and raise children together, and yet we deny them the basic rights, privileges and security of government-sanctioned marriage. Bizarre that we allow the part that some argue is a detriment to society and yet bar the thing that should be without question of value to society.

Thanks.

Well, that's the beauty of our society... not agreeing completely on everything to introduce new ideas.

Personally, I don't mind being 1% on topics like these. I think it can be a good thing to not allow the rest of society to dicate what's morally acceptable/reprehensible to me (I know, here comes the "but you'll let a gazillion year old, outdated, man-made book dictate to you" crowd) no matter how further on the "wrong side of history" it makes myself.

With people, what's in today can be out tomorrow. I'll be just fine.

 

[techs]

I read between the lines.
Maggie will no longer be getting unlimited funds from right wing political groups who were seeking to keep gay marriage in the news to energize the right wing base.
Now that gay marriage is not the vote getter it used to be the paid shills are being let go.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I said sound reasoning keeps us from being dominated by "nature" because we're humans, not animals.

Except that isn't true, as evidenced by your repeated inability to explain what this alleged "sound reasoning" is.

 

[Retro Rob]

Except that isn't true, as evidenced by your repeated inability to explain what this alleged "sound reasoning" is.

Simply put, thinking ability, making sense of things.

I know that goes without saying, but that's what I was saying. Making sense of things determines our actions more so than sheer nature...or it should anyway.

That's all I was saying....

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Let's try this a different way.

I understand the concept in general. But in order for it to apply to a specific situation, appropriate reasoning has to exist.

By nature, I might want to eat chips and candy bars all day. I don't, because there are sound reasons not to: I'll get fat and sick.

By nature, I might want to skip going to the dentist. But I don't, because there are sound reasons not to: my teeth will rot and fall out.

Now, you are putting forth this argument about "not being dominated by nature" in the specific context of gays not expressing their sexual desires. So, what are the sound reasons for that?

 

[nehalem256]

Let's try this a different way.

I understand the concept in general. But in order for it to apply to a specific situation, appropriate reasoning has to exist.

By nature, I might want to eat chips and candy bars all day. I don't, because there are sound reasons not to: I'll get fat and sick.

By nature, I might want to skip going to the dentist. But I don't, because there are sound reasons not to: my teeth will rot and fall out.

Now, you are putting forth this argument about "not being dominated by nature" in the specific context of gays not expressing their sexual desires. So, what are the sound reasons for that?

1/5 gay men in the United States had HIV. This is a rate 50-100x more than for street men.

 

[Retro Rob]

Let's try this a different way.

I understand the concept in general. But in order for it to apply to a specific situation, appropriate reasoning has to exist.

By nature, I might want to eat chips and candy bars all day. I don't, because there are sound reasons not to: I'll get fat and sick.

By nature, I might want to skip going to the dentist. But I don't, because there are sound reasons not to: my teeth will rot and fall out.

Now, you are putting forth this argument about "not being dominated by nature" in the specific context of gays not expressing their sexual desires. So, what are the sound reasons for that?

I didn't (or was intending to) put it in that specific context. That wasn't my intent all at because I have no right to tell someone to NOT to express their sexual desires, so I'd ask if you stop attibuting that to me.

This is a unintened consequence of what I typed.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Well, if you're just trying to make the general point that gays "can" choose to ignore their orientation, then that's obviously true. They've been doing it for centuries.

We can control how we behave (to within the limits of our self-control capabilities, which varies). We can't control how we feel. And we should only have to force ourselves to deny our feelings when there is good reason to do so.

 

[Retro Rob]

We can control how we behave (to within the limits of our self-control capabilities, which varies). We can't control how we feel. And we should only have to force ourselves to deny our feelings when there is good reason to do so.

Well, of course.

 

[actuarial]

1/5 gay men in the United States had HIV. This is a rate 50-100x more than for street men.

Sounds like a pretty strong reason to encourage stable, monogamous relationships.

 

[thraashman]

Sounds like a pretty strong reason to encourage stable, monogamous relationships.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

 

[zsdersw]

Sounds like a pretty strong reason to encourage stable, monogamous relationships.

Yes, considering the high health care costs for someone with HIV (whether through the person's health insurance or the taxpayer via the many publicly funded assistance programs). Monogamous and stable relationships also contribute to higher productivity, reduced crime, and reduced drug abuse... be they heterosexual or homosexual.

 

[soulcougher73]

This is merely your animalphobic definition of sex.

The only difference is you find sex with animals to be icky.

Do you have any fucking clue what the word "consent" means? You clearly dont, otherwise youd drop your idiotic views.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I was thinking the exact same thing.

That's because, unlike nehalem256, you think.

 

[soulcougher73]

Thanks.

Well, that's the beauty of our society... not agreeing completely on everything to introduce new ideas.

Personally, I don't mind being 1% on topics like these. I think it can be a good thing to not allow the rest of society to dicate what's morally acceptable/reprehensible to me.

So you dont want society to dictate their morals on you, but you have no problem dictating your morals on them?

Their is a word for that..starts with and H if i remember right.

 

[Retro Rob]

So you dont want society to dictate their morals on you, but you have no problem dictating your morals on them?

Their is a word for that..starts with and H if i remember right.

You absolutely have no idea what you're taking about.

Please tell me how I am dictating my morals on them. Wait... Don't say because I post my opinions on these forums either because this isn't dictating.

Other than that go get your facts straight.

 

[nehalem256]

Do you have any fucking clue what the word "consent" means? You clearly dont, otherwise youd drop your idiotic views.

Of course I know what the word consent means.

I just do not see how the concept of consent is meaningful when applied to an animal.

 

[soulcougher73]

You absolutely have no idea what you're taking about.

Please tell me how I am dictating my morals on them. Wait... Don't say because I post my opinions on these forums either because this isn't dictating.

Other than that go get your facts straight.

Really? Ive read this whole thread. I know your position and what youve been trying to defend. You are not for SSM, your position is noted. Dont be mad i called you on your hypocrisy on dictating morals on others.

 

[nehalem256]

Sounds like a pretty strong reason to encourage stable, monogamous relationships.

Really? I would think it was a reason to not stick your private parts up people's butts.

So you dont want society to dictate their morals on you, but you have no problem dictating your morals on them?

Their is a word for that..starts with and H if i remember right.

Really? I thought it started with an L(iberal).