Research on sexual orientation and homophobia

[cybrsage]

Are you arguing that no one should be allowed to marry or that it's somehow more work for the government to allow gay marriage compared to straight?

He wants no marriage at all and no civil unions at all. Sees no reason for them when their original purpose is no longer needed in modern society.

 

[nehalem256]

Are you arguing that no one should be allowed to marry or that it's somehow more work for the government to allow gay marriage compared to straight?

I am saying that if you are unable to articulate a reason why the government should go to the trouble to grant civil unions to anyone.

Then it should not grant them to anyone. Gay or straight.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think the most brilliant deduction by the left yet is to conclude that to disapprove of something means you're either 1) that of which your disapprove or 2) phobic of it.

There's no such thing as a principled disapproval of any behavior.

You are beginning to get closer to the source of your dilemma, even if you think you strengthen your case, which is, of course, a manifestation of the defective manner in which you think. Let's look at the definition of disapprove:

-------------
dis·ap·prove
   [dis-uh-proov] Show IPA verb, dis·ap·proved, dis·ap·prov·ing.

verb (used with object)
1.
to think (something) wrong or reprehensible; censure or condemn in opinion.

2.
to withhold approval from; decline to sanction: The Senate disapproved the nominations.

verb (used without object)
3.
to have an unfavorable opinion; express disapproval (usually followed by of ).
---------

We see in definition the way conservatives disapprove, with the notions of reprehensibility and condemnation, reactions of the gag reflex and the stomach, from being made as children to experience disgust and guilt, and in the second two a more reasoned approach that defines out as an opinion with no grandiose claims of absolutism.

Thus we enter the realm of reason where conservatives have trouble going, the gray world of opinion and principle and the internal differences in how these are held. We have principle based on science and reason and truthiness based on ego and dictum, what the bigot absorbs as a child irrationally and remains blind to ever after as his motivation.

The problem we have in communicating with conservatives is that conservatives are motivated to think according to principles that are unconsciously held, are irrational, and cannot be defended, but for the conservative do not have to be defended, are unexamined, are unconscious, and invisible, the bedrock of bigotry.

This is why it is always fun to spin the conservative top by asking one to prove the truth of his principles. He just knows it's so obvious he can't even begin to try. But he will never let go because he fears the world of gray where everything has to be evaluated in the best way the human mind can, by seeking the truth for the truths sake and not to defend the ego.

Take your case. You are a very fine person who believes in the sanctity of human life. This is the truth that makes you certain you are right and the thing you argue to protect. You think that if you lose an abortion argument than human life isn't sacred. This is the force that powers your truthiness. You are absolutely sure that human life is sacred.

But you cannot prove it and so you are just like me. You cannot prove that life is sacred but you condemn those who don't agree when you can't prove your case. Why do you condemn those who disagree because your arguments fail to penetrate? This is just what it would be like for me to condemn you as a conservative. How can I condemn you when I can't ever convince you to see no matter how great my skill because I can never prove you are blind to you.

Now, are you blind because human life is in fact not sacred. In some ways yes, because everything depends on what you mean by sacred and where you go from there. Human life isn't sacred because it's written in a book or beaten into children. Human life isn't sacred because it says so in religion or law or philosophy. Live is the will to live. Live is being and being is love. To live is to love and love is the sacred. It can't be proven except by those who live the definition.

When the sacred isn't rules and principles but love in being, a peculiar thing happens. One becomes a prisoner, one who surrenders the self to the Tao, or if you want, the Will of God and everything that happens is Perfect. To condemn in the world is to deny the will of God. Your job is not to disapprove but to awaken.

 

[WelshBloke]

He wants no marriage at all and no civil unions at all. Sees no reason for them when their original purpose is no longer needed in modern society.

Do we get to ban anything we want to because we see no reason for it?

 

[nehalem256]

Do we get to ban anything we want to because we see no reason for it?

That is a ridiculous statement. Government marriage was created for a purpose. If that purpose no longer exists then it seems silly to keep it around right.

People will still be able to get married. There would be no government anti-marriage police to storm through weddings, or to make sure you never referred to someone as your wife. They just would have no legal basis.

 

[alzan]

Agreed, both sides are using the same faulty reasoning. I still say everyone wins if the gov just gets out of marriage and only does civil unions (the only ones who lose are the full on bigots on both extreme sides of the issue).

Unfortunately, the term marriage is already in use in millions of government, as well as legal, forms, documents, publications, etc. And it serves the purpose quite nicely.

And, here's something that everyone can agree on, it's certainly more frugal to keep the term marriage rather than rewriting/reissuing all documents in existence.

 

[cybrsage]

Do we get to ban anything we want to because we see no reason for it?

IMO, things remain the same until a compelling reason to change is brought forth. The onus on creating the reasoning to change is on those who wish the change to occur.

With marijuana, for example, it is currently illegal. Should it be? Dunno, but to make it legal requires change and therefor the onus to create reasoning for the change is on those who want it legal.

Homosexual "marriage" is the same way. Currently, it is not legal and therefor the onus to create reasoning for the change is on those who want it legal.

Heterosexual marriage is currently legal, so the remove the government from it altogether requires those who wish this to create the reasoning for the change.

That is why I provide my reasoning for moving the government out of marriage (which requires change) and into only civil unions. A civil union is the legal construct behind the legal form of marriage. Remove the marriage part and you can still keep the legal construct behind it. A simple find-replace on the computerized forms to change marriage to civil union and all is well. I view it as the perfect compromise between the two opposing sides which will never agree on the term marriage.

 

[cybrsage]

Unfortunately, the term marriage is already in use in millions of government, as well as legal, forms, documents, publications, etc. And it serves the purpose quite nicely.

And, here's something that everyone can agree on, it's certainly more frugal to keep the term marriage rather than rewriting/reissuing all documents in existence.

Find-replace. It has been built into word processors for decades now. All forms are computerized.

No need to reissue already issued documents...just from a certain point onward the new ones will be used. This is done routinely in government. Every time a form is changed and a new rev is created (for any reason at all), the old ones are not reissued. New ones are just created and used from that point onward. It is standard government practice.

 

[Incorruptible]

1) Again with the Agenda: why do you need to view equal treatment under the law as an agenda? People from all parts of the political spectrum fought for the voting rights of women, for the civil rights of African-Americans, as well as equal rights for homosexuals. It's not just a "liberal" thing; well maybe it is for you.

Like I said previously, it was an opinion. That you choose to view it as an accusation speaks volumes; isn't victimhood wonderful? Good for you that a mod is looking into an opinion that you are someone else's account. If found to be false, and the mod contacts me or others that share this opinion, I will abide by the mods decision and/or rule, if any.

alzan

Your misunderstanding what I wrote, gays should get equal treatment, that's not part of the agenda but what I have a problem with is with liberals using gays to further the liberal agenda

 

[Moonbeam]

That is a ridiculous statement. Government marriage was created for a purpose. If that purpose no longer exists then it seems silly to keep it around right.

People will still be able to get married. There would be no government anti-marriage police to storm through weddings, or to make sure you never referred to someone as your wife. They just would have no legal basis.

Can you identify any life experiences that may have caused you to become obsessed even fanatical regarding the issues of poor women having children and gays? The psychic energy has to come from somewhere.

 

[Moonbeam]

Your misunderstanding what I wrote, gays should get equal treatment, that's not part of the agenda but what I have a problem with is with liberals using gays to further the liberal agenda

Why? The conservative agenda is to prevent the liberal agenda so you having problems with liberals pursuing their agenda is part of the conservative agenda. So, actually, it's good that liberals pursue their agenda because the conservative agenda is based of brain defects that prevent logical reasoning and the survival of the human race. Why feign indignation when sane people want to stop you from killing yourself, and by extension, everybody else. The disease you have is extremely dangerous when you go to the polls.

 

[cybrsage]

Why? The conservative agenda is to prevent the liberal agenda so you having problems with liberals pursuing their agenda is part of the conservative agenda.

The sad thing is I think you actually believe what you type is true.

 

[thepd7]

In completely unsurprising news, I've been gone a year or so and Moonie is still batshit insane.

 

[Incorruptible]

Why? The conservative agenda is to prevent the liberal agenda so you having problems with liberals pursuing their agenda is part of the conservative agenda. So, actually, it's good that liberals pursue their agenda because the conservative agenda is based of brain defects that prevent logical reasoning and the survival of the human race. Why feign indignation when sane people want to stop you from killing yourself, and by extension, everybody else. The disease you have is extremely dangerous when you go to the polls.

There is no conservative agenda, you must be pretty braindead if you dont realize just how biased the liberal media is

 

[LunarRay]

Except that feminists most sacred belief is that reproductive rights only belong to women. Which would be the opposite of equality.

And to continue, considering that the quote of what represented feminism and not liberalism was:

"Facts? You mean like believing that women dont need a man to help raise children, but then whining when single mothers end up poor? And expecting men to bail them out."

What does forcibly taking a man's money to support women's life choices have to do with "equality"

Seems to me that when men folks can 'carry' a baby in their boy-uterus then they might have the potential to claim for equality in when to have and when to not have a fetus carried to term. Responsibility on the other hand, rests with both creators... Not sure how to view a non traditionally produced child, that is, IF the boy is financially responsible if he simply donated sperm to a sperm bank...

I don't accept 'most sacred belief'... SCOTUS gave us 'Roe'... that is the law... The ERA Amendment failed... That would be what Feminist folks would hold is their Sacred Belief.

(text)
"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."


The responsibility financially for creating a child rests with the parents. That is the law.... Both parents and equally, if possible.
The man does not carry the child which is part of the woman until it is born. I think it is nutty to assume the boy person should be able to get a court to order a woman abort or remove what is part of her.

Your thesis is about paying child support apparently... Perhaps it is giving money to an ex under the guise of paying for the child... I don't know but what I do know is that society ought not be laden with the financial aspect of making children if the parents can pay for this in whole or in part and society augments and creates a debt upon the parents for the balance... Fair as I see it and the law... IF it is the law then there it is... You may not like it and if you don't then keep your thingi far far away from the process.

 

[nehalem256]

Seems to me that when men folks can 'carry' a baby in their boy-uterus then they might have the potential to claim for equality in when to have and when to not have a fetus carried to term. Responsibility on the other hand, rests with both creators... Not sure how to view a non traditionally produced child, that is, IF the boy is financially responsible if he simply donated sperm to a sperm bank...

I don't accept 'most sacred belief'... SCOTUS gave us 'Roe'... that is the law... The ERA Amendment failed... That would be what Feminist folks would hold is their Sacred Belief.

(text)
"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."


The responsibility financially for creating a child rests with the parents. That is the law.... Both parents and equally, if possible.
The man does not carry the child which is part of the woman until it is born. I think it is nutty to assume the boy person should be able to get a court to order a woman abort or remove what is part of her.

Your thesis is about paying child support apparently... Perhaps it is giving money to an ex under the guise of paying for the child... I don't know but what I do know is that society ought not be laden with the financial aspect of making children if the parents can pay for this in whole or in part and society augments and creates a debt upon the parents for the balance... Fair as I see it and the law... IF it is the law then there it is... You may not like it and if you don't then keep your thingi far far away from the process.

Except the women have no force financial requirement. They are allowed to abdicate that responsibility if they so choose. For equality men should have the same right. In fact, not killing their infant, was considered too much of a burden for women, so many states allow her to abandon her child at hospital without informing the father.

There is no need to for a man to get a court her to force her too abort. She can simply be fully responsible for it. Her body, her choice, HER RESPONSIBILITY.

Fun, your thing about the man not having sex is exactly what they say about the woman if she doesnt want to get pregnant. The difference is conservatives say both parents should have to take responsibility, whereas liberals think only men do. So much for equality.

 

[LunarRay]

So is gay marriage in the vast majority of states.

The States that do not provide for the marriage of Gay folks are currently within their right to do so...
There are, by my last count, some 1300 Federal Laws that treat married folks differently than folks who have some similar contract but not defined as married. IF SCOTUS sustains the district court's decision then all that changes... including the DOMA law...
This, again and again, has not to do with Religion or any other non binding institution's view to marriage but, rather, what society has determined using its umbrella of law via the SCOTUS and the other two bodies of government.
Under Society's Law... the State cannot deny a Fundamental Right to an individual without some Compelling Reason determined by the standard of Strict Scrutiny. That is what the SCOTUS uses when Fundamental Rights are involved and Marriage IS a Fundamental Right of the Individual. Your disdain of Gay Marriage does not meet that criteria... Nor does dislike of the Income Tax Law... In this case, SCOTUS has yet to speak... Heck, they may not even choose to hear it...

IF Gay Marriage is mandated by SCOTUS then you can continue to disagree but beings you're part of Society You'd be at odds with Yourself, in part.
I suggest you gather about you folks like minded and push for a Constitutional Amendment...

 

[thraashman]

There is no conservative agenda, you must be pretty braindead if you dont realize just how biased the liberal media is

Um ... and you must be more retarded than one of Sarah Palin's kids (Bristol 😛) if you think conservatives don't have an agenda.

 

[alzan]

There is no conservative agenda, you must be pretty braindead if you dont realize just how biased the liberal media is

1a) You sure about that? Conservatives, by definition, don't want change. Liberals, by definition want to enact change. Quite clearly there is a conservative agenda.

1b) I hardly think you're qualified to have an opinion or claim as to the amount of someone else's neural activity, especially someone on an internet forum.

1c) All media is biased; it's up to rational thinkers to discard the bias and concentrate on the facts. If you truly want to be honest about the bias; you would realize that bias in the media is more about shock value and controversy than it is about political ideology. Whatever sells the most papers, generates the most ad revenue, etc., is the true media bias.

 

[thraashman]

IMO, things remain the same until a compelling reason to change is brought forth. The onus on creating the reasoning to change is on those who wish the change to occur.

With marijuana, for example, it is currently illegal. Should it be? Dunno, but to make it legal requires change and therefor the onus to create reasoning for the change is on those who want it legal.

Homosexual "marriage" is the same way. Currently, it is not legal and therefor the onus to create reasoning for the change is on those who want it legal.

Heterosexual marriage is currently legal, so the remove the government from it altogether requires those who wish this to create the reasoning for the change.

That is why I provide my reasoning for moving the government out of marriage (which requires change) and into only civil unions. A civil union is the legal construct behind the legal form of marriage. Remove the marriage part and you can still keep the legal construct behind it. A simple find-replace on the computerized forms to change marriage to civil union and all is well. I view it as the perfect compromise between the two opposing sides which will never agree on the term marriage.

HOW DARE YOU! How dare you say something that I find reasonible and agree with. I am against having marriage and civil union be separate states for heterosexual vs homosexual couples because of the premise in Brown v The Board of Education that separate but equal is inherently not equal. I would support however the government recognizing only civil unions and extending that right to both opposite sex and same sex marriages. To me it's not about morality, it's about Constitutionality. And so long as there are legal benefits gratned to married couples I feel it violated the 14th Amendment to deny them the right to marry. If no one had the right to marry but could instead enter into a civil union (let each couple call it whatever they want), then it would not violated the 14th Amendment. It's an equality thing.

I admit, you are one of the last people I would expect to agree with in P&N on an issue. We should probably avoid doing it again, I'm sure you find it as awkward as I do.

 

[LunarRay]

Except the women have no force financial requirement. They are allowed to abdicate that responsibility if they so choose. For equality men should have the same right. In fact, not killing their infant, was considered too much of a burden for women, so many states allow her to abandon her child at hospital without informing the father.

There is no need to for a man to get a court her to force her too abort. She can simply be fully responsible for it. Her body, her choice, HER RESPONSIBILITY.

Fun, your thing about the man not having sex is exactly what they say about the woman if she doesnt want to get pregnant. The difference is conservatives say both parents should have to take responsibility, whereas liberals think only men do. So much for equality.

My Daughter is still paying the State back for Child Support that was paid by the State for the care of one of her children way way long ago... AND it is taken directly out of her SS Disability check... So... Don't for a moment think Women Don't pay back when the boy don't pay... They are Jointly liable for the 'debt'.

Exactly, both have the right to refrain from sex... I'll wager that if they do refrain neither will get pregnant... But, if they do engage in sex only one gets pregnant while both incur the financial bit.

 

[piasabird]

It is so tough to get by on $90,000 a year? maybe you need to move to some place where the average wage is like $40,000 a year. Reality is a bummer. You need to downsize that giant oversized mansion you live in.

 

[piasabird]

Whan a single parent with children files for Earned income credit, combined with the standard deduction on an income of $12,000, they get $8,000 back from the IRS. So lets remove the government from both marriage and support. The government does not force people to get preagnant, so they should not take my tax money to pay for it. That would be more like freedom.

 

[nehalem256]

Exactly, both have the right to refrain from sex... I'll wager that if they do refrain neither will get pregnant... But, if they do engage in sex only one gets pregnant while both incur the financial bit.

If it is wrong to force a woman to be a mother. It is wrong to force a man to be a father.

By being the one who gets pregnant I woman can still choose to abort without a man's consent. Just if she keeps it she cannot force him to be responsible for it. She has the power, she has the responsibility.

 

[nehalem256]

Whan a single parent with children files for Earned income credit, combined with the standard deduction on an income of $12,000, they get $8,000 back from the IRS. So lets remove the government from both marriage and support. The government does not force people to get preagnant, so they should not take my tax money to pay for it. That would be more like freedom.

100% agree. Liberals should stop forcing their morality on us and making us support single parents.