AsranielJoin Date: 2002-06-03Member: 724Members, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, Retired Community Developer
i cannot belief it... everyone that says that homosexuals shouldnt have the right to marry has a serious problem and is as bad as racists are. Everyone should be allowed to marry the person he loves, there is NO (no, absolutely NO) reason to deny that right...
I cannot belief that in our time there are always people that think like that, grow up, look out of the window, people with other opinions like you wont hurt you, they life for them and let you in peace, go over it.
<!--QuoteBegin--Vyvn+Aug 14 2003, 01:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Vyvn @ Aug 14 2003, 01:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And, just out of curiosity, what are these "other forms of non-traditional marriages, which compromise moral values" you're refering too? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I skimmed your post, but it's really late. I'll get to replying the only part my eye caught.
Inter-family marriages, like marrying your brother or something.
man its simple when they our aloud to get married what nesxt do they want? Yeah u guessed it! Kids! But since u cant do it that way <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> They adopt now that is illegal also (well where iam it is) So than think about it the kids at school "Haha u got 2 dads XD"
Wellll, i'm joining this rather late, damn good topics like this keep cropping up in the middle of the night and filling up. I've just read through the whole thread and must say that it's deteriorated from a well thought out, opinionated and heated discussion to rash proclamations of personal beliefs and irrelevant morality questions.
First, i'll prefix this with a little information about myself as a lot of you know, or perhaps a lot of you don't know. I've always considered myself relatively androgenous, by appearance (Well, until lately.), mentality and opinions. I've never in my life subscribed to any school of thought or any religion. Bear in mind that i do, quite often have problems commiting my thoughts to text in a way that anyone other than myself can understand, so if there's a point that's either not quite clarified enough or you think is just badly written, don't jump on me, just ask me to go into a little more detail and i will gladly oblige.
I'm not going to reply in specific to other people's posts, just refer in general to the unanswered questions of the latter part of this thread and also a few of you with slightly more "<i>traditional</i>" views of homosexuality.
Again, these are just my opinions.
As to the passing of any legal statement that openly infringes on the rights of a state's inhabitants, what gives them the right to do this? Is this Initiative not unconstitutional (sorry, i'm English, so i'm not exactly "up" on US law) and the mere passing of any such law, bill, initiative (whatever) in itself illegal? This is through pure curiosity, since as i said, i'm not really that knowledgable with US law.
To all the "traditionalists". You have as much right to believe what you think is right or wrong as much as i have the right to believe what i want. Opinions are al well and good, dispite that i may disagree, i can't condemn anyone else for having their own opinions. The problem here is that you're <b>forcing</b> your opinions on others, you are <b>oppressing</b> people who have done you no harm purely because you believe (or have been told to believe) that it is wrong. I don't find homosexual marriages in the least bit offensive, but if i did i wouldn't be screaming at them just because i found it wrong. I think sports are offensive, you don't see me pushing for a law against football, do you?
Most facts come down to, one way or another, a group of... hmm, "idiots", lets call them, who feel the need to force their opinions upon other people.
I've got no problem with same-sex marriages. They're people, too. They love each other. They want to express their love by being married. Also, marriage is NOT religious only. Especially not Christian-only. Marriage doesn't have to be done in a church, it can be done in a courtroom. About a same-sex couple adopting a child, I see no problem in that. It's not traumatizing to have two fathers. People underestimate children, and their strength. That's why the US protects their children so much. They think that they're 100% utterly helpless, and that they can't make a decision for themselves. Bull. I'm 14, and guess what? I make better decisions than a lot of adults. I don't smoke, I don't do drugs, I don't drink, and I don't go out having sex with anyone who makes themselves available to me. Not because of some elaborate campaign against it, but because I don't WANT to. It was MY decision, and nothing but my mind made it. Sadly, there are some people who DO do those things. Mostly adults. What does this prove? Children can be smarter than adults. Why am I saying this? To prove that children aren't utterly dumb, helpless, and will be traumatized if they have two mothers, or two fathers. I have no father, just a mother. I'm not traumatized. Why should a child with two mothers or fathers be?
It was said earlier in the thread that marriage is a religious tradition. It was also said that, in Christianity, it's not right for same-sex couples to even EXIST. I'm saying that, because marriage doesn't HAVE to be done in a church, so their religious argument means nothing.
<!--QuoteBegin--CForrester+Aug 14 2003, 05:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ Aug 14 2003, 05:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It was said earlier in the thread that marriage is a religious tradition. It was also said that, in Christianity, it's not right for same-sex couples to even EXIST. I'm saying that, because marriage doesn't HAVE to be done in a church, so their religious argument means nothing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The religious argument does mean something, however. In Christianity homosexuality is frowned up in the bible itself, a lot of people believe in the bible's teachings (understatement of the year) so discrediting millions of people's opinions because "it means nothing" is a joke. Marriage is both religious and legal, the two rarely (note i say rarely, i am not saying that they are ALWAYS hand-in-hand with each other) do seperate from each other, with the christian marriage comes the legal contract and with that legal contracts comes the declaration that you believe in the teachings of whatever religion your marriage ceremony is a part of.
What people choose to do with their lives is nothing to do with me as long as they don't harm anyone.
Let em get married if they want, doesn't affect me in the slightest.
The only argument against same sex marriages / adoptions that actually holds any water is "their kids will cop flak for it..", well guess what, kids are like that and they are just as likely to catch it for wearing glasses, being overweight, having bad haircuts or wearing the wrong trainers.
If you have religious objections, fair enough, but you can't be forcing <i>your</i> religious beliefs on others.
<!--QuoteBegin--CrouchingHamster,HiddenElvis+Aug 14 2003, 05:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CrouchingHamster,HiddenElvis @ Aug 14 2003, 05:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The only argument against same sex marriages / adoptions that actually holds any water is "their kids will cop flak for it..", well guess what, kids are like that and they are just as likely to catch it for wearing glasses, being overweight, having bad haircuts or wearing the wrong trainers. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's not an argument against same-sex marriages, that's an argument against same-sex couples adopting. Just because you get married, doesn't mean you have to have kids, y'know.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Aug 14 2003, 08:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Aug 14 2003, 08:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As to whether g4y people have a choice of their sexuality, it depends. If they are "born" g4y, they can still choose not to "be" g4y. A friend-of-a-freind was "born" g4y, and because he is a Christian and he knows that being g4y is wrong, everyday is a struggle. He has a wife and children, but he still feels attracted towards other men, and he has to resist that. IMO, he is a braver and stronger man to resist his own strong feelings instead of "going along" and expresisng himself as a g4y person. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> He hasn't made a choice to be straight. What he's doing is forcing a straight lifestyle upon himself, but he's still g*y. Personally, I feel really quite sorry for him. He's forcing a struggle upon himself simply because he was brought up in a tradition that teaches that homosexuality is wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--Insane+Aug 14 2003, 07:13 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Insane @ Aug 14 2003, 07:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Aug 14 2003, 08:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Aug 14 2003, 08:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As to whether g4y people have a choice of their sexuality, it depends. If they are "born" g4y, they can still choose not to "be" g4y. A friend-of-a-freind was "born" g4y, and because he is a Christian and he knows that being g4y is wrong, everyday is a struggle. He has a wife and children, but he still feels attracted towards other men, and he has to resist that. IMO, he is a braver and stronger man to resist his own strong feelings instead of "going along" and expresisng himself as a g4y person. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He hasn't made a choice to be straight. What he's doing is forcing a straight lifestyle upon himself, but he's still g*y. Personally, I feel really quite sorry for him. He's forcing a struggle upon himself simply because he was brought up in a tradition that teaches that homosexuality is wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly.
<!--QuoteBegin--::esuna::+Aug 14 2003, 11:00 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (::esuna:: @ Aug 14 2003, 11:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--CrouchingHamster+HiddenElvis,Aug 14 2003, 05:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CrouchingHamster @ HiddenElvis,Aug 14 2003, 05:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The only argument against same sex marriages / adoptions that actually holds any water is "their kids will cop flak for it..", well guess what, kids are like that and they are just as likely to catch it for wearing glasses, being overweight, having bad haircuts or wearing the wrong trainers. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's not an argument against same-sex marriages, that's an argument against same-sex couples adopting. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, I agree, it's just that in some cases the two issues will be somewhat linked, and the same sex parents issue has already cropped up in this thread.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just because you get married, doesn't mean you have to have kids, y'know.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutely. I'm in a long term relationship, might even get married some day but neither of us wants kids. We both enjoy our freedom too much. Maybe in a decade or so we'll have changed our minds, till then though, nope.
<!--QuoteBegin--Insane+Aug 14 2003, 12:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Insane @ Aug 14 2003, 12:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Aug 14 2003, 08:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Aug 14 2003, 08:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As to whether g4y people have a choice of their sexuality, it depends. If they are "born" g4y, they can still choose not to "be" g4y. A friend-of-a-freind was "born" g4y, and because he is a Christian and he knows that being g4y is wrong, everyday is a struggle. He has a wife and children, but he still feels attracted towards other men, and he has to resist that. IMO, he is a braver and stronger man to resist his own strong feelings instead of "going along" and expresisng himself as a g4y person. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He hasn't made a choice to be straight. What he's doing is forcing a straight lifestyle upon himself, but he's still g*y. Personally, I feel really quite sorry for him. He's forcing a struggle upon himself simply because he was brought up in a tradition that teaches that homosexuality is wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> i feel sorry for him too
he has made a choice to be straight. he could be g4y, but he knows being g4y is wrong, so wants to be straight and lives his life accordingly. thats a choice isnt it?
he could just say "F*ck this christianity shizzle, i'm g4y and i'm proud and nothings gonna tell me otherwise" and that would be a lot easier, but his beleifs are so strong that he cannot do that. He may not have been brought up as a christian. many christians come from the most unlikely circumstances. it was his choice to become a christian, it was his choic to renounce his sexuality to do what was right, and he will be rewarded for it. Its not an easy decsision to make, to go against the deepest desires, but he has.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
Yeah, but my point is, that he's chosen to live a straight <i>lifestyle</i> rather than to actually <i>be</i> straight. You say he's still attracted to men, which shows that he's still technically g*y. You see where I'm coming from; although he's made the choice superficially, and has chosen to be straight, that choice hasn't really affected his sexuality although he tries to be otherwise.
This topic might be a decent conversation if it didn't change subject on every page, and the creator dodged every counter argument we've brought up by bringing something else up.
<!--QuoteBegin--Insane+Aug 14 2003, 03:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Insane @ Aug 14 2003, 03:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yeah, but my point is, that he's chosen to live a straight <i>lifestyle</i> rather than to actually <i>be</i> straight. You say he's still attracted to men, which shows that he's still technically g*y. You see where I'm coming from; although he's made the choice superficially, and has chosen to be straight, that choice hasn't really affected his sexuality although he tries to be otherwise. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> yes, but people say we are born with our sexuality.
if he had a choice, he probably wouldnt be g4y in the firstplace
Tapping into the 'nature vs. nurture' debate on homosexuality, it seems that both social as well as biological influences play a role: Studies done on twins (same DNA) that were seperated at birth (different social environment) showed that the chances of one of them being homosexual was consideragly higher if the other was, too. Thus, sexual preference can be attributed to a certain extent to the genes. There seems however to be no clear genetical divide, more like an accentuation between differently strong developed bisexualities - in other words, most people can be attracted to both sexes to some degree, but then develop a more sophisticated liking for one gender due to social influences.
You aren't born straight or homosexual; you are born with a stronger-than-usual affinity to homo- or heterosexuality.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Aug 14 2003, 09:52 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Aug 14 2003, 09:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Tapping into the 'nature vs. nurture' debate on homosexuality, it seems that both social as well as biological influences play a role: Studies done on twins (same DNA) that were seperated at birth (different social environment) showed that the chances of one of them being homosexual was consideragly higher if the other was, too. Thus, sexual preference can be attributed to a certain extent to the genes. There seems however to be no clear genetical divide, more like an accentuation between differently strong developed bisexualities - in other words, most people can be attracted to both sexes to some degree, but then develop a more sophisticated liking for one gender due to social influences.
You aren't born straight or homosexual; you are born with a stronger-than-usual affinity to homo- or heterosexuality. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> While scientific background into the "nature vs nurture" case is still quite vague and sketchy at best, the simplest and easiest way is to actually ask someone who's g*y if they made a conscious decision to be ****, or if it just always seemed "right", i think you'll find that there'll be very few admitting to the former.
Actually, this is not a very good denominator, because a lot of social influences happen before you are capable of making rational decisions.
After all, they start with your mothers diet (which can affect the amount of testosterone you recieve during pregnancy, which in turn seems to be influental on your sexual preferences), and extend over the first few years of your upbringing into the time you are actually capable of rational decisionmaking.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
I do think that sexuality comes in a continuous spectrum. I don't think this has much to do with the debate however. I kinda like the way me and z.x. ended it a few pages ago. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Quaunaut+Aug 14 2003, 09:13 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Quaunaut @ Aug 14 2003, 09:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Personally, I don't know about you guys, but I just can't stand it. I'm not gonna allow g@y marriages. Why? Because its immorral, and its telling our kids "Its ok to be ****". Which, well, frankly, its not. I actually have GOOD reasons for this, too.
1: You go to some countries, they kill you for it. No, I'm not talking Afghanistan, and places like that. I'm talking small countries in Europe, much of Russia, many cities in Canada.
2: They'll be discriminated for it. We all know the kids will, because the adults are. And kids are MUCH more cruel than adults.
3: Its dangerous. You have a 23% chance of CREATING AIDS, sypholis, and other deseases during g@y sex. Thats just how it is.
4: Its a choice. While America is the land of the free, there have been NUMEROUS studies I've seen on MANY news TV shows(not the news, stuff like Dateline, and like that), that prove that there is no variable in your mind to change whether you like men or women. You like the opposite sex, NO MATTER WHAT. You may be raised to believe differently, but thats because you've been raised to think the opposite on that matter.
Well, there's my 2 cents. All my information came from valid places, like the news, and news TV shows. /me shrugs. I just hope that They weren't wrong. I don't like being lied to. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1. That's rather hard to believe. I guess (some)americans are just as ignorant about Europe as (some) of us europeans(me for example <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->) are on US. My brother was just interrailing in europe this summer. He travelled with 2 of his friends and for some reason they were several times suspected to be g4ys but people never threatened them. Also it seemed that people were(in the middle/east europe) even more open about being g4y than in several other western countries. For example my brother and his friends accidentically went in to a g4y-bar in Poland and it sure wasn't hidden or anything.
2. Yes, Kids do discriminate but usually homosexual men start dating other men in their late teenages. I doubt they have problem with being accepted anymore in that point. They wont be probably even recognized as g4ys in school.
3. There is still condom and for a young person it's safer to have sex with a man without condom than with a woman because there is bigger risk of making that woman pregnant than getting a desease from the man(unless he is some sort of ?ber-male-bi@tch but I think there is more hyper active women carrying deseases than hyper active g4ys).
4. Actually I saw in one show that over 90% of men on earth are actually g4y and in their deepest thoughts they would like to be with a man, at least once, in their life. However they choose to hide it and not do it because it's not accectable in our society. Now do you believe that because I saw that on TV?
Think positive: There will be more women left for you the more homosexuals there are. Also I don't have anything against creating less children to this overpopulated world.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Aug 14 2003, 10:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Aug 14 2003, 10:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Note that there is <i>no</i> European country with the death penalty on homosexuality, nor will any homosexual be hunted by angry mobs. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> However no promises be made to any homosexual's personal safety after dark. Especially not in England.
Judging by what I'm hearing, that has little to do with ones sexual preferences <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Aug 14 2003, 10:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Aug 14 2003, 10:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Judging by what I'm hearing, that has little to do with ones sexual preferences <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Whilst true, i've been attacked in and out of clubs for either being g*y or looking g*y. But then again, this <i>is</i> England...
there are some middle easter countries where women have to stay at home al the time, so most of the men go out and have fun with other men (cos there are no women out)
wow, um, lots of stuff cropped up during the night. Firstly, I apologize for getting off topic here and there <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> previously as I was in an agitated mood. Secondly, Samwise, your argument about the Supreme Court ruling that it was illegal and unconstitutional to discriminate in marriage is taken completely out of context. for example, <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the various statements directly concerning the Fourteenth Amendment, we have said in connection with a related problem, that although these historical sources "cast some light" they are not sufficient to resolve the problem; "[a]t best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States.' Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> is what the court said. The key phrase here is "legal distinctions". We've already said that homosexuals should recieve the same legal standing, so your argument of the Supreme Court barring discrimination from marriage doesn't address the issue you were trying to.
Thirdly, I thought about the original question posed in the thread (by none other than me) a lot last night, and I will attempt to answer my own question.
Why are people against homosexual marriages automatically labeled homophobic and anti-g*y? It all comes down to moral relativity. Unfortunately, adherents of moral relativity live and breathe a double standard, and often contradict themselves. I will attempt to explain: Moral relativity is the belief that each person has his own moral values and can determine what is "good" and "right" for himself, and many think that thus we should not go around imposing our values on others. Furthermore, moral relativists believe that overarching moral "truths" do not exist. Philosophically this is a valid argument.
From this stems the thought that says "That person is homosexual. In his moral scheme, it is right for him. Therefore, we should not interfere with him, and people who say that his morals are wrong are close-minded and hateful."
Unfortunately, in all practicality most moral relativists have a moment when "the buck stops here." For example, a cold-blooded murderer is universally denounced, and the criminal is responsible. Without getting into debates about the difference between sexual preference and criminal activity, let me point out the inherent inconsistency of moral relativism when it comes to this. Ask yourself: Under the beliefs of moral relativity, why is it ok to do one thing, but not another? Isn't it all "equal", because each persons beliefs are his own? If moral truths do not exist, why should we punish a murderer? Would it be fine to murder someone if the majority of the population thought it was acceptable?
What the heck does this have to do with the original question? Plenty. If you are one of those who answered "yes" to the murder question, this does not apply to you. I think it is obvious to most people that most people who are against g*y marriages are not homophobic, nor are they g*y-haters. Yet moral relativists are uncomfortable that some people do believe in absolute moral truths, and when someone expresses their beliefs in an absolute moral truth they are deemed to be "haters."
*edit* slight grammar *edit* a little more grammar
<!--QuoteBegin--Pjofsky+Aug 14 2003, 01:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pjofsky @ Aug 14 2003, 01:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Inter-family marriages, like marrying your brother or something. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Incest is illegal because it poses an unacceptable risk to the child's genetic well-being - odds of severe mutation are fairly high if you marry a sibling.
Note that the definition of incest varies from state to state as a function of how much risk is "unacceptable" - first-cousin pairings produce a fairly low amount of mutations, so many states allow them. Second-cousin pairings are legal pretty much everywhere because there's almost zero additional risk of mutation.
Given that homosexual marriage or even adoption could not possibly have any negative genetic impact on a child (by the very definition of adoption), this doesn't apply. You might argue for a negative environmental impact, but you wouldn't really have any basis for that argument, since studies done on that topic have supported the idea that g4y adoptive parents are every bit as capable as straight adoptive parents.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
I wouldn't want to stay on topic or anything <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> , but maybe what this discourse needs is a definition of what marriage is/should be. In other words, what is the purpose of marriage?
After straying through most of this thread I decided to look up the history of marriage licensing here in The States. The waters are mirky and I found myself drifting slowly into slumber. From my POV, the religious aspect of having a wedding ceremony is moot here as a couple doesn't need an actual ceremony to be licensed. So why do we need a license to marry? It seems that the license is merely public record used to assign both financial/property rights and to prevent the spread of certain STDs. So, historically marriage has been used to distribute property and to "limit" (for lack of a better word) procreation.
I'm having a hard time finding a reason why a M/F couple should have these rights while M/M or F/F couples should not. The idea for the M/F couple is that finances/property are shared/combined for use in the family. But, (as mentioned earlier) a marriage doesn't necessarily equal children. So if a married M/F couple has these rights, why not the others? There is also the new technology of artificial insemination and the old technology of adoption. I will say the whole artificial insemination movement enrages my Darwinian spirit but I guess it's here to stay. Otherwise, I have no experience with children of homosexual parents and cannot speak to their good/poor upbringing.
Don't blow a gasket here Nem <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> The objective Libertarian in me likes to peek out once in a while <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
everyone that says that homosexuals shouldnt have the right to marry has a serious problem and is as bad as racists are. Everyone should be allowed to marry the person he loves, there is NO (no, absolutely NO) reason to deny that right...
I cannot belief that in our time there are always people that think like that, grow up, look out of the window, people with other opinions like you wont hurt you, they life for them and let you in peace, go over it.
I skimmed your post, but it's really late. I'll get to replying the only part my eye caught.
Inter-family marriages, like marrying your brother or something.
EDIT: By illegal i mean Homosexual are not aloud
First, i'll prefix this with a little information about myself as a lot of you know, or perhaps a lot of you don't know. I've always considered myself relatively androgenous, by appearance (Well, until lately.), mentality and opinions. I've never in my life subscribed to any school of thought or any religion. Bear in mind that i do, quite often have problems commiting my thoughts to text in a way that anyone other than myself can understand, so if there's a point that's either not quite clarified enough or you think is just badly written, don't jump on me, just ask me to go into a little more detail and i will gladly oblige.
I'm not going to reply in specific to other people's posts, just refer in general to the unanswered questions of the latter part of this thread and also a few of you with slightly more "<i>traditional</i>" views of homosexuality.
Again, these are just my opinions.
As to the passing of any legal statement that openly infringes on the rights of a state's inhabitants, what gives them the right to do this? Is this Initiative not unconstitutional (sorry, i'm English, so i'm not exactly "up" on US law) and the mere passing of any such law, bill, initiative (whatever) in itself illegal? This is through pure curiosity, since as i said, i'm not really that knowledgable with US law.
To all the "traditionalists". You have as much right to believe what you think is right or wrong as much as i have the right to believe what i want. Opinions are al well and good, dispite that i may disagree, i can't condemn anyone else for having their own opinions. The problem here is that you're <b>forcing</b> your opinions on others, you are <b>oppressing</b> people who have done you no harm purely because you believe (or have been told to believe) that it is wrong. I don't find homosexual marriages in the least bit offensive, but if i did i wouldn't be screaming at them just because i found it wrong. I think sports are offensive, you don't see me pushing for a law against football, do you?
Most facts come down to, one way or another, a group of... hmm, "idiots", lets call them, who feel the need to force their opinions upon other people.
The religious argument does mean something, however. In Christianity homosexuality is frowned up in the bible itself, a lot of people believe in the bible's teachings (understatement of the year) so discrediting millions of people's opinions because "it means nothing" is a joke. Marriage is both religious and legal, the two rarely (note i say rarely, i am not saying that they are ALWAYS hand-in-hand with each other) do seperate from each other, with the christian marriage comes the legal contract and with that legal contracts comes the declaration that you believe in the teachings of whatever religion your marriage ceremony is a part of.
What people choose to do with their lives is nothing to do with me as long as they don't harm anyone.
Let em get married if they want, doesn't affect me in the slightest.
The only argument against same sex marriages / adoptions that actually holds any water is "their kids will cop flak for it..", well guess what, kids are like that and they are just as likely to catch it for wearing glasses, being overweight, having bad haircuts or wearing the wrong trainers.
If you have religious objections, fair enough, but you can't be forcing <i>your</i> religious beliefs on others.
That's not an argument against same-sex marriages, that's an argument against same-sex couples adopting. Just because you get married, doesn't mean you have to have kids, y'know.
He hasn't made a choice to be straight. What he's doing is forcing a straight lifestyle upon himself, but he's still g*y. Personally, I feel really quite sorry for him. He's forcing a struggle upon himself simply because he was brought up in a tradition that teaches that homosexuality is wrong.
He hasn't made a choice to be straight. What he's doing is forcing a straight lifestyle upon himself, but he's still g*y. Personally, I feel really quite sorry for him. He's forcing a struggle upon himself simply because he was brought up in a tradition that teaches that homosexuality is wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly.
That's not an argument against same-sex marriages, that's an argument against same-sex couples adopting. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, I agree, it's just that in some cases the two issues will be somewhat linked, and the same sex parents issue has already cropped up in this thread.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just because you get married, doesn't mean you have to have kids, y'know.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutely. I'm in a long term relationship, might even get married some day but neither of us wants kids. We both enjoy our freedom too much. Maybe in a decade or so we'll have changed our minds, till then though, nope.
He hasn't made a choice to be straight. What he's doing is forcing a straight lifestyle upon himself, but he's still g*y. Personally, I feel really quite sorry for him. He's forcing a struggle upon himself simply because he was brought up in a tradition that teaches that homosexuality is wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
i feel sorry for him too
he has made a choice to be straight. he could be g4y, but he knows being g4y is wrong, so wants to be straight and lives his life accordingly. thats a choice isnt it?
he could just say "F*ck this christianity shizzle, i'm g4y and i'm proud and nothings gonna tell me otherwise" and that would be a lot easier, but his beleifs are so strong that he cannot do that. He may not have been brought up as a christian. many christians come from the most unlikely circumstances. it was his choice to become a christian, it was his choic to renounce his sexuality to do what was right, and he will be rewarded for it. Its not an easy decsision to make, to go against the deepest desires, but he has.
yes, but people say we are born with our sexuality.
if he had a choice, he probably wouldnt be g4y in the firstplace
Studies done on twins (same DNA) that were seperated at birth (different social environment) showed that the chances of one of them being homosexual was consideragly higher if the other was, too. Thus, sexual preference can be attributed to a certain extent to the genes.
There seems however to be no clear genetical divide, more like an accentuation between differently strong developed bisexualities - in other words, most people can be attracted to both sexes to some degree, but then develop a more sophisticated liking for one gender due to social influences.
You aren't born straight or homosexual; you are born with a stronger-than-usual affinity to homo- or heterosexuality.
Studies done on twins (same DNA) that were seperated at birth (different social environment) showed that the chances of one of them being homosexual was consideragly higher if the other was, too. Thus, sexual preference can be attributed to a certain extent to the genes.
There seems however to be no clear genetical divide, more like an accentuation between differently strong developed bisexualities - in other words, most people can be attracted to both sexes to some degree, but then develop a more sophisticated liking for one gender due to social influences.
You aren't born straight or homosexual; you are born with a stronger-than-usual affinity to homo- or heterosexuality. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
While scientific background into the "nature vs nurture" case is still quite vague and sketchy at best, the simplest and easiest way is to actually ask someone who's g*y if they made a conscious decision to be ****, or if it just always seemed "right", i think you'll find that there'll be very few admitting to the former.
After all, they start with your mothers diet (which can affect the amount of testosterone you recieve during pregnancy, which in turn seems to be influental on your sexual preferences), and extend over the first few years of your upbringing into the time you are actually capable of rational decisionmaking.
1: You go to some countries, they kill you for it.
No, I'm not talking Afghanistan, and places like that. I'm talking small countries in Europe, much of Russia, many cities in Canada.
2: They'll be discriminated for it. We all know the kids will, because the adults are. And kids are MUCH more cruel than adults.
3: Its dangerous.
You have a 23% chance of CREATING AIDS, sypholis, and other deseases during g@y sex. Thats just how it is.
4: Its a choice.
While America is the land of the free, there have been NUMEROUS studies I've seen on MANY news TV shows(not the news, stuff like Dateline, and like that), that prove that there is no variable in your mind to change whether you like men or women. You like the opposite sex, NO MATTER WHAT. You may be raised to believe differently, but thats because you've been raised to think the opposite on that matter.
Well, there's my 2 cents. All my information came from valid places, like the news, and news TV shows. /me shrugs. I just hope that They weren't wrong. I don't like being lied to. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. That's rather hard to believe. I guess (some)americans are just as ignorant about Europe as (some) of us europeans(me for example <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->) are on US. My brother was just interrailing in europe this summer. He travelled with 2 of his friends and for some reason they were several times suspected to be g4ys but people never threatened them. Also it seemed that people were(in the middle/east europe) even more open about being g4y than in several other western countries. For example my brother and his friends accidentically went in to a g4y-bar in Poland and it sure wasn't hidden or anything.
2. Yes, Kids do discriminate but usually homosexual men start dating other men in their late teenages. I doubt they have problem with being accepted anymore in that point. They wont be probably even recognized as g4ys in school.
3. There is still condom and for a young person it's safer to have sex with a man without condom than with a woman because there is bigger risk of making that woman pregnant than getting a desease from the man(unless he is some sort of ?ber-male-bi@tch but I think there is more hyper active women carrying deseases than hyper active g4ys).
4. Actually I saw in one show that over 90% of men on earth are actually g4y and in their deepest thoughts they would like to be with a man, at least once, in their life. However they choose to hide it and not do it because it's not accectable in our society. Now do you believe that because I saw that on TV?
Think positive: There will be more women left for you the more homosexuals there are. Also I don't have anything against creating less children to this overpopulated world.
However no promises be made to any homosexual's personal safety after dark. Especially not in England.
Whilst true, i've been attacked in and out of clubs for either being g*y or looking g*y. But then again, this <i>is</i> England...
Firstly, I apologize for getting off topic here and there <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> previously as I was in an agitated mood.
Secondly, Samwise, your argument about the Supreme Court ruling that it was illegal and unconstitutional to discriminate in marriage is taken completely out of context. for example,
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the various statements directly concerning the Fourteenth Amendment, we have said in connection with a related problem, that although these historical sources "cast some light" they are not sufficient to resolve the problem; "[a]t best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States.' Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
is what the court said. The key phrase here is "legal distinctions". We've already said that homosexuals should recieve the same legal standing, so your argument of the Supreme Court barring discrimination from marriage doesn't address the issue you were trying to.
Thirdly, I thought about the original question posed in the thread (by none other than me) a lot last night, and I will attempt to answer my own question.
Why are people against homosexual marriages automatically labeled homophobic and anti-g*y? It all comes down to moral relativity. Unfortunately, adherents of moral relativity live and breathe a double standard, and often contradict themselves. I will attempt to explain: Moral relativity is the belief that each person has his own moral values and can determine what is "good" and "right" for himself, and many think that thus we should not go around imposing our values on others. Furthermore, moral relativists believe that overarching moral "truths" do not exist. Philosophically this is a valid argument.
From this stems the thought that says "That person is homosexual. In his moral scheme, it is right for him. Therefore, we should not interfere with him, and people who say that his morals are wrong are close-minded and hateful."
Unfortunately, in all practicality most moral relativists have a moment when "the buck stops here." For example, a cold-blooded murderer is universally denounced, and the criminal is responsible. Without getting into debates about the difference between sexual preference and criminal activity, let me point out the inherent inconsistency of moral relativism when it comes to this. Ask yourself: Under the beliefs of moral relativity, why is it ok to do one thing, but not another? Isn't it all "equal", because each persons beliefs are his own? If moral truths do not exist, why should we punish a murderer? Would it be fine to murder someone if the majority of the population thought it was acceptable?
What the heck does this have to do with the original question? Plenty. If you are one of those who answered "yes" to the murder question, this does not apply to you. I think it is obvious to most people that most people who are against g*y marriages are not homophobic, nor are they g*y-haters. Yet moral relativists are uncomfortable that some people do believe in absolute moral truths, and when someone expresses their beliefs in an absolute moral truth they are deemed to be "haters."
*edit* slight grammar
*edit* a little more grammar
Incest is illegal because it poses an unacceptable risk to the child's genetic well-being - odds of severe mutation are fairly high if you marry a sibling.
Note that the definition of incest varies from state to state as a function of how much risk is "unacceptable" - first-cousin pairings produce a fairly low amount of mutations, so many states allow them. Second-cousin pairings are legal pretty much everywhere because there's almost zero additional risk of mutation.
Given that homosexual marriage or even adoption could not possibly have any negative genetic impact on a child (by the very definition of adoption), this doesn't apply. You might argue for a negative environmental impact, but you wouldn't really have any basis for that argument, since studies done on that topic have supported the idea that g4y adoptive parents are every bit as capable as straight adoptive parents.
After straying through most of this thread I decided to look up the history of marriage licensing here in The States. The waters are mirky and I found myself drifting slowly into slumber. From my POV, the religious aspect of having a wedding ceremony is moot here as a couple doesn't need an actual ceremony to be licensed. So why do we need a license to marry? It seems that the license is merely public record used to assign both financial/property rights and to prevent the spread of certain STDs. So, historically marriage has been used to distribute property and to "limit" (for lack of a better word) procreation.
I'm having a hard time finding a reason why a M/F couple should have these rights while M/M or F/F couples should not. The idea for the M/F couple is that finances/property are shared/combined for use in the family. But, (as mentioned earlier) a marriage doesn't necessarily equal children. So if a married M/F couple has these rights, why not the others? There is also the new technology of artificial insemination and the old technology of adoption. I will say the whole artificial insemination movement enrages my Darwinian spirit but I guess it's here to stay. Otherwise, I have no experience with children of homosexual parents and cannot speak to their good/poor upbringing.
Don't blow a gasket here Nem <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> The objective Libertarian in me likes to peek out once in a while <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->