Deep Shame

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Let's face it, 65% of Americans oppose legalization of gay marriages. The public wants no part of this filthy activity becoming part of mainstream America.

Why do you, apparently, feel so threatened by the idea of a same gender couple being allowed to marry?

There is no rationally valid reason to prohibit it, whether from arguments of religion, tradition or nature. It promotes the formation of families, ensures the security of assets within the relationship, and in no way tangibly threatens anyone.

Considering the desire to commit to a life-long relationship, which will benefit both those in the relationship and society as well, as a "filthy activity" is the real perversion here.

 

[jon_forward]

how about you wear the shoe for awhile bully....why oh why are you so adamently for gay marriage...a civil union aint good enough....why...as defined earlier in this post... homosexuality ixs against nature....you have sex to pro-creat....that is #1 job for all species....survival...no kiddies...no more..simple...in your last post you attempted to bar ever known reason to be against gay marriage......why...all 3 are valid reasons...why are you forcing a fringe group into mainstream so hard??? homosexuals as a whole will never be main-stream in the USA...not in my lifetime..nor my childrens I hope.....they should have left well enough alone...now they are going to loss all they had gained.. and if they do it serves them right.... also....why should a gay couple have the same rights as a hetro couple.....do they hetros contribute to the aids epidemic? NO....that little problem started with gays...and the gays spread it...at times with out reguard to what happens....

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by jon_forward
if the behavor doesnt benifit mankind as a whole..ie..children then it is a waste of seed and there-fore wrong....come on Bully...you cant be this slow...can you???

The purpose of an individual's life is to live it in a manner to maximize his own happiness and well-being, while respecting the rights of others to do so. We are not herd beasts with the sold purpose of procreation.

Have you ever had protected sex? What was the purpose of that?

Sex is a form of communication - at best between to people who love each other.

 

[Big D]

Sexual identity

Sex identity was reported by teachers to be a problem area for some children of homosexuals. In general, children living with homosexuals were described by teachers as more expressive, more effeminate (irrespective of their gender) and "more confused about their gender" than children of heterosexual couples.

The picture of homosexual contexts painted by the Sarantakos study is that primary-aged children seem to be less happy at school than other children, achieve markedly lower grades in language and maths, and some are confused about their sexual identity.

Sarantakos concludes that "married couples seem to offer the best environment for a child's social and educational development" although he stresses that teachers who assessed the children may have been influenced by cultural attitudes. He notes that parental separation and divorce, long known to be associated with academic failure in children, is likely to be a major factor in the lower scores of children in both cohabiting and homosexual contexts (where break-ups are more common).

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Why do you, apparently, feel so threatened by the idea of a same gender couple being allowed to marry?

There is no rationally valid reason to prohibit it, whether from arguments of religion, tradition or nature. It promotes the formation of families, ensures the security of assets within the relationship, and in no way tangibly threatens anyone.

Considering the desire to commit to a life-long relationship, which will benefit both those in the relationship and society as well, as a "filthy activity" is the real perversion here.

I think it's disgusting and unnatural as do the majority of Americans. I don't want it as a part of my society, and neither do the majority of Americans.

 

[wonderwench]

Most of us can find something disgusting about other people: their religion, their eating habits, their private sexual practises, their taste in television programs....

Do you really want a society in which private behavior and taste can be outlawed because the majority don't like it? That is Unconstitutional.

It is also a slippery slope. Do you want to outlaw birth control? Oral sex? Doggie-style? Where does it stop?

 

[OCA]

Nobody is going to outlaw doggy style if its between A MAN AND A WOMAN! That is the point, that marriage is between a man and woman ONLY and has been since the beginning of time. It doesn't matter if they are happy, financially responsible, filanthropic etc etc., its just plain wrong. Lord I can't wait until tuesday because this mayor had no justifiable grounds to do this and any judge on the basis of the law will have to nullify all these "marriages".

 

[jimnyc]

Most of us can find something disgusting about other people: their religion, their eating habits, their private sexual practises, their taste in television programs....

True, but none of those people are dangling their habits out in public and demanding legal status to their pasttimes. I think these people are free to do what they want in their own homes just as the homosexuals are.

Do you really want a society in which private behavior and taste can be outlawed because the majority don't like it? That is Unconstitutional.

They'll still be free to be homosexuals, it's the marriage aspect I have a problem with. And this is becoming less and less of private behavior on a daily basis. It's everywhere you look anymore. I don't want to wake up tomorrow and find a couple of queers kissing in front of my house while my son is out there playing.

It is also a slippery slope. Do you want to outlaw birth control? Oral sex? Doggie-style? Where does it stop?

Again, private acts that aren't being shoved down our throats. I'm not saying being gay should be illegal, I just don't want the sanctity of marriage blemished.

 

[wonderwench]

I dislike the blatant display of private bedroom behavior by anyone - gay or hetero.

Britney Spears is just as disgusting as the exhibitionists in the Gay Freedom Day parades.

We had this discussion in another thread. The state's role in marriage is the definition and enforcement of the legal contract marriage represents. Partners are responsible for each other's liabilities as well as are beneficiaries of certain rights. I object to a group wanting the benefits without the liabilities. If two people wish to enter into a civil union, then let it be for the full equation.

 

[Moi]

The whole "can't legislate morals" and and slippery slope arguments just don't cut it for me. The fact is that all types of behaviors are legislated on based on the majority vote by lawmakers.

Can you honestly tell me how it doesn't affect my personal rights have to register a gun? Why, morally and legally, I can't refuse to wear a seatbelt? Why my son has to learn spanish in school? What's wrong with the confederate flag? Why can't I urinate/defacate on the side of the road? Why must I wear clothing?

It's because those in the majority deigned these actions best for society. Period. End of story. It happens all the time. The only time the argument against majority rule and individual actions comes into play is when those on the liberal side don't get what they want.

If an amendment banning same sex marriage passes it's because the majority of those voting wish it to. That is, actually, what democracy is all about. You can claim that the minority should not fall victim to the whims of the majority all you want, but that would mean the repeal of just about every single law in this country.

 

[William Joyce]

Ha! Nice blast of cold water, Moi. As a law professor of conservative bent once snorted, "morals are the very BASIS of legislation. You don't legistlate anything BUT morals."

A liberal law prof, meanwhile, once ripped into a student for using the "this is a slippery slope" argument. He said, "Yeah, you know, I'm gonna say I have to reject that. That implies that we can't make distinctions about different circumstances." Zing!

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Moi
The whole "can't legislate morals" and and slippery slope arguments just don't cut it for me. The fact is that all types of behaviors are legislated on based on the majority vote by lawmakers.

Can you honestly tell me how it doesn't affect my personal rights have to register a gun? Why, morally and legally, I can't refuse to wear a seatbelt? Why my son has to learn spanish in school? What's wrong with the confederate flag? Why can't I urinate/defacate on the side of the road? Why must I wear clothing?

It's because those in the majority deigned these actions best for society. Period. End of story. It happens all the time. The only time the argument against majority rule and individual actions comes into play is when those on the liberal side don't get what they want.

If an amendment banning same sex marriage passes it's because the majority of those voting wish it to. That is, actually, what democracy is all about. You can claim that the minority should not fall victim to the whims of the majority all you want, but that would mean the repeal of just about every single law in this country.

How does what someone else does in the privacy of his bedroom affect you? Everything you cited is activity done in public - no private.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
How does what someone else does in the privacy of his bedroom affect you? Everything you cited is activity done in public - no private.

As far as the argument that homosexuality is only in a person's bedroom, when the activity is being legislated upon in any sense, whether for or against it, it's no longer private. If homosexuals want the right to be open about their sexuality on TV, at work, in the government, at parades, etc. than they have opened the door to that bedroom themselves.

Furthermore, wearing a seatbelt affects no one but me...done in the privacy of my own car. Owning a gun affects no one but me in the privacy of my own house. Forcing medical beliefs upon me affects no one but me. No where does the constitution say that only those rights exercisable in the bedroom are the only ones protected. Oh wait, there is no privacy clause to the constitution, out the window that argument goes anyway.

The fact remains that you cannot choose which activities on a "what's best for society" basis or that "affect no one but the actor" are subject to public purview- if one is, they all are.

 

[eric]

No one cares what you do in the privacy of your bedroom, but to condone it by giving it a legal status is a different story. Once you open the floodgates watch out, now where will it end. How about having more than one wife, why can I not marry 3 women, this way all three would receive legal protections afforded a wife ? If I am a farmer why can't I marry one of my sheep ! This may sound stupid to you, but to me two people of the same sex marrying also sounds silly and vile !

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Moi
As far as the argument that homosexuality is only in a person's bedroom, when the activity is being legislated upon in any sense, whether for or against it, it's no longer private. If homosexuals want the right to be open about their sexuality on TV, at work, in the government, at parades, etc. than they have opened the door to that bedroom themselves.

Furthermore, wearing a seatbelt affects no one but me...done in the privacy of my own car. Owning a gun affects no one but me in the privacy of my own house. Forcing medical beliefs upon me affects no one but me. No where does the constitution say that only those rights exercisable in the bedroom are the only ones protected. Oh wait, there is no privacy clause to the constitution, out the window that argument goes anyway.

The fact remains that you cannot choose which activities on a "what's best for society" basis or that "affect no one but the actor" are subject to public purview- if one is, they all are.

Incorrect. The purpose of legislation is to ensure equal protection under the law - and to enforce the Constitution. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Just where in the Constitution do these rights apply only to heterosexuals?

The right to privacy is implicit and inherent in individual rights - and explicit in the right to be protected from things such as unreasonable search and seizure.

Regarding your examples:

- Seatbelts are used in cars that traverse public roads.
- Guns, I am pro the 2nd amendment and believe law-abiding individuals should have the right to conceal carry permits as well as to keep guns in their homes. The fact that the anti-gun zealots have been able to undermine the 2nd Amendment doesn't make it irrelevant.

Using the litmus test that private behavior is to be judged first by what is best for society is the same mindset used by fascists and socialists. The test for free societies is whether or not minorities receive equal protection.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
True, but none of those people are dangling their habits out in public and demanding legal status to their pasttimes.

It's not about legal status for a "past-time". It's an issue of equal protection under the law.

 

[wonderwench]

Hmmmm....Take a look at what passes for entertainment on MTV and in most movies.

The disgusting displays involve mostly heterosexuals. Exhibitionism is practised by freaks of all persuasions. But we shouldn't punish decent people who want to go about their private lives because of it.

 

[jon_forward]

protection from what ??????????????? and Bully would you answer the questions I asked earlier???

 

[jimnyc]

This whole argument is useless anyway. There WILL BE bans and amendments made to ensure same sex marriages will never be. The licenses issued thus far will be marked invalid.

 

[Big D]

School achievements

The major finding of the study was that family type made a significant difference to the children's school achievements. Children in families with their married biological parents scored best of the three groups (on a scale from 1 to 9) in language ability (7.7), mathematics (7.9) and sport (8.9). Children of cohabiting couples generally did next best in these areas (6.8, 7.0 and 8.3), while children of homosexuals scored lowest (5.5, 5.5, 5.9). Social studies was the only exception to this trend - all scores were similar, with children of homosexuals doing slightly better (7.6) than those of married couples (7.3), who were slightly ahead of children of cohabiting couples (7.0).