What with all this talk of homosexuality

[Dr Grump]

And you expect all us NORMAL people to ACCOMADATE THEM with SPECIAL PRIVILEDGES???!!!

Yep. Normal being the operative word....

 

[Bonnie]

Jillian..I've also never seen anyone try to get a Constitutional amendment or put anything on a ballot saying heterosexuals shouldn't marry.

Not yet anyway. What reason would they use?

 

[Kagom]

You dont have to have balls to be able to observe human nature. The fact is virtue brings happiness. Vice brings bondage and sorrow. It's a fact of life whether you want to admit it not.

In fact, the anger in your response speaks loudly for your own choice. You are just upset that you cant make bad decisions and be happy in them.

Being gay is a vice to you because of your religious convictions. But our country doesn't cater (or isn't supposed to cater to) any special religious ideal. It bases its decisions (again, supposed to. I think we can all agree that there has at least been an instance in the States' history where it wasn't) on the good for the people. Where does gay marriage harm the good of the people (which I ask you to answer without using insufficient research and the such).

How do you know your beliefs are correct? It is quite possible that the Atheists are right or the Hindus, etc. What you define as vice is, again, apart of the religious convictions you have. Thing is, you don't know. You say you know because of what you believe, but because you believe something doesn't always mean its right. I could be wrong and you could be right and vice versa. I keep such thoughts open to possibility because they could be different than I had thought. But until we have some definitive proof that the belief system that governs your life is true, our government can't just go by it. Homosexuality isn't a vice. I'm not the only one who believes that. You believe it is. You're not the only one. But do have a little consideration for those who believe differently as some of us do for you.

I'm quite happy as a gay person. I've been in good relationships and very few bad ones. I honestly can say I was happy. We feel the same as heterosexuals do in relationships, but people don't want to humanize that sometimes. The separate-but-equal crap doesn't fly either.

 

[Avatar4321]

No, get off you butt and get happy and married!! These people are not looking for any special treatment. They just want the same rights as hetros. Anything above and beyond that is special treatment...

They have the same rights as heteros. They can marry any unmarried person of the opposite sex that isnt related to them and above the age of accountability.

No hetero can marry a member of the same sex. Why should any homosexual be allowed to?

I have seen self proclaimed homosexuals exercise their rights to marry members of the opposite sex. Heck some even have children with them, which is pretty darn amazing if "naturally" they are homosexual.

 

[MissileMan]

You dont have to have balls to be able to observe human nature. The fact is virtue brings happiness. Vice brings bondage and sorrow. It's a fact of life whether you want to admit it not.

In fact, the anger in your response speaks loudly for your own choice. You are just upset that you cant make bad decisions and be happy in them.

You know absolutely nothing about my life and my happiness, but in your typical fashion you make assumptions. That's your problem. You assume you know more about a person than the person themself. You assume that your morals are superior to everyone else's. You assume that your religion is right and everyone else's is wrong. You assume that you have greater insight into how I should lead my live than I have. I could go on for quite a while, but that should be enough to give you the idea. Your assumptions are as hollow as your skull.

 

[MissileMan]

No hetero can marry a member of the same sex. Why should any homosexual be allowed to?

If they pass a gay marriage law, then you will be free to marry someone of the same sex just like them. You'll have the same rights.

 

[Avatar4321]

Really? Funny. After you've been married for 10 years, you are eligible to get half of your spouse's social security after a split or get their benefits if they predecease. You can make medical decisions for your spouse, are entitled to a percentage of their estate, even without a will and are entitled to a property settlement if you split. Yet you think a gay couple who have chosen to be life partners are getting the "same rights"? They aren't. I don't believe in special privileges either, I hate affirmative action and the like.

I've also never seen anyone try to get a Constitutional amendment or put anything on a ballot saying heterosexuals shouldn't marry.

So how again does a long term gay partnership have the same rights?

They have the right to marry as has already been stated. They choose not to enter into the marriage by being gay.

Any body can make medical decisions for another person if they simply right up a contract giving them power of attorney in such matters. The fact that any gay couple doesnt exercise this right thats open to anybody does not mean the right doesnt already exist. If they are so concerned about it why are they too lazy to go talk to a lawyer about it?

You seem to think that because they choose not to exercise the rights given to all Americans and engage in their homosexual activities, that they have somehow lost the right. If someone is arrested they have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. If a person choices to waive these rights through their own choices, they arent being denied their rights. They simply have chosen not to exercise them. Should they choose to exercise them at a later point in time, they can equally choose to do so.

Likewise homosexuals have the same rights to marry as heterosexuals. They simply choose not to engage in those rights by practicing homosexuality. It would be like a criminal saying they have been denied their right to an attorney because the cops wouldnt bring in their hairstylist to chat gossip with and do their hair. It's utterly ridiculous.

 

[Stephanie]

But do have a little consideration for those who believe differently as some of us do for you.

I'm quite happy as a gay person. I've been in good relationships and very few bad ones. I honestly can say I was happy. We feel the same as heterosexuals do in relationships, but people don't want to humanize that sometimes. The separate-but-equal crap doesn't fly either.

I do believe we've been quite considerate, considering all the name's we're called day in and day out...


Let me tell you this...
I've been married ONCE(16 yrs), am divorced now, not looking to get married again.
It's not everything it's all glamorized about, anyway. :rotflmao:

 

[Avatar4321]

Being gay is a vice to you because of your religious convictions. But our country doesn't cater (or isn't supposed to cater to) any special religious ideal. It bases its decisions (again, supposed to. I think we can all agree that there has at least been an instance in the States' history where it wasn't) on the good for the people. Where does gay marriage harm the good of the people (which I ask you to answer without using insufficient research and the such).

How do you know your beliefs are correct? It is quite possible that the Atheists are right or the Hindus, etc. What you define as vice is, again, apart of the religious convictions you have. Thing is, you don't know. You say you know because of what you believe, but because you believe something doesn't always mean its right. I could be wrong and you could be right and vice versa. I keep such thoughts open to possibility because they could be different than I had thought. But until we have some definitive proof that the belief system that governs your life is true, our government can't just go by it. Homosexuality isn't a vice. I'm not the only one who believes that. You believe it is. You're not the only one. But do have a little consideration for those who believe differently as some of us do for you.

I'm quite happy as a gay person. I've been in good relationships and very few bad ones. I honestly can say I was happy. We feel the same as heterosexuals do in relationships, but people don't want to humanize that sometimes. The separate-but-equal crap doesn't fly either.

See here is the problem. You seem to think that just because you think something is not a vice it isn't. Virtue and vices are constant. Simply because you recognize it or doesnt recognize it doesnt make it any less a virtue or a vice.

If I decided Racism was completely alright and lived my life as a racist, it wouldnt be any less a vice because I decided it wasn't. Moral relativity is a bunch of bosh.

As for how i know my beliefs are correct, I went to the source and asked God along with observing human nature.

 

[Avatar4321]

You know absolutely nothing about my life and my happiness, but in your typical fashion you make assumptions. That's your problem. You assume you know more about a person than the person themself. You assume that your morals are superior to everyone else's. You assume that your religion is right and everyone else's is wrong. You assume that you have greater insight into how I should lead my live than I have. I could go on for quite a while, but that should be enough to give you the idea. Your assumptions are as hollow as your skull.

You seem to think thats Impossible to understand people with what they write. Quite contrary, you can learn alot about people with what they say, the words the choose, what topics they are passionate about. And in fact, some people don't even realize it themselves. I know there are a number of people who notice things about me that I dont see because I cant step back from my life and take a look at it from the outside. All one has to do is observe the constant bitterness in your rhetoric to understand that you arent the happiest man around.

And I dont assume anything about my religion. I know its right because I did something that seems totally forun to most people. I actually talked to God. Youd be surprised how many people, even religious people, do so without even consulting God on the matter. They just just believe what rationally or emotionally appeals to them. Some of them are lucky and end up choosing the right beliefs anyway. Others are taught some of the truth by the Spirit and don't even realize it. Others like you, hate the fact that there might be some higher truth out there that your life needs to conform to that you accuse others of doing what you yourself are guilty of, in this case assuming.

Tell me something, why would I want to believe something if it was utterly false? Why would anyone assuming that their beliefs are false? You don't assume your beliefs are false do you? Is looking at the evidence and determining what is true somehow bad? Is it any less true because the close minded dont want to open themselves up to the possibility that God exists and can reveal Himself?

If you are going to claim that you cant know whether God exists or not, you never will find out. But if you keep yourself open to the possbility you can learn.

 

[Avatar4321]

If they pass a gay marriage law, then you will be free to marry someone of the same sex just like them. You'll have the same rights.

That's rather irrelevent. The people have been given a choice whether to recognize this right. And the people have overwhelming voiced their view that the right does not exist. You cant be denied a right that doesn't exist.

 

[Avatar4321]

I do believe we've been quite considerate, considering all the name's we're called day in and day out...


Let me tell you this...
I've been married ONCE(16 yrs), am divorced now, not looking to get married again.
It's not everything it's all glamorized about, anyway. :rotflmao:

Sure it is, you just didnt marry me

 

[MissileMan]

You seem to think thats Impossible to understand people with what they write. Quite contrary, you can learn alot about people with what they say, the words the choose, what topics they are passionate about. And in fact, some people don't even realize it themselves. I know there are a number of people who notice things about me that I dont see because I cant step back from my life and take a look at it from the outside. All one has to do is observe the constant bitterness in your rhetoric to understand that you arent the happiest man around.

More assumption...does it never end? I suppose that a lifetime of constant assuming has made it impossible for you to stop. Is this true?

And I dont assume anything about my religion. I know its right because I did something that seems totally forun to most people. I actually talked to God. Youd be surprised how many people, even religious people, do so without even consulting God on the matter. They just just believe what rationally or emotionally appeals to them. Some of them are lucky and end up choosing the right beliefs anyway. Others are taught some of the truth by the Spirit and don't even realize it. Others like you, hate the fact that there might be some higher truth out there that your life needs to conform to that you accuse others of doing what you yourself are guilty of, in this case assuming.

More assumption.

Tell me something, why would I want to believe something if it was utterly false? Why would anyone assuming that their beliefs are false? You don't assume your beliefs are false do you? Is looking at the evidence and determining what is true somehow bad? Is it any less true because the close minded dont want to open themselves up to the possibility that God exists and can reveal Himself?

If you are going to claim that you cant know whether God exists or not, you never will find out. But if you keep yourself open to the possbility you can learn.

A circular argument...you have to believe to believe. Round and round we go.

 

[MissileMan]

That's rather irrelevent. The people have been given a choice whether to recognize this right. And the people have overwhelming voiced their view that the right does not exist. You cant be denied a right that doesn't exist.

That wasn't the question. IF they pass a gay marriage law, wouldn't you then have the equal right of marrying another man ? This would negate the special rights argument, yes?

 

[Stephanie]

Sure it is, you just didnt marry me

 

[mattskramer]

That's rather irrelevent. The people have been given a choice whether to recognize this right. And the people have overwhelming voiced their view that the right does not exist. You cant be denied a right that doesn't exist.

The “overwhelming” majority has a right to be wrong. Just because most people deny that something exists does not mean that it does not exist. Review the notes from your introductory logic class.

 

[Avatar4321]

More assumption...does it never end? I suppose that a lifetime of constant assuming has made it impossible for you to stop. Is this true?


More assumption..

Observations and experience are hardly assumptions. You can call them that all you want, but that doesnt change anything

A circular argument...you have to believe to believe. Round and round we go

It would be if you characterized what i was saying correctly. Im not surprised you didnt though.

The fact is you have to be open to the possibility. If you tell yourself that no one can possibly know. Then you have closed yourself off to the possibility of ever knowing. But if you are willing to acknowledge that it might be knowable, then you can learn.

For example, let's say there are two people in a room with no windows and a door leading to a pitch dark hallway. (Assume for the ask of the example that they have all the necessities of life). They have never been anywhere else other than this room.

They have with them several books that state that the room is one of many in a huge mansion left for them to enjoy.

One of the two suggest they step outside the door and find out so that they can enjoy the rest of the house. He is willing to step out and find out whether the room is really part of a mansion.

The other states that this room is all there is and that there is no way anyone could possibly know that there is more out there since this room is all they can see. He refuses to leave the room.

Which of these two is more likely to learn the truth? Likewise, which is more likely to learn the truth of God, the one who goes out and experiments on the word, the one who searches, or the one who says no one can find out?

 

[Avatar4321]

The “overwhelming” majority has a right to be wrong. Just because most people deny that something exists does not mean that it does not exist. Review the notes from your introductory logic class.

If the majority is wrong, then its up those who thing they are right to go out and persuade them that this right does exist. That is the whole point of Representative government. Its to be a government of the people. If the people dont see a right and God doesn't see a right. Who are you to say there is a right and go against the will of the people?

 

[MissileMan]

Observations and experience are hardly assumptions. You can call them that all you want, but that doesnt change anything



It would be if you characterized what i was saying correctly. Im not surprised you didnt though.

The fact is you have to be open to the possibility. If you tell yourself that no one can possibly know. Then you have closed yourself off to the possibility of ever knowing. But if you are willing to acknowledge that it might be knowable, then you can learn.

For example, let's say there are two people in a room with no windows and a door leading to a pitch dark hallway. (Assume for the ask of the example that they have all the necessities of life). They have never been anywhere else other than this room.

They have with them several books that state that the room is one of many in a huge mansion left for them to enjoy.

One of the two suggest they step outside the door and find out so that they can enjoy the rest of the house. He is willing to step out and find out whether the room is really part of a mansion.

The other states that this room is all there is and that there is no way anyone could possibly know that there is more out there since this room is all they can see. He refuses to leave the room.

Which of these two is more likely to learn the truth? Likewise, which is more likely to learn the truth of God, the one who goes out and experiments on the word, the one who searches, or the one who says no one can find out?

Again...you are assuming that there is a God. What is the point of searching for something that doesn't exist? Your truth is that there is a god. My truth is there is none. You are still in essence saying that you have to believe to believe.

Your example has a few bugs in it too. To have a more honest example, it wouldn't be two people, but billions. And then all but the last two have gone through the door never to be seen again. Do you still think it's a good idea to go exploring because some book says so?

ETA: And on top of that, the stack of books you have all claim there is something different at the end of the hallway. One claims a mansion, one claims a garden, one claims a forest full of game, one claims a great hall full of heroes, one claims there's absolutely nothing. Which one do you believe?

 

[mattskramer]

If the majority is wrong, then its up those who thing they are right to go out and persuade them that this right does exist. That is the whole point of Representative government. Its to be a government of the people. If the people dont see a right and God doesn't see a right. Who are you to say there is a right and go against the will of the people?

I prefer representative government to other types of government. That does not negate the logical fact that the majority can still be wrong. I think that the majority has been wrong about different issues in the past. I am merely saying that to claim that something is right because the majority think that it is right is to commit a fallacy.

"An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."

This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, and tyranny of the majority, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_belief