Dead of Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
What the 
just happened to this thread?
just happened to this thread?
Proposition 8 same sex marriage ban poll
- Thread starter von551
- Start date
[quote name='lordwow']So it's fair to say you may be homosexual and choosing to live as a heterosexual in order to avoid being persecuted?[/QUOTE]
Maybe? If that's the case, I'm not aware of it. I'm not a psychoanalyst, what may exist in my subconscious, or anyones for that matter is a mystery.
Maybe? If that's the case, I'm not aware of it. I'm not a psychoanalyst, what may exist in my subconscious, or anyones for that matter is a mystery.
k
von551
CAGiversary!
[quote name='spmahn']Many homosexuals claim that they absolutely did not choose to be gay, and if it WAS a choice, they would probably choose to be straight just to avoid the social stigmas. Anecdotal evidence like this however doesn't hold up for a variety of reasons. Empirical research on the subject is up to this point inconclusive, it hasn't been proven that it is a choice, but there not certain it isn't either.
Gay marriage is currently legal in three states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa, and will be legal in Maine and Vermont later this year.[/QUOTE]
There's no doubt homosexuals have a right to claim "gay from birth". Science proves otherwise so far (despite the gay lobby's privately funding of numerous studies to try to prove it), but is it any different than an alcoholic claiming he was born that way? Or any other strong personality/trait we may have for that fact? I just don't see much difference between the two. I think we all have our issues we can use the "I was born that way" cop out with, I know I do.
We recently had a county wide ban on public alcohol consumption at all our beaches in san diego county last year. You don't see all the drinkers or alcoholics taking THAT to the supreme court do you? Shouldn't they have the same "right" to do what they feel they were born as? It'd be no different if alcohol advocates started protesting and rallying and boycotting companies that supported the ban. Isn't that crazy to you?
On the flip side there are alot of people who have defected from the gay lifestyle, so that makes me wonder how strong do "genes" or will play a part. My good friend is one of those, she claims to be a lesbian, but will go through "boy phases". That's like saying a guy goes through "girl" phases, right? I do believe this is something that gays cannot fight on their own and the successful defects of the lifestyle site God as their strength for leaving the lifestyle. Maybe that's what it takes, I know that's what it took for me to give up alcohol, I couldn't do it on my own.
ALL the states that currently allow gay marriage have ALL been done so by the courts. They are the ones who overturned the people's vote, no state has ever had the people vote in favor of gay marriage. I think it says alot that even a state as liberal as California can get the majority (albeit slim) to vote in favor of banning same-sex marriage.
I have pretty liberal views, much more than most democrats seem to have lately with turning our country into a socialist government run fallasy. I don't believe the government should tell us what we can't do (to an extent of course). And that goes both ways, why is the government even involved in marriage, Something from ancient times that never needed a piece of paper? Some in this thread are trying to spread this lie that the church got involved to make a buck. Really? History shows Justinian lawyers in the 6th century drawing up the first legal documents for marriage. That sounds like the government, not church, trying to own the right of marriage. Not until the 9th century did the church get involved to give their blessing to the couple and no legal documents were required. Even in Europe in the 16th century the church was used as a blessing on the couple, and still no legal docs required. So when did the government become involved in marriages? "In Colonial times in North America the customs of the old countries were followed. There were some who only wanted a civil ceremony and not a religious ceremony. The Colonists who wanted civil marriages passed laws to this effect." Wow, sounds like the government again is involved in trying to own what was never it's own.
God created marriage as a symbol of his love for us, Him being the groom, the church (people, not buildings) being the bride. I know most don't believe that, but that's the truth and the government trying to own that is ridiculous.
Gay marriage is currently legal in three states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa, and will be legal in Maine and Vermont later this year.[/QUOTE]
There's no doubt homosexuals have a right to claim "gay from birth". Science proves otherwise so far (despite the gay lobby's privately funding of numerous studies to try to prove it), but is it any different than an alcoholic claiming he was born that way? Or any other strong personality/trait we may have for that fact? I just don't see much difference between the two. I think we all have our issues we can use the "I was born that way" cop out with, I know I do.
We recently had a county wide ban on public alcohol consumption at all our beaches in san diego county last year. You don't see all the drinkers or alcoholics taking THAT to the supreme court do you? Shouldn't they have the same "right" to do what they feel they were born as? It'd be no different if alcohol advocates started protesting and rallying and boycotting companies that supported the ban. Isn't that crazy to you?
On the flip side there are alot of people who have defected from the gay lifestyle, so that makes me wonder how strong do "genes" or will play a part. My good friend is one of those, she claims to be a lesbian, but will go through "boy phases". That's like saying a guy goes through "girl" phases, right? I do believe this is something that gays cannot fight on their own and the successful defects of the lifestyle site God as their strength for leaving the lifestyle. Maybe that's what it takes, I know that's what it took for me to give up alcohol, I couldn't do it on my own.
ALL the states that currently allow gay marriage have ALL been done so by the courts. They are the ones who overturned the people's vote, no state has ever had the people vote in favor of gay marriage. I think it says alot that even a state as liberal as California can get the majority (albeit slim) to vote in favor of banning same-sex marriage.
I have pretty liberal views, much more than most democrats seem to have lately with turning our country into a socialist government run fallasy. I don't believe the government should tell us what we can't do (to an extent of course). And that goes both ways, why is the government even involved in marriage, Something from ancient times that never needed a piece of paper? Some in this thread are trying to spread this lie that the church got involved to make a buck. Really? History shows Justinian lawyers in the 6th century drawing up the first legal documents for marriage. That sounds like the government, not church, trying to own the right of marriage. Not until the 9th century did the church get involved to give their blessing to the couple and no legal documents were required. Even in Europe in the 16th century the church was used as a blessing on the couple, and still no legal docs required. So when did the government become involved in marriages? "In Colonial times in North America the customs of the old countries were followed. There were some who only wanted a civil ceremony and not a religious ceremony. The Colonists who wanted civil marriages passed laws to this effect." Wow, sounds like the government again is involved in trying to own what was never it's own.
God created marriage as a symbol of his love for us, Him being the groom, the church (people, not buildings) being the bride. I know most don't believe that, but that's the truth and the government trying to own that is ridiculous.
spmahn, have you ever spoken to an older gay person? especially from rural areas, no rational person can claim homosexuality's a choice after hearing the story of a rural pre-internet gay.
it's different in modern society, not only online but gays can find info in libraries, magazines, tv, etc. there used to be basically no discussion of it anywhere, and being openly gay was much less common than it is now, so most gays had absolutely no information about it... i've heard older gays speak with such envy of our information age, how they so wish they would've had this sort of info when they were younger, instead of trying to hide it and wonder whether or not something was wrong with them.
to honestly believe it's a choice.. it shows such ignorance. nothing's really wrong with being ignorant, so long as you remain open-minded enough to get informed.
edit: rofl.. can't believe von just compared being gay to being alcoholic.. i literally lol'd.
it's different in modern society, not only online but gays can find info in libraries, magazines, tv, etc. there used to be basically no discussion of it anywhere, and being openly gay was much less common than it is now, so most gays had absolutely no information about it... i've heard older gays speak with such envy of our information age, how they so wish they would've had this sort of info when they were younger, instead of trying to hide it and wonder whether or not something was wrong with them.
to honestly believe it's a choice.. it shows such ignorance. nothing's really wrong with being ignorant, so long as you remain open-minded enough to get informed.
edit: rofl.. can't believe von just compared being gay to being alcoholic.. i literally lol'd.
Dead of Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='von551']There's no doubt homosexuals have a right to claim "gay from birth". Science proves otherwise so far (despite the gay lobby's privately funding of numerous studies to try to prove it), but is it any different than an alcoholic claiming he was born that way? Or any other strong personality/trait we may have for that fact? I just don't see much difference between the two. I think we all have our issues we can use the "I was born that way" cop out with, I know I do.
We recently had a county wide ban on public alcohol consumption at all our beaches in san diego county last year. You don't see all the drinkers or alcoholics taking THAT to the supreme court do you? Shouldn't they have the same "right" to do what they feel they were born as? It'd be no different if alcohol advocates started protesting and rallying and boycotting companies that supported the ban. Isn't that crazy to you?
On the flip side there are alot of people who have defected from the gay lifestyle, so that makes me wonder how strong do "genes" or will play a part. My good friend is one of those, she claims to be a lesbian, but will go through "boy phases". That's like saying a guy goes through "girl" phases, right? I do believe this is something that gays cannot fight on their own and the successful defects of the lifestyle site God as their strength for leaving the lifestyle. Maybe that's what it takes, I know that's what it took for me to give up alcohol, I couldn't do it on my own.
ALL the states that currently allow gay marriage have ALL been done so by the courts. They are the ones who overturned the people's vote, no state has ever had the people vote in favor of gay marriage. I think it says alot that even a state as liberal as California can get the majority (albeit slim) to vote in favor of banning same-sex marriage.
I have pretty liberal views, much more than most democrats seem to have lately with turning our country into a socialist government run fallasy. I don't believe the government should tell us what we can't do (to an extent of course). And that goes both ways, why is the government even involved in marriage, Something from ancient times that never needed a piece of paper? Some in this thread are trying to spread this lie that the church got involved to make a buck. Really? History shows Justinian lawyers in the 6th century drawing up the first legal documents for marriage. That sounds like the government, not church, trying to own the right of marriage. Not until the 9th century did the church get involved to give their blessing to the couple and no legal documents were required. Even in Europe in the 16th century the church was used as a blessing on the couple, and still no legal docs required. So when did the government become involved in marriages? "In Colonial times in North America the customs of the old countries were followed. There were some who only wanted a civil ceremony and not a religious ceremony. The Colonists who wanted civil marriages passed laws to this effect." Wow, sounds like the government again is involved in trying to own what was never it's own.
God created marriage as a symbol of his love for us, Him being the groom, the church (people, not buildings) being the bride. I know most don't believe that, but that's the truth and the government trying to own that is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
^^
We recently had a county wide ban on public alcohol consumption at all our beaches in san diego county last year. You don't see all the drinkers or alcoholics taking THAT to the supreme court do you? Shouldn't they have the same "right" to do what they feel they were born as? It'd be no different if alcohol advocates started protesting and rallying and boycotting companies that supported the ban. Isn't that crazy to you?
On the flip side there are alot of people who have defected from the gay lifestyle, so that makes me wonder how strong do "genes" or will play a part. My good friend is one of those, she claims to be a lesbian, but will go through "boy phases". That's like saying a guy goes through "girl" phases, right? I do believe this is something that gays cannot fight on their own and the successful defects of the lifestyle site God as their strength for leaving the lifestyle. Maybe that's what it takes, I know that's what it took for me to give up alcohol, I couldn't do it on my own.
ALL the states that currently allow gay marriage have ALL been done so by the courts. They are the ones who overturned the people's vote, no state has ever had the people vote in favor of gay marriage. I think it says alot that even a state as liberal as California can get the majority (albeit slim) to vote in favor of banning same-sex marriage.
I have pretty liberal views, much more than most democrats seem to have lately with turning our country into a socialist government run fallasy. I don't believe the government should tell us what we can't do (to an extent of course). And that goes both ways, why is the government even involved in marriage, Something from ancient times that never needed a piece of paper? Some in this thread are trying to spread this lie that the church got involved to make a buck. Really? History shows Justinian lawyers in the 6th century drawing up the first legal documents for marriage. That sounds like the government, not church, trying to own the right of marriage. Not until the 9th century did the church get involved to give their blessing to the couple and no legal documents were required. Even in Europe in the 16th century the church was used as a blessing on the couple, and still no legal docs required. So when did the government become involved in marriages? "In Colonial times in North America the customs of the old countries were followed. There were some who only wanted a civil ceremony and not a religious ceremony. The Colonists who wanted civil marriages passed laws to this effect." Wow, sounds like the government again is involved in trying to own what was never it's own.
God created marriage as a symbol of his love for us, Him being the groom, the church (people, not buildings) being the bride. I know most don't believe that, but that's the truth and the government trying to own that is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
^^
[quote name='von551']There's no doubt homosexuals have a right to claim "gay from birth". Science proves otherwise so far (despite the gay lobby's privately funding of numerous studies to try to prove it), but is it any different than an alcoholic claiming he was born that way? Or any other strong personality/trait we may have for that fact? I just don't see much difference between the two. I think we all have our issues we can use the "I was born that way" cop out with, I know I do.
We recently had a county wide ban on public alcohol consumption at all our beaches in san diego county last year. You don't see all the drinkers or alcoholics taking THAT to the supreme court do you? Shouldn't they have the same "right" to do what they feel they were born as? It'd be no different if alcohol advocates started protesting and rallying and boycotting companies that supported the ban. Isn't that crazy to you?
On the flip side there are alot of people who have defected from the gay lifestyle, so that makes me wonder how strong do "genes" or will play a part. My good friend is one of those, she claims to be a lesbian, but will go through "boy phases". That's like saying a guy goes through "girl" phases, right? I do believe this is something that gays cannot fight on their own and the successful defects of the lifestyle site God as their strength for leaving the lifestyle. Maybe that's what it takes, I know that's what it took for me to give up alcohol, I couldn't do it on my own.
ALL the states that currently allow gay marriage have ALL been done so by the courts. They are the ones who overturned the people's vote, no state has ever had the people vote in favor of gay marriage. I think it says alot that even a state as liberal as California can get the majority (albeit slim) to vote in favor of banning same-sex marriage.
I have pretty liberal views, much more than most democrats seem to have lately with turning our country into a socialist government run fallasy. I don't believe the government should tell us what we can't do (to an extent of course). And that goes both ways, why is the government even involved in marriage, Something from ancient times that never needed a piece of paper? Some in this thread are trying to spread this lie that the church got involved to make a buck. Really? History shows Justinian lawyers in the 6th century drawing up the first legal documents for marriage. That sounds like the government, not church, trying to own the right of marriage. Not until the 9th century did the church get involved to give their blessing to the couple and no legal documents were required. Even in Europe in the 16th century the church was used as a blessing on the couple, and still no legal docs required. So when did the government become involved in marriages? "In Colonial times in North America the customs of the old countries were followed. There were some who only wanted a civil ceremony and not a religious ceremony. The Colonists who wanted civil marriages passed laws to this effect." Wow, sounds like the government again is involved in trying to own what was never it's own.
God created marriage as a symbol of his love for us, Him being the groom, the church (people, not buildings) being the bride. I know most don't believe that, but that's the truth and the government trying to own that is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
God is, oddly enough, anecdotal.
We recently had a county wide ban on public alcohol consumption at all our beaches in san diego county last year. You don't see all the drinkers or alcoholics taking THAT to the supreme court do you? Shouldn't they have the same "right" to do what they feel they were born as? It'd be no different if alcohol advocates started protesting and rallying and boycotting companies that supported the ban. Isn't that crazy to you?
On the flip side there are alot of people who have defected from the gay lifestyle, so that makes me wonder how strong do "genes" or will play a part. My good friend is one of those, she claims to be a lesbian, but will go through "boy phases". That's like saying a guy goes through "girl" phases, right? I do believe this is something that gays cannot fight on their own and the successful defects of the lifestyle site God as their strength for leaving the lifestyle. Maybe that's what it takes, I know that's what it took for me to give up alcohol, I couldn't do it on my own.
ALL the states that currently allow gay marriage have ALL been done so by the courts. They are the ones who overturned the people's vote, no state has ever had the people vote in favor of gay marriage. I think it says alot that even a state as liberal as California can get the majority (albeit slim) to vote in favor of banning same-sex marriage.
I have pretty liberal views, much more than most democrats seem to have lately with turning our country into a socialist government run fallasy. I don't believe the government should tell us what we can't do (to an extent of course). And that goes both ways, why is the government even involved in marriage, Something from ancient times that never needed a piece of paper? Some in this thread are trying to spread this lie that the church got involved to make a buck. Really? History shows Justinian lawyers in the 6th century drawing up the first legal documents for marriage. That sounds like the government, not church, trying to own the right of marriage. Not until the 9th century did the church get involved to give their blessing to the couple and no legal documents were required. Even in Europe in the 16th century the church was used as a blessing on the couple, and still no legal docs required. So when did the government become involved in marriages? "In Colonial times in North America the customs of the old countries were followed. There were some who only wanted a civil ceremony and not a religious ceremony. The Colonists who wanted civil marriages passed laws to this effect." Wow, sounds like the government again is involved in trying to own what was never it's own.
God created marriage as a symbol of his love for us, Him being the groom, the church (people, not buildings) being the bride. I know most don't believe that, but that's the truth and the government trying to own that is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
God is, oddly enough, anecdotal.
GuilewasNK
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 110 (100%)
[quote name='seanr1221']Spmahn, why did you completely ignore my example of homosexuality being natural?[/QUOTE]
Even if that point is ignored it doesn't matter. Marriage itself isn't a natural act, it is a societal construct. Therefore, whether some one considers homosexuality to be natural or not doesn't even factor into the marriage question IMO.
Even if that point is ignored it doesn't matter. Marriage itself isn't a natural act, it is a societal construct. Therefore, whether some one considers homosexuality to be natural or not doesn't even factor into the marriage question IMO.
Let me begin this post by saying that I have no problems allowing homosexuals the right to enter into a legal contract with one another.
Here's a question someone posed to be in regards to Nature vs. Nurture that I was completely unable to answer and it made me question a bit of things regarding the idea of "being gay" being a choice.
Those who push that it's not a choice, that it's the nature of the individual, tell us that a man is sexually attracted to men because something inside of him makes him like men. He shouldn't be judged for that. He shouldn't be condemned for that. He shouldn't be denied rights for that. It's not his "fault" that he is sexually attracted to men.
Now, let's take a man who is attracted to underage children because something inside of him makes him like children - mentally and physically. Should society accept this man because he's sexually attracted to children through no fault of his own?
Now - I'm not saying that someone who is gay is a horrible, disgusting pervert like someone who is a pedophile. Don't try to go there.
Should we, as a society, just shrug our shoulders and say "Well, it's their nature - can't blame 'em." and walk on by? At what point do we, as a society, get to say "Your nature is wrong. Stop that."?
Here's a question someone posed to be in regards to Nature vs. Nurture that I was completely unable to answer and it made me question a bit of things regarding the idea of "being gay" being a choice.
Those who push that it's not a choice, that it's the nature of the individual, tell us that a man is sexually attracted to men because something inside of him makes him like men. He shouldn't be judged for that. He shouldn't be condemned for that. He shouldn't be denied rights for that. It's not his "fault" that he is sexually attracted to men.
Now, let's take a man who is attracted to underage children because something inside of him makes him like children - mentally and physically. Should society accept this man because he's sexually attracted to children through no fault of his own?
Now - I'm not saying that someone who is gay is a horrible, disgusting pervert like someone who is a pedophile. Don't try to go there.
Should we, as a society, just shrug our shoulders and say "Well, it's their nature - can't blame 'em." and walk on by? At what point do we, as a society, get to say "Your nature is wrong. Stop that."?
ninju D
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Dead of Knight']What the just happened to this thread?[/QUOTE]
Agreed!
The real question that should be discussed here is, when did it become ok for the government allow rights to be taken away from a group of people just because it passed a popular vote. I'm pretty sure the constitution is about protecting all rights, not just those of the popular majority.
just happened to this thread?[/QUOTE]Agreed!
The real question that should be discussed here is, when did it become ok for the government allow rights to be taken away from a group of people just because it passed a popular vote. I'm pretty sure the constitution is about protecting all rights, not just those of the popular majority.
[quote name='ninju D']Agreed!
The real question that should be discussed here is, when did it become ok for the government allow rights to be taken away from a group of people just because it passed a popular vote. I'm pretty sure the constitution is about protecting all rights, not just those of the popular majority.[/QUOTE]
lol. That went out the window when the government decided it was okay to seize the private property of individuals for the "welfare" of the majority. If the government can trample all over private property rights, what's to stop them from trampling over whatever rights get in their way?
The real question that should be discussed here is, when did it become ok for the government allow rights to be taken away from a group of people just because it passed a popular vote. I'm pretty sure the constitution is about protecting all rights, not just those of the popular majority.[/QUOTE]
lol. That went out the window when the government decided it was okay to seize the private property of individuals for the "welfare" of the majority. If the government can trample all over private property rights, what's to stop them from trampling over whatever rights get in their way?
[quote name='UncleBob']lol. That went out the window when the government decided it was okay to seize the private property of individuals for the "welfare" of the majority. If the government can trample all over private property rights, what's to stop them from trampling over whatever rights get in their way?[/QUOTE]
You mean it went out the window before or after the Constitution was enacted?
Have you ever had consensual sex? Do you understand what the word consent means?
You mean it went out the window before or after the Constitution was enacted?
Have you ever had consensual sex? Do you understand what the word consent means?
[quote name='UncleBob']
Now, let's take a man who is attracted to underage children because something inside of him makes him like children - mentally and physically. Should society accept this man because he's sexually attracted to children through no fault of his own?
Now - I'm not saying that someone who is gay is a horrible, disgusting pervert like someone who is a pedophile. Don't try to go there.
Should we, as a society, just shrug our shoulders and say "Well, it's their nature - can't blame 'em." and walk on by? At what point do we, as a society, get to say "Your nature is wrong. Stop that."?[/QUOTE]
What's the difference?
Now, let's take a man who is attracted to underage children because something inside of him makes him like children - mentally and physically. Should society accept this man because he's sexually attracted to children through no fault of his own?
Now - I'm not saying that someone who is gay is a horrible, disgusting pervert like someone who is a pedophile. Don't try to go there.
Should we, as a society, just shrug our shoulders and say "Well, it's their nature - can't blame 'em." and walk on by? At what point do we, as a society, get to say "Your nature is wrong. Stop that."?[/QUOTE]
What's the difference?
consent
Consent is a funny thing though. A 14 year old girl could consent to have sexual relations with her 40 year old father. A 17 year old boy could consent to have sexual relations with his 45 year old teacher.
The younger children could, naturally, be attracted to older individuals. Should they be persecuted (by being told they can't be with the ones they love) because of something within them that they cannot control?
The younger children could, naturally, be attracted to older individuals. Should they be persecuted (by being told they can't be with the ones they love) because of something within them that they cannot control?
Dead of Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Consent is a funny thing though. A 14 year old girl could consent to have sexual relations with her 40 year old father. A 17 year old boy could consent to have sexual relations with his 45 year old teacher.
The younger children could, naturally, be attracted to older individuals. Should they be persecuted (by being told they can't be with the ones they love) because of something within them that they cannot control?[/QUOTE]
Younger children just don't have the right mindset to make those types of decisions. The current cutoffs for legal consent are at least partially arbitrary (they vary by country/jurisdiction, for example), but I think at least young children do not have the mental capacity to really make those kinds of decisions. Two consenting adult males or adult females most definitely do have the mental capacity to make those kinds of decisions.
The younger children could, naturally, be attracted to older individuals. Should they be persecuted (by being told they can't be with the ones they love) because of something within them that they cannot control?[/QUOTE]
Younger children just don't have the right mindset to make those types of decisions. The current cutoffs for legal consent are at least partially arbitrary (they vary by country/jurisdiction, for example), but I think at least young children do not have the mental capacity to really make those kinds of decisions. Two consenting adult males or adult females most definitely do have the mental capacity to make those kinds of decisions.
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Younger children just don't have the right mindset to make those types of decisions. The current cutoffs for legal consent are at least partially arbitrary (they vary by country/jurisdiction, for example), but I think at least young children do not have the mental capacity to really make those kinds of decisions.[/QUOTE]
Good point - at what "age" does an individual have the right to consent - morally, not legally?
But that's another topic.
To the topic at hand - my point (which kinda got lost) - was that the idea of "well, it's not one's choice to be gay, so they shouldn't be denied rights because of it." is a dangerous idea. One who is attracted to those of the same sex has the exact same ability and reasoning to choose to act or not act on their feelings just as one who is attracted to underage individuals.
NOW - before someone takes this the wrong way - I'm not, by any means, saying that someone who is homosexual shouldn't be allowed to act on his/her feelings with a consenting adult. I am merely pointing out that this particular line of logic is very flawed.
Likewise the "gay found in nature" logic is very flawed. Dogs rape dogs in the street. Infant male hamsters will impregnate their mother before they can be weened from the teat. Nature has some funny ways of doing things - and the idea that because it's in nature, it should be okay, isn't going to set well with anyone who looks at it logically.
Good point - at what "age" does an individual have the right to consent - morally, not legally?
But that's another topic.
To the topic at hand - my point (which kinda got lost) - was that the idea of "well, it's not one's choice to be gay, so they shouldn't be denied rights because of it." is a dangerous idea. One who is attracted to those of the same sex has the exact same ability and reasoning to choose to act or not act on their feelings just as one who is attracted to underage individuals.
NOW - before someone takes this the wrong way - I'm not, by any means, saying that someone who is homosexual shouldn't be allowed to act on his/her feelings with a consenting adult. I am merely pointing out that this particular line of logic is very flawed.
Likewise the "gay found in nature" logic is very flawed. Dogs rape dogs in the street. Infant male hamsters will impregnate their mother before they can be weened from the teat. Nature has some funny ways of doing things - and the idea that because it's in nature, it should be okay, isn't going to set well with anyone who looks at it logically.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's very dangerous to replace gay with anything in your example.
"well, it's not one's choice to be black, so they shouldn't be denied rights because of it."
"well, it's not one's choice to be a woman, so they shouldn't be denied rights because of it."
I guess we should roll back everyone's rights.
"well, it's not one's choice to be black, so they shouldn't be denied rights because of it."
"well, it's not one's choice to be a woman, so they shouldn't be denied rights because of it."
I guess we should roll back everyone's rights.
Sean: I think you're missing my point.
I agree that Homosexuality is harmless (between two consenting individuals of sound mind).
However - there are those who don't.
To try and convince them otherwise with faulty logic helps no one and nothing.
"It's not my fault I'm sexually attracted to men - it's something inside of me!"
"It's not my fault I'm sexually attracted to young women - it's something inside of me!"
Instead of giving NAMBLA something to feed off of, the Homosexual community should stick with the facts - two consenting individuals of sound mind should be able to enter into a legal contract with one another so long as they agree and their intent is not to defraud anyone. To forbid to males or two females from entering into a contract is sexual discrimination - something the government should *not* be doing.
[quote name='lordwow']It's very dangerous to replace gay with anything in your example.
"well, it's not one's choice to be black, so they shouldn't be denied rights because of it."
"well, it's not one's choice to be a woman, so they shouldn't be denied rights because of it."
[/QUOTE]
Except that you can't "choose" to act on being black or female. You can choose to act on your sexual tendencies toward men or underage children.
One thing that is suppose to set us apart from the animals is that we humans don't always act on our basic instincts. We've evolved beyond that point - where we can determine for ourselves how we want to respond instead of giving in to our animalistic urges. You can make the choice how you respond to the feelings inside of you.
I agree that Homosexuality is harmless (between two consenting individuals of sound mind).
However - there are those who don't.
To try and convince them otherwise with faulty logic helps no one and nothing.
"It's not my fault I'm sexually attracted to men - it's something inside of me!"
"It's not my fault I'm sexually attracted to young women - it's something inside of me!"
Instead of giving NAMBLA something to feed off of, the Homosexual community should stick with the facts - two consenting individuals of sound mind should be able to enter into a legal contract with one another so long as they agree and their intent is not to defraud anyone. To forbid to males or two females from entering into a contract is sexual discrimination - something the government should *not* be doing.
[quote name='lordwow']It's very dangerous to replace gay with anything in your example.
"well, it's not one's choice to be black, so they shouldn't be denied rights because of it."
"well, it's not one's choice to be a woman, so they shouldn't be denied rights because of it."
[/QUOTE]
Except that you can't "choose" to act on being black or female. You can choose to act on your sexual tendencies toward men or underage children.
One thing that is suppose to set us apart from the animals is that we humans don't always act on our basic instincts. We've evolved beyond that point - where we can determine for ourselves how we want to respond instead of giving in to our animalistic urges. You can make the choice how you respond to the feelings inside of you.
[quote name='lordwow']So people who have homosexual feelings should repress them while people who have heterosexual feelings should be allowed to act upon them?[/QUOTE]
I did not say that. At all.
But, to counter: "People who like 17 year olds should have to repress their feelings while people who like 18 year olds should be allowed to act on their feelings?"
I did not say that. At all.
But, to counter: "People who like 17 year olds should have to repress their feelings while people who like 18 year olds should be allowed to act on their feelings?"
See this is what I mean. Everytime the "gay debate" comes up people need to compare it to EVERYTHING else instead of dealing with the issue.
Can't compare homosexuality to:
-Polygamy (Shut UP, Thrust
)
-Pedophilia
-Bestiality
-E.T.C.
Homosexuality needs to be debated for what it IS, not for what ELSE it could be or "welllll if you replace these words...". You can replace any word with ANY word and still say the same shit.
"Lordwow ate pancakes for breakfast"
"Lordwow ate pancakes for dinner"
"Lordwow cooked pancakes for breakfast"
"Lordwow had sex with pancakes forPassover Easter"
Can't compare homosexuality to:
-Polygamy (Shut UP, Thrust
)-Pedophilia
-Bestiality
-E.T.C.
Homosexuality needs to be debated for what it IS, not for what ELSE it could be or "welllll if you replace these words...". You can replace any word with ANY word and still say the same shit.
"Lordwow ate pancakes for breakfast"
"Lordwow ate pancakes for dinner"
"Lordwow cooked pancakes for breakfast"
"Lordwow had sex with pancakes for
[quote name='lordwow']I don't think that's true at all, and here in MA, there's no legal issue with that. You can date a 17 year old or an 18 year old.
So, I don't think that in either case people should be forced to repress their feelings.[/QUOTE]
Okay, then let's say 16 year old and 17 year old.
[quote name='lilboo']
Can't compare homosexuality to:[/quote]
Why not? If the argument from the pro-homosexual side is that homosexuality is something from within, that it's not a choice, then why can't we look at other sexual feelings that come from within and claim that they're not a choice as well?
Hell, I would argue that it's more likely for individuals to be sexually attracted to younger individuals - they make better breeding stock to help promote the species.
So, I don't think that in either case people should be forced to repress their feelings.[/QUOTE]
Okay, then let's say 16 year old and 17 year old.
[quote name='lilboo']
Can't compare homosexuality to:[/quote]
Why not? If the argument from the pro-homosexual side is that homosexuality is something from within, that it's not a choice, then why can't we look at other sexual feelings that come from within and claim that they're not a choice as well?
Hell, I would argue that it's more likely for individuals to be sexually attracted to younger individuals - they make better breeding stock to help promote the species.
[quote name='lordwow']There is very little difference developmentally between a 16 and a 17 year old, and the differences are individual. So there's no difference.[/QUOTE]
So, then, let's say 15 and 16.
[quote name='lilboo']But WHY doe we have to compare homosexuality WITH other stuff? WHY can't people just look at "2 consenting adults of the same gender who want to spend their lives together" (of course that's a marriage reference, as well :lol: )[/QUOTE]
Two reasons.
One, it's what the homosexual community is doing themselves. See:
"So people who have homosexual feelings should repress them while people who have heterosexual feelings should be allowed to act upon them?"
All that's being done here is replacing one word with another. WHY do we have to compare homosexuality with heterosexuality.
Second, the homosexual community is trying to set legal precedence. While I agree with the cause, the reason behind the cause needs to be clear. If you try to argue that homosexual marriage should be legal because homosexuality is something inside of you, then someone later could come along and argue likewise about pedophilia or whatever. This is why it's very important that the homosexual community knows what their message is: Two consenting individuals of sound mind should not be prohibited by the government from entering into a legal contract on the basis of their gender.
So, then, let's say 15 and 16.
[quote name='lilboo']But WHY doe we have to compare homosexuality WITH other stuff? WHY can't people just look at "2 consenting adults of the same gender who want to spend their lives together" (of course that's a marriage reference, as well :lol: )[/QUOTE]
Two reasons.
One, it's what the homosexual community is doing themselves. See:
"So people who have homosexual feelings should repress them while people who have heterosexual feelings should be allowed to act upon them?"
All that's being done here is replacing one word with another. WHY do we have to compare homosexuality with heterosexuality.
Second, the homosexual community is trying to set legal precedence. While I agree with the cause, the reason behind the cause needs to be clear. If you try to argue that homosexual marriage should be legal because homosexuality is something inside of you, then someone later could come along and argue likewise about pedophilia or whatever. This is why it's very important that the homosexual community knows what their message is: Two consenting individuals of sound mind should not be prohibited by the government from entering into a legal contract on the basis of their gender.
It's actually not all that deep, though. That's why this issue cracks me up. It's SUCH a simple issue too. People take this WAY too far and have such strong opinions about it. I don't know why people have to give REASONS as to why gays = gay.
ESPECIALLY...**ESPECIALLY when the issue is simply: 2 people just want to be allowed to spend their lives together: THAT is why it's so funny. I can see the "abortion debate" being complex. I can see when NAMBLA wants to legally marry 10 year old boys, it can be complex.
Not this.
And especially when the issue is "Letting 2 people spend their lives together". Everything else is just a way to derail the topic. (Not here, just in general)
ESPECIALLY...**ESPECIALLY when the issue is simply: 2 people just want to be allowed to spend their lives together: THAT is why it's so funny. I can see the "abortion debate" being complex. I can see when NAMBLA wants to legally marry 10 year old boys, it can be complex.
Not this.
And especially when the issue is "Letting 2 people spend their lives together". Everything else is just a way to derail the topic. (Not here, just in general)
[quote name='lordwow']Developmentally, there's very little difference between two people a year apart of any age except for infants and young, young children (first 5 years). There's almost no difference between a 15 year old and a 16 year old.[/QUOTE]
So... 14 and 15 year old?
If you were in charge and you could create a rule saying at what point an individual could legally consent to sexual activities, where would you draw the line?
So... 14 and 15 year old?
If you were in charge and you could create a rule saying at what point an individual could legally consent to sexual activities, where would you draw the line?
[quote name='lilboo']It's actually not all that deep, though. That's why this issue cracks me up. It's SUCH a simple issue too. People take this WAY too far and have such strong opinions about it. I don't know why people have to give REASONS as to why gays = gay.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. So tell the homosexual community to stop trying to give reasons like "It's not a choice." Because:
A.) It is your choice to act on it.
and
B.) It shouldn't matter what the reason is.
Agreed. So tell the homosexual community to stop trying to give reasons like "It's not a choice." Because:
A.) It is your choice to act on it.
and
B.) It shouldn't matter what the reason is.
If you picked out any 2 children, one who is 14 and one who is 15, who would be more mature? I'd say it's about 50/50. Again, it's a complete crapshoot dependent upon a person's upbringing and experience. You couldn't tell a 14 and 15 year apart if they were standing next to each other or if you talked to them.
I would say that it would depend upon how old the participants are, but in general I think a 16 year old is a reasonable estimate of when most people are able to make decisions and understand their consequences.
I would say that it would depend upon how old the participants are, but in general I think a 16 year old is a reasonable estimate of when most people are able to make decisions and understand their consequences.
Lilboo: I think, in my limited opinion, when the heterosexual community says it's a choice, that they mean to imply that it is a choice in how you act upon your feelings. We're both right, it doesn't matter, so long as the participants are consenting and of sound mind, but, legally, how the homosexual community goes about trying to make the change will make all the difference.
[quote name='lordwow']If you picked out any 2 children, one who is 14 and one who is 15, who would be more mature? I'd say it's about 50/50. Again, it's a complete crapshoot dependent upon a person's upbringing and experience. You couldn't tell a 14 and 15 year apart if they were standing next to each other or if you talked to them.
I would say that it would depend upon how old the participants are, but in general I think a 16 year old is a reasonable estimate of when most people are able to make decisions and understand their consequences.[/QUOTE]
Can you phrase that like a law?
[quote name='lordwow']If you picked out any 2 children, one who is 14 and one who is 15, who would be more mature? I'd say it's about 50/50. Again, it's a complete crapshoot dependent upon a person's upbringing and experience. You couldn't tell a 14 and 15 year apart if they were standing next to each other or if you talked to them.
I would say that it would depend upon how old the participants are, but in general I think a 16 year old is a reasonable estimate of when most people are able to make decisions and understand their consequences.[/QUOTE]
Can you phrase that like a law?
No, I'm not a legislator or a lawyer.
The fact of the matter is that our legal system in terms of age of consent is archaic and poorly implemented. What it's purported to do is to protect the least able, children and those who are under the age of 16 who are unable to make decisions. People who are under that age, generally, are susceptible to abuse and being taken advantage of. They can not consent because they can't grasp the consequences or the reality of their situation.
Some 16 year olds can, some 14 year olds can, and some people can't until they're in their 20s. The law is simply in place to allow prosecution for people who take advantage of children who are unable to consent, but in many cases the law is taken too literally and 17 year olds dating 16 year olds end up in jail. Regardless, laws are enforced poorly here, so I won't devise one knowing that someone out there will take it either too literally or not enforce it correctly.
The fact of the matter is that our legal system in terms of age of consent is archaic and poorly implemented. What it's purported to do is to protect the least able, children and those who are under the age of 16 who are unable to make decisions. People who are under that age, generally, are susceptible to abuse and being taken advantage of. They can not consent because they can't grasp the consequences or the reality of their situation.
Some 16 year olds can, some 14 year olds can, and some people can't until they're in their 20s. The law is simply in place to allow prosecution for people who take advantage of children who are unable to consent, but in many cases the law is taken too literally and 17 year olds dating 16 year olds end up in jail. Regardless, laws are enforced poorly here, so I won't devise one knowing that someone out there will take it either too literally or not enforce it correctly.
[quote name='lordwow']No, I'm not a legislator or a lawyer.
The fact of the matter is that our legal system in terms of age of consent is archaic and poorly implemented. What it's purported to do is to protect the least able, children and those who are under the age of 16 who are unable to make decisions. People who are under that age, generally, are susceptible to abuse and being taken advantage of. They can not consent because they can't grasp the consequences or the reality of their situation.
Some 16 year olds can, some 14 year olds can, and some people can't until they're in their 20s. The law is simply in place to allow prosecution for people who take advantage of children who are unable to consent, but in many cases the law is taken too literally and 17 year olds dating 16 year olds end up in jail. Regardless, laws are enforced poorly here, so I won't devise one knowing that someone out there will take it either too literally or not enforce it correctly.[/QUOTE]
Good answer.
I, personally, think we should move to a "coming of age" ceremony - a point where, after completing a series of tests to determine a young adult's competence, intelligence and self sustaining abilities, they should "come of age" and be allowed to purchase drugs (tobacco, etc.) and porn, apply for a driver's license, apply for a job, join the military, enter into a legal contract and have sexual relations. This means some children will "come of age" before other children born around the same time. This means some "adults" will not "come of age" until they are 40.
The fact of the matter is that our legal system in terms of age of consent is archaic and poorly implemented. What it's purported to do is to protect the least able, children and those who are under the age of 16 who are unable to make decisions. People who are under that age, generally, are susceptible to abuse and being taken advantage of. They can not consent because they can't grasp the consequences or the reality of their situation.
Some 16 year olds can, some 14 year olds can, and some people can't until they're in their 20s. The law is simply in place to allow prosecution for people who take advantage of children who are unable to consent, but in many cases the law is taken too literally and 17 year olds dating 16 year olds end up in jail. Regardless, laws are enforced poorly here, so I won't devise one knowing that someone out there will take it either too literally or not enforce it correctly.[/QUOTE]
Good answer.
I, personally, think we should move to a "coming of age" ceremony - a point where, after completing a series of tests to determine a young adult's competence, intelligence and self sustaining abilities, they should "come of age" and be allowed to purchase drugs (tobacco, etc.) and porn, apply for a driver's license, apply for a job, join the military, enter into a legal contract and have sexual relations. This means some children will "come of age" before other children born around the same time. This means some "adults" will not "come of age" until they are 40.
von551
CAGiversary!
I'll just leave it at this, no religion or morals involved, pure science:
The GLBT community is about 3% of the population. Now that small amount of our population accounts for 70% of all new HIV cases according to the CDC. Now is that healthy for any society? If everyone today turned gay, we'd all be EXTINCT within 100 years from either disease or the inability to procreate. Is it us heterosexuals that are expected to do the leg work for the homosexuals choice to not be able to procreate? How is that not science proving what a destructive lifestyle this is? I challenge the most liberal atheist to argue with those facts, which many agree with and see as reason to ban gay marriage. Just a tiny tip of the iceberg of how destructive this lifestyle can be to any society.
The GLBT community is about 3% of the population. Now that small amount of our population accounts for 70% of all new HIV cases according to the CDC. Now is that healthy for any society? If everyone today turned gay, we'd all be EXTINCT within 100 years from either disease or the inability to procreate. Is it us heterosexuals that are expected to do the leg work for the homosexuals choice to not be able to procreate? How is that not science proving what a destructive lifestyle this is? I challenge the most liberal atheist to argue with those facts, which many agree with and see as reason to ban gay marriage. Just a tiny tip of the iceberg of how destructive this lifestyle can be to any society.
[quote name='von551']I'll just leave it at this, no religion or morals involved, pure science:
The GLBT community is about 3% of the population. Now that small amount of our population accounts for 70% of all new HIV cases according to the CDC. Now is that healthy for any society? If everyone today turned gay, we'd all be EXTINCT within 100 years from either disease or the inability to procreate. Is it us heterosexuals that are expected to do the leg work for the homosexuals choice to not be able to procreate? How is that not science proving what a destructive lifestyle this is? I challenge the most liberal atheist to argue with those facts, which many agree with and see as reason to ban gay marriage. Just a tiny tip of the iceberg of how destructive this lifestyle can be to any society.[/QUOTE]
And ignored.
The GLBT community is about 3% of the population. Now that small amount of our population accounts for 70% of all new HIV cases according to the CDC. Now is that healthy for any society? If everyone today turned gay, we'd all be EXTINCT within 100 years from either disease or the inability to procreate. Is it us heterosexuals that are expected to do the leg work for the homosexuals choice to not be able to procreate? How is that not science proving what a destructive lifestyle this is? I challenge the most liberal atheist to argue with those facts, which many agree with and see as reason to ban gay marriage. Just a tiny tip of the iceberg of how destructive this lifestyle can be to any society.[/QUOTE]
And ignored.
bread's done