Born a Homo? Part II.

[deaddude]

The question remains, if the gays aren’t asking you to participate why care?

(Not in support of wades theory just curious as to the reasons)

 

[wade]

I'm sorry when did you prove that homosexual was normal and natural? I must've missed it, could you please direct me to that post?

Until such irrefuteable fact and proof of this is given homosexuality will by default be considered a lifestyle choice, a very dangerous and vile lifestyle choice. Sorry in America we don't condone such things, I reference the vote by the good people from the great state of Missouri.

Why? Because you say so? The onus of proving that homosexuality is not congenital is upon those who wish to deprive people of rights, not those who wish to provide them with rights must prove it is congenital. That's how this country works.

You have it backward OCA.

 

[wade]

The question remains, if the gays aren’t asking you to participate why care?

(Not in support of wades theory just curious as to the reasons)

Because he's afraid some night he'll have a little too much to drink and succumb to his true nature?

 

[Gem]

deaddude,

but they ARE asking me to participate...by allowing my state or nation to get involved in their relationships by recognizing legally their marriages. they ARE asking me and the rest of the nation to participate...by asking us to change a cornerstone of our society that has been in place in its present form in the world for over 2000 years.

if gay people were saying "Hey...we just want to go to gay bars, pick eachother up, and take eachother back to our place for sex..." then you would be right.

But that isn't what is being asked for...what is being asked for is a fundamental change in the way society has been operated and recognized since arguably, the dawn of civilization and most definetly, since the creation of the United States of America.

Whether your are for or against gay marriage...we all need to be aware that legalizing it WILL change the way our society works...and COULD have major long-term affects.

I think people on both sides would do well to recognize that and start researching why their side is still the right one. Religious objections need to be set aside in this society where we seperate church and state for the good and real reasons that have nothing to do with religion. People who think that it is simply a matter between two people and has nothing to do with anyone else would do well to realize that it DOES matter...and should set about researching and discussing why it should still be allowed.

See what I'm saying???

 

[MissileMan]

deaddude,

but they ARE asking me to participate...by allowing my state or nation to get involved in their relationships by recognizing legally their marriages. they ARE asking me and the rest of the nation to participate...by asking us to change a cornerstone of our society that has been in place in its present form in the world for over 2000 years.

if gay people were saying "Hey...we just want to go to gay bars, pick eachother up, and take eachother back to our place for sex..." then you would be right.

But that isn't what is being asked for...what is being asked for is a fundamental change in the way society has been operated and recognized since arguably, the dawn of civilization and most definetly, since the creation of the United States of America.

Whether your are for or against gay marriage...we all need to be aware that legalizing it WILL change the way our society works...and COULD have major long-term affects.

I think people on both sides would do well to recognize that and start researching why their side is still the right one. Religious objections need to be set aside in this society where we seperate church and state for the good and real reasons that have nothing to do with religion. People who think that it is simply a matter between two people and has nothing to do with anyone else would do well to realize that it DOES matter...and should set about researching and discussing why it should still be allowed.

See what I'm saying???

Please elaborate on how gay marriage will change our society.

 

[Gem]

MissileMan,

It will change society because at this point in time, and for the past few thousand years, marriage has been defined and recognized as the union between a man and a woman.

To deny that changing the way that society has been doing something for thousands of years will NOT change that society is a little silly and naive.

It would be a bit like the people who said that the "horseless carriage" wouldn't change life for everyone (not to mention the people in the saddle and tack business!!!).

Now what we need, and in my opinion what we are not doing now, is to have a calm, rational, well-researched discussion, as to what could possibly be the long-term effects of the decision...the pros and cons...without namecalling or (in my opinion again) religious bias. (Now before people who are anti-gay marriage because of religion freak out...try to understand...I am not saying that your reason is bad...simply that in a nation that no longer makes laws because of Judeo-Christian dogma, if we are going to make something illegal, it needs to be because of reasons seperate from religion).

This is the thing that I think is sad...that a person can not say "I am against gay marriage" without half of the people listening calling him a "homophobic", or "closet homosexual" or a "prejudiced nazi," before they have even discussed the issue with them

I think it is sad that a person can't say, "I support gay marriage" without being labeled a "amoral liberal whacko."

Hope that answers your question???

 

[MissileMan]

MissileMan,

It will change society because at this point in time, and for the past few thousand years, marriage has been defined and recognized as the union between a man and a woman.

To deny that changing the way that society has been doing something for thousands of years will NOT change that society is a little silly and naive.

It would be a bit like the people who said that the "horseless carriage" wouldn't change life for everyone (not to mention the people in the saddle and tack business!!!).

Now what we need, and in my opinion what we are not doing now, is to have a calm, rational, well-researched discussion, as to what could possibly be the long-term effects of the decision...the pros and cons...without namecalling or (in my opinion again) religious bias. (Now before people who are anti-gay marriage because of religion freak out...try to understand...I am not saying that your reason is bad...simply that in a nation that no longer makes laws because of Judeo-Christian dogma, if we are going to make something illegal, it needs to be because of reasons seperate from religion).

This is the thing that I think is sad...that a person can not say "I am against gay marriage" without half of the people listening calling him a "homophobic", or "closet homosexual" or a "prejudiced nazi," before they have even discussed the issue with them

I think it is sad that a person can't say, "I support gay marriage" without being labeled a "amoral liberal whacko."

Hope that answers your question???

It doesn't really. All you did was reiterate that it would change society. I was asking you to specify what would change, and how that might affect you or I.

 

[Gem]

You mean that you can think of NOTHING that might change when you alter something that has been occurring in one way and one way only for thousands of years???

This is exactly what I'm talking about...people refuse to think about this because they have decided one way or the other and refuse to keep an openmind...its sad.



Things that MIGHT change:

- An increase in people fighting for civil unions between two people who are not marrying for any other reason than benefits...while you can say it can happen now, allowing same-sex couples to marry makes it more likely...and when you remove any dialogue of religion or children from the debate, it becomes even more likey.

- Lawsuits as some states recognize gay marriages...others dont...and gay married couples move, are relocated (does a company have to pay health benefits to a gay couple if they relocate them to a non-gay marriage state?)

- People, seeing that the government has now recognized that marriage has nothing to do with children, but rather a legal agreement between two people...fight for their right to have a legal agreement with three people...or people who are not in love but who simply feel that their lives would be bettered by marriage (i.e. single mothers could greatly improve their lives by joining forces). The gov't leaves itself open on this because 1) you can't legislate love 2) if you allow marriages between two...it might become difficult to justify not allowing marriage between three...marriage therefore...has nothing to do with what it was orginially...a union to create stability to family...and has become a legal contract for financial benefits.

- People will stop marrying (look at Scandanavian nations for examples of this)


MissileMan,

Can you find faults in these arguments? Absolutely...thats the point...however, are they all meaningless and throw-out-able? Nope...they raise interesting issues....and there are a lot more out there. We should examine what countries have done it...what has happened to them? What about nations that have always opposed it...why? Why historically have societies that accepted homosexuality still opposed gay marriages? Etc. Etc. Etc....

We have to be able to think about what such a big change might mean...how it would effect our country...

Similarly we need to think about what would happen if we DON'T legalize gay marriage...

Can we deny people's right to marry based on religious reasons, or based on what has "always been done?"

With all of the problems in the world today, is two people who happen to have the same type of sexual organs loving eachother and wanting to pledge to love and support eachother forever REALLY the biggest problem we are facing?

With the divorce rate at 51%...is allowing MORE people to marry really going to make things WORSE?

ETC.

 

[MissileMan]

You mean that you can think of NOTHING that might change when you alter something that has been occurring in one way and one way only for thousands of years???

This is exactly what I'm talking about...people refuse to think about this because they have decided one way or the other and refuse to keep an openmind...its sad.



Things that MIGHT change:

- An increase in people fighting for civil unions between two people who are not marrying for any other reason than benefits...while you can say it can happen now, allowing same-sex couples to marry makes it more likely...and when you remove any dialogue of religion or children from the debate, it becomes even more likey.

- Lawsuits as some states recognize gay marriages...others dont...and gay married couples move, are relocated (does a company have to pay health benefits to a gay couple if they relocate them to a non-gay marriage state?)

- People, seeing that the government has now recognized that marriage has nothing to do with children, but rather a legal agreement between two people...fight for their right to have a legal agreement with three people...or people who are not in love but who simply feel that their lives would be bettered by marriage (i.e. single mothers could greatly improve their lives by joining forces). The gov't leaves itself open on this because 1) you can't legislate love 2) if you allow marriages between two...it might become difficult to justify not allowing marriage between three...marriage therefore...has nothing to do with what it was orginially...a union to create stability to family...and has become a legal contract for financial benefits.

- People will stop marrying (look at Scandanavian nations for examples of this)


MissileMan,

Can you find faults in these arguments? Absolutely...thats the point...however, are they all meaningless and throw-out-able? Nope...they raise interesting issues....and there are a lot more out there. We should examine what countries have done it...what has happened to them? What about nations that have always opposed it...why? Why historically have societies that accepted homosexuality still opposed gay marriages? Etc. Etc. Etc....

We have to be able to think about what such a big change might mean...how it would effect our country...

Similarly we need to think about what would happen if we DON'T legalize gay marriage...

Can we deny people's right to marry based on religious reasons, or based on what has "always been done?"

With all of the problems in the world today, is two people who happen to have the same type of sexual organs loving eachother and wanting to pledge to love and support eachother forever REALLY the biggest problem we are facing?

With the divorce rate at 51%...is allowing MORE people to marry really going to make things WORSE?

ETC.

I'm having a hard time determining if you are for or against gay marriage. Your last point though is one that I was going to get a figure for and raise it myself. If 51% of heterosexual marriages are ending in divorce, how can it be the quintessential form of human union? And it's probably going to require federal legislation to mandate the recognition of gay civil unions in all states.

 

[Gem]

MissileMan,

My intention is to have you not know whether I am for gay marriage or against it. It SHOULDN'T matter...if we are having an open, honest, non-prejudiced conversation about something, if we really want to get to the bottom of it...we should be interested in BOTH sides of the argument.

The argument regarding 51% of marriages ending in divorce now, is simply that we shouldn't go and change something cause, "Well, it can't get any worse!" if we dont know what it could change, especially if that change COULD make it worse.

People who are anti-gay marriage would tell you that just because our society is in the decline, with people not respecting their marriages, etc...doesn't mean we have to help it crumble any faster...in fact, logic might tell you that rather than doing that we should stress tradition, family values, and the sanctity of marriage.

Just because crime jumps...doesn't mean you put FEWER cops on the street because "hey, whats the point...we're losing anyway, lets make sure more cops don't get hurt."

 

[007]

Why? Because you say so? The onus of proving that homosexuality is not congenital is upon those who wish to deprive people of rights, not those who wish to provide them with rights must prove it is congenital. That's how this country works.

You have it backward OCA.

Hmmm... could you please tell me... what "right" exactly, has been "deprived"?

 

[MissileMan]

MissileMan,

My intention is to have you not know whether I am for gay marriage or against it. It SHOULDN'T matter...if we are having an open, honest, non-prejudiced conversation about something, if we really want to get to the bottom of it...we should be interested in BOTH sides of the argument.

The argument regarding 51% of marriages ending in divorce now, is simply that we shouldn't go and change something cause, "Well, it can't get any worse!" if we dont know what it could change, especially if that change COULD make it worse.

People who are anti-gay marriage would tell you that just because our society is in the decline, with people not respecting their marriages, etc...doesn't mean we have to help it crumble any faster...in fact, logic might tell you that rather than doing that we should stress tradition, family values, and the sanctity of marriage.

Just because crime jumps...doesn't mean you put FEWER cops on the street because "hey, whats the point...we're losing anyway, lets make sure more cops don't get hurt."

Well, you've succeeded, almost. I read in another thread that you are not opposed to gay marriage.

I'm not going to argue both sides, but if you would like to discuss the rationale of the pros and cons of gay marriage, lets do it one point at a time. Let's start with the theory that gay marriage will tarnish the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. If over half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce there doesn't appear to be much sanctity to it. And explain how allowing gay marriage would cause the heterosexual divorce rate to increase.

 

[Gem]

MissileMan,

Cheater

I have been doing a lot of talking...why dont you try to answer it...you say you won't try to see things from the other side...why not?

 

[MissileMan]

MissileMan,

Cheater

I have been doing a lot of talking...why dont you try to answer it...you say you won't try to see things from the other side...why not?

I didn't say I wouldn't try to see things from both sides. I said I won't argue both sides. Besides, if I don't believe that gay marriage would have any effect on the heterosexual divorce rate, how can I make an argument that it might?

 

[Gem]

By doing some homework on people who DO think it will have an effect???

I'm sleepy and am not getting into it tonight, Missile, I'll discuss it more tomorrow...but for now I'll say, its dangerous to simply assume you are right and stop looking for reasons why you might be wrong...You end up with no way to support your assertion past "I'M RIGHT BECAUSE I SAY SO AND YOUR WRONG CAUSE I SAY SO.

 

[MissileMan]

By doing some homework on people who DO think it will have an effect???

I'm sleepy and am not getting into it tonight, Missile, I'll discuss it more tomorrow...but for now I'll say, its dangerous to simply assume you are right and stop looking for reasons why you might be wrong...You end up with no way to support your assertion past "I'M RIGHT BECAUSE I SAY SO AND YOUR WRONG CAUSE I SAY SO.

You should go check out my posts before saying that. I have not once said anything like that. On the contrary, I have been trying to have logical debates with a lot of people who take that very stand.

 

[Gem]

Missile,

Don't get me wrong, I am in NO WAY implying that you are doing that here...I'm only saying that people need to keep reading, keep researching, keep talking to people who have different opinions, all the time...otherwise you end up set in your ways, but unable to defend them...

It wasn't a personal attack, I'm sorry it came off that way!

 

[wade]

Hmmm... could you please tell me... what "right" exactly, has been "deprived"?

Under the current law, there is no way for a homosexual couple to establish the kind of rights as a couple that married couples have. This effects legal issues like who makes medical decisions for a partner if they are unable to make them themselves, and financial issues such as work benfits that extend to a partner in a marriage but do not extend to a partner of a gay union.

The right that is being denied is the right to choose who a person will take as their legally recognized life partner.

Wade.

 

[jimnyc]

Under the current law, there is no way for a homosexual couple to establish the kind of rights as a couple that married couples have. This effects legal issues like who makes medical decisions for a partner if they are unable to make them themselves, and financial issues such as work benfits that extend to a partner in a marriage but do not extend to a partner of a gay union.

The right that is being denied is the right to choose who a person will take as their legally recognized life partner.

Wade.

They have the EXACT same rights as all heterosexuals. Hetero's would get denied those very same benefits if they decided to engage in their abnormal behaviour as well. Stop trying to make it sound as if they are being picked on and being denied rights that others enjoy.

And you're wrong when you say "Under the current law, there is no way for a homosexual couple to establish the kind of rights as a couple that married couples have." They can see an attorney and an insurance company and pay for their added benefits.

 

[wade]

They have the EXACT same rights as all heterosexuals. Hetero's would get denied those very same benefits if they decided to engage in their abnormal behaviour as well. Stop trying to make it sound as if they are being picked on and being denied rights that others enjoy.

And you're wrong when you say "Under the current law, there is no way for a homosexual couple to establish the kind of rights as a couple that married couples have." They can see an attorney and an insurance company and pay for their added benefits.

They are being denied rights. They are being discriminated upon on the basis of sex.

Pay for benefits that others do not have to pay for? And this does not provide coverage to someone who has a pre-existing condition, as happens when a couple marry.

And they cannot get legal gaurdianship either. The courts always find in favor of a blood relative over a legal contract as to who is the gaurdian should a person be incapable of making their own medical decisions. But a spouse always wins.

Wade.