Absolutely hilarious column at the following website wherein the author, after a month of gay marriages in San Francisco, demands to know where his promised apocalypse is in a tone evocative of Marvin the Martian perplexed over the absence of the Earth-shattering kaboom.
http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/
PAD
Posted by Peter David at March 5, 2004 12:26 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingMark Morford is brilliant and, as you note, hilarious. Here's a link to all of his Notes & Errata columns (I have it on my sidebar too). You can also sign up to receive his twice-weekly Morning Fix e-mails, which contain his N&Es plus other cool stuff. He often passes on some of his hate mail verbatim. I think he has a bit of a fatphobia blinder at times, but other than that I pretty much worship his writing. :)
"While you're at it, God also really hates shrimp." Awesome.
If I had my way the government would get out of the marage business. No benefits, no tax breaks/penilties. Nada.
Ohyeah, no Divorce either.
Maybe it took the same detour that "global cooling" did.
In fairness, any divisive or partisan issue always has folks screaming that it's the end that's good and virtuous.
Personally, I want to hear from the heterosexual couples that can't stay married if gay folks are getting married. You know, the whole "they're ruining it for the rest of us" argument.
And I wonder if Arnold expected anything like this when he became governor...
Do you think that Sodom and Gomorrah might have been destroyed because all of the inhabitants, except for a few that were taken out of the cities, were unnatural in their lusts and indulged in immoral and abominable practices?
Wow. That was a great article. Thanks for the link.
*warning, tangential rant about to occur*
Since Novafan mentioned the word "unnatural", I feel the need to spout off on a tangent related to the gay marriage thing (not that this has anything to do with what Novafan said either, it's just been on my mind and the word triggered it again). It's about the whole issue of some people calling homosexuality and gay marriage "unnatural". Well, if it were unnatural, it wouldn't occur in nature, right? But, even outside of the human species, homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom, whether it's a bonding thing, a loneliness thing or a dominance thing or whatever (you can't really ask a male monkey why he likes other male monkeys and expect to get a coherent answer. Same goes for dogs, birds, whatever). And the fact that it happens in humans makes it natural too. Love and reproduction are separate concepts. I think perhaps it's a problem with terminology. Skyscrapers are unnatural. Pavement is unnatural. Man flying is unnatural. Anything that doesn't occur in nature is unnatural. Hell, the square rooms in our houses are unnatural. Like it or not, and whether or not you think it's icky, homosexuality *is* natural.
Alright, end rant.
Monkeys.
Regarding the delay of the apocalypse:
I knew "The Good Die Young" was a great health plan for the individual, but who knew it protected our entire species? So much is now explained...
I viewed the article as more on the same tone as Avery Brooks's "Where are my flying cars?" IBM commercials from several years back, but Marvin works too.... *chuckle*
---KRAD
"homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom"
I've never understood this argument. It exists in the animal kingdom, so what's wrong with it existing for humans?
Animals do not have the ability to think like we do. Do they know the difference between a male and a female of their species?
"Alright, end rant.
Monkeys."
No, not just monkeys - homosexual, incestuous, perverted bonobo chimpanzees!!
Them animals is all gonna burn in Hell, I tell ya!
Animals do not have the ability to think like we do. Do they know the difference between a male and a female of their species?
Exactly. The term I've heard used before is "moral vacuum".
"Animals do not have the ability to think like we do. Do they know the difference between a male and a female of their species?"
Perhaps it is we who do not think like them. And yeah, animals in the animal kingdom (which humans are a part of) *can* tell the difference between the sexes.
But, in some regards you might be right about animals not thinking like we do. They don't think about destroying their environment to make money, or building bombs to blow each other up, or killing for fun. Yeah, I know I'm sounding like a tree hugging hippy right now. But part of my point is that humans aren't much different than the animals we think we are so much superior to, and in some cases we aren't as superior as we think we are. We aren't the end all be all, and the only distance between us and the rest of the animal kingdom is what we convince ourselves of.
Big Honkin' Feces Throwin' Monkeys
The argument goes like this -
"Homosexuality is bad!"
Why?
"Because it's unnatural!"
If it's unnatural, that means it's contrary to nature, n'est-ce pas? If it's "contrary to nature", then by definition animals, ruled as they are by instinct, should not be able to engage in it, just as they are unable to engage in the building of superhighways, the deliberate deforestation of millions of hectares, or the construction of powered heavier-than-air craft (all quite "unnatural", thank you).
In the event, homosexuality is hardly unknown in the animal kingdom. Few animals practice it as a preference (oddly enough, the same is true of humans); however, there are those dogs, wolves, dolphins, etc., that seem to bond exclusively with members of their own gender. Thus, it cannot, by definition, be "unnatural" - it's quite evident in nature...
(And the suggestion that animals might not know the difference between males and females of their own species is just plain silly.)
"(And the suggestion that animals might not know the difference between males and females of their own species is just plain silly.)"
So, if most animals know the difference between males and females of their own species (which I agree with in most cases), why would they go for a member of the same sex?
Do you think it's a choice that they make?
So, some animals eat their young. And many are cannibalistic, seemingly without negative consequences.
Why not take this the whole way with humans. Or is picking and choosing too easy.
"That's absurd" you may say.
Heck, animals don't get married. Why should this be a debate? Abolish all weddings period, and humans and animals can once again live in harmony.
\\So, if most animals know the difference between males and females of their own species (which I agree with in most cases), why would they go for a member of the same sex?
Do you think it's a choice that they make?\\
Because they're homosexual. That's the whole point. And jsut like in humanity, it's not a choice.
Man, the quetions people ask when they don't want to accept what's right in front of their noses...
Look, I just cannot for the life of me understand how anyone, outside of religious beliefs (which by nature don't require rational analysis), can believe that homosexuality is a choice. Who would choose it?
At no point in my life did I ever think "Well it's time to pick my path in life and I'm going to go with the one that includes breasts." If some guy wants to kiss a big hairy truckdriver, well, better him than me. We are obviously on different wavelengths so who am I to say he's making a bad choice? I can't understand how those who feel revulsion over the very thought of same sex sex can't get it through their noggins that gays are not feeling the same thoughts. It's not a choice. (And I don't mean to repeat myself but again, WHY would anyone choose Harvey Firestein over just about any woman on the planet?).
If the anti gay folks want to argue that homosexuality is some kind of mental condition, that's another argument but to think that this is some kind of malicious choice designed to just piss off one's parents...I just don't get it.
The conventional wisdom on Sodom and Gomorrah seems to be that God looked down, saw acts he disapproved of, and wiped the cities out.
If I may float yet another silly perspective:
Does the Bible say what _else_ these people were doing?
What if all the Sodomites and Gomorreans were doing with their lives was partying, copulating, and etcetera. Straight, bent, didn't matter, but 100% of the waking hours spent like pigs at the trough.
I could imagine a cranky God thinking "I built human beings for thought and constructive work, of which these idiots are doing neither!" and putting a quick, bloody stop to the goings-on.
Also, without all these gay marriages we wouldn't get this headline from the Chicago Sun Times (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-rosie27.html just in case you think, quite reasonably, that I'm making this up)
Rosie weds longtime girlfriend, slams Bush
Novafan,
I can say with 100 percent certainty that I did not CHOOSE to be homosexual. I did not CHOOSE to fear my parents (who I care for and have always had a good relationship with) would cast me out of their lives (they didn't). I didn't CHOOSE to lose friends when they found out the truth and couldn't handle it. I didn't CHOOSE to have times where I feared for my life because I was walking out of a gay bar or holding hands with another guy.
The only choices I made were when I tried to pretend to be straight and when I chose to be honest with myself and other people about who I truly was. If you don't understand that then I doubt there is much more I can say. You obviously know very little about homosexuality so don't be stupid enough to make assumptions about us, okay?
By the way - Someone you know is gay. Probably more than one person. Probably someone you care about. We're everywhere. And we're not going anywhere.
Peter, thanks for being on our side, it's appreciated. Same goes to others who post here.
If no one would choose homosexuality, then can someone
explain bi-sexuals to me?
"If no one would choose homosexuality, then can someone
explain bi-sexuals to me?"
Have you ever seen someone who goes to a buffet restaurant, then stands in front of the entrees, unable to make a decision?
Bisexuals are the "undecideds" in the sexual banquet hall of life. Should he have the chicken, or the beef? And that lobster's looking pretty good, too... Oh, what the hell - put 'em ALL on the plate!
"Animals do not have the ability to think like we do. Do they know the difference between a male and a female of their species?"
Maybe they just figure, "Any port in a storm..."?
JSM
Animals do not have the ability to think like we do. Do they know the difference between a male and a female of their species?
Yes. Interestingly enough, they also seem to know the difference between their siblings and others. You rarely see two siblings in the animal kingdom hooking up and mating for life. I'm not going to say it doesn't happen at all because I don't know. I DO know that it happens among humans a lot more than people probably think, and no, I've never engaged in it, nor do I know if any of my relatives ever have. The closest I've ever come was having the hots for a third cousin.
There used to be a cartoon strip with a pair of really hot twin girls who were being raised by their aunt and uncle. The thing is their aunt and uncle were brother and sister, living together and had never been married. I gotta admit, that strip always made me wonder. Does anybody know the name of the strip?
Of course it's natural. Anyone who says it's a choice is a moron.
The best thoery I've read on the subject is that homosexuality is a kind of natures form of population control. It's been obeserved that homosexual behaviour (in all species) tends to grow in relation to the increase in population density.
Absolutely hilarious column at the following website wherein the author, after a month of gay marriages in San Francisco, demands to know where his promised apocalypse is in a tone evocative of Marvin the Martian perplexed over the absence of the Earth-shattering kaboom.
You don't tug on Superman's cape; you don't spit into the wind; you don't pull the mask off the ol' Lone Ranger; and you don't write columns like Mark Morford just did from a city sitting on a major fault zone.
If "The Big One" happens in San Francisco tomorrow, and a building falls on Morford's head, there will inevitably be a multitude of people who are going to wag their finger in the direction of Northern California and say, "I told you so."
Whether you happen to be religious or not, I've seen far more ironic and impossible-to-believe things happen in my lifetime.
To quote a famous rabbit, "What a maroon!"
Russ Maheras
Dennis Miller-- long before he outed himself as a "Conservative Comedian" (whatever that means) said this about bi-sexuals (and I paraphrase):
Bi-sexuals are people who are seemingly straddling a fence. I don't really care what they do-- I just wish they would jump off the fence and PICK A HOLE.
That said, I did enjoy reading the referenced article until I realized that it WENT ON AND ON AND ON...(much like my entry here)... and my eyes started to glaze over like they did when I used to subject myself to some of Dennis "I'm about to be cancelled by HBO" Miller's lame, overblown, later in life rants.
*While you're at it, God also really hates shrimp.*
This doesn’t apply to Christians, because Jesus said something like “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth that defiles them.” This is why Christians eat ham and pork today.
As for homosexuality:
Darwinian thought supports the idea that homosexuality is a disorder, because the success of an organism is determined by how many offspring it has.
...Jesus said something like “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth that defiles them.”
I'm sorry - the joke here is just too, *too* obvious... :)
Let's not forget the other moral lesson of the Sodom and Gomorrah story: If a mob wants to gang-rape your guests, you should offer them your virgin daughters instead. (This wisdom comes to us courtesy of Lot, who also impregnated both his daughters after they got him drunk.)
Doesn't anybody actually read these stories, or do they just pick and choose for the bits that reinforce their pre-existing prejudices?
**s for homosexuality:
Darwinian thought supports the idea that homosexuality is a disorder, because the success of an organism is determined by how many offspring it has.**
Yes, and there is some research showing that homosexuality in wolves generates more males that protect the pack without engendering competition for mates. This leads to more offspring for packs that have limited number of homosexual offspring.
Not that I think this research is bullet proof, but one should be careful of using organizing principles like evolution in a simplistic manner.
Bill muses,
At no point in my life did I ever think "Well it's time to pick my path in life and I'm going to go with the one that includes breasts.
If I ever create one of those terrible "affirmation" calendars, methinks "Well, it's time to..." above has got to be the lead-off quote. Damn, damn funny.
And Keith -- I dunno if I see it as Marvin or Brooks, but I think it's more Marvin. It sounds more indignant to me than either of the above, though -- maybe a Denis Leary sort of thing.
TWL
Darwinian thought supports the idea that homosexuality is a disorder, because the success of an organism is determined by how many offspring it has.
Beyond Roger's rebuttal, which I agree with totally, you could only argue it's a disorder if it appears on its own.
There is every likelihood that it somehow comes hand-in-hand with some other evolutionary trait that is positive -- Roger's suggestion is a good one, and there might be others.
If it truly were an evolutionary dead-end, it'd be unlikely to occur across dozens of species and last for eons.
TWL
Wow, I read this wrong I guess.
Rosie weds longtime girlfriend, slams bush
Ah, the old "It's wrong because it's unnatural," "But it happens in nature, animals do it!" "It's wrong because it lowers us to the level of beasts!" byplay.
It's wrong because you've decided it makes you feel bad in some way, and will stop at nothing to justify your kneejerk reaction by invoking higher principles. Doesn't matter if it's natural or unnatural, either will support your argument.
Bah.
Look, I just cannot for the life of me understand how anyone, outside of religious beliefs (which by nature don't require rational analysis), can believe that homosexuality is a choice. Who would choose it?
People who like it? I mean, come on. People make a choice to get beaten with whips and and tied up and humiliated, and deficated and urinated on. I'm not by any stretch of the imagination an advocate for the gay lifestyle, but given the choice between sleeping with men or getting pooped and pissed on, hell, bring on the dancing boys!
OK, I guess it's time SOMEONE tugged on Superman's cape while spitting into the wind...
I support gay marriage. I think it's a matter of time before it becomes recognized. But I can NOT support the way it's happening right now.
In Massachusetts (as a New Hampshirite, I gotta ask: why do so many bad things come from Massachusetts?), four of seven judges voted in favor of gay marriage. But they didn't simply say "it's OK." They openly ORDERED the legislature to rewrite the laws. Massachusetts' constitution has a very clear separation of powers clause, and it says the court cannot make law -- only interpret it. The three dissenting judges all cited this clause, but the other four blithely ignored it.
Then, in California, one mayor decided to recognize gay marriages. This he did after California voters approved a referendum specifically banning gay marriage in a 61-39 vote in 2002.
In this light, President Bush's proposed amendment to the federal constitution is not quite as insane as it seems at first blush. Currently four judges are busily rewriting a state's constitution (OK, nitpickers, a commonwealth's constitution) and one mayor of one city is freely defying a law passed by a clear majority of the citizens.
Also, take a look at Bush's proposed amendment. While it does specifically restrict "marriage" to one man and one woman, here's this alleged "religious right-wing extremist" calling for gay civil unions to be written into the Constitution, specifically saying that states can choose to recognize them. That is such a HUGE step forward from a few years ago.
Voltaire once said "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Similarly, in this case, the "fabulous" is the enemy of the "fine, whatever." A push for civil unions now, with a hold being put on actual "marriage," would probably pass muster in most of the states. But if actual marriage is pushed for, I worry about a conservative backlash that will result in even civil unions getting shot down for years to come.
J.
Jonathan wrote: "Bisexuals are the "undecideds" in the sexual banquet hall of life. Should he have the chicken, or the beef? And that lobster's looking pretty good, too... Oh, what the hell - put 'em ALL on the plate!"
Um, my ex-girlfriend (who I'm still friends with) is bisexual -- and it's very, very difficult for her. She doesn't know if she'll ever be able to commit to one gender, she doesn't know how or when to bring it up when on a date, she doesn't even decide when she's attracted to men or to women. For the lucky bisexuals, I suppose, bisexuality is choosing which gender they want. For the unlucky, it can be continuing uncertainity about what gender they find attractive. It's not some pornstar-type life, or having more choices than everyone else.
"Man, the quetions people ask when they don't want to accept what's right in front of their noses... "
That sums it up right there doesn't it? Maybe we don't want some things right in front of our noses.
On a side note, which one of you can say that every thing you do throughout the day doesn't involve a choice? Prove me wrong on this.
From the beginning of the day when you decide if you're going to hit the snooze button and roll over (instead of getting up) to the time you go to bed at night you make choices.
Everything you do is a choice.
Jay Tea wrote In Massachusetts (as a New Hampshirite, I gotta ask: why do so many bad things come from Massachusetts?), four of the seven judges voted in favor of gay marriage. But they didn't simply say "it's OK." They openly ORDERED the legislature to rewrite the laws. Massachusetts' constitution has a very clear separation of powers clause, and it says the court cannot make law -- only interpret it. The three dissenting judges all cited this clause, but the other four blithely ignored it.
They did not order the legislature to rewrite the laws to allow gay marriage. They determined that it would be unconstitutional to deny marriage to homosexuals, and that making civil unions would be, in effect, writing that homosexuals are second class citizens into the law. Thus, they declared that the legislature must allow gays to recieve marriage licenses, because to do otherwise would be unconstitutional.
This is why the legislature wanted to convene a constitutional convention. As it stands, the court interpreted the law, as is their job, and decided that the constitution of the commonwealth did not allow for discrimination.
They did not order the legislature to change the law. rather, they ordered them to uphold the law.
as to your writing: Also, take a look at Bush's proposed amendment. While it does specifically restrict "marriage" to one man and one woman, here's this alleged "religious right-wing extremist" calling for gay civil unions to be written into the Constitution, specifically saying that states can choose to recognize them. That is such a HUGE step forward from a few years ago.
The proposed amendment reads: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
The "legal instances thereof would mean that civil unions would not be able to assert the rights that homosexuals are fighting to get from marriage.
And, if gays are not able to get the "legal instances," then civil unions are essentially meaningless.
And besides that, do you really think that writing into the constitution that a group of people are "seperate, but equal" is a good thing?
There's a reason the head of the NAACP is asking President Bush not to write discrimination into the Constitution.
Adam Schwartz
Everything you do is a choice.
The functions of biology are not a choice. Your heart beats without any conscious choice by you. Likewise, you are attracted to someone through a mess of chemical reactions in your body. Also NOT a choice.
And, by the way, for those of you who argue that this "brings us down to the level of animals", it never seems to amaze me that humans forget that we ARE animals. Our big brains enable us to do more than most other animals, but we are still part of the animal kingdom.
Homosexuals are a part of our population. This whole argument boils down to: Will we include them in our civilization or keep them marginalized. I choose to include them. I am very much for gay marriage.
That sums it up right there doesn't it? Maybe we don't want some things right in front of our noses.
In five words or less:
Too.
Goddamn.
Bad.
Nobody has a legal right to not be offended or to avoid seeing particular things they don't want to see. Not me, not you, and not President Bush.
I don't care who the "we" happens to be in your sentence above. It ain't your right.
Everything we do is a choice.
Uh-huh. So I chose to have an aptitude for physics and very little talent for foreign language. I chose to be left-handed. I choose to breathe.
Not everything is a choice, you maroon.
I can, however, choose to ignore you -- and I think it's not a bad idea.
TWL
*Your heart beats without any conscious choice by you*
Many people can regulate their heart beats, and some can even stop them.
On a more serious note; wolves are not monogamous, so they are not the best comparisons. Besides being momogamous, a species should also have their partner be a life mate to be a appropriate comparison.
"Nobody has a legal right to not be offended or to avoid seeing particular things they don't want to see."
What a bunch of crock.
How many states have laws against indecent exposure, etc.?
Whether you choose to believe it or not, many people don't want to see gay marriage either. Maybe that's why a majority of the states have laws against it? Nah, that couldn't be the reason could it. These lawmakers just decided to make these laws for no particular reason except to persecute gay people. Is that what you believe?
As for the phrase "moral vacuum", it's actually quite hard to prove morals. In fact, I'd dare say there's no conclusive evidence for the existence of morals in humans or the rest of the animal kingdom. Morality is subjective. Take, for example, the fact that you (in general) could say homosexuality is immoral, while someone else could say that it is moral. There are acts/behaviors that most people would agree are immoral, like rape, murder or stealing, but those are things that make sense from a personal and social survival standpoint to discourage. I guess we'd have to define morality, but I think it's a nebulous concept like love.
Monkeys
A few thoughts, in no particular order:
Homosexuality as a response to population pressure? That's a very interesting idea. Could someone tell me more about that?
It seems a lot of people here have trouble believing that homosexuality could be called a choice. What they don't seem to understand is how the social responsibility is organized. See, the christian right, the same institution that is calling homosexuality a choice, fails to recognise any sort of genetic or biological contributions to behavior. Why should they treat homosexuality any different? Yes, (male) homosexuality has, beyond doubt, a strong somatic component. So does atheism. So does criminal behavior. Perhaps not as strong perhaps stronger, in some cases. The Christian right recognizes none of that; they believe that people are inherently good, blank sheets of paper, which can be trained indefinitely into any sort of behavior. Simply put, one's genetic makeup is considered part of one's soul, part of one's choices.
This is true even when you talk about the power of free will to alter one's condition. Do we every really have free will? Calvin postulated the notion of predestined salvation: only a certain number of people are destined to be saved, no matter what.
It's not an easy question to say what a person is or isn't responsible for, and even if you can decide that, chances are that society will choose people to blame, anyway. So I can't find fault with a mindset that calls homosexuality a choice, even if I don't hold that mindset myself. Any arguments into the nature of choice are, for this reason, going to be moot. Someone's talking about nurture alone, and someone else is talking about the sum of nature and nurture.
On the topic of natural homosexuality: It's ridiculous to call something natural just because animals do it. Animals aren't people. Cats lick themselves, but wouldn't you agree if you saw someone doing that, that that was a little, um, off? Lemming run of cliffs in response to population pressure, et cetera. Chimpanzees hunt and eat other monkeys. Does that mean that I should avoid lasagna in favor of natural, healthful Colobus-burger? Homosexuality is natural, yes, but because people do it, not animals. Put a house cat in the arctic and it'll be a race between freezing to death or starving first. Put a person there and he'll adapt and build shelters. Our natural habitat is all around us, all around us.
About God hating lobsters and shrimp: Yep. Everybody picks and chooses from the bible. It's impossible not to. The bible is not a book, it's a library, with dozens of different viewpoints represented on every possible topic.
Regarding the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah: I actually can't find any specific sin mentioned in the bible. That isn't unusual, as it often says something like "walked with God, neither turning to the left or right" or "was detestable before the eyes of God" without explaining anything that anyone actually did, usually preceding a sudden windfall or catastrophic decline or destruction -- the assumption seems to be, something bad (or good) happened to them, so God must have been angry (or pleased) at them for some reason.
How many people realize that all the people of Sodom and Gomorrah asked for is to be //introduced// to two //travels//? (at the time, the concept of 'Angel' didn't exist. Angel and Messenger are the same word in Hebrew, as in Greek) Most people don't like to admit that, because it makes Lot's reaction seems vastly out of proportion, which it is when taken literally, and not in the (likely) intended symbolic sense as a metaphor for the extent to which he was willing to go to provide hospitality to his guests.
As long as I'm on the topic of the bible: Why is it that so many people seem to think that marriage is a biblical concept? It's mentioned in the bible, sure. But so is war, and nobody claims that one day God sat down "I think I'll implement the divine institution of war." To point it another way, "I now pronounce you man and wife" is not a bible verse. So what does the bible have to do with marriage, except traditional restrictions on ancient Israeli weddings? Nothing, so far as I can see. Nobody in their right mind would try to use ancient grain prices (as accidentally preserved in their sacred books) to force better government contracts under freedom of religion, so how can the protestant right think of marriage as anything more than a social institution, whose authority comes entirely through the United States government? I don't know. I just don't know.
Shakerism believed, based on the same bible most of the christian world studies I should note, that all marriages were living in sin. But apparently they didn't care that the United States government allowed other people to get married, so long as they didn't force them to do so.
"Everything we do is a choice.
Uh-huh. So I chose to have an aptitude for physics and very little talent for foreign language. I chose to be left-handed. I choose to breathe.
Not everything is a choice, you maroon.
I can, however, choose to ignore you -- and I think it's not a bad idea.
TWL
"
I like the color maroon, nice choice.
You don't have a conscious choice on whether or not you breathe. Let's be realistic here.
You might have difficulty mastering certain things, such as a foreign language, where others can master it easily. What does this have to do with making a choice? The choice would be in whether or not you decided to study harder and try to pick up what you were missing or doing something else entirely.
Your examples do not prove me wrong that everything you do during a day involves choices.
"Whether you choose to believe it or not, many people don't want to see gay marriage either."
Not to drag out the whole civil rights horse again and beat it with a steel pipe, but many people in the Alabama area (if memory serves) didn't want to see the black folk...well, anywhere where white people were.
Personally, although I'm straight and happily married, I have no interest in seeing heterosexual couples swaping spit or running nude in public, and I wouldn't expect that gay marriage would cause homosexuals to suddenly start gettin' it on in your local mall.
Ben, yeah, some people can indeed control/alter their heartbeat from what it does on its own, but they don't have to stop and think "okay, pump out blood, pump out blood, pump out fish, uh oh". There are many things we have the power of choice over, there are many things we do not.
Relevant paraphrase, but not really: Give me the strength to change what I must and the tolerance to accept what I can't change.
Monkeys
John David Ward,
I don't agree with everything you said, but your post makes for an interesting read. :0)
You don't have a conscious choice on whether or not you breathe. Let's be realistic here.
I'm well aware of that. You're the one who said, and I quote, "everything we do is a choice."
I brought up several counterexamples, and you have agreed they are not choices.
So how exactly is this supporting your original point?
Now, of course, you're saying that "everything we do involves choices", which is a very different argument and one not germane to the issue of gay marriage. Not that it appears to be stopping you.
Christ, it's the Big Lie technique right here on our stage...
TWL
I brought up several counterexamples, and you have agreed they are not choices.
Actually, he said that they were not conscious choices, not that they weren't choices. Doesn't disprove what he said at all.
"Not to drag out the whole civil rights horse again and beat it with a steel pipe, but many people in the Alabama area (if memory serves) didn't want to see the black folk...well, anywhere where white people were."
How did I know this was going to come out? Hmmm.
Racism is totally wrong and should not be compared to gay marriage.
How can you compare what black people had to go through to gay marriage discussions?
Me:
"Nobody has a legal right to not be offended or to avoid seeing particular things they don't want to see."
Novafan:
What a bunch of crock.
How many states have laws against indecent exposure, etc.?
Pretty much all of 'em.
Guess what? The stated reason isn't "people don't want to see that."
Whether you choose to believe it or not, many people don't want to see gay marriage either.
I completely believe that.
I simply don't find it a remotely compelling argument.
As others have pointed out to you repeatedly, there were lots of people in the past who didn't want to see interracial marriage either. Some people still don't.
They don't get to choose what other people can do simply because they don't want to see it. They are more than welcome to lock themselves in their house, stick their fingers in their ears and hum real loud. They're just not allowed to tell people "you can't do that because it makes me uncomfortable."
Maybe that's why a majority of the states have laws against it? Nah, that couldn't be the reason could it. These lawmakers just decided to make these laws for no particular reason except to persecute gay people. Is that what you believe?
Uh ... no. It's not. I don't recall saying anything close to that, in point of fact.
But what a staggering display of logical incoherence. I'm deeply impressed.
TWL
Racism is totally wrong and should not be compared to gay marriage.
And the comparison is invalid, apparently, only because of your say-so.
Y'know, that makes me uncomfortable. People don't want to see you saying such things.
Thus, by your own logic, you should now be forced to stop doing it.
Isn't that lovely? Mmm?
(Sorry, had to get that back to Marvin...)
TWL
"I brought up several counterexamples, and you have agreed they are not choices."
No I didn't say that.
The counterexample you brought up about breathing is not a conscious choice.
The other items you mentioned do involve choices, as I mentioned in my last post.
Hey, I thought you were choosing to ignore me. :0)
Actually, he said that they were not conscious choices, not that they weren't choices. Doesn't disprove what he said at all.
Interesting argument.
How exactly would you define an unconscious choice? Unconscious actions, sure, a dime a dozen. I'm having trouble coming up with any example of making a choice that isn't conscious, though.
TWL
I amazed at the irony of TWL claiming that someone has shown a staggering display of logical incoherence and then proceeds to demonstrate his own logical incoherence in the next post!
"And the comparison is invalid, apparently, only because of your say-so.
Y'know, that makes me uncomfortable. People don't want to see you saying such things.
Thus, by your own logic, you should now be forced to stop doing it.
"
Even if I was gay, I would not compare my plight to the suffering that black people went through. There is no comparison.
Is there a law against me saying there is no comparison between racism and gay marriage? If there is, then I'll stop saying it, especially since you've diagnosed my logic.
"It's ridiculous to call something natural just because animals do it. Animals aren't people."
But, people are animals. A chimp isn't a gorrila or a cat or an elk, but all are animals and all come from nature. I do agree that because homosexuality occurs in humans, that makes it natural and there isn't much need to go into what other species do (although, I think I started that here)to determine if it's natural.
"Put a house cat in the arctic and it'll be a race between freezing to death or starving first. Put a person there and he'll adapt and build shelters."
That's not entirely accurate. It depends on the house cat and it depends on the person. Some house cats come from breeds that are well adapted to cold, and could feasibly figure out how to survive and find shelter/warmth (when have you known a house cat to *not* find the warmest most comfy spot to sleep?). If you took an innercity kid from somewhere down south who had never seen snow or trees, I dare say he wouldn't figure out how to make shelter and hunt for food before succumbing to the elements.
As far as mimicking what other species do, I think it comes down to whether or not it's a fairly specific trait, like chimps eating smaller monkeys, or a more generalized trait that many species engage in, like breathing (I know, bad example). Or perhaps a better example would be, yes cats lick themselves to clean themselves, we also clean ourselves (but not by licking). Keeping oneself clean is natural. (I don't think I'm articulating well right now, sorry.)
Monkeys.
I just realized that monogamy and life mating are basically the same thing. I have no idea how I missed that earlier. I guess I wasn't thinking straight. I still bet that one would be hard pressed to find an animal that is monogamous, and practices homosexuality; and humans don't count.
"Wow, I read this wrong I guess.
Rosie weds longtime girlfriend, slams bush
"
I didn't catch this my first read through. I was thinking, there goes Rosie slamming bush again. Big deal right since she slams bush anytime she gets a chance. How many times has she slammed bush anyways?
Then it hit me.
Duh!
On the subject of choice: do we chose who we love? True, if you are in love with someone, you can chose to ignore it or supress it until it fades. But, can you make yourself love someone? Can you really chose to love a particular person? You can chose not to pursue it, but that's not the same as chosing who to love in the first place.
As far as not comparing racism to not letting gays get married, I'm not sure I see a huge difference, and I would appreciate it if someone who does think this way would explain it to me (I'm being sincere, honest).
Monkeys.
Ben, I believe certain species of birds might. Macaws, for example (of which my wife and I have four). They mate for life, and some of the same sex have been known to mate for life too. As far as reasons, they could range from true homosexuality (finding the same sex attractive), to a dominance issue (like in cats, males will often mount each other to exert their dominance and otherwise say "all the women are mine, you aren't man enough"), to companionship.
"I would not compare my plight to the suffering that black people went through. There is no comparison."
That kind of depends on your scope of both groups. If you look at the plight of black people in this country since it's inception and compare that with the treatment of homosexuals, what blacks went through seems far worse (partly because it's easier to hide being gay than it is to hide being black). But, compare the plight of both groups throughout history all over the worldand I think it's a different story. Blacks weren't horribly treated, discriminated against and enslaved everywhere, but pretty much if it was discovered you were gay, you were discriminated against, ostracized or killed. Of course, there are lots of exceptions to that too.
Monkeys
"As far as not comparing racism to not letting gays get married, I'm not sure I see a huge difference, and I would appreciate it if someone who does think this way would explain it to me (I'm being sincere, honest)."
I can try since you asked nicely, hope it helps.
Black people were brought into slavery, raped, whipped, and made to serve their masters. They basically had no rights whatsoever. Even after they were given their freedom from slavery, they were still not free. I could add a lot more, but I'm getting tired. Sorry.
How does this compare to what gay people are going through when trying to get married to another gay person?
Does it make us a bigot or a racist if we don't want to see it happen?
Oh, Novafan, thank you for attempting to explain things. I had not read your explanation before my last post (you must have posted while I was typing). I would like to hear what you'd have to say concerning what I mentioned (about looking at both blacks and gays across the world throughout history as opposed to just in the U.S.)
Thanks for being polite.
Monkeys
**Even if I was gay, I would not compare my plight to the suffering that black people went through. There is no comparison.
Is there a law against me saying there is no comparison between racism and gay marriage? If there is, then I'll stop saying it, especially since you've diagnosed my logic.**
well, there's no law, but, chew on this:
People are saying they want Gays to have something that is seperate, but supposedly equal to heterosexuals.
They are telling a segment of Americans that they, Gays, are not as deserving of rights as the rest of the country.
This Adminstration is trying to write discrimination into the constitution.
The head of the NAACP believes thats wrong. He's telling President Bush so.
The supreme court of Massachusetts, in their decision, said, "history has proven that seperate is rarely, if ever, equal."
I think the fact that the administration is trying to write seperate but equal into the constitution lends a little bit of gravitas for comparisons of civil rights here.
The things that Blacks had to struggle against were awful. However, they fought for their civil rights and they over-turned a great injustice committed against them through civil means. They fought against unjust laws and restrictions to get the civil rights that they, as human beings, deserved.
This is what the Gay marriage proponents are trying to do now. Get the rights that they are entitled to as Human beings, and as Americans.
So you don't approve of homosexuality. Does that mean that homosexuals should be denied rights?
Adam Schwartz
"But, compare the plight of both groups throughout history all over the worldand I think it's a different story. Blacks weren't horribly treated, discriminated against and enslaved everywhere, but pretty much if it was discovered you were gay, you were discriminated against, ostracized or killed. Of course, there are lots of exceptions to that too."
What happened to black men and women is well documented in all history books.
Is there similar documentation as to what happened or might have happened to gay people throughout history? If so, I would like to read it.
"Is there similar documentation as to what happened or might have happened to gay people throughout history? If so, I would like to read it.
Good point. I'm not sure, but I will look into it over the next few days if I can find the time and let you know. But at least in recent history, there's all the hate crimes agains homosexuals that have been in the news that have taken place in the U.S. (no, I don't have any links handy, althought Matthew Shepard comes to mind as one instance), and slightly before that was the whole Hitler treatment of known homosexuals. More than that will require the aforementioned searching.
Monkeys.
"So you don't approve of homosexuality. Does that mean that homosexuals should be denied rights?"
Homosexuals have the exact same rights as any American has. You're asking for them to be granted extra rights because they think they deserve it.
This reminds me of Star Wars episode II where the bad guy asks for extra power to build an army for the republic that he will abdicate when the crisis has been averted.
Who's to stop two people who aren't gay from saying they are so they can get these extra rights too? All they would have to do is have someone give them a marriage license and poof, they are married.
*As far as not comparing racism to not letting gays get married, I'm not sure I see a huge difference, and I would appreciate it if someone who does think this way would explain it to me (I'm being sincere, honest).*
Let me start off by saying that I don't oppose gay marriage (although I think homosexuality is wrong) for two reasons. First, because I believe there are far more important things for politicians to be doing than banning gay marriage. The second reason takes a bit of explaining. The purpose of government is to protect the citizens from other citizens or other outside forces. This is why abortion is legal; embryos aren't considered citizens. Homosexuality only harms those who willingly participate (under normal circumstances). So government should not legislate against homosexuality. In other words: I don't believe in legal paternalism. Now to get back to ansering your question. Being black isn't wrong, homosexuality is. That is our logic. People can't choose not to be black(not that they need to), but people can choose not to be a practicing homosexual.
Hey Nova, if you don't want to see married gays, don't look at them. How on earth does it affect you, at all if they are married?
Oooo, those two gay people are out in public together and holding hands with rings. So what? If you don't like it, just look away.
Aside from upsetting your delicate sensiblities, how does a gay marriage affect you at all? Affecting your sensibiliteis is no reason to disallow it. Rap music upsets my delicate sensibilities but it's not going anywhere, so I don't watch it and tune it out when I hear it in public. As a song I like says "Just cuz you don't like it, don't mean it ain't no good." Which means we all have to learn to live with the fact that there are things out there we're not gonna like and we have to deal with it.
Just tell us one _tangiable_ way that a gay marriage would affect your life, aside from making you feel bad.
StS
Quoth Nova:
""So you don't approve of homosexuality. Does that mean that homosexuals should be denied rights?""
Homosexuals have the exact same rights as any American has. You're asking for them to be granted extra rights because they think they deserve it."
Well if they have the exact same rights, then they should have the exact same right to be married. Sounds like we're in agreement Nova.
StS
"Well if they have the exact same rights, then they should have the exact same right to be married. Sounds like we're in agreement Nova."
Why does it seem like you and the other guy that's ignoring me have to twist my words to try and get your point across?
Giving marriage rights to gay people is giving them extra rights beyond what every normal citizen has.
So no, we aren't in agreement.
Quoth Nova:
"Giving marriage rights to gay people is giving them extra rights beyond what every normal citizen has."
So normal people don't have the right to be married? If that's the case someone had better tell them that.
If normal citizes DO have the right to be married, then how is it giving gays that same right an extra right?
StS
"Aside from upsetting your delicate sensiblities, how does a gay marriage affect you at all? Affecting your sensibiliteis is no reason to disallow it. Rap music upsets my delicate sensibilities but it's not going anywhere, so I don't watch it and tune it out when I hear it in public. As a song I like says "Just cuz you don't like it, don't mean it ain't no good." Which means we all have to learn to live with the fact that there are things out there we're not gonna like and we have to deal with it.
Just tell us one _tangiable_ way that a gay marriage would affect your life, aside from making you feel bad."
Nobody shoves Rap music in my face and says "you shall agree to this or else"
I can avoid rap music like the plague if I want to. I happen to like some rap music though, :0).
I can't, however, avoid gay marriage since it's being shoved in my face.
How about my asking you this since you think I should just look away:
You don't like the way marriage laws are in this country. Why don't you move to a country that has no problem with it instead of telling people to look the other way?
Nova, I'm going to have to agree with Sneezy. How is giving gays the right to marry giving them rights that the rest of us don't have?
"Nova, I'm going to have to agree with Sneezy. How is giving gays the right to marry giving them rights that the rest of us don't have? "
They can marry anyone they want to, just like the rest of us in America can, as long as it's someone of the opposite sex.
Bah, I give up.
Legalizing gay marriage doesn't give anyone extra rights. No-one will have more rights than anyone else. You'll have the right to marry someone of your own sex, too, Novafan. Not that you'll excersize it, but it's your right. Happy?
Rob
Who's to stop two people who aren't gay from saying they are so they can get these extra rights too? All they would have to do is have someone give them a marriage license and poof, they are married.
That's a ridiculous statement. Sure, they could get married to another man to take advantage of the situation, but really how many of us heterosexuals are chomping at the bit to marry another man for an extra tax break? Don't you think most of us straight guys would find that concept just a little too freaky? Why not find a woman you don't love and marry her instead to get the tax breaks? Even if she's homely, I'm much more comfortable with that. I guess that's okay morally though just as long as its not a same sex marriage.
Do you think that Sodom and Gomorrah might have been destroyed because all of the inhabitants, except for a few that were taken out of the cities, were unnatural in their lusts and indulged in immoral and abominable practices?
That raises an important question. I know what they were probably doing in Sodom, but what was going on in Gomorrah? Does it happen in prison a lot but not talked about?
Who's to stop two people who aren't gay from saying they are so they can get these extra rights too? All they would have to do is have someone give them a marriage license and poof, they are married.
I'm married, but I sure don't think I have a whole lot of extra rights. Which extras are you taliking about, because I seem to be missing out!
Just for your info, Immigration works very hard to ferret out marriage of convenience between heterosexual couples for citizenship purposes. As far as I can see this is the only example of getting extra rights when you get married, but it's only extra for the person trying to get in this country.
The way I read it, it seems that straight men and women would also have the right to marry members of the same gender. As such, gays wouldn't be getting any extra rights...
Nobody shoves Rap music in my face and says "you shall agree to this or else"
I can avoid rap music like the plague if I want to. I happen to like some rap music though, :0).
I can't, however, avoid gay marriage since it's being shoved in my face.
Been forced to go to a lot of Gay Weddings have you? Are they breaking into your house to perform the ceremony? I really don't understand how this is being shoved in your face any more than the aforementioned rap music or the way other people choose to live their lives. People with sayings about their religious beliefs bumper-stickered on their cars, broadcast on TV and coming to my home to sell me Jesus are far more in my face, yet I don't think they should have their rights taken away.
How about my asking you this since you think I should just look away:
You don't like the way marriage laws are in this country. Why don't you move to a country that has no problem with it instead of telling people to look the other way?
Ah, the classic "If you don't love it, leave it" arguement. Always comes up with people who can't stand another person to have a differing viewpoint. Ever consider your own advice? Telling people to leave the country when they don't agree with you is so against every notion this nation was founded on its just mind-boggling.
Just imagine how great this country would be if we could remove everyone with differing viewpoints. No gays, no communists, no blacks, no jews, no muslims, no polish, no liberals, etc. Sounds great doesn't it! Hey, wasn't there somewhere like that in Europe a while ago? Boy, the good ol' days I tell ya.
Quoth Nova:
"I can't, however, avoid gay marriage since it's being shoved in my face.
How about my asking you this since you think I should just look away:"
And I ask how it's being shoved in your face? Are they getting married in your living room? Are they comming up to you in a diner and going "Hi! We're Married"? Are they popping into your cube at work (if you work in a cube, that is) and having their honeymoon? Are they making you buy them wedding gifts? They're only getting "in your face" because you're choosing to watch the news reports about it and listen to those scream about it.
Avoiding it is simple, if the news comes on about it, change the channel. If it's in the paper, don't read the article. If it's on the radio, change the station. It's that simple. It's not in your face unless you let it, or if they are walking up to you personally and waving their wedding bands in your actual face, not your metaphoricle "world-view/tv/radio" face.
Quoth Nova:
"You don't like the way marriage laws are in this country. Why don't you move to a country that has no problem with it instead of telling people to look the other way?"
Ah that old debate ploy. Well it seems that a lot of people do support gay marriage. If it becomes the law, will _you_ move to a country that disallows it? Or will you stay here?
I'm staying right here, becuase I like it here in the US. It just needs some minor changes.
Quoth Nova:
"They can marry anyone they want to, just like the rest of us in America can, as long as it's someone of the opposite sex.
Bah, I give up."
Don't you see the logic bomb in that statement? They can marry anyone they want to. Except the person they want to. That would be a denial of a right.
I'd like to ask again, tho, how a gay couple getting married affects you in any way, since you haven't yet. But you've given up. Oh well. Perhaps someone else can enlighten us how then.
StS
Rich, you're on the same page as me, but with faster keyboard skills and a bit more concise. I salute you. :)
StS
You know, i once had a history teacher who said that Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State were put in the constitution to prevent this very thing from happening... to prevent any one major religious group from legislating morality.
Deciding laws based on the Holy Bible is by defination, unconstitutional.
If the Government decides that it's perfectly ok for gay couples to legally get married, that's just fine. If a particular church decides not to perfor a gay marriage ceremony because it's not in their religious doctorine, that's ok with me too... however, no church should demand of the Government to deny gay marriage because said chruch doesn't believe in it, nor should the government force any church to perform a gay marriage ceremony.
And lastly, on the subject of being gay (which I'm not, so this is all speculation), I believe that you can no more choose to be gay than you can choose to be born black, white, or whatever. And if that is the case, then that makes gayness very much natural (and thusly, an Act of God).
Well, o.k.....if you're willing to deny me rights becasue I'm gay than I'd like to say a couple of things.
Like I said in one of the other posts, if it's a whole "sanctity of marriage" thing, I'd like to see a constitutional ban on divorces. I mean, let's take it to the logical conclusion here. If you're saying that gays marrying will destroy the concept of marriage, then SURELY divorce did it before then?
If I can't get married, I'd like to make sure my tax dollars don't go to fund a few things:
1.)The Military. I know "don't ask, don't tell, but I'd still be stuck with having to deal with my "hetero" soldier friends telling me about their weekend and not being allowed to share. I know they defend me, but so do the police and I'm allowed to be an openly gay cop.
2.)Schools. I'm not using them. Since I can't really adopt children or have one with my partner becasue of people who think homosexuality is "icky", I'd like to make sure my money doesn't fund something that isn't going to be used by me or my family.(O.K. I used the schools for 11 years. I'm willing to pay my share for that long but that's it and it's been 16 years since then, which means I'm owed some serious money here.) That brings me to...
3.)Child welfare services. Normally, I'd just say welfare, but I DO realize that people would lump unemployment benfits in with that and I have no problems with that.(I have NEVER benn on unemployment even though I could've. It just didn't feel right to me.) Again, not allowed to have kids becasue I'm single and gay, I'd like to not pay taxes that support this service.(For the people that would think otherwise, I have NOTHING against children, I'm just using these as examples of things that my tax dollars go towards that have no bearing on me becasue of bias.)
I could go on but let's face it, really. There's a LOT of things that my taxes pay for and I'm NOT getting equal representation as compared to the heterosexuals and I'm tired of paying for the mistakes heterosexuals make. Just give me my money, please.
Peace,
Larry
"How can you compare what black people had to go through to gay marriage discussions? "
I agree with you. It's typical. If someone against same-sex marriage mentions pedophilia or bestiality, then we're using a "horrible slippery slope" arguement, yet the pro same-sex marriage size constantly does the exact same thing, and compares those against it to nazi's and KKK members. It's the typical elitism on the left. You either agree with us, or you're a "moron" (someone actually said that up the thread). Or when someone on another thread mentioned that 46% of the people in the country "redneck inbreads" and idiots for voting for Bush. Well, that's why. Even if people agree with the policies of the left, they sure hate being told how stupid and ignorant they are by a bunch of college students and professors (most of whom have never lived in the real world) on a daily basis.
It's also funny, that the gay crowd seems to eager to either attack the bisexual group, or just ignore them. My wife is bisexual, and I know the treatment she's gotten. And I see some of the comments in this thread, and they are every bit as hatefull as some of the attitudes people claim are helds against homosexuals. Nice.
Sort of like when I see blacks making racist comments about asians or hispanics. There are some groups you'd expect to know better from experience...
Jerry
Speaking as a straight single male, I can say without reservation that I have no problem with gay marriage or homosexuality in general at all.
It means more women available for the rest of us! (And they're so grateful to find smart, good-looking guys who aren't gay!)
As for gay women? Well, that's good too!
[Okay. I'm now taking my tongue out of my cheek and switching off my Howard Stern chip-sorry if I offended]
David
Face it, folks. If people are trying to control other people's behavior even if it has absolutely no impact on them, they're operating either from fear of that which is unlike them, or they simply want to control. They can paint it up in posey and say it's morality or God's will or ucky, but ultimately it's their failing.
Unfortunately, getting them to respond in a rational way that uses anything beyond opinion/faith as a logical baseline is like asking that queer monkey mentioned towards the start of the thread for a philosophical explanation of why he's balling his buddy.
Novafan: You mentioned wanting to know if there were any histories to support a comparison between slavery and homosexuality. Here's a few links that will at give you a start for historical purposes:
www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/gayhistbib.html
www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-int.html
www.infopt.demon.co.uk/gayhist.htm
The first Fordham link takes you to a partially annotated bibliography while the other two links take you to on-line databases. The last link goes to a short article about China. There are thousands more sites and books to look at -- a quick 'homosexuality history' search on google will bring up a ton of stuff to sort through.
Take care, Jon
Sorry, I didn't read any posts after the first 5 or 6.
But all in all, a number of points continue to be addressed (and rightfully so).
I just wanted to add a few things.
First off, that idiot pastor of the church here in the Denver Metro that posted the "The Jews killed Jesus" sign... apologized.
Although, considering he has posted similar signs in the past toward homosexuals, etc, it's a rather empty apology imo.
And, just up the road, a place by the name of Shotgun Willie's (strip club / semi-restaurant type of place) has on their sign "Our Passion is Hot Women".
Of course, the reverse side also says "CU (Colorado University) fans welcome!"
Anyways. I downloaded a recent episode of Real Time with Bill Maher (from the week before the Oscars).
It makes for great watching, especially with Ian McKellan and alot of discussion about gay issues.
One thing that Bill Maher commented on at the end was the fact that homosexual marriage will not lead to bestiality.
And to paraphrase him: "Did allowing women to vote lead to hamster voting? No."
Ben Lesar wrote:
"Being black isn't wrong, homosexuality is. That is our logic."
While I recognize that Mr. Lesar is not allowing himself to be blinded by a single source of perspective (and, Mr. Lesar, I believe that you are to be applauded for that) I do find the above quote troubling.
Here's why. We have alot of things in the USA that are wrong and have a measureable negative impact on millions of people. Foremost on my mind would be "outsourcing" American jobs. I wonder where my Constitutional Amendment giving that practive 'separate but equall' protection would end up. My point is that this practice has a measurable negative impact whereas homosexuality does not. I'll grant the cases where hearts are broken, diseases are spread, and domestic abuse occurs, but I think that we can all agree that any and all of those things can occurr in any relationship.
Again, I believe that Mr. Lesar is to be commended for balancing his perspectives and this post is in no way meant to take a shot at him. I guess what I'd like to see is measurable evidence that homosexuality is wrong becauseall I've heard thus far is a panic reaction from people whose ability to think is far inferior to Mr. Lesards.
Salutations,
Mitch
...And where I got 'Lesard' from I'll never know.
Apologies,
Mitch
Um, my ex-girlfriend (who I'm still friends with) is bisexual -- and it's very, very difficult for her. She doesn't know if she'll ever be able to commit to one gender, she doesn't know how or when to bring it up when on a date, she doesn't even decide when she's attracted to men or to women. For the lucky bisexuals, I suppose, bisexuality is choosing which gender they want. For the unlucky, it can be continuing uncertainity about what gender they find attractive. It's not some pornstar-type life, or having more choices than everyone else.
I've always wondered if that was the case. Were I single I would set very very few rules on the kinds of women I would be willing to date (being a firm believer in the old adage that Beggers Cannot Be Choosers) but I would never knowingly date a committed bisexual. Monogamy is hard enough for some folks with only half the planet as a potential candidate for infidelity. If one is so broad minded as to be attrated to both genders there would always be something missing in any relationship with just one. I suppose some folks can make a go of it with an "open relationship" but my observation of such things is that they tend to go down in flames more often than not (and not just the usual ugly breakup but big spectacular Hindenberg "Oh the humanity" flames).
Slightly off topic--once gay marriage becomes a reality (as it certainly will) by what right will we have to outlaw polygamy? The laws against it seem to me to be purely religious based and the best arguments for gay marriage--ie "Who are we to deny love?" would equally apply. I don't agree with the slippery slopers who argue that we will soon be having Man/Sheep hot love action in St Patrick's Cathedral but polygamy will have to at least be addressed.
Novafan (no relation) wrote: "Even if I was gay, I would not compare my plight to the suffering that black people went through. There is no comparison."
If I am reading correctly, Novafan objects to comparing the suffering of black people (due to slavery, segregation, etc.) with the suffering of gay people.
There may be folks who are saying that the sufferings are comparable. (Certainly in one respect they are: the right to marry was denied to interracial couples in the same way it is at present denied to gay couples.)
But in general, the argument I have heard made is not that the sufferings are comparable but that the reasons offered by those who oppose gay rights are similar (often identical) to arguments used by those who opposed the civil rights movement.
Time after time I hear people using the same arguments today to oppose equal rights for gays that were used decades ago to oppose equal rights for blacks. Even the argument that gays are asking for "extra rights", which Novafan makes in this thread, echoes a familiar line from the anti-civil-rights folks of the 1950s and 1960s for why they opposed civil rights laws and government efforts to end segregation.
It is worth looking back at past political struggles, such as the civil rights movements, to learn which arguments were right and which ones were wrong. Discredited arguments should be discarded as trash, not recycled decades later in another attempt to deny people dignity and equal treatment.
You don't have a conscious choice on whether or not you breathe. Let's be realistic here.
Well, if you want to be realistic, you actually DO have a conscious choice on whether or not you breathe. You can stop breathing any time you wish simply by holding your breath. That's a choice. Now, if you're talking about stopping breathing for any considerable length of time then you're risking death or at the very least brain damage. Just because it's an autonomic response doesn't mean you have no control over it.
You don't like the way marriage laws are in this country. Why don't you move to a country that has no problem with it instead of telling people to look the other way?
You know, once upon a time, people decided that the anti-miscegenation laws in this country were wrong. did they leave? no, they fought against the unjust laws and got them changed.
Once upon a time, people thought that the voting laws in this country were discriminatory. did they move to a country that had different voting laws? no, they campaigned for their rights, fought against an unjust law, and won their voting rights, both women and minorities.
Nowadays, its discriminatory to keep the right of marriage from two people who love each other because you think it's icky, or because YOUR religion forbids it.
(by the way, how about those homosexuals marriages snactified by the church in the 4th century>)
It's not just wanting to be married. They want to be able to have visiting rights to their loved ones in the hospital. they want incontestable next-of-kin status. they want joint-filing rights on their taxes. they want non-biological adoptive parent rights.
so, novafan, there you go. theres a bunch of rights that homosexuals are denied in addition to being able to get married. Those are the rights that Gays want to make them EQUAL to everyone in America.
Adam Schwartz
My main question is...
...Why does the media say that so much of this asinine nation is hell-bent against same-sex marriage when I see so much support for it every day?! Are they expecting militant support with people waving rainbow flags, throwing condoms and strap-ons out of buckets like parade candy, and having same-sex intercourse in the middle of the streets as some form of protest? Frankly, most of the LGTB crowd I know (including myself) is NOT quite so militant... They protest through well-written editorials to newspapers, getting involved in college events such as showing documentaries on homosexuality and same-sex marriage in order to build understanding, and just plain trying to show the rest of the world that we are NOT that different.
Besides. *smirks and rolls eyes sarcastically* We lesbians get shafted in all this... What's all this focus on gay males? Perhaps we ought to start a strictly lesbian coalition and take over the country with our butch double-headed axes with "DYKE RYGHTS" painted on them in human blood.
Now you're scared. Yeah. That's what I thought.
PAD, I knew I liked you for a reason other than New Frontiers. A Morford fan rates high with me.
Novafan, may I ask you a question? When did you make a *choice* to be hetrosexual? When did you consciously decide to suppress attraction to same sex individuals and become hetrosexual?
I'm still waiting on an answer as to what extra rights marriage grants to gays that hetrosexuals don't receive.
You also asked, nova, how the suffering of gays can be compared to that of Blacks? Certainly slavery lasted for a longer length of time and many more citizens were subjected to abuse from that, however if you want to compare individual atrocities then I believe you'll find equal levels of brutality. Not as wide and numerous but they do exist unless you choose to turn a blind eye to them.
EClark:
Posted by EClark1849 @ 03/06/2004 01:38 PM ET You don't have a conscious choice on whether or not you breathe. Let's be realistic here.Well, if you want to be realistic, you actually DO have a conscious choice on whether or not you breathe. You can stop breathing any time you wish simply by holding your breath.That's a choice. Now, if you're talking about stopping breathing for any considerable length of time then you're risking death or at the very least brain damage.
Actually, no. When you fall unconscious from holding your breath your body resumes it's unconscious routine without you making that choice. ;)
"Who's to stop two people who aren't gay from saying they are so they can get these extra rights too? All they would have to do is have someone give them a marriage license and poof, they are married."
What's to stop a man and a woman getting married for the same reasons? Gays aren't going to get an extra tax break out of being gay, just the same tax break a straight couple would get from getting married.
Ben, you state that homosexuality being wrong as a cornerstone of your argument. Can you prove that it's wrong? Right and wrong is really another subjective issue, made more difficult by the fact that there are no victims in this case.
Here's a thought for those who claim homosexuality is a choice: doesn't that sort of make heterosexuality a choice too? If you have A and B, and you choose B, could you not also have chosen A? If you could have chosen A, then A was a choice. And if A isn't a choice, then how is B? And if both A and B are choices, why do we discriminate against one over the other? But, if neither A nor B is a choice, again, why do we discriminate? And for one anecdotal example of how homosexuality isn't a choice, refer back to a couple of topic threads ago to the gentleman who said he was indeed gay, but chose not to practice that lifestyle because he thought it was wrong based on his faith. He didn't stop being attracted to men. So, if the choice is either be gay or deny who you are and "choose" to live a heterosexual lifestyle, then essentially you're saying that homosexuals have the option to conform to something they aren't and should be happy about it.
Monkeys
Gotta love brokennewz.com
http://www.brokennewz.com/displaystory.asp_Q_storyid_E_758gaymormons
EClark:
Posted by EClark1849 @ 03/06/2004 01:38 PM ET You don't have a conscious choice on whether or not you breathe. Let's be realistic here.Well, if you want to be realistic, you actually DO have a conscious choice on whether or not you breathe. You can stop breathing any time you wish simply by holding your breath.That's a choice. Now, if you're talking about stopping breathing for any considerable length of time then you're risking death or at the very least brain damage.
Katheryn:
Actually, no. When you fall unconscious from holding your breath your body resumes it's unconscious routine without you making that choice. ;)
Sorry Katheryn, Choice still applies. That you relinquish control, be it consciously or unconsciously, and it goes back to the default setting is irrelevant. The fact that you CAN exercise control makes it a choice. Also, you CAN stop breathing permanently if your GOAL is to commit suicide. The steps are a little more involved than just exercising muscular control (i.e. shooting yourself in the head, slitting your wrists, etc) but the result is the same. You'll stop breathing permently.
Ultimately the argument of CHOICE in the the context of sexual identity is largely one of semantics, unlike say skin color or even gender. Barring any sort of skin disease, divine intervention, or sudden changes of definition, I'll be a black male till the day I die. I have no choice or control over that. I can't stop being either, even momentarily, by wishing it, contracting a muscle, or holding my breath. I don't have to take any actions or any kind to be either. I can't abstain from the practice of being black or male, either voluntarily or involuntarily. No one has to follow me around all day to tell that I've been black and male ALL day. When meeting me most people can tell that I'm either black, male or both on sight or upon hearing, and sometimes through touch. THAT's what it means to have NO CHOICE.
What do you mean, you can't do anything about being a black male?
Michael Jackson seems to have altered both of those conditions...
"Novafan, may I ask you a question? When did you make a *choice* to be hetrosexual? When did you consciously decide to suppress attraction to same sex individuals and become hetrosexual?"
Maybe it was when I was molested by one homosexual when I was little and he tried to get me to like it because he said it was a normal behaviour.
This is the main reason why I will fight this tooth and nail so to speak. I will not allow this to happen in my lifetime.
So don't tell me that gay people will not try to impress other people, especially kids, to not only look the other way but that they won't try to get other people who aren't gay to try it out because they believe it's OK to do it. You can say you wouldn't do this to your hearts content, but all it takes is ONE individual to do this to another one.
I'll be waiting for the "if this really did happen to you...BS"
'nuff said
Novafan, what happened to you was awful.
it was, however, an aberattion.
There are monsters who prey on children in both the homosexual and the heterosexual persuasion.
they are not, however, the norm.
to put it another way: there are many little girls molested by older men, and there are little boys molested by older women.
Should heterosexual marriage, therefore, be not allowed, because it send the message that heterosex is okay, and might lead to some sick hetero people molesting children of the opposite sex?
Adam Schwartz
Maybe it was when I was molested by one homosexual when I was little and he tried to get me to like it because he said it was a normal behaviour.
This is an argument also used by male pedophiles preying on young girls.
Are you also arguing against heterosexual marrage?
And, yes, I WILL tell you that gay people, as a rule, will not try to "convert" other people, just as I will tell you that white people, as a rule, are not racists--not withstanding that there are white people who are KKK members and would dearly love to drag black people and yellow people behind their cars on chains. I do not blame the group for the behavior of a tiny, tiny minority.
I am very sorry for your painand the monster who did this to you should be punished for a VERY long time.
But I also belive that you are mistaken in the conclusion you came to. We are talking about consenting adults. We are not talking about a sick son-of-a-B who preys on children. What happened to you is akin to the old rape defense of "She liked it" What was done to you was about the misuse of power. I am sure that no one on this message board who agrees with allowing homosexual marriage would condone any type of child abuse. You may believe that homsexuality is a deviation, but I can guarantee that 99% of gays would agree that preying on children is a horrible monstrous crime. The other 1%, like the population at large belong behind bars.
I did not look up these statistics and am just making a point, so if anyone has better statistics, let me assure you I have not taken a poll.
Thanks for the clarification on consenting adults, Karen. It's amazing how quickly and frequently people will link homosexuality with pedophilia. Much as with heterosexuals, the issue is about what two adults choose to do together, not what one person forces on another or anything involving statutory rape.
Novafan, your energies would be better spent helping victims of child abuse, not reinforcing the stereotype that homosexual=pedophile.
My sympathies on what happened to you, Novafan. It's not something any child should have to go through, ever.
But what you're talking about is abuse and molestation. Expanding that to insist that all homosexuality is bad and gay marriage is awful is a false generalization.
It'd be akin to saying that the Catholic Church should no longer perform weddings given all the cases of molestation by priests that have been recently alleged.
I don't believe the Catholic Church is composed entirely (or even primarily) of abusers -- nor do I believe most gay people fit that mold. I know too many people in same-sex relationships to think that.
So I agree with my fellow Lynch -- you'd be better spending your efforts on helping abuse victims. I think it's something everyone could support, here or otherwise.
Best,
TWL
I've been lurking around PAD's weblog for quite some time... One of my favorite authors. Certainly my favorite living one since Douglas Adams's untimely demise. Currently enjoying One Knight Only.
Thought I'd finely say something in response to this thread.
Someone made a comment way back about Lemmings... I'd just like to point out that to the best of my knowledge that is a myth created by Disney. (I was rather surprised, myself. Found out about it an Snopes.com, a rather interesting website devoted to Urban Legends.)
And now for an interesting counterpoint to those who may think of homosexuality as a choice: I am a heterosexual. When I had been single for quite a long time, I got to thinking one day, "I wonder if I might have any better luck if I were interested in other men?" That thought never left being a hypothetical question within my own brain, however, because I just could not work up even the slightest bit of interest in perusing it. So yeah, for me heterosexuality is NOT a choice. (Thus, I would postulate that neither would be homosexuality or bisexuality.)
Fortunately, I did eventually find love with a wonderful woman. She and I plan to wed someday, as soon as it is both economically and geographically feasible. And you know, if marriage is not yet a right that is available to any two people, regardless of gender, when I get married... Well, it won't stop me, but it will make me feal a bit bad.
Now... there was also some talk of bisexuality up there. My fiancée happens to have an eye for the ladies herself. But being bisexual doesn't mean that one is unable to maintain a monogamous relationship. After all, being heterosexual or homosexual doesn't make you dead. I may look at other women now and then. Doesn't mean I actually run off and boff them. She doesn't run around boffing other women, either.
Great article you've linked to, PAD. I really enjoyed it. This thread has taken a familiar turn, though, and it's become a pointless argument more about the right way to support gay marriage than that it's right to support gay marriage.
I believe sexuality is a state of mind. It is derived from a choice, though not necessarily a conscious one. I'm perfectly comfortable with the notion that the gender one is attracted to is determined in the early developmental years, and can be altered. I do not, however, believe that there's anything wrong with this, or that a gay person who enjoys being gay should endeavor to change that aspect of his or her personality. I support gay marriage, though I support a full upheaval of the entire system that defines marriage legally because I feel the rights gays want for their significant others should be granted to all groups of people whose financial well-being is dependant on another's, but gay marriage would be a good start.
As for why I believe sexuality is a choice, it's because I remember choosing. I'm into women now, but I'm still somewhat attracted to men. When I was much younger and discovering myself sexually, I was presented with the opportunity for a homosexual experience I declined for analytical reasons only -- more because I felt it would change my friendship with the boy than anything else. My sexual experience is limited, but I decided I preferred the personalities of women to those of men, and have maintained that stance.
There is an unconscious aspect of this, of course, and that has to do with my reaction to the chemistry I've felt with other people, and what I like. I don't like pickles, but I didn't choose not to like them, for example.
So for the guy who claimed anyone who thinks homosexuality is a choice is a moron way up at the top -- sorry, fella, but it's just a part of your personality, and that's not immutable. You may not remember choosing to be gay or straight, but that doesn't mean your brain didn't do it for you.
Also, there was one other thing I wanted to address: The question, "Who would choose to be gay?"
This is a wildly ignorant question. There are benefits of homosexuality. They may not outweigh the benefits of heterosexuality in your eyes, but not everybody is you. We all prioritize differently. It could be anything from pissing off a parent, joining a group you percieve as largely "better" people than the ones you're leaving (I knew a couple guys in college who did something along those lines -- their attitude was fairly similar to Mel Gibson's attitude in the middle of What Women Want, where he's extolling the virtues of women while totally ignoring the scientifically-proven fact that women are crazy), it could be any number of things.
The short version of this lecture is: "Never assume that simply because you can't concieve of something that nobody else can."
**As for why I believe sexuality is a choice, it's because I remember choosing.**
That just means that the question becomes "Did you CHOOSE to be bisexual or were you born that way?"
**Also, there was one other thing I wanted to address: The question, "Who would choose to be gay?"**
**This is a wildly ignorant question. There are benefits of homosexuality. They may not outweigh the benefits of heterosexuality in your eyes, but not everybody is you.**
Sorry, excuse my ignorance, but I stand by the statement. Anyone who thinks they "chose" their sexuality is, 99 times out of 100, kidding themselves. Sure, a bisexual may choose to be exclusively with one sex but they did not "chose" their bisexuality.
Since you are bisexual I don't think you have an appreciation for how alien it would be for a heterosexual OR a homosexual to start dating a different gender. It would be like a right hander deciding to be left handed for no damn reason whatsoever. Yes, it could happen. There are crazy people in the world. But such folks are negligible in the grand scheme of things.
Toby, you say that right and wrong are subjective. In that case murder isn't really wrong, some people just think it's wrong. This means that I or anyone else on this board, might as well go around killing people. You know, cause there is nothing really wrong with doing so.
Ben, you sort of understood what I was saying, but not really. Yes, murder could be considered not wrong, like in self defense or war. But, the difference between murder and homosexuality is still whether or not there are victims. I think right or wrong being subjective concepts totally changes when victims are involved, or if rights of other individuals are encroached upon. Sorry I wasn't clear, and sorry if I'm still not clear.
Monkeys
*I just realized that monogamy and life mating are basically the same thing. I have no idea how I missed that earlier. I guess I wasn't thinking straight. I still bet that one would be hard pressed to find an animal that is monogamous, and practices homosexuality; and humans don't count.*
Penguins.
Okay Toby, now that I know what you meant, I ask you: What about suicide? There are no victims, because everyone involved is a willing participant. Is it still okay?
by the way, does anyone know why the site has been changed? Was someone posting crap again?
On a lighter note...to the best of my knowledge, homosexuality is nonexistant anywhere in the star trek mythos, voluminous as they are...
Roddenberrys utopia seems to have viewed the practice as an aberration, and devised remedies.
Bill Mulligan: "That just means that the question becomes 'Did you CHOOSE to be bisexual or were you born that way?'"
Well, I guess I was technically born that way, since I possessed the equipment for both and a predilection for neither.
For the record, though, I consider myself straight. Since my sexual awakening, I've come to prefer womens' curvy bits over mens' blocky ones.
"Sorry, excuse my ignorance, but I stand by the statement. Anyone who thinks they 'chose' their sexuality is, 99 times out of 100, kidding themselves. Sure, a bisexual may choose to be exclusively with one sex but they did not "chose" their bisexuality."
How do you know that? Why is it so hard to accept the idea that a person who claims to have chosen his or her sexuality actually chose his or her sexuality? Why is sexuality an immutable quality of the human condition? It's not like it's upheld the way gender and eye color are; it's an aspect of the personality. The personality changes as the person grows, so why is sexuality so impossible? If I tell you I was bisexual as a kid, but now am exclusively for the ladies and do not find men sufficiently attractive to even consider them sexually anymore, how exactly do you know so much about me and my experiences to tell me I'm kidding myself?
"Since you are bisexual I don't think you have an appreciation for how alien it would be for a heterosexual OR a homosexual to start dating a different gender."
Of course I do. You can't possibly think sexuality is the only thing capable of alienating a person from his or her entire community, can you?
"It would be like a right hander deciding to be left handed for no damn reason whatsoever."
Actually, I've done that. Aside from writing with my left hand, I became a leftie for about four months in high school for a part in a play. When I got into character, I decided my character was left-handed. It wasn't weird at all; in fact, it was kinda cool. I wish I hadn't lost it.
"Yes, it could happen. There are crazy people in the world. But such folks are negligible in the grand scheme of things."
Sorry, but that's not even remotely true. Rules aren't defined by those who follow them, but by the existence of those who challenge them. If everyone were straight, for example, homosexuality would be considered an impossibility. "Where would a guy put it?" people might be heard to say, for example. The first two gay people, though, would prove the rule wrong, since if something impossible exists, it's clearly not impossible. If people can't choose their sexuality, explain the ones who can and did. Calling them anomalies that prove nothing is an debate technique that resembles that of the fundamentalists. Maybe people can choose it, but they don't know how. That seems a lot more likely to those of us that do know how.
Ben Lesar: "Toby, you say that right and wrong are subjective. In that case murder isn't really wrong, some people just think it's wrong. This means that I or anyone else on this board, might as well go around killing people. You know, cause there is nothing really wrong with doing so."
This a totally wrong-headed view of what Toby said, philosophically speaking. For starters, "murder" is defined as "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." To murder someone, you must be breaking the law as you kill them. If you kill someone and are acquitted justly, you did not murder them. Murder isn't wrong, it's illegal -- there are killings that are considered murder, technically, that some would argue were not wrong or evil.
Also, "not wrong" doesn't mean "without consequences." It's not wrong for me to spend an entire paycheck on DVDs; that doesn't mean I won't still pay for it. If a guy travelled back in time and killed Hitler (the famous time-traveller's conundrum) right after Hitler signed the papers or whatever to give Auschwitz the purpose it had under his rule, would they be wrong? I could and probably would argue that the action would not be wrong; after all, Hitler demonstrated an absolute disregard for human life, which is not a good quality in a world leader (never mind that it's an extremely common quality in world leaders). There would be consequences for his actions, though, least of which would be his probable arrest and execution at the hands of the S.S.
To say that murder is inherently wrong is a judgement call.
"Okay Toby, now that I know what you meant, I ask you: What about suicide? There are no victims, because everyone involved is a willing participant. Is it still okay?"
Damn right it is. One of man's inalienable human rights promised us by the Declaration of Independance is the Right to Life. A right is not an obligation, it's a privelidge. I have the right to Free Speech. The government can't come to my house and force me to self-publish my unpublished writings any more than they can silence me when I choose to self-publish those writings. If I have the right to life, I have the right to choose not to live. Otherwise it's an obligation.
drew: "On a lighter note...to the best of my knowledge, homosexuality is nonexistant anywhere in the star trek mythos, voluminous as they are..."
PAD! You've gotta get on that! If I read the New Frontier series, I'd probably have a great title for the one about gay people.
Seriously; Star Trek was pretty hippy-ish in its early days. There was a lot of deviant interspecies mating going on, after all. Sure, the aliens Kirk had sex with all LOOKED like chicks, but were they REALLY all chicks? Wouldn't it be hilarious if Orion gender identities were reversed, and nobody in Starfleet noticed?
As a straight man, I never really cared whether homosexual people chose to be that way or whether they were born that way. I'm sure its an interesting scientific study of human behavior, but beyond that I never cared because since they aren't doing anything that affects me or hurts anyone else, I do not consider it to be morally wrong. In fact, I think as a single man who has had his share of broken hearts, its really cool that two people, no matter what gender match, can fall in love. Beyond that I could care less what they do since they aren't hurting anyone.
As for the above mention that homosexuals are preying on children and that makes it wrong, that is a popular misconception that men who like little boys are representative of the gay community. Gays are just as appalled by that behavior as any average person is. There's a reason why they are called pedophiles instead.
Novafan, I too am sorry to hear of what happened to you as a child, but it wasn't a gay person who did that, it was someone who preyed on the innocent. I'm speaking from experience here that some straight men and women both commit the same crimes on children. I have a cousin who was molested by her father and my ex-girlfriend was molested by her uncle. I myself had a rather uncomfortable experience or two with one of my dad's ex-girlfriends as a teenager before he dumped her.
Here's something similarly hilarious I saw posted on myspace.com:
Thousands of formerly ardent Christians filed for divorce this morning, as others raped their children and household pets, after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay people are citizens too.
"My marriage is over," spoke one upset Christian as he dry-humped the fender of a parked car. "My marriage isn't worth anything," he insisted. "I feel no connection to my wife and children and I just want to do whatever I please, when it pleases me to do it." With that he turned to a passing elderly woman and shouted for her to reveal her "tits."
This same scene is being repeated over and over again, on every street in every city and town in America. Once devoted parents and spouses, America's Christians are denouncing any bonds between themselves and their families as they embark on a binge of sex, drugs and socialism.
"We warned you that this would happen," insisted one anti-human rights activist. "We told you that gay citizens enjoying equal rights would destroy marriage, the family and even Christianity itself. And now it's happened," he said. "You should have listened to us. If you had, I wouldn't of had to have sex with three different strange men in a public restroom this morning."
The fallout from today's decision is enormous and far reaching. So big is the change that swept America this morning that it may be days before a true accounting of the damage is complete. As things stand, one unconfirmed report has Bob Jones Jr., of Bob Jones University, defecating on his bible upon hearing the news, while other witnesses have come forward to report that they had seen Pat Robertson, former leader of the Christian Coalition and the host of the 700 club, enjoying sex with a chair.
Congress was quick to pass an appropriations bill funding the thousands of new orphanages needed to care for the abandoned children. It is hoped that this is only a temporary measure and that Christians will yet accept the financial responsibility for their families, even if they no longer love them and insist on masturbating in public.
Ben, you asked if suicide was okay. I say yes, in some cases. Again, it comes down to victims. If the person killing themselves is the sole supporter of several young children, yeah, I'd have an issue with that. Wrong? You could argue that, since the father/mother brought the children into the world and thus has an obligation to raise them, and the children depend on this individual, so they would be victims. Otherwise, I can't really call suicide "wrong". A stupid solution, sure, but not wrong. However,I do think it's silly that people who are painfully, terminally ill can't end their lives to end their suffering and to end their families' and loved one's having to watch them suffer. Essentially, the government says "I don't care how much it hurts, I don't care if you're dying anyway and I don't care how much it's costing you and your family, you *must* keep suffering." Either way, I stick to right and wrong being subjective until victims and violations of other's rights are involved.
Monkeys.
EClark, you say you have no choice about being black, but homosexuality is a choice. I was thinking, could you not dye your hair blond, wear blue contact lenses and get a really talented cosmetics artist to paint you up with white skin tones? Couldn't you also check off the "caucasian" box on any form that asks you to identify your race/nationality? Could you not also behave in a stereotypical white fashion (and if you want to argue about stereotypical behaviors of people based on skin color, watch some stand up comedy routines)? But, underneath it all, and no matter how you act or what box you check on those forms, you'd still be a black man.
And that's kind of the point with homosexuality, too. You could lead a heterosexual lifestyle, marry someone of the opposite sex, have children and a family engage in typically manly things (or feminine things). Doesn't change the fact that underneath it all you'd still be a homosexual. You'd just be hiding it to not upset others. And to my knowledge, no black person (or any other race) went through the above steps to appear white to be socially acceptable. And they shouldn't have.
You might argue the silliness of trying to paint your skin a different color, but in the end, it's just the color of your skin. Sexuality is more integral to who you are and what makes you fulfilled and happy.
Monkeys
"And to my knowledge, no black person (or any other race) went through the above steps to appear white to be socially acceptable."
Eddie Murphy did. We saw it on SNL, many years ago.
As to the rest of your statement, I don't buy it. The difference between skin color and sexuality is that sexuality is linked to a number of social taboos, and it's worth the effort to be what you want to be. I've known gay people who were happy to be gay, and they should make no effort to not be. I've also known people for whom homosexuality was an endless source of misery; for example, they're physically attracted to men, but are unable to find a man with whom they are compatible, and have fantastic chemistry with women. Those people should make efforts to become what they want to be. If they want to be straight, or want to learn to like the gender-related habits of men, they should do what they have to toward that end.
Of course, this statement will bring up plenty of dissent with reference to such things as brainwashing, deprogramming, and other 1984-ish stuff, and rightfully so. After all, these are tactics the religious right would favor as mandatory if they could. The difference between that and what I'm saying, however, is I favor these things as electives only.
The other dissent I'm sure I'd hear, of course, is that sexuality is immutable, and people that appear to choose are merely confused. That's a charming little theory, but psychiatry teaches that the mind is capable of incredible things. Mind over matter, willpower, and mental fortitude are clearly underrated by people who say things like that. Internal behavior modification is a powerful tool; the urge to fight one's habits can lead to permanent life changes.
Skin color exhibits itself through the physical body, whereas sexuality is exhibited through behavior, which is mutable. The source of traits of the body may be immutable -- though gene therapy suggests that may not be the case -- but behavior is decidedly not. It may be hard to change, but to say it's impossible is to give the human mind far too little credit.
Whether homosexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant. Just because being attracted to ones own sex is no more of a choice than being black, doesn't mean that practicing homosexuality is ok. Some people are naturally attracted to animals, but that doesn't mean it's okay for them to have sex with them.
I say "Since you are bisexual I don't think you have an appreciation for how alien it would be for a heterosexual OR a homosexual to start dating a different gender."
nekouken replies "Of course I do. You can't possibly think sexuality is the only thing capable of alienating a person from his or her entire community, can you?"
Um, not sure what you are talking about. What I was trying to express was that for at least THIS heterosexual guy and for more than a couple of gay men I have been friends with, the thought of being with the "wrong" gender is just gross. Zero appeal. A far far second to celibacy as a viable alternative. Not gonna happen. Has nothing to do with alienating communities or whatever. It's a hardwired thing.
Which is why I have no problem with gays being with each other, if they feel about the opposite sex the same way I do about my own. It would be perverse to try to force them to be otherwise.
Ben: "Whether homosexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant. Just because being attracted to ones own sex is no more of a choice than being black, doesn't mean that practicing homosexuality is ok. Some people are naturally attracted to animals, but that doesn't mean it's okay for them to have sex with them."
Nor does it mean it's not. This is a very subjective issue, and you're imposing your own morality into it and stating it as fact. It's fine to feel that way, but you need to back up your opinion with facts if you want to be taken as more than a loudmouth.
Bill: "Um, not sure what you are talking about."
You said I can't understand how alien it is. I told you that there are things more alienating than sexuality. I assumed you meant how alien it is to friends and family.
"What I was trying to express was that for at least THIS heterosexual guy and for more than a couple of gay men I have been friends with, the thought of being with the "wrong" gender is just gross. Zero appeal. A far far second to celibacy as a viable alternative. Not gonna happen. Has nothing to do with alienating communities or whatever. It's a hardwired thing."
Now that I see what you actually meant, I have no idea why you brought it up. Sure, I'm more open to the idea than the average person presumably would be, but what does that have to do with anything I said? I was answering the question, "Why would anyone choose to be gay?" If a person saw benefit enough in doing something alien to them, they would do it. Assuming that gay people have nothing but burden is just silly. I'll respect gay people as much as I do straight people, but that includes not indulging their martyrdom.
As far as it being a hardwired thing, you'd be surprised what you can and can't do under the right circumstances.
"Which is why I have no problem with gays being with each other, if they feel about the opposite sex the same way I do about my own. It would be perverse to try to force them to be otherwise."
Well, of course it would. I never said anything like that; I favor everybody being with the gender that makes them happy. Some people aren't happy with what they're sexually attracted to, though. Those people may have to choose a sexuality, and frankly, it's not your place or anyone else's to insist that they're only pretending to be what they aren't.
Ben Lesar said: "Just because being attracted to ones own sex is no more of a choice than being black, doesn't mean that practicing homosexuality is ok. Some people are naturally attracted to animals, but that doesn't mean it's okay for them to have sex with them."
As has been brought up many times before, sex between two consenting adults is NOT the same as sex between an individual and some animal they choose to prey on. Moreover, you don't have the right to tell someone who they can or can't have a relationship with, in the same way that I can't tell you who you're allowed to date.
Dav
"Some people aren't happy with what they're sexually attracted to, though. Those people may have to choose a sexuality, and frankly, it's not your place or anyone else's to insist that they're only pretending to be what they aren't."
I think we are just splitting hairs by now but, look, people can do what they want. If a gay guy is unhappy being gay and wants to marry a woman, well, okay. Hope it's not my sister. Hope he tells the lady what's up so she knows what she's getting into.
But the scenario you propose--you are unhappy with what you are attracted to so you choose a different sexuality...I'm not sure I get it, since, to me, your sexuality is in large part the same as what sex you are attracted to. If you are attracted to men but choose to live a heterosexual life I think you are pretending to be what you are not. Which is fine by me, though I think it will probably end up being a bad choice in most instances. And the fact that such a choice is likely due to outside pressures makes it doubly unfortunate.
OK, I see where you're coming from. Let me present an analog and see if it kind of explains what I'm thinking a bit better:
Imagine a straight girl who is asked to a dance by a man she finds unappealing, but is far too nice to say no to. He is neither physically attractive to her nor does she know anything about him that makes her want to like him especially.
She agrees to go to the dance regardless of this (for reasons I see no reason to make up since this is strictly hypothetical), but as she goes through with it, she learns things about him that she does find appealing; he's smart, has an interest in clog-dancing, loves parying mantii, whatever. She learns that something she found unattractive before was actually something she could learn to love when she actually gave it a deeper look.
Is this really that different from a different gender? One reason I am unattracted to men at large is because I attribute to them by way of stereotype general traits to them I don't like. Not arbitrarily, mind; I have a reason for all of it. By and large, though, the only men I find emotionally attractive are those I find physically repugnant. Go figure.
Neukoken, I like your argument. I don't entirely agree with it, but well put.
As far as Eddie Murphy goes, (and you may have pointed this out in jest anyway), he's a comedian and what he did was for entertainment purposes. At least as far as I know, he didn't try to actually live his life like that, and that was what I was getting at.
"I've also known people for whom homosexuality was an endless source of misery; for example, they're physically attracted to men, but are unable to find a man with whom they are compatible, and have fantastic chemistry with women. Those people should make efforts to become what they want to be. If they want to be straight, or want to learn to like the gender-related habits of men, they should do what they have to toward that end."
I'm straight, I have good relationships with male friends, I'm attracted to women and it took me a while, but I finally found a woman I was compatible with. Should I have given up hope sooner and tried to be gay? If I did, and could do that, I would suggest that I was bisexual to begin with, and thus was able to choose between two genders. Not being bisexual, the possibility of "going gay" was never an option.
But I agree that we should all be who we want to be, and we shouldn't be made to feel inadequate or uncomfortable for it.
I won't say it's impossible for someone to change their "habits", or more specifically for a gay person to behave straight, I just don't think you will change the deep down core of that person that is homosexual. I don't know if there's any valid studies on the subject, but I believe that attraction/sexuality is a chemical reaction in the body, something I don't think you could change just by thinking about it (and I am a very firm believer in the whole mind over matter thing, being an avid martial artist). Much like changing your skin color would require cosmetics or some really serious surgery or gene therapy, I think the same thing would be required in altering someone's sexuality.
Monkeys.
Yes, Toby, I was just kidding about Eddie Murphy; that is, I brought it up to insert levity. If you haven't, you should see the sketch; it's hi-larious. "What a silly negro!"
As for attraction being a chemical thing, I can't argue that completely; science has isolated pheromones as a partial cause of sexual attraction. The thing is, the way we react to them is different for everyone. You could reasonably say that a gay person is simply someone who reacts more favorably to the pheremones of his or her own gender than to the opposite. Doing that, though, simply boils sexual attraction down to a combination of one's senses of smell and sight. This may also be relevant to the notion that women are less visually stimulated than men -- it certainly supports the idea -- but that's a bit more of a tangent than I'm prepared to embark on.
The thing is, our reactions to the things we observe through our senses can change over time, though. Beer and caviar come to mind, as both are often described as an "acquired taste." Nobody likes their first sip of beer (or most people certainly don't, at any rate), but a person can learn to like a stimulus they don't initially. Sure, it's probably a bit more difficult with pheremones, which most people aren't aware they can smell, than with alcohol, but how difficult it is isn't the issue here as much as that it can be done.
That said, I can accept, to a point, that when sexual attraction is boiled down to reaction to stimulus, but I don't really want to follow that line of reasoning much further, because I know that when you follow it to its logical conclusion, you've reduced all of human experience to a series of electrical impulses, and at that point, nothing we do has meaning.
Another well put point, Nekouken (sorry about misspelling that before).
I guess you could boil the human experience down to a bunch of electrical impulses, and if you do, then nothing has meaning. But, then we'd have to debate what the meaning of "meaning" is, and I think my head already hurts from pondering it. And we'd also have to think about how and if free will and choice come into play. I would suggest that they do, but the end result is that they are electrical impulses or whatever, but whether the e.p. causes the "free will", or "choice" happens and then the e.p. takes place is another brain damaging thought. And perhaps some things are completely reactionary and not completely contollable, while others can be affected by choice. And if that's the case, does it differ from person to person? I can't stop my fingernails from growing, but I can cut them when they get too long. I am heterosexual, but theoretically I could force myself to be in a homosexual relationship. Would I "learn to like it"? If an opportunity presented itself, would I revert to heterosexuality? And if so, what does that mean about the choice of sexuality? Would choosing to go back be just another choice, or something uncontrollable? I guess we could study what goes on in prisons and what happens to prisoners who were in homosexual relationships in jail once they are free. Hmm. I think I'm going to stop thinking now.
Monkeys.
I suppose I'm just being a spoilsport, but I think it's worth pointing out here that while you can smell scents that aren't consciously detectable, the human olfactory apparatus simply lacks the sensors to detect pheromones. We as a species are blind to that influence. (Fortunately - otherwise, can you imagine the fun Disney's engineers would have with us in waiting lines? Shades of "Dream Park"'s Neutral Scent!)
Actually Jonathan, humans do produce pheromones, and we can detect them.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993835
http://www.athenainstitute.com/discovery.html
It would be quite interesting/amusing to have the Disney Imagineer team muck with that, though.
Monkeys
Hmm. Sorry those aren't clickable links. How does one do that?
Speaking of scents, though, anyone ever read "Perfume"? I don't remember the author, but I had to read it in college for a fantasy lit class. Essentially, this strange guy with an overly sensitive nose gets into the perfume business and figures out how to concoct scents to make people do things (this was set in the past, but I don't remember when). He also sort of suffers from some sort of trauma or dimensia at the fact that he can't smell his own scent. Anywhat, at some point, he starts killing virgins in order to try to duplicate their intoxicating scent and he gets caught. Just before his execution, he puts on a scent that causes everyone in attendance to have an orgy and he escapes and later starts wearing a scent that causes people to completely ignore and not notice him. Very bizarre, but oddly entertaining.
Monkeys.
Toby: "But, then we'd have to debate what the meaning of "meaning" is, and I think my head already hurts from pondering it."
This is exactly why I don't like following this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion; without a great deal of intellectual compromise, it's very demoralizing.
Also, that "Perfume" story sounds interesting. It's not a new concept -- both Batman comics and the Kids in the Hall have tackled similar ideas -- but it's not one that gets a lot of play, and it seems it would lend itself to some fun plot twists.
Yeah, "Perfume" was pretty interesting, and it's a fairly old publication, if I remember. I don't recall the Kids in the Hall skits you are referencing, could you help me on that one?
Monkeys
The sketch (which was kind of gross) was about a guy whose sweat had the most heavenly scent in existence. He worked for a generic company, and when his boss discovered this, he set him up with a treadmill and drip cups under his armpits to bottle and sell the stuff. It made everything in life better and everybody exposed to it was happier; his boss's hair even grew back. At the end of the sketch, they had to discontinue the product because everybody was just sitting around being happy and national productivity had decreased exponentially since his sweat went on the market.