Page 100 of 120 FirstFirst ... 50909899100101102110 ... LastLast
Results 991 to 1,000 of 1200

Thread: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

  1. #991
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by LuckyLarry View Post
    with respect to our species, phenotypic sex characteristics can only present heterosexually in terms of either a male or female. It makes sense that the biological intention of orientation would correlate as heterosexual. Leaving 2 possible scenarios: 1) homosexual (and other orientations) are a genetic defect or, 2) they are socially/environmentally acquired. So I see (pun intended) no logical link to your analogy of phenotypic eye color expression. Other than your need to marginalize the etiology of sexual orientation.

    You are jumping to conclusions and have gone to great lengths to sound as if authoritative using academic language. Homosexuality is not a disease nor a defect.



    I never made such a claim. Don't build straw men.
    When you are trying label homosexuals as diseased and or defective it is obvious you see heterosexuals a superior.

  2. #992
    Be different, be honest
    EdwinWillers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Divided States of Kardashia
    Last Seen
    12-25-15 @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,361

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Nope. Anti-SSM is bigotry, plain and simple.
    ...says those who would promote homosexual marriage.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    And yes, they are a class.
    A class of self-indulgent individuals perhaps.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    A gender orientation class.
    A class of self-indulgent individuals whose self-indulgence is characterized by their choice in sex partners.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    A class that is being discriminated against.
    A class marked as distinctive for their peculiar behaviors, yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    ...and it has been repeatedly shown that the majority of homosexuals did not "choose" to be so... That argument is as tired as, well... anything.
    That's demonstrably absurd; it's a lie containing no more truth than speeders claiming they speed because they have no choice. One might legitimately argue emotional or psychological trauma as a reason, but in the end it boils down to choice, a choice to give in to self-indulgent urges; and rather than acknowledge the truth, they've fabricated a web of lies to rationalize their shame - rather than be ashamed they've become proud of their deviant self-indulgences - so proud that now they want their behaviors given special treatment by society; they want - nay they demand society "accept" their deviant behavior as "normal" and they demand society treat them as "normal" who engage in such deviant behaviors.

    And admittedly, society at large - including people like yourself - has bought their lies, accepted behavior as "normal" which is deviant, accepted self-indulgence as a good thing - regardless how depraved the indulgences are allowed to go.

    Now, I call that depraved -- both the grossly self-indulgent behaviors as well as the societal acceptance of the grossly self-indulgent behaviors. You choose to call that bigotry. Only that's not your choice. Instead you made the choice to call that which is bad, good; that which is deviant, normal; that which is self-indulgent, "loving." You've abdicated your ability to choose as a consequence; you must call it bigotry. You have no choice. By yielding to their lies, by accepting them and denying the truth, you've become as self-indulgent as they - and how bitter the irony must be once you admit you too had "no choice."
    Who chimes "No Absolutes!" chimes absolutely.

    zoom zoom

  3. #993
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by LuckyLarry View Post
    Based on what facts do you presume that race distinctions and designations of sexual behavior are the same?

    Race is a verifiably innate characteristic and is constant and unchangeable.. Homosexuality is a behavior that is either being acted out or is not. There is no verifiable proof that it is an innate expression.

    Race is an expression of a person's genetic ancestry while homosexuality is an expression of a person's desires.

    I know it makes for convenient protection to latch onto the efforts of the civil liberties movement, but I don't see what homosexual behavior has to do with racism.

    #1 - Whether homosexuality is an innate genetic characteristic or not is irrelevant to the issue. ALL citizens a due equal protection of the laws and no group is to be denied such treatment unless there is a compelling government reason for such unequal treatment. When discriminatory laws are formulated in a capricious and invidious manner such laws can be challenged and the government then has the burden to demonstrate a valid compelling interest has to why such discrimination should continue. (And neither "tradition" or "My religion doesn't agree with it" are valid secular reasons.) When such a basis is challenged the comparison then is make on like situated groups to explain why one group is excluded (illegal) and the other group is included (legal).

    So here is your chance to answer a question I've been asking for well over a decade. To date no one has been able to supply a cogent answer as to why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-family, infertile, consenting, adults in a different gender relationship are allowed to Civilly Marry (in all states), yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-family, infertile, consenting, adults in a same gender relationship are allowed to Civilly Marry (in most states)?


    **************************************************


    #2 - Please cite any Civil Law banning Civil Marriage based on sexual behavior. Last time I checked each and every one of them banned Same-sex Civil Marriage based on the gender composition of the parties involved and gender is based on genetics and therefore is an "innate" characteristic.

    And no, it is not a quality of the "individual" that is the measurement. In other words because a lesbian is allowed to marry a man, then she is treated consistently under the law. If the basis was the "individual only", then the Loving case would have been decided in Virginia's favor since both Mr. Loving and Ms. Jeter (to later become Mr. & Mrs. Loving) could both Civilly Marry, just not each other. The measurement was how they were treated as a couple.



    >>>>

  4. #994
    Be different, be honest
    EdwinWillers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Divided States of Kardashia
    Last Seen
    12-25-15 @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,361

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    #1 - Whether homosexuality is an innate genetic characteristic or not is irrelevant to the issue. ALL citizens a due equal protection of the laws and no group is to be denied such treatment unless there is a compelling government reason for such unequal treatment.
    I don't know how you can claim genetics are irrelevant to the issue when the fact is that it is the very basis of the homosexual argument and claim for "equal rights."

    Yes, all citizens are due equal protection under the law. However, the claim by homosexuals is that homosexuals haven't the same "rights" allotted to others - vis-a-vis the right to marry and by extension the right to all the benefits enjoyed by married men and women.

    They claim they deserve such rights, that their behavior, which has earned them the legitimate title of homosexuals, should not be the source of their identity since their behavior is merely the product of what they are, not its genesis. The contend they engage in homosexual behavior because they are homosexuals; which is a 180 degree swing from the truth, which is that they are homosexuals because of their behavior. So genetics are fundamental to the homosexual argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    When discriminatory laws are formulated in a capricious and invidious manner such laws can be challenged and the government then has the burden to demonstrate a valid compelling interest has to why such discrimination should continue. (And neither "tradition" or "My religion doesn't agree with it" are valid secular reasons.) When such a basis is challenged the comparison then is make on like situated groups to explain why one group is excluded (illegal) and the other group is included (legal). < Snip >
    "Discriminatory laws?" "Capricious and invidious manner??" Good grief.

    When the basis for the claim of special rights is invalid - as is most definitely the case with homosexuals, the passing of laws that do not recognize such claims are not discriminatory, let alone capricious or invidious.
    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    So here is your chance to answer a question I've been asking for well over a decade. To date no one has been able to supply a cogent answer as to why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-family, infertile, consenting, adults in a different gender relationship are allowed to Civilly Marry (in all states), yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-family, infertile, consenting, adults in a same gender relationship are allowed to Civilly Marry (in most states)?
    For the simple reason that most states do not recognize deviant behavior (homosexuality) as a valid excuse to marry. Is that cogent enough for you?
    Who chimes "No Absolutes!" chimes absolutely.

    zoom zoom

  5. #995
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    I don't know how you can claim genetics are irrelevant to the issue when the fact is that it is the very basis of the homosexual argument and claim for "equal rights."
    I'm saying genetics is irrelevant to the legal standard applied under the law. Whether homosexuality is genetic or not is an interesting debate and, realistically, there are arguments to be made either way from an academic standpoint. What I'm saying they are irrelevant has a function of law and it doesn't matter if homosexuality is a "choice" or "genetic".

    That government entities to single out, as a function of law, homosexuals for unequal treatment there needs to be a valid compelling reason.


    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    Yes, all citizens are due equal protection under the law. However, the claim by homosexuals is that homosexuals haven't the same "rights" allotted to others - vis-a-vis the right to marry and by extension the right to all the benefits enjoyed by married men and women.
    Barring valid reasons, they do have the same rights, however those rights are being denied on many places.


    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    They claim they deserve such rights, that their behavior, which has earned them the legitimate title of homosexuals, should not be the source of their identity since their behavior is merely the product of what they are, not its genesis. The contend they engage in homosexual behavior because they are homosexuals; which is a 180 degree swing from the truth, which is that they are homosexuals because of their behavior. So genetics are fundamental to the homosexual argument.
    Feel free to provide an example of any laws limiting homosexuals from marrying based on "behavior", but be prepared for a long search you won't find any. The laws are written in terms of gender. The laws say, in most states, that a man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry another woman. That is a gender based classification not a "behavior" based classification. A behavior would be, no two individual can Civilly Marry if they participate in oral/genital sex. However if they (i.e. the legislature) tried to define who and who is not allowed to Civilly Marry based on the requirement of penis/vaginal intercourse as the exclusive means of allowable intimate relationships - there would be a lot of heterosexuals that wouldn't be allowed to Civilly Marry either.


    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    "Discriminatory laws?" "Capricious and invidious manner??" Good grief.
    CAPRICIOUS: not logical or reasonable

    INVIDIOUS: of a kind to cause harm or resentment


    Yep.


    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    When the basis for the claim of special rights is invalid - as is most definitely the case with homosexuals, the passing of laws that do not recognize such claims are not discriminatory, let alone capricious or invidious.
    #1 - No "special rights" are being requested. We involved with different-sex Civil Marriages are the ones that currently receive "special rights" because of our Civil Marriage. To allow same-sex couples the same legal option as we have is not granting them "special rights" it allowing them to have "equal rights". No one it taking anything away from different-sex Civil Marriages. No same-sex Civil Marriages will have anything not already available to different-sex Civil Marriages. And at the end of the day two heterosexual dudes or two heterosexual women could Civilly Marry and have the "same rights". So no, they are not getting "special rights".

    #2 - The passage those laws was discriminatory in nature as they were enacted specifically to deny equal access to Civil Marriage to homosexuals by defining Civil Marriage in terms of couple gender compositions that would exclude homosexuals. "DISCRIMINATION: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually ". The laws do not evaluate the individual, the provide broad exclusion based on a category. The very definition of discrimination.


    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    For the simple reason that most states do not recognize deviant behavior (homosexuality) as a valid excuse to marry. Is that cogent enough for you?
    No, it's a dodge. You present not a legal argument, you present a (to paraphrase) "because homosexuals are iky argument". The simple reason that most states did not recognize deviant behavior (interracial marriage) as a valid excuse to marry. The fact that it was considered "deviant" as in outside the acceptable social norm, was not considered a valid reason to uphold such discriminatory laws.


    >>>>

  6. #996
    Be different, be honest
    EdwinWillers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Divided States of Kardashia
    Last Seen
    12-25-15 @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,361

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    I'm saying genetics is irrelevant to the legal standard applied under the law. Whether homosexuality is genetic or not is an interesting debate and, realistically, there are arguments to be made either way from an academic standpoint. What I'm saying they are irrelevant has a function of law and it doesn't matter if homosexuality is a "choice" or "genetic".
    It matters to the homosexual, for that is - again - the basis on which they are contesting various laws they deem as "unfair."

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    That government entities to single out, as a function of law, homosexuals for unequal treatment there needs to be a valid compelling reason.
    Please provide an example where the government has singled out, targeted homosexuals for unequal treatment, let alone proceeded to treat them so. I suspect the only "examples" you'll generate will be those that prohibit homosexuals from marrying and/or enjoying the same benefits society confers on normal married couples. In that case, the government isn't "singling out" homosexuals, nor is it "targeting" homosexuals so as to treat them unequally. At the very worst, they are nothing more than laws clarifying the intent and purpose of laws already on the books - laws which would never be necessary were it not for those individuals presuming to be discriminated against by virtue of their sexual behaviors.

    The homosexual lobby is fighting hard to legitimize their behavior in society's eyes, to remove the stigma of its deviancy and perversity, to enable them to engage in their behavior without any stigma, without any shame. This is but the latest battleground in that fight. Nothing more. It is a "rights" issue only because they want it to be. Period.

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    #1 - No "special rights" are being requested. We involved with different-sex Civil Marriages are the ones that currently receive "special rights" because of our Civil Marriage. To allow same-sex couples the same legal option as we have is not granting them "special rights" it allowing them to have "equal rights". No one it taking anything away from different-sex Civil Marriages. No same-sex Civil Marriages will have anything not already available to different-sex Civil Marriages. And at the end of the day two heterosexual dudes or two heterosexual women could Civilly Marry and have the "same rights". So no, they are not getting "special rights".
    Ahem - marriage benefits received by man and woman, husband and wife are by definition "special rights." They are special by virtue of them being different than rights and privileges we give to many others in society - e.g. singles. So to say homosexuals who want these same rights aren't seeking "special rights" but "equal rights" is absolutely absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    #2 - The passage those laws was discriminatory in nature as they were enacted specifically to deny equal access to Civil Marriage to homosexuals by defining Civil Marriage in terms of couple gender compositions that would exclude homosexuals. "DISCRIMINATION: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually ". The laws do not evaluate the individual, the provide broad exclusion based on a category. The very definition of discrimination.
    A distinction without meaning. Marriage benefit laws are, by definition discriminatory - and always have been! By your own definition, the evaluate categorically rather than individually - SINGLES being the perfect example for those laws have always discriminated between singles and marrieds.

    Now homosexuals - whose ulterior purposes have more to do with legitimizing their behavior than securing special rights - are crying "Foul!" because they're running head long into the same "discrimination" that singles have faced since the inception of these laws. No - your "legal" argument is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    No, it's a dodge. You present not a legal argument, you present a (to paraphrase) "because homosexuals are iky argument". The simple reason that most states did not recognize deviant behavior (interracial marriage) as a valid excuse to marry. The fact that it was considered "deviant" as in outside the acceptable social norm, was not considered a valid reason to uphold such discriminatory laws.
    To you it may be a dodge, but the simple fact of the matter is that putting forth two lengthy lists of identical adjectives describing two "couples" where the lists differ by but one adjective does not a valid argument make. Moreover --- when that one adjective is the sole differentiator of the two "couples" and deals strictly with homosexual behavior, you're not only not advancing your argument but you're hurting it. And you're CERTAINLY not doing it any favors from a legal perspective either.

    Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior. It has NOTHING to do with "societal norms" as if society could capriciously decree what is normal and what isn't. And to compare deviant sexual behavior with interracial marriage is to take us back to my argument at the very beginning of this thread. It's absurd on its face. So you have your answer - and I daresay you've received it many times in the past ten years you've been asking it - but I daresay you'll never acknowledge the cogency of any argument that deviates from your own - which isn't a little ironic if you think about it.
    Who chimes "No Absolutes!" chimes absolutely.

    zoom zoom

  7. #997
    Professor
    SBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    01-18-16 @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,523

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    I'm shocked that gay marriage gets this kind of attention on a thread. 100 pages of responses and counterpoints? Why do people care this much?

  8. #998
    Be different, be honest
    EdwinWillers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Divided States of Kardashia
    Last Seen
    12-25-15 @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,361

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by SBu View Post
    I'm shocked that gay marriage gets this kind of attention on a thread. 100 pages of responses and counterpoints? Why do people care this much?
    Probably because homosexuals and their friends are pushing so hard to remove the stigma and shame of the perverse and deviant behavior - and people are pushing back as hard or harder.
    Who chimes "No Absolutes!" chimes absolutely.

    zoom zoom

  9. #999
    Professor
    SBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    01-18-16 @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,523

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    Probably because homosexuals and their friends are pushing so hard to remove the stigma and shame of the perverse and deviant behavior - and people are pushing back as hard or harder.
    Still don't understand why people get so spooled up about this subject which has a minimal impact on the vast majority of people against it. So many other issues to address, this is really the least of our concerns. There are a lot of other things you would label as perverse and deviant that are quite legal, and yet receive a fraction of the attention that this does. If it doesn't effect me, then I really don't care what they do.

  10. #1000
    Be different, be honest
    EdwinWillers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Divided States of Kardashia
    Last Seen
    12-25-15 @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,361

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by SBu View Post
    Still don't understand why people get so spooled up about this subject which has a minimal impact on the vast majority of people against it. So many other issues to address, this is really the least of our concerns. There are a lot of other things you would label as perverse and deviant that are quite legal, and yet receive a fraction of the attention that this does. If it doesn't effect me, then I really don't care what they do.
    Well it has more impact than you might think.
    Who chimes "No Absolutes!" chimes absolutely.

    zoom zoom

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •