Bush Calls for Gay Marriage Ban

Remove all ads!

That too. Let the church determine who they will marry, and let the government give the same rights to anybody who doesn't fit the church's bill.

 

@Carcaroth:
I think it was the 'recent years' thing that threw me off. If their ideas haven't changed, but the social standard has, doesn't that mean that they, probably consciously, are not acting on their opinions?

@Aldeth:
De-gaying people is a horrific idea IFF (if and only if) they are born gay. My point was that it isn't a conscious choice, but a matter of Pavlovian reinforcement. If someone gave you an adrenaline rush every time you stepped on an ant, you'd probably learn to like stepping on ants pretty quickly. If you believe it to be immoral then you have a serious conflict, if not then you'll just step on a lot of ants. If you only have black ants around your house, you'll like stepping on black ants. If you then move to an area that has a lot of red ants and get the same rush from stepping on them, then you'll learn to like stepping on red ants. Do it long enough and you won't even think about black ants anymore, you're into red ants.

 

Which is exactly what we are disagreeing with. A man who is gay but thinks it is immoral is still gay. You are more than welcome to believe whatever you want about the reasons people are gay. Just understand that you have no factual leg to stand on and, to be fair, neither do your opponents in this debate. I guess homosexuality could be choice, be it a concious or unconcious one. There is, however, no way to prove the matter one way or the other.

Even if "gayness" is a choice it doesn't necessarily follow that "de-gayification" is uncruel. Trying to force a change on a person who has spent his/her entire life as a homosexual without a very good reason (the fact that your religion finds it immoral does not, in my opinion, constitute a good reason) is still, in my honest opinion, an act of cruelty. Since when was it not cruel to force a person to hate who and what he is?

 

@NOG,

OK, while the example of the ants is a bit odd (and completely unrealistic) to say the least, I can go with that, taking it as a purely theoretical example. However, I do not think an adreline rush translates well into sexual attraction. To me (and of course I can't prove this), it appears from my own heterosexual experience and from what people who are gay tell me about themselves, it very much seems that one's sexuality is hardwired. It seems like if what you are suggesting were true, that someone who had a lot of gay friends could become gay through some strange type of diffusive process, which I don't think happens. I guess I'm basically saying I don't think there is any way for a gay person to become straight or a straight person to become gay. (I included both movements, because while you haven't specifically stated so, I'm assuming that the process you outlined could theoretically be used in reverse.)

 

I am of the firm opinion that religious believes are detrimental to humanity and that it should be battled. I would love to see programs to de-religionize people and turn them into rational and critically thinking human beings instead of superstitious savages. This is what I personally think, my opinion and I stand for it. I would be hard pressed to argue that this would be "the right thing to do" but this is exactly what you are doing NOG. My belief that people should be allowed to do whatever they want within some loose boundaries supercedes my opinion that religious belief is wrong and should be rooted out while for you the ability to feel superiour to others and tell them how to live their lives supercedes everything.

 

@Drew:
Ok, good point. Forcibly trying to de-gay a homosexual who doesn't want it would be cruel, even if it can be done, but I never said we should force it on people.

@Aldeth:
The mechanics are exactly the same, only the drug is different. How do you explain people that get into bondage, or are only attracted to blond girls, or any other sexual preferance of any kind. I've never heard anyone say they were born to prefer S&M. Now you can argue that these are two totally different things and, as you said, there's no evidence either way, but there are distinct similarities between them.

@Joacquin:
You're right, you would be hard pressed to argue that that is the right thing to do, but if you did, I would debate you on logical grounds, citing the good religious groups have done in the past and present, citing the vast amounts of logical theological literature that has come out of the christian community (for example), and trying to show you that religious people are not neccessarily irrational, superstitious savages incapable of critical thinking. And if you proposed a social program, not funded or supported in any way by the government, to make society view religion as a bane on humanity, and those that follow it as unwitting victims, then I would still debate you, but say give it a try.

 

And he would cite all of the ways religions have screwed up our world.

But, back on topic...

Yes, but that is an act that occurs during sex. Homosexuality is not an act that occurs during sex, and therefore the comparison is not good at all. Homosexuality (usually) involves love, with sex as a side (sometimes), just as heterosexual relationships. Although, I am pretty sure there are alot more heterosexual one night stands than there are homosexual one night stands (I have nothing to back it up, but it doesn't seem implausible...).

The point is, your comparisons to Pavlov's dogs and to the ants are not universal. Saying Pavlov's dogs drooled whenever they heard a bell is not proof (at all) that homosexuals learn homosexuality.

 

I think the key words in the above sentence are "sexual preference". I do not have a sexual preference for women over men, as that implies that I prefer women, but would settle for a man. I have no sexual attraction of any kind for men. So preference doesn't really enter into it when the alternative is excluded.

Similarly, I do not think gay men have a preference for men over women, because again, they aren't attracted to women at all. It's not like they will settle for a woman if they can't get a man.

I am aware of guys who will only date blondes, but not to the point where they are incapable of finding a brunette attractive. In this case, I agree that their exclusive dating of blondes is a preference, because in this case, they can be sexually attracted to a brunette, but simply have a preference for blondes.

I don't think the bondage element is overly relevant for two reasons. First, bondage is not something that is exlusive to gays or straights, it occurs in both groups. Secondly, I don't think getting into bondage is the result of some Pavlovian response. I think you have to be turned on by that type of thing to begin with to get into it. On a larger issue, I think that the Pavlovian response doesn't work on a lot of different levels. I wasn't "trained" to be into women. I found women attractive from my early teen years onward. I never found guys attractive at all. It wasn't like I was first trained to only be into women, and my straight behavior was conditioned by this training.

 

I take it, then, that you are not OK with the (entirely too common) practice of sending your kids to "de-gayification" against their wills?

 

Homosexuality is as perverted and sexually deviant as incest and bestiality and thus is a mental illness. In fact, 50 years ago it was on the books as a mental illness. I don't see why that has been changed nor why we should let them marry much less actually encourage their behaviour on TV and in the news?

err... Gays have far more numerous partners than normal couples. Check THIS google search. Further it is only logical because men are more aggressive sexually, so that will reflect when you have to males attracted to each other.

Even if those numbers are biased that speaks leeps and bounds of the ... I can't even say, I'd probably get banned.

 

Speaks leaps and bounds of...what? That homosexuals have had more sexual partners? So what? If it's consensual, then no harm is being done.
And I've also noticed that that site failed to compare their statistics with that of heterosexual relationships. The statistics for heterosexuals may actually be higher. But, after all, it is a "Christian Perspective".

And how is the media "encouraging" homosexuality? People don't watch TV and think "Hmm, this whole homosexuality thing sounds like a right lark!" and immediately sprint to the nearest gay bar. I may be a tad misanthropic, but even I don't think people are so impressionable that their sexual preferences can be changed by the media.

Yes, homosexuality was classified as a mental illness in medical journals in the 50s. If you'll recall, it was also thought that black people should sit at the back of cinemas and buses, and immediately give up their seats for white folk. Would you say that was right as well?

And how can you possibly compare homosexuality to incest or bestiality? Incest is poisoning your own genepool, bestiality is fundamentally raping an animal. Homosexuality is preferring a member of the same gender.

I don't know why I even bothered writing this, people like you tend not to be open to letting go of your fondly-nurtured bigotries in the face of logic or compassion.

 

50 years ago we also thought we could cure schizophrenia using electro-shock therapy. Those were the dark ages as far as psychology goes.

[ June 28, 2006, 22:59: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

That's circular reasoning. You're saying it's perverted because you believe it's a mental illness.

Maybe because psychologists all over the world realised that it was not, in fact, a mental illness?

Huh? And why would it then be perfectly fine for males to be heterosexual? If men indeed are more agressive (I don't see where you got that from, but whatever), why would it be a bad thing only if the partner is another male? And what the hell does this have to do with promiscuity in the first place?

No it doesn't. If the numbers are biased then they're rubbish and shouldn't be considered. Simple as that.

 

Gay marriage is not a civil right. There are no gay rights period. Gays are not a race or ethnic group. I know no one from Fudgepakkistan. I do not care if you think Homosexuality is as perverted and deviant as incest,paedophilia and bestiality and is a mental illness. It does not matter what the divorce rate is among hetrosexuals. The point is, Where do yo draw the line. Do we allow people to marry animals, can 3 or 4 individuals be married to each other at the same time, can I marry my 12 year old sister or my best friend's 9 year old daughter or both. Who is to say these types of relationships are less valid than Homosexual relationships. There are leagal routes for Homosexuals to recieve the same lawfull benefits as married hetrosexuals without intruding on the sanctity of marriage. Gays use this issue in an attempt to mainstream Homosexuality and Bush uses it to Rile up reaction just like this thread.

I know no one from Fudgepakkistan(Sorry about that was wrong of me )

 

Only in a very few countries, which does not extend to the USA.

Just to drive a bus through these two suggestions. Neither of them would have legal consent of your prospective brides and therefore no, you would not be able to marry them.

And please, could someone explain to me why some-ones ethnicity and/or religion should be fundamentally different to someones sexual leanings. It should be about HUMAN RIGHTS and, much though some might think otherwise, Gay people are also humans with human emotions not too disimilar to yours and mine.
Until 1948 in the US, ethnicity did matter and miscegenation (interacial marriage) was illegal in 30? states. 70 years ago, I have little doubt that those who now so oppose homosexuals having the same legal rights would have been opposing Blacks having those rights, particularly as the anti-miscegenation laws was pretty well supported by religious groups - those who get particulalry upset about Gay rights today. I have seen no evidence that those particularly vocal religious types would have gone against their churches views 70 years ago.

Oooh, lovely what you can find on the net.

In 1911, Congressman Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia introduced a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriages. In his appeal to congress, Roddenberry stated that:

"Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery to black beasts will bring this nation to a fatal conflict" (Gilmore, 1975, p.108).

Roddenberry was a Democrat by the way.

[ July 04, 2006, 16:06: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

First: there are very few thing a Homosexuals can not attaian through our legal system and the others can be settled with legisation. I am unconcerned with the plight of gays in other contries. On the list of people who need help, gays needing to marry are low on my list.

Really? Supreme Court Justice/progressive thinker Ruth Bader Ginsburg and other progressive thinkers has suggested that the legal age of consent be dropped to 12 years. If 12 why not 9. Again, where do you draw the line. And if you are telling me that some hippy nutjob judge can not find a for an animal to give consent, you don't know America. After all marriage lawss are left up to the states.

I bear gays no hatred or ill-will, I have sevaral gay friends whom I dearly love. But as far as sexuality goes, how does that equal human rights. And by the way some gay groups have compared gay rights to civil rights. I beleive that gay people can love each other just as strongly straight people but homosexuality is not a natural state. I grew up around people who were obviosly gay from early childhood and I feel for them.I do not know how it happens but all of nature screams this is an anomaly. But like it or not a lot off people do choose this sexual lifestyle and this whole gay rights issue is that core groups way of forcing sociity to accept thier life choice. No honest person can dispute these things. Again, it is all about where you draw the line.

 

Well, isn't that the whole issue? They are trying to get the right to marry either through the judicial system (that would be what you called legal) or through having a law passed (that would be what you called "legisation" although I assume you meant legislation).

I draw the line at when a person is capable of having productive sex. I think 12 is fine in most cases, because the vast majority of 12 year olds have entered puberty. Now, I'm not saying that we should let legal adults have sex with 12 year olds, but I don't see why it should be illegal for two kids, one 12 and one 14 to have sex. Note that just because the legal age of consent is 14 in most places, there are still laws on the books that protect 14 year olds from legal adults. In most states, you cannot truly consent with anyone you wish until you are 16. But this is getting way

I'll give it a shot - I think I can be honest and still dispute that claim - although I think you already did a pretty good job of that yourself. If the people you knew from early childhood were gay from such a young age, before they were sexually attracted to either sex, then it's rather clear they didn't chose to be gay. How can you chose what sex you're attracted to long before you hit puberty? So if they didn't chose to be gay, then there's no way they can try to force society to accept the "lifestyle choice" if they had no choice in the matter.

 

. I really gotta stop posting when I start having a spell , like now, but, what the heck, I wasn't doing anything else anyway. What I mean by legislation is getting state and federal governments to give medical, retirment and death benifits to gay couples. Not giving them marital status ( I am kinda ok with the civil union idea ). By " attain through our legal system " I mean having gay couples draw up legal documents giving each other executor powers in medical, personal, and legal matters provided one is unable to handle these affairs.

My point exactly! If we relent and say it is ok for people of the same sex to marry because not to violats thier human rights then how can you tell 40 year olds they can't marry or have sex with a 12 year old when the 12 year old has the right to consent without violating thier human rights. Or tell polygamists that thier marriages are not legally recognized without violating thier human rights. Again, where do you draw the line?

If you are saying that you have never seen a male say, around the ages of 6-9 years who was obviosly effeminate and functioned more appropriately with females than other males I will take your word for it, but I have seen it and I do believe homosexuality can ( rarely ) occur without the homosexual making a conscious choice to be a homosexual. That said, I generally agree with the poster who posted

I also find it morally repugnant and sinful. Now, I do not hate homosexuals, I will not cast the first stone at them. But that does not mean that I have to accept thier "lifestyle choice". And for the vast majority of homosexuals I do belive it is a choice and that they are trying to force society to accept it. If you are gay go about your business and stop trying to rub everyones nose in it. I do feel, however, it was wrong of Bush to use this as a political gimmick at this tme just to rile his base. If he would do his damn job he would not have to resort to cheeepshoting homosexuals to get support.

 

BW: Regarding your first paragraph, now I get your meaning. I totally didn't understand what you meant in the post before that. I thought you were specifically talking about their right to marry, which is why my response basically said - "Well of course they'll do it through either legislation or judicial ruling - that's the only two ways available!"

Well, the obvious answer to that is society has an obligation to protect its children. A 12 year old is not yet an adult. There's lots of stuff that we don't let people do to 12 year olds that can be done to people 18+. The main difference is with gay marriage, it would be two consenting adults, not one adult and one child, regardless of the sex.

I have seen that. I'm saying that if they are only 6-9 years old, then they aren't sexual people yet. They were born that way. For them it wasn't a choice. So you can't say it's their "lifestyle choice" if they didn't chose to be that way.

I would agree with that statement if you replace rarely with almost always. I currently have four friends who are gay - two men and two women. (Actually I was only friends with 1 man and 1 woman who was gay, but both of them have since got partners, so now there's two of each.) All of them say they feel they were born gay. I have met other gay people during my life, and they all feel they were born that way. So I think that's our basic disagreement. You feel that most of the time, it's a choice, and those that are born gay are the exception to rule. I think it's the exact opposite.

 

Associating homosexuality with effete limp-wristedness is as trite as stating thoroughly masculin gays make a choice about their sexual orientation is invalid. You will have effeminate men drawn to women just as you will find brutes attracted to their own sex. And everything in between. That is the nature of sexuality - diversity, defying the stereotypal markers society came up with.

Gays deny there is a choice involved with their sexuality. The people with the option thing going are bisexuals. Speculations of those who condemn homosexuality notwithstanding, only gays can know what it means to be... well, gay. Why not assume they are being sincere, instead of ascribing sinister motives? There is no way of knowing, but it's a chance to prove what kind of idea you have of other human beings. Riddled with negativity... or a disposition to assume something good.
All I know is that in matters of sex, and particularly love, there are no choices to be made. Not if there is to be true emotional fulfillment and, um, bodily pleasure. There are homosexuals who killed themselves because of the pressure of social expectations and resentment. Were there choices involved I think they would not have given up on their lifes.

As racial and/or religious minorities, or women for example, should give in to oppression and shut up already.
Where would Western civilization be without the rebellion of minorities and other oppressed groups. Hopelessly swamped in sexism, racism and repressive habits, like Arabian nations for example?