Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → What is Gay Rights?
Olde Worlde Dictionary ~ Gay = Happy
Southpark Dictionary ~ Gay = Stupid/Lame
When people ask me if i'm gay, I respond always with, "Yes, I'm perfectly happy, thankyouverymuch. And you?" I use the Olde Worlde Dictionary. I don't use that Southpark variety bull crap dictionary, that most of you think is funny.
Why should anyone be bothered by what other people call their marriage?
Why should anyone call their relationship "marriage?" Is "marriage" a prerequisite for having a life-time, monogamous relationship and family?
Think the reason they're called " African American" is because they dont want to be called black or colored or many other names that come to mind. IMO its utter crap your either American or your another from where ever. They say they hate segregation yet put themselves there in that position.
[EDIT: Double post]
What does that have to do with the gay marriage debate here?
> Justinian I wrote:
> There are practical reasons to privilege heterosexuality above homosexuality. Although we should be tolerant of alternative lifestyles, we should never condone them when practical considerations conflict with their lifestyle. Imagine if everyone was homosexual. Society would collapse, obviously. <
Pretty sure legalising gay marriage/accepting gay lifestyles isn't going to magically turn everybody on the planet into a raging homosexual and immediately lead to the collapse of all society.
That is just retarded.
At the same time, though, not establishing it as an equal to marriage does have the risk of stigmatizing homosexuality to the point where people may live heterosexual lifestyles in denial, the result of which is families born and created which don't have stable parental frameworks.
sounds like Justinian either is an enormous homophobe or he has his own doubts about his own sexuality and tries to ban them from his thoughts through this way 
.
some time ago a study showed that homosexuality in some individuals may not have been the result of their own choice but that it was caused by mutations in genes or switching on/off of certain genes. I'm sure you have your own little mutations that make you different from the guy sitting next to you. Would you like to be discriminated for your little unique aspects, caused by mutations in your genes?
Plus excluding people from marriage solely because they have a certain mutation that leads to a certain "syndrome" would exclude A LOT of people from marriage, not just homosexuals. Think people with either a family history of or suffering themselves from diabetes, asthma, sickle cell trait, who are perfectly capable of just normally functioning in society, although slighty differently. But for instance Gingers would be part of this group as well (perhaps a good idea? hmm...)
Plus if they're not hurting anyone else, why are you complaining? Gays often play an active part in society, and are less of a drag on society as a whole than some other "alternative lifestyles", for instance fat people or smokers. Have you ever heard of a fat guy who could do something (positive, not something like rolling on someone or covering multiple plane seats) better than a guy with a normal body size? I have not. Well, I know only few heterosexual people who can rival a gay's taste of clothes.
"There are practical reasons to privilege heterosexuality above homosexuality."
There are practical reasons to allow polygamy as well, if your argument is that a homosexual relation can't produce offspring. A 1 on 1 relation between men and women is definitely not the most efficient reproduction-wise. A better ratio would involve more potent men having multiple women, and the women being breeding machines who's only occupation is to pump out a baby every, let's say, 21 months. Now, I would not have any problems with such a system but obviously there are some people who do 
.
"wake me when they can tell inherent sexual orientation at an autopsy"
They have actually found a corrolation between certain brain deformations that formed due to beforementioned gene mutations and homosexuality, plus the mutations can be found by analyzing the genome of the homosexual and comparing it to that of a "normal" human (although every human has a certain amount of deviation from each other DNA-wise so I myself find this method to not be completely accurate).
To be honest I find your entire way of reasoning dispicable, Justinian. I don't understand why people like you are bothered by homosexuals. I myself don't have any problems with them, unless they try to make a move on me, but that would just be a problem between the individual and myself that can easily be dealt with. They don't bother me and they are an active part of society, so, unless you are a homosexual who is afraid of coming out and being rediculed and therefore hiding behind idiotic arguments, I do not see why you have such an attitude towards gay people.
> RisingDown wrote:
> There are practical reasons to allow polygamy as well, if your argument is that a homosexual relation can't produce offspring. A 1 on 1 relation between men and women is definitely not the most efficient reproduction-wise. A better ratio would involve more potent men having multiple women, and the women being breeding machines who's only occupation is to pump out a baby every, let's say, 21 months. Now, I would not have any problems with such a system but obviously there are some people who do .
Only if your goal is maximizing population growth. Please refer to the related thread.
well what other goal would banning gay marriages in favor of heterosexual marriages serve otherwise, zarfy?
A manageable (not too high, not too low) population growth?
Why not go all the way, if you wanna overpopulate the planet you might as well do a damn good job at it . Worst thing you can have is a half arsed attempt at overpopulating this one planet we got!
Although I could go into this further, making an attempt to debunk/debunking arguments used by certain others in that certain other discussion, I will not do this for time's sake. Some of us do a REAL study, remember? Plus as you said this is not that thread.
On topic: it was just one of the ways to up population growth without having to take away priviledges that I see almost as human rights away from people, in this case the right to get married. I myself would definitely enjoy such a program and I'm sure there are quite a few women who would participate in it, be it because they were taught up in some weird backward Mormon town or just because they like to poop out babies from their 18th (or 16th, whatever you prefer) till the start of their menopause.
However there are several other ways to promote population growth, I'm sure if you think hard you can come up with a few of your own
> [TI] ARFeh zee Frenchie wrote:
Pretty sure legalising gay marriage/accepting gay lifestyles isn't going to magically turn everybody on the planet into a raging homosexual and immediately lead to the collapse of all society.
That is just retarded.>
And that is not what I said. Considering the consequences of a lifestyle if everyone did it is perfectly legitimate.
Rising,
1. Psychoanalysis is pseudo science.
2. I said we should be tolerant of homosexuals. We just should not condone their lifestyles. Whether their sexual preference is natural or a matter of choice is irrelevant.
3. Your grasp of genetics is poor. Polygamy is such a bad idea that it's the reason why some populations are effectively inbred.
4. I am a supporter of zero-population growth, meaning 2 children per couple.
> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:
> What does that have to do with the gay marriage debate here?
Replying to wurnstrom ;-)
I have to say I find it very confusing that the Republican party, which is a party that advocates scaling back the government so it interferes as little as possible in the lives of the working person on the street, fields so many candidates who think the state should be able to dictate to everyone what marriage is and, in some states, prohibits two adults of the same gender from expressing their mutual love/lust in the privacy of their own homes.
Policies like this seem to contradict the "Small government" message of the GOP.
Your premise is incorrect therefore your error.
We would actually like the State out of marriage entirely... but since that is "never" going to happen we seek to uphold the traditional viewpoint by nature, but in this case there is more. Change the name and 100% will have no issue, why so firm on a name?
If Republicans want the State to stop legislating and controlling what marriage is then shouldn't they set an example and stop giving a stance/definition on what marriage is?
And do you mean my forum name? I'm not sure how I do that...
Not your name..
Calling it marriage offends some, a name is all it is, choose a different name and none will object
"Rising,
1. Psychoanalysis is pseudo science.
2. I said we should be tolerant of homosexuals. We just should not condone their lifestyles. Whether their sexual preference is natural or a matter of choice is irrelevant.
3. Your grasp of genetics is poor. Polygamy is such a bad idea that it's the reason why some populations are effectively inbred.
4. I am a supporter of zero-population growth, meaning 2 children per couple."
1. Not talking psychoanalysis, i clearly stated DNA mutations/gene activation and brain deformities.
2. Your grasp of the definition of the words tolerant and the verb to condone is poor. Plus i would say that the fact whether their sexual preference is natural or a matter of choice is relevant in many of these discussions, especially when people start to use moral arguments in an attempt to argue against gay marriage.
3. I am not talking genetics, I am talking efficient reproduction. I was under the impression that by "practical reasons to privelege heterosexuality above homosexuality" you meant the ability to reproduce, to which I would like to make another remark: Is an impotent man allowed to enter marriage? Is a woman aged over 40 allowed to enter marriage? Is someone who is infertile, either by choice or by birth, allowed to enter marriage?
Regarding inbreeding as a result of polygamy: Inbreeding only happens in small, isolated populations, so if polygamy would be legalized on a national scale it would not necessarily lead to inbreeding. Plus migration can negate inbreeding. Inbreeding only happens in isolated populations, be it isolated geographically or socially. This is not a field in which my grasp is poor, rather my grasp of said field is quite extensive so I would shut your mouth before you throw around insults like that. Now had you said my "grasp of the consequences of polygamy may have is poor", it would have been acceptable, however you saying all my knowledge in a certain field of science is of a low level, is clearly a step too far. Specify or refrain from using such strong language. Plus, I could easily argue that your grasp of the conditions for inbreeding is rather poor if you generalize the few communities in which inbreeding occurs to a population scale.
4. If you are a supporter of zero population growth, then why not be in favor of gay marriage to balance out the people who want to have more than 2 children?
"Is an impotent man allowed to enter marriage? Is a woman aged over 40 allowed to enter marriage? Is someone who is infertile, either by choice or by birth, allowed to enter marriage?"
I used this as an argument just the same as you did RisingDown, and the person I was discussing this with came back with something that made a bit of sense (and could be used to support the marriage rights for homosexuals if worded correctly):
- The government puts in legislation to govern everyone, and they attempt to make it as simple and informative as possible. It becomes impractical to write subclauses for every possible case that could arise for any existing legislation. How also do you govern certain issues such as infertility? Does every person need to have a fertility test? So essentially, the idea is to create one legislation that governs everyone (so when it is thought like that, it would include homosexuals)
- Marriage often includes certain tax incentives given by the government to encourage married couples to start having children. With homosexual couples this is an impossibility (with a few exceptions like adoption) however marriage still opens the possibility of collecting on tax incentives designed for a certain purpose that they cannot deliver on. Adoption is a tricky subject, and until this is studied, I don't think any speculation on whether homosexual couples are unable to deliver appropriate childcaring can really be discussed. I am inclined to lean towards them being exceptional parents due to the fact that they are given a privelage to have children, and are likely to treat them ALOT better than the teenager that got pregnant by accident. With many parents both working fulltime, I also feel that much of a childs development now is shifting to other institutes like daycare or school.
"Change the name and 100% will have no issue, why so firm on a name?"
Because people deny them the right to marry. Calling it a different name changes the point of fighting for marriage. A portion of it is to fight for acceptance, but by denying them the right to "marry" and create a new institute for them still seperates them in a way from "hetrosexual" people. If you changed ALL marriages to "civil unions" and no longer had "marriages" then homosexuals would also NOT object because they are able to do what any heterosexual person can do. It is about acceptance, not a title, otherwise people would simply do the ceremony, call each other "husband" or "wife" and simply ignore the fact that it is not recognised by the state. I understand what you suggest Einstein, you are trying to compromise to give both parties what they want, but sadly "civil union" still creates indifference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Changing the name you will have 100% acceptance by the people that deny homosexual marraige, but it is not what homosexuals want.
"4. If you are a supporter of zero population growth, then why not be in favor of gay marriage to balance out the people who want to have more than 2 children?"
Whether married or not, they wont be having children, but I understand your point.
> Einstein wrote:
> Not your name..
Calling it marriage offends some, a name is all it is, choose a different name and none will object
Right, of course. And I don't know that civil partnerships are the same as marriages. I'm pretty sure thats how it is in Britain, though I confess ignorance to the state of affairs across the pond. It isn't just about the name, its about one being held in higher regard by society than the other. Homosexuals simply want equality.
I think it would mostly be religious groups & people who would be offended by the idea of homosexual unions being called marriages. Their offence on its own is not reason enough to call homosexual unions something else.
@Dave
> Einstein wrote:
> We would actually like the State out of marriage entirely...
So, then... if neither heterosexual nor homosexual couples were referred to as "married" by the state, and were all simply considered "civil unions..." would that solve the issue of one being held in higher regard by society?
"wake me when they can tell inherent sexual orientation at an autopsy"
hmm, guess you could make inferences from body fluids in stomach contents
> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:
> @Dave
> Einstein wrote:
> We would actually like the State out of marriage entirely...
So, then... if neither heterosexual nor homosexual couples were referred to as "married" by the state, and were all simply considered "civil unions..." would that solve the issue of one being held in higher regard by society?
I'm not sure. One could argue that it is a matter of semantics in calling one 'marriage' and one 'civil union' but to some people there is a huge difference which changing the name would not erase.
I believe this difference has roots in a culture that has been influenced by Christianity which has at its heart, some might say, a very intolerant attitude towards homosexuals.
Imperial Forum → Politics → What is Gay Rights?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.