Gay Marriage

[Guest]

Re-edited. Unrealshadow, I don't think calling Lurkers "homophobes" is a good way to show that you're actually hearing what Lemming has to say, even if you self-edited your post.

-Griselda

[LemmingofGlory]

unrealshadow13
So you don't think people with mental defects should be able to marry? Crazy people need lovin' too.

That's easily countered: homosexuals can still form relationships without marrying. Use better arguments.

Also, homosexuality can be seen as the answer to the overpopulation probably.

No, it can't. Gays can and do have children. Some do so before they realize they're gay (e.g. New Jersey governor McGreevey), and lesbians can be artificially inseminated.

Gays help keep the population in check by not reproducing, and then dying by aides, or becoming victims to hate crimes. I think they fill a needed niche in society . . .

I strongly recommend you revise that.

-Lemmy

[FenrisWulf]

@unrealshadow13:

Gays help keep the population in check by not reproducing, and then dying by aides, or becoming victims to hate crimes. I think they fill a needed niche in society, and should be allowed to marry.

Wow. Did you really just say that?

I don't think that the intended niche for gays is supposed to consist solely of AIDS and hate crimes. They're people, too, remember? And we're supposed to value their lives and so on? Because they actually do deserve to live and enjoy all the same freedoms as other people, something like that?

Sorry for the lack of coherence, but I'm still trying to absorb what you just said.

[Guest]

I don't think that the intended niche for gays is supposed to consist solely of AIDS and hate crimes. They're people, too, remember? And we're supposed to value their lives and so on? Because they actually do deserve to live and enjoy all the same freedoms as other people, something like that?

Homophobes don't seem to think so, so that is the only argument I could think of that homophobes could relate to.

[gekko]

That was possibly the most shameful post I have ever read on this or any other website. I'm disgusted that anyone on this forum would even think that way.

I'm open to discussion of gay marriage and just about any other topic you can think of. I respect opinions from both sides of most any topic; indeed, I often enjoy arguing both sides of different issues. However, suggesting that gays should be allowed to marry because they fill a "needed niche" in society -- dying of disease and targetted by hate crimes -- is simply disgraceful.

Your comments reflect a clear ignorance of the 'real world.' Grow up and understand that some topics are delicate, and that some opinions are volatile, before you engage in (or begin) such discussions.

gekko

[LemmingofGlory]

unrealshadow13:
Homophobes don't seem to think so, so that is the only argument I could think of that homophobes could relate to.

You don't need to be talking to the Lurkers. You need to be talking to me, the moderator, because the only reason I didn't nuke your post when I first saw it was because I somehow intuited your incredibly stupid remark was a failed attempt to strawman Ghostiger's position. If characterizing your opponent as the least common denominator and then finding common ground with it requires the sort of tactics you've employed, you need to consider the following:

(1) You've been banned once already.
(2) I was the only moderator who voted that you not come back.

Now, go fix your post or Bad Things™ will happen.

-Lemmy

[gekko]

Deleted. Happy now, you heartless homophobes?

How dare you, you ignorant, insolant imbecile? My objection to your tasteless and shameful categorization had nothing to do with my views on homosexuality. My objection was to your ignorance to basic moral ideals and your refusal (or inability) to think before you post.

gekko

[[wcip]Angel]

(1) You've been banned once already.

All in favour of a second term?

Unrealshadow reminds me of "normal" Internet-people. In my opinion, he has no place here.

I think I'd rather have actual homophobes on The Lounge than this "Unreakshadow13"-character, and I have a gay family member.

[Guest]

Funny. You would think that 'normal' internet people would be more like 'omg tohse fags are t3h ghei pwn thoze gay ph4gz0rz lol'.

[gekko]

Funny. You would think that 'normal' internet people would be more like 'omg tohse fags are t3h ghei pwn thoze gay ph4gz0rz lol'.

Excerpt from "How to write like a wanker:"

[...]a gratuitously bad command of the English language doesn't necessarily indicate a fundamentally dumb text. (If nothing else, a kitten walking across a keyboard may randomly type a Zen koan.) To present yourself as a proper wanker, you'll have to do better than sloppy spelling and atrocious grammar; you also have to demonstrate that you genuinely have no f**king clue what you're talking about.

Some similarities are more than skin deep. Even those who have mastered a high school command of the englsh language can still have no ------- clue what they're talking about.

gekko

[Archon_Wing]

Did you write that in response to Lemming's post and accuse him of being homophobic? The threaded view and other members' quotes tells me that. If so, please stfu and learn to read because you have no idea on what he just said :(

*Post toned down.* :o

[Munkay]

Angel,Aug 15 2004, 05:02 PM] All in favour of a second term?

Truthfully, I'm in favor. I thought it must have been a joke the first time I read it.

Let me say that the reason I am angered, is not so much what was said, but the blatent disregard of revision or remorse. It was as if unreal did not see an issue with what he was said. And when an apology was glaringly in order, a cheap shot was posted instead.

Everyone makes mistakes, and sometimes we make big mistakes. But I have very little tolerance for those who fail to see their err, fail to make the correct reperations. Its a formula that is bound for continuing trouble.

Munk

[Guest]

Note to mod "well piss on you" was a quote from the note I am responding too.


1 I already stated that the "agreement" of healthcare proffessionals etc. is just an opinion. It is unwise to use that as an arguement as large organizations have a history of being just as biased as individuals.

2 I consider it to fit the definition because I consider male/male sexual attraction to a "diruption in the ability to relate to others".

Note just how subjective all this is.

3 I dont consider interacial marrige to be "special" because its based on a relationship that can produce progeny just as as mono-racial(not sure if this is a real word) marrige can.

I consider marrige important mainly because promotes the nurture of children. I consider all other positive aspects to actually be inducements(perhaps at level evolutionary biology) to good child care.

Shame on you for trying to inject race to the topic.

[Munkay]

His point about bringing race was to illustrate how thoughts that seem 'so wrong' at one point in time, can become radically accepted further down the road.

He was nodding to how in the past there was an uproar over the thought of interracial marriage, but now a days this is a (generally) accepted act.

I hope that was his point. Am I wrong?

Cheers,

Munk

[Guest]

Sorry.

[Crusader]

As some may or may not know, I live in the Netherlands, the first country to officially allow gay marriage. At first, there was some resistance but the people quickly adopted it. Now homosexuals are seen as quite normal. Nobody is surprised when they see 2 people of the same sex walk hand in hand, etc. We have the Gay and Pink parade, which are quite fun to see. At some point, you no longer see homosexuality as a bad thing. By now, 2 nephews of mine came out of the closet. I doubt they would have if the bias on homosexuality was still in place.

Mind that homosexuality RARELY means a person is a faggot/travestite, most homosexuals are 100% normal people like you or me except that they feel attracted to the same sex. I think I know over 12 homosexuals who freely admit it, most at school. Normal people like me.

Religion remains a problem in some countries, I guess. Of course, religious organizations (including religious institutions such as the church) disapproved. However, In the Netherlands a lot of people had already turned away from the church. I am not going to debate how or why. Without an oppressive church (if I may say so) trying to block the legalization, there wasn't much opposition at all.

Ultimately, I am happy we accepted homosexual marriage. These people deserve to be as happy as any other, and marrying is something more than the earlier named tax advantages and all that.

[Guest]

His point about bringing race was to illustrate how thoughts that seem 'so wrong' at one point in time, can become radically accepted further down the road.

He was nodding to how in the past there was an uproar over the thought of interracial marriage, but now a days this is a (generally) accepted act.

I hope that was his point. Am I wrong?

A local newspaper runs a conservative comic strip called 'prickly city.' I've only read it a few times, but in one of the strips, one of the characters, a coyote pup, wanted to get married to the main character, who is a young girl.

Obviously a comparison to the gay marriage issue, it does bring up an interesting point. When DO we draw the line? Most certainly at minors/animals. Hate to play the devils' advocate, but after we allow gays to marry will minors and incest couples be clamoring for the right to marry? -_-

[Guest]

faggot/travestite

Where I am, a 'faggot' is a demeaning term for a homosexual. In the Netherlands, does 'faggot' mean transvestite?

[LemmingofGlory]

1 I already stated that the "agreement" of healthcare proffessionals etc. is just an opinion. It is unwise to use that as an arguement as large organizations have a history of being just as biased as individuals.

My point is that the professionals who deal with this stuff have jargon for it. Their jargon may differ from the jargon of laymen. So, let's make sure we're all on the same page with jargon use. And if we can agree to the same criteria for "mental illness," then all the better.

2 I consider it to fit the definition because I consider male/male sexual attraction to a "diruption in the ability to relate to others".

Then I assume you also consider female/female attraction along the same lines. (Just bringing that up for completeness.) Again, I ask you to illustrate how it fits that description, and why male/female sexual attraction is not considered a "disruption in the ability to relate to others." That is, if a male attracted to males experiences a disruption in his ability to relate to other males, doesn't a male attracted to females experience that same disruption in his ability to relate to females?

What is your opinion regarding attraction intersexed people feel toward other human beings?

I consider marrige important mainly because promotes the nurture of children. I consider all other positive aspects to actually be inducements(perhaps at level evolutionary biology) to good child care.

Well, I don't see that same-sex marriage would change that. Myself, I see marriage as a legal agreement between two people. "Legal" takes all the touchy-feely stuff out of it, but as far as I can tell, that's what it is in the eyes of the government. And I knowingly limit it to two people. I think promoting monogamy is a Good Thing™, and I have no problems being accused of discrimination for "discriminating against six people who want to get married." (I don't consider discrimination against "six" to be discrimination.)

So, I consider it a legal agreement between two people for the purpose of encouraging monogamous relationships. That's good from a public health standpoint (STDs), and it's good from a child care point of view (all studies I've seen say kids do better with both parents). So, why "marriage" and not "civil unions"? Given my view (first sentence of the paragraph), I don't see a need to make a distinction.

Shame on you for trying to inject race to the topic.

Look at what I wrote. I brought it up and then mocked the fact that I said it. Why? Because it's cliche. Everyone's heard that line before, and it's not really central to the argument anyway. Just look at the next paragraph: the loaded language was what I took issue with.

-Lemmy

[Crusader]

Where I am, a 'faggot' is a demeaning term for a homosexual. In the Netherlands, does 'faggot' mean transvestite?

No, a faggot is a male homosexual acting in an extremely exaggerated feminine way. Often these men use make-up and have a typical purse. However, they are not Transvestite.