Gay Marriage

[Archon_Wing]

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.

That's a great point. I hope people realize it. :)

[Archon_Wing]

I personally felt :huh: when that word "faggot" was indiscrimmately thrown around. But of course, I realized that couldn't have been malicous. I guess being gay is not as stigmatized there as it here. One can see this, when you see people using "gay" and faggot" as insults towards people who don't care for the same sex. People don't want to be labled as such- to them it's really bad. Think... your average l33t dood in any online game. *Shudders* I think in America, most people who use these words don't have much clue on what it really means- considering it's directed quite randomly, not necassrily towards gay people. But perhaps it's a good thing people in the Netherlands don't care as much. :)

This brings me back to a huge misunderstanding in the Lounge over the use of the word "nigga." That was because some folks didn't know that particular term usually doesn't carry negative connotations and is quite popular in Americian culture. ^_^

[Guest]

Intersexed people DO have a physically pathology. They have no bearing on this issue.

My issue with same sex marrige was that in MIGHT encourage activity that I consider to be a mental illness. Someone who physically could function normally in the population(ie. pass on genes), but chooses not to.

An intersex person is someone with a physical defect. That is a seperate issue and the best option is to let them choose the gender they feel best suits them. As your link indicates it is very rare that a person is in the truely ambious zone. Their situation it like dealing with any other siabled person, and humane conventions of our society dictate we should treat them as well as possible.

[LemmingofGlory]

Intersexed people DO have a physically pathology. They have no bearing on this issue.

An intersex person is someone with a physical defect. That is a seperate issue and the best option is to let them choose the gender they feel best suits them.

So, suppose an intersexed person feels their gender should be male and adopts a male gender identity. If this person pursues female relationships, I assume you'd see that as heterosexual and have no problem with it. Would you allow him to marry a female?

What if the intersexed male pursues male relationships? Would this intersexed male then have a "mental illness"? Would a male who responds to the intersexed male have a "mental illness"?

What if the intersexed male pursues another intersexed male? Do either of them have "mental illness"?

What if the intersexed male pursues an intersexed female?

My issue with same sex marrige was that in MIGHT encourage activity that I consider to be a mental illness. Someone who physically could function normally in the population(ie. pass on genes), but chooses not to.

What day of your life, Ghostiger, did you wake up and think "I want to pass on my genes and perform my duty to populate the earth, so I will be heterosexual." ? You've got it bass-ackwards. There are plenty of gay couples that would love to have children with their mates, but they can't. It's not that they elect not to have children; it's that neither partner can fertilize the other.

There are plenty of male/female marriages that elect to remain child-free. Is that a mental illness? If not, then why is it a mental illness because a male same-sex relationship can't? (Female same-sex couples can reproduce via fertilization procedures, so they technically fit your "able to pass on genes" requirement despite their same-sex partner.)

-Lemmy

[Guest]

Frankly I dont care what and "intersexed person" does.

They are broken essentially. Its not their fault but its true. How we treat them doesnt matter as long as its humane and respctful. They are dead ends from a biological perspective.

Marrige is a contract that society recogniizes and grants specific rights on the account of. I dont think it should ever be used in a way that might encourage a minor neurosis.

If you belive that homosexuallity is a neurosis then that makes same sex marrige a tacit approval of the neurosis. That is the logical outcome.




It is completely valid for you to disagree with my asessement that it is a neurosis.
It would also be valid for you to say "its fine to encourage neurosis".
But, the comparision to "intersexed people" is not valid and shows poor logic on your part.

I

[Sir_Die_alot]

What day of your life, Ghostiger, did you wake up and think "I want to pass on my genes and perform my duty to populate the earth, so I will be heterosexual." ? You've got it bass-ackwards. There are plenty of gay couples that would love to have children with their mates, but they can't. It's not that they elect not to have children; it's that neither partner can fertilize the other.

That's the point Lemming, they bioloically can't. Whatever the cause of the defect is, there is a defect causing them to use their bodies in a fashon they were not built for. I think anybody who would argue there is not a defect (by defect I'm including the genetic "population control" theory) is either someone who is gay and trying to change the definition of "normal" so they don't feel outside of society (as is the case for many), or someone who accepted that definition for whatever reason.

(Insert other discussion of what "normal" is here, since I didn't want to spend another 10 minutes on something that would take this discussion in yet another tangent. My short version: "Normal" is a mean of human behavior. Final conclusion: Being a homosexual is not a "normal" trait, but you can still be a homosexual and "normal".)

As for my opinion on homosexual morality; just as it doesn't make someone bad if they use their foot to open a door (though doors are made for use by your hands), nor do I think homosexuals are bad for using... I will stop right there to keep my post rated PG. :lol:

[Minionman]

My issue with same sex marrige was that in MIGHT encourage activity that I consider to be a mental illness.

Even if gay people go through male/female marriages or none at all, don't get married, etc., aka "normal life", they still have the attraction to people with the same gender. Allowing gay marriages helps them bring this out in the open and some stuff that goes with that, nothing more. Gay people will stick to gay people, and straight people stick to straight people. I don't think it will cause changes besides letting people get it more in the open if they have these issues.

Someone who physically could function normally in the population(ie. pass on genes), but chooses not to.

As has been said, there are more types of people who can have kids but don't.

[Guest]

"As has been said, there are more types of people who can have kids but don't."

That is irrelevent to my point.

Im not for forcing people to have kids. Im against gay marrige because I feel it promotes a neurosis.


Also your contention that "gay people will stick with gay people", while probably true for the most part is not what I am getting at. I suspect that most peoples sexuallity is on a cline, and can be influenced(I suspect that about most human traits).

While I have no expection that adults are going to change sexuallity based on a marrige law, I do suspect in the long run it, like everything else will have an influence on developing children.

[LemmingofGlory]

Frankly I dont care what and "intersexed person" does. They are broken essentially. Its not their fault but its true. How we treat them doesnt matter as long as its humane and respctful. They are dead ends from a biological perspective.

The comparision to "intersexed people" is not valid and shows poor logic on your part.

No, it just means you can't grasp my purpose.

As far as I can tell, everything seems to come down to fertility for you. Well, your claim that intersexed people are not germane to the conversation only works when the intersexed person interacts only with other infertile people. When a fertile person interacts with an infertile person, the fertile person becomes "Someone who physically could function normally in the population(ie. pass on genes), but chooses not to." i.e. They are exhibiting activity that you might consider a mental illness (non-reproduction) because they're choosing a known infertile person for a mate.

Marrige is a contract that society recogniizes and grants specific rights on the account of. I dont think it should ever be used in a way that might encourage a minor neurosis.

People aren't going to become homosexual because they can marry a person of the same gender. Homosexuals will still cohabitate with their partners regardless of whether they can marry.

If you belive that homosexuallity is a neurosis then that makes same sex marrige a tacit approval of the neurosis. That is the logical outcome.

"Tacit approval of the neurosis" is not an outcome, it's an inference. If society becomes comfortable with it, that is an example of an outcome.

Do you believe it's possible to end homosexuality? If not, then why do you have a problem with society becoming comfortable with it? Don't get me wrong; there are plenty of unpreventable things we don't want to become comfortable with. But what are the negative externalities of homosexuality that are just so horrible we can't let it go? Do we not know yet?

It is completely valid for you to disagree with my asessement that it is a neurosis.

Wikipedia: A neurosis, in psychoanalytic theory, is an ineffectual coping strategy that Sigmund Freud suggested was caused by emotions from past experience overwhelming or interfering with present experience.

So, according to you, homosexuality is a mental illness that affects an individual in the form of an ineffectual coping strategy?

-Lemmy

[FenrisWulf]

@unrealshadow13:

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?  -_-

This question always comes up, and it always has a very simple answer that I'm surprised people don't grasp on their own. Marriage is a contract. Contracts require consent. Once we deem animals and minors capable of agreeing to such a contract with a full understanding of the terms and consequences, then, yes, they probably should have the right to marry. Hopefully evolution will kick in soon enough; there's a rather hot dolphin in the aquarium down the road that I've had my eye on. :wub:

As a side note: why would we not allow incest between consenting adults? The main issue to consider is the increased risk of detrimental mutations due to the close relation of their genes, which is certainly a problem; then again, in my opinion, reproduction isn't the sole purpose of marriage (a point on which I'm obviously in disagreement with some of the other posters here). Why else wouldn't incest be permitted, as long as it's not being executed in a manner that takes advantage of one of the parties, as often is the case?

[LemmingofGlory]

That's the point Lemming, they bioloically can't. Whatever the cause of the defect is, there is a defect causing them to use their bodies in a fashon they were not built for.

I'm fully aware that that's the point. However, my point was that Ghostiger seemed to be approaching the situation backwards. It's not my observation that people say, "I want to have kids, therefore I will be heterosexual." They're just heterosexual, and because of that they can have kids (providing neither they nor their partner are sterile). If the situation was approached in the manner Ghostiger suggests, anyone who wants children would opt to be heterosexual.

I think anybody who would argue there is not a defect (by defect I'm including the genetic "population control" theory) is either someone who is gay and trying to change the definition of "normal" so they don't feel outside of society (as is the case for many), or someone who accepted that definition for whatever reason.

I'm not touching that. I've disagreed (1) that it is a mental illness (2) that it is indicative of mental illness.

-Lemmy

[Deadlyman]

Hi everybody, its been awhile since I have posted.
I am in the same state as Archon. I dont know if I am in the state of mind :D
Anyways, here is my two pennies on this.
First of all, in my lovely state of California, we voted yes for a Proposition that clearly stated that a marriage is between a man and a women. Now everybody has made a uproar that the decision should be left to the states. Well it was with this. The supreme court was upholding what we voted on. Why is everyone (Not the lurkers) making such a huge deal? The mayor of San Francisco was breaking what was the law. We have nothing against civil unions.
I think Obi brought up a excellent point, there should be another selection to recognize civil unions, just like there are for race, religion and others. If we did this, this would go a long way in getting rid of discrimination.

Now about the word faggot. In England (My mother is British) it means a bundle of sticks. Fag is a cigarette. Lemming, isnt that the same way down in Austrailia? Look how badly we have taken this. Homosexuality rights is probably a bigger thing today then the race civil rights ever was back in the 50's or 60's. Pete or some long in the tooth lurkers could attest to that.

[gekko]

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.

I have a major problem with your logic here, and with your suggestion that homosexuality is a mental illness because such relationships do not allow for the couple to bear children.

My mother has succesfully brought 3 children into the world. Due to an operation about 5 years ago, she is incapable of carrying any more babies (granted, at her age it would be unlikely anyways, however, as I'll discuss in a moment, that is unimportant). Do you then believe my father has a mental illness because he stays in the relationship, despite knowing his wife will never bear another child? And yet, how could my mother losing the ability to bear children somehow cause my father to develop this illness (since he clearly did not have it 10 years ago, when my mother could bear children).

But wait! you say. My father did not enter into this relatioship knowing the futur; furthermore, when they married his partner was fully capable of bearing his children. Alright then, let's consider a different but similar example.

Suppose my mother had been barren from birth. Do you believe that anyone who feels attracted to my mother (i.e. wants to "procreate with her") in this situation must suffer from a mental illness?

Let's go further. I have a very strong urge to "procreate with" my girlfriend (and, frankly, with a fair number of other females I see every day :P). Note that whether I do or do not follow through on one or any of these desires is unimportant. I also have ZERO (0) desire at this time to pass on my seed. At this time, I don't know if I want to do so in the future. Do you believe I have a mental illness?

The fact is that childbearing is not the sole reason humans seek companionship. If it were, we would never have invented the condom or any other form of birth control. You cannot say that one form of companionship (for example, homosexual) with no possibility of child birth implies mental illness while another form of companionship (for example, heterosexual with birth control or with a barren woman) is perfectly normal.

At a certain level, homosexual relationships ARE different than heterosexual relationships. One involves a man and a woman; the other involves two men or two women. But this does not automatically mean the two must be treated differently.

I am caucasian. My girlfriend is asian. This is, on one level, different than the relationship between my parents. But so what? My girlfriend is a year younger than I am. This is, on one level, different than the relationship between two of my close friends, who are the same age. But so what?

To argue that laws must treat two types of relationships differently, you must offer a reason beyond the difference. As is dealt with in the first half of my post, the ability to bear children is not equivalent to homosexual vs heterosexual. So simply put, you have to do better than that.

One final note: I strongly support your right to believe that homosexuality is a mental illness. However, when we are discussing country-wide or even community-wide laws, your opinion, even if correct, matters little. Mentally retarded people CAN be legally married in many cases.

gekko

[LemmingofGlory]

As a side note: why would we not allow incest between consenting adults?

Because nothing good comes from the mating practices of hillbillies? (/flippant)

I'm certainly not pro-incest. But other than the genetics or exploitation issues, I don't have a solid reason to prevent incestual marriages. I think the genetics thing is pretty good by itself really, but it won't cover the case of gay siblings who decide to get together. I'm hoping somebody around here has a good legal reason sitting around gathering dust.

The definition of incest varies by culture. The Westermarck effect describes why incest is fairly rare among family members raised together. And if you want to get "hide under the bed" creeped out, read about genetic sexual attraction, and the next time you talk to your folks, make a point to ask whether you have any siblings you don't know about. ;)

-Lemmy

[TurkeyBeans]

This is my first post here, i've been lurking for a while. I just need to settle this - it's gone on far too long. He will probably hate me for this.....


I personally know Unrealshadow13, and although most of his stupidity is real, some of it is a joke. Every post he has made in this thread is a troll, he does not actually hold these beliefs. And as for the fact that he has been banned more then once.......his reasons that got him unbanned were fabricated. his "friend who put maphack on my server" is imaginary, he put it on, and he is an only child.

I highly recommend he is banned and everyone be done with it.


EDIT: also, if one reads his first post and puts it in comparison to his more recent posts, one can tell unrealshadow13's lies are fairly poor. Not sure if everybody figured this out already, but I just really felt like informing you all.

[Guest]

Im not going to explain the same thing to more than 1 person on a thread.

[Guest]

You are confusing someone who cant have children, doing a "normal" relationship with some who can have children being in an "abnormal" relationship.

Our psyc is intended to promote children. And what I call norm drives promote this. Sterile individuals still have brains like fertile individuals.

[Guest]

nt

[gekko]

Sorry, but I simply don't see the distinction -- if I'm attracted to, and am in a relationship with someone who absolutely, positively, 100% cannot bear my children, why does it matter if that person is a man or a woman?

Humans are blessed (cursed?) with the ability to think beyond our instincts. Many of our behaviour (particularly the more complex social behaviours) are not instinctual; they are learned.

My girlfriend tells me she never wants to have children; yet, shucks, I can't seem to bring myself to break up with her. But I'm ok, because I'm in a "normal" relationship. And yet, if I read your post correctly, if my partner was a man, my failure to break up with him and seek myself a nice, ripe woman would be evidence of a mental illness.

gekko

[Jester]

"And yet, if I read your post correctly, if my partner was a man, my failure to break up with him and seek myself a nice, ripe woman would be evidence of a mental illness."

No, no. It's not that you've misunderstood the application of this situation to the definition of mental illness. No, it's that you've misunderstood the definition of mental illness itself. As Ghostie has clearly illuminated elsewhere in the thread, and we have been impatiently denying, mental illness is vastly underreported in our world.

"Our psyc is intended to promote children. And what I call norm drives promote this."

"In my opinion being gay is a mildly harmful mental defect, probabely with both genetic and envirmental causes. The main negative effect is that it inhibits(not prohibits) procreation."

Normalcy: the state of promoting procreation.

Mental illness: any deviation from normalcy.

See? It's that simple. Mental illness is nothing to worry about, in most circumstances. My computer use, for instance, is neurotic, in that it inhibits procreation, not only by itself, but vis-a-vis other possible activities, like taking viagra and seeking out unprotected sex with as many women as possible. If my "psyc" is promoting computer use, as indeed it must be, it is clearly neurotic behaviour, and I must be therefore mentally ill. Perhaps therapy (testosterone or psychoanalysis) is in order to remedy my non-libidinous behaviour.

Condom use, I'm sure, borders on psychosis itself: who would ever want to, even for a minute, have fewer children, or spend time in activities not related to or even detrimental to having them as often as possible? Surely only the mentally ill.

To characterize "mental illness" as merely applying to people with life-crushing disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar, or obsessive-compulsive disorder would be to miss the most important category of the mentally ill:

Everyone.

Jester