Gay Marriage

[Griselda]

Haha! Thanks, Jester. for bringing some humor into this thread! :)

[Griselda]

Turkey Beans,

All of what you say may very well be true. However, if we started banning people based upon what "somebody" said, we'd have to start banning a lot of people. What would happen if both claimed the other should be banned?

So, clearly that's not a good policy, even if you're 100% correct. Unrealshadow was given a second chance. It's up to him to decide what to do with that, not you.

As for the troll, well, it does look like some people bit, doesn't it?

[Chaerophon]

Nicely done.

[Chaerophon]

Our psyc is intended to promote children.

You're fundamentally misapplying psychology here... Our "psychology" is not intended to promote anything. It is a derivation of our lived experiences, chemical make-up, etc., etc., etc. I don't know if you're a religious person, but your argument is absolutely loaded with religious language. Intention implies an intender. Who is this masked man/woman for you? The process of evolution is not an actor in itself, so we can't reduce it to that.

Essentially, what I'm saying is this: the normalcy of heterosexuality is, for all intents and purpose, a societal creation. Procreation does not have any of the connotations that you attach to it outside of a societally imposed religious context (even that is definitely questionable). There will always be enough people willing to have children/heterosexual sex to maintain, if not increase the population (of course, I'm not even sure why you think that this is so intrinsically valuable...we're a long ways away from being grossly underpopulated)

If the bulk of society is prepared to recognize/accept the "normalcy" of homosexuality, then where is the harm? Even this is not reason enough to ban homosexuality - if the freely-chosen actions of homosexuals do not directly harm others, then what right do we have to deny them? Raising children is a whole other issue that I do not care to get involved in, as I am unaware of any of the research involved. What I care about is the fact that whether heterosexuals judge homosexuality to be a "pathology" is beside the point. From what context do they do so? If I vote communist party next election, am I a pathological ideologist? Just because the rest of society does not endorse my socialist values? You're caught either way: if homosexuals merely choose to act as they do, then what right do we have to stop them from making such a (contractual, recall) choice in a rights-based liberal-societal context? The old "moral fabric of society" BS is a damned dangerous, hegemonic place to go as justification. If, on the other hand, they have no choice, and are born that way? Then Lemming's argument re: race actually goes a long way in proving the point.

[eppie]

Gekko, that was a really good point you made there.

People who oppose gay maraiage often drag the "it is unnatural-fact" into the discussion.

Well marriage is innatural itsself!
It would be natural if all men would go around trying to inseminate (is that the correct word?) as many women as they could. Staying with one woman just for the babies is not true, every man could easily "make" a few thousand babies in his life. Well not completely true of course....only the really strong ones that can get all the girls and fight of the "nerds". So shall we state that also marriage between "nerds" should be banned than?? :)
(I can go on a bit but I think the argument is clear here).

Or is it not the "natural" thing that is the most important?? I think a lot of people are just a bit scared of gays. They think that if their son or daughter would see a gay couple walk hand in hand, they might "turn gay" all of a sudden.

I think it is quite a statement if you say " those people are gay, and I don't want to give them the right to marry" That looks a lot like a dictatorship if you ask me.
If gay people want to get married just let them, they don't harm anybody.

A more important point is the thousands of gay people that are born in strong religious families or societies, and who because of the impossibiliy of "coming out" lead a miserable life and commit suicide. (or get killed by their family)

[Archon_Wing]

I don't know. I have nothing to add, except to say I enjoyed reading this post. :) Not that I don't enjoy other posts, but yeah. ;) Basically, the posts contains things that I would have said, but I didn't know how to put it.

[[wcip]Angel]

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.

I too thought the Church frowned upon homosexual couples, but when I went to England this summer to visit my gay family member, his partner and I took a little trip to his hometown. We had tea with his priest, who is a very good friend to both my uncle and, even more so, his partner. The priest didn't seem at all bothered with the fact that one of his most dearest friend happened to be homosexual.

[[wcip]Angel]

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.

Like David in "Little Britain" who is 'the only gay in the village.' :P

[Sir_Die_alot]

Our "psychology" is not intended to promote anything. It is a derivation of our lived experiences, chemical make-up, etc., etc., etc. I don't know if you're a religious person, but your argument is absolutely loaded with religious language. Intention implies an intender. Who is this masked man/woman for you? The process of evolution is not an actor in itself, so we can't reduce it to that.

Let me get this stright. You think that people go through all the dangers and uncomforts of pregnancy, then raise a completely paracitic unappreciative individual for YEARS just because society says they should? Why should people feel the desire for sex at all? It's a potentially unhealthy act with no benifits to the individual. There is a clear instinct and biological need to procreate and raise children. It may be stronger in some and weaker in others but don't let your anti religion bias get in the way of your logic. <_<

Essentially, what I'm saying is this: the normalcy of heterosexuality is, for all intents and purpose, a societal creation.

You can't seriously belive this. What is between your legs is not just for peeing. There is a clear physical "normalcy" to heterosexuality. Heterosexual sex is a boilogical fact and has been practiced longer than humans have exsisted let alone human society so to say it is a social creation is asinine.

[Urza-DSF]

Heterosexual sex is a boilogical fact and has been practiced longer than humans have exsisted let alone human society so to say it is a social creation is asinine.

Actually Im not sure that its either, since there are many other forms of life who practice both homo and hetero sexuality.

[Sir_Die_alot]

Just because humans can deviate from a norm why would you assume animals could not? Animals can deviate in many other ways, as can humans, so it is not surprising for animals to deviate sexually.

The fact is sexual organs are made for one purpose, that is the biological fact I was alluding to. To say that is a societal created norm would be the same as believing that society could cause your pinky toe to take the role of your heart or lungs. This is a biologically created norm; just as using your eyes to see, mouth to eat, and feet to walk are "normal". People can be, due to accident, birth or even deliberate action, outside of all these norms, but that doesn't change the fact they are the norm.

The only role human society takes in all of this is the one thing unique to humans: morality.

[Minionman]

All this talk about "normal" is assuming that if one thing is "normal" than everything else is "not normal" and should be gotten rid of. In the case of whether being gay is "normal" or not, since a big part of the population has this same sex attraction, I'd say it is "normal", or at least enough, plus it doesn't hurt anybody. Allowing gay marriage and gay rights in general is about accepting that some people are gay, not saying that everyone should be, just that it all is fine.

As for the "purpose" of stuff in the human body, body parts/thought processes may or may not have been made for a particular reason, but if they can be used in a different way than they seem adapted for, why not? That's almost like saying I shouldn't ever kick anything because my feet are made for running and not kicking, or that people shouldn't clap their hands because hands are made for using tools, not making sound. n this case, gay people may be attracted to people the same sex, but just because that doesn't serve any biologial "needs" doesn't mean they should be biased against.

[TurkeyBeans]

All of what you say may very well be true. However, if we started banning people based upon what "somebody" said, we'd have to start banning a lot of people. What would happen if both claimed the other should be banned?

Yes, I do realize that my credibility is in doubt, as I just registered and made my first post. I have ways to prove it (I mentioned a few things that I believe only the person who unbanned him should know), but I don't want to get into that. Mostly, I wanted to post a heads-up about his actions in the thread.

As for the troll, well, it does look like some people bit, doesn't it?

And I suppose some people did bite, haha. The main problem lies within this topic itself, actually - many people have very extreme reactions to the subjects of gay marriage, so maybe it was sufficiently well passed off that it seemed real. :D

[Guest]

Edit: Deleted. This was supposed to be a report, not a reply -_-

[Sir_Die_alot]

I've already said all I want to say about sociatal normailities. I'm speaking of biological ones. Socially pierced ears and tatoos are normal, biologically they are not. There are no moral judgments in that statement merely fact.

The only times I've brought up morality in my last 2 posts is as a nod to it exsistance but also irrelevance to anything I had said. For my opinion on the morality of the act you can read that here: http://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/index.p...=53384&linear=0

[Guest]

Here's a (hopefully) infaliable arguments to anti-gay marriage people... It's not affecting you; let them do what they want.

[Tal]

Unreal seems to have a lot of "friends" who wish to see him banned from the forums.

[Tal]

Its not harming me to have my neighbors run a crack house/brothel/child abuse center....I should let them do what they want.

[Chaerophon]

Let me get this stright. You think that people go through all the dangers and uncomforts of pregnancy, then raise a completely paracitic unappreciative individual for YEARS just because society says they should? Why should people feel the desire for sex at all? It's a potentially unhealthy act with no benifits to the individual. There is a clear instinct and biological need to procreate and raise children. It may be stronger in some and weaker in others

Nope, that's actually not what I said. You're confusing two different things here. Many homosexuals want kids too; maybe even for biological reasons. Unfortunately, they're not attracted to the other sex.

I'll turn your argument around: "You think that such vast numbers of people would go through all the dangers and uncomforts of homosexuality...if it wasn't in their blood?" I know I don't. However, society imposes the concept of "abnormalcy" on these people who cannot help their sexuality. How does this improve the human race? Supposedly by dissuading such people from their practices. Is that just? NO. We must assume a conscious creator if we are going to assume that there is a "right" and a "wrong" way to have sex. Otherwise, there is just the way that most people do it, and the way that some - a rather large, "some" I might add - do, or want to do it.

It is not that society says "heterosexuality is normal, so are kids, so everyone should do it"; rather, it is "the majority of the population has never had homosexual urges, so we should normatively assume that the remaining 10-15% (less in terms of those who practice) are somehow "disfunctional". I would say that they are just part of a different numerical minority, and probably just as worthy of respect as the heterosexual majority.

Heterosexual sex is a boilogical fact and has been practiced longer than humans have exsisted let alone human society so to say it is a social creation is asinine.

This should be all cleared up by now. It is not the predominance of heterosexuality that is societally imposed; it is the normative stigma around homosexuality. That stigma is born of either dogmatic religious conditioning or undemocratic, majoritarian conceptions of "normalcy". To say that such a large chunk of the population is somehow "broken" is foolish. They're just different. Depends on what you see as the "purpose" human existence. If it is merely to procreate, then sure, they're broken. If it's to please God through acts, then, yeah, most would say that they're broken. If the "purpose" or "proper goal" is to live a good, happy life of your choosing that does not restrict/infringe that of others (as advocates of liberalism constantly argue is the case - recall, separation of church and state and all that)... then what place do such characterizations have in the equation?

don't let your anti religion bias get in the way of your logic.

Truth be told, I'm actually feeling quite religious these days. As for my logic: it remains sound.

[Munkay]

Just thought I'd add some food for thought.

I was talking to visting Professor Dan Goldman at Boston University after a Roman Civ class. He has taught Roman History in Rome for four years, before returning to Brown to finish his doctoral thesis in Roman Culture.

He had said something in passing to the effect that sexuality was viewed quite differently than it is currently. So I engaged him after class and he explained that in Roman times it was common for men to engage in sexual intercourse with other men. It was only socially not accepted if the man 'received.' This was shunned.

From my own knowledge I know that even in Greek times homoerocticism was common. There was a reason why Greek athletes during the Olympics competed in the nude, and were well oiled, and it wasn't just for better performance ;).

That stigma is born of either dogmatic religious conditioning or undemocratic, majoritarian conceptions of "normalcy"

I find this information to be more in agreement with Chaerophon's point.

Cheers,

Munk