Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 11-06-2004, 08:43 PM   #41 (permalink)
Loser
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justsomeguy
I don't think I made point one as clear as I had wished it to be. I wasn't commenting on gay marriage directly, I was just commenting on being gay. As far as the future of humans is concerned at this moment, gay people could not reproduce by themselves. So, it's not favorable for the future of humanity. This is simply referring to gay behavior(being gay). So, gay marriage would either have to promote it or be against being gay. It promotes it. So, I was intending an if A=B and B=C, then A=C argument.
Not only does being gay not preclude reproduction, being heterosexual does not include reproduction.

Unless this basis for anti-gay marriage (or anti-gay) legislation is coupled with legislation requiring reproduction from every man and woman, this basis is too limited to adequately address the perceived problem. And if the goal is simply to require reproduction, then whether someone is gay (or engages in gay marriage) is irrelevent. Reproduction is still possible, the legislation would simply have to provide an enforceable avenue.

In other words, that rationalization for any anti-gay sentiments is illogical.
Quote:
What I mean is that the main argument for gay marriage is that gay people should have equal opportunity for marriage. They should be able to marry whoever the please. Well, their marriage wouldn't be the same though. Heterosexual people can naturally have children. Homosexuals cannot. So, their marriage would not posses the equal potential or opportunity(i.e. no potential for naturally conceiving a child).
I believe this was a further clarification of the gay = undemocratic concept. It's a very strange concept. What about sterile people? Sterile people have no potential for naturally conceiving (in many cases, any type of conception at all). Are they undemocratic?

Last edited by Manx; 11-06-2004 at 08:46 PM..
Manx is offline  
Old 11-07-2004, 05:53 AM   #42 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
This whole "gay people can't reproduce so they should not have equal rights" argument is making my head hurt.

1. Gay people CAN reproduce. Being gay doesn't mean you were born without testicles or a uterus. My boss is a lesbian and she and her partner have a 2 year old daughter (and another on the way) via artificial insemination.

2. Regardless, opening up legal gay marriage would (should) bring with it a more open minded policy regarding gay couples adopting children. The Heterosexuals are reproducing at an alarming rate, and frankly, they aren't keeping all the children they are making (but they are ever so much more responsible than those pesky gays).

3. Everyone pins the argument about "being" gay to either genetics or choice. The third choice would be what some of my gay friends consider to be early conditioning, meaning that everyone's sexuality (gay, straight or otherwise) is a product of environment and events in one's early childhood. And please, don't take this to mean that gay people were all raped or molested or likewise. It's not as unseemly as that. It's more of what people relate to their earliest feelings of love and pleasure.

4. It's been stated before, but if the right (or privelage) to marry is going to be based on one's ability to reproduce, than the natural end point of that argument is that everyone who applies for a marriage license should have to sign legal documents stating that they will have children in X amount of time or the marriage will be terminated. And absolutely no licenses for anyone who is sterile. No more married couples gaining spousal benefits and mooching off the government without bringing some more rug rats into the world!

5. Many people's arguments about any gay rights center on some sort of perceived immorality. This perception can only be based in Christianity, where there is a vague passage in the book of Leviticus about men laying with men. This is the epitome of picking and choosing what one wants to believe out of the bible, as most of the other laws in Leviticus have been deemed dated and unnecessary (it's a sin to touch raw meat, women must be shunned for 30 days after having a baby, not to mention the entire chapter on the proper ways to sacrifice animals to God).

6. Ultimately, if gays are allowed to marry, what does it REALLY do to you on an individual basis. Anything? Will your life suffer?

7. The argument for why this is a civil rights issue is simple. A portion of the law-abiding society is not given the same rights as others. Stating that marriage is a privelage and not a right doesn't hold much water, as there isn't exactly a strict screening process to get a marriage license these days. Add to that the fact that people are going out of their way to deny these rights to this sect of society, and there is your argument. Plus, look at history. We've been through this before with women and african americans. History is repeating itself, and hopefully for the homosexual populace we'll be moving out of the "back of the bus" mentality and into an actual democratic society with equal rights for all.
__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Last edited by Derwood; 11-07-2004 at 06:03 AM..
Derwood is offline  
Old 11-07-2004, 06:56 AM   #43 (permalink)
Upright
 
traditions shaped our country. It saddens me that so many people want to "make EVERYTHING ok". We have to have limits/boundaries for our daily life. Without, we fall into chaos.
cbr9racr is offline  
Old 11-07-2004, 06:58 AM   #44 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Some of these arguments about gay marriage remind me of the discussions that were held in america in the nineteenth century about whether blacks had souls (many religious leaders believed they did not).
Quote:
posted by UsTwo
Conservative as a adjective vrs political.

Troll post basicly.
This wasn't intended to be but does looking at history make you uncomfortable?
maypo is offline  
Old 11-07-2004, 01:52 PM   #45 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Good point, maypo. Interestingly, on the question of homosexuality in other societies, many Native American societies recognized and accepted homosexuals in their tribe. They lived together, dressing in either men's or women's clothing, and were used to settle marital disputes, the idea being that they could see both sides of the argument. Whether that's a naive belief or not, the point is, they were fully functioning citizens of their community. They weren't ostracized, mocked, or beaten to death just for being different.
ravenradiodj is offline  
Old 11-07-2004, 02:20 PM   #46 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maypo
Some of these arguments about gay marriage remind me of the discussions that were held in america in the nineteenth century about whether blacks had souls (many religious leaders believed they did not).

This wasn't intended to be but does looking at history make you uncomfortable?
Warping history makes me uncomfortable.

You might as well have said Child Sacrifice to Baal was a conservative value.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 11-07-2004, 03:34 PM   #47 (permalink)
Insane
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manx
Not only does being gay not preclude reproduction, being heterosexual does not include reproduction.
Remember, we're talking theoretical concepts and not addressing current problems in our society. I didn't really directly address gay marriage in America in many of my arguments. But, that argument was simple, two gay men can't reproduce together. A heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman can produce. Therefore, if we're talking the future of humanity, which is more preferred? Would can produce offspring, one cannot naturally.

Sorry to further get off on this subject, but that is really all that argument is about. Maybe, I'm not wording it correctly, but it normally is easily accepted in terms of humanity. The if A,B,C argument looks like this:

1.The future of humanity depends on sexual reproduction.
2.Sexual reproduction is only achieved by heterosexual behavior.
3.The future of humanity is only achieved by heterosexual behavior.

To sum it up, evolution or the course of humanity selects heterosexual behavior on homosexual behavior.

On a previous comment, I believe mormons thought black people were demons until the civil rights movement if I'm not mistaken. Which is also one of those conservative traditions!
Justsomeguy is offline  
Old 11-07-2004, 04:01 PM   #48 (permalink)
Loser
 
I'm not interested in theoretical concepts such as that unless they are being used to justify a course of action. If that theoretical concept is used to justify anti-gay legislation, it is very easily and quickly dismissed with this theoretical concept:

1. The future of humanity is achieved by reproduction.
2- Reproduction is achieve by fertilization.
3- Homosexual relationships do not prevent fertilization.
4- The future of humanity is not prevented by homosexual behavior.
Manx is offline  
Old 11-07-2004, 04:32 PM   #49 (permalink)
Insane
 
Anyhow, bisexuals are certainly capable of reproduction as well as same-sex behavior.

And if reproduction is the key, what about heterosexuals that don't reproduce? Heterosexuals that have undergone voluntary sterilization? Are they somehow unfit to marry?

This argument is insane.
adam is offline  
Old 11-08-2004, 04:16 AM   #50 (permalink)
Crazy
 
I totally agree, Adam.
ravenradiodj is offline  
Old 11-08-2004, 04:34 AM   #51 (permalink)
undead
 
Pacifier's Avatar
 
Location: Duisburg, Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manx
1. The future of humanity is achieved by reproduction.
no, not at the current rate

"If fertility rates remained unchanged from the 2000 rate of 2.83, there would be 134 trillion people in 2300, impossible to sustain."
(Yahoo)

So the homosexulas are no real thread against the "future of mankind"
Bushs enviroment policy is much more of a thread ...
__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein
Pacifier is offline  
Old 11-08-2004, 08:16 AM   #52 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Both are Religious institutions.

What we have here is a group barred a recognition of a religious institution (marriage) with people on the other side claiming it's improper in the context of often the SAME damn religion.

I think having the gov't recognize gay marriage may be silly, but certainly no more silly than recognizing "straight" marriage.

Since when do we need the body politic to condone our couplings?

I realize their are certain financial reasons for this union, but I would be hard-pressed to beleive this is the major or even a substantial reason for why people marry. No one gay or strait drops to one knee and asks if the other person would please accept their retirement investments without penalty if they should happen to die.

To me the issue seems to boil down to the fact that the parties on both sides would see the allowance or disallowance to be a validation for their respective ethos. I'm sure this may be a simplistic outlook, obviously I'm overlooking the monetary angle, no Insurance company in the world wants MORE marriage, straight, gay or extra-terrestrial.

-Sorry for the spelling, not sure if disallowance is even a word
-fibbers

Last edited by fibber; 11-08-2004 at 08:21 AM..
fibber is offline  
Old 11-08-2004, 07:34 PM   #53 (permalink)
Insane
 
Wow, I guess I derailed the original post and my statements have been further derailed. It's really futile to argue a point against such an overwhelming majority. Similar to arguing philosophical metaphors or the problem of good and evil in a Christian chat room or bible study group. Therefore, I won't argue any further points because to be honest, it's really not an interest issue.

Anyways, I appreciate the statistic listed earlier in a post even though I wish the source was not yahoo.

Wanted to point out that I think a previous poster had a very good statement regarding that it is silly for the government to recognize any marriage. It's a simple concept but it really makes you think ponder the actual concept.

*edited for advice to Manx. Not stating whether you are right or wrong, but your argument did not follow typical pattern. What I mean is statement one says, "If A, then B." Statement 2 says, "If B,then C." The only way you could use statement 3 followed by a four is if is a general fact such as "D=E" (A Smiley is an emoticon for exampe). And then tie it into statement 4. For example, Studying my subjects will help me get into graduate school. Graduate school will help me get a good job. Chemistry is one of my subjects. Studying chemistry will help me get a good job. Hope this helps, good luck.

Last edited by Justsomeguy; 11-08-2004 at 07:58 PM..
Justsomeguy is offline  
Old 11-08-2004, 09:03 PM   #54 (permalink)
sob
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah
-snip-


Damn.....that pretty much sums it up....don't it.....excellent
Frankly, I couldn't care less if gays/gender benders/whatever marry. I think they should be entitled to the benefits of marriage, i.e. hospital visits, right of survivorship, whatever.

Can't figure out why they'd WANT to be married, though. That introduces alimony to the equation. Don't they have ENOUGH problems?

The only reservation I have is with calling it "marriage." To use cowboy logic, "Putting your boots in the oven don't make them biscuits."

So what's the consensus on creating some type of civil union for gays that confers all rights/responsibilities of marriage, but calls it something else? Would that work, or is calling it "marriage" the ONLY acceptable solution?
sob is offline  
Old 11-09-2004, 05:02 AM   #55 (permalink)
Muffled
 
Kadath's Avatar
 
Location: Camazotz
"So what's the consensus on creating some type of civil union for gays that confers all rights/responsibilities of marriage, but calls it something else? Would that work, or is calling it "marriage" the ONLY acceptable solution?"

Ideal, if marriage is eliminated as a legal state and exists only as a religious one, otherwise you've got a case of "separate but equal" which never is.
__________________
it's quiet in here
Kadath is offline  
Old 11-10-2004, 09:31 AM   #56 (permalink)
Tilted
 
I'ld agree with the seperate but equal never is part, but if indeed ALL the rights are ported over, is a different word even enough to qualify as seperate?

-fibber
fibber is offline  
Old 11-10-2004, 10:11 AM   #57 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Warping history makes me uncomfortable.

You might as well have said Child Sacrifice to Baal was a conservative value.
That be the beauty of human nature. That we are never limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry+. Our ability to adapt and advance from previously wrong stances like Child Sacrifice, slavery, womens suffrage, prohibitions against miscegenation, gay marriage, environmental conservation. Of course some of these like gay rights have swayed back and forth in human acceptance, as detailed in this thread already.


+definition of liberal, which is the antonym of conservative.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 11-10-2004, 10:18 AM   #58 (permalink)
I change
 
ARTelevision's Avatar
 
Location: USA
Kadath, absolutely.
I've said this many times.
I oppose "marriage" as a concept for everyone. IMO, it's an impossibly loaded conception and pointless. I am in favor of human beings making agreements and contracts with each other. And as for the idea of a "civil union" - that's all I consider necessary for people who want legal rights for their relationship.

Of course me, sus, and mimi aren't eligible and I wouldn't imagine our tripartite relationship would be sanctioned by a civil authority any time in the relevant future.
__________________
create evolution
ARTelevision is offline  
Old 11-10-2004, 10:22 AM   #59 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
I have heard you mention briefly the triangle relationship you are in.
But, being curious, could you please elaborate on exactly the arangement you have?
Superbelt is offline  
Old 11-10-2004, 10:28 AM   #60 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
Art... I am fairly certain you could draw up legal documents that would grant Power of Attorney, division of assets, etc. It would be a business type of arrangement...

Kind of sucks the passion out of it all though.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 11-10-2004, 12:34 PM   #61 (permalink)
I change
 
ARTelevision's Avatar
 
Location: USA
Yes Charlatan, we have those sorts of arrangements.
Really all we need. I was speaking specifically of the "civil union" concept and as it applies to insurance and other things.
We do not expect to ever receive the sort of tax benefits, etc. that "officially" sanctioned relationships have.

It's just that being in one of those categories that could be looked at as "discriminated against," (although I never care to apply that sort of notion to my life - I understand why some folks would desire to embrace it - and there's nothing wrong with that - don't get me wrong) we're way way down on the what-is-acceptable list, I suppose.

Superbelt , simple enough. The three of us live and love together - and have for many years.
__________________
create evolution
ARTelevision is offline  
Old 11-14-2004, 02:46 AM   #62 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: California
How many liberal ideas have flared up and then disappeared? We should at this from both angles.
joeshoe is offline  
Old 11-14-2004, 11:28 PM   #63 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Warping history makes me uncomfortable.

You might as well have said Child Sacrifice to Baal was a conservative value.
Do you disagree, then, that things like civil rights, worker's rights and women's rights were progressive vs. conservative issues? It's easy to look at the flow of history and see the modification of ideas into their present form. That's not to say that today's conservatives are pro-slavery, but you can look and see the pro-slavery values changing to anti-civil-rights values changing into today's anti-affirmative-action values. A lot of the people on either side of the civil rights issue are still around, and it's hard to pretend that that attitude has vanished entirely from the conservative viewpoint. Mostly it's just a changing of where the lines are drawn.

The same with worker's rights - in the 20s it was "reds" and "socialists" campaigning for worker's rights, and today we enjoy weekends, OSHA, and 40-hour weeks. However, we're still fighting for universal health care and a living minimum wage - and it's the same groups on either side of the fight.

Earlier it was anti-contraceptive people against the early planned parenthood-type places, now it's anti-abortionists - but the sides haven't changed, just the piece of the issue we're looking at.

In the 60s it was anti-Vietnam, now it's anti-Iraq, but it's the same groups going at it.

In fact, this constant progress is the only thing that keeps me as a progressive from sobbing in frustration sometimes - I know it has to change. The other night I watched "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" and thought about how the issue now isn't interracial marriage but gay marriage - and I hoped that the worries over gay marriage would look as quaint to the next generation as the worries over interracial marriage looked to me.

Bingle
bingle is offline  
Old 11-16-2004, 01:07 AM   #64 (permalink)
Insane
 
Kalibah's Avatar
 
Location: Padded Playhouse
Meh - 5,000 year tradition in the civilized world...
Kalibah is offline  
 

Tags
anymore, conservative, supports, traditions


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:47 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360