12 Reasons Why Gays Should Not Be Allowed To Marry

[Matt]

Pahoran's post was ironical.

I have notced that many Americans do not "do" irony. (IE understand the concept of ironical humour.)

A friend made an ironical joke to an American he met whilst on holiday in Italy, recently. He said: "I was amazed. It just went straight over her head."

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Matt@Mar 8 2004, 05:38 PM

Pahoran's post was ironical.

I have notced that many Americans do not "do" irony. (IE understand the concept of ironical humour.)

A friend made an ironical joke to an American he met whilst on holiday in Italy, recently. He said: "I was amazed. It just went straight over her head."

What is this in reference to....how far back was Pahoran's post?

[sgallan]

Well this was my point and you agreed.****

No. You said homosexual sex was the primary mover. It wasn't. Sex is/was the primary mover. The type of sex varied depends on the location. But of course the fundamentalist never really cares much about, nor believes anything but, that which allows them to hate those not like them.... or don't believe as they do. Yet they would also call this hate, love. Then insist their God is loving too. That upside down fundamentalist logic. You seem to fit the bill. Your denial about it is kinda cute though.....

[Guest Starsky]

Okay...I'll let you have it your way....but I can tell you that most people know the truth....Homosexuals are the instigators or the aids disease...

[sgallan]

Yeah Peace, I hear it all the time from the Christian Fundamentalist hater types. The good thing about your type is, in a odd sort of way, you make my points better than I do. All I have to do is get you started, and you do a lot of my work for me. It's partially why things seem to be coming around. People start to see these sort of attitudes, and look within themselves. And when they do, their humanity starts to come out. Most people are basically good and decent. And do not like to hate. It is the sort of thing..... even with the various fundamentalists in the world causing mischief here and there..... I stay optomistic.

I can only hope your kids do not hate as you seem too.

[Marsha]

Originally posted by sgallan@Mar 8 2004, 10:24 PM

Yeah Peace, I hear it all the time from the Christian Fundamentalist hater types. The good thing about your type is, in a odd sort of way, you make my points better than I do. All I have to do is get you started, and you do a lot of my work for me. It's partially why things seem to be coming around. People start to see these sort of attitudes, and look within themselves. And when they do, their humanity starts to come out. Most people are basically good and decent. And do not like to hate. It is the sort of thing..... even with the various fundamentalists in the world causing mischief here and there..... I stay optomistic.

I can only hope your kids do not hate as you seem too.

Scott,

For what it is worth, I agree with you on this one.

Glad to see that I am not the only one to see Peace as she is.

Marsha

[Guest]

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said:

HATE IS NOT A FAMILY VALUE!

[sgallan]

Thanks Marsha -

It's one thing to consider it a sin within the paradigm of your religion. I am not even trying to talk anybody out of that. I realize it is part of the faith. I am okay with that. But it is quite another thing to use the faith as an excuse to hate other humans. I don't see this as helpful nor constructive. I am funny that way.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by sgallan@Mar 8 2004, 07:24 PM

Yeah Peace, I hear it all the time from the Christian Fundamentalist hater types. The good thing about your type is, in a odd sort of way, you make my points better than I do. All I have to do is get you started, and you do a lot of my work for me. It's partially why things seem to be coming around. People start to see these sort of attitudes, and look within themselves. And when they do, their humanity starts to come out. Most people are basically good and decent. And do not like to hate. It is the sort of thing..... even with the various fundamentalists in the world causing mischief here and there..... I stay optomistic.

I can only hope your kids do not hate as you seem too.

Hate....I don't hate. I do see truth for truth.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by sgallan@Mar 8 2004, 07:53 PM

Thanks Marsha -

It's one thing to consider it a sin within the paradigm of your religion. I am not even trying to talk anybody out of that. I realize it is part of the faith. I am okay with that. But it is quite another thing to use the faith as an excuse to hate other humans. I don't see this as helpful nor constructive. I am funny that way. 

I'll be agreeing with you guys, too, with the added puzzlement of trying to reconcile Peace's opinions on AIDS with her status as a Democrat.

Although, Scott -- I think you would have to concede that AIDS in the United States is largely driven by risky homosexual conduct. Pointing that out isn't the equivalent of "blaming" homosexuals for AIDS.

The problem with the "Hate is not a family value" sticker is that it's too easy to brand opinions you disagree with as "hateful" and leave off engaging them. Sure, the good Rev. Phelps with his "God hates f*gs" picketing is a hater. He pretty much admits it. But "hate," to me, calls up images of blind, irrational, teeth-clenched rage. Most of the people who think that homosexual lifestyles are less than ideal are nothing like that. Maybe our thinking is right; maybe it's wrong. But then, "Faulty logic or inordinate adherence to inherited tradition are not family values" doesn't have quite the shut-your-opponent-up ring as the "hate" sticker does.

Speaking of bumper stickers, it's been my experience people whose bumpers sport the "Mean people suck" sticker very often have a mean streak ten miles wide.

You want blind, irrational, teeth-clenched rage, try suggesting to a MeCha law student that maybe the Aztecs weren't very nice people, and no, they didn't originally own California, thus entitling illegal Mexican immigrants to the run of the place and all kinds of goodies. It's always fun to see how long the heart of such an impolitic questioner keeps beating after it's ripped from his chest.

[Guest Starsky]

The problem with the "Hate is not a family value" sticker is that it's too easy to brand opinions you disagree with as "hateful" and leave off engaging them. Sure, the good Rev. Phelps with his "God hates f*gs" picketing is a hater. He pretty much admits it. But "hate," to me, calls up images of blind, irrational, teeth-clenched rage. Most of the people who think that homosexual lifestyles are less than ideal are nothing like that. Maybe our thinking is right; maybe it's wrong. But then, "Faulty logic or inordinate adherence to inherited tradition are not family values" doesn't have quite the shut-your-opponent-up ring as the "hate" sticker does.

Well said PD. Thank you.

[Guest Starsky]

Although, Scott -- I think you would have to concede that AIDS in the United States is largely driven by risky homosexual conduct. Pointing that out isn't the equivalent of "blaming" homosexuals for AIDS.

exactly. again well said... thank you.

[Guest Starsky]

I'll be agreeing with you guys, too, with the added puzzlement of trying to reconcile Peace's opinions on AIDS with her status as a Democrat.

LOL I don't group, and I don't believe that everyone can be happy completely with all that their party does...I just go for the one that seems the best over all... :)

[sgallan]

PD -

Notice I do not call all LDS homophobe haters because they consider homosexuality a sin. Or did you miss my post to Marsha? And homosexual sex spread AIDS in this country? Duh? Heterosexual sex spread Herpes and other STD's. Point please? Otherwie you made a clarifying post when I brought up your kids (though I still think you a going to end up the way I suggested - I hope I am wrong). Peace has a history. She does her a religion and her cause a disservice. But at least with her cause...... she is doing me a favor by doing so. See, the only person I have REALLY gotten annoyed with in this debate is you. I've always known you were conservative. But I always considered you a compassionate conservative. I get the feeling you are losing your compassion. But with Peace, Ray, and Porter (Porter being a little nuts makes me think I should tread lightly there), there is no real annoyance..... I am drawing them out.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Scott -- I agree: so what that homosexual sex spreads AIDS? As you pointed out, heterosexual sex spreads other STDs. Cigarette smoking "spreads" lung cancer. There really is no "point" to any of this, except to point out that homosexual sex has serious risks, unless the participants are armored in the proper places like one of Jellicoe's dreadnoughts.

Peace appears to be making a different point, i.e. that homosexuals bear some moral blame for their role in spreading AIDS. I don't agree with such a broad judgment -- although I do think that men who are reckless in their sexual behavior, gay or straight, do bear some moral blame if they spread STDs, just as it would be my fault if I went to the office with the flu and infected everyone.

Notice I do not call all LDS homophobe haters because they consider homosexuality a sin.

I did notice. You've had plenty of room to make your points logically and fairly. My point was that a bumper sticker tends not be be quite as nuanced, and that plenty of people aren't as fair as you are to their opponents.

[sgallan]

*** although I do think that men who are reckless in their sexual behavior, gay or straight, do bear some moral blame if they spread STDs, just as it would be my fault if I went to the office with the flu and infected everyone. ****

Or women....

**** I did notice. You've had plenty of room to make your points logically and fairly. My point was that a bumper sticker tends not be be quite as nuanced, and that plenty of people aren't as fair as you are to their opponents. ****

The bumper sticker fit within the totality of this particular thread. With this particular poster(s). The argumentation justifying the generality had already been made..... several times.

[Guest Starsky]

Scott -- I agree: so what that homosexual sex spreads AIDS? As you pointed out, heterosexual sex spreads other STDs. Cigarette smoking "spreads" lung cancer. There really is no "point" to any of this, except to point out that homosexual sex has serious risks, unless the participants are armored in the proper places like one of Jellicoe's dreadnoughts.

LOL....

[sgallan]

*** except to point out that homosexual sex has serious risks, ****

Any sex does. So does driving cars. Living is a sure way to die. How absurd do you want to get?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by sgallan@Mar 10 2004, 12:15 PM

*** except to point out that homosexual sex has serious risks, ****

Any sex does. So does driving cars. Living is a sure way to die. How absurd do you want to get?

Not very. Obviously, it would be absurd to try to eliminate risk entirely. But there's a world of difference in the levels of risk between sex in the context of fidelity to your spouse, at one end of the spectrum, and the anonymous barebacked bathhouse encounter on the other. To deny that is as absurd as it can get.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Mar 10 2004, 12:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Mar 10 2004, 12:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--sgallan@Mar 10 2004, 12:15 PM

*** except to point out that homosexual sex has serious risks, ****

Any sex does. So does driving cars. Living is a sure way to die. How absurd do you want to get?

Not very. Obviously, it would be absurd to try to eliminate risk entirely. But there's a world of difference in the levels of risk between sex in the context of fidelity to your spouse, at one end of the spectrum, and the anonymous barebacked bathhouse encounter on the other. To deny that is as absurd as it can get.

Besides...sex is an option....

driving a car...if you want to have a job, or get food, or take your kids to school...isn't an option...it's a gotto.

[sgallan]

But there's a world of difference in the levels of risk between sex in the context of fidelity to your spouse, at one end of the spectrum, and the anonymous barebacked bathhouse encounter on the other. To deny that is as absurd as it can get. *****

Bingo! Just what I was looking for. All the more reason to support Gay marraiges.

You are equating one practice as more risky than another. Or somehow more evil than another. Well perhaps for this particular disease homosexual sex makes one more prone to be sure. But all unprotected sex has it's risk. Bad risk. Various STD's, diseases. Unwanted kids. I am not advocating or even suggesting people do this. Nor are we teaching it to the kid. Straight or gay. So why the double standard for homosexuals? Habit? That won't fly. Racism and sexism was a habit too. Even slavery. Society changes and matures. This one is as we speak. And by and large homosexuals are still going to be homosexual. At this point they are not going back into the closet. Quite the opposite it would appear. Nor would they change if you came up with a "magic pill". I find it interesting that you are complaining about risky sexual practices on the one hand, yet denying a societal solution which could lesson such risky behavior. What exactly is your solution?

[sgallan]

*** driving a car...if you want to have a job, or get food, or take your kids to school...isn't an option...it's a gotto. ***

Funny, I have heard people in court say that very same thing.....

...... right before the Judge took their license away.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Scott -- I'm afraid I may have been sucked into a tangent here. The heightened risk gay sex raises of a particular disease doesn't have much to do with whether it is moral or not. That's apparently Peace's position; it's not mine. (Although I suppose that an otherwise morally-neutral, high-risk activity like cave diving could become immoral if it's done by a person with responsibilities, like a parent.)

As to whether "gay marriage" will reduce risky gay behavior, see my response to Curvette on the subject, way above. I don't think it will. From the looks of things, the homosexual people who are more likely to really want the incidents of marriage (as opposed to just a social affirmation of their practice) tend to be lesbians, who don't typically have the same AIDS risks involved with their particular practices as gay men do. I doubt that allowing men to "marry" each other would have much effect on their natural promiscuity. It's hard enough to prevent extramarital wanderings when only one of the marriage partners is male. On the other hand, I do think it's reasonable that an increased societal tolerance for homosexuality will lead to more expression of gay impulses by people who are currently on the fence; increased social tolerance for a thing invariably increases its marginal incidence. So I think it's reasonable to expect that under a "gay marriage" regime, you'd have lots of committed lesbians and a few committed gay men -- but you'd also have an increased number of gay men generally, the majority of whom won't be interested in long-term marriage.

In other words, "gay marriage" or no, I don't expect the bathhouses to empty. Men will be men, and will be even more so without women forcing ... er, "encouraging"* them to settle down.

*In case my wife ever reads this.

Society changes and matures.

And not always for the better. Usually -- I'm not one of those who thinks the world is going to hell on roller skates -- but not always.

[sgallan]

So I think it's reasonable to expect that under a "gay marriage" regime, you'd have lots of committed lesbians and a few committed gay men*****

Do you think Gay men are less committed to relationships then are heterosexual men?

**** but you'd also have an increased number of gay men generally, the majority of whom won't be interested in long-term marriage. *****

Aside from the male propensity to screw anything that moves as youngsters (this does taper off with years) you seem to be suggesting homosexual men are less likely to want to form long-term relationships then are heterosexual men? First, is there any data (of the secular sort please) backing this up? Second, what is the difference between heterosexual men supposedly not being interested in long-term relationships and homosexual men not being interested in long-term relationships? Third, are you suggesting perhaps only lesbians should marry..... period? Because it sure reads like men are not responsible enough to marry.

I find this stereotyping odd given my own personnal experiences and a little data too. First, in long-term relationships when the female spouse dies the male goes pretty quickly afterwards. It doesn't seem to work as much the other way (I think I can find some data backing this one up). Basically us males are helpless without a mate. And we won't talk about it. Second more anecdotally - in my experience the females have been the problem children. Denise and all we went through. My brothers wife - LDS - who when married (and no longer breaking the Chasity Law) got active and basically threw my brother away. And my other brothers wife who went so far off the deep end he got the custody of the kid. Then there are the homosexual people I know and as far as I can tell live valued loving lives. With a better envirnment then any other I can think.....

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Aside from the male propensity to screw anything that moves as youngsters (this does taper off with years) you seem to be suggesting homosexual men are less likely to want to form long-term relationships then are heterosexual men? First, is there any data (of the secular sort please) backing this up? Second, what is the difference between heterosexual men supposedly not being interested in long-term relationships and homosexual men not being interested in long-term relationships? Third, are you suggesting perhaps only lesbians should marry..... period? Because it sure reads like men are not responsible enough to marry.

Not quite. I am saying, though, that the influence of women is a major part of what makes men marry and settle down. A relationship between two men lacks that influence.

Maybe homosexual men are less likely to want to form long-term relationships than heterosexual men are. Maybe it's the other way around. I'll have to do a little research on that. I do think that men, gay or straight, are less likely to want to form long-term relationships than women, gay or straight.

First, in long-term relationships when the female spouse dies the male goes pretty quickly afterwards.

Well, that's obvious. You can only live so long on Top Ramen.