| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Gay Agenda; Freedom for all? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 30 2006, 11:39 AM (3,846 Views) | |
| AlbertaCrude | Jun 1 2006, 01:57 PM Post #126 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Hey this is our turf. We was here first. |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 1 2006, 02:01 PM Post #127 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Well, that's a different argument. Along the lines of Primum, non nocere. Unfortunately, the same could have been said (and, indeed, was said) for integrating schools and neighborhoods. Sometimes, wrong is wrong, and you just have to fix it, even at the risk of unfavorable consequences. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| LadyElton | Jun 1 2006, 02:26 PM Post #128 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Why is it that those who claim to know everything about homosexuality are heterosexual? Rather than believe gays and lesbians when we tell them what we are, they tell us we're wrong. it's easier for them to tell us who and what we are and what we feel because if they learn the truth then their beliefs would be shattered. Gods forbid if people began thinking for themselves rather than have the 'church' dictate what to think, feel. Trust a 2,000 year old book that was written by men and translated (and retranslated) from now dead languages/dialects more than living human beings who can state from experience what it's like to be gay? Man, a PMSing lesbian on a hot summer evening and a badd storm coming is a fun thing to be. Maybe I can go back into the mental hospital. More normal people there.
|
| Hilary aka LadyElton | |
![]() |
|
| FrankM | Jun 1 2006, 02:34 PM Post #129 |
|
Senior Carp
|
As I've posted before, discussions I've had with a psychiatrist and psychologist (both in-laws) about the subject indicate the present official position about whether being gay is a voluntary lifestyle choice or is, instead, essentially involuntary (being determined well before adolescence) appears to be unresolved. But there is substantial evidence indicating it is likely more often a voluntary lifestyle choice in the case of gay women than gay men. Let's go on the assumption that M% of gay men are voluntary and F% of gay women are voluntary. Then, extending certain rights to all gay people would result in, arguably, frivolous abuse of this rights extension by M% of gay men and F% of gay women. Assuming M and F are not zero, this situation is clearly different from other clear-cut minorities such as, say, a woman or, say, a black, because definitive standards are subject to direct measurement in these latter cases. 1) So then how large does M have to be before the number of frivolous gay male cases is considered too excessive to extend rights to all gay men? 2) Similarly, how large does F have to be before the number of frivolous gay female cases is considered too excessive to extend rights to all gay women? 3) Can we get a consensus answer to these two questions? 4) Even if we could, do we really know yet what the actual values of M and F are? 5) if we did know M and F and it turned out that M was acceptably small enough to extend rights to all gay men but F was deemed too large to extend rights to all gay women, would it actually be feasible to implement this combination of conclusions? I suggest that since the answer to question 4 presently is "no," the other questions are premature since their answers would likely be driven by the magnitude of M and F. For instance, if M is 1 and F is 2 (that is 1% and 2% respectively), I doubt there would be much resistance by "objective"* citizens to extending rights to both gay men and gay women. On the other hand, if M is 1 and F is 50, I'd expect "objective" citizens to extend rights to gay men but not to gay women. *by objective I mean those whose religious beliefs do not predetermine their conclusions. |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jun 1 2006, 03:42 PM Post #130 |
|
MAMIL
|
I believe the argument over whether gays choose to be gay or not is irrelevant. If people want to be gay, let them. If enough people want to do something and it doesn't hurt anybody else, they should be allowed to. It's nobody else's damn business. Letting gay people marry isn't going to hurt me one damn bit, and it's going to piss off Jerry Falwell no end. I reckon that fact alone makes it a worthwhile thing to do. There you go. More liberalism destroying America. I think that people doing what they want to do is actually called freedom rather than liberalism, but what do I know? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Bernard | Jun 1 2006, 03:42 PM Post #131 |
|
Senior Carp
|
FrankM, that line of arguing is so laughable I don't know whether you are being serious or not. You want frivolity!? Take a long hard look at heterosexual lifestyles! |
![]() |
|
| Bernard | Jun 1 2006, 03:45 PM Post #132 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Ain't it the truth Lady Elton. It really pisses me off. If someone wants to know if a homosexual has chosen his/her lifestyle, they need only ask THEM. Some homosexuals will tell you they can go both ways (I believe they prefer to be called 'bisexual' or 'bi-curious'), some will tell you they are exclusively attracted to the same sex. |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jun 1 2006, 03:47 PM Post #133 |
|
MAMIL
|
I think he's having a laugh. I thought it was rather well done. Frivolous? How dare you! My life is laughable, not frivolous! |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jun 1 2006, 03:50 PM Post #134 |
|
MAMIL
|
It's pretty obvious to me that there are more gay and bisexual people than ever admit it, because of societal pressure to conform. Whether this means anything is open to question. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| FrankM | Jun 1 2006, 03:57 PM Post #135 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Bernard, What I meant by "frivolous" is exploiting a situation to gain an unfair advantage. Admittedly not a good term to use without defining it ... but what can i say? I'm lazy. Seriously, what i mean is that if, in fact, being gay is truly voluntary, then a same sex couple might choose to elect the gay lifestyle and marry simply to capitalize on marriage benefits extended to gays. (I know that sounds absurd and it is absurd. But people have used that "practical" argument against gay marriage.) But here's my main point, and I said this a long long time ago. If I were gay, I'd be aggressively supporting including donating to scientific investigations of the issue of whether being gay is predetermined or not. Because if, as i expect, it will eventually be proven it IS predetermined (except for a negligible percentage) at least in the case of gay men (to be honest i have my doubts that it's overwhelmingly predetermined for gay women), it will take the wind out of the sails of secular arguments against gay male marriage. All that will be left is the usual specious religious arguments as well as the self-serving handwaving BS about negative secular utility that Quirt has nicely dealt with here. P.S. the gay people here continue to resort to emotion rather than hard headed pragmatism in fighting for their rights. If I weren't pro-gay marriage, i would never be persuaded by the kinds of posts made here by gays. It's all weeping and gnashing of teeth. |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Jun 1 2006, 04:05 PM Post #136 |
|
Senior Carp
|
What does it matter if being gay was "determined" or "voluntary"? Some determined or biological things are good, some bad, some indifferent. Some voluntary things are good, some bad, some indifferent. The only thing that matters is whether there is anything wrong with consentual homosexual sex acts, whether being gay is voluntary or not. No one has ever provided an argument that homosexual sex acts are bad (other than "The Bible told me so"). We've had about 50 threads on this topic, and that is the only argument left standing after many pages. So the case on that issue is closed. The only question is whether gay people should be allowed to marry. Since there is a strong equality argument in favor of gay marriage, opponents have to come up with very powerful reasons to deny gays equal treatment under the law. No such arguments have yet been forthcoming either. |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Jun 1 2006, 04:07 PM Post #137 |
|
Senior Carp
|
FM: " a same sex couple might choose to elect the gay lifestyle and marry simply to capitalize on marriage benefits extended to gays" Please explain why this is a bigger issue than for heterosexual marriages of convenience? Aren't some heterosexuals "swingers"? |
![]() |
|
| FrankM | Jun 1 2006, 04:13 PM Post #138 |
|
Senior Carp
|
As with so many posts here that post is totally useless regarding achieving parity for gays. These kinds of threads make me sick because so many of you allegedly intelligent people totally miss the point that what you think doesn't count for sh*t. It's what it takes to convince the undecideds to support gay marriage that is the friggin' issue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IDIOTS!! |
![]() |
|
| Bernard | Jun 1 2006, 04:20 PM Post #139 |
|
Senior Carp
|
There's a lot of emotion behind it, FrankM, because the message is not only that we are homosexuals, we're pathological liars as well. I'M SICK AND TIRED OF BEING CALLED A LIAR. It makes me see how close minded and bigotted some people are that they refuse to take a homosexual's word on his/her experience as valid. IDIOTS! |
![]() |
|
| FrankM | Jun 1 2006, 04:28 PM Post #140 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Seems we went through this at least once before a long time ago in TOCR. If you're posting here just to blow off steam, fine. I can understand that. But comments like that are useless regarding making headway in your objective. Sorry, I'm just a very pragmatic person. I am, after all, an engineer. BTW, my IDIOT comment was directed at certain non-gays here who purport to argue constructively for gay rights. If I were gay, I'd hope they were on the side of the opposition. |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 1 2006, 04:36 PM Post #141 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
From FrankM
One of the problems, Frank, is that many who support gay marriage see the logic of it as so simple and obvious as to not requiring a lot of explanation. Two people love each other, want a committed relationship, and hence they see what they have as the same as a heterosexual committed relationship. Simple logic. One equates to the other. Then they face those who oppose it and see no logic whatsoever. The reasons given against it? It is gainst God's will. This is not a logical argument. How does one logically refute someone's belief in God's will? There is no logic that can be used. Or one hears it is against natural law. Well, this is like saying it's against God's law. Not all accept natural law and those that do will interpret it differently. The second reason against it is that it will destroy the institution of marriage. When asked how, there is never an answer given. The closest answer one gets is heterosexual marriage always was, always is and always will be. When the fact that the concept, facts and practice of heterosexual marriage has changed many times over the centuries, no further response is forthcoming. So, how does one give a logical argument in favor of gay marriage when it seems logical on the face of it and when the only opposition is inherently illogical? Thus, supporters tend to argue against the illogic of denying gay marriage. And, to be honest, I think this argument is working on a macro sense in the society as a whole and even in a micro sense on this Board. Ten years ago, the moderates in the society were not even supportive of the concept of civil unions. Today, more and more people support this concept. Why? Because they can find no logical reason to oppose it. More and more I hear people say something like, "I am really uncomfortable with homosexuality (usually male, of course), but if that's what they want to do, I can't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to have it." May not be a resounding endorsement, but it is a massive step forward. And on this Board? Even here, there seems to be consensus that civil unions are OK and probably should be allowed -- and this even among those who are most vehemently opposed to gay marriage. This was not the case when I first joined this group. I understand your thinking that the arguments in favor need to be logical, but when that logic is so apparent and is shown and the only arguments against gay marriage are so obviously illogical, perhaps the best way to argue is to continue to point out the illogic of the opposition. At least so far it seems to be working. I think the undecideds are being convinced. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Bernard | Jun 1 2006, 04:37 PM Post #142 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Frankly, FrankM, I don't see lot's of opposition from a purely secular standpoint. And your line of arguing above would come across as absurd to most people with a secular bent that I know. The problem is religious attitudes. We don't know exactly when a fetus becomes a human so we should ban abortion until we know. We may NEVER have scientific answers to these questions. And it very well will take many more years if we can know. The fact is that civil marriage laws are already taken advantage of all the time by heterosexuals. SHEESH. |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jun 1 2006, 04:39 PM Post #143 |
|
MAMIL
|
As someone who is probably among the idiots, I actually don't believe that you can win many people over by argument or logic. This whole argument is too tied up with emotion, faith and religious dogma for logic to make much of an impact. I think what will force the issue is a violent gay uprising. (No, I'm not being serious about the last bit) |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Jun 1 2006, 04:44 PM Post #144 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Frank - The arguments against gay marriage are so idiotic they are not worth addressing seriously. To do so is to give them too much credit. It is right and proper in the face of unreasoning hatred by gay-hating bigots of the sort displayed above, to simply point out that they are wrong, and that they are losing, as Jolly's articles have noted with dismay. |
![]() |
|
| Bernard | Jun 1 2006, 05:00 PM Post #145 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Yeah, look at Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal. Oh wait! They have one of the best marriage records in the nation. Silly me. I forgot it was the Bible belt states with the huge divorce problem--all without the corrupting influence of gay marriage I might add. |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Jun 1 2006, 05:10 PM Post #146 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Frankie baby, where I live we have had legal gay marriage for pretty near a year. The sun still rises and sets as before, the cows still milk, no one has vandalised our home while my wife and I are at work and my dog continues to cock her leg to pee. Life as I see it has not changed. If heteros figure marriage can only be between a man and woman thety are free to try to file a patent on the design and process of the product known as marriage. |
![]() |
|
| Bernard | Jun 1 2006, 05:14 PM Post #147 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Jolly said,
Re: special rights, the court has differed with you. "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." -- Lovings vs. Virginia "Marriage is one of the `basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." -- Skinner vs. Oklahoma |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jun 1 2006, 05:14 PM Post #148 |
|
MAMIL
|
America will catch up with the rest of the civilised world, eventually. Then they'll claim to be leading the way for human and civil rights, just like they always do. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 1 2006, 05:15 PM Post #149 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Nah, they are trying the time-honored technique of squelching competing products by passing laws against them. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Bernard | Jun 1 2006, 05:40 PM Post #150 |
|
Senior Carp
|
I should have written "some" religious attitudes. There are some positive movements underway, for example: Faith In America |
![]() |
|
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |






Maybe I can go back into the mental hospital. More normal people there.

4:59 PM Jul 10