[civilian_number_two]

Deucaon, on 12 January 2011 - 05:21 PM, said:

Government shouldn't recognise any marriage. Government has no place deciding what's legitimate and what's not, plus government is almost always at odds with society and governments are looking for ways to divide people using stupid issues like this. Plus it establishes economic discrimination against singles.

1) I ddin't mention government, so get off your hobby horse. I asked you whether you believed that gay marriage should enjoy the same legal recognition as heterosexual marriage. Legal issues are not necessarily government ones, so this isn't an oportunity for you to obfuscate with your usual arguments about how all governments are rapist organizations.

2) No, marriage, straight or otherwise, does not create economic discrimination against straights people. I won't ask you to explain how it does, because we all know that you cannot. You have of course opted for the "we should abolish ALL marriage" argument, a commonconservative fallback. Marriage was ok for 10000 years, they will say, but now that fags want it, maybe society has outgrown it. I WILL ask you to explain how your argument is not just a conservative backlash because you hate fags.

[J m HofMarN]

Civ and Icey have this covered, but I would like to continue to question your argument that only genetics effect human sexuality.

I once had a girlfriend. She was interested in heterosexual sex, hence her dating of me. She later became a lesbian. Indeed, of the homosexuals I know, several of them were heterosexuals once. Some give up homosexuality permanently. Allen Ginsburg was a life long homosexual, but he gave it up for a time to start what he called his "straight phase" Please don't claim that it is possible that there is a "be gay for a little while and then become heterosexual" gene. That would be really, really stupid. Homosexuality is a choice. A fetish is a choice. How could it possibly be genetic? How would, for instance, a human being genetically be predisposed to, say, develop an enema fetish when there is no natural example of such and enemas as both therapy and fetish are a modern invention? Humans do not evolve at that rate, and even if they did I fail to see why such a thing would be encoded into our DNA when it has little to no bearing on anything. Also, mental illness is not always genetic. Nature VS Nurture, etc etc.

Quote

We don't actually know how many homosexuals there are.

Is this a bad thing? Would it be better if society made a concentrated effort to learn who was homosexual, their exact numbers, where they work, and so forth?

[civilian_number_two]

J m HofMarN, on 13 January 2011 - 04:28 PM, said:

Civ and Icey have this covered, but I would like to continue to question your argument that only genetics effect human sexuality.

I once had a girlfriend. She was interested in heterosexual sex, hence her dating of me. She later became a lesbian. Indeed, of the homosexuals I know, several of them were heterosexuals once. Some give up homosexuality permanently. Allen Ginsburg was a life long homosexual, but he gave it up for a time to start what he called his "straight phase" Please don't claim that it is possible that there is a "be gay for a little while and then become heterosexual" gene. That would be really, really stupid. Homosexuality is a choice. A fetish is a choice. How could it possibly be genetic? How would, for instance, a human being genetically be predisposed to, say, develop an enema fetish when there is no natural example of such and enemas as both therapy and fetish are a modern invention? Humans do not evolve at that rate, and even if they did I fail to see why such a thing would be encoded into our DNA when it has little to no bearing on anything. Also, mental illness is not always genetic. Nature VS Nurture, etc etc.

I have to disagree with you on this one, JM. Homosexuality is no more a choice than fetishes are. You don't actually have a choice in determining your fetishes. you could work really hard to develop an interest in sock puppets, but there was that one picture you saw at a convenient time in your early development and bang, you have a latex fetish. Anyway back to homosexuality, yes it could easily be a fetish developed at some time in early development, or it could be a recessive genetic predisposition. Your Alan Ginsberg example is perfect: he tried to "go straight" and couldn;t keep it up. Homeosecuality for him, or for your ex-girlfriend, was not a choice. Either they were bisexual, or they were briefly in denial. It's easier for women to be in denial, since there it's easier for them to have sex without arousal, but it's also easier for them to be bisexual, since society is harder on fags than it is on dykes. The bottom line is, whether it's a genetic predisposition or it is a fetish, homosexuality is not a choice.

[J m HofMarN]

I completely agree that it isnt a conscious choice. My point however was that it isn't a genetic thing. Nature VS Nurture being the main tenet I keep bringing up, to no avail of course. The reason I made that argument was due to Deucaon's seeming implication that if homosexual marriage was not recognized, gays would have heterosexual relationships and thus pass on their allegedly gay genes, which seems to be presented as a negative event.

I'm certainly willing to have a reasoned debate on whether homosexuality is a genetic predisposition, a learned behavior, or a combination of the two, but only as a purely academic debate. I won't entertain the concept when it seems to be used only in pertinence to some kind of eugenics argument.

[Zatoichi]

I can't remember how valid it's still considered, but I always thought of sexual orientation was more like Kinsey's Scale.

A scale of 0-6, with 0 being exclusively heterosexual and 6 being exclusively homosexual.
Most people are around a 1,2, or 3. Also, orientation can change overtime, just like various other likes and dislikes.
I for example, would probably be a 1. I can say that a male has an attractive appearance, physical features, good fashion sense, or other traits, but I'm simply not interested in any kind of sexual liason with a male.

With a quick check, there's way more than I can paraphrase on the scale's relevenc. So if you're really interested, wiki it or something.

[Deucaon]

Also, Hoffman, you say I support eugenics because I oppose the persecution of people based on their sexual preferences. Whereas you support the practise of abortion which directly leads to eugenic practises like people killing their kid because it wasn't a male/female plus a disproportionately large number of poor ethnic/racial minorities having abortions. Which is a more direct form of eugenics? I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin. But I guess if, in the distant future, a mother found out that their kid was going to be a homosexual and had an abortion on that whim then you'd be for it.

[J m HofMarN]

Quote

Also, Hoffman, you say I support eugenics because I oppose the persecution of people based on their sexual preferences. Whereas you support the practise of abortion which directly leads to eugenic practises like people killing their kid because it wasn't a male/female plus a disproportionately large number of poor ethnic/racial minorities having abortions. Which is a more direct form of eugenics? I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin. But I guess if, in the distant future, a mother found out that their kid was going to be a homosexual and had an abortion on that whim then you'd be for it.

First of all, you still havent proven that homosexuality is genetic, an idea you put forth while arguing that gays should only be allowed to marry so that they wont pass on their gay genes through heterosexual relations. Now you're enforcing your probably incorrect world view into the debate and even accusing me of supporting aborting future homosexuals based upon your incorrect assumptions that such a thing could be done. Selecting male over female children is not eugenics, though its just as stupid. You cannot breed out females. (PS: Ending abortion isnt the answer to that problem, gender equality is, though I'm sure you'll disagree) Abortion has indeed been linked to eugenics in ethnic minorities, however their populations are still growing or stable, and also, it has a good bit more to do with the poverty than the race if you ask me. There is no evil conspiracy forcing abortions on otherwise happily expecting minority mothers.

Quote

abortion on that whim

You really don't have a very high opinion of women at all do you? Is that the motivation you ascribe to abortion? A whim?

"Gee, I'm kinda bored. I think a nice abortion would be just the thing to perk me up!"

[civilian_number_two]

I think in the space travel of time management ice cube trays will have for the betterment of fashion. And finally there will be washboard polarity excellence to measure turpitude. Fortunately that day is not far off.

HOnestly Deucaon, answer a fucking straightforward question with an answer that doesn't sound like the nonsense above. Do you believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, that these marriages will have the full support of the law currently and for some time in the past enjoyed by heterosexual marriages? Yes or no? Why or why not? Jumping from erroneous conclusion to erroneous conclusion fails to distract me from your inability to answer the question. What are you afraid of?

[Deucaon]

Icey, on 13 January 2011 - 10:50 AM, said:

You are ridiculous. Couples pay less taxes because people staying together creating strong family units is usually the best thing for everyone, and creates a safety net is a member of the unit turns ill. This is an incentive. It is discriminatory because the qualification to get the incentive doesn't require offspring made through penis in vagina or at all, but sometimes they can't be the same gender. It is also a legal union which tells the universe that this is your life partner, which has all sorts of legal ramification and does give people rights.

Stop overthinking things.

Rebuttal: childless couples and single parents. Homosexuals fall into the former category.

[Jordan]

Deuacon, why don't you answer Civ's question? I still have no clue what you're talking about. I've read this thread twice over, no joke.

[Icey]

What are you trying to prove? Single parents get government aid as well, they have a different safety net, and society understands why they have that. They need to feed an extra person. Stop being an idiot and answer a question. The way you're treating this is just making you look like a mentally ill person. If you are, I'm sorry to press this much on you, but I don't go around assuming people are insane.

[J m HofMarN]

Deuc, where did you even find that post from Icey? It's not even on this PAGE of the thread. You wanted to toss up a reply without admitting you're kind of a bigot, so you went to the first page of this thread, to a post about a week old, to find something, anything to reply to so that you could continue to belabor this argument that we should abolish marriage, or parenthood, or everything, which Civ has already pointed out is often a conservative argument against gay marriage that can be made without specifically arguing against gay marriage.

PS: Saying that a tax break for couples with children or married couples is discriminatory towards childless or non married people is like saying that allowing people to write off some of their college debt is discriminatory against people without college debt. To directly attack your semantic argument here: Discrimination is not when one group deservedly recieves something based on their own qualities, while another group is denied that because they lack those qualities. If parent A is straight and parent B is gay, and parent A recieves child tax credit while B does not, then that is discrimination. If parent A is straight and person B is gay AND has no children, then when person B does not recieve the child tax credit, there is no discrimination going on there.

[J m HofMarN]

By the way, while I was going back over the thread to find Icey's post, I discovered two statements you made that will explain everyones confusion regarding your view of homosexuals. I'm sure youre curious why anyone could possibly think that one so enlightened as you could be a bigot, so here are the two statements you made so that you can try to explain the real meaning of your views professed therein and misinterpreted by us morons (please don't), or else just own up to them and admit to not liking gay people.

Quote

Homosexuality is obviously a hereditary mental disorder. Same with other fetishes. Unless it's social conditioning or a psychological problem

Quote

As far as "allowing" marriage between homosexuals, I think it's beneficial for "society" (by which you mean government, obviously) to "allow" it. Otherwise they'll hide their homosexuality, find a spouse and breed. Then "society" will be stuck with it for at least another generation.

The itallics are mine. You showed in these two posts what I believe to be your definitive theory on homosexuality: That it is a problematic genetic disorder which society is stuck with. You further put forth that if gay marriage was allowed, homosexuals would no longer have heterosexual relations (I don't think they usually do that anyhow, what with being homosexuals and all) and thus they would be bred out of the population. So your argument for allowing gay marriage is a eugenics one, though you've of course denied that, and then said that I myself am interested in aborting people with the gay gene that you made up.

[civilian_number_two]

JM, Deuc did not make up the "gay gene." There are nmerous studies out there, esp "twin studies," trying to determine whether it exists. So far there are no conclusive results, but it is something that is considered by serious scientists. Deuc is the one who assumes that if the gay gene exists then it must be dominant and can be bred out of play. His conclusion lacks even a high schooler's understanding of genetics. There are indeed many recessive genetic traits and it is not necessary for those exhibiting the trait ever to breed for the trait to carry on for millennia. I think it's possible there is a genetic origin to homosexuality, based on the anecdotal evidence of gay twins, but it's possible it's a fetish like blonde hair or round asses, and the twins are just cases of statistical probability (ie even without a gay gene it would be anomalous if there were NO gay twins). Ultimately I don't care; I consider homosexual couples to be a perfectly normal minority and I don't understand all of the conservative fuss. But of course any discussion of the gay gene, or eugenics, or tax releif, of what have you, is just an effort to distract from a very simple question.

Do you believe that homosexual couples ought to be allowed to marry? Yes or no? Why or why not?

I will answer for myself, to get the all rolling, and others may join in if they like.

Yes, I believe that homosexual couples ought to be allowed to marry. Why? Because homosexual relationships are socially recognized and legal. To deny homosexual couples something that is available to heterosexual couples while claiming that their relationships enjoy the protection (or at least, the lack of persecution from) the law would he dishonest. It would represent a double standard at best, and at worst a lie. It would be better in my opinion if opponents of gay marriage were openly to state that they believe that homosexuality ought to be illegal. Then at least they would have reason for their opposition to gay marriage. Instead, they frequently create analogies to things that ARE illegal or at least not considered socially normal, like incest and duck-fucking. Their argument in these analogies is that if we allow homosexual marriage then we have to allow EVERYTHING, because they say that the argument for homosexual marriage is a libertarian one. It is not. The argument for homosexual marriage is like the argument for women's suffrage: one might have said "if we allow women to vote, then we'll have to allow horses to vote;" the argument is exactly as ridiculous. The argument for gay marriage is not a libertarian "anything goes" argument; it is an argument proposing that we legally recognize the marriages of couples whose relationships we claim to recognize socially. To deny marriage it would be less hypocritical if one simultaneously denied the relationships themselves. I will respect, and not vote for, anyone with the courage to say things along those lines: "I oppose homosexual marriage becasue homosexuality itself ought to be illegal, just like it was less than 40 years ago!"

That's my answer.

[barend]

The human population of this planet was 3 billion in 1980... thirty years later it's like 7.6Billion. My hope for Homosexuality to curb the human desire to stretch resources thin by hogging the planitary quota of atoms for their unneccessary offsping has failed.

I am dissapoint.



However, failing at it's purpose, I fail to understand why anyone would have a problem with two people of any gender getting together, booking a hall, inviting their friends and family and saying "the food and booz is on us for the day".

As long as there's a party you can marry a chair for all I care.