Gay rights vs. religious beliefs

[yellow_hammer]

Trevorum said, "Do you understand that the people we're talking about DO see injustice in the way they are treated by society? That fact, in and of itself, should give one pause to reflect."

 

I understand. I'm sure that they are sincere in their perception. I run into people almost daily who are sincerely wrong. I've taken my pause to reflect and here is what came into my mind...

 

Just for the sake of argument lets say that I like to have sex with mail-order blow up dolls. Let's say that I state so openly and publicly... often. Let's say that I take my blow-up doll, properly clothed, out to public places with me. Only consenting adults are involved in this loving and happy relationship.

 

To say the least, most people would treat me differently.

 

If I lived such a lifestyle, would I be correct in insisting that people let me teach their children? (My blow-up doll is clearly an adult.)

 

Why shouldn't I have special protection from certain discrimination in the workplace? Or are we only to be protected from descrimination if we limit our sexual partners to humans? Only a bigot would say such a thing.

 

Please take a pause to reflect on this: We live in a free country where it is possible to do things that are legal but deviant. The price one pays for being deviant is to be riduculed and even ostracized. Changing the law that gives you the freedom to practice your deviancy so that it then becomes illegal for others not to accept it is what is truly immoral and unethical.

 

 

[GernBlansten]

I saw that too Trev. Now I've known many mean women in my travels and if you know what I mean, sex with them is purely for procreation not recreation.

 

As for polygamy and polyandry, if all are adults and consenting, I don't really have a problem with it. Perhaps that's the libertarian in me. I just don't know why anyone would want to increase the number of in-laws. Unfortunately, most of those who practice polygamy don't do so with freewill.

 

Marriage with animals is just silly. Animals cannot consent and have no rights. They are owned by humans and have slave status. They are property. Like marrying a chainsaw or bicycle.

 

 

[DanKroh]

"The natural purpose of sex is for men and women to procreate and recreate as in men with women and women with mean. Anything else is clearly *deviation* from the natural and best purpose."

 

So you mean deviant in a purely statistical fashion? Well, given that the word has a lot of negative connotations surrounding it, I think you could chose a better word if you did not intent to convey those negative connotations. Did or did you not intend to convey those negative implictions surrounding the word "deviant"?

 

Someone who is left handed is a "deviant" in the strict sense of the word, since only about 10% of the population has that trait, as well. Perhaps we should start preventing them from endulging in their deviation. I think reparative therapy would help them immensely.

 

"The anus is clearly meant to be an exit port for body waste. Any other use is a *deviation* from the natural and best purpose."

 

And the lungs are meant to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide, not transmit nicotine into the bloodstream. Using the lungs to mainline nicotine is a deviation fom the natural and best purpose. Let's put a stop to that practice, as well.

 

So since lesbian sex does not involve anuses, does that mean it is less deviant? There are lots of other sexual acts that heterosexuals (many of them married to each other!) engage in that are a deviation from the natural purpose of the organs. Maybe we should void the marriages of those who engage in these deviant practices, too.

 

"Your assertion that homosexuality is not a a sexual deviance is not based on reason but purely on your feelings on the matter and what you wish to be true."

 

And your assertion that it is somehow detrimental to society is based purely on your feelings and what you wish to be true. As I said, we can cloak our biases in reason, but that doesn't change the fact that they are rationalizations for our opinions and morals. I find your "reasons" to be no less flawed than you find mine, so again, we seem to be at an impasse due to a lack of common viewpoints.

 

Let me put this another way, if we were trying to have a discussion about left-handedness, and I came straight out of the block going on and on about how anyone who is left-handed is a "deviant", don't you think I'd get a negative reaction? Well, when you start in with the "homosexuals are deviants" rhetoric, it is going to effectively shut down any civil discourse. Or was that your goal?

[Trevorum]

Never trust a leftie. They're all sinister ...

[DanKroh]

Equating homosexual relationships/marriages with "relationships" to children, animals, and inanimate objects (like blow up dolls) is a common tactic for de-humanizing gays, relegating them to a sub-human status. And when a gay person is no longer considered really a "person", it becomes much easier to demonize them and rationalize discrimination against them.

 

Otherwise, as hyperbole, these types of comparisons also fail, because everyone understands that a consenting adult is NOT the same thing as a child, an animal, or an inanimate object. That is the problem I have with the slipper slope argument.

 

As far as the polygamy slippery slope, on the one hand, if it is a consentual relationship, I honestly couldn't care. On the other hand, if I did care, I can still see that there is a difference between being able to marry ONE person, regardless of their gender, and marrying multiple people. Not being able to marry multiple people is NOT going to prevent someone from benefiting from the institution of marriage on an equal footing with everyone else. Not being able to marry someone of the same gender does prevent someone from benefiting from the institution of marriage because a gay person is NOT going to fall in love with and marry someone of the opposite gender, no matter what.

[packsaddle]

Real-life situation: One ASM recently confided to another ASM that the first ASM is gay and has known this since puberty. Also that another ASM is gay as well but just hasn't 'come out'. There is absolutely no way that the gay ASMs will be a threat to any of the boys, thus the only possible objection will be religious-based. I'm interested in reading responses to this situation.

[BrentAllen]

"Not being able to marry someone of the same gender does prevent someone from benefiting from the institution of marriage because a gay person is NOT going to fall in love with and marry someone of the opposite gender, no matter what."

 

I suggest you read up on the former Governor of New Jersey. He is in his second marriage. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/12/mcgreevey.nj/

 

"They are owned by humans and have slave status."

 

My cats are free to leave my house any time they want. I open the door, but they choose to stay. In some states, I think pets would fall under Common Law marriage definitions more so than slavery. What work are they performing?? There are plenty of people out there who want to marry their pets - they certainly don't think it is silly. You are just a bigot!! Hah!

 

So Dan, if polygamy is made legal, and your wife decides she wants two husbands, you aren't going to have a problem with that?

[evmori]

So apparently homosexuals want special rights!

 

Can anyone reference a society that allowed open homosexuality that survived?

 

Does anyone have proof homosexuality is nothing more than a lifestyle?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[GernBlansten]

Can't let you get away with this Ed.

So apparently homosexuals want special rights!

Actually, it seems that heteros are the ones who want the special rights.

 

Can anyone reference a society that allowed open homosexuality that survived?

The USA, all European nations, pretty much the entire world as we know it now, except those controlled by Islamic theocracies.

 

Does anyone have proof homosexuality is nothing more than a lifestyle?

Nor does anyone have proof that homosexuality is just a lifestyle. But until then, I will go with my gut instinct that I don't like guys that way because its deeply ingrained in my instincts. If it was just a lifestyle, I shouldn't have such deep feelings about it.

[BrentAllen]

So, packsaddle, let me get this straight (pun, ha ha!) - you have friend who is gay.... ;^)

[packsaddle]

My grandmother had 4 husbands, just not at the same time. They all died young. Have to wonder what those last guys were thinking.

 

But the situation that Brent asks about exists plenty of times, except that only one of the multiple guys or other women attain the legal status of marriage. I suspect this is still true for the famous Mormon polygamists. The state legally only recognizes one marriage. Effectively the same as having multiple willing mistresses. Charles Kuralt comes to mind as well.

 

Still waiting for responses.

[evmori]

Can anyone reference a society that allowed open homosexuality that survived?

The USA, all European nations, pretty much the entire world as we know it now, except those controlled by Islamic theocracies.

 

Let me rephrase

 

Can anyone reference a society that had predominantly homosexuality lifestyle that survived?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[yellow_hammer]

DanKroh,

 

"Someone who is left handed is a "deviant" in the strict sense of the word"

 

We are not discussing lefties, blacks, orientals, handicapped, etc. They have no choice in their condition and no amount of discipline/fortitude/determination will change their condition. Bringing it up is a strawman argument meant to detour the conversation toward feelings instead of reason.

 

"Using the lungs to mainline nicotine is a deviation fom the natural and best purpose. Let's put a stop to that practice, as well."

 

Another strawman. Nowhere in this discussion has someone said that we should "put a stop to that practice" (homosexuality). What we have said is that homosexuals should not expect to have special protections under the law.

 

"So since lesbian sex does not involve anuses, does that mean it is less deviant?"

 

Ya know, I knew when I wrote it that someone would answer with this. To answer truthfully on a personal level I have to say YES. As a man the thought of sexual contact with other men really creeps me out.

 

But logically, no. Reference my previous statements on procreation and natural purpose of the sex organs as the argument basis. The true purpose of one's private parts is clear to any reasonable person. Arguing otherwise seems silly to me.

 

It is not my goal to shut down discussion - obviously since I keep coming back. But it is my nature to call something what it is without regard to politically correct speech requirements of the day. Homosexual sex is deviant. To me that is as plainly true as the sky is blue. That may hurt someone's *feelings* but it is no less true in my view.

 

"Equating homosexual relationships/marriages with "relationships" to children, animals, and inanimate objects (like blow up dolls) is a common tactic for de-humanizing gays, relegating them to a sub-human status."

 

I'm trying to calculate how many strawmen add up to a pile of BS. I have relatives who are homosexuals, I have hired homosexuals, I have invited them to church to sit beside me and pray. I am not interested in dehumanizing them. They are humans deserving of love and compassion. BUT, I am strongly against a redefinition of marriage to suit their desires, I am strongly against special protections for homosexuals because it opens the door for other lunacy, and I am strongly against having them in a position where they can influence children - even indirectly. You are trying to call me a bigot without actually using the word. Say what you mean.

 

"these types of comparisons also fail, because everyone understands that a consenting adult is NOT the same thing as a child, an animal, or an inanimate object"

 

Do tell. Why does everyone understand that? Why shouldn't someone in love with an inanimate object expect not to be discriminated against?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LongHaul]

Im going to take these in order of appearance; GlenBlansten, Pedophiles cannot exercise their sexual instincts without harming children. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children this does not mean they wish to engage in sex with them. Having photographs of naked children is illegal to the point that under Regan and Edwin Meese people were arrested for taking naked pictures of babies on furry blankets. How is being photographed unclothed harmful to a child? Nudists cant take family photographs without running the risk of arrest? How about if we only allow photographs of nudist children? If we are predisposed to accept that wanting to look means a person will eventually want to touch then every heterosexual male should be indicted for rape. They have the desire, and the means so the act must necessarily follow right? What Im talking about here is the distinctions we make. I said pedophile and you heard child molester. You cant accept that someone may want to look but not want to touch. Society believes that photographing a child is harmful. Its only harmful if we tell the child it is harmful, that its wrong, that its sick. Children that are raised to believe that nudity is acceptable dont have that view so it must not be natural but is in fact a learned response.

DanKroh, you also equate desire with action. Pedophiles do not harm children child molesters harm children. Why is it so hard to accept pedophiles for the non harmful people they really are. Why must you of all people, you who understand the evils of stereotyping and assigning negative predispositions lump the poor pedophiles with the dreaded child molesters? Old beliefs and opinions die hard?

Trevorum, even the people who wrote all men are created equal didnt actually believe it. For as long has man has been in existence he has been a social animal. We group together and separate ourselves from other groups. We separate along a myriad of lines, religious, economic, cultural, physical appearance, social position, every possible distinction you can imagine. When a government tries to break down these lines by force, which is what laws actually are a threat, those drawing the lines become ever so much more convinced the lines are necessary. The question here is not with the legality of homosexuality it is with the acceptance of homosexuality. Governments can not force people to believe something they dont. When will homosexuals begin to treat those who disagree with them with the respect they wish to have shown them. Treat me as you would have me treat you.

Yellow_hammer, wrong forum for that tack!

LongHaul

 

[Hunt]

"When will homosexuals begin to treat those who disagree with them with the respect they wish to have shown them."

 

You mean those who call them "sexual deviants" and think that they should be denied the rights that others have? This is a silly argument, even if you think that homosexuality is a sin. What, you think they should be MORE polite than you? This is like saying that Martin Luther King Jr. was intolerant of Bull Conner.

 

The truth here is that some people think that homosexuality is not only a bad sin, but a sin that has the capacity to poison society. As a result, these folks think that it is appropriate for society to use laws to restrict homosexuality. I would like to say that it is possible to think that homosexuality is a sin, but a sin like many others (gambling, drinking, adultery, etc.), with no special reason to single it out for special legal attention. The fact that it involves consenting adults is an important distinction between it and sins that have victims--it is typically sins with victims that we treat as crimes.