Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It's just that I've found that calling a specific ACTION discriminating (for example), instead of calling the PERSON discriminating, is more accurate and less provoking, and makes the conversation less likely to erupt into anger, where no one can talk.

well I come from the school of if someone is clearly guilty of an offense it does them and others justice to call them what they are. Maybe it will actually open their eyes or at least others eyes. You should be proud I dont PC down my words considering how much you hate that.

Please elaborate

adult heterosexuals are allowed to marry consenting adults that they love.

adult homosexuals are NOT allowed to marry consenting adults that THEY love. They are instead only given the option of marrying a consenting adult that they would never want to marry and would be miserable with if they did.

Since there is no rational or logical reason to restrict homosexuals from marriage then by definition it is both unfair and irrational.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

well I come from the school of if someone is clearly guilty of an offense it does them and others justice to call them what they are. Maybe it will actually open their eyes or at least others eyes. You should be proud I dont PC down my words considering how much you hate that.

But do you think I discriminate in every area of my life? For example, I think that people of differing skin colors should be allowed to marry; is that discrimination? Again, it's the difference between calling a PERSON something and calling an ACTION something, which to me is a big difference.

1. adult heterosexuals are allowed to marry consenting adults that they love.

2. adult homosexuals are NOT allowed to marry consenting adults that THEY love. They are instead only given the option of marrying a consenting adult that they would never want to marry and would be miserable with if they did.

3. Since there is no rational or logical reason to restrict homosexuals from marriage then by definition it is both unfair and irrational.

(I added numbers to your statements)
I know you know my reasoning, but here it is for newbies:
In your #1, you have clearly added restrictions to who is allowed to marry ("adult" and "consenting") based on YOUR worldview and what YOU think is right. I do the same, and I say you get one vote and I get one vote, since neither one of us can prove that our worldview is right.

In your #2 - this is an example of a group of people that you think, based upon YOUR worldview, SHOULD be allowed to marry, because you see no harm in it. That's fine - you have a right to your worldview and your opinion on what is harmful and what isn't, and I say, give the man one vote! I would certainly hope that if you see harm in letting a certain group marry, then you would vote against it, and if you see NO harm in letting a certain group marry, then you would vote FOR it. In my opinion, based on my worldview, it IS harmful to allow homosexuals to marry, and I say I should be allowed my vote, too. Neither one of us can prove our worldview; our definition of "harmful" is based on our worldview. Both of us are being fair and non-discriminatory, because we each have RATIONAL reasons behind our opinions, based upon our worldviews. Neither one can prove their worldview, so I think allowing one person one vote is the best possible solution. Give the lady a vote! We are now equal

Your #3 - Based on your unproven worldview, you are ENTIRELY rational to support marriage for consenting adults, either male/female, male/male or female/female. Based on MY unproven worldview, I am ENTIRELY rational to say that marriage should be restricted to consenting adults, one of whom is male and one of whom is female. We can BOTH be rational - the only difference is our underlying worldviews, which are where we draw our opinions on what is harmful.

I think your WORLDVIEW is wrong; I don't think your REASONING is wrong (except that I see no logical grounds for you limiting it to "consenting" or "adult" - that's another story, tho). Now assuming my worldview is correct, what, exactly, is irrational or illogical about my REASONING? Do you see what I mean? My reasoning is flawless, given my worldview. And your reasoning is flawless, given YOUR worldview. So why should you DISCRIMINATE against my worldview, since you can't prove yours is right?

[inked]

Nurv,

Glad you liked the MARRIAGE THREAD bump ... which quickly got lost!

And I appreciate your rational counter-arguments to my rational arguments.
Did you appreciate the counter - counter-arguments, too?

Seriously, maybe the judge's stuff should have gone there?

[Rían]

I don't know - it seems that the homosexual marriage issue takes over this thread, but I don't want to take over katya's thread with the homosexual marriage issue, either. SHould we start a thread specifically on the definition of marriage, or the issue of homosexual marriage?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lizra

I suppose if you're bisexual.... there's a choice, but if you are gay or straight....you are just doing what comes NATURAL! Just because something might be different...doesn't mean it's not natural!

I went to the top of this thread to see what TinuvielChild originally said, but it's been truncated due to server unhappiness over long threads. I came across this, and thought I would comment that first, I don't think gays choose to be gay, and second, that even heterosexuals have a choice as to how to express their sexuality! There's lots of behaviors that are NATURAL, but the ones that a person thinks are wrong, based on their worldview, they will try to NOT act on. NO ONE, homosexual, heterosexual, or otherwise, thinks they should act ONLY based on what is "natural", if they also think it's wrong. It's natural to want to yell angry, hurtful words at my husband in the heat of a disagreement, but I restrain myself, because I don't think it's right. It's "natural" for me to desire to have sex with an attractive man who is not my husband, but I don't, because I don't think it's right. Whether or not homosexuality, or heterosexualitiy, or anything, is "natural" is a non-issue, IMO.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

oh, I know what your reasons are, but it seems that this discussion is taking off again, so I was asking you to restate them for other people that are new.

oh you mean you want me to work then. *groan *

Ok.

like age, closeness of relation, number of participants

AGE vs. SEXUAL PERSUASION
Its generally established that the brains of children are fundamentally different (developmentally) then the brains of adult humans. Because of these differences we have clear evidence that children are apt to make a higher percentage of choices that could ultimately prove dangerous to themselves and are more likely to place themselves into a situation where there is a higher percentage of likelihood that they could be abused, taken advantage of, or physically hurt.

It is generally established that the brains of adults are fully developed whether they be heterosexual or homosexual. Therefore we can make no logical restriction on the behavior of homosexuals based on the same rational we use to restrict the behavior of children.

FAMILY INBREEDING vs. SEXUAL PERSUASION
The logic behind this issue is that family members that marry (and breed) stand a much higher chance of producing genetic mutant offspring to the disadvantage of said offspring which or often born with strange painful deformities or rare genetic diseases that would be much less likely to be an issue when carriers of these recessive genes breed with non relatives. Now this is based on CURRENT SCIENTIFIC data. Not on religious or “moral� notions. Although it may parallel religious or “moral� notions. When and if we find out differently (that the harm done by a mom breeding with her son) is actually low enough to be less of concern then we can rethink these particular laws. For example, currently theres more and more evidence that cousins can breed with somewhat minimal worry of genetic issues. Yes it would be higher then two random people but its still seems to be fairly low in incidence so if that’s the case then I see no problem with cousins marrying. IF the data bears out.

Homosexuals cannot breed with one another. Homosexuals can have children (even naturally) and these offspring are subject to the same danger of genetic complications as children of heterosexual couples are. No higher. No lower. So therefore there is no reason to discriminate against homosexuals based on possible genetic (or frankly any health) issues at all. And attempting to do so would not stand up in a court of law.

MULTIPLE WIVES/HUSBANDS: Frankly, I don’t see a problem with more then two people of legal age and consenting mind marrying each other in a group marriage. If they are all willing and ok with it then whats the problem? Again, who are we to say NO YOU CANT DO THAT! BECAUSE I DON’T LIKE IT!

[Rían]

(btw, this is from katya's opening post on the marriage thread : "I'll admit that the real topic of our discussion was same-sex marriage, but I'd rather not get into that. I just want to hear your opinions on marriage in general.") so the topic of homosexual marriage shouldn't be moved over there. )

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Neither one of us can prove our worldview; our definition of "harmful" is based on our worldview.

No. the definition of harmful is based on what is observable and recordable as harmful. If you are to restrict the rights of others you need to PROVE that it is so harmful to marry for one group of people only. The problem is the data isn’t there. The data IS there for 40 year olds marrying 5 year olds. Or moms breeding with their son. See the difference now?

To me “worldview� is simply code for religion. So what you are saying is you base your approach to homosexuality on your religious beliefs. If you don’t (and Im sure you will deny this) then where is all the evidence saying that gays being married is so dreadfully harmful?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Your #3 - Based on your unproven worldview, you are ENTIRELY rational to support marriage for consenting adults, either male/female, male/male or female/female. Based on MY unproven worldview…

hey hey not so fast…

my “worldview� isn’t unproven. Youll note that everything I assert has factual evidence to back it up. Youll note that your opinion that gays marrying causes them grave harm DOESN’T have factual evidence to back it up. So please don’t attempt to pull me down to your level on this. When I start saying muslims shouldn’t be allowed to drive because I feel its harmful or Chinese people shouldn’t be allowed to own property because I feel its harmful to them then we would be on equal terms.

[inked]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't know - it seems that the homosexual marriage issue takes over this thread, but I don't want to take over katya's thread with the homosexual marriage issue, either. SHould we start a thread specifically on the definition of marriage, or the issue of homosexual marriage?

the conversation over there consumed #3 - #139 before veering off into Canadian specifics, and katya even forgot the thread during that interlude!

so it has been Hijacked before, as it were

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

hey hey not so fast…

my “worldview� isn’t unproven.

Your worldview is agnosticism. And you can't prove you're right. And you base your views on homosexuality on your worldview.

My worldview is Christianity. And I can't prove I'm right. And I base my views on homosexuality on my worldview.

[Rían]

I've started a thread called "Homosexual Marriage", because people have complained that this thread is being taken over by discussions about homosexual marriage, to the exclusion of other gay/les/bi issues

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Your worldview is agnosticism. And you can't prove you're right. And you base your views on homosexuality on your worldview.

My worldview is Christianity. And I can't prove I'm right. And I base my views on homosexuality on my worldview.

1. The term "worldview" means nothing to me. You seem to enjoy it an awful lot though. So use it for yourself. Im not interested in wearing a religious philosphy like a name tag when I think its irrelevant to the issue. Which leads to...
2. Being agnostic is irrelevent to what I have been saying about gay marriage. Many people of varying religions and non religions feel the exact same way. And came to the exact same conclusions by simply (and ONLY) looking at the facts involved. And at history.
3. I CAN prove Im right that gays marrying does not cause catostrophic harm of some kind. THATS the point. Where as I see no real evidence that gay marriage causes such great harm.

Conclusion: My stance on this issue is a more logical one.

[Nurvingiel]

World view is a useful term, but I think it's actually two words. I think it was in a Wikipedia article.

However, I don't think you should just use the term to say that you can't prove you're right. I think IRex made some good points earlier that aren't that easy to dismiss. I'm not saying you're looking for an easy way out RÃ*an (would you ever do this in a debate?!) but in this case I don't think the phrase "your world view is unproveable as is mine" (even though that is true) completely applies.

If we really want to get phisolophical, which I don't think we do in this thread, we would have to say that you can't prove anything! It would be quite OT to debate whether or not our keyboards are real.

We have to have some sort of acceptance of reality. IRex had a very good post there about why society shouldn't allow underage marriage or incest, but should allow gay marriage (and polygamy, but we should move this one to the marriage thread).

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

In Finland, lesbians can give blood.. As I've heard (I haven't given blood yet: I'm about to next week, maybe I know more then) they only ask wether you've had unprotected sex with a man if you are a man.

I think it's very, very wrong, and it seems strange to me that even countries like Finland, who consider themselves advanced and unprejudiced, still have these restrictions.

They always ask you if you've had unprotected sex lately, it doesn't matter with whom you had it.

The fact that homosexual men can't give blood in "unprejudiced" countries like Finland and Sweden too - what one should know is that when HIV and Aids came, the gay movement itself actually thought prohibiting gays from donating blood was a good idea. At least that's what I've heard. My point is that these restrictions aren't only the idea of some biased people. The gay movements are also responsible.

It's understandable if they now want to make blood donations open to everyone but it would be a bit hypocritic if they didn't take some of the responsability for these restrictions upon themselves.

Oh, this doesn't mean I don't support the idea that all gays should be able to give blood

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Shouldn't they ask everyone if they've had unprotected sex with anyone? Maybe also subtly check everyone for signs of heroin use? And other sensible security measures?
...
Like I said above, I think rigorous screening of blood, including a test for HIV, hepatitis C, and anything else that's a big worry with blood donations. (Maybe Inked could shed some more light on that? )

As I said, they ask everyone if they've had unsafe sex in the past couple of months or so. They also scan the blood for HIV, hepatitis C and other diseases - always. They probably look for common drugs too.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

I am introducing my sister in here - she is bisexual (i know she won't mind )

She's having fun at Uni, so I can speak for her

Did you know that Bonobo's are almost exclusively bisexual?
so anyone that says homo/bi-sexuality is proved false here
by my use of an example from nature herself!

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

Did you know that Bonobo's are almost exclusively bisexual?
so anyone that says homo/bi-sexuality is proved false here
by my use of an example from nature herself!

Yes, I knew that. They're indeed very interesting animals - much like us, just a little less aggressive (they just have sex instead of fighting).^^

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

our closest relatives, like and yet unlike!

[Nurvingiel]

Yeah, we are the only animal that organizes killing of our own species.


Anyway I have a theory about how religion had hijacked this thread. I think it's much easier to post in here when responding to a debate.


ER Season 11 spoilers below...



Last night's episode of ER (Cityakuten) here in Sweden was called "Just as I am". It was mostly about Dr. Weaver's search for her birth mother. She finds her, and they start getting to know each other. Her mother is an evalengelical Christian and can't accept that Kerry is gay. Her reaction to Kerry telling her this was to pray with her. Pray to stop being gay! Kerry says she doesn't want love without acceptance and leaves.

Poor Kerry. She's one of my favourite characters. (Actually, the only character I don't like is Morris.)


I'm not sure what I would do in that situation. I think Kerry handled it well though. Maybe I'd give my birth mother more time. She may grow to accept Kerry over time. In the meantime I think it would be too awkward to want to spend time. I think it would feel terrible to know that the person you were with was thinking you needed to be cured of being gay.

Here's a picture of Kerry (left) and her mom:

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Yeah, we are the only animal that organizes killing of our own species.

That's not true actually.

[Nurvingiel]

Really? Okay this is OT but I have to ask, what other animal does that? A male lion, when taking over a pride, will kill the offspring of the previous male. But you won't get a prides of lions organizing themselves into lion armies. That's what I meant before.