01-27-2007, 05:46 AM | #221 | |
of the House of Bëor
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Eastwards.
Posts: 979
|
Quote:
Where exactly did you see me say people don't lie? We do, even to ourselves, yes. I just said I don't throw the statement "liar!" around, because of my reasons (maybe foolish, because what would it matter anyway). And no, bisexuality doesn't have to be the case. But it is possible. Rian may be right - all I wanted to do to show an exception, ie. myself. Apparently I didn't succeed.
__________________
I'm good in bed - I can sleep for days Last edited by littleadanel : 01-27-2007 at 05:52 AM. |
|
01-27-2007, 11:15 AM | #222 | |
Sapling
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: glasgow
Posts: 1
|
Quote:
you have made your opinion about same sex marraige quite clear but(and forgive me if i have missed it) you haven't given any clear example of what dangers are to considered before embarking on a gay relationship. could these unforseen problems not be said of hetrosexual relationships. the biggest point being missed here is that relationships be they homo, hetro, platonic or other wise are so diverse that no two can ever be remotely the same. secondly i read in one of your earlier posts that homosexuals should not be granted equal legal rights until their relationships are studied further. would should be done? homosexuals are not a different species, they are part of every race, every society and care must be taken, because opression in any form is terribly wrong. everyone has the right to persue their own form of happiness. the view of society is a very heavy burden to bear, and most gay men and women bear this burden alone sometimes for their whole life, and often results in emotional and physical destruction. back to the point of marriage, a lot of people embarking on same sex marriage do it because until now same sex couples couldn't buy a house together, aquire life insurance, qualify for married tax relief and many other rights given freely to hetrosexual couples who have been together 5 minutes, never mind a lifetime. i honestly dont see what serious ramifications same sex marriage has to anybody else apart from the people involved HUMAN RIGHTS are not subject to approval they exist to accomodate and to protect all human beings not just the majority. sorry if this sounded like a rant. yours respectfully micomac |
|
01-27-2007, 11:46 AM | #223 |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 455
|
Perhaps the gays will teach us straights, with our >50% current U.S. divorce rate, something about commitment.
|
01-27-2007, 01:51 PM | #224 | ||||||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My point is that a homosexual relationship is bound to be different than a heterosexual relationship because men and women are strongly genetically different. Quote:
I don't believe that that is the source of the high suicide rate among homosexuals, though. This is because one of the bisexuals and one of the lesbians I have known have spoken about having come near to suicide, but neither of them mentioned persecution as the cause of it. Quote:
Quote:
It also might harm people with heterosexual instincts, though. If two different types of relationships were treated as the same under law, when in fact there are important genetic differences, heterosexuals or homosexuals might come out unfairly treated. Also, if marriage laws can be changed to apply not only to man and a woman but to other kinds of relationships as well, which they may not be appropriately designed for, the laws might be changed or in the end, done away with altogether because of being found to be inappropriate for the different kinds of unions they are presented with facing. Quote:
Whether I'm right on that or not, and even though you think homosexual relationships are not harmful, you should still agree with me that the government shouldn't say that they are fine without knowing that they are. And supposing the differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships that are bound to exist (because men are genetically different from women) are harmless, you should still agree with me that our laws themselves might be harmful to the individuals involved, if we apply laws designed for heterosexual relationships to homosexual relationships, while leaving blinders on (for lack of the studies I've been advocating) as to whether or not those laws really are good for homosexual relationships.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
||||||||
01-27-2007, 03:57 PM | #225 | |
Entmoot Attorney-General,
Equilibrating the Scales of Justice, Administrator ♎ Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,891
|
Quote:
A study could have the aim to answer the question “are homosexual marriages harmful?”. But there is something inherently wrong with the very formulation of the question. A “yes/no” type of question can’t present reality properly here. See, all marriages are unique. No two marriages are alike. The question doesn’t take this into account and by asking the question ourselves, we create for ourselves an illusion that all gay marriages are either “good” or “bad” when the obvious answer is in fact “they can be both”. We could construct parameters for what we consider a “harmful marriage” and a “not harmful” marriage. We could then study a large number of straight couples to see into which of these two categories they will fall. Some will have to be considered “harmful”, the rest will belong to the “not harmful” group. Then we could compare with gay couples. If the parameters are designed with a minimum of bias, surely gay marriages would fall into both categories as well. As I see it, the only way a significantly large amount of gay couples (compared to straight ones) could fall into the “harmful” group would be if our definition of “harmful” was prejudiced from the beginning. A parameter like “a marriage in which sexual intercourse takes place between members of the same sex – shall be considered harmful” would immediately make all gay marriages in the study “harmful”. Anyway, maybe it would be interesting to see whether gay marriages - compared to straight ones - are statistically more or less harmful, happy, healthy, likely to divorce or whatever. But we must not let the statistics blind us. Even if studies were to show that gay marriages are 10, 20 or 50 percent more likely to be harmful, we must not forget that there would still be good gay marriages. Some gay marriages would most likely even score higher on the “not harmful” scale than the average straight marriage. Because in statistics there is a spread. It would be highly discriminating not to allow gays to marry based on facts about the average gay marriage. We would step on all the persons who would have better and happier marriages, above the average. The average is a fictional construction and does not exist anyway. Lief, I can only hope that you will take the time re-evaluate your approach to the importance of studies in this matter. If you do, I’ll bake you a cake
__________________
An unwritten post is a delightful universe of infinite possibilities. Set down one word, however, and it immediately becomes earthbound. Set down one sentence and it’s halfway to being just like every other bloody entry that’s ever been written. ☻ |
|
01-27-2007, 04:06 PM | #226 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
Lief, there's something that's been bugging me - exactly what in our marriage laws today do you think is, or should be, specific to a heterosexual marriage besides the words "between a man and a woman"? Sharing property? Visitation rights? Power of attorney? Medical benefits? Not testifying against each other in court?
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
01-27-2007, 06:56 PM | #227 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
If the studies find that homosexual relationships tend to be very often harmful because of the different genetics involved, then that's an intrinsic problem in the relationship rather than a difference between individual couples. So then, because the difference between relationships genetic and not just socialization, it would be the government's duty to warn the public. My premise is that men and women are genetically different, and that these differences encompass many different parts of their behavior. We're discussing this premise in depth on the "Gender Issues" thread. Men and women have different kinds of brains, and many of the observed differences in their behavior stem from their having different genes. So by necessity, because of the gender difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, they are going to be different kinds of relationships. These differences in the relationships come from genetics, not that homosexuals are different from heterosexuals, but that because men and women are different from one another, a relationship between a man and a woman will be different from the relationships between people of the same gender. So seeing as these are going to be different kinds of relationships due to genetics, because of women and men being different, you may expect to see the differences between the relationships reflected in a significant and consistant way in the statistics. And this isn't just a problem for individual couples, but for the vast majority of all homosexual relationships because the problem would be founded in a genetic problem involving relationship itself, rather than in individual couples' problems. Now, whether homosexuality is harmful or not is simply something we should know before our government says it's fine by giving it the same laws as marriage laws. But whether they're harmful or not, they very likely will be at least different from heterosexual relationships, again, because of the different genetics. If the relationship is judged to be not harmful, based upon the results, the studies could at least enable us better to taylor our laws for homosexuals to better suit their different kind of relationship, depending on the differences we find between homosexuality and heterosexuality. If homosexuality and heterosexuality are shown, by the studies, to have no significant difference between them at all that comes from the genetic difference, then we'll at least know that it's appropriate to give them the same legal guarantees as marriages have.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
||
01-27-2007, 08:00 PM | #228 | |
Entmoot Attorney-General,
Equilibrating the Scales of Justice, Administrator ♎ Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,891
|
Quote:
Which is why I think it’s discriminating to say we should study gay marriage to see if it's harmful. In a gay couple, the combined genotype differs from the standard straight couple (a gay couple would have one Y chromosome too many or too little). But when it comes to behaviour and social life, genotype must always be translated into phenotype. And there are so many different kinds of marriage with special “phenotypes” and deviant behaviours (blind couples, deaf couples, mute couples etc.) which we apparently don’t feel the same need to study. For some reason we aren’t afraid that these marriages will be harmful. But gays marriage? Gay marriage and its genetics are subjected to major discrimination.
__________________
An unwritten post is a delightful universe of infinite possibilities. Set down one word, however, and it immediately becomes earthbound. Set down one sentence and it’s halfway to being just like every other bloody entry that’s ever been written. ☻ |
|
01-27-2007, 10:41 PM | #229 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
People's phenotypes are going to be strongly influenced by their gender. Phenotypes are heavily influenced by genotypes. The differing genotypes of men and women have a big impact on the phenotypes of the individuals. But there are consistent similarities among the vast majority of men because of the genetic gender difference. And the same with women. And they are consistently significantly different, with few exceptions. This has a major role in the type of relationship. I'm looking at the genetics of the types of relationships themselves. You're looking more at how everybody's different. But my point is that even though everybody's different, the phenotypes of men have broad, similar characteristics that differ from those of women, and men have broad, similar characteristics that differ from those of men. And hence the heterosexual and homosexual relationships are bound, by logical necessity, to be different, and giving the laws for heterosexual relationships to homosexual relationships is hence potentially very irresponsible. So I'm talking about the type of relationship itself. It may take a lot to change many people's views on various political, religious or other matters, but it happens. There are many examples of this. Cultural differences can be overcome or worked around, though that can be very hard. Genetic differences are encoded in us and hence won't change. They also, to a very large extent, determine the nature of the relationships we're discussing. Yes, environment is a major influence on how people will behave. But genetics in people is both a major influence and an unchanging one. The different genotypes of men and women influence their phenotypes involved in a highly constant, consistent and very important way.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." Last edited by Lief Erikson : 01-28-2007 at 01:08 AM. |
||
01-28-2007, 01:48 AM | #230 | |||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Might pedophelia, then, be legalized?
*Comes back a while later.*
You know, Jonathan, before reading and thinking about your two most recent posts and talking about them with God, I never really realized why so many Christians link these arguments for homosexual marriage with the potential future legalization of pedophelia. In the past, I always read Insidious Rex's response to those claimed links, his arguments such as, "children are not mature enough to decide whether they'll be in a relationship at that age," and things like, "that relationship is known to be often harmful," and they made sense to me. Homosexual marriage is not known to be harmful- it is understudied. And at least the vast majority of children aren't mature enough to make a decision about entering into such a relationship at that age. Homosexuality involves mature adults. Insidious is quite right about those points. But your arguments undermine his points. Quote:
This should go for children too. Environment and genetics are just factors. How children live their lives is the "main thing." Judging based on whether or not partners have reached adulthood, the culmination of both environmental influence and genetic development, is still judging relationships based on environment and genetics. You aren't willing to judge homosexual relationships based on environment or genetics, though. But you are (currently) willing to legally block pedophelia on those grounds. That's a double standard that a later generation may very well recognize. If we aren't to judge homosexual relationships based on environment or genetics, then this argument against pedophelia, which is based on environment and genetics, is nullified. Quote:
You point out that statistics are likely to show a spread. So even, going by the reasoning in your argument, if 50% of child-adult pedophile relationships are shown to be harmful, the fact that there may be some good ones justifies opening the door to the potential large number of harmful ones. Quote:
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." Last edited by Lief Erikson : 01-28-2007 at 02:05 AM. |
|||
01-28-2007, 05:07 AM | #231 |
The Rogue Elf
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,722
|
Since I'm a little late into the discussion and these posts are too long for me to read right now, what's a summary of the current debate over this?
Inquiring minds want to know. |
01-28-2007, 03:25 PM | #232 |
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
damn you apostrophe s
Lemme sum up fer ya:
Religious Camp: "Homosexuality is wrong" non-Religious Camp: "No it's not" RC: "Yes it is" nR-C: "No it's not" RC: "Yes it is" nR-C: "No it's not" RC: "Yes it is" nR-C: "No it's not" RC: "Yes it is" nR-C: "No it's not" RC: "Yes it is" nR-C: "No it's not" RC: "Yes it is" nR-C: "No it's not" RC: "Yes it is" nR-C: "No it's not" RC: "Yes it is, the bible says so nyah nyah." nR-C: "Shuddap dumbass." RC: "No you shuddap!" nR-C: "I said shuddap first!" RC: "Are you saying that it's ok for Hitler to kill jews?!" nR-C: "WTF?" Last edited by BeardofPants : 01-28-2007 at 03:26 PM. |
01-28-2007, 03:48 PM | #233 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In me taters
Posts: 3,288
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
01-28-2007, 05:27 PM | #234 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
The only way you can see a contradiction between those two sentences, Gaffer, is by replacing the words "to a large extent" with the word "alone."
I'm not saying that homosexuals themselves are different in any huge way from heterosexuals. I'm not saying "homosexuals and heterosexuals are very different because of environment." No, I'm saying that "heterosexual and homosexual relationships are very likely very different because of the genetics." I'm not arguing that homosexuals and heterosexuals are very different from one another at all. It's the relationship that very likely will be very different from heterosexual relationships because the genders involved are different. Quote:
A very neat, concise summary, BoP .
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." Last edited by Lief Erikson : 01-28-2007 at 05:29 PM. |
|
01-28-2007, 05:46 PM | #235 | |
The Rogue Elf
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,722
|
Quote:
Ah, BoP . . . oh, how I love you and your mind. I'll have to join the non-religious camp on this one, my friends. |
|
01-28-2007, 06:23 PM | #236 |
Cardboard Harp of Gondor Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: IM IN UR POSTZ, EDITIN' UR WURDZ
Posts: 6,433
|
Oh Anna! *hug* You really do know how to summarize things up neatly.
Pretty accurate, too, although I felt your leaving the 'undecideds' out really weakened the plot, near the end, but I guess the dialog in the closing debate helped make up for it, and I can understand the need for brevity given the budget and time constraints you were under. All in all, I give it 4 1/2 stars. |
01-28-2007, 07:26 PM | #237 | |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
Quote:
Regardless, what are you worried about? You still won't answer... what part of marriage do you think we should be studying? I can't tell what part of marriage law could be harmful to anyone who wants to marry another human being they feel committed to and who feels committed to them. Where is the harm in what marriage brings?
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
|
01-28-2007, 10:37 PM | #238 | |||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
These relationships are viewed in the psychiatric branch as "understudied." They shouldn't any longer be "understudied," when we make such a big move as extending marriage laws to include them, or we risk endangering our society by acting blindly. Quote:
These are genetically different types of relationships. There is thus a high probability that there will be differences. One question is whether or not the differences are big enough to warrant changes in the laws. We don't know the answer to that question. We don't know if we should taylor our laws in specific ways to take into account the genetic differences. Neither do we have enough information to know whether or not homosexual relationships are harmful. So we shouldn't as a society be saying they're fine, at this point.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
|||
01-28-2007, 11:00 PM | #239 | |
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Quote:
Anyone seen History of the World, with the First Homo Sapiens Marriage, followed shortly by the First Homosexual Marriage?
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
|
01-28-2007, 11:22 PM | #240 | |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
Quote:
"In the interest of maintaining and promoting mental health, the American Psychiatric Association supports the legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage with all rights, benefits, and responsibilities conferred by civil marriage, and opposes restrictions to those same rights, benefits, and responsibilities.” Seems like they think there's enough data. And the American Psychological Association feels the same way. Indeed, they'd say "research has found that the factors that predict relationship satisfaction, relationship commitment, and relationship stability are remarkably similar for both same-sex cohabiting couples and heterosexual married couples (Kurdek, 2001, 2004)" Also Lief, you still miss what I'm asking: I'm saying that there is nothing in our current laws that seems to have anything to do with the genders of the participants in terms of the benefits provided or the requirements, save for the explicit requirement that they be of other genders. I'm asking what in there there is even the slightest chance of being bad for gay people. How could it be bad for them to be able to see each other on their deathbeds, to have tax deductions, to get healthcare? Oh, and Gwai, I know... but millennia are just lots and lots of years put together
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. Last edited by Count Comfect : 01-28-2007 at 11:29 PM. |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
marriage | katya | General Messages | 384 | 01-21-2012 12:13 AM |
Homosexual marriage | Rían | General Messages | 999 | 12-06-2006 04:46 PM |
Gays, lesbians, bisexuals | Nurvingiel | General Messages | 988 | 02-06-2006 01:33 PM |
Ave Papa - we have a new Pope | MrBishop | General Messages | 133 | 09-26-2005 10:19 AM |
Women, last names and marriage... | afro-elf | General Messages | 55 | 01-09-2003 01:37 AM |