Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[EarthBound]

Lotesse, splitting hairs as all people have. We can never completely understand those we love....but we can learn to love and appreciate them completely....[Norman MacKlien]

Fear, poor listening skills, and anti-awareness have kept many from full lives....Newton, Socrates, yadayadayada.....Sometimes the "One" or "Few" is RIGHT and the many are "WRONG"....errrrrr, wait a minute.....I need to sneeze a demon out before I get leeched for my acne problem, then laugh at the fools claiming the sun is going around us...as if....they probably think they can fly just like those nutty Wright brothers and also believe 'hot rocks' fall from the sky and that we get sick from 'things you can't see called Germia or Gerimy or Germy or something 'unscientific sounding' like that. As soon as I get to my house on the edge of the flat world I'm going to break my telescope because there's nothing to see anyway, because there's nothing but turtles...they go all the way down [S.Hawkins reference]

As a child born into confusion if you ‘believe’ that shame, moral high-ground, and exclusion is the best way to nurture the ‘poor-choosing’ tyke [sarcasm dripping]
I can assure you, promise you, you’ve not made ANY true attempt to realize, understand, or love them unless you CONSIDER...LOVE...APPRECIATE...

Choice my foot!!!!!!! (oh look, a leech)

[Spock]

You lasted 41 minutes. A new Lotesse record.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

If that's what you think is good and right for society, then vote for it

And why not let groups marry, if they so desire? And why not let brother and sisters marry, if they so desire? If that's what you think is good and right for society, then vote for it And I'll vote for what I think is good and right for society.

i agree that one should always vote for what is good for society... but if one's vote is a NO on something like marriage, then it is disingenuous to say "I resent any implication that I think they are NOT equal"

while i'm always pointing out grays, some things are close to black and white... equality would be one of those things... mostly-equal just doesn't cut it

polygamy is an interesting debate in and of itself, so i'll leave that one alone... but let's look at the incest issue you brought up

i'm against that as much as you are... i would vote against it and say that people who are incestuous should NOT be treated equally on an issue like marriage, for the reproductive issues involved, if nothing else... i'd even go so far as to make the practice illegal

i couldn't imagine saying that incestuous people should be treated equally yet not allowed to marry... but this is exactly what you are implying about homosexuals

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by EarthBound

Lotesse, splitting hairs as all people have. We can never completely understand those we love....but we can learn to love and appreciate them completely....[Norman MacKlien]

Fear, poor listening skills, and anti-awareness have kept many from full lives....Newton, Socrates, yadayadayada.....Sometimes the "One" or "Few" is RIGHT and the many are "WRONG"....errrrrr, wait a minute.....I need to sneeze a demon out before I get leeched for my acne problem, then laugh at the fools claiming the sun is going around us...as if....they probably think they can fly just like those nutty Wright brothers and also believe 'hot rocks' fall from the sky and that we get sick from 'things you can't see called Germia or Gerimy or Germy or something 'unscientific sounding' like that. As soon as I get to my house on the edge of the flat world I'm going to break my telescope because there's nothing to see anyway, because there's nothing but turtles...they go all the way down [S.Hawkins reference]

As a child born into confusion if you ‘believe’ that shame, moral high-ground, and exclusion is the best way to nurture the ‘poor-choosing’ tyke [sarcasm dripping]
I can assure you, promise you, you’ve not made ANY true attempt to realize, understand, or love them unless you CONSIDER...LOVE...APPRECIATE...

Choice my foot!!!!!!! (oh look, a leech)

I LOVE this!! EarthBound, you're the BOMB!

[Spock]

errrrr, maybe bombed would be too acurate?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(ps - what's your definition of "mob rule", btw? Is it when you disagree with the majority? And when you agree with the majority, it's somehow NOT "mob rule"? )

Its irrelevant to my disagreement. It is mob rule when they vote ANY elected official in our out of office. My choices included. Dont let the brutality of the phrase scare you... its what you are suggesting. Discrimination via mob rule.

[EarthBound]

Originally Posted by Spock

errrrr, maybe bombed would be too accurate?

"Awwwwww, Spock." [Awwww Bach episode, MASH]

Oh, karate-coinsure and mind-gymnast Spock, you are the big brother that was never there to noogie me when I needed it most….some how I survived ….hic-up

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i'm against that as much as you are... i would vote against it and say that people who are incestuous should NOT be treated equally on an issue like marriage, for the reproductive issues involved, if nothing else... i'd even go so far as to make the practice illegal.

i couldn't imagine saying that incestuous people should be treated equally yet not allowed to marry... but this is exactly what you are implying about homosexuals

I'd like to explore this further so I can understand your thinking.

So are you saying that you think incestuous people should NOT be treated equally?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Its irrelevant to my disagreement. It is mob rule when they vote ANY elected official in our out of office. My choices included. Dont let the brutality of the phrase scare you... its what you are suggesting. Discrimination via mob rule.

OK, so IYO our democratic voting process here in the US falls into the category of "mob rule".
What do you suggest would be better?

[EarthBound]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

OK, so IYO our democratic voting process here in the US falls into the category of "mob rule".
What do you suggest would be better?

Warning Warning.....our legislative system is constantly at battle with popular vote issues....the 2 are constantly zeroing each other out especially at the state level. Just another layer of contentious ware to spittle on.

We can vote and pass (and do) all sorts of fine sounding ballot measures...but find they get thrown out by courts immediately for some reason or another....the system tries hard to check and balance itself to death, eh.

[Rían]

I certainly think it's not perfect , but I can't think of anything better, can you?

[inked]

Originally Posted by EarthBound

Lotesse, splitting hairs as all people have. We can never completely understand those we love....but we can learn to love and appreciate them completely....[Norman MacKlien]

Fear, poor listening skills, and anti-awareness have kept many from full lives....Newton, Socrates, yadayadayada.....Sometimes the "One" or "Few" is RIGHT and the many are "WRONG"....errrrrr, wait a minute.....I need to sneeze a demon out before I get leeched for my acne problem, then laugh at the fools claiming the sun is going around us...as if....they probably think they can fly just like those nutty Wright brothers and also believe 'hot rocks' fall from the sky and that we get sick from 'things you can't see called Germia or Gerimy or Germy or something 'unscientific sounding' like that. As soon as I get to my house on the edge of the flat world I'm going to break my telescope because there's nothing to see anyway, because there's nothing but turtles...they go all the way down [S.Hawkins reference]

As a child born into confusion if you ‘believe’ that shame, moral high-ground, and exclusion is the best way to nurture the ‘poor-choosing’ tyke [sarcasm dripping]
I can assure you, promise you, you’ve not made ANY true attempt to realize, understand, or love them unless you CONSIDER...LOVE...APPRECIATE...

Choice my foot!!!!!!! (oh look, a leech)

Box turtles or tortoises?

[Nurvingiel]

Man, this thread moves way to fast for me. I can't keep up with your mad pace. Inked, IIRC you made a reference, perhaps just in passing, to Time Magazine.
As enjoyable as Time is to read... Time != science. (Though I realize that while a scientific paper wouldn't cite a Time article, a scientific essay might.)

About "mob rule" in voting... I think that while the will of the majority of people should be represented in law, it's very important that majorities do not determine the rights of minorities. That's why Canada has the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the United States has the Bill of Rights. This protects human rights no matter who is in power, or what the majority of people support. I know that helps me sleep easier at night.


I was thinking about the Hyopthetical religion I had made up today, and I like this metaphor. I hope someone responds to it this time.

Millions of people worldwide belong to the Hypothetical Religion. In a number of countries, Hyopthesizers make up the majority of the population. These countries are currently undergoing a moral and religious debate.
According to the Hypothetical Holy Writing, it is clearly stated that "People may lie with other people, but not in the missionary position. That is never okay, ever." This was written by the holy prophet Albertine, and her word has never been found false.

In Posteeland, the law says that people who have sex missionary style are not allowed to get married. However, there is also a law protecting the rights of minorities, which human rights groups now argue, includes missionary-style people. There is a growing movement to change the law; supporters state it's archaic to say two loving people can't get married just because they have sex a certain way.

I thought of the original Hypothetical thing on p. 24, post #475 in response to RÃ*an's comment that (paraphrase) being gay is a behaviour that defines the group such as being an artist.

I thought... if being gay is a behaviour, what exactly is the behaviour? People seem to feel the way a couple has sex is the behaviour, since we do talk about sex a lot in this thread. Do you guys think this is true? Why/why not?

Finally, if you were a citizen of Posteeland, what would you do?

[Spock]

Rian: It's "ahhhh, Bach"

[Rían]

Nurv - before I respond, could you please check out my post #491 in response to your paraphrase of my comment

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks RÃ*, I totally missed your post (#491).

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

please quote my entire sentence - I said, "...a behavior in a certain area - i.e., sexuality".
What's the issue with this?
Isn't a homosexual someone who desires sex with a person of the same sex?

I did not, of course, mean to take things out of context. I just have no idea where the original quote is, sorry. That's why I paraphrased, and perhaps misunderstood, your comment.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

If you really think you can get that passed into law, and you think that's what's best for your country, then GO FOR IT! I doubt you'll get it passed, though, because it might be difficult to find who qualifies!

This question is also better explained by my more fleshed out Hypothetical religion.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it's easy to tell.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And you know what? "People that like to do it missionary style" is certainly a group with a behavior in a certain area, too! And if I was giving a marriage seminar, I would like to talk to that group and make some suggestions to them

You're right. It is a behaviour. But now what? Is it useful to define people's behaviour like this? Is it my/your/anyone's business?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I am NOT saying homosexuals all act a certain way, except in the one area of how they like to act on their sexuality. Is there a problem with that?

I understand your comment better now. I do have one issue with this though. If we are going to put people in groups, it should be for some useful purpose.
eg. "people who drive dangerously, resulting in at least one accident"
purpose = they pay more insurance.

I think we should be careful about making groups based on inherent characteristics, rather than behaviours one can change such as poor driving.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I think we should be careful about making groups based on inherent characteristics, rather than behaviours one can change such as poor driving.

So you're saying homosexuals are bad drivers?
it's so easy to get lost in this thread

[Nurvingiel]

Haha, you're absolutely right Spock. It is easy to get lost in this thread.

I think you are joking in your subtle way. But if you're not, let me know and I'll explain my comment in more detail.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Thanks RÃ*, I totally missed your post (#491).

I thought you might have - it's hard to keep up with a thread that moves at the speed of light!

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it's easy to tell.

'K

You're right. It is a behaviour. But now what? Is it useful to define people's behaviour like this? Is it my/your/anyone's business?

Apparently the people in San Francisco think so That's why they target gay bars with information pamphlets. Do you think that's useful? I do!

I understand your comment better now. I do have one issue with this though. If we are going to put people in groups, it should be for some useful purpose.
eg. "people who drive dangerously, resulting in at least one accident"
purpose = they pay more insurance.

See above.

I think we should be careful about making groups based on inherent characteristics, rather than behaviours one can change such as poor driving.

Think about this, though - are you saying that homosexuals have absolutely no control over their behavior? (I think you missed that post, too!) That WHENEVER and WHEREVER they feel the urge to have sex with a same-sex partner, that they will be totally unable to stop themselves from doing it, even in the middle of a shopping mall, or a concert, or in a theater watching LOTR? I mean this very seriously - what do you think?

[Nurvingiel]

I concede the point that it is sometimes useful to define groups by unchangeable characteristics (like in the San Fran example - hopefully the pamphlets are useful! ), so I only have a response to the last part of your post:

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Think about this, though - are you saying that homosexuals have absolutely no control over their behavior? (I think you missed that post, too!) That WHENEVER and WHEREVER they feel the urge to have sex with a same-sex partner, that they will be totally unable to stop themselves from doing it, even in the middle of a shopping mall, or a concert, or in a theater watching LOTR? I mean this very seriously - what do you think?

What!? That's ridiculous, you know I don't believe that. (Though I see where you're going with this. )

I do believe that homosexuals have no control whatsoever over their sexual orientation. Heterosexuals also have no control over their sexual orientation.

Both homosexuals and heterosexuals can choose to have relationships (or not), have sex (or not), eat tomatoes (or not), etc. Neither group has some sort of unending libido that they can't help but try to satisfy.

However, while heterosexuals can choose to marry, in many countries, homosexuals are not allowed to make this choice. I think the same choices should be open to both homosexual and heterosexual adults, since both have the same ability to make this choice (among other reasons).

edited for clarification

edit 2: Yay! EarthBound is back! *does happy dance* *gives beer*