Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[Spock]

InsofarasviewsandopinionsaredevolvingtowardschaosI shallnolongerparticipateinthisparticularthreadsave toadheretomoddutiesandkeepacheckonallposts.

I leave with these parting quotes from two of our great thinkers on the Moot:

"If everyone agreed with me all the time, everything would be just fine"- JerseyDevil

And another quote, it's author eludes me:

"Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience."

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Spock

ITS HUMOR, gadz zooks can you not wrap yourself around that concept?

As long as you can laugh at the cartoons I posted, then I'm "fine" with that.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Spock

No human or animal was harmed in the making of this cartoon

PETA-ismist!

[Spock]

PETA= People Eating Tasty Animals

Why, I'd horse-whip you if I had a horse.
-G. Marx-

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Spock

It is Thanksgiving day in CANADA ....and Columbus Day here in the U.S.A.

Oh yeah, I forgot it wasn't Thanksgiving for you guys. Well, I hope you had a nice Columbus day.

Originally Posted by Spock

"Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience."

I believe this is in Tessar's signature.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

As long as you can laugh at the cartoons I posted, then I'm "fine" with that.

Freedom of speech cuts both ways eh RÃ*?

So... hrm... the topic...

Yay for gay, I say!

I said that ages ago, but it's worth re-saying.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I believe this is in Tessar's signature.

Thanks for the info.

[Rían]

I'm finally getting to this:

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

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?

Hmm, I think some of this is now obsolete, because we cleared up the "being gay is a behavior" thing, IIRC.

But I can still address the hypothetical religion part.

To work Homeric-style, I'll answer the last first - If I were a citizen of Posteeland, and I thought having sex "missionary style" was fine, then I would petition to change the laws. If the laws didn't change and it bothered me enough, then I suppose I would consider moving to another country, altho that is a big move. Or I would find ways to try to get around it, or I would marry anyway and use the missionary position and risk getting caught.

How would they find out if we were using the missionary position, btw? See, that's something that is NOT analogous to the situation of gay marriage. If people want to have homosexual sex in the privacy of their homes, then I don't think society should stop them (in terms of trying to pass legislation). It's only when this is brought out INTO society, in terms of "we think marriage laws should be changed", that I (as a member of society) am now involved, and can and do vote on the issue.

Also, I think the main problem here is that most "non-religious" people here are incorrectly labelling my beliefs as what they call "religion". That is clear by the use of your word "archaic" when you say, "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."

This is an extremely important thing to point out, and I hope I can explain it here.

By "archaic", you basically mean that this idea does not now accurately reflect current reality, right?

(and I think I"ll stop here until I get your response to what I've written in this post, since it's already a lot to respond to! )

[Spock]

Whew!

[EarthBound]

Perhaps this a random post, but it is on topic.

I've really been interested in the 'right to marry-same sex' issue, because some of us can legally marry either way we stand on that small but of 'fluff' of reality to comment. My comment today is the "slippery slope' argument that is so often used against letting BETTY marry VERONICA. If they're allowed to marry, soon every ‘outside’ scenario will or should be honored with equal rights....yadayadayada

If I bring my work horse to the races and demand I get to run it around the track with the thorough breds what's to say the chicken riders won't want to race too. Well, that's for the chicken riders to battle. But there is 'realistic and legitimate' room for debate for entering my work horse...no slippery slope, we're dealing with legal age people trying to gain a 'right' that others have...there is a measure of justice to that IMHO.

I'm not, in reality, strictly for it, I think it is debatable, but at least a Civil Union concession for a legitimate “college-try� should be on the table, and the best strategy for all.

[Spock]

HEY, was that a chicken joke?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

How would they find out if we were using the missionary position, btw? See, that's something that is NOT analogous to the situation of gay marriage. If people want to have homosexual sex in the privacy of their homes, then I don't think society should stop them (in terms of trying to pass legislation). It's only when this is brought out INTO society, in terms of "we think this law should be changed", that I (as a member of society) am now involved, and can and do vote on the issue.

but just because two people are married, it does not mean they have to have sex... what if two paraplegic males wanted to get married?

[Spock]

U_R_sick

[Spock]

Sex is like having dinner: sometimes you joke about the dishes, sometimes you take the meal seriously. --W.A.--
Sex between 2 people is a beautiful thing. Between 5, it's fantastic. "ibid."

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

but just because two people are married, it does not mean they have to have sex...

Right, and I didn't say that's what was being voted on.

*checks post*

Well, it wasn't clear - this is what I said, "It's only when this is brought out INTO society, in terms of "we think this law should be changed", that I (as a member of society) am now involved, and can and do vote on the issue."

I meant gay marriage by "this is brought out" and "this law"

I'll go back and edit and make it more clear that's what I meant.

but just because two people are married, it does not mean they have to have sex... what if two paraplegic males wanted to get married?

As I said earlier, they can do what they want to do in private, but if they bring out the subject of homosexual marriage into the public sphere, then it becomes a public issue.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by EarthBound

Perhaps this a random post, but it is on topic.

On topic? You can't do that - Spock might faint!

If I bring my work horse to the races and demand I get to run it around the track with the thorough breds what's to say the chicken riders won't want to race too. Well, that's for the chicken riders to battle. But there is 'realistic and legitimate' room for debate for entering my work horse...no slippery slope, we're dealing with legal age people trying to gain a 'right' that others have...there is a measure of justice to that IMHO.

I'm not, in reality, strictly for it, I think it is debatable, but at least a Civil Union concession for a legitimate “college-try� should be on the table, and the best strategy for all.

But it's not that simple, I don't think, because of the related side-issues, such as what this means to child custody/guardianship, financial issues, etc. And IYO, work horses are valid for consideration, but maybe in the mind of the chicken riders, chickens are valid for consideration. So why should the thoroughbred riders be prejudiced against their viewpoint but not yours? If tolerance is so good, why not tolerate chicken riders?

It just seems to boil down to "this is what I think" over and over, and how can anyone say, "I'm right and you're not, so don't vote what you think on this issue." ? It just seems like the best option, in a field of bad options, is to just put it to a vote, and let everyone in the society vote for what they think is right.

[EarthBound]

The arena of Civil Rights has always found it's justice through legislative and judicial warfare, the populace (The majority) tagged along behind on many of the ‘right’s so many of us take for granted in this generation. (ehh, long sentence)

Oh, wait…are we still in discussion over whether this a “Civil Right� we’re discussing?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Well, it wasn't clear - this is what I said, "It's only when this is brought out INTO society, in terms of "we think this law should be changed", that I (as a member of society) am now involved, and can and do vote on the issue."

I meant gay marriage by "this is brought out" and "this law"

I'll go back and edit and make it more clear that's what I meant.

but, before the issue arose a decade or so back there were no laws about same-sex marriage in the US... making it heterosexual-only (in terms of law, not tradition) is a fairly recent development in most states... not the other way around

[Rían]

I'm using "law" in a rather looser sense - I suppose technically it's a statute or regulation or something like that that describes who can get a marriage license.

You're not saying that homosexuals could marry a decade or so back, are you?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You're not saying that homosexuals could marry a decade or so back, are you?

i'm saying most states did not define marriage in terms of male/female until very recently... and, in fact, if you look back even further in time... like biblical times... marriage was neither a civil or a religious ceremony for a vast portion of society, it was something done among friends and family in a very informal sort of way (unless you were a member of nobility or a member of certain religious groups)

[Nurvingiel]

The Hypothetical religion thing wasn't meant to be analytical, but to pose a moral question in a neutral way. (I'm not saying your views are archaic by this story.)
Your post makes a lot of sense to me. I would probably react the same way. After all, the way you have sex doesn't really matter, does it?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Also, I think the main problem here is that most "non-religious" people here are incorrectly labelling my beliefs as what they call "religion". That is clear by the use of your word "archaic" when you say, "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."

Well, I could be considered non-religious. I could also be considered religions. But never mind that, I don't even know what I think. I realize now my story could be construed as an analogy. That wasn't the intent - I just wanted a simple story to phrase a moral question.

But, you raise a good point about your own views. Why isn't it religious? I thought that you are not okay with gay marriage because of religious beliefs.