 |
| |
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alvaro
The idea is that if the couple cannot have children ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT EXTERNAL HELP (as is said by me in the paragraph you quoted) - it is not natural. |
By your definition just about everything connected to human beings is unnatural. Here's a short list of things you probably would not have if not for external help:
1. food
2. clothes
3. housing
4. good health
5. pretty much all consumer goods
6. Apolyton
Fact is, man has developed so far that few of us could live a "natural" life - whatever that is. Heck, you probably would have a hard time surviving 100 years ago without the aid of modern conveniences. Why pick on birth assisstance technology when there's so much else about our lives that is unnatural?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Frogman
|
|
Yep, Boddington is talking out his *ss.
I still think there are other traits that go with being gay. For men they seem artisticly inclined, not all perhaps, but the fact is that dancers, actors, artists are overrepresented by the gay community, just like comedians are overrepresented by the jews. Lesbians seem more likely to be involved in sports, particularly field hockey. If stereotypes weren't true, people wouldn't use them. I won't even get into the mannerisms, but just take a look at the Christopher Lowell Show, really you can't argue that there isn't something to it.
Still, the point is that its a genetic thing, a "natural thing", and heterosexual people can pass it on. It affects more than just sexuality. Its like saying the only thing that makes a person black is the color of their skin when its obvious that its more than that.
Plenty here to pick on, fire away.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MikeH
|
 |
Ming on rakastajani
May 1999
time: 05:27
|
|
If only there were fewer intelligent well educated well informed students around and more ignorant, intolerant, homophobic bastards.
Last edited by MikeH on 24-04-2003 at 21:11
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frogman
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
I agree with the proviso that religions that consider homosexuality a sin may not be forced by law to perform such marriages. |
I don't think this has ever been an issue. Churches and individual ministers can refuse to marry anyone for whatever reason. Its only been an issue when individual ministers and churches want to perform the ceremonies and the corporate church body doesn't want them to. Its an issue that will split some churches.
I'm Presbyterian USA and I think we'll lose about 20% of our churches over this when they form their own denomination. Most of the churches who want to perform same sex marriages are in California but not all of them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:27
|
|
In no particular order:
quote:
Let them marry. I think it's hypocritical for some of these religious whackjobs to say how promiscuous and disease-ridden gays are, then tell them they can't pursue mutually beneficial, monogamous marriages.
|
Detroitdave:
Religious wackjobs?
First off, it's not just religious folks talking about the promiscuity prevalent among homosexuals, concern is also expressed by some homosexual activists, and public health officials.
Granted, there are different stripes among homosexuals, but there are some who insist that the whole idea of monogamy is outdated and unnatural. Thus, your caricature fails to strike home.
Secondly, you have a very effective argument, precisely my old position. If gay people cannot change their orientation, we should allow them to marry in order to reduce promiscuity.
The big question is the assumption that sexual orientation is fixed and unchangeable. I submit for evidence, Asher's own admission of his shifting sexuality as just one example of this phenomenon.
A monogamous may be better than promiscuity, but it is not as good as a heterosexual marriage. Thus, we should offer counseling and services to homosexuals who want to leave the lifestyle.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Granted, there are different stripes among homosexuals, but there are some who insist that the whole idea of monogamy is outdated and unnatural. Thus, your caricature fails to strike home. |
There are also lots of heterosexuals who insist the same thing, especially among the males. So what? But there is a certain scientific validity to the "unnatural" argument. After all, most animal species do not form long-term, monogamous couplings. In most mammal species, the male is driven by instinct to spread his seed to as many recipients as possible.
quote:
The big question is the assumption that sexual orientation is fixed and unchangeable. I submit for evidence, Asher's own admission of his shifting sexuality as just one example of this phenomenon. |
That's not really evidence of shifting orientation, and it is certainly not evidence that the shift can be made at will. Most teens go through years of sexual confusion--perhaps Asher was gay all along, but his thinking himself bisexual was a stepping stone to accepting his own homosexuality. I've certainly seen that in loads--er, plenty of men who proclaim themselves bi, only to end up fully gay. It wasn't their orientation that changed, only their perception and acceptance of it.
quote:
A monogamous may be better than promiscuity, but it is not as good as a heterosexual marriage. Thus, we should offer counseling and services to homosexuals who want to leave the lifestyle. |
Why is it not as good as heterosexual marriage? Since heterosexual marriage is no longer for the utilitarian purpose of siring progeny, I can scarcely see why we should say that homosexual marriage would be worse, especially since allowing homosexual marriage will not in anyway affect the heterosexual marriage rates.
And reparative therapy is a crock of ****, frankly. You'll notice that it is denounced by all mainstream psychological and medical organizations because not only does it not work, it is frequently psychologically damaging to those who undergo it. There isn't a shred of evidence that one can willfully change one's sexual orientation. Exodus's prize cases have ended up failures, and the emotional distress of these failures are horribly taxing on these people's psyches. That's one of the reasons the two men who founded Exodus now denounce the group. And they're a happily committed couple, too!
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-04-2003 21:10
What about old people?
|