major blow to heterophobes

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'll tell you what's so funny, most of you people so "principled" on peoples privacy rights, think nothing of voting for recycling laws which even tell me where I can put my trash or what kind of light bulbs I can buy.

I'll tell you what's so funny - now you're off on another silly tangent. This one seems to be pointing towards that if we allow gay marriage then we might as well abandon the rule of law and let anyone do anything that they want.

Brilliant.

[Danno 1,228]

Ah I see - we're back to the "if you allow gay marriage, you must allow incest marriages, pedophilic marriages, beastial marriages, group marriages" etc etc etc.

You just can't let that one go can you

The fact that you can not layout the parameters of these right shows how flimsy your position is Hunt. DO you think gays are the only discriminated group who might enjoy the benefits of marriage?

Wake-up Dude!

Are you principled or not?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The fact that you can not layout the parameters of these right shows how flimsy your position is Hunt. DO you think gays are the only discriminated group who might enjoy the benefits of marriage?

Wake-up Dude!

Are you principled or not?

Danno, there is no debate on whether you should have the choice to marry your own daughter (should you be so inclined).

The fact that the debate doesn't exist in the mainstream (or anything approaching it), does not mean you can artificially create a debate to use as an objection to gay marriage. Its a completely separate issue.

[Danno 1,228]

Danno, there is no debate on whether you should have the choice to marry your own daughter (should you be so inclined).

The fact that the debate doesn't exist in the mainstream (or anything approaching it), does not mean you can artificially create a debate to use as an objection to gay marriage. Its a completely separate issue.

You're weak.

[Peikko 1,575]

I think what you are saying is that: danno is not right in the head..... and that I am a actually gay myself (though won't admit it of course).

If you are correct, then you are not helping gays by pointing out another warped one (as you claim I must be).

No, I am not saying that at all. How do you get along thinking in cliches? It must be very wearing. What I said was, your posts demonstrate an inconsistancy of thought. You have a caricature like vision of what it is to be a homosexual, in you view gay couples are just a poor and grotesque imitation of a 'normal' male/female union. Gay couples do not think like that, nor do they act out these parts, well, only in camp films (self explanatory) so you are not seeing homosexuality for what it is.

You have also said that you find it disgusting and abnormal. Well, fine, that's your opinion, but that's all it is, an opinion. What it is not is an objective evaluation. One could argue that it is quantitively abnormal, but it is not perverse. Hetrosexuals indulge in all kinds of sexual play that are not directly relevant to procreation but dedicated to achieving orgasm and pleasure. Homosexuals are doing the same thing, the only difference is they can't engage in procreative sex and they don't have both male and female organs. That particular sexual experience is not attractive to you, but I expect there are other perfectly normal pleasurable practices that you are also not so keen on, that men and women regularly indulge in together. Some of them may even disgust you too but I don't see any rants from you as to why a man should not penetrate a woman analy, how a couple that indulges in such sexual practices should not be dignified with the sanctity of marriage. Why not? Why is it ok for a man to penetrate a woman's #######, but not a mans?

The fact is, that you don't have to think about it if you don't want to. You don't have to think about or indulge in any sexual practice that you find difficult or repellent or unattractive. However, only the thought of homosexual sexual practices brings about your indignation, your repulsion, your disgust in a public way. The only reasonable explanation I have for that, is that you have an unreasonable fear of man on man sexual practices. Now, that could be because you are in some way turned on or attracted by the thought of it, and that scares you, or it could be that you simply don't like that particular sexual practice. I don't know, but either it is unacceptable for all to do it, or it is acceptable for all to do it. To take one view when it is man on woman and another view when it is man on man is irrational.

You have never really said anything about how you feel about woman on woman sexual practices but again, you don't rant and rave about how abnormal and unnatural that is. So again, either you are able to not think about it, or you find it acceptable which is a discriminatory postion to hold.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You're weak.

You're weak, Danno - you want to create false debates to detract from the real one.

[Peikko 1,575]

Would you support ANY LAW restricting any couple of more from marrying?

Just trying to see if we are bigots at different points or if you would allow even a father to wed his daughter (or some other bizzare...woops, I mean "alternative" choice.)

This is silly. It's not an 'if you can accept this you must also accept that' argument. There are completely seperate but rational arguments against incest and pedophilia that are not based on some arbitary decision as to what is and isn't acceptable because of what 'god' thinks, or because of a line in the sand on morality.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I see what you did there. That was clever.

All I'm saying is that either opposition/disgust/whatever you want to call it toward homosexuality is a choice or it isn't. If it isn't a choice that people make, there are all kinds of ramifications. It's not reasonable for a person to be held responsible if they don't have a choice. If I own a business and happen to be homophobic (which isn't my choice) then I would be justified in not hiring gays because I have a condition that makes it difficult for me to work with them . As I didn't chose this condition, it isn't my fault. As an employer, I have a right to hire workers who will be compatible in my business. Or as a restaurant owner, I could chose that I want to cater to those who have this condition and thus not serve gays because I would make things difficult for my homophobic customers who can't stand to eat in the same restaurant as gays, through no fault of their own. In reality, the ramifications of saying that opposition to homosexuality is not a choice but a condition are rather ominous.

So if you acknowledge that opposition to homosexuality is a choice that people can be held accountable, then calling it a phobia is really rather ridiculous. While MC is right that a phobia isn't necessarily something you are born with, it is an effect of society, your upbringing, your pretendencies, and your experiences. It isn't something that you chose. So make up your mind, is opposition to homosexuality a choice or a phobia?

While I see what you're trying to get at, I can't follow that line of thought. Let me make it a bit clearer where I am coming from: I believe - and not because I want to but because there appears to be substantial evidence to support it - that homosexuality is a condition that isn't acquired but one that one is born with. Personally, I find it repulsive when same sex couples are affectionate in public. I don't have any such aversion when hetero couples behave in that way. There are, likewise, certain physical conditions that people may have either through their own fault or not that I rather not encounter. It causes discomfort that I can't quite pinpoint but that I know exists. But that's my problem not anyone else's.

At the end of the day, these are people. Human beings. They don't fit into the "norm". But that does not make them any less of a human being. That doesn't mean that they don't have the same dreams of fulfillment and the same craving for their pursuit of happiness that I do. Nor does that mean that they have any less of a right to pursue their dream and their fulfillment just as I pursue mine. Why, then, should I stand in their judgment? Or why should the state? Why should they be banned from attending my favorite restaurant? Why should they be denied the job working on the desk next to me? Because they were born different? Is that fair? Why should they not enjoy the same protection under the law that I enjoy? Because they were born different? Really?

I look at my wife and the beautiful daughter that is is the product of our love and relationship and I just shudder when I think that less than my lifetime ago, our relationship would have been illegal in some places in this country of ours. We would have been looked at - not only by people but by the state - as having an abnormal relationship that defies the will of God. We could have ended up fined or incarcerated for loving each other and wanting to build a family. Our daughter would have been considered an abomination. And all that for no reason other than my having been born with white skin - not something I chose - and my wife having been born with black skin - not her choice either. There's something fundamentally wrong with that picture and the Supreme Court recognized that in 1967 and put an end to this clearly unjustifiable discrimination by the state of Virginia against citizens of the United States of America. As a result, the marriage between my wife and I and the lovely product of our love are no longer looked down upon - by some people, perhaps but not by the state, any state.

In less than my lifetime, one out of 15 couples married today consists of partners from different races. And there's no debate about the fact that 40 years ago, people were fighting against ending state sanctioned discrimination against couples of different races as there are people today fighting against ending state sanctioned discrimination against homosexuals couples. Those that fought against the rights of interracial couples 40 years ago lost their fight and those that fight against the rights of homosexual couples today will lose as well. Many are still in denial on that but that matters little, if at all.

[Danno 1,228]

This is silly. It's not an 'if you can accept this you must also accept that' argument. There are completely seperate but rational arguments against incest and pedophilia that are not based on some arbitary decision as to what is and isn't acceptable because of what 'god' thinks, or because of a line in the sand on morality.

DId I say anything about "what God thinks"... why did you?

Would you feel the law should allow three or four people who feel they want to be a family, to marry?

[Peikko 1,575]

DId I say anything about "what God thinks"... why did you?

Would you feel the law should allow three or four people who feel they want to be a family, to marry?

It's obvious if you were following the argument. Do you have an answer as to why some sexual practices are fine if they are man on woman or woman on woman but not man on man?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oh God, how many fricking times has this lame argument been trotted out?

It's silly, it's stupid, it's irrelevant - but don't let that stop you...

Sheesh...

It's obvious if you were following the argument. Do you have an answer as to why some sexual practices are fine if they are man on woman or woman on woman but not man on man?

I wonder if Danno is more disgusted by homosexuals than by people who shag goats or do hardsports and golden showers.

[Peikko 1,575]

Why is it acceptable to allow some couples to enjoy legal marital rights but not others?

Oh God, how many fricking times has this lame argument been trotted out?

It's silly, it's stupid, it's irrelevant - but don't let that stop you...

Sheesh...

I wonder if Danno is more disgusted by homosexuals than by people who shag goats or do hardsports and golden showers.

From the evidence we have available to us, homosexuals are the most disgusting thing in the universe. I have never seen a post where he has expressed disgust at anything else.

[Danno 1,228]

It's obvious if you were following the argument. Do you have an answer as to why some sexual practices are fine if they are man on woman or woman on woman but not man on man?

Thats a fair question (Hunt take a note on how to answer a question).

IN any society tradition is one huge factor.

And the other trump card is..... is the relationship even natural.

If you somehow want to claim it is, you are really arguing with the "Darwin" not me.

Why is it acceptable to allow some couples to enjoy legal marital rights but not others?

From the evidence we have available to us, homosexuals are the most disgusting thing in the universe. I have never seen a post where he has expressed disgust at anything else.

Actually, I don't like to see really ugly people kiss up close either.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

IN any society tradition is one huge factor.

There's no legal tradition of defining marriage as 'between a man and a woman' in the US. The first such legal definition was passed less than 4 decades ago. Not sure that makes a strong case for the 'tradition' argument when it comes to civil marriage.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Humans are social animals - all relationships are "natural".