POLL: Gay Marriage and Homosexuality

Remove all ads!

The flaw in your argument is that women do not possess a Y chromosome and yet there are plenty of butch lesbos. And lipstick lesbians as well. I prefer the lipstick lesbos myself, at least in sexual fantasies.

Edit...

Although...perhaps female attraction is partially located on non-sexual chromosomes and even upon the X chromosome that we all possess. Hmm...pure speculation and over-simplification...

 

This reply goes for DMC as well.
I have seen lots of protests from homos wanting to be married in their own churchers, and leftist thinkers are always bashing the church for not allowing homosexual marriage.
I would not downplay their will to be get married in the church.

Yes, it should remain a religious institution. We will not allow leftist like you destroy all our institutions, rest assured.

Read my response to Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

You did imply I am a religious fanatic. I wonder how long till it got to nazi, fascist, intolerant.

NWO stand for New World Order. It is not a simple issue for someone not aware of it, but it is a "movement" that has been going for decades now. It's agents basically want to destroy everything which is White, Christian and Traditional. They want to create an internationalist society without borders, be them ethnical/cultural or economical. They want to replace millenia old values for false and corrupt un-values. I could give you a few examples of NWO agents: Soros, Chomsky, Moore, Rockfeller Institute, most western politicians - Clinton, Schirrac, etc - and the list goes on and on. Of course not all of them act in the same way, but their intent is quite clear. Almost all of them share a socialist ideology.
By the way, before you call me a wacko or something, do a little research and you will realise NWO is far from being a term I coined myself. It is a widespread phenomenom.

LOL! Oh my! I dont mean to be rude, but that is why I dont like to discuss with amateurs. Morality yes subjective, and yet you are not a relativist?! How stupid is that? Do you even know what relativism is? You should know what it means before you run your mouth.
But I can help you. Relativists basically say everything is subjective - morality included - and as such moral judgements - what is right and wrong - and quality judgments - what is better/worse and superior/inferior - can not exist, because everything is a result of social standards and convenience, and none bear the monopoly over thruth.
Of course relativism is a very frail concept, and can be easily debunked. To begin with, while they claim there is no thruth, their self righteous talk betrays them. Their thruth is "there is not thruth".
Second of all, relativists are always running their mouthes to stand for primitive societies, claiming we can not apply our own moral/cultural standards to them, on the basis that there is no better/worse, but the mere different.
However, if you ask anyone in which historical society - including our own - they would wish to live, they would chose one - not necessarily ours, but one nonetheless. By the time someone choses a given society to live, he is basically meaning this society holds the superior values/culture to them. So, as you can see, relativists also have their own standards of judgement, despite their empty rhetoric to convince the masses.
Not to mention relativism throws logic in the trash, by claiming there are several opposing thruths and rights.
Anyway, you are not a relativist because you are pro homosexual marriage, but because you think morality is a "very subjective" thing.

That is what everyone claims. I will not accuse you of saying that falsely though, as I dont know you.
By the way, you should review your concept of Democracy, because it is long surpassed. But maybe you think Western social democracies are great beacons of Democracy? But that is a different discussion that I would be willing to conduct in a different thread.

I am sorry, but if you keep commiting such illiterate mistakes I wont see the need to continue this, because a high level discussion requires that both discussers know what they are talking about.
I explained to you what relativism means, now I will explain to you what libertarianism means.
Firstly, you should read John Locke, as he is the most classical liberal.
Anyway, libertarianism stands for a small goverment, that does not intervene in civil society - unless the minimal necessary of course. The justification for that is that the human being is both rational and free enough to guide his own life without the need of a state ruling out his life. Liberalism assumes men should have personal autonomy and self responsability to the point he himself should be blamed/praised to whichever deeds he has accomplished. Meaning we dont need the state for anything other than security and some minimal order.
Let me give you a real life example of what would be the response of a liberal to something that happens commonly in our society: In those cases someone sues a cigarretes company because he got cancer after smoking for say 30 years, a liberal would say, "who cares, he/she knew what he/she was doing, the state has no place in demanding the company to pay any compensation". Again, the most important concept here is personal autonomy and maturity. An interventionist state assumes people are mentally infantile and can not rule over their own lives.
That said, it is amazing how leftists and NWO agenst twisted the concept of what libertarianism means. While it always stood for small goverment and autonomy to civil society, now libertarianism stands for an immensely interventionist state that do so to garantee the "rights of all groups".
It is, at the same time, a subtle but yet a 180 degrees change of the term.
So, basically, these new age "libertarians" support a civil society with no autonomy, a society in which members have no freedom of action or behaviour because the state has the "duty" to secure the "rights of all groups". Of course the only way for the state to do that is by meddling in our lives and severing the freedom of "oppressing groups".
It assumes a bunch of state burocrats have a better understanding of how to solve civil society dilemma than it's own members.
I could keep on for pages and pages regarding this matter, but my initial purpose was merely to point out to you how your deffinition of "libertarianism" is deeply misguided and twisted, and that, in the end, the only thing it ensues is totalitarism. I am always appalled how these leftists - who are all totalitarians despite their false rhetoric - turn concept X into Y and vice versa by a subtle modification in it. It requires a keen eye to keep up with their lies and misinterpretion.
Anyway, back to the topic.

... Dude, let me repeat it once more. A pedophile can get married, but getting married is not what makes one a pedophile. To one being a pedophile he has to commit pedophilia - or have urges, depending on how you view it.
Thus, by getting married there is no way to accuse one of being a pedophile - on the marriage account alone - but if he is a known pedophile - on the account that he has commited pedophilia - he could not get married, because he should be in jail.
I guess the logic course still stands in need.

LOL! God give me strenght! Now logic is a subjective thing too? And you said you were not a relativist? Well, now that I explained to you what relativism means I hope you see the faulty of your thinking.
Despite, whether you are a relativist or not does not matter here. Claiming logic is a subjective thing is going a step further than the typical relativist lunacy and schizophrenia.
Logic is, always was and shall be an essencially objective concept.

Edit: By the way, I forgot to mention, but if you want to understand how the NWO works, and how we are going through a masked process "totalizating" the state, you should read the fabian communists and mainly Antonio Gramsci, who is the main thinker behind the idea of a totalitarian state that acts in a subtle and most effective way. Both were concerned with the implementation of a communist state that would be far more effective than the violent method of the bolsheviks.

[ September 24, 2005, 17:03: Message edited by: Svyatoslav ]

 

Svyatoslav: You may want to check out the rules for posting in AoDA. You're hurling a lot of insults in your posts. A lot of the topics are deeply personal, but we usually try to keep it civil here (admittedly I have been guilty of going overboard on occasion).

 

I'm not even a leftist. It would be nice if you stopped labeling people while you discuss and instead concentrate on the issues and not on the person. Needless to say, I'm not even wanting to destroy you or your religious institution. I don't live in your country so I don't care much what you do in there. In here on the other hand the institution is different and you'll just going to have to accept that too.

Probably never actually. Sad that you see it that way.

Interesting. Anyway I don't believe in this NWO crap on basis of what you've said. I don't think the west european governments are there to destroy everything that is christian and white and I find believing so extremely absurd. A silly conspiracy theory in my opinion, nothing more.

I don't believe in myself being relativist no, but on the other hand I can hardly go and claim the existance of one true moral code, which leads me to believe that morality indeed is subjective atleast to an certain extent. I for one do not see homosexual activity as immoral and you obviously do, which means that either one of us is immoral or we have a different moral code. The second seems like the more likely alternative to me, to you it obviously ain't so.

I am well aware what libertarianism is. A small government is not the same thing as an nonexisting government. The libertarian government's greatest duties is the justice system. Libertarianists are most often against social engineering too, now I can't say that I know what Nozick would say about gay marriage, perhaps he would turn in his grave and shake his head but the point being that discouraging homosexual behaviour is social engineering. I know the basics only of these kinds of things, I'm not really into philosophy I've had a couple of courses of it but not read any extra books about it so I have just the basic knowledge. The thing is though that I don't think there is anyone around who is willing to implements Nozick's ideals in its purest without quite a lot of adjustment.

I can't say I know what the law says in there but in here people can get married even when they're imprisoned. Additionally I never claimed marriage to make someone a pedophile I merely said that it won't remove the urges, and as long as those urges exist. So no I still don't see the need for a logic course.

Yes I might have been wrong there by saying that logic is subjective, probably should have said that the inteprenting of what is logical and what is not is very subjective. As I said I'm not an expert in philosophy and try to avoid such topics in general but this has been steered there very much against my own will.

[ September 24, 2005, 18:15: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

Ok, I just read the guidelines of this forum, and although I admit I broke the rules in that thread about turkey, I really did not now.
I called Morgoroth leftist and amateur, but neither are name-calling, by any stretch of imagination. The first once is my perception of his political stance, and the second is a constatation of his lacking knowledge in a given matter.
So I suppose the only wrong thing I did was to go off topic, for which I am sorry. I will open a new thread right now to discuss the current matters.

 

Well, a genetic basis for homosexuality is not an argument. There is considerable proof for it. (But let us not oversimplify genetics to the point where we say that there is some kind of "gay gene.")

That aside, sexual antagonism occurs in both sexes, Y chromosome or no. Female humans will have to be picky about their mates because unlike males, having offspring is a laborious, long, painful thing. Many female organisms are going to be picky about their mates. Throw social factors in there, and lesbianism could ensue.

Also remember that while it is usually very hard to alter sexual orientation, it is relatively easy to alter sexual behavior. Perhaps for much of civilization true lesbians felt little joy in having sex or a relationship with a male, but had to go through with it because of societal factors.

 

Is there any such thing as a sexual orientation at all? It sounds like a modern concept, created to smuggle some ideas by under the guise of a wise and professional sounding term. There is sexual drive and disorders therein, there is sexual behaviour, but orientation? Naaah. That's hardly scientific, it's a social construct and more of a pre-agreement than observation of fact.

There's also a number of other genetic disorders and diseases. Doesn't make them alternative versions of human organism functioning. Even if they do find something close to a gay gene, it still won't make homosexuality a perfectly biologically normal pattern of behaviour on par and in the same league with heterosexual behaviour.

 

What if a gay person is happy they are gay? There are benefits you realize...

 

We were talking about social benefits...

 

What if a mental patient is happy with his friends only he sees?

 

I suppose that would actually be quite okay. Unless he of course is a danger for others and I'm sure you don't think homosexuals are a serious threat to you now do you? Mental patients however usually are and more often than not can't live without some sort of treatment, if one could then it would be okay. In here no one can be forced to treatment unless he is considered to be a danger for others.

EDIT: Actually now that I think about it most mentally ill probably live without treatment, depression probably being the the most common problem and one that people rarely seek treatment for.

 

Okay, but do we deliver mail to his imaginary friends? If the thinks up a bride for himself, do we perform the ceremony? Not talking about straight jackets and stuff.

 

Probably not since the friend does not actually exist and the amount of trouble in serving someone who does not exist would be quite a burden. I however fail to see what this has to do with accepting gay marriage since that requires you to make no compromises in your life.

 

Chev, I hope you have a son who is a world-class flamer. You know, floppy wrists, rolling eyes, the works. And you'll love him anyway. And then when you see how truly happy some equally strange "disordered" individual makes him, then you'll understand.

 

@chev:
You mean like letters to Santa (or God)? Maybe we should all be locked up. (An imaginary bride could easily be handled by a imaginary priest.)

 

Not really like those, since if any adult writes letters to Santa, it's a funny thing and nothing else. However, imagine a person says his bride is real but it's just we who don't see her. And he demands to be married to her. Then other people follow his steps and a couple of organisations stands up for his rights, the left side of the parliament prepares a bill, and so on.

 

Isn't this somewhat going to the extremes?
where would we, if being gay is marked as a disorder and acquainted with the ilk schizophrenia, set the lines? There's loads of other sexual related tendencies, which extends even further beyond what one would classify as being "normal".

This somewhat resembles paranoia to me, though I guess you were giving the extreme example here. I can understand why one couldn't allow a gay couple to be wed in a church, based on religious arguments; but what harm would it do to simply let gay people be gay people, as long as they're happy with that, and it isn't anything that hinters them from being able to live a normal, functioning life? A delusional or schizophrene person could easily end up hurting either him-/herself or others, which can't necessarily be said about a gay person.

A don't see any harm in gayness as of such, unless it evolves to orgies in public places (which is not something entirely associated with gayness as of such, but also a tendency heterosexual people practice's).

 

I dont want to speak out for him, but I suppose he means while we should not prohibite him from having imaginary friends, we should not encourage his wrong behaviour - or perception of the thruth - by supporting him in his lunacy - by delivering mail, performing his marriage to a imaginary bride, etc. It is an analogy to homosexualism - on the assumption that it is a wrong thing - to say we should not encourage homosexual behaviour, even though we might accept it if it does not harm anyone.
I guess it is a good analogy.

 

@ Svyatoslav
But my intended argument was that homosexuality should not neccesarily be labelled as a "bad thing" as such, or unatural to boot. I rather wanted to discuss where to set the lines, and by whom? You might say because gayness isn't a "natural" thing, but when talking human society, what is?
Surely our expanding and ongoing search for so-called improvements of the mass produced human society is rather destroying than improvement the assets of the natural environment, no? wouldn't it come "natural" to think that this would resemble the functioning of the human mind, and thus the act and tendencies of individuals? This is of course only if homosexuality should be regarded as an unatural and "bad" thing.

Homosexuality is also to a certain degree found in natural environments too (primarily in primate "societies"), which could lead one to think that homosexuality *is* somewhat a natural "asset"(in lack of better) of the human being. It has after all been a part of the human inclination for eons....

I wouldn't say that either should be encouraged or discouraged, but rather accepted as a part of human behavior.
I just can't relate to acquainting it to a state of being mentally ill.
This was moreso biased towards Chevalier calling homosexuality a mental disorder of sorts.

And this is one of the major points wherein I mus admit that our opinions differ. THough I do not think (as mentioned above) that homosexuality should be encouraged, I do believe that if one so choses to live his life as a homosexual he should be suported in this, - in my eyes there a difference.

Guess I didn't pin-point want I ment all that well.

OT: Might just be confusing now, is a wee too tired for this...