Since there are so many threads about homosexuality

[markeverett49]

It is one thing to teach that homosexuality is a sin, but it is another thing to actively campaign for homosexual couples to be barred from receiving the same civil benefits that are available to heterosexual couples.

You are basing this on the assumption that same-sex couples CAN make a marriage. They cannot. This is the whole point. This is what is wrong with same-sex unions in the first place. Your assumption that heterosexual and homosexual couples are equivalent is mistaken.

 

[Crescentinus]

Nobody is using your little invented word, no matter how many threads you go on trying to promote it.

If it bothers you, don’t open threads about homosexuality-problem solved.

I didn’t even invent it.

Also, I don’t open homosexuality threads.

 

[TimeEntrance]

The civil benefits of marriage are established because it has been a long held belief that the family formed the basic unit of society.

Even the very liberal political philosopher John Rawls agreed the family was the basic unit of society (forming the first school of values for children that grow into citizens) and if the family declined then so society would decline.

However, I think Rawls supported gay marriage, for what reasons I’m not exactly sure. He also took contradictory stances on the roles of Christianity in Western society and politics and that of Islam in Eastern society and politics. For the latter he thought was perfectly fine and the West should respect and keep strong ties with.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls

So, Rawls as a liberal never had a problem with single people being treated asymmetrically or unequal to married heterosexuals.

John Bordley Rawls (February 21, 1921 - November 24, 2002) was an American philosopher and a leading figure in moral and political philosophy. He held the James Bryant Conant University Professorship at Harvard University.

His magnum opus, A Theory of Justice (1971), was hailed at the time of its publication as “the most important work in moral philosophy since the end of World War II,”[1] and is now regarded as “one of the primary texts in political philosophy.”[2]

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Fun fact, guys: I used to be in favor of same-sex marriage. I researched it. I was not “brainwashed”. I was not convinced by some charismatic religious leader. Actually, I was not convinced by religion at all. I did my own research, learned, and changed my opinion to be opposed to same-sex marriage.

It does go the other way sometimes.

What made you change your mind, buddy?

More homosexualists are coming in…
This thread it seems, is a magnet for them.

Homosexualist is such a weird word. Makes it seem like a religion or something. Is it another word for homosexual, or what?

The civil benefits of marriage are established because it has been a long held belief that the family formed the basic unit of society.

Even the very liberal political philosopher John Rawls agreed the family was the basic unit of society (forming the first school of values for children that grow into citizens) and if the family declined then so society would decline.

Gays could, and would, still have families. Besides, we offer up marriage to people who don’t want to have a family, and it’s not as though allowing gay marriage will mean families no longer exist. People will still have children. Life will still continue to go on.

 

[Crescentinus]

Homosexualist is such a weird word. Makes it seem like a religion or something. Is it another word for homosexual, or what?

It’s a more accurate term for “gay rights activist” since there are heterosexuals who support the homosexual lifestyle.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

It’s a more accurate term for “gay rights activist” since there are heterosexuals who support the homosexual lifestyle.

Oh. Is it another anti-gay code word, like “Family Values”? Homosexualist just sounds like a way to dehumanise those supporting gay rights. Makes it sound like some violent fanatical religious group rather than people who simply support gay rights. You’re welcome to use it, but I feel it undermines any arguments you may use slightly.

 

[Crescentinus]

Oh. Is it another anti-gay code word, like “Family Values”? Homosexualist just sounds like a way to dehumanise those supporting gay rights. Makes it sound like some violent fanatical religious group rather than people who simply support gay rights. You’re welcome to use it, but I feel it undermines any arguments you may use slightly.

You wish, but no.
Using the term “gay rights activist” just doesn’t help in any debates, oddly enough. Why? Because going after any rights activists automatically destroys the credibility of the side which goes against the side of the rights activist.

 

[BroomWagon]

I have heard and seen some people who just say that the topic of Same Sex Marriage is painful and divisive. And so then, they stay out of talking about it.

Though I might discuss it on the internet, a whole lot of political topics I would never discuss in public generally and Same Sex Marriage would be one of them.

In Minnesota, We vote on the definition of Marriage as defined in the statutes as being between 1 woman and 1 man this November.

I can tell you, I go through a lot of neighborhoods and there is the “sign” situation, some to in the words of the sign “don’t limit marriage” and there are the “vote yes for marriage between 1 man and 1 woman” signs. Needless to say, I’m of the opinion, that there has been some sign taking down on both sides, who did it first and who does it the most I don’t know.

But I can’t get people getting upset at someone for having a sign in their yard, at least on this matter. It’s the same kind of deal with people who sometimes take bumperstickers off of cars.

Also, I don’t know if in the end, being for marriage as being between 1 man and 1 woman constitutes being against gays. Other things might that have happened in the past but I don’t see that in the marriage issue.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

You wish, but no.
Using the term “gay rights activist” just doesn’t help in any debates, oddly enough. Why? Because going after any rights activists automatically destroys the credibility of the side which goes against the side of the rights activist.

But that’s what they are? If you use the term “homosexualist” I already have prejudices against you simply for using that word. It would most likely be best just to make an argument and maybe avoid using both terms, then, rather than using an extremely biased one that already reveals the fact that you have an extremely anti-gay agenda.

 

[Crescentinus]

But that’s what they are? If you use the term “homosexualist” I already have prejudices against you simply for using that word. It would most likely be best just to make an argument and maybe avoid using both terms, then, rather than using an extremely biased one that already reveals the fact that you have an extremely anti-gay agenda.

What term shall I use, then?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

What term shall I use, then?

Maybe same-sex marriage supporter, since that’s pretty neutral. But not a made-up term like “Homosexualist”, certainly. If you use that term, it makes you look like such a fanatic. Or perhaps, if you want, say that I’m “anti-traditional marriage” because I suppose I do oppose your idea of traditional marriage.

 

[Crescentinus]

Maybe same-sex marriage supporter, since that’s pretty neutral. But not a made-up term like “Homosexualist”, certainly. If you use that term, it makes you look like such a fanatic. Or perhaps, if you want, say that I’m “anti-traditional marriage” because I suppose I do oppose your idea of traditional marriage.

Well, at least that’s fair.
Will take time for me to adjust though.

 

[stewstew03]

What term shall I use, then?

I like the term “homoskeptical”, which means being skeptical of:

• Homosexuality is genetically determined and always fixed
• Sexual orientation is a biological characteristic race or sex
• Feelings of same sex attraction should be welcomed and maybe even promoted

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Yeah, I’m sorry, but I still don’t get it. What reason do we have for giving homosexual relationships marriage rights? I have yet to hear a good explanation except, “Well, they want them.”

 

[Marc_Anthony]

What made you change your mind, buddy?

Aquinas. I’ll go through it but preferably in another thread, the reasoning is kind of lengthy

 

[thewanderer]

This is wrong when considering that a lot of the benefit only make sense to give to lovers. Opening it up to more than two individuals or between family members would allow for people to abuse the system easily.

Also, promoting a society-wide aversion to incest is almost certainly an effective tool for preventing the sexual abuse of children, while the same cannot be said of homosexuality. A great deal of sexual abuse is perpetrated by family members, and a great deal of sexual abuse that does not occur may be attributed to an aversion to incest.

See, I don’t see why it makes sense to only give it to lovers. I see no reason why very close siblings or friends who live together in a non-sexual relationship, but love and support one another, sharing their lives together and living for the other in a non-sexual way should not be allowed these same benefits, at least, that is if one thinks that they are not there for the purpose of the procreation and raising of children. Sure, perhaps this is slightly less common, but do you really think such relationships never exist? It is possible for people to love each other and commit their lives to each others well being without being in a sexual relationship. I see no benefit listed that is only applicable to people in a sexual relationship, all the benefits seem to have to do with the closeness and shared lives of the individuals involved rather than having to do with sex.

And the argument about incest is off-base. The siblings don’t have to have a sexual relationship with each other to commit their lives to each other. If marriage is just a bunch of legal contracts then why in the world should it be denied to a pair of siblings/good friends who wish to live together and share all things working for the good of the other and supporting the other in difficult times? Why should they need to have sex to be able to take on these same contracts? Maybe I’m missing something but it just doesn’t make sense to me. Either people should be arguing to remove all restrictions on marriage, to remove marriage laws altogether and so remove it from the governmental sphere, or to put laws in place that make legal marriage the best it can be as a healthy place for the making and rearing of children.I realize that not everyone agrees with me, but that is honestly how I see it.

What was the question (or which post is it in)? As a gay man, I could offer my opinion on it.

It turns out it got well buried in this thread, its back on pages 11 and 12 . My first post was:

I have another question for the OP, or anyone else out there whoh would like to answer it. I am very curious what your thoughts on this blog post are.

joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html

Pleasse understand that I am not at all trying to imply that everyone with SSA should marry someone of the opposite sex, but I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on the article.

And there was a short conversation after that, so if you want you could go back and read it before answering. I mostly thought it would be an interesting article to use as a starting point to get a discussion going about what sexual orientation is and what it is not. Depending on your conception of what sexual orientation is you will either agree with Josh and approve his marriage or else believe that he is somehow deceiving himself (or just mistaken). At least, as far as I can tell those would be the reactions, if anybody else has another take on it beyond these it would certainly be interesting to hear. (It would also be interesting to hear the opinions of those who agree with one of my two proposed reactions, to learn more about why they think the way they do.)

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

In which case, to be consistent, you would really need to campaign for the removal of any limitations as to who can marry legally. ie, allow siblings, non-romantically involved close friends etc. not just for homosexuals.

lol, in an earlier post on this thread (and on other threads) I have already admitted that I have no problem with this idea. I’m not a huge fan of the idea of enforcing it through getting every couple wanting to marry to get a fertility test (not least of all because those aren’t always very accurate, or that having low fertility does not mean one is sterile) it would be too costly and cumbersome in my opinion, but having a couple sign an affidavit that, as far as they are aware, they are not a sterile couple or else refuse them a marriage licence is something that I have zero problem with. Its just legal marriage. Its not like they’re commitment to each other is lessened if the govt. doesn’t recognize it or anything like that.

I never figured out what is wrong with having domestic partnerships which can be between any two adults (emancipated minors included) like priority of conservatorship or gifting exemptions, joint ownership et cetera. It’s not like it would be inventing something new for the Western World, France in the Middle Ages had it in some places (mostly between brothers who co-inherited stuff, but other related or even unrelated males did too).

 

[markeverett49]

I never figured out what is wrong with having domestic partnerships which can be between any two adults (emancipated minors included) like priority of conservatorship or gifting exemptions, joint ownership et cetera. It’s not like it would be inventing something new for the Western World, France in the Middle Ages had it in some places (mostly between brothers who co-inherited stuff, but other related or even unrelated males did too).

Well, the “problem” (-for some) is that a) those are not legally recognized as marriages and b) it doesn’t recognize the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage. Mind you, I OPPOSE same-sex marriage but I understand why some people don’t think a domestic partnership is enough for them.

 

[ringil]

I’d like to refer you to a few posters on here

Certain well educated doctors and the like believe you’re simply choosing to be a homosexual

Sarah x

Yep I know what you mean.

Well, this practicing Catholic and licensed therapist acknowledges that homosexuality is not a choice. Some people may occasionally do homosexual things but the orientation is not a choice and there is, nor should there be any “treatment” for homosexuality or clinical pathology assigned to it.

I do believe that God is capable of miracles and I don’t see myself as one to question those who believe they were homosexual and now are heterosexual, but this isn’t the realm or science or of psycho-social intervention.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

And there was a short conversation after that, so if you want you could go back and read it before answering. I mostly thought it would be an interesting article to use as a starting point to get a discussion going about what sexual orientation is and what it is not. Depending on your conception of what sexual orientation is you will either agree with Josh and approve his marriage or else believe that he is somehow deceiving himself (or just mistaken). At least, as far as I can tell those would be the reactions, if anybody else has another take on it beyond these it would certainly be interesting to hear. (It would also be interesting to hear the opinions of those who agree with one of my two proposed reactions, to learn more about why they think the way they do.)

I don’t believe the guy is deceiving himself. He knows he’s a homosexual. It’s a rather odd relationship, though. There probably isn’t much sexual gratitude involved. It really just seems like they’d be careers for children rather than a wife and husband. Friends, more than anything.

However, it’d be difficult for someone to find a woman prepared to do that. I’ve heard articles from people about stuff like this, and normally marriages end or become in danger after information like this is revealed (of course, the man on the blog admitted he was gay before they married, so it’s a bit different). I wouldn’t imagine there would be people prepared to do this. I recall in a sort of write-in advice article in a newspaper there was a women who found gay porn on her husband’s laptop, asking if this meant he was gay. She wrote herself that, if he was gay, she felt the marriage would have been a phoney.