Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2 - Page 24 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-26-2012, 03:10 PM   #346
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:41 PM
Quote:
The homosexuality-as-choice argument: Those who repeatedly make this claim are actually revealing something about their own sexuality: they are bisexual. Since human beings use a form of mental analogy whenever trying to understand another person’s behavior, the “choice” argument reflects the reasoning process of an individual who has experienced notable arousal to the same sex in addition to the opposite sex, but has chosen to act only on that inspired by the latter. A true heterosexual, by contrast, has never experienced meaningful same-sex desires and understands that one cannot choose to act on what is simply not there.
It's just a change in one little word, but I wonder if this particular debunk might be more widely accepted--and even made more accurate, for that matter--if people proposing it routinely used "bisexual," as Bering does here, rather than "closeted gay," which implies that It's-a-choicers' opposite-sex attractions must be wholly illusory. No doubt some prominent proponents of "It's a choice!" really are closeted gay men--see the examples from Exodus International and FRC I cited upthread--but to me it also seems possible that the incidence of male bisexuality is higher than most statistics suggest, and that one reason for that is men's relatively greater fear (compared to women's) of acknowledging having experienced attractions to the same sex. (Of course, there are some women who say "It's a choice!" too, and Bering's point would also apply to them.) Even so, I still think there are probably many honest-to-goodness heterosexual proponents of "It's a choice!" who just enjoy thinking that their lifelong lack of interest in the same sex simply reflects what admirable, temptation-proof moral constitutions they have.

The fourth debunk seems weaker to me than the other three, somewhat convoluted and at risk of losing its own plot.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 08-27-2012, 09:44 PM   #347
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 10:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post

The fourth debunk seems weaker to me than the other three, somewhat convoluted and at risk of losing its own plot.
I felt the same.

Particularly because my own views about homosexuality changed without me having to become an atheist.

I really do believe there are lot of good people out there who would change their minds if presented with evidence that doesn't demand they toss out the Bible.

(Of course I'm sure none of them were posting in the discussion forums the author referenced)
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 08-28-2012, 09:13 PM   #348
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 04:41 PM
Reading a book about J Edgar Hoover, it occurs to me, and not for the first time, that America has always been quite a tolerant place for homosexuals. Consider that one of America's highest public servants, who served under eight presidents, shared his life, his home, and almost certainly some form of personal relationship with his same sex work colleague for many years.

It's true that in the past there was a certain level of hypocrisy in that such a relationship was generally not openly alluded to in public, but anyone with half a brain cell knew what was really going on - and is hypocrisy, after all, the worst of sins?
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 08-28-2012, 09:27 PM   #349
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 55,037
Local Time: 02:41 AM
From an outsider's point of view - and please correct me if I'm wrong - it seems that the more extreme right, even if it is a minority, has a large, attention-grabbing, far-reaching collective voice. Perhaps if you polled the entire country it would come out that it is largely very tolerant but it seems to me that not many are speaking for a hell of a lot.
__________________
cobl04 is offline  
Old 08-28-2012, 09:41 PM   #350
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,266
Local Time: 09:41 AM
I'm definitely inclined to believe that. After all, support for gay marriage is definitely growing here in the States-I think last I heard it's at least over 50% or something.

The anti-gay marriage side is losing the fight and they know it. So they're making even more noise than usual because they're desperate to try and keep people believing their ideas.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 08-28-2012, 09:51 PM   #351
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
I'm definitely inclined to believe that. After all, support for gay marriage is definitely growing here in the States-I think last I heard it's at least over 50% or something.
Depends on the poll and who is being asked. Obviously, people under the age of 35 are more likely to support SSM than a senior citizen. Polls I've seen show about 50 - 55% support, though I would imagine a FOX News poll wouldn't reflect that.
__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 08-28-2012, 11:16 PM   #352
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,673
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy
Reading a book about J Edgar Hoover, it occurs to me, and not for the first time, that America has always been quite a tolerant place for homosexuals. Consider that one of America's highest public servants, who served under eight presidents, shared his life, his home, and almost certainly some form of personal relationship with his same sex work colleague for many years.

It's true that in the past there was a certain level of hypocrisy in that such a relationship was generally not openly alluded to in public, but anyone with half a brain cell knew what was really going on - and is hypocrisy, after all, the worst of sins?
How do you gather from one book about one individual about a piece of history that is debated, denied, or swept under the rug, that America has always been tolerant?

Sorry but I find your revelation quite baffling.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-30-2012, 05:07 AM   #353
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 55,037
Local Time: 02:41 AM
Good news with a bit of shit news.

California bans 'gay cure' therapy as lawmakers say they want to protect 'sissy boys' | Mail Online

Quote:
Republican opponents of the measure said regulation of the therapy was a matter for medical boards - not politicians - to decide. They said the bill encroaches on the rights of parents to make choices for their children.

Republican Assembly member Shannon Grove said on Tuesday: 'That's why parents have children - to hand down their legacies, their belief systems, the way they want their children raised.'
Anyone who opposes that law can go fuck themselves. There is absolutely no point in trying to pussyfoot around the fact that 22 people voted against it. Anyone who votes against that does not have children or families' best interests at heart. They're just a fucking asshole. Unbelievable.

But I digress. Great move, obviously.
__________________
cobl04 is offline  
Old 08-30-2012, 06:49 AM   #354
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,266
Local Time: 09:41 AM
So, wait a minute, let me make sure I've got this right: Republicans see nothing wrong with instances where politicians can step in to actually flat out ban gay marriage and the like, but they oppose this measure because they think politicians banning this "therapy" is going too far and getting involved in something "personal"?

Ahhhh, I do so love the convoluted logic of the GOP.

And please, this has nothing whatsoever to do with overriding parents' decisions for their children. cobl is right-if you are a parent and you support putting your kid through that crap, you have gone horribly wrong somewhere in your child-raising skills.

Good move on California's part. There's no need for that sorry BS to exist.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 08-31-2012, 01:44 AM   #355
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 55,037
Local Time: 02:41 AM
BBC News - Three-person civil union sparks controversy in Brazil
__________________
cobl04 is offline  
Old 08-31-2012, 07:02 AM   #356
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,673
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Doesn't really belong in here, we don't want to confuse the people that equate two women marrying with one man marrying his goat or one man marrying fourteen women.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-31-2012, 10:57 AM   #357
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 10:41 AM
agreed. all these polygamous marriages involve penises going into vaginas, which as the opposition has argued, is the sole, true, real, only, eternal, endless, and forever purpose of marriage.

it's up to straight people to argue why their 2-person marriages are better than 3-or-more marriages, not gay people. gay people just want to marry someone.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-31-2012, 11:04 AM   #358
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:41 AM
http://www.advocate.com/politics/mar...riage-equality
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-31-2012, 03:51 PM   #359
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 11:41 AM
With changing beliefs about marriage and sexuality, this was bound to happen. Sure, marriage can be defined as a union between people who love each other, but what if 10 people love each other? CNN is reporting that the lawyer who presided over this civil union has a quintet trying to get married.

I do think there should be a line drawn at one point or else all these group marriages make marriage one huge joke. It also does not help that some people are on their third or fourth divorce, which furthers the joke of marriage.

Should society really determine what is a true marriage? What love is? What a committed relationship is? Or live and let live?
__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 08-31-2012, 03:54 PM   #360
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,874
Local Time: 10:41 AM
Legally, marriage is about the sharing of assets, so, yes, governments should define what a legal marriage is, and they should define it is two consenting adults. Polygamy is completely impractical from a legal point of view.
__________________

__________________
PhilsFan is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com