Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gay Marriage Decided By Straights?

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 8:22:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I noticed an interesting thing with the homosexual marriage issue. Although it's clear that there are ore heterosexuals than homosexuals, I find it funny that the decision whether to allow gays to marry is largely decided by completely HETEROSEXUAL legislatures.

Your thoughts?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 8:26:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The fates of businessmen are decided by bureaucrats.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
koolcat
Posts: 69
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 8:29:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
That is most humorous. but of course its just because 80 •/• of the U.S. is stright........ but thats not counting the people who dont want to come out of the closet.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 8:29:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 8:22:50 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I noticed an interesting thing with the homosexual marriage issue. Although it's clear that there are ore heterosexuals than homosexuals, I find it funny that the decision whether to allow gays to marry is largely decided by completely HETEROSEXUAL legislatures.

Your thoughts?

That logic could be easily reversed to say that in the event that a homosexual legislature legalizes gay marriage it is done out of their own personal leanings and not an unbiased decision. The members of the legislature do not matter, so long as they have the ability to put aside bias and vote based on what is right.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 8:38:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 8:29:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/2/2011 8:22:50 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I noticed an interesting thing with the homosexual marriage issue. Although it's clear that there are ore heterosexuals than homosexuals, I find it funny that the decision whether to allow gays to marry is largely decided by completely HETEROSEXUAL legislatures.

Your thoughts?

That logic could be easily reversed to say that in the event that a homosexual legislature legalizes gay marriage it is done out of their own personal leanings and not an unbiased decision. The members of the legislature do not matter, so long as they have the ability to put aside bias and vote based on what is right.

Agreed, but then again, to have a legislative body that is COMPLETELY devoid of homosexuals/bisexuals deciding gay marriage just seems...bizarre to me...
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
koolcat
Posts: 69
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 8:38:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
just a fun fact they legalize gay marrige in new york thanks to the petition on care2.com...... if your for gay marrige u should go to that website and sign it........ i would post a tread but i am on mobile so i cant...... sorry :(
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 8:39:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
They should just do away with marriage all together.

Civil unions for all. Let the churches argue over who they consider to be married.

Sh!t, the Catholic Church already does that with straight married couples.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 8:42:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 8:39:30 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
They should just do away with marriage all together.

Civil unions for all. Let the churches argue over who they consider to be married.

Sh!t, the Catholic Church already does that with straight married couples.

Lol. Is it wrong that I thought of the "abortions for none, miniature American flags for all," thing from Treehouse of Horror when I read that?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 8:42:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 8:38:21 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/2/2011 8:29:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/2/2011 8:22:50 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I noticed an interesting thing with the homosexual marriage issue. Although it's clear that there are ore heterosexuals than homosexuals, I find it funny that the decision whether to allow gays to marry is largely decided by completely HETEROSEXUAL legislatures.

Your thoughts?

That logic could be easily reversed to say that in the event that a homosexual legislature legalizes gay marriage it is done out of their own personal leanings and not an unbiased decision. The members of the legislature do not matter, so long as they have the ability to put aside bias and vote based on what is right.

Agreed, but then again, to have a legislative body that is COMPLETELY devoid of homosexuals/bisexuals deciding gay marriage just seems...bizarre to me...

What, do you intend on firing straight members of congress and replacing them with gay ones? Lets replace this with a racial perspective: There are not enough Indians in Congress to properly represent the American-Indian population. Do we fire some members and force in Indian ones? No, they must work their way up there. You'd have a case if the legislature intentionally barred gays from joining, but that isn't the case, so there's nothing bizarre about it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 8:44:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 8:42:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/2/2011 8:38:21 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/2/2011 8:29:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/2/2011 8:22:50 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I noticed an interesting thing with the homosexual marriage issue. Although it's clear that there are ore heterosexuals than homosexuals, I find it funny that the decision whether to allow gays to marry is largely decided by completely HETEROSEXUAL legislatures.

Your thoughts?

That logic could be easily reversed to say that in the event that a homosexual legislature legalizes gay marriage it is done out of their own personal leanings and not an unbiased decision. The members of the legislature do not matter, so long as they have the ability to put aside bias and vote based on what is right.

Agreed, but then again, to have a legislative body that is COMPLETELY devoid of homosexuals/bisexuals deciding gay marriage just seems...bizarre to me...

What, do you intend on firing straight members of congress and replacing them with gay ones? Lets replace this with a racial perspective: There are not enough Indians in Congress to properly represent the American-Indian population. Do we fire some members and force in Indian ones? No, they must work their way up there. You'd have a case if the legislature intentionally barred gays from joining, but that isn't the case, so there's nothing bizarre about it.

I was implying nothing of the kind. I was merely implying that it'd be nice if in the future a gay/bi legislator got elected, PROVIDED they actually know what the hell they're talking about.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 8:48:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 8:44:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I was implying nothing of the kind. I was merely implying that it'd be nice if in the future a gay/bi legislator got elected, PROVIDED they actually know what the hell they're talking about.

Okay, but then in that case, why would you want to see a certain kind of people in Congress? The people should not matter, it is their ability to put aside bias and vote fairly. If 100% of Congress was white, straight and Christian, but voted honestly and fairly every time, I would not have a problem with that.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 8:48:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 8:48:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/2/2011 8:44:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I was implying nothing of the kind. I was merely implying that it'd be nice if in the future a gay/bi legislator got elected, PROVIDED they actually know what the hell they're talking about.

Okay, but then in that case, why would you want to see a certain kind of people in Congress? The people should not matter, it is their ability to put aside bias and vote fairly. If 100% of Congress was white, straight and Christian, but voted honestly and fairly every time, I would not have a problem with that.

*legislature, not necessarily Congress. Congress just as an example
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 8:51:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 8:48:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/2/2011 8:44:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I was implying nothing of the kind. I was merely implying that it'd be nice if in the future a gay/bi legislator got elected, PROVIDED they actually know what the hell they're talking about.

Okay, but then in that case, why would you want to see a certain kind of people in Congress? The people should not matter, it is their ability to put aside bias and vote fairly. If 100% of Congress was white, straight and Christian, but voted honestly and fairly every time, I would not have a problem with that.

But the problem with all that is it enters a realm of "what is fair?" and such....
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 8:56:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 8:51:36 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/2/2011 8:48:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/2/2011 8:44:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I was implying nothing of the kind. I was merely implying that it'd be nice if in the future a gay/bi legislator got elected, PROVIDED they actually know what the hell they're talking about.

Okay, but then in that case, why would you want to see a certain kind of people in Congress? The people should not matter, it is their ability to put aside bias and vote fairly. If 100% of Congress was white, straight and Christian, but voted honestly and fairly every time, I would not have a problem with that.

But the problem with all that is it enters a realm of "what is fair?" and such....

Fairness being determined by an individual who is not subject to the injustice of the matter is entirely dependent on his empathetic capacity. What is in intrinsically recognized through evolution and modern society so that really isn't too subjective. What is fair is just known. I'm not sure it is a concept in question.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 9:08:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 8:26:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The fates of businessmen are decided by bureaucrats.

The fates of legislators are decided by businessmen.
Rob
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 9:58:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 9:08:29 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 8:26:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The fates of businessmen are decided by bureaucrats.

The fates of legislators are decided by businessmen.

That's not actually true. They are decided by elections, which businesses can influence but not cause.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 10:00:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 9:58:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/2/2011 9:08:29 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 8:26:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The fates of businessmen are decided by bureaucrats.

The fates of legislators are decided by businessmen.

That's not actually true. They are decided by elections, which businesses can influence but not cause.

ragnarian logic. (*not applicable in reality)
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 10:13:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think that heterosexuality, bi-sexuality, and homosexuality is a very primal grouping of subjects. It is the very essence of physical nature. In my opinion, the state should segregate according to sexual preference. Or only allow one kind of sexual preference, excluding the rest completely. Anything else is messing with the primal animal instincts. Sexuality desires and instincts are the core influence of almost all other physical preferences and/or choices. To intermingle this kind of primal instinct opposition is unhealthy to society overall.

This is my personal opinion at least.

I don't have anything personal against homosexuals as long as they don't show me their sexuality. If a homosexual guy hit in me in the bar though, I would probably act aggressive towards him naturally. Like a heterosexual wolf who gets humped by a homosexual in the pack, that homosexual wolf would probably get killed or banished from the pack. Those kinds of primal instincts exist even in humans.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 10:15:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 10:13:02 PM, Tiel wrote:
I think that heterosexuality, bi-sexuality, and homosexuality is a very primal grouping of subjects. It is the very essence of physical nature. In my opinion, the state should segregate according to sexual preference. Or only allow one kind of sexual preference, excluding the rest completely. Anything else is messing with the primal animal instincts. Sexuality desires and instincts are the core influence of almost all other physical preferences and/or choices. To intermingle this kind of primal instinct opposition is unhealthy to society overall.

This is my personal assertion at least.

fixed.
I don't have anything personal against homosexuals as long as they don't show me their sexuality. If a homosexual guy hit in me in the bar though, I would probably act aggressive towards him naturally. Like a heterosexual wolf who gets humped by a homosexual in the pack, that homosexual wolf would probably get killed or banished from the pack. Those kinds of primal instincts exist even in humans.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 11:28:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 10:00:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/2/2011 9:58:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/2/2011 9:08:29 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 8:26:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The fates of businessmen are decided by bureaucrats.

The fates of legislators are decided by businessmen.

That's not actually true. They are decided by elections, which businesses can influence but not cause.

ragnarian logic. (*not applicable in reality)

That's not actually an argument.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:06:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
My personal stance is that homosexuality goes against the laws of nature and should not be considered acceptable behavior in society. There is a reason we have certain choice standards in society. These standards uphold certain natural qualities within the society. Being homosexual goes against the laws of nature, which on a natural physiological level is wrong indeed. Even if some people are born with a physiological error that causes them to feel this way, it should not be accepted in society and left alone. It should be considered a condition that needs to be fixed within society right along side anger issues/rage, depression, anxiety, disease, mental disorders, etc. Such ideas can influence the youth of a new generation towards sexual confusion about what natural sexuality is and what is ok to think about in terms of sexuality and gender. If you start accepting sexual concepts that go against the laws of nature into society, where do you draw the line? At that point anything that goes against the laws of nature can and will become acceptable in society as well. This would be chaotic and could potentially lead to society breakdown and/or wars among humans on both sides. Homosexuality is a physiological and psychological error in my opinion. If it were not, then humans would naturally have the ability to reproduce with the same sex. The error is of the minority right now in our current era, but if the concept becomes acceptable in society it could influence the youth of America through electronic media and RL observations... Causing major rifts in society and within families.

The problem needs to be fixed. I believe that such psychological and physiological errors need to be treated in the normal way other psychological and physiological errors are treated. Medication, hormone therapy, psychological therapy sessions, etc. are all options towards fixing these errors and getting humans back on track within the laws of nature and acceptable choices in society. The problem isn't going to be fixed by accepting it, the problem is going to be fixed by treating it as the problem it is and fixing it in the proper ways. There are many choices that are not acceptable in society an I see no reason why this one should be any different. We now have the right technology and intelligence about human psychology and physiology to fix the problem. Centuries or even decades ago we did not have the ability to fix the problem, now we do. There is no excuse for accepting this problem in society when it is clear that it goes against the laws of nature.

If someone would like to argue that human homosexuality does not go against the human physiological laws of nature... Then let me know. I will debate you on the subject.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:17:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I find it funny too that laws against murder were passed by legislatures who were themselves not murderers. (Not drawing a comparison here, just showing that the reasoning is just plain bizarre)

Who woulda thunk' it!
kohai
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:28:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Human rights are never debatable. I am glad to be a libertarian communist supporting full and equal rights. What my rights are is the same as yours.

@contradiction you're beginning to get me off as a fascist.
1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist
kohai
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:28:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Let's abolish marriage in all cases, that would be a good place to start.
1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:32:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 3:28:56 PM, kohai wrote:
Let's abolish marriage in all cases, that would be a good place to start.

lol, abolish marriage, how absurd.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:33:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 3:06:05 PM, Tiel wrote:
My personal stance is that homosexuality goes against the laws of nature and should not be considered acceptable behavior in society. There is a reason we have certain choice standards in society. These standards uphold certain natural qualities within the society. Being homosexual goes against the laws of nature, which on a natural physiological level is wrong indeed. Even if some people are born with a physiological error that causes them to feel this way, it should not be accepted in society and left alone. It should be considered a condition that needs to be fixed within society right along side anger issues/rage, depression, anxiety, disease, mental disorders, etc. Such ideas can influence the youth of a new generation towards sexual confusion about what natural sexuality is and what is ok to think about in terms of sexuality and gender. If you start accepting sexual concepts that go against the laws of nature into society, where do you draw the line? At that point anything that goes against the laws of nature can and will become acceptable in society as well. This would be chaotic and could potentially lead to society breakdown and/or wars among humans on both sides. Homosexuality is a physiological and psychological error in my opinion. If it were not, then humans would naturally have the ability to reproduce with the same sex. The error is of the minority right now in our current era, but if the concept becomes acceptable in society it could influence the youth of America through electronic media and RL observations... Causing major rifts in society and within families.

The problem needs to be fixed. I believe that such psychological and physiological errors need to be treated in the normal way other psychological and physiological errors are treated. Medication, hormone therapy, psychological therapy sessions, etc. are all options towards fixing these errors and getting humans back on track within the laws of nature and acceptable choices in society. The problem isn't going to be fixed by accepting it, the problem is going to be fixed by treating it as the problem it is and fixing it in the proper ways. There are many choices that are not acceptable in society an I see no reason why this one should be any different. We now have the right technology and intelligence about human psychology and physiology to fix the problem. Centuries or even decades ago we did not have the ability to fix the problem, now we do. There is no excuse for accepting this problem in society when it is clear that it goes against the laws of nature.

If someone would like to argue that human homosexuality does not go against the human physiological laws of nature... Then let me know. I will debate you on the subject.

By "laws of nature" do you include male lions tendency to eat the young of whatever female he just mated with?

And is it the "laws of nature" that, like a black widow, you must kill your mate after sex?

If an animal is born with carnivorous teeth, is it against the "laws of nature" if that animal never kills anything?

The "laws of nature" are NOT the kind of thing you want to go around emulating.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:36:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 10:13:02 PM, Tiel wrote:
I think that heterosexuality, bi-sexuality, and homosexuality is a very primal grouping of subjects. It is the very essence of physical nature. In my opinion, the state should segregate according to sexual preference. Or only allow one kind of sexual preference, excluding the rest completely. Anything else is messing with the primal animal instincts.

This is absolutely not true. Sexuality (and sex and gender) is not black and white. At the very least the vast majority of people would fall under bisexual if they were honest with themselves. The state should not concern themselves with sexual preference, and I see absolutely no advantage to this type of segregation... at least not as productivity is concerned. Of course I wouldn't mind being surrounded by women all the time but that's neither here nor there :P

Sexuality desires and instincts are the core influence of almost all other physical preferences and/or choices. To intermingle this kind of primal instinct opposition is unhealthy to society overall.

Also not true. There are people who are a-sexual. I know one, and he is a fully functional member of society. I have friends who are gay, straight, bisexual and everything in between. We all manage to get along together just fine.

This is my personal opinion at least.

That's a shame.

I don't have anything personal against homosexuals as long as they don't show me their sexuality.

Grow a pair and get over it. Heterosexuals flaunt their sexuality all the time.

If a homosexual guy hit in me in the bar though, I would probably act aggressive towards him naturally.

I'm a lesbian and I get hit on by guys in bars 100% of the time that I frequent them. It's uncomfortable but I deal with it. If your first instinct is aggression, it sounds like you might need some anger management. My straight friends are flattered when gay people hit on them even if they're not interested, the same way they are when ugly people hit on them. Maybe you have some underlying issues that you really need to work on: probably your own sexual insecurities. Either that or you're a bigoted homophobe who is so sheltered that you cannot function outside the realm of your vanilla, square little world. I feel bad for you either way :/

Like a heterosexual wolf who gets humped by a homosexual in the pack, that homosexual wolf would probably get killed or banished from the pack. Those kinds of primal instincts exist even in humans.

Female spiders eat their mates... therefore human females should also eat their mates...?
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 3:37:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 3:17:46 PM, Contradiction wrote:
Stuff

You let me know when you're ready to debate gay marriage. For some reason you will debate this with everyone under the sun except me :(
President of DDO