Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Douglas, what is your opinion about homosexuals?> That they are people, for better or worse, who deserve to be treated with respect. I would never deny a homosexual a place to live, a job, or friendship. The fact that a person is a homosexual doesn't raise or lower my opinion of them. <What do you think about homosexuality in general?> I think we would be in trouble if it was too widely adopted, and I wouldn't like to see it too openly displayed in front of young children, but other than that, people are what they are. I don't think homosexuality should be outlawed, or discrete displays of it banned.
Originally Posted By X-san ***I don't think homosexuality should be outlawed, or discrete displays of it banned.*** How about overt displays? Should that be banned?
Originally Posted By X-san Before going there, "overt displays" meaning the same sort of "overt displays" of heterosexuality you might see in public.
Originally Posted By X-san ***I wouldn't like to see it too openly displayed in front of young children*** Yeah, like something slightly disgusting and distasteful that you might tolerate, but only just. Right? (since you didn't answer right away, I thought I'd help)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I wouldn't like to see it too openly displayed in front of young children<< Define "too openly displayed".
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Once upon a time, interracial couples had to keep their relationships on the down-low, not too "openly displayed" lest young children start to see such relationships as "normal" or something. It wasn't equal, it was plainly unfair, but "it was in the best interest of the children." It's nothing new to use "what's in the best interest of the children" to support bigotry. The funny thing is, to a majority of people under 30, this is really a non-issue. That's why you see the anti-gay marrage groups trying to act fast to alter the constitution -- they know time (and history) is not on their side.
Originally Posted By X-san ***Define "too openly displayed".*** Yup, K2M, that was exactly my question. Though I appreciate Doug answering honestly, I would really like to hear the follow up answers as well. There are an AMAZING number of caveats in his reply when you stop and look at it carefully... "for better or worse" "I would never deny" "I think we would be in trouble" "I wouldn't like to see it openly displayed" I won't even try to paraphrase the rest, it's WAY too prejudiced and I don't even want to copy/paste the filth.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I didn't get the facts wrong.>> <Yes, you did.> Well, no I didn't, and you haven't been able to show I did. You just asserted I did, and as usual, confuse the two. <<Man up, for once.>> <I've stated what I believe. If you want to go ahead and continue to distort it, I can't stop you.> You were taken to task for those statements (i.e. we don't disallow post-menopausal women from marrying because we can't tell by looking if they're post-menopausal) by more people here than just me. If you want to try to deny you ever said it I can't stop you, but many of us here know better. <<He shows declining rates of marriage in Holland. Then he says that because gay marriage happened at the same time, it was a contributing factor.>> <Not quite. He goes through all the possible factors, and explains why they are not contributing factors. That's the way you show cause.> That fails Freshman Logic. What he does is offer his OPINION why factor a or b is "not a cause." That's not proof, that's opinion. Once again, you can't seem to tell the difference. He dismisses the change in legal status of non-married heterosexuals, for instance, but it's just his OPINION that it is less important than the institution of gay marriage. He has no proof. Just an opinion. But you want to believe his conclusion, so you eat it up with a spoon. <<For me, proof is required of something negative if we're going to deny equal protection under the law.>> <I think proof of something positive should be required if we're going to redefine marriage, but I'm willing to settle for evidence that no harm will be done.> That's what people said about interracial marriage too, of course. And the thing is, there was something positive - the principle of equality itself. That wasn't enough for millions of people for dozens of years, but it was always there. It's there in the case of gay marriage as well. <So far, I haven't seen it.> You're not looking at Massachusetts. <<I can present evidence to the contrary - no negative effects in Massachusetts>> <Please do.> Um, I did. There have been no negative effects in Massachusetts. They're I believe 49th in divorce rate. Way down the scale on out of wedlock births too. Meanwhile, we have the positive effect of thousands of gay citizens being treated as equals. Can you show any negative effects?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Can you show any negative effects?<< Yes! It has a terrible effect on anti-gay marriage rhetoric and ghost stories!!!!
Originally Posted By Daannzzz ""I think we would be in trouble if it was too widely adopted"" Is this a bad choice of words or is its intent clear.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < Is this a bad choice of words or is its intent clear.> I think it's probably based on a misunderstanding of what homosexuality is and is not. The biggest thing: it's not a choice. I do hear this "argument" sometimes: "well, if everybody was gay, the species would come to an end" or some variant. Well, relax. Everyone is never going to be gay. It doesn't work that way. 90% or so will always be straight. That's nature. That's more than enough to continue the species. A certain percentage will be gay (that's ALSO nature), and that's true for other species besides the human one. Then there's a related argument, which Doug seems to be hinting at: "Okay, so everybody's not going to be gay. But if homosexuality is accepted, more people will choose to be that way." Well, no. It doesn't work that way, as it's not a choice. The only choice is whether to be out. And yes, more people will be out (and happy, and forming their own relationships, and not putting up with all the agita and worse that being in the closet entails). But no more people will be gay.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 A bisexual is someone who falls somewhere in the middle of the continuum. Most people believe that we're all on the continuum somewhere, even if most of us are bunched up towards one end or another. Thus the great number of straight people who have a gay encounter at some point in their lives, or vice versa. Kinsey constructed a 7-point scale, with 0 being totally straight, no gay encounters ever and no interest of even the idle sort, and 6 being the equivalent for gay. Many straight people are more like "Kinsey 1's" and many gay people are more like "Kinsey 5's." A full 50/50 bisexual would be a "Kinsey 3" which seems to be much rarer than the 0's and 1's or the 5's and 6's. At any rate, a bisexual has sexual attraction to both sexes and is capable of forming a lasting relationship with either. It doesn't mean they have sex with both simultaneously, as some believe.
Originally Posted By DAR <<It doesn't mean they have sex with both simultaneously, as some believe. >> So that time in college with the two girls that was just......(yeah right)
Originally Posted By mele <<In all seriousness where does bisexuality fall into the equation? >> Why does it have to be so defined? I know you're just asking but sometimes bisexuals are treated even worse than homosexuals, as if we're just confused or out of control, etc. We all have people we're attracted to, different physical types, personality types, etc. Bisexuals are no different. You're just attracted to who you are attracted to. Honestly, I like being attracted to both sexes. I am married so I don't act on any attraction. A commitment is a commitment, no matter what sex person it is with. That's the whole point, we all love the same, our relationships are every bit as real as any straight person and we deserve equal treatment, no matter which sex we decide to marry.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Why does it have to be so defined? I know you're just asking but sometimes bisexuals are treated even worse than homosexuals, as if we're just confused or out of control, etc.>> I have nothing against bisexual women. ;p
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I have nothing against bisexual women. ;p> If you're like a lot of straight guys I know, that would be particularly true if they were wearing matching teddies, and having a pillow fight. Interrupted by the pizza man.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Anyway...... The same group of religious people and conservative activists who put the gay marriage ban on the ballot this November in California asked the State Supreme Court to stay its ruling allowing gay marriage until after the election. Remember, the vote on overturning the ban with the state Supremes was 4-3. The vote to reject the stay was 7-0. Moreover, Zogby polling is now starting to show that a majority of Californians are in favor of allowing gays to marry.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Sorry, wasn't Zogby but a Field poll. <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2740828920080528" target="_blank">http://www.reuters.com/article...20080528</a>
