NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, apart from the civilisations it wasn't part of, but don't let that get in your way! I'm fairly certain that at least a number of pacific nations (isolated so that missionaries couldn't spread their lies) had no concept of religion.

Hah and I'm fairly certain that indeed that did. Ohh wait, were you being sarcastic here?

This sentence really got my attention.

I lose patience very quickly on this subject, because it's one we have hashed over so many times. When it comes to people making blatantly ignorant statements about "science" when they clearly don't have the foggiest idea what they're talking about, I don't have any patience to begin with.

It's good to be reminded that most people are trying to sort out their gut feelings on this subject, and make those gut feelings fit with reality. The fact that people at least feel the need to include science and scientific evidence in their thought process is a step in the right direction.

If people want to talk about the science of human sexuality, I'm all for it. I like that subject. I'm a professional nerd. Talk nerdy to me.

Yes I agree, and to take it a step further, I am a big advocate of there being room for both faith and rationality in ones life.:eek:

My "claim" in this case was basically that anybody who actually cares about this subject should at least lift a finger long enough to click a Google link. You replied, "Google probably won't help you out here." I replied by posting Google links on this topic.

You have since shifted the target to claim that my links didn't answer YOUR question, but that's simply a dishonest tactic on your part and doesn't really have anything to do with my claims.


What debate? What do you think you're debating?


Interesting. So, taking the required 15 seconds to back up my position makes me no different from a person who declines to do so?


And I said that you are mistaken about the evidence and you misunderstand the science.

Now that we've summed up, can we move on?


And I (and others) have pointed out how the influence of social/psychological factors cannot be rationally equated to "homosexuality is a choice."

Again, nice summary, but do you have anything new to share?


Like I said, you may not be a homophobe, you're just uninformed and don't seem to care enough to get informed. I find that lame. But I don't mind watching other people be lame, particularly when they are trying to use their lameness to back up discriminatory politics, because I like seeing discrimination and lameness openly associated.


I apply the Golden Rule. I reply to your posts with as much substance as they merit. If you want more substantive response, please feel free to present something of substance. Until you do, there's not much to say to you other than...Fail.


"We" just as obviously also "value" slavery, since it's been a part of just about every civilization in our history until the very, very modern era (and that's subject to debate).

I have lifted a finger as you put it. And I disagree with you. Get over it. And Google didn't help you out! I'm uninformed??? You provided the first 4 google sites LOL Google has so many whacko websites on it, its not funny. But i suppose you believe those penis enlarging ads too. Because anything on Google, HAS to be true lol What I asked for, AFTER you provided crap, was for you to provide medical journals, scientific journals, to prove YOUR point.
I can't debate rubbish and prejudice. There's no point. You just keep repeating yourself. I never claimed anythig other than a personal opinion...so I really would like to move on...Those who can't win, name call.

Discriminatory politics? Exactly how have i discriminated in any way? I'm not the one with the hang ups about religion, or the hang ups about people expressing an opinion different to my own....look in the mirror buddy.

What does slavery have to do with anything? Seriously, you're pulling at straws. READ my posts and stop taking things out of context. Majority of the people on earth are religious. Therefore its still something that is valued.

There is no point in talking to you. Build a bridge.

Well, apart from the civilisations it wasn't part of, but don't let that get in your way! I'm fairly certain that at least a number of pacific nations (isolated so that missionaries couldn't spread their lies) had no concept of religion.

Religion doesn't = christianity.

Yes I agree, and to take it a step further, I am a big advocate of there being room for both faith and rationality in ones life.:eek:
Well, there's room for both me and a rabid bear in my apartment, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea for me to live that way.

But yeah, I don't see why having faith in the existence of God should require that people become slavering morons in all other subject areas. I dare say I've encountered a fair number of God-believers who are--dare I say it?--intelligent, informed, and generally sensible humans. This is why I think the "faith" card is such a bullshit one to play when it comes to topics like homophobia, racism, or sexism. "Faith" isn't what makes people homophobic. They're homophobes who choose to follow a faith which reinforces and supports the opinions they've already decided to hold.

Well, there's room for both me and a rabid bear in my apartment, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea for me to live that way.

But yeah, I don't see why having faith in the existence of God should require that people become slavering morons in all other subject areas. I dare say I've encountered a fair number of God-believers who are--dare I say it?--intelligent, informed, and generally sensible humans. This is why I think the "faith" card is such a bullshit one to play when it comes to topics like homophobia, racism, or sexism. "Faith" isn't what makes people homophobic. They're homophobes who choose to follow a faith which reinforces and supports the opinions they've already decided to hold.

Indeed or they were normal, well adjusted people who follow slavishly the dogma as laid down by whichever holy book interests them.

I'll not say that religion has not got it's problems, it clearly has, but like most 'tools' can be ill used or not, anyhoo thats not on topic so I'll pack that in right now! Ohherr missus!

I have lifted a finger as you put it.

Please quote the post in which you directly cited a source on this thread.


And I disagree with you. Get over it.

If you're interested in substantive debate (as you claim to be), telling your opponent to "get over it" doesn't really work.


And Google didn't help you out!

It made my point for me.

No, it didn't make any of your points for you. It wasn't intended to, in this case, though it certainly could if you chose to apply it. Which, really, was MY point all along.


I'm uninformed???

Either that, or you've been lying this whole time. I choose not to assume people are intentionally lying unless there is specific reason for me to do so.


You provided the first 4 google sites LOL Google has so many whacko websites on it, its not funny.

You yourself admitted that my cited links weren't "wacko," they just weren't the specific information you were looking for.

Yes, you have to read with a careful eye on the internet. Of course, you have to think critically and question everything you read anywhere. Books aren't magically infallible. You have to be aware of context and on guard for bias and misinformation in any area, be it print, TV, radio, or written on the sky.


But i suppose you believe those penis enlarging ads too. Because anything on Google, HAS to be true lol

Straw man.

There is NO source for information that will always provide 100% accurate information. Google isn't remotely unique in that regard.


What I asked for, AFTER you provided crap, was for you to provide medical journals, scientific journals, to prove YOUR point.

Yes, I know you did. And I have replied (repeatedly) that I don't feel the need to continue doing YOUR homework for you. My point, remember, is that you're making assertions without backing them up. It's not my job to back up your assertions for you.


I can't debate rubbish and prejudice. There's no point. You just keep repeating yourself. I never claimed anythig other than a personal opinion...so I really would like to move on...

See, NOW I'm going to say you're lying, because there is evidence to back me up:

"Try some medical journals on human sexuality. Though most believe there is a gene responsible for homosexuality, they are yet to find it."-Piu

See, that's a case of you claiming that "most" "medical journals on human sexuality" "believe there is a gene responsible for human sexuality."

You are making a statement about the contents of medical journals on human sexuality.


Those who can't win, name call.

Wait, was this a competition?

To me it felt more like bouncing a tennis ball against a wall.


Discriminatory politics? Exactly how have i discriminated in any way? I'm not the one with the hang ups about religion, or the hang ups about people expressing an opinion different to my own....look in the mirror buddy.

For the millionth time, folks, DISAGREEING WITH SOMETHING DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT YOU SUPPORT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ANYBODY.

I think religion is a pile of bunk. But I believe people who are religious should be granted the same legal rights and responsibilities as anybody else.

I think you're wrong, Piu, but that doesn't mean I'm "discriminating" against you. It means that I think you're wrong. You are not being oppressed. Chill out.


What does slavery have to do with anything?

...

Do I really need to explain this?



Seriously, you're pulling at straws. READ my posts and stop taking things out of context. Majority of the people on earth are religious. Therefore its still something that is valued.

Nobody is arguing that religion isn't valued. What is being debated (by some) is whether or not it SHOULD BE valued.


There is no point in talking to you. Build a bridge.
Fifty dollars says you talk to me again. :D

Religion doesn't = christianity.

Sadly, the general Western idea of religion is Christianity, especially when you look back at the past 2000 years of history. But getting back on topic...


I'm going to flatly come out and say it right now. While your emphasis on the psychological/environmental is interesting, it isn't entirely correct.

I am gay. I've had to live with it for twenty-five years, fifteen of which it's been evident. I knew I liked people of the same sex when I was around ten years of age. I was raised in a single parent home with two other heterosexual half-siblings. I was raised in a strict, mostly traditional culture with extended family support and with a strong Roman Catholic background (which I later rejected because of personal discoveries akin to Martin Luther's).

Was there a homosexual social or behavioral role model or analogue? No. I was surrounded by heterosexuals; there was no homosexual analogue whose behavior I could replicate and/or emulate. I pretty much synthesized how to act in certain scenarios based on what I observed in heterosexual behavior and modified to what I thought would work in a homosexual scenario.

Were there extenuating environmental factors ex utero such as exposure to hazardous substances, physical abuse, or other situations that could have altered my hormonal balances such that it would have had an effect? Yes, but I have concluded through guided psychotherapy and introspection that they didn't change my sexuality -- they only changed my self-image and perception of self-worth.

Is it likely that there were in utero hormonal circumstances that led to my being homosexual? Yes. (While not an authoritative paper (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper2/Bodian2.html) in and of itself, the author, a student, does cite research studies that seem to be reputable. Please know that I have seen at least one or two abstracts in the past five years that have touched on this paper's subject which is why I've selected it as a general overview; Result tracked via Google and read through; I have not read the cited studies.)

Believing that homosexuality is either all genetic or psychological/environmental is flawed. Instead, I'm sure there's a balanced, happy medium somewhere in there. Is some of my behavior based on the environment around me? Yes. Are any of my sexual behaviors based on the environment around me? Yes, but not directly because I had to speculate and synthesize my own based on a behavior that was outside of my operational context.

Furthermore, the belief that homosexuality is a choice is flawed; when I was twelve, I looked at both heterosexually- and homosexually-oriented adult material. The homosexual material illicited a stimulus response while the heterosexual material did not. If an individual can make a choice about whether or not they desire to sleep with an individual of the same sex, they are either bisexual or pansexual, but not exclusively homosexual.

With regards to the morality of homosexuality and indirect citations of Leviticus 18:22 in a secular nation-state, legal marriage is separate from marriage within a religious tradition; neither mode of marriage requires the other to exist. Neither mode should be governed by the other unless the government itself is a sacred space and/or marriage considered the axis mundi for aforementioned religion (for more information about sacred space and the idea of an axis mundi, read Ellidae). Should a person choose to follow the Levitical Laws to their entirety, then such an attack would be justified. Otherwise, Leviticus 18:22 is an invalid attack and should immediately call into question the person citing it.

That's me.

Indeed, some of my best friends are straight. :)
Yeah, and Ron Paul has black friends ;)
You're entitled to your views. But that so isn't what he was saying. He was saying that by all that spew you ranted about religion and how people use it to hate people, is self-defeating. You can't call someone a bigot, and then say things which are outright prejudice against people of faith.
People really need to learn what the word 'prejudice' actually means. Hint: Just because someone doesn't like religion, doesn't mean they're prejudiced against religious people.
But the response was towards religion in general. Which, has been part of every civilisation. Therefore, we obviously value it.
You might, but many people don't.
I'm a professional nerd. Talk nerdy to me.

b4i(√u)r(u/16) ;)

People really need to learn what the word 'prejudice' actually means. Hint: Just because someone doesn't like religion, doesn't mean they're prejudiced against religious people.

I love the new standards of conduct and discourse that people toss around these days.

Being vocal in your disagreement with somebody who is religious is JUST AS BAD as being a homophobe who thinks gay citizens should not be regarded as equal to straight citizens under the law!

Telling somebody that their personal opinions are uninformed is just as ignorant as holding uninformed opinions! Also, you are discriminating against them!

Disliking homophobes is discrimination that is JUST AS BAD as homophobia!

When you fail to show respect for people who use their "faith" as a shield for their personal bigotry, you are DISRESPECTING RELIGION and are JUST AS BAD as the people you are criticizing!

I guess we can all see that the real bigots are those who speak out against homophobia, racism, sexism, and discrimination.

b4i(√u)r(u/16) ;)
Oh yeah, baby, that's it, carry the one!

I love the new standards of conduct and discourse that people toss around these days.

Being vocal in your disagreement with somebody who is religious is JUST AS BAD as being a homophobe who thinks gay citizens should not be regarded as equal to straight citizens under the law!

Telling somebody that their personal opinions are uninformed is just as ignorant as holding uninformed opinions! Also, you are discriminating against them!

Disliking homophobes is discrimination that is JUST AS BAD as homophobia!

When you fail to show respect for people who use their "faith" as a shield for their personal bigotry, you are DISRESPECTING RELIGION and are JUST AS BAD as the people you are criticizing!

I guess we can all see that the real bigots are those who speak out against homophobia, racism, sexism, and discrimination.
Another one is the idea that if you disagree with someone and tell them so, then you're being intolerant of other people's views. I wouldn't even hazard a guess at the number of people who have posted things like that here, usually attributing this 'intolerance' to all liberals and claiming that we're falling short of our own standards. Now I haven't checked the dictionary or anything, but I'm pretty confident that the word 'tolerate' and its cognates do not mean anything at all like that.


Oh, also, relevant and amusing pic.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/anti-christianBigotry.gif

Oh yeah, baby, that's it, carry the one!

That one is the mathematician's chat up line. Like any good algorithm, it never fails to produce good results, unless misapplied.

Another one is the idea that if you disagree with someone and tell them so, then you're being intolerant of other people's views. I wouldn't even hazard a guess at the number of people who have posted things like that here, usually attributing this 'intolerance' to all liberals and claiming that we're falling short of our own standards. Now I haven't checked the dictionary or anything, but I'm pretty confident that the word 'tolerate' and its cognates do not mean anything at all like that.

Call me crazy (YOU'RE CRAZY!) but I understand "tolerance" to kind of require some sort of conflict in the first place.

After all, if you're able to live peaceably alongside people whose views perfectly align with your own, that's not tolerance...that's called "agreement."

Call me crazy (YOU'RE CRAZY!) but I understand "tolerance" to kind of require some sort of conflict in the first place.
Pretty much, yeah. You kind of have to dislike something in order to tolerate it.

After all, if you're able to live peaceably alongside people whose views perfectly align with your own, that's not tolerance...that's called "agreement."

I think I'd go crazy if I never had anyone to disagree with.....

I think I'd go crazy if I never had anyone to disagree with.....


Ahh well then thank God for me umm umm!

I love the new standards of conduct and discourse that people toss around these days.

Being vocal in your disagreement with somebody who is religious is JUST AS BAD as being a homophobe who thinks gay citizens should not be regarded as equal to straight citizens under the law!

Telling somebody that their personal opinions are uninformed is just as ignorant as holding uninformed opinions! Also, you are discriminating against them!

Disliking homophobes is discrimination that is JUST AS BAD as homophobia!

When you fail to show respect for people who use their "faith" as a shield for their personal bigotry, you are DISRESPECTING RELIGION and are JUST AS BAD as the people you are criticizing!

I guess we can all see that the real bigots are those who speak out against homophobia, racism, sexism, and discrimination.

I'm really glad you came along, because I was getting tired of repeating that after the last 5 pages of this thread. Thanks.

So yeah, boo freaking hoo, the bigots get called on their bigotry. Go cry me a river, homophobes, racists and sexists of this world! :rolleyes:

Which "special rights"?

You know. Things like the right to privacy. Obviously, that's "special". Only us heteros should have that.

theres nothing wrong with faguets. They should have there definition of marriage as well as there own unique gender.

theres nothing wrong with faguets. They should have there definition of marriage as well as there own unique gender.

If you're going to be calling us "faggots", at least have the intelligence to write it correctly.

Also, this is borderline flaming. Don't do it again.

theres nothing wrong with faguets. They should have there definition of marriage as well as there own unique gender.

Faguets? The closest I get is this:

http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Fagetu

I used to try to be more tactful and polite when dealing with topics like this, but then I realized something very important:

Every single major advance in civil rights in my country has been earned by women and men who fought every step along the way. Slavery wasn't abolished because somebody asked nicely. Black people didn't get the vote by politely begging Whitey if maybe he could let them have a say. Women didn't get the vote by quietly waiting for men to give it to them.

So whenever some racist, sexist, or homophobic concern troll tries to shush me by telling me that my harsh words might hurt the feelings of "the people I'm trying to convince," I remind them that protecting the feelings of bigots has accomplished precisely dick so far. Making sure that one's oppressors are comfortable isn't exactly the fastest way to encourage those oppressors to change the system.

And I'm fairly sure those trolls know that when they say it. The privileged are giving "advice" that will result in them staying privileged, and the problem (in their minds) being swept under the rug.

Or at least that what I think the motivation is. They could be just all be dumb enough to be parroting the same line over and over again.

Faguets? The closest I get is this:

http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Fagetu
And there's certainly nothing wrong with Rumanian villages...
But perhaps he meant to call us "baguettes"? (That's a long semi-hard loaf of French bread.)

I'm really glad you came along, because I was getting tired of repeating that after the last 5 pages of this thread. Thanks.

So yeah, boo freaking hoo, the bigots get called on their bigotry. Go cry me a river, homophobes, racists and sexists of this world! :rolleyes:
I used to try to be more tactful and polite when dealing with topics like this, but then I realized something very important:

Every single major advance in civil rights in my country has been earned by women and men who fought every step along the way. Slavery wasn't abolished because somebody asked nicely. Black people didn't get the vote by politely begging Whitey if maybe he could let them have a say. Women didn't get the vote by quietly waiting for men to give it to them.

So whenever some racist, sexist, or homophobic concern troll tries to shush me by telling me that my harsh words might hurt the feelings of "the people I'm trying to convince," I remind them that protecting the feelings of bigots has accomplished precisely dick so far. Making sure that one's oppressors are comfortable isn't exactly the fastest way to encourage those oppressors to change the system.

And I'm fairly sure those trolls know that when they say it. The privileged are giving "advice" that will result in them staying privileged, and the problem (in their minds) being swept under the rug.

Oh, absolutely. Forgive me for laughing when a homophobe gives me some "helpful advice" on how to advance gay rights. No, really, I'm sure you've got my best interests at heart, Mr. Homophobe. After all, it's not like you've got a whopping big vested interest in making sure that I fail, or anything...


Or at least that what I think the motivation is. They could be just all be dumb enough to be parroting the same line over and over again.
In some cases I think they're just crybabies. Boo hoo hoo, meanie homosexuals are being mean to me, boo hoo hoo! How can they be so mean?! I'm not saying we should burn them at the stake or anything! I'm just saying they are choosing a deviant lifestyle that is unnatural and wrong! Why do they have to be so MEAN to me?!

Oh, absolutely. Forgive me for laughing when a homophobe gives me some "helpful advice" on how to advance gay rights. No, really, I'm sure you've got my best interests at heart, Mr. Homophobe. After all, it's not like you've got a whopping big vested interest in making sure that I fail, or anything...

Not to mention the "moderates" who claim that the movement should back off - that we're trying to move things along too quickly. I'm all for being a moderate in most things, but human and civil rights don't fall under that umbrella.

Not to mention the "moderates" who claim that the movement should back off - that we're trying to move things along too quickly. I'm all for being a moderate in most things, but human and civil rights don't fall under that umbrella.

Yeah, those are deal-breakers for me, politically. I don't half-ass or compromise around civil rights.

Because, know what, people? Civil rights are like this: if you look away when they take em away from a stranger, you'll look away when they take them away from your neighbor, and then you'll look away when they take em away from your mother. And when it's your turn to have your rights taken away, everybody else will... just look away.

So yeah, equality for all, or...

Not to mention the "moderates" who claim that the movement should back off - that we're trying to move things along too quickly. I'm all for being a moderate in most things, but human and civil rights don't fall under that umbrella.

What if it's not about civil rights anymore, but about culture. Some people think that marriage is too patriarchal, do you think an aggressive culture change of attitude towards marriage is a good thing? Or do you think it should be taken slowly (if at all), or left to change on its own?

What if it's not about civil rights anymore, but about culture. Some people think that marriage is too patriarchal, do you think an aggressive culture change of attitude towards marriage is a good thing? Or do you think it should be taken slowly (if at all), or left to change on its own?

There is a change currently happening. Pretty much every cultural change in the history of humanity has happened when a new generation grew up and ended having different opinions from the preceding generation.

Currently, the youth of the western world, pretty much all countries included, are much more open to the idea of sexual diversity, and much less convinced of anything inherently wrong with it. In Canada, the USA, Europe, pretty much everywhere, it's the 40+ crowd who are yelling the loudest about how "OMG THE WORLD IS ENDING" because the ascending generation doesn't actually give a damn if two men or two women get married together.

The change has already happened, and it's already a closed matter; all we see is a dying generation trying to hold on its outdated ideas and prejudices, and predicting the moral apocalypse if these things come to pass. It's nothing new: it happened during the abolition of slavery,women's liberation, and the fight for civil rights by black-skinned people.

What if it's not about civil rights anymore, but about culture. Some people think that marriage is too patriarchal, do you think an aggressive culture change of attitude towards marriage is a good thing? Or do you think it should be taken slowly (if at all), or left to change on its own?

I think it is useful to question and challenge cultural understandings of just about everything. But that is a separate issue, really. Culture will change more slowly by its very nature - the older generation is not going to completely let go of its prejudices, although they might be mollified a bit. I often simply walk out of the room when my uncle starts spouting racist drivel. Cultural change pretty much always comes from the younger generation, and it will always take a while - generally until that generation is in charge - to take root.

I'll certainly express my opinions on cultural views of such things, but I find disagreement on them to be much less important. Being a bigot is not illegal, nor do I think it should be. However, equal protection is a part of our law - a core essential of any fair governmental system. So, while being a bigot is not illegal, instituting bigotry in the law is not something to be put up with.

What if it's not about civil rights anymore, but about culture. Some people think that marriage is too patriarchal, do you think an aggressive culture change of attitude towards marriage is a good thing? Or do you think it should be taken slowly (if at all), or left to change on its own?
Then that's a whole different subject, isn't it?

As long as persons of any gender and sexual orientation are equal under the law, culture can go fuck itself. :D

What if it's not about civil rights anymore, but about culture. Some people think that marriage is too patriarchal, do you think an aggressive culture change of attitude towards marriage is a good thing? Or do you think it should be taken slowly (if at all), or left to change on its own?
If culture is changing, the law should change to accommodate that. In most western cultures, homosexuality and homosexual relationships are acceptable, and the law should reflect that rather than seek to repress it. I, for one, see opposition to gay adoption by the British Catholic Church and Catholic cabinet members, constitutional bars on same sex marriage by US State governments as hugely agressive.

If culture is changing, the law should change to accommodate that. In most western cultures, homosexuality and homosexual relationships are acceptable, and the law should reflect that rather than seek to repress it. I, for one, see opposition to gay adoption by the British Catholic Church and Catholic cabinet members, constitutional bars on same sex marriage by US State governments as hugely agressive.
It's pretty funny to me to see people whining about how gays are trying to change the way things are, when gay couples have been engaging in committed unions for generations already. My godmother was openly lesbian by the time I was born, and adopted a child with her partner over 20 years ago.

This shit is not new, folks. It is absolutely positively nothing new in any way, shape, or form for gay people to be in committed relationships, to be building families of their own, to be bringing up kids, and to be living normal lives along with the rest of us.

Anti-gay legislation is nothing more than a monument to the insecurities of homophobes who are desperately trying to recapture a time that never actually existed. Homosexuality is not new. Gay couples are not new. Gay parents are not new. Gay children are not new. Gay families are not new. What's relatively new is that gay citizens and their allies are no longer willing to sit down, shut up, and wait for The Powers That Be to decide to acknowledge them.

It's about goddam time.

No. Bigotry is the dislike of someone simply for what they are - ie, in this case, disliking someone simply for being gay. Someone who dislikes homosexuality as a concept isn't being bigoted, they are opposing a social concept.

Right, never will you hear any True Christain (or anyone with any kind of Moral mind and love), say that they hate other for being homosexual, rather they hate the concept of homosexualty, in Other words, I don't Hate you, I May not like or agree with your lifestyle, but i will not spit on you or condim you for it (it's not in our right to do so, Only God's and his alone)

Yeah, and Ron Paul has black friends ;)

Bigots always try to "prove" their tolerance by citing their friends... it was too amusing an opportunity to pass up. :)

Every single major advance in civil rights in my country has been earned by women and men who fought every step along the way. Slavery wasn't abolished because somebody asked nicely.
...
I remind them that protecting the feelings of bigots has accomplished precisely dick so far. Making sure that one's oppressors are comfortable isn't exactly the fastest way to encourage those oppressors to change the system.

All very true, but it's worth remembering that on the other end of the spectrum, slavery wasn't abolished by people bitching loudly and often, either (although women's suffrage was achieved that way, pretty much.)

Sometimes, the way to encourage oppressors to change the system involves lots of troops and guns and killing and blowing stuff up. Everyone has to weigh on their own where the cost vs benefit lines cross, there is no rule.

And sometimes, the slow process of social enlightenment seems to work all on its own.

Most things lie somewhere in the middle, as usual.

Gays will gain the right to marry, or the legal equivalent thereof, in the United States, sometime within the next few decades. I can't say when, but the shift in attitudes is real, the trend is real, and it will hit a tipping point (very likely, when a stressed out catering industry realizes that gay weddings are a massive and virtually untapped market). It is a demographic reality.

What will most likely happen is this: in at least one state, probably in the northeast, some civil arrangement with wording other than "marriage", but effectively conferring equivalent status under the law, will be entered into State law. It will be called, Civil Union, Domestic Partnership Contract, whatever. Given the constitutional requirement that any act of a state be given full faith and credit by every other state, these arrangements will have to be universally respected, at least as far as legal rights. So, just as corporations incorporate in Delaware for tax purposes, gays will "marry" it that state, knowing full well that it will secure every right of inheritance, joint ownership, tax filing status, and all other legal benefits awarded to marriage.
At this point, "gay marriage" will be a fact in all but name. Pat Robertson (or whoever carries his torch) will warn that the world is about to end, but as usual, it won't. Imams will parade it as proof of America's sinful nature, but that won't gain much attention, either. Our sinful nature, is old news, Achmed, and we deal with it. The novelty will fade, familiarity will set in, and the generation to follow will see no reason to use two seperate terms, "marriage" for heterosexual couples, "whatever" for homosexual.

What enemies anyone makes along the way by acting obnoxiously might advance or retard the process, but at this point, nothing is going to stop it.

And sometime before the century is done, someone will make the next leap of logic and ask, why is a marriage limited to just TWO people?

Then the real fun begins.

All very true, but it's worth remembering that on the other end of the spectrum, slavery wasn't abolished by people bitching loudly and often, either (although women's suffrage was achieved that way, pretty much.)

The hell it wasn't. Frederick Douglas, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Susan B. Anthony, Ralph Waldo Emerson...the list of prominent "squeaky wheels" on the abolition front is endless.

Remember that the abolition of slavery was NOT achieved with the Emancipation Proclamation (as so many American schools teach), but was achieved throughout the majority of the country by means of the same kind of uppity, loud, bitchy activism that also brought us suffrage for women.


Sometimes, the way to encourage oppressors to change the system involves lots of troops and guns and killing and blowing stuff up. Everyone has to weigh on their own where the cost vs benefit lines cross, there is no rule.

I don't think blowing shit up encourages the oppressors to change the system. I think it results in the violent overthrow of the oppressors. That's a whole different ballgame.


And sometimes, the slow process of social enlightenment seems to work all on its own.

You know, I don't think I agree with that.

I don't think "social enlightenment" will occur unless somebody makes noise. Human inertia is powerful.


Gays will gain the right to marry, or the legal equivalent thereof, in the United States, sometime within the next few decades....*ship for length*

Could be. Regardless, it's at least two generations overdue, even if we want to be EXTREMELY generous in terms of not rushing cultural change. Strictly speaking, it is over two and a half centuries over due. I have no sympathy whatsoever for anybody who is crying about things changing too fast.


And sometime before the century is done, someone will make the next leap of logic and ask, why is a marriage limited to just TWO people?

Then the real fun begins.
Erm, that's not remotely a new leap of logic. It wasn't even new when my parents' generation thought of it.

Then that's a whole different subject, isn't it?

As long as persons of any gender and sexual orientation are equal under the law, culture can go fuck itself. :D

The problem is: it periodically does. Just look at Victorian England :D

Evidently you are not from the US. Vermont instituted Civil Unions a few years back; a few other states have followed their lead, though only Massachusetts actually calls it "marriage".
Despite the constitutional Full Faith and Credit clause, other states grant no legal recognition or respect. Rules which would otherwise apply are ignored when it comes to us.

In truth, only the Massachusetts marriages could fall under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. A state that does not have a civil union is under no obligation to recognize a civil union within its own state - because it doesn't have that construct. A state that has marriage (ie. every state) is under the obligation to recognize marriages from other states.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has avoided every challenge to DOMA thus far on technicalities instead of answering the question, but I do think it will eventually be ruled unconstitutional.

Sometimes, the way to encourage oppressors to change the system involves lots of troops and guns and killing and blowing stuff up.
I don't think we're actually going to need "John Browns" to start shooting down fundamentalist preachers, or a civil war between the "red states" and "blue states": just as well, I think the red-staters have a lot more guns :eek:
What will most likely happen is this: in at least one state, probably in the northeast, some civil arrangement with wording other than "marriage", but effectively conferring equivalent status under the law, will be entered into State law. It will be called, Civil Union, Domestic Partnership Contract, whatever. Given the constitutional requirement that any act of a state be given full faith and credit by every other state, these arrangements will have to be universally respected, at least as far as legal rights.
Evidently you are not from the US. Vermont instituted Civil Unions a few years back; a few other states have followed their lead, though only Massachusetts actually calls it "marriage".
Despite the constitutional Full Faith and Credit clause, other states grant no legal recognition or respect. Rules which would otherwise apply are ignored when it comes to us.

In truth, only the Massachusetts marriages could fall under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. A state that does not have a civil union is under no obligation to recognize a civil union within its own state - because it doesn't have that construct. A state that has marriage (ie. every state) is under the obligation to recognize marriages from other states.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has avoided every challenge to DOMA thus far on technicalities instead of answering the question, but I do think it will eventually be ruled unconstitutional.

Then the problem is, simply, that the right wording has yet to be written, which WOULD cross state lines.

Marriage, in the eyes of the law, is nothing more than a specialized form of incorporation. And every state has those.

Then the problem is, simply, that the right wording has yet to be written, which WOULD cross state lines.
It doesn't matter what the wording is. The red states just will NOT grant us rights, regardless. The current Supreme Court is not going to make them do so, either.
Things will change, as the older generation dies out. I know this, but it is little comfort to me, because I AM the older generation, and am not going to live to see the change.

The hell it wasn't. Frederick Douglas, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Susan B. Anthony, Ralph Waldo Emerson...the list of prominent "squeaky wheels" on the abolition front is endless.

Remember that the abolition of slavery was NOT achieved with the Emancipation Proclamation (as so many American schools teach), but was achieved throughout the majority of the country by means of the same kind of uppity, loud, bitchy activism that also brought us suffrage for women.


Ummmm..... no. Not at all. The abolition of slavery was achieved with neither the Emancipation Proclomation OR the squeaky wheels. It was achieved by killing about 3% of the US population. There was no sudden social epiphany in the south. No one said "Joe, you read this stuff by this Stowe gal? I reckon she's right, so I freed my slaves." Slavery ended when guns and cannons killed so many of its supporters that the rest figured that continuing that policy wasn't a particularly bright idea. The Squeakers, and the Procolomation, DID have a function, though: they were needed to convince the rest of the nation that the cost was worth the benefit.

But had the nation not been willing to pay the cost... you don't think that a slave holder would actually drop his slaves, his profit, just because a few people cried about it, do you?

Bear in mind, in most of the world, in most of history, complaining about the social order without backing it up with force left the complainer dead. Any achievements without the use of force have been do to "modern" sensibilities. Things are different now, and social thought IS moving of its own. That, and the idea that social change can be violently suppressed is no longer fashionable. Not in Western society, at least.

In other words, complain loudly in the USA about gay rights, and it might push along the process. Do it Iran or Saudi Arabia or the Gaza Strip, and die. In a nasty, creative way.

[QUOTE=Tmutarakhan;13390990]It doesn't matter what the wording is. The red states just will NOT grant us rights, regardless. The current Supreme Court is not going to make them do so, either.
Things will change, as the older generation dies out. QUOTE]


That's what I said. Things will change. Can't take responsibility for the timing, but the change is inevitable. The red states fought racial equality, too, and they DID bow to the Supreme Court, when the court finally forced the issue.

If the current court will not do so, well, then, you're right, and it won't change fast enough for you.

But... the Court must enforce the laws written, and I note with some dismay
that after a whole year of a Democrat majority in congress, THEY haven't brought it up either. I have looked up this Vermont Civil Union thing, and it WOULD work, if it wasn't for Bill Clinton's DOMA creating an exemption to the "Full Faith and Credit" principle. So which congress critters are looking into repealing DOMA?

Curious thing, the Defense of Marriage Act. Since its passage in 1996, I have known far more divorces among friends and family since the equivalent 11 years before. And this is odd because the divorce rate declines with age, and my social circle is aging. (rapidly, alas). I can only assume the Defense of Marriage Act has failed miserably.

No. 29% of people in Sweden believe that homosexuality is wrong and should not be encouraged.

That does not make them bigots. Like yourself, I disagree with them - but calling them names isn't going to help the problem.

Yes, actually it does. Just as it would make them bigots if 29% of people in Sweden believed that blacks were inferior to whites.

Then the problem is, simply, that the right wording has yet to be written, which WOULD cross state lines.

Not really. The problem is that people are trying very hard to pretend to provide equal protection under the law while not actually doing it.

Massachusetts has exactly the wording to cross state lines.

Marriage, in the eyes of the law, is nothing more than a specialized form of incorporation. And every state has those.

That isn't exactly what marriage is. If it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion because we'd just do it under corporate law. Marriage is a legal construct unto itself - one in which two people become, for many purposes, a single legal entity. A corporation, on the other hand, is a separate legal entity in which different people have a stake - a bit of ownership.

But... the Court must enforce the laws written,

Well, the court must enforce the Constitution first. I think it's pretty clear that DOMA is unconstitutional. Thus, that law cannot be legally enforced. Of course, time will tell if the court will make that ruling...

and I note with some dismay that after a whole year of a Democrat majority in congress, THEY haven't brought it up either. I have looked up this Vermont Civil Union thing, and it WOULD work, if it wasn't for Bill Clinton's DOMA creating an exemption to the "Full Faith and Credit" principle. So which congress critters are looking into repealing DOMA?

A lot of the Dems are wimping out on this issue. =(

While this may certainly be true, it is the belief that it will harm society, or out of the interest of keeping the 'sanctity' of marriage protected that keeps many religiously minded people in opposition of homosexual marriage.

A persons reasons for being a bigot are irrelevant. They're still a bigot.

And my point with respect...is that these religions have been going in some cases for thousands of years....and now, because 'we say so' they should be forced to accomodate things outside their doctrine. And they aren't forced, but there is a LOT of pressure on them. Churches in particular. And I don't think that its a homophobe point. Its a legitimate argument that you can't have things both ways.

Who's asking them to accommodate anything? What we're demanding is that religions and churches (and secular people with the power to conduct a legal marriage) that DON'T disagree with gay marriage be allowed to preform them.

I maintain my disagreement. However, had you at one point learned to read a whole idea, you would have realized that I am not arguing based on any scientific merit (nor indeed, am I arguing that we are scientifically not humans). I stated that I feel, through Biblical explanation, that humans are set apart from, and above, animals, this is a theological/philosophical standpoint... not a scientific one, so your claim continues to have no merit against my point at all.


So what your saying is, his argument is based on fact and your argument is based on bullshit.

Evidently you are not from the US. Vermont instituted Civil Unions a few years back; a few other states have followed their lead, though only Massachusetts actually calls it "marriage".
Despite the constitutional Full Faith and Credit clause, other states grant no legal recognition or respect. Rules which would otherwise apply are ignored when it comes to us.

Some of them do. I know Rhode Island recognizes same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts as marriages, and I'm pretty sure Connecticut does as well.

Well their is the solution, if all America was like Vermont; you would be a good country.:)

Well their is the solution, if all America was like Vermont; you would be a good country.:)Not yet. :p

Not yet. :p

But we'd put the Canadians out of buisness; Imagine, the richest country in the world applying itself to maple syrup farming!:D Think of the possibilities:)
We'd have mountains of maple syrup. We'd have maple syrup parks!

We'd have mountains of maple syrup.wow