Gay Rights, why is it even an issue?

[g_bambino]

No, not really.

Oh? In your opinion, then, it's better to simply believe something but have no idea why? Isn't that kind of blind adherence to dogma a debate-killer that leads to never ending conflict?

_[copyedited]

Edited August 8, 2009 by g_bambino

[Pliny]

Let me just preface this (before people ask) and say that yes, I am gay, and yes...I am in favor of literally everything gay rights (ie: equal rights)

I'm just curious, we're in the 21st century, so why is this even an issue? I have dual-citizenship so I do spend the majority of my time debating in the US (we're a lot more accepting in Canada) but I still can't, to this day fathom how issues like gay marriage or gay adoption can be "hot" topics.

The majority (if not all) of the opponents are almost exclusively religious, it's even more comical to hear them say things like "we're just trying to protect a definition!" - ironic when you come to understand the origins of marriage and how it's changed thousands of times in thousands of cultures.

So, is it just me or what?

It's you.

It is an issue because gays wish to attain a sense of normalcy and they believe that specific legislation for them will grant them that.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Pliny

[GostHacked]

Oh? In your opinion, then, it's better to simply believe something but have no idea why? Isn't that kind of blind adherence to dogma a debate-killer that leads to never ending conflict?

_[copyedited]

I don't understand your post. Can you clarify?

[Pliny]

What does nudity at parades have to do with gay people? If Mardi Gras wasn't a prime example of straight people doing the same thing on a much larger scale, consider March Break in the Caribbean, Cancun, etc.

What do we have here, in Canada? We're a little more prudish, I think. I don't see Mardi Gras and March Breaks becoming populist activities here. We're so lucky people here are so respectful of others and don't parade around nude....well...there are some that take that liberty. PETA comes to mind and now gay parades.

It isn't really important but I guess a few are making an issue out of it. Ahhh...Freedom!

[GostHacked]

What do we have here, in Canada? We're a little more prudish, I think. I don't see Mardi Gras and March Breaks becoming populist activities here. We're so lucky people here are so respectful of others and don't parade around nude....well...there are some that take that liberty. PETA comes to mind and now gay parades.

It isn't really important but I guess a few are making an issue out of it. Ahhh...Freedom!

There was this one time at camp at new years, where me and my drunk pals stripped down and ran across the ice on the lake. ...

[Pliny]

There was this one time at camp at new years, where me and my drunk pals stripped down and ran across the ice on the lake. ...

Was there a crowd of people on the banks?

I assume you didn't want it to turn into a public display?

[GostHacked]

Was there a crowd of people on the banks?

I assume you didn't want it to turn into a public display?

No one else around, it was also midnight when we decided to do it.

[zinc]

But I've never seen any reason why someone must remain singularly homosexual.

In the end it comes down to common sense, if you're left handed and want to somehow "change" your predominant hand then by all means try...but don't expect those around you using logic & common sense to buy into the fact that you've "changed", even if you believe you have.

It's you.

It is an issue because gays wish to attain a sense of normalcy and they believe that specific legislation for them will grant them that.

It's not about normalcy, we are normal, we don't need religious fundies to tell us that....it's about equality via legislation. The idea that we should just accept "separate but equal" legislation and simply shut up about our rights is pretty much what causes minorities to delve into absurdity...that isn't going to happen here.

[g_bambino]

I don't understand your post. Can you clarify?

Blind dogmatism tends to make people very defensive; unwilling to question or be open to different ideas, thus reinforcing rather than disintegrating barriers.

In terms of sexuality, our society has become very bi-polar, the commonly held view being that everyone is either one thing or the other, gay or straight. Those who adhere to and defend the tenets of their group battle their opposition endlessly and force people to choose a camp; they dislike and distrust that which they can't define by their own limited terms. Hence, bi- or non-defined sexuality is unaccepted by either the straight or gay communities, in general; ironically both sides are united in their common feeling that anyone who displays bisexual behaviours or feelings - to any degree - but in response to demands for a label claim to be either straight or gay, are either lying, confused, or going through a phase. Fearful of that which puts closely guarded elements of self-identity into question, many resort to irrational defenses without question: people are born either one way or the other, it's natural, it's concrete and unchangeable, & etc., and if you question any of these doctrines, you're silenced with accusations of being a queer (from the straight point of view) or a homophobe (from the gay point of view). So, an unwillingness to question ones self, purely out of fear of losing what is perceived to be an almost invaluable, core element of one's identity, leads to hardened squads, drawn battle lines, and, consequently, never-ending combat.

I am, of course, generalizing; not everyone holds such strictly divergent beliefs. But it's my impression that very much the majority of our society does, even if they aren't all outspoken about it and put on a front of tolerance when faced with unconventional thinking about sexual identity.

[g_bambino]

In the end it comes down to common sense, if you're left handed and want to somehow "change" your predominant hand then by all means try...but don't expect those around you using logic & common sense to buy into the fact that you've "changed", even if you believe you have.

That all depends on how much the "logic and common sense" of those around you is actually logical and commonly sensible, rather than merely being irrational and inflexible attitudes held out of discomfort at best, fear at worst.

[zinc]

Hence, bi- or non-defined sexuality is unaccepted by either the straight or gay communities, in general; ironically both sides are united in their common feeling that anyone who displays bisexual behaviours or feelings - to any degree - but in response to demands for a label claim to be either straight or gay, are either lying, confused, or going through a phase.

I'm sorry, but which gay community are you talking about? There's a reason our community is commonly referred to as the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, & Transgender) community...there's many misconceptions in your post.

That all depends on how much the "logic and common sense" of those around you is actually logical and commonly sensible, rather than merely being irrational and inflexible attitudes held out of discomfort at best, fear at worst.

Well it's like throwing a ball in the air and watching it come down, I say it comes down because of gravity while someone else may say it's coming down because of invisible space aliens shooting them down; of course, the space-alien believers may very well call me crazy and irrational, though common sense dictates otherwise

[g_bambino]

I'm sorry, but which gay community are you talking about?

The Gay Community, across North America; which other one would I be referring to?

Well it's like throwing a ball in the air and watching it come down, I say it comes down because of gravity while someone else may say it's coming down because of invisible space aliens shooting them down; of course, the space-alien believers may very well call me crazy and irrational, though common sense dictates otherwise

That parallel only works if you adamantly adhere to the tenet that sexual labels are inborn. If you are comparing those who would disagree with that claim to people who think aliens control the movement of objects around us, then you've become a perfect illustration of what I spoke of when I said some want to strangle debate with irrational attacks.

[zinc]

The Gay Community, across North America; which other one would I be referring to?

I was being sarcastic...you said that the gay community has some kind of "grudge" towards bisexuals and I'm saying that couldn't be further from the truth. A niche of nutcases (which I'm not even sure exist) certainly do not represent the entire community

That parallel only works if you adamantly adhere to the tenet that sexual labels are inborn. If you are comparing those who would disagree with that claim to people who think aliens control the movement of objects around us, then you've become a perfect illustration of what I spoke of when I said some want to strangle debate with irrational attacks.

Whether or not sexuality is innate has nothing to do with the argument presented, what I'm trying to say is you can't "change" sexuality once it develops (whether that be in the womb or during adolescence)

[g_bambino]

I was being sarcastic...you said that the gay community has some kind of "grudge" towards bisexuals and I'm saying that couldn't be further from the truth. A niche of nutcases (which I'm not even sure exist) certainly do not represent the entire community

I didn't say the community had an official mandate to shun bisexuals, and, in fact, I didn't refer only to bisexuals. I said there was a general tendency amongst the straight and gay communities to dislike and dismiss - to whatever degree - that which doesn't conform to their respective narrow perceptions. The dislike may manifest itself in quiet, behind-the-back ridicule, perpetual doubt, and maintained distance, rather than outright violence, but it is still based on the same type of ignorance driven fear that leads to bigotry of all sorts in all kinds of groups.

Whether or not sexuality is innate has nothing to do with the argument presented, what I'm trying to say is you can't "change" sexuality once it develops (whether that be in the womb or during adolescence).

But it does; if sexuality is not innate and is, rather, something developed, like a tase for brussel sprouts, then if one feels it cannot be changed by willpower, they should at least be open to the possibility that it may be, like their palette, changed by future experiences and feelings.

[Oleg Bach]

Sexually is the last of our concerns when it comes to surviving as a society. Some how we are attracted to the kink factor - when we should be focused on feeding the hungry and creating a just society - gay shamay --- I don't want to hear anymore about Gay this and that - lets talk about how more money is spent on pets than poor children..that's a real issue - not about what freak is sodomizing some other lazy socially inept hedonistic jerk.

[the janitor]

lets talk about how more money is spent on pets than poor children..that's a real issue - not about what freak is sodomizing some other lazy socially inept hedonistic jerk.

I agree with you, poverty is a huge issue. Many homosexuals are standing up for marriage more than heterosexuals are, so in that sense a government can't justifiably allow hetrosexuals to get married but not homosexuals. But every society has the right to collectively decide which relationships it will sanction and which it will not. Its not a situation of either addressing society's sexual issues or ending poverty. It would be a very warped society that says a young girl must be given shelter, education, healthcare, food and clothing, but if she's being sodomized by her grandfather that isn't society's business. It's a much larger issue than just gay marriage or sexual acts between consenting adults.

Edited August 10, 2009 by the janitor

[zinc]

I didn't say the community had an official mandate to shun bisexuals, and, in fact, I didn't refer only to bisexuals. I said there was a general tendency amongst the straight and gay communities to dislike and dismiss - to whatever degree - that which doesn't conform to their respective narrow perceptions. The dislike may manifest itself in quiet, behind-the-back ridicule, perpetual doubt, and maintained distance, rather than outright violence, but it is still based on the same type of ignorance driven fear that leads to bigotry of all sorts in all kinds of groups.

I dont know, it's just I'm in that "community" and I never run across what you're referring to...if you don't mind me asking, where did you hear this?

But it does; if sexuality is not innate and is, rather, something developed, like a tase for brussel sprouts, then if one feels it cannot be changed by willpower, they should at least be open to the possibility that it may be, like their palette, changed by future experiences and feelings.

How do you know sexuality is not innate?

Sexually is the last of our concerns when it comes to surviving as a society. Some how we are attracted to the kink factor - when we should be focused on feeding the hungry and creating a just society - gay shamay --- I don't want to hear anymore about Gay this and that - lets talk about how more money is spent on pets than poor children..that's a real issue - not about what freak is sodomizing some other lazy socially inept hedonistic jerk.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around this post, what does this "kink factor" and homosexuality have in common? Sexualization of heterosexuality dominates television in literally every aspect, are you referring to that as well?

[g_bambino]

I dont know, it's just I'm in that "community" and I never run across what you're referring to...if you don't mind me asking, where did you hear this?

Well, I've consistently spoken about two communities. Regardless, I've heard and read such intonations - some more subtle than others - from and in a wide range of sources over a number of years, everywhere from Ask Ellie to Jon Stewart to Dan Savage (though he does seem to be slowly relinquishing his once constrained notions of sexuality), in movie dialogue, on talk shows, in (supposedly) scientific studies on sexual identity, in every-day conversation, & etc., & etc., & etc. Taken all-together, the predominant message that comes through is: there are two sides; pick one and stick to its rules. Those that don't are confused, in denial, traitors, deviant, or any such thing.

How do you know sexuality is not innate?

Sorry; I should have chosen my words more carefully. Sexuality is innate. What I meant to say was "if sexual preference is not innate..." An individual's sexuality is simply far too fluid for it to be locked into one pre-determined preference for their entire life, despite the efforts often put into denying that it is so.

[Timetrvlr]

RE: Gay Rights, why is it even an issue?, Can somebody come up with one legitimate argument?

Gays do have the same rights as anyone else. Those who seek to deny those rights should always have to explain their denial of rights in Courts. When I say the same rights as anyone else, I mean the right to marry, the right to visit their partner in hospital as a member of the family, the right to adopt children if they meet all other requirements, etc. How dare anyone seek to deny the inherent rights of any other citizen!

I'm an old guy, I've been married to the same girl for 52 years, and gay marriage has never threatened my marriage or family in any way. I do however, feel my freedoms threatened whenever anyone seeks to deny others their inherent rights for any reason.

[tango]

Sexually is the last of our concerns when it comes to surviving as a society. Some how we are attracted to the kink factor - when we should be focused on feeding the hungry and creating a just society - gay shamay --- I don't want to hear anymore about Gay this and that - lets talk about how more money is spent on pets than poor children..that's a real issue - not about what freak is sodomizing some other lazy socially inept hedonistic jerk.

Oleg, you are being a freaking pig again. Go to another thread if you aren't capable of being civil.

[lictor616]

Let me just preface this (before people ask) and say that yes, I am gay, and yes...I am in favor of literally everything gay rights (ie: equal rights)

I'm just curious, we're in the 21st century, so why is this even an issue? I have dual-citizenship so I do spend the majority of my time debating in the US (we're a lot more accepting in Canada) but I still can't, to this day fathom how issues like gay marriage or gay adoption can be "hot" topics.

The majority (if not all) of the opponents are almost exclusively religious, it's even more comical to hear them say things like "we're just trying to protect a definition!" - ironic when you come to understand the origins of marriage and how it's changed thousands of times in thousands of cultures.

So, is it just me or what?

That's because zinc, gay rights are not concerned about EQUALITY at all... actually let me explain... When rational people speak of equality, they generally mean that people should be treated the SAME WAY... and that individuals should not have to submit to different standards. But "gay rights" is all about treating people differently. It recognises homosexuals as belonging to separate legal categories, and thus violates the concept of equality under the law.

That,s why Gays are allowed to self segregate into "villages", are able to build employment committees to favor THEIR OWN KIND ABOVE others, that's why they set all these countless organizations to promote THEIR own interests (often at the expense of everyone else)... gay rights is not at all about equality: its about PRIVILEGE... Is seeing as how gays are the richest per capita minority group in Canada, its hard sometimes to see what more we should do to for their comfort.

The marriage is a non-issue. Its been horribly disfigured and grotesquely misrepresented by our prostitutes in the press. Marriage has nothing to do with love in the legal sense. Legally, marriage is simply a state encouragement for couples to engender offspring based upon the bedrock statecraft principle that the state benefits from nuclear familycraft.

Marriage "everywhere around the world and at all times" can only involve the two genders of humanity, male and female. The child rearing aspect is central in any anthropological definition of marriage. The word marriage itself means "blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture."

The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners"

According to Confucius, "Marriage is the union (of the representatives) of two different surnames, in friendship and in love, in order to continue the posterity of the former sages, and to furnish those who shall preside at the sacrifices to heaven and earth, at those in the ancestral temple, and at those at the altars to the spirits of the land and grain."

Now of course homosexuals, by the very laws of biological evolution CANNOT ENGENDER OFFSPRING. True, there are different types of "marriage" polyandry, polygyny and variations of this... these are the only types of marriage worthy of the name.

Of course, it should be absolutely legal for homosexuals to make public declarations of love or even (as insane as it might seem) get married in a church... but as far as the legal and anthropological sense... there can be no such thing as "gay marriage"...

there's no other way of looking at it... Homosexuals should of course be free to do what they want, but to get the state privileges given to couples for CHILDREARING is not warranted (since gays cannot reproduce normally). end of debate.

[GostHacked]

there's no other way of looking at it... Homosexuals should of course be free to do what they want, but to get the state privileges given to couples for CHILDREARING is not warranted (since gays cannot reproduce normally). end of debate.

I know some women who either can't concieve or reproduce normally. However they are allowed to adopt.

[lictor616]

I know some women who either can't concieve or reproduce normally. However they are allowed to adopt.

That's an obscene loophole, but either way the state is mandated to encourage NATURAL OFFSPRING, since these are the most beneficial for a stable society. Adoption right is quite difficult to obtain, and we make sure in Canada that parents have sufficient funds to do, and they don't get the same type of government support to do it.

There's also the fact that there are specific concrete advantages to having a female and male figure for a child, so its not in the interests of the state to encourage homosexuals to adopt and give them all sorts of undue hardships growing up.

[GostHacked]

That's an obscene loophole, but either way the state is mandated to encourage NATURAL OFFSPRING, since these are the most beneficial for a stable society. Adoption right is quite difficult to obtain, and we make sure in Canada that parents have sufficient funds to do, and they don't get the same type of government support to do it.

Loophole? Not sure if it is a loophole, but it is anything but stable. The human population is growing exponentially now, and will only get bigger. Make adoption easier for those who want to adopt and have the money and love to give. I don't care if they are gay or straight, as long as the childs needs are met, we have no problem. I would rather have two fags take care of kids provided they can provide that stable environment. The crack whore gets her kids taken away.

There's also the fact that there are specific concrete advantages to having a female and male figure for a child, so its not in the interests of the state to encourage homosexuals to adopt and give them all sorts of undue hardships growing up.

Go ahead and name those advantages, because those kids that need adoption come from heterosexual relationships.

[lictor616]

Loophole? Not sure if it is a loophole, but it is anything but stable. The human population is growing exponentially now, and will only get bigger. Make adoption easier for those who want to adopt and have the money and love to give. I don't care if they are gay or straight, as long as the childs needs are met, we have no problem. I would rather have two fags take care of kids provided they can provide that stable environment. The crack whore gets her kids taken away.

Go ahead and name those advantages, because those kids that need adoption come from heterosexual relationships.

You're looking at it all wrong..

I agree that the terrible fecundity of the world (especially the fecundity of the lower elements of society) is a very big problem... the answer lies not in "adoption rights" but in population control. Perhaps we could have a program of sterilization for on perpetual welfare... maybe we should use more potent birth control "pills".

The hideous fecundity of the unfit, the criminal and the imbecile elements of our already overcrowded planet must be curved, that however has nothing to do with adoption.

And children will seek to have male and female presence... for a boy to become a man, he must at some point detach from his mother and identify with his father, who shows him what mature masculinity looks like and teaches him how to channel and control his aggressiveness and his sexual impulses. A father's strength and presence command a kind of respect a boy needs to learn self-restraint. It's no secret that boys without fathers are much more likely to become delinquent and wind up afoul of the law.

Girls need a father to protect them and to affirm their femininity. Girls without fathers tend toward promiscuity to satisfy their inborn hunger for male validation ("daddy issue girls"... and we've all seen those!) to name a few but it goes much deeper then that.