Why does everyone dislike homosexuality so much?

[Maren]

She might have had any number of medical problems with her reproductive system that could result in an inability to have children.



Do such women then deserve to be left on the shelf?

Don't you know, the value of a woman is determined by her reproductive system?

Maren(and I'm using sarcasm, just to make sure it is clear)

 

[Aten's Apostle]

Don't you know, the value of a woman is determined by her reproductive system?

Maren(and I'm using sarcasm, just to make sure it is clear)

Typical facetious liberal, these are exactly the kind of distortions that I’ve come to expect from your kind. Little Nipper was very clear that was not what he was saying.

And while I might have fallen for a black woman, I would not have looked to marry such for the sake my our children with purpose. There can be problems. Black women can be very beautiful, but so can white. Both can be Christian, and that would be my only choice. But I grew up in a white neighborhood and attended an all white school for the most part. I wasn't about being a rebel for a rebel's sake...

He was simply saying that the value of a woman is determined both by her reproduction system and her skin colour! Simple! Not sexist or racist at all!

 

[David Brider]

We don't know that.

Well, there's no sign of same-gender marriage causing harm so far.

Okay, there's a possibility that it might do harm in the future. But IMO it's a pretty slim-to-nonexistent possibility.

If you have any data suggesting otherwise, I'd be interested to hear it. But I'm not aware of any.

David.

 

[Maren]

Typical facetious liberal, these are exactly the kind of distortions that I’ve come to expect from your kind. Little Nipper was very clear that was not what he was saying.

He was simply saying that the value of a woman is determined both by her reproduction system and her skin colour! Simple! Not sexist or racist at all!

Wow, I make a simple humorous comment and you slander me (saying I'm distorting what someone said) and am judging my entire political view. And please, since you know me so well, exactly what is "my kind"?

I think you might want to check for the mote in your own eye before trying to find my flaws, perhaps you are just being a little thin skinned. Especially since the fact you claim I'm being facetious would indicate you understand that my humor was not meant to be taken seriously.

Though do you realize how racist and sexist it sounds when you state, "the value of a woman is determined both by her reproduction system and her skin colour"? I trust that you did not mean it the way it came out (no sarcasm).

 

[cantata]

Wow, I make a simple humorous comment and you slander me (saying I'm distorting what someone said) and am judging my entire political view. And please, since you know me so well, exactly what is "my kind"?

I think you might want to check for the mote in your own eye before trying to find my flaws, perhaps you are just being a little thin skinned. Especially since the fact you claim I'm being facetious would indicate you understand that my humor was not meant to be taken seriously.

Though do you realize how racist and sexist it sounds when you state, "the value of a woman is determined both by her reproduction system and her skin colour"? I trust that you did not mean it the way it came out (no sarcasm).

I’m pretty sure Aten’s Apostle was continuing with your line of humour, not complaining about it.

 

[KCKID]

Wow, I make a simple humorous comment and you slander me (saying I'm distorting what someone said) and am judging my entire political view. And please, since you know me so well, exactly what is "my kind"?

I think you might want to check for the mote in your own eye before trying to find my flaws, perhaps you are just being a little thin skinned. Especially since the fact you claim I'm being facetious would indicate you understand that my humor was not meant to be taken seriously.

Though do you realize how racist and sexist it sounds when you state, "the value of a woman is determined both by her reproduction system and her skin colour"? I trust that you did not mean it the way it came out (no sarcasm).

Take a deep breath, Maren ...I think Aten's Apostle is on your side, although I did wonder at his first sentence.

 

[Maren]

I’m pretty sure Aten’s Apostle was continuing with your line of humour, not complaining about it.

Take a deep breath, Maren ...I think Aten's Apostle is on your side, although I did wonder at his first sentence.

I hate it when I can't tell the real posts from the Poe's.

 

[fated]

As no such institution exists anyway, you'd have to make a new one.

However, we already have an institution that asserts that society prefers people to stay together.

It's called marriage.

And y'know what? Marriage isn't harmed one iota by extending its scope to include same-gender couples.

David.

Then you don't have a logical qualm against the current system.

"But some of them won't have children."

But they might, by and large they will. In a very few cases they are very unlikely to, such as with elderly people.

This is unnecessary reductionism.

Ah, well, I hope that someone who actually understands logic is listening. I pray and hope that they are, because if there is someone here who is writing me back who does, they've obscured themselves.

The logic of the actual gay marriage argument is:
Yes, but they're male and female, a you're clearly talking about MM and FF couples, they're clearly different.

This is where the disconnect from actual equality occurs. The court admits this, but because gays are defined by the court as a protected class, it was believed that marriage was necessary to help them get their statistics more similar to married people.

Now, look, you can sit and chant about my being illogical, but, at the end of the day, it was clear to court that there is certainly logic here. And it is certainly also connected to procreation.


And, if it is merely your assertion that the culture doesn't care, then there should be a popular vote, not a court decision to make the determination.

Anyway, peace out gay philosophers, maybe send me someone to talk to next time.

 

[David Brider]

Then you don't have a logical qualm against the current system.

I have a qualm against the current system only when it excludes same-gender couples for no very good reason.

"But some of them won't have children."

Not something I said. I'm not the first to make this observation, but do you actually read the posts you're replying to?

But they might, by and large they will. In a very few cases they are very unlikely to, such as with elderly people.

Sure, but please try to understand this - again, others have said this, and I don't think it's the first time I've said it; I just hope that one day you'll understand it, because it really is very simple: the argument here is for allowing same-gender couples to marry. Procreation is not an essential part of marriage. Do you understand that? If not, why not?

Ah, well, I hope that someone who actually understands logic is listening.

I understand logic perfectly well. Your arguments are not, as far as I can tell, based on any kind of logical reasoning. They're based on your opinions and beliefs, which is all fine and good - my arguments are based on my opinions and beliefs, and Cantata's arguments are based on her opinions and beliefs, etc. - but that's got nothing to do with logic.

AFAICT - and correct me if I'm wrong - your attempt to suggest that same-gender marriage would be logically wrong is based on the following argument:

1.) children are an essential part of marriage
2.) same-gender couples cannot naturally have children
3.) therefore same-gender couples should not be able to marry.

The problem with trying to depict this argument as logical is that it's based on a faulty first premiss - children are not, and never have been, an essential part of marriage. Yes, historically, it has been the norm for children to be born within a marriage, but it has never been a requirement for married couples to have children. The second premiss, whilst true, is (again, as has been pointed out) not really relevant - not all opposite-gender couples can naturally have children, but that's never been a bar to marriage yet, and neither is it likely to be.

So as a logical argument, yours doesn't hold water.

The logic of the actual gay marriage argument is:
Yes, but they're male and female, a you're clearly talking about MM and FF couples, they're clearly different.

Y'see, I'm well aware that a same-gender couple is different from an opposite-gender couple. For that matter, a male-male couple is different from a female-female couple. For that matter, my relationship with my fiancee (an opposite-gender relationship) is, I've no doubt, different from Littlenipper's relationship with his wife, is different from your relationship with your wife (if you're married). And each female-female couple is different from every other female-female couple, and each male-male couple is different from every other male-male couple, and so on.

The main question therefore seems to be, is the most obvious superficial difference - i.e. the gender make-up of the couple in question - particularly important in determining whether a couple should get married. It's pretty obvious that to you, such a difference is important, but - beyond the constant appeal to the inability of same-gender couples to naturally have children - you've yet to give a good argument as to why that difference is important.

To me, though, I honestly don't think that difference is that important. If two consenting adults love each other enough to wish to make a lifelong commitment to each other in front of their families, friends, and any god(s) in whom they happen to believe, then as far as I'm concerned that's a good thing. As someone who's about to get married himself (in a month's time) I see no reason to attempt to deny other couples the ability or right to get married to each other on the spurious grounds that they're same-gender couples. It doesn't make any sense.

This is where the disconnect from actual equality occurs. The court admits this, but because gays are defined by the court as a protected class, it was believed that marriage was necessary to help them get their statistics more similar to married people.

Which court?

Now, look, you can sit and chant about my being illogical, but, at the end of the day, it was clear to court that there is certainly logic here.

Again, which court? The courts of Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts obviously don't think there's a logic to denying same-gender couples the right to marry, not to mention the many countries (the UK included) who allow civil unions ("almost but not quite marriages) for same-gender couples. The fact that some courts may not agree with them doesn't make it clear that there's any logic to it.

And it is certainly also connected to procreation.

And, if it is merely your assertion that the culture doesn't care, then there should be a popular vote, not a court decision to make the determination.

Culture per se is of course incapable of caring. People care. Many people care very passionately about it. Some people, such as yourself, obviously care very passionately about denying same-gender couples the right to marry. Other people, such as me, care very passionately about including same-gender couples within the institution of marriage as it currently exists. I've no doubt there are also many people who don't much give a monkey's one way or the other.

As far as a public vote is concerned...tell me, how would you feel if the majority of people voted to deny you the right to marry? People you've never met, who you probably will never meet, who will not be in any way effected by your being able to marry or not, nevertheless exercising their "right" to deny you the same rights they enjoy? 'Cos that's what same-gender couples in California have had to put up with, and that's why I feel a public vote on the issue is not necessarily a good thing.

OTOH, the tide is turning - more and more people are becoming more and more open to the notion of same-gender couples marrying.

David.

 

[LittleNipper]

Typical facetious liberal, these are exactly the kind of distortions that I’ve come to expect from your kind. Little Nipper was very clear that was not what he was saying.

He was simply saying that the value of a woman is determined both by her reproduction system and her skin colour! Simple! Not sexist or racist at all!

And a woman would marry a wimp or some guy who says he hates sex except on occasion? Perhaps the perfect match for a would be lesbian?

 

[cantata]

And a woman would marry a wimp or some guy who says he hates sex except on occasion? Perhaps the perfect match for a would be lesbian?

What on earth are you talking about, LN? o_0

 

[sidhe]

What on earth are you talking about, LN? o_0

Hey! I know at least one biological male who was a perfect match for a lesbian!

...umm...not a wimp, nor possessed of a low libido, either.

 

[FlamingFemme]

And a woman would marry a wimp

If that's the kind of guy she's attracted to, sure.

or some guy who says he hates sex except on occasion?

Maybe, if she hates sex except on occasion, too.

Perhaps the perfect match for a would be lesbian?

Um, no. The one major disqualification in a potential partner for a lesbian would be owning a (attached) penis.

Would YOU date a man? (if you were single, of course) Because if you wouldn't, the reasons you wouldn't are the same (or at least similar) to the reasons a lesbian wouldn't date/marry a man.

 

[HaloHope]

And a woman would marry a wimp

As already stated if a woman wants to marry someone you would classify as a wimp and that person wants to marry her back thats fine.

or some guy who says he hates sex except on occasion?

If someone hates sex except on occasion then it would be a good idea to marry another person who hates sex on occasion.

I personally don't have a high sex drive, and neither does my girlfriend, this works out well.

Perhaps the perfect match for a would be lesbian?

The problem with this point is it comes down to sexual organs. I could never have sex with a person with a male sexual organ, so I would never marry a guy, even if we both had low sex drives. As Flamingfemme states could you ever see yourself ever going with a guy?

 

[Brieuse]

Now, look, you can sit and chant about my being illogical

Most of us are.