Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[Veyrlian]

Procreation and child rearing being functions of heterosexual behavior, and marriage being the institution regulating said issues, among others.

If one cannot be made to fit the description, one should not be assumed to be included.

Does it really need to be said that gay people are perfectly capable of procreation and child rearing? Just because occasionally heterosexual behaviour leads to procreation, does not mean procreation should be only allowed to those who keep behaving in such a way. Neither does it mean that procreation is the only allowed result of such behaviour. Neither does it mean that it is the only function of marriage, it does not even mean that it is a required function of marriage.
Your description of marriage is flawed, as are consequently, your arguments regarding it.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Expelled mocks the very concept of informed discussion; as creationism/ID-theory isn't science, to place them side by side with Evolution is laughable.

It doesn't surprise me that too many Christians eerily think they are side by side. Beyond of course simply believing in the literal myths of creation in the bible. Which I find ironic, since I know even most European Christians rarely if ever do, so I hear. But that it requires believing in relativism. And many Christian hardliners tend to decry relativism.

 

[Shane Roach]

Does it really need to be said that gay people are perfectly capable of procreation and child rearing?

If they participate in heterosexual sex, yes. Then they are parents and need to be held accountable whether or not they decide they can't stand to have heterosexual sex anymore.

I think it is your viewpoint that is obviously out of touch with the realities of reproduction and the need for the state to be able to distinguish between relationships that can and cannot result in reproduction.

 

[Shane Roach]

It doesn't surprise me that too many Christians eerily think they are side by side. Beyond of course simply believing in the literal myths of creation in the bible. Which I find ironic, since I know even most European Christians rarely if ever do, so I hear. But that it requires believing in relativism. And many Christian hardliners tend to decry relativism.

What I find defining is that people who persist in trying to use this issue to shut down freedom of speech always, always bypass the underlying issues of epistemology that are the root of the issue to begin with.

Show me your consciousness, and I will show you God. You telling me there is no such thing as a conscious mind?

I know exactly what I am talking about. Side comments attempting to obfuscate the points I make through mockery or condescension are not unusual ways to avoid addressing this issue either.

 

[Exhausted]

If they participate in heterosexual sex, yes. Then they are parents and need to be held accountable whether or not they decide they can't stand to have heterosexual sex anymore.

I think it is your viewpoint that is obviously out of touch with the realities of reproduction and the need for the state to be able to distinguish between relationships that can and cannot result in reproduction.

Someone doesn't know about artificial insemination~

Also, you seem to be saying that sterile people, old people, and certain disabled people shouldn't be allowed to marry.

That's terrible.

 

[Shane Roach]

If an unmarried man and woman have sex and get pregnant, there is nothing in the law which requires them to get married in order to be regulated either in their child rearing or future procreative efforts. Also, of course, the meaning and purpose of marriage in modern society is precisely what's at issue. There are several courts which disagree with your characterization.

The laws in place for unmarried couples these days attempt to simulate marriage laws, but since they have ditched the requirement to get married first, they are often not very effective. This does not change the purpose of marriage. It just means the exact same people who broke our marriage laws to begin with are insisting that we break them down even further.

Present your court cases if you think they're applicable.

 

[Shane Roach]

Someone doesn't know about artificial insemination~

Also, you seem to be saying that sterile people, old people, and certain disabled people shouldn't be allowed to marry.

That's terrible.

Yeah, artificial insemination. That's the way 99.9% of people come into this world.

In an unusual circumstance such as this, marriage laws are irrelevant. A single woman can be artificially inseminated by a man she doesn't know. There is no relationship between this and marriage.

Anyone having a child in this way is going to need to have their treatment of their offspring regulated differently from the beginning.

 

[Veyrlian]

If they participate in heterosexual sex, yes. Then they are parents and need to be held accountable whether or not they decide they can't stand to have heterosexual sex anymore.

I think it is your viewpoint that is obviously out of touch with the realities of reproduction and the need for the state to be able to distinguish between relationships that can and cannot result in reproduction.

Realities of reproduction and child rearing include for example: artificial insemination, surrogate parenting, adoption and children from previous relationships/marriages. I am confident that the state is able to distinguish between these as well as I am.
What I don't understand is why the state should allow only some of these child rearers the right of marriage, and deny marriage from others. I see this as a needless complication of things which can be quite messy as it is. Furthermore, I'd imagine it would be even more of a relief for the state to marry people who are not planning to have children at all, not that it is any of the state's business.

Or yours for that matter.

 

[Maren]

Here's something that needs to be gotten correctly before we go on with this interchange. If I said at any time that the studies are "inconclusive" in the sense that they are entirely meaningless, I misstated myself. I do not recall saying that. What I have said, I believe twice now, is that folks such as yourself make assertions about some default position that you presume makes your position superior and requires others to prove something. No such position exists. In a free and self governing nation, people make their choices and take their chances every day with laws that are agreed upon without conclusive scientific evidence. That does not establish that there is no evidence at all to be had, or that decisions cannot be made based on a preponderance of evidence that is nevertheless not conclusive.

Whatever I may or may not have said, understand, this is the meaning, and understand also please that this very explanation may not be easily comprehensible to you. Just because you understand something I say in some way does not mean you are correct and I am wrong about what I say or mean.

Do you now have a better understanding of where I am coming from, or do we need to go over this point again in order to get more or less on the same page as to what I have said?

I think you are right, it is pointless for me to attempt to speak with you. I mean, here you take the first sentence of my post, which I will admit I phrased poorly (should have used a word more like "proof" than "evidence". Despite the fact that my last couple of sentences say something roughly similar to what your post is trying to say, rather than taking my post in its entirety you instead cherry pick the one sentence that I phrased poorly.

Not to mention your recent false accusations against me which you barely acknowledge and which you appear to have no interest in apologizing for.

 

[Shane Roach]

I think you are right, it is pointless for me to attempt to speak with you. I mean, here you take the first sentence of my post, which I will admit I phrased poorly (should have used a word more like "proof" than "evidence". Despite the fact that my last couple of sentences say something roughly similar to what your post is trying to say, rather than taking my post in its entirety you instead cherry pick the one sentence that I phrased poorly.

Not to mention your recent false accusations against me which you barely acknowledge and which you appear to have no interest in apologizing for.

I didn't cherry pick this sentence. I began to see a repeating theme in our conversation, and wanted to be sure that this fundamental issue was addressed.

On the other hand I think both of us could do with a break from this discussion for a while, and if you choose never to respond to my posts that is fair enough.

I don't acknowledge any false accusations against you because in my opinion they depend heavily on accepting your viewpoint of the whole flow of this conversation. I never, ever purposefully meant to attack or offend you, and your accusations of such have left me little alternative but to defend myself against your assertions. Whenever you have hit on something that I could see was true, I have tried to either explain myself more fully or admit where I said something inaccurate.

Inasmuch as I accidentally offended you or in some way attacked you, I do apologize. That was never my intention.

 

[SiderealExalt]

What I find defining is that people who persist in trying to use this issue to shut down freedom of speech always, always bypass the underlying issues of epistemology that are the root of the issue to begin with.

This sentence doesn't make any sense in light of what it is in reply to and my guess, given the freedom of speech talk, just sensationalism.

Show me your consciousness, and I will show you God. You telling me there is no such thing as a conscious mind?

Apparently Shane is an animist now, or such a relativist that anything, including a potato chip can be called God. Last refuge of someone without a point. Call anything God.

 

[Shane Roach]

Realities of reproduction and child rearing include for example: artificial insemination, surrogate parenting, adoption and children from previous relationships/marriages. I am confident that the state is able to distinguish between these as well as I am.
What I don't understand is why the state should allow only some of these child rearers the right of marriage, and deny marriage from others. I see this as a needless complication of things which can be quite messy as it is. Furthermore, I'd imagine it would be even more of a relief for the state to marry people who are not planning to have children at all, not that it is any of the state's business.

Or yours for that matter.

When heterosexual couples come to the state with issues specific to the normal, most common procreative method, the government should be allowed to address those issues on their own terms, not on the terms of a multitude of other barely related issues that do not take into account the fullness of the history of regulations concerning men and women, sex, child bearing and rearing.

I do not see this as the state sticking its nose into anything. If people always dealt with their own problems adequately without need or desire for any arbitration, there would be no issue here to begin with.

If marriage was what gay rights activists claim it is, there would already be gay marriage as well.

 

[Shane Roach]

This sentence doesn't make any sense in light of what it is in reply to and my guess, given the freedom of speech talk, just sensationalism.


Apparently Shane is an animist now, or such a relativist that anything, including a potato chip can be called God. Last refuge of someone without a point. Call anything God.

Reductio ad absurdem? Only if you were even marginally close to taking my point.

I've had this discussion with many people. Most folks get where I am coming from pretty intuitively. Your protests are, to me, transparent attempts to avoid the issue and try to make point by mocking at the idea.

The point is simply this -- the very thing you say is so supernatural and ridiculous is the thing that defines you, me, or anyone else as fundamentally different from a potato chip.

In fact, you really can't prove to me the chip isn't conscious either can you? Animism indeed.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Reductio ad absurdem? Only if you were even marginally close to taking my point.

Ah so you DO recognize what you are doing.

You are acting no different than millions of supernaturalists of today and yesterday. The Greek citizen who upon seeing a tree struck by lightning declares it the actions of Zeus, the traditional Haitian who sees a seizure and calls it being ridden by the Loa, the Christian who takes genetic imperative, human psychology and the interactions of the social contradict and human socialism(not the political kind) and declares it the voice of ancient Judaic tribal deity.

Yes, it's very much Reductio ad absurdem and why so many here are not taking you seriously.

Democracy, the social contradict, the Bill of Right. Those ultimately secular philosophies and ideas are the things that are and will ultimately emancipate the basic human rights that are being denied gays. Not ancient tribal spiritualism that along with modern thinking attempts to reduce a person who happens to be gay to nothing but a pile of (in the supernaturalists eyes) misplaced base urges to be shunned.

 

[Veyrlian]

When heterosexual couples come to the state with issues specific to the normal, most common procreative method, the government should be allowed to address those issues on their own terms, not on the terms of a multitude of other barely related issues that do not take into account the fullness of the history of regulations concerning men and women, sex, child bearing and rearing.

I do not see this as the state sticking its nose into anything. If people always dealt with their own problems adequately without need or desire for any arbitration, there would be no issue here to begin with.

If marriage was what gay rights activists claim it is, there would already be gay marriage as well.

Barely related issues? As I see it, the only thing which is only barely related is what anyone's procreative methods have to do with marriage. Obviously if people could always resolve their issues and problems and needs adequately, there would not be much need for the state at all. Unfortunately, since this is not the case, and in fact many people wrong other people and treat them unfairly, it is the state's business to ensure that everyone has equal rights and is treated equally.
Which is why it should be the state's business to grant LGBTs their equal right to marry.

 

[Shane Roach]

Ah so you DO recognize what you are doing.

You are acting no different than millions of supernaturalists of today and yesterday. The Greek citizen who upon seeing a tree struck by lightning declares it the actions of Zeus, the traditional Haitian who sees a seizure and calls it being ridden by the Loa, the Christian who takes genetic imperative, human psychology and the interactions of the social contradict and human socialism(not the political kind) and declares it the voice of ancient Judaic tribal deity.

Yes, it's very much Reductio ad absurdem and why so many here are not taking you seriously.

Democracy, the social contradict, the Bill of Right. Those ultimately secular philosophies are the things that are and will ultimately emancipate the basic human rights that are being denied gays. Not ancient tribal spiritualism that along with modern thinking attempts to reduce a person who happens to be gay to nothing but a pile of (in the supernaturalists eyes) misplaced base urges to be shunned.

No, I recognize what you are pretending to do in order to avoid the topic.

Again, show me your consciousness. Clear this all up for me. Show me the proof that spiritualism is nothing but a lot of mumbo jumbo. Pluck your consciousness from your skull and end thousands of years of wrong headed superstition.

You can't do it. That's why you're dancing.

 

[Shane Roach]

Barely related issues? As I see it, the only thing which is only barely related is what anyone's procreative methods have to do with marriage. Obviously if people could always resolve their issues and problems and needs adequately, there would not be much need for the state at all. Unfortunately, since this is not the case, and in fact many people wrong other people and treat them unfairly, it is the state's business to ensure that everyone has equal rights and is treated equally.
Which is why it should be the state's business to grant LGBTs their equal right to marry.

Yes, barely related. Why are sterile heterosexuals "allowed" to marry? Because for thousands of years there was no way to know, and all heterosexuals were not allowed, mind you, but required to marry before sex.

Why are old people past child bearing years "allowed" to marry? So that the woman, who sacrificed her life to child rearing and bearing, could have someone to take care of her in her old age, should some gentleman be willing.

Why do I not consider gays using artificial insemination the same thing? Because artificial insemination isn't the same thing. That's why.

Useful distinctions must be allowed in law where they are necessary to address specific issues.

 

[Veyrlian]

If marriage was what gay rights activists claim it is, there would already be gay marriage as well.

Gay marriage DOES exist in many places. Your neighbouring country for example. In places where it is not allowed, there seems to be very loud opposition from certain religious groups, who try to force their ungrounded and discriminating views on the rest of the population. I wonder if that might have anything to do with it?

 

[SiderealExalt]

No, I recognize what you are pretending to do in order to avoid the topic.

Making false appeals(which apparently multiple people are calling you out on) yes I would say you are in fact, avoiding the topic.

Again, show me your consciousness. Clear this all up for me. Show me the proof that spiritualism is nothing but a lot of mumbo jumbo. Pluck your consciousness from your skull and end thousands of years of wrong headed superstition.

Weight of proof on the one making the claim. This is elementary school level stuff here now. You should know better.

You can't do it. That's why you're dancing.

See above. Tea kettle on Pluto ism is unimpressive.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Gay marriage DOES exist in many places. Your neighbouring country for example. In places where it is not allowed, there seems to be very loud opposition from certain religious groups, who try to force their ungrounded and discriminating views on the rest of the population. I wonder if that might have anything to do with it?

I think a lot of it honestly has to do with not wishing to admit their system of morality is defunct, not really very moral, and based on absurdities. People don't like having their value systems deconstructed and social acceptance of such an open nature as national gay marriage being a reality is pretty much a walking, talking rejection of the sort of religious morality that many communities have made for themselves. Considering it's on such a basic structure as the family level just grinds their gears even more.

*shrugs* If people really want to stand in the way of social progress like that, they shouldn't be surprised when they're left on the side of the road.