Homosexuality

[Celice]

(as a note, why the fuck is anyone here aligning themselves in 'them' 'us' categories. If I'm following this thread correctly, at the moment, it's about ideas of equality--that's not what's being supported here by separating people into made-up categories. That's just the opposite. That's supporting a distinction, and all the separation people people want to fuck around with in-tow)

[Caliban of Sycorax]

(as a note, why the fuck is anyone here aligning themselves in 'them' 'us' categories. If I'm following this thread correctly, at the moment, it's about ideas of equality--that's not what's being supported here by separating people into made-up categories. That's just the opposite. That's supporting a distinction, and all the separation people people want to fuck around with in-tow)

The them in my eyes is the people who oppose those fighting rights, the us in my particular context is the LGBTQQIA community.

[eclipse]

The them in my eyes is the people who oppose those fighting rights, the us in my particular context is the LGBTQQIA community.

The war will never cease if this continues.

[Caliban of Sycorax]

The war will never cease if this continues.

I'm pretty sure the only people that call this war are homophobes who believe that granting legal same-sex unions across the US will hurt marriage somehow.

[Celice]

I'm pretty sure the only people that call this war are homophobes who believe that granting legal same-sex unions across the US will hurt marriage somehow.

No, it's adopted as a war by whoever wants to see it as such. Which is incredibly easy when you make-believe an us v. them scenario.

Creating sides is counter-productive to any sort of desire for equality. Qualification are not equality, they are distinctions--and once you create distinction, the natural inclination is to separate them, build them, and create tropes.

Whenever you create sides out of nothing, you're being as stupid and dangerous as the post saying "wait your turn and be obedient to earn your rights." Don't recognize the same shit you're against, unless you desire to look at things one-sided.

[Caliban of Sycorax]

No, it's adopted as a war by whoever wants to see it as such. Which is incredibly easy when you make-believe an us v. them scenario.

Creating sides is counter-productive to any sort of desire for equality. Qualification are not equality, they are distinctions--and once you create distinction, the natural inclination is to separate them, build them, and create tropes.

Whenever you create sides out of nothing, you're being as stupid and dangerous as the post saying "wait your turn and be obedient to earn your rights." Don't recognize the same shit you're against, unless you desire to look at things one-sided.

I guess that was me feeling attacked by people who shout slurs at me and tell me I don't deserve to live. I did take it out of context and do not want this to become a "war". I simply wish to be able to receive the same rights as everyone else no matter who I fall in love with.

[DDDDAAAAAANNNNNN]

*sigh* People trying to hand me the idiot ball again.

Congrats on completely missing the point. If any group, be they gays, liberals, conservatives, or the national konga line association, tried to change the union between a man and a woman from a marriage to a 'civil union', even if the rights remained the same, lots of people on all sides would immediately develop a strong ire for that group.

I am perfectly aware that there are non-Christian marriages out there. First-off, in America, the Abrahamic religions are by far the majority religions. If we are to be going by a religious definition, it would be the one used by those three.

Secondly: The first Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in there does it say that there is to be a separation between church and state; just that Congress is not to make a law concerning a religious establishment or prohibiting the exercise there-of.

I was unaware that asking people to go to a church so that they could seek to understand the culture that is refusing them so that they could better-understand it and thusly have improved intercultural communication with said culture on the matter of gay marriage constituted 'preaching'.

You're a trolling bigot who thinks he knows everything about everything which can be proven wrong by the amount of people replying to your idiotic rantings. Here's the ball.

First off: Congrats on completely missing the point. Less than sixty years ago it was unheard of and illegal for interracial marriages to take place.. Yet here we are fifty years from now and people are still getting married. I'm completely sure people could get over a simple name change and learn to be fine with the gay culture in spite of, or because of this. You don't know what is going to happen, and if history is an example, which it totally is, people will get over it and move on.

Secondly: Its called the Establishment Clause. Anyone who has taken a political science course or who has studied the First Amendment for more than five minutes knows what it is. Its the first part of the amendment " Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion," and has been interpreted throughout history to 1. Prohibit the establishment of a national religion by Congress and 2. Prohibit the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another.

The Establishment Clause is what gave rise to the term seperation of church and state, and its the reason that people are not required to say the pledge of allegiance, and the reason that religious private schools aren't funded by the government. Its also the reason why we shouldn't base our definition of marriage on religion. Rather we should change it to adapt to the times of supposed equality and not discriminate against the estimated 10.5 million people within our states, just as we adapted it to allow interracial marriage.

Or better, we could prevent further problems with name association and make it domestic partnership for all so we don't have to deal with any religious interference. This would finally give couples the 1,138 rights that should be afforded to any loving life partnerships, but is only provided to those under the title of marriage (see first point before you make that damn resentment argument again).

Finally: If you're going to suggest that we go to church's you should practice what you preach and go find a gay partnership and ask them what will happen when their partner dies. Go ahead I'll wait.... back yet? What did you find out? Did you find out that they can be challenged by the family of their partner for survivor benefits? Did you find out that since they aren't married they can be made to receive nothing in terms of spousal insurance? Yeah definitely fair. I'm sure the Christians will have a lot to input about that. The most they would say would be "Well, at least he'll be warm in hell." They persecute us. Would a Jewish man walk up to Hitler and talk to him to try to understand him?

And yes I know I'm Christian and shouldn't be ragging on it, but hey, we've got some messed up stuff in our religion. As I've mentioned before in this thread, the book of Leviticus has some weird-ass rules. I just tend to ignore the outdated and disrespectful parts (that people use to back up outdated philosophies) of the bible and take the good life teachings of respecting your neighbor.

[eclipse]

You're a trolling bigot who thinks he knows everything about everything which can be proven wrong by the amount of people replying to your idiotic rantings. Here's the ball.

And the fighting continues. Please cut it out.

[DDDDAAAAAANNNNNN]

And the fighting continues. Please cut it out.

Yeah that may have been a bit rude, but I was getting frustrated...

It kind of comes with the "us vs. them mentality" that is really prevalent in this thread, but is totally a natural occurence when there are two opposing groups.

[Caliban of Sycorax]

And the fighting continues. Please cut it out.

I guess that was me feeling attacked by people who shout slurs at me and tell me I don't deserve to live. I did take it out of context and do not want this to become a "war". I simply wish to be able to receive the same rights as everyone else no matter who I fall in love with.

I'm done fighting with people, I'm merely going to add my opinion here. However, this is why people on the LGBTQQIA side fight, if they do.

[eclipse]

As long as there are two sides, the fighting will never cease. Accept that some people will hate you for whatever reason they can come up with, and move on. I'd like to think the lot of you are better than that.

[Caliban of Sycorax]

As long as there are two sides, the fighting will never cease. Accept that some people will hate you for whatever reason they can come up with, and move on. I'd like to think the lot of you are better than that.

It isn't that easy, I hope you realize that. I try my best to avoid hate speech, but sometimes it comes up and gets me very upset.

[eclipse]

It isn't that easy, I hope you realize that. I try my best to avoid hate speech, but sometimes it comes up and gets me very upset.

I KNOW it's not easy, but would you react the same way if I started throwing insults at you because I learned that your favorite color was not the same as mine?

[Caliban of Sycorax]

I KNOW it's not easy, but would you react the same way if I started throwing insults at you because I learned that your favorite color was not the same as mine?

Color favoritism is a preference.

Sexual orientation is not.

It isn't the same. OF COURSE I wouldn't react the same. I couldn't give two shits if you hate my favorite color.

[Celice]

Sexuality, as with color favoritism, is largely chosen through conditioning and exposure to outside-influences. Sexuality has few innate biological dispositions, and most of it has to do with the early years. Sexual attachment develops through interaction and emulation. What one becomes attracted to is not intrinsic, but learned.

Most people who advocate for certain types of sexuality aren't actually for the sexuality itself, but for how that sexuality is accepted. This is easier to defend if everyone pretends that sexuality is innate and not a conditioned trait.

Sexual orientation is a choice. People are usually too stubborn to believe otherwise, because it feels better to believe it isn't.

[eclipse]

Color favoritism is a preference.

Sexual orientation is not.

It isn't the same. OF COURSE I wouldn't react the same. I couldn't give two shits if you hate my favorite color.

You CHOOSE whether or not you are offended by a remark someone makes, no matter what the reasoning behind your choice is. You've stated that you've chosen to not give two shits if someone makes stupid remarks about your favorite color, but you do seem to care if someone insults what you find attractive. Do you think you'd be able to apply the same color mentality to your sexual preference?

[DDDDAAAAAANNNNNN]

I KNOW it's not easy, but would you react the same way if I started throwing insults at you because I learned that your favorite color was not the same as mine?

I think the difference is that no one is persecuted for liking the color red and not blue...

But you do have a valid point even if it wasn't the best analogy, opinions are any human's right. However on the flip side that means that I have the right to argue my opinion and express it. I also have the right to defend it, even if that means completely smashing heads with someone who has a different opinion.

[Caliban of Sycorax]

Sexual orientation is a choice. People are usually too stubborn to believe otherwise, because it feels better to believe it isn't.

Then tell me how you chose your sexual orientation.

[Celice]

By choosing. Someone may be revolted in response to a gander because they've been trained, inadvertently, to not be attracted sexually another gender. Someone else can realize their disposition is a conditioned trait, and transcend this. As beings who somehow exemplify the ability to act with self-meaning, we then are self-defining beings.

The only issue then becomes how conditioned you've been towards your sexuality, and how much "self" you have. It's not a question of making yourself taller or shorter--those are traits which are not ingrained into your personal-ethos. What color you naturally came to have an affinity towards can change, however. Sexuality is no different. It's not ingrained, but adopted. Though, I haven't read too much into the subject of reverse-conditioning something learned so early. I seem to recall early associations being the most dramatic and the most difficult to reverse.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Celice

[DDDDAAAAAANNNNNN]

Sexuality, as with color favoritism, is largely chosen through conditioning and exposure to outside-influences. Sexuality has few innate biological dispositions, and most of it has to do with the early years. Sexual attachment develops through interaction and emulation. What one becomes attracted to is not intrinsic, but learned.

Most people who advocate for certain types of sexuality aren't actually for the sexuality itself, but for how that sexuality is accepted. This is easier to defend if everyone pretends that sexuality is innate and not a conditioned trait.

Sexual orientation is a choice. People are usually too stubborn to believe otherwise, because it feels better to believe it isn't.

Just studied this a bit in psychology.

It's not a choice, per say, it is in fact conditioning in the early stages of childhood. There is a difference. Mostly that sexuality is ambiguous during the early years but becomes set one way or the other (or both) at around age 5. The outside influences tend to be your family, and how they react with you is the determining factor in most cases. Therefore, you don't get to choose, your family chooses for you by how they treat you during the younger years of life.

So yes we aren't born gay necessarily, but we still don't really get a choice.

[Celice]

But how we respond to our conditioning is the choice-aspect. This usually comes with the self-realization part--you can't really choose if you fail to, or willingly decide to not, observe your own conditioning. If you want to be fatalistic and believed your sexuality is set in stone without another word about it, you can't really accept the chance to change yourself. You've committed yourself already.

In your example, the family bit, it sounds a bit biased to western cultures which don't have much chance for sexual roleplay or exploration (which now, isn't so much western, but most of the world which engages in "modern" social practices). Conditioning happens from all over the place--this must be noted, so as to avoid confusion later on.

There's tons of studies on the subject of sexuality, though. For the subject of developing sexuality, the most interesting s to note development of sexuality in more tribal societies, where sexuality and sexual play in youths isn't so much frowned upon. Children learn their sexual dispositions through their play, essentially.

[Caliban of Sycorax]

Though I do agree with the aspect of conditioning I also disagree slightly with choice, because I do believe that some tendencies are natural and some people have tendencies for attraction to the same sex.

Also, the main reason I disagree with choice is the typical phrase, "Why would we choose this lifestyle if it brings nothing but pain?"

[Celice]

Because, most likely, it's that stubbornness. It feels good to just accept. Even if it's counter-productive. It feels natural. And why would anyone want to deny what they feel is normal, truthful, and in no way, wrong.

Having a sexuality doesn't really ensure pain. It sounds like you're alluding to discrimination of a social nature... which has nothing to do with sexuality. People make it so. If people didn't have an issue, there wouldn't be that "pain" you mentioned.

Now, like I said, there are a few small "genetic" (I don't remember most of the details) about a sexual disposition, or how valid the claims were, but most of the preference is from conditioning. It's what humans are: conditioned... things. We're bags of it.

But if the problem is "why are we choosing to put ourselves in pain," I'm sorry, but I never heard of gay butt sex being painful unless done wrong, or something goes wrong during it. If you mean the "pain" people put on you, well fuck them for making up reasons to not like what you put in your butt. The world's a slate, and there's no right or wrong, only what the observer wants to see happen.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Celice

[Caliban of Sycorax]

Because, most likely, it's that stubbornness. It feels good to just accept. Even if it's counter-productive. It feels natural. And why would anyone want to deny what they feel is normal, truthful, and in no way, wrong.

Having a sexuality doesn't really ensure pain. It sounds like you're alluding to discrimination of a social nature... which has nothing to do with sexuality. People make it so. If people didn't have an issue, there wouldn't be that "pain" you mentioned.

Now, like I said, there are a few small "genetic" (I don't remember most of the details) about a sexual disposition, or how valid the claims were, but most of the preference is from conditioning. It's what humans are: conditioned... things. We're bags of it.

But if the problem is "why are we choosing to put ourselves in pain," I'm sorry, but I never heard of gay butt sex being painful unless done wrong, or something goes wrong during it. If you mean the "pain" people put on you, well fuck them for making of reasons to not like what you put in your butt. The world's a slate, and there's no right or wrong, only what the observer wants to see happen.

I'm talking about the social stigma that is attributed to being gay. That's the "pain" I talk about.

[Celice]

Social response is untethered to sexuality. Sexuality elicits a response from some people. That's your beef--being gay doesn't cause people to go bleh. People decide your sexuality is something to be bleh about. So it has nothing to do with the choice.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Celice