yguy

You miss the point. Khadafy was a bully, and Reagan got his respect by bombing Trpipoli.

Oh please. If there is any substance the Holloywood left would like to make illegal, it's testosterone.

Philosoft

If you're asking my opinion, then yes.

Well, with zero data, I'm surprised you find it satisfactory yourself.

With the advent of society and technology, these strong gender roles have become less prominent and less necessary. What do you suggest, mandatory gender classes?

I'm just going to make assumptions: Jimmy Carter was indeed probably too nice a guy to be President but I don't see how that makes him a failure as a person. I don't know why you call the Clinton presidency a "disaster," unless you're one to blame the Middle East situation and domestic fiscal difficulties on Clinton's policies.

You're determined to make a mountain out of this molehill. I'm well aware couples can go to the justice-of-the-peace for their piece of paper. I was only interested in your non-scriptural basis for marriage. Let's drop it, OK?

Wow. You mean every woman I've ever been with has been a slut? Who knew?

Her dad was a slut too?

Oh, the martyr card is so played-out. No one can stop you from calling Ru-Paul a "freak," but your free speech isn't unilateral. You reserve no right to be surprised (and perhaps feel a little guilty) when you take flak for your comments.

I think it should be evident that, despite continuing problems, racial tolerance, at least, is far better than it was 50 years ago.

Anecdote time. I'm the only child of parents, both once-married for 36 years, dad working, mom at home; you know, typical gender roles. I have been bullied and seduced. Multiple times. What's your solution for that? Parenting classes again?
What differece does the child's lineage make? Either way, there are two same-sex parents. Why would you make an exception for a selfless act like adoption?

yguy

There are no "data" that support the existence of God either, so I don't know why that would be such a surprise.

Evidently they haven't been deemed particularly necessary in Holland either.

No, I suggest that we stop devaluing traditional gender roles.

He wasn't too nice, he was too weak. Reagan was a nice guy, but he wasn't weak.

Under his watch, China got loads of military technology handed to it, the military was misused and demoralized, partial birth abortion - more properly known as infanticide - was legitimized, and oral sex became the in thing for many pre-teens because of the example he set...just for starters.

If traditional marriage is cast aside, society will crumble. That's the basis.

I don't have a problem with that, as long as my 1st amendment rights aren't abridged.

You think Al Sharpton believes that, or wants it to be true? IOW, I think you are correct on that point, but there are always people willing to foment hatred for their own self-aggrandizement, whether it's Fred Phelps or Ted Kennedy.

All that shows is that a traditional marriage in and of itself isn't enough. That isn't news to anybody. A leaking roof is no reason to abandon the house and into a tarpaper shack.

Your last question answers itself in part, but the main reason is that adoptive parents don't bring the child into existence. Let's face it, procreation is somewhat Godlike. To bring a child into existence in an environment which lacks what it needs to grow would be as evil in reality as many atheists think God is for creating Adam with a flawed nature. It is, in my view, ever-so-slightly Frankensteinian.

Salmon of Doubt

Not too keen on the idea of democracy then, are you? "That's Life" is hardly an appropriate response to what went on in the last election. Would you still respond with "That's Life" if the party you didn't support stole an election like that?

Tolerance = suppression of free thought?! Hardly. You can hate me all you want as long as you don't try and harm me, or suppress my rights. Including my right to have sex with whoever I want, marry whoever I want, and adopt children or have artificial conception with whoever I want.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the persuit of pleasure is a bad thing? How exactly?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What has the persuit of personal pleasure got to do with any of that? I really don't follow your logic. (And stop using the "we helped you out in the war" crap, it has no bearing on anything at all, and it irritates me whenever people try and use it.)



Lol! You really don't get it, do you? Do you honestly believe that those are common beliefs of gay people? Because that's a load of crap. Personally, I love feminine women, I think they're really sexy. I also like masculine men. So wherever you're getting these opinions from, I suggest you reconsider. You are clearly making your judgements with absolutely no knowledge of what actually motivates gay people.


Sorry, I have been unclear. My situation is complex, and not something I'm discussing here. Sexuality is very fluid sometimes, and I'm sorry, I was unclear. I used to classify myself as bisexual, but now for various reasons I classify myself as gay. I still fancy some men though. What I was trying to explain is that I hope any resentment I feel is solely directed towards my ex boyfriend, and not men in general.

Well, they aren't. Why would they be? I think most of them would be rather offended by the implication, both about them and me.

Proof please? has society crumbled with all the other advances in rights that have been introduced? Did society crumble when women got the vote? when blacks got more rights? So why will crumble now? what are gay people going to do, other than get married?

procreation is not at all godlike. And are you saying what I think you're saying? that gay people passing on their genes is evil and monstrous? That's rich. It's not like we're going to pass on a gene for 'gayness' or anything. Gayness is not a mental illness or a disease or a deficiency. We are normal people, with one slight difference. If you were to understand that, and tolerate people and view them as human beings, you might feel more empathy for our situation and our human rights not to be discriminated against.

yguy

The GOP didn't steal that election. The Dems accused them of that, mainly because that's what they were trying to do themselves, by creating such tempests in teapots as the butterfly ballot controversy. They also attempted to invalidate votes cast by some military personnel on technical grounds, knowing they would mainly vote GOP. The only way they would have been satisfied is if the ballots had been counted enough times to make Gore the winner. The Democrat dominated Florida Supreme Court attempted to usurp the Legislature's constitutional authority over election rules by extending the ballot count, but SCOTUS quashed it. Months later, several media organizations examined and counted the disputed ballots, and found that the final count as certified by Katherine Harris was substantially correct.

Then why, when I claimed my right to say a guy in a dress is a freak, did you day I was against tolerance?

I don't. Whether the conversation will go on long enough for you to see that, I don't know - but I really don't hate you.

None of those are inalienable rights, and none of them are protected under the US constitution.

If they had just stayed in Europe and smoked pot or chased women, the country would never have been founded.

Why? Would you rather America had stayed out of WWII?

By masculinity, I don't mean swaggering muscularity so much as the ability to call a spade a spade. Many women are threatened by that kind of man, just as the American media thought Ronald Reagan a war monger for calling the Soviet Union an evil empire. As it turned out, of course, he was no more a war monger than Winston Churchill.

I won't belabor the point any more except to say that if you hope you don't have that resentment, it implies you're not sure. I respectfully suggest you look within to make sure that you don't, as repressed resentment is never a good thing in anybody.

Most of the homosexual men I've been acquainted with (that I knew were gay, that is) were effeminate. I'm not aware of any studies on this.

To prove it, we'd have to let it happen - and even then some of the survivors would try to make it Bush's fault somehow. I can't offer proof, but my post about Holland further up on this page strongly suggest that is may succumb to Islamic fascism.

The plight of blacks in the last century is not comparable to that of homosexuals, because blacks can't hide their skin color. As you yourself have said, if you didn't tell us, most of us wouldn't know you were "gay".

Interesting statement coming from an atheist. It's not an act of creation?

It has nothing to do with genetics. It has to do with providing the child with what it needs to grow up with a healthy attitude. Kids need moms and dads. If a kid has two moms, which one does he call dad?

Did you appreciate having a mom and dad? If yes, why would you not want your child to have them?

Treacle Worshipper

Originally posted by yguy
Then why, when I claimed my right to say a guy in a dress is a freak, did you day I was against tolerance?
You can think & say what you like, but that doesn't mean that you can discriminate against people when everyone's supposed to be equal before the law.

None of those are inalienable rights, and none of them are protected under the US constitution.
Your first point is true; however, if some people have those rights, it is discrimination to deny them to other people. And lots of us don't live under the US constitution.

If they had just stayed in Europe and smoked pot or chased women, the country would never have been founded.
Also true, but doesn't the US constitution (or some founding document) guarantee the right to the "pursuit of happiness"? I think that for most people that will include pleasurable activities.
Oh, and "wine, women & song" aren't the only pleasures; there's intellectual pleasure; presumably the founding fathers took some pleasure in ensuring the freedom of the US.

Why? Would you rather America had stayed out of WWII?
This is totally irrelevant to this issue of gay marriage, but I will quote my grandmother, who was around during WWII: "The Americans helped us win the war faster, but we would have won it eventually anyway, because we wouldn't have given up."

By masculinity, I don't mean swaggering muscularity so much as the ability to call a spade a spade. Many women are threatened by that kind of man,
I like anyone who is capable of calling a spade a spade. You know where you are with people like that. And it's not a gender-distinctive trait.

Most of the homosexual men I've been acquainted with (that I knew were gay, that is) were effeminate. I'm not aware of any studies on this.
Salmon of Doubt never said all her male friends were gay. Why do you assume they are?

The plight of blacks in the last century is not comparable to that of homosexuals, because blacks can't hide their skin color. As you yourself have said, if you didn't tell us, most of us wouldn't know you were "gay".
This is true, but it doesn't address the point of why further civil rights for a minority should cause society to crumble.
It also implies that gays should hide their orientation in order to "fit in", which seems a bit unfair.

Interesting statement coming from an atheist. It's not an act of creation?
Well, it certainly isn't creation ex nihilo, which is the kind usually attributed to god.

Btw, I am bi - I like both men & women

I think bi's have a particular perspective on this. If I happen meet a man, fall in love & want to spend my life with him, society will say, "That's great, get married, have kids, have all these financial & legal benefits."

If I happen to meet a woman, fall in love & want to spend the rest of my life with her, society will say, "Oh, right. Yeah, well, just keep it out of our faces. We don't want to know about the love of your life. Forget about all those benefits too. And if you want to have kids (or adopt), tough."

But in both of those situations, I am the same person. Somehow it just doesn't seem fair...
(For clarification: I have no desire or intention to have kids. But I'm still quite young as these things go, & I realise that may change. I just hope it doesn't )
TW

Kimpatsu

Then it's reasonable to assume god doesn't exist.
"Traditional gender roles" is mysogenistic code for the suppression of women.
Reagan was an idiot who thought life was a Hollywood movie.
Republicans are amazing; on the one hand, you want open free trade, but on the other complain when China benefits from said trade. Make up your mind.
Abortion is not infanticide, because the foetus is not yet viable genetic material. Or don't you eat eggs?
And show me how 12YOs are engaging in sex, oral or otherwise. I want hard data, please.
Absolute rubbish. Again, where is your evidence for this?
Or G H W Bush, who has demonised the Iraqi people and started an illegal war against them in an effort to distract attention from the wretched state of the US economy and secure reelection.
We're not advocating a tarpaper shack; we're advocating a palace called love. And that won't spring a leak.
No, it isn't. There is nothing supernatural about procreation. It is a perfectly biological process.
Adam never actually existed, but what environment does a child need to grow? Love from all those involved in its rearing, be they two men, two women, a commune, or a single parent.
Which simply betrays your romantic distrust of science, rather than the wonders that science can open up. Extended life spans and freedom from infectious diseases being just two.

themistocles

LOL, I don't think the founding fathers meant "wine, women, & song" when they said the we have the right to the "pursuit of happiness".

But, I'm not arguing against such an interpretation.

yguy

I am perfectly confident that among the wonders of science that you would value are soma, "feelies", and bokanovskified eggs. As for the rest of your leftist cliche-ridden bilge, tell someone who cares.

Kimpatsu

Great ad hominem, but it doesn't come anywhere close to what I believe, although I do accept that you are so right-wing, everyone must seem leftist to you. Actually, I believe in total freedom. That means you don't have the right to dictate what kind of relationship anybody gets into because it's none of your business. And why exactly are you so preoccupied with other people's sexual orientation?