yguy

I doubt it. I remember seeing the photograph in the paper, taken of Hinckley by himself, with a pistol pointed at his head, which he had sent to Foster with a note asking if "maybe you like me a little bit", or something to that effect. The guy wasn't just an assassin, he was a subhuman sicko who would give any woman with half a brain the creeps.

yguy

What if she doesn't dress in a sexual manner, and the same thing happens?

Maybe the other children only find it a negative experience because their natural sexual curiosity has been repressed.

Glad somebody here can see that.

Of course it isn't the same thing. The question is whether it has an adverse effect on children.

From a sociological POV, that is correct...and from the same POV it behooves society to grant recognition only to those institutions which will make the country a better place to live for normal people, rather than normal people going out of their way to indulge the conceits of deviants.

What's prejudicial about that, since NAMBLA members would think me a bigot for making the same claim about pedophilia?

You miss the point of the analogy. Homosexuals aren't forced to be what they are by law either. Whether they are born with their inclination or develop it after birth, the unions they form are not an indispensable building block of society as heterosexual marriage is.

You're not talking about normal, but about statistically average. Not the same at all.

Semantical hairsplitting.

If you dislike the direction the conversation is taking, converse with someone else.

Normality in my mind connotes a certain level of intelligence, which is nowhere to be found in an act of sodomy.

Indeed, the effects will not likely be felt in your lifetime.

sight/mind

And how does marriage persay increase the living standard in a counrty? And please do not tell me about two incomes or splitting the chores, as roomates or co-habitation does that. Nor should you begin talking about how marriage between heterosexual couples only increases moral standards without actual proof that homosexual marriage deteoriates the morals of the people and living standards more than heterosexual marriage.

"Indulge the conceit of deviants." Hmmm. So, asking for equal recognition and the benefits of heterosexual couples is "indulging the conceit of deviants"?

And how is heterosexual intercourse any more intelligent that homosexual intercourse?

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): Sure it is. If it weren't, Andrea Yates and Susan Smith wouldn't be in jail.

Fr.Andrew

(yguy): From a sociological POV, that is correct...and from the same POV it behooves society to grant recognition only to those institutions which will make the country a better place to live for normal people, rather than normal people going out of their way to indulge the conceits of deviants.
(Fr Andrew): A reduction in bigotry, one manifestation of which would be recognition of homosexual marriage, would make the country a better place to live for all it's citizens. That's intuitively obvious.

(yguy): What's prejudicial about that, since NAMBLA members would think me a bigot for making the same claim about pedophilia?
(Fr Andrew): What NAMBLA members think of you has no bearing on your own prejucice and bigotry toward homosexuals.

(yguy): Whether they are born with their inclination or develop it after birth, the unions they form are not an indispensable building block of society as heterosexual marriage is.
(Fr Andrew): The claim that heterosexual marriage is an indispensable building block of society is left unsubstantiated from your earlier posts.

Dr Rick

You don't have to apologize every time you are wrong; I'm growing used to repeatingly correcting you.
Every right is a legal construct.
Same sex marriages have more potential beneficial effects than public prayer. The former re-enforces a support structure which makes it less likely that government support will be necessary if a person gets sick or loses his/her job, and it encourages monogamy, both of which are in the interests of the state.
Neither are Christians; so what?
Neither is prayer
Nor is any to be found in prayer. If intelligence was a prerequisite to a right, there would be no churches.

Vylo

Perhaps I should explain some things about values. Violating a norm (such as heterosexuality) is something commonly broken, and while it does warrant some anxiety, or confusion (we often don't understand why people break norms) norm violation is not punished by legal means, it does not warrant this retallition. Homosexuals, teenage mothers, and obsesive comulsive individuals are examples of those violating norms.

Mores are the next tier of values. These are enforced by law. Murder, rioting, tax violation, are examples of this

Taboos are the highest tier of values. So much as thinking of a committing a taboo is thought to be evil, and is even sometimes punished. Taboos are often carry a very heavy legal penalty. Often even those who regularly break mores consider those who violate taboos to be unworthy of exisitng in society. Incest, cannibalism (in this nation), and child molestation are good examples of taboos.

Vylo

If a women isn't sexually attractive, I think it might become a moot point. Otherwise you may be getting into the realm of stalking. Keep in mind that very few women (at least from my area) dress in ways that would not be flattering.

Children have been shown not to have the capacity to understand their sexuality. The exact age of when they become capable of this varies, so as to be sure they protect the vast majority of those possibly affected, they have made 18 a common age off which to base sexual exposure to children.

I must admit that guys seems a bit wacky
.

Much of it depends on the situation. In a situation like the beach or usual situations it does not have much effect. But when these same women (or men) are being sexual suggestive (whatever their clothing style) it tends to confuse children.

How does heterosexual marriage make the country a better place to live?

Common sense is unrelated to the issue, you are speaking of the breaking of norms, mores, and taboos.

[/quote] quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who are blind are not forced to be by law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You miss the point of the analogy. Homosexuals aren't forced to be what they are by law either. Whether they are born with their inclination or develop it after birth, the unions they form are not an indispensable building block of society as heterosexual marriage is.
[/quote]

Homosexuals are forced into a position where then are not allowed to marry by law. Laws against blind are due to their inability to fly planes. There is nothing that shows homosexuals are incapable of having a stable marriage.

How is heterosexual marriage an indispensable building block of society? MANY sociologists would argue that to be false.

Incorrect, I was refering to homosexuality being a norm violation.

So a law prohibiting driving certain types of cars is the same as a law that prohibits you from not having a vehicle at all? They seem like very different things to me.

You were off topic, on a completely unrelated analogy that had nothing to do with the subject.

As someone mentioned before, where is the intellegence in heterosexual sex compared to homosexual?

[/quote] quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether there are homosexual marriages or not will have little to no impact on me or any other person in the nation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Indeed, the effects will not likely be felt in your lifetime.[/quote]

The only possible effect I see is that perhaps we will be a little more tolerant towards those people who do unusual things, that while perplexing, do no harm.

never been there

The only effect that legally recognizing homosexual marriage has on heterosexual marriage is that it has taken away one of our excuses for remaining shacked up after 8 (very very happy) years together. It's not the real reason, but anything we can do to help a few friends and piss off the religious right as well is worth doing.

In reality, Sweetiedarling still finds marriage reminds her too much of religion in general because of her upbringing. I've never been there (hence the handle) so whatever makes her happy...

Nowhere357

Okay, I understand the point. Notice though that "not normal" in this sense does not need imply bad or wrong in any way - genius level intelligence for example is not normal.

I'd also say that many "not normal" things are neutral in value. Mohawk haircuts and John Denver records.