Freethought & Rationalism Archive

yguy · 06-11-2003, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
(Fr Andrew): What?! Please just answer my question, yguy. If you can.
What does cross dressing or transexualism have to do with gay marriage?

They are all symptoms of gender confusion.

yguy · 06-11-2003, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RRoman
Well, since Hollands "population problem" seems to consist of having the highest population density in the western world, the best way to solve that would be to encurage gay marriage.

Go ahead and run that one by the coming Muslim majority.

Quote:

Of course, judging by what you say is important for a good "moral infrastructure," we should also outlaw divorce.

Except for adultery or physical abuse, I don't see a problem with that.

yguy · 06-11-2003, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RRoman
I think I understand yguys argument now:

1. "Any relationship outside of traditional marriage is selfish at root, because it amounts to using another person strictly for self-gratification." This also includes homosexual relationships.
-Because they are so selfish, they will not have children, as having children would confine them too much, i.e. "you can't do what you want when you want to."
-However, if they do have children, in the case of a homosexual relationship they will grow up "sexually confused" because they lack a male/female role model.
-In the case of another Relationship "outside of traditional marriage," the selfishness of the parents themselves causes an "environment which is increasingly hostile to children," because the children cannot hold the parents in high esteem, as they[the parents] are "using another person strictly for self-gratification."
2. This "sexual confusion" will lead to a drop in birthrates, which will have to be compensated by increasing immigartion.
3. The immigrants will consist mainly of "any group bent on infiltrating a country as a virus does an organism," such as Muslims.
Thus the nation will be destroyed.

Please correct me if I have anything wrong.

That seems a fair synopsis of what I've said so far.

Autonemesis · 06-11-2003, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
I will certainly agree that one side wishes to project its confusion upon the other.

I cannot help but notice you declined to address my point about the selfish reasons heterosexuals give for having children. That you instead chose a variation on the timeless retort popularized by that paramount of sexual unambiguity, Pee-Wee Herman, namely "I know you are but what am I?", tells me a lot about where you're coming from.

yelyos · 06-11-2003, 05:19 PM

Just a note on the Canadian law on this matter; the government has 30 days from the day of the decision to file an appeal. Therefore, they have until July 10 to do so.

If they don't, it will fully be part of Ontario law.

yguy · 06-11-2003, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NHGH
Two points here:

1) I'm not sure the term "evangelical gays" is appropriate here. Certainly, if you're trying to suggest a parallel with evangelical Christians, it's very misleading, since gays do not generally attempt to convert others in the way that evangelical Christians do. But I'll assume here that you merely meant gays who are outspoken in favor of gay rights, which leads us to

2) I don't see the significance of your observation that the degree of gay-friendliness in the media is "disproportionate" to number of gays in the general populace. I think that a very plausible explanation of this fact is that, while gays themselves are a fairly small minority of the general population, there is a much larger segment of the population, arguably a substantial majority, which is not gay but supports gay rights (I count myself among their number).

I don't see how supporting "gay rights" implies any particular support for subtle pro-homosexual propaganda, save by acquiesence.

Quote:

I think we may be getting at the crux of the problem here. (And in the following, I assume that by "traditional marriage" you mean a marriage between a man and a woman, for the purpose of producing offspring. Feel free to correct me if this isn't accurate.)

Why do you believe this? Is it not possible that gays--or for that matter, straight couples not united in a "traditional marriage"--care about the welfare of their partners, rather than seeing them as nothing more than sex objects? Is it not possible that they feel happy for their partners' good fortune in life, and sad for their partners' misfortunes? I can't see why a "traditional marriage", or for that matter any sexual relationship at all, is necessary to feel genuine concern for the welfare of others.

Just as there are no completely unselfish people, there are no completely selfish people, obviously.

Quote:

And gays are asking to be allowed to enter into legally sanctioned relationships of precisely this sort--to be legally committed to each other "for better or worse". Why do you find this objectionable?

They can already be committed to each other. I object to homosexual unions being given a status equal to traditional marriage, because marriage is ultimately about children, far more so than the husband and wife.

Quote:

If this is to have any force as an argument against gay marriage, I think you still need to demonstrate, rather than merely assert or suggest, that all gay relationships are necessarily relationships "based on mutual use".

It is quite possible that, were it possible to dissect every marriage, one might conclude that most marriages are similarly based. Obviously we cannot formulate public policy based on individual cases, so we must take care not to grant societal approval to unions which, if they became prolific, would have a corrosive effect on our moral foundation.

Quote:

Fair enough, but I still don't see either a) why people choosing to remain childless is objectionable

I don't have kids myself. However, it is childbearing families which are the lifeblood of a society, and we should not do anything that weakens them.

Quote:

or b) what gay marriage has to do with any of this.

It is an extension of the decades long effort to psychologically intimidate those of us who see perversion as what it is. Eventually, if homosexual change agents have their way, it will be a thoughtcrime to stare a second too long at a drag queen.

Quote:

And just out of curiosity: do you think that we should forbid heterosexual marriage in cases where the prospective partners do not desire children?

Nope.

Viti · 06-11-2003, 06:07 PM

Quote:

if they became prolific

As MsNeko pointed out, Homosexuals make up only about 10% of the population...they wouldn't make a dent in the total number of married couples. All they are asking for is to have the same rights legally in regards to medical decisions and insurance and taxes etc.

Godot · 06-11-2003, 06:42 PM

Quote:

They can already be committed to each other. I object to homosexual unions being given a status equal to traditional marriage, because marriage is ultimately about children, far more so than the husband and wife.

<emphasis mine>
Logically then, you agree to limiting the ability of infertile couples to wed.

yguy · 06-11-2003, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LadyShea
As MsNeko pointed out, Homosexuals make up only about 10% of the population...they wouldn't make a dent in the total number of married couples. All they are asking for is to have the same rights legally in regards to medical decisions and insurance and taxes etc.

Again, homosexual marriages per se are not the problem. Each step taken to redefine marriage to fit the lowest common denominator devalues the intitution. Since selfish people tend to be morally relativistic, a couple can look at "gay" marriages and feel OK about their traditional marriage by comparison, though it may be rotting away from within.

yguy · 06-11-2003, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Godot
<emphasis mine>
Logically then, you agree to limiting the ability of infertile couples to wed.

Nothing logical about that unless we eliminate the phrase subsequent to the one you emphasized.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-11-2003, 05:19 PM	#75
yelyos Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: northern suburbs of Toronto, Canada Posts: 401	Just a note on the Canadian law on this matter; the government has 30 days from the day of the decision to file an appeal. Therefore, they have until July 10 to do so. If they don't, it will fully be part of Ontario law.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.