- Joined
- Jan 27, 2013
- Messages
- 28,824
- Reaction score
- 20,497
- Location
- Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The reverse is equally true; just because something is "natural" does not mean that it should be culturally accepted by a society. Personally, I favor allowing SSM as a state sanctioned relationship option (as well as some others), but I have no reason to get more than my one vote on the matter. Once we start down the path to what compelling state interest supports any "standard" then we are in for some serious time wasting.
So only a marriage license issued by government can determine the rights and responsibilities of two parties in a contract?
Those who enter into business and employment contracts should be clamouring for government to sanction their agreements with a magical piece of government paper.
Only a marriage being recognized by the government, some relationship type being recognized by the government can work with the current way our laws operate. The government deals with family recognition, ensuring that such relationships are given certain special protections, and this goes for any family relationship that is legally recognized.
Marriage is not simply a contract. It is a recognition of legal kinship, as I've said many times, which is akin to a birth certificate, and no one so far as shown any contract that could take the place of marriage that would provide all the same benefits, still be recognized by the government, and be as cheap if not cheaper than marriage when it comes to entering into it (if it is dissolved, it would be pretty much the same costs at least whether it is a marriage or just private contracts, which can be fought over).
I can't speak definitively, but I think it would be very abnormal, to use a term you like, for homosexuals to be "indoctrinating kids" into homosexuality. That would defy the logic of most homosexuals who believe they are genetically or naturally homosexual and not indoctrinated or brainwashed into same sex behaviour. Just as uniquely, there's a whole subclass of female who believes they can turn gay men straight - if a man is gay, he just hasn't met a sufficiently sexually talented female.
No. I'm arguing that people are different, and at this current time, people are more trusting of proof that someone is committed, particularly in a way that helps to protect both of their interests, as legal marriage does.
If you can't refute it, trivialize it.
Excellent.
I absolutely agree - which is why I strongly oppose government being in the marriage business and government incentives, benefits, tax allowances, related to government being in the marriage business. If society truly was fair and equitable, all individuals would be treated equally, regardless of their personal relationships/commitments.
Or as domestic partnerships would. For the purpose of legal protection and trust that you are arguing, there's no difference.
There are talking points and then there is reality. It is important not to confuse the two. It is important to homosexuals to try to argue that homosexuality is absolutely not a choice and yet it clearly CAN be and often HAS been a choice for a lot of people; people that actually have admitted that they became homosexual by choice.
I remember when there was a huge debate about how crossbows in archery season weren't any different than regular archery or "vertical bows" as the crossbow advocates started calling them. It was a lie but it was a lie with a purpose. The truth wouldn't have suited the agenda because admitting that crossbows are radically different and shoot a lot more like a gun than a bow and make it MUCH easier to take a deer than hunting with traditional equipment does..... well, it just wouldn't help them convince legislators to change the law to allow them, so you couldn't drag the truth out of them with a team of mules.
Now it's homosexual marriage and, again, the people with the agenda are careful about their talking points and words. And they're doing a bangup sales job because a lot of people are buying it. I suppose that's just working the system and I don't see a problem with people using the system to progress their agenda. It's how the world works. Do your best sales pitch and see who buys it. If enough buy it, we all get stuck with it. My message is "caveat emptor". I'm beginning to think that it's too late, though.
The fact that some or even many need no encouragement isn't proof that recruitment isn't an important part of homosexual culture. But here's a homosexual who broke the code of silence on the subject.
Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids? / Queerty
Sadly, that ship has sailed long ago. Gov't is in the control business as well as in the selling favors business. Simple laws that treat all equally minimize that control while complex laws allow for carefully targeted exceptions to be added, changed or deleted for the right amount of campaign cash.
Well you know one of the definitions of homophobia: the fear you'll be treated as you/other dudes treat women
Not saying it was ok for them to do that, but come on, not every homosexual will be into you or treat you that way.
The reverse is equally true; just because something is "natural" does not mean that it should be culturally accepted by a society. Personally, I favor allowing SSM as a state sanctioned relationship option (as well as some others), but I have no reason to get more than my one vote on the matter. Once we start down the path to what compelling state interest supports any "standard" then we are in for some serious time wasting.
What that article describes and you've been saying are not the same. Teaching kids that homosexuality *exists*, as the TN bill sought to outlaw, is NOT identical to "recruiting" kids to *be* homosexual, as you've been alleging.
A huge reason to educate on this is it's likely one or more of their classmates are gay, so the goal is to reduce bullying and a sense of alienation for those who are gay.
Whereas it seems many on the right wing are kosher with bullying and treating the gay kids like freaks. What kind of message does it send to make a subject taboo? Oh right, that it's so perverse even to discuss the topic will put everyone at risk. But what are we doing right now? Earnest discussion is a good thing!
Look, I completely understand why homosexuals would try to "recruit". I can't tell you how many I've heard tell me that they really want a "straight man", not another queer. It's strange as hell because if they could have them, they wouldn't really be straight men after all. But that's another story. The fact is that the GLBT community does widespread "recruiting". Straight people just call it "seduction", but people do it and normalizing homosexuality would help with that recruitment. The fact that so few homosexuals actually get married should be a clue that marriage itself isn't really the goal here. It is what it is and I don't really care what you or anyone else does sexually. That's your business. I'm just calling it like I see it and I don't see the point in creating the institution of homosexual marriage just for the sake of normalizing homosexuality.
I think there are better ways to reduce bullying than telling kids that there's nothing wrong with exploring homosexuality.
It just comes across as paranoid to me. If you're secure in your sexuality, what is there to fear? Try as some might, they'll never be able to make you suddenly enjoy sucking dick
You want to know another reason few marry? Because it was never until very recently an achievable goal, and because the motive for many heterosexuals to marry - the "american dream", the "square's life" - is seen my many LGBT as not achievable even IF they marry. They're already outside the box, they've already been rejected family who pressure their hetero kids to marry and go on about wanting grandkids. So given all that, why bother?
But that brings us to the 10% who do marry and soundly reject your theory of "recruitment." How do you justify treating their relationship as inferior and unworthy of equal rights?
twisting words...i never for a moment said "exploring." But ok, how would you reduce bullying of homosexual kids, without being able to even bring up the topic?
It's exactly this type of thinking that led to the release of scores of people from mental institutions... and onto the streets and into jails and prisons. "Who are we to say what's normal? They are just different."You are exactly right. To argue that an example of anything that occurs in nature is normal no matter how rare, unusual or bizarre it is means that the word "normal" is just wasting space in a dictionary and is nothing but white noise when used in a sentence.
Or as domestic partnerships would. For the purpose of legal protection and trust that you are arguing, there's no difference.
It's exactly this type of thinking that led to the release of scores of people from mental institutions... and onto the streets and into jails and prisons. "Who are we to say what's normal? They are just different."
Look, I completely understand why homosexuals would try to "recruit". I can't tell you how many I've heard tell me that they really want a "straight man", not another queer. It's strange as hell because if they could have them, they wouldn't really be straight men after all. But that's another story. The fact is that the GLBT community does widespread "recruiting". Straight people just call it "seduction", but people do it and normalizing homosexuality would help with that recruitment. The fact that so few homosexuals actually get married should be a clue that marriage itself isn't really the goal here. It is what it is and I don't really care what you or anyone else does sexually. That's your business. I'm just calling it like I see it and I don't see the point in creating the institution of homosexual marriage just for the sake of normalizing homosexuality.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?