I think I just realized why so many people are against SSM

[chromium]

I would wager more people are willing to experiment with homosexuality than just ten or twenty years ago. I'm not sure that would make them gay, but i guess it would ultimately be dependent on your definition of the term

Well if sexuality is really on a spectrum, and someone is "slightly gay/bisexual," back then they would just suppress or hide that to avoid the stigma. But now people act on and talk about same sex urges. To facilitate that, there are apps now that make experimenting easier than even going to the local bar.

 

[CLAX1911]

And something being acted upon doesn't mean it's innate. Just look at the whole popular aspect of straight chicks making out, which tends to be embraced by highly vapid segments of the population (not that I'm complaining). And given the attention seeking nature of the act, i can't help but to expect it's more a response to social forces than biological

Well heterosexual women doing things to get attention from men is nothing new. The fact that they are engaging in mildly homosexual act to get attention doesn't mean they have become homosexual. So that i isn't really relevant.

 

[chromium]

And something being acted upon doesn't mean it's innate. Just look at the whole popular aspect of straight chicks making out, which tends to be embraced by highly vapid segments of the population (not that I'm complaining). And given the attention seeking nature of the act, i can't help but to expect it's more a response to social forces than biological

Not everyone who experiments is gay...But if they are not gay, they aren't going to repeatedly experiment and settle down with someone of the same sex. I'm pretty sure that's what CLAX is referring to. They're not going to "become gay."

 

[Oftencold]

I had an epiphany.

I think the reason why some people are so damned horrified about the acceptance of SSM is that there will be an automatic assumption that when they say they're married, other people will assume they're married to a member of the same sex.

When you say you're married right now, you're automatically deemed straight.

Once SSM becomes accepted that assumption goes away.

I think those anti-ssm people are probably scared crapless people will assume they're gay.

'm I right or am I right?

:2razz::lol::mrgreen::2wave::lamo

Naw. I reject it because it's perverse, disgusting, alien and twisted.

 

[CLAX1911]

Naw. I reject it because it's perverse, disgusting, alien and twisted.

Reject? So are you attracted to men? You are rejecting a sexual orientation because you find it perverse? So this means you don't participate? I wouldn't think you were homosexual so I don't know what exactly you are rejecting.

Me thinks you protest too much.

If it's disgusting and perverse to you, don't do it.

 

[Oftencold]

Reject? So are you attracted to men? You are rejecting a sexual orientation because you find it perverse? So this means you don't participate? I wouldn't think you were homosexual so I don't know what exactly you are rejecting.

Me thinks you protest too much.

If it's disgusting and perverse to you, don't do it.

I reject it because sexual deviants ought to keep their grubby mitts off of things, such as established institutions that unlike their little peccadilloes add great value to society. Marriage isn't theirs, and they ought to leave it be. Especially since they already have precisely the same rights as everyone else: the right to seek marriage from a member of the opposite (and there are only two,) sex

Homosexuality adds absolutely nothing of worth to Society, and should not be enshrined by corruption our most valued institution. It may be tolerated, but our culture has no need whatsoever to celebrate it.

I hope I have made my perfectly reasonable position clear, as I should feel great disappointment in needing to clarify if for all but the dullest of small children.

 

[ecofarm]

It may be tolerated,

Tolerance ends at institutional discrimination.

 

[Oftencold]

Tolerance ends at institutional discrimination.

So? What are laws if not institutional discrimination against those whose behavior they limit?

What is ownership but institutional discrimination against the covetous?

What is a speed limit but institutional discrimination against the swift?

Are not laws governing the age of majority institutional discrimination against the young?

Citizenship of any kind is obviously institutional discrimination against the alien. And who are we to deny people belonging to the nation they love? Well, civilized people, actually, that's what we are.

We need not corrupt our culture nor institutions over some infantile response to people with atypical habits who crave the approval and acceptance of others, even if they are willing force it from them.

 

[CLAX1911]

I reject it because sexual deviants ought to keep their grubby mitts off of things, such as established institutions that unlike their little peccadilloes add great value to society. Marriage isn't theirs, and they ought to leave it be. Especially since they already have precisely the same rights as everyone else: the right to seek marriage from a member of the opposite (and there are only two,) sex

It's theirs now, it shouldn't harm anything that already exists, if it does I don't think there was ever any value in it to begin with.

Of course there are only two sexes who said there was more?

Homosexuality adds absolutely nothing of worth to Society, and should not be enshrined by corruption our most valued institution. It may be tolerated, but our culture has no need whatsoever to celebrate it.

If a hand full of homos can corrupt an institution i question it's value.

The culture feels the need.

I hope I have made my perfectly reasonable position clear, as I should feel great disappointment in needing to clarify if for all but the dullest of small children.

It's clear.

Who are you trying to convince?

 

[ecofarm]

So? What are laws if not institutional discrimination against those whose behavior they limit?

What is ownership but institutional discrimination against the covetous?

What is a speed limit but institutional discrimination against the swift?

Are not laws governing the age of majority institutional discrimination against the young?

Citizenship of any kind is obviously institutional discrimination against the alien. And who are we to deny people belonging to the nation they love? Well, civilized people, actually, that's what we are.

We need not corrupt our culture nor institutions over some infantile response to people with atypical habits who crave the approval and acceptance of others, even if they are willing force it from them.

There's nothing wrong with discrimination in and of itself, presuming it is justified. Nonetheless, institutional discrimination is NOT tolerance.

 

[Oftencold]

It's theirs now, it shouldn't harm anything that already exists, if it does I don't think there was ever any value in it to begin with.

Of course there are only two sexes who said there was more?

If a hand full of homos can corrupt an institution i question it's value.

The culture feels the need.

It's clear.

Who are you trying to convince?

Let me ask you, how long do you suppose it's going to be before some poor citizen is successfully sued or prosecuted for refusing to acknowledge the fantasy that a man is married to another man? A clerk who refuses to refer to a male as another male's "husband" for instance?

I care not what private fantasists the engage in, so long as they leave normal people alone. They won't of course, because aggression against the society that they find wanting is the goal.

 

[CLAX1911]

So? What are laws if not institutional discrimination against those whose behavior they limit?

What is ownership but institutional discrimination against the covetous?

What is a speed limit but institutional discrimination against the swift?

Are not laws governing the age of majority institutional discrimination against the young?

Citizenship of any kind is obviously institutional discrimination against the alien. And who are we to deny people belonging to the nation they love? Well, civilized people, actually, that's what we are.

We need not corrupt our culture nor institutions over some infantile response to people with atypical habits who crave the approval and acceptance of others, even if they are willing force it from them.

The minority doesn't rule in this nation kiddo.

If marriage was so important why has it been so easily expanded to include homosexual couples with no real consequences? asidefrom a few malcontents.

 

[Oftencold]

The minority doesn't rule in this nation kiddo.

If marriage was so important why has it been so easily expanded to include homosexual couples with no real consequences? asidefrom a few malcontents.

Judicial fiat largely, a form of darkest despotism. Remember Proposition 8 in California?

By the way, to further educate, the Majority doesn't "rule" in the nation either.

 

[CLAX1911]

Let me ask you, how long do you suppose it's going to be before some poor citizen is successfully sued or prosecuted for refusing to acknowledge the fantasy that a man is married to another man? A clerk who refuses to refer to a male as another male's "husband" for instance?

Don't care. Why would it be a clerk's business what a man calls his lover?

I care not what private fantasists the engage in, so long as they leave normal people alone. They won't of course, because aggression against the society that they find wanting is the goal.

So you think they are out to get you? Seems silly.

If you don't care than why object?

 

[CLAX1911]

Judicial fiat largely, a form of darkest despotism. Remember Proposition 8 in California?

Prop 8 was unconstitutional, that is what the judicial branch is for. If you don't like the way a democracy works feel free to leave, I suggest Ethiopia or Iran.

By the way, to further educate, the Majority doesn't "rule" in the nation either.

Never said the majority rules, the people do. Thanks for the needless lesson though.

 

[Oftencold]

Again, to educate: we do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic.

A judge ruled (imagined) that it was unconstitutional. One man set the will of the people at naught. As I said, "despotism" in a black robe. Maybe he was barking mad? His ruling would have been equally valid you know, just as in the Dredd Scott case, for instance. It is past amusing how the same people who claim to be a suppressed minority will so often embrace dictatorial rule when the dictator smiles on their cause.

Oh well.

 

[ecofarm]

Again, to educate: we do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic.

That's not educating anyone. Everyone here passed 5th grade social studies. Further, a republic is a type of democracy. Referring to democracy only as pure and absolute is moronic.

 

[Oftencold]

Don't care. Why would it be a clerk's business what a man calls his lover?

The point, to again simplify for you, is that those wishing so very desperately for approval from normal people, will make it a court's business to insure that said clerk comply with their cultural and linguistic perversion and make a public affirmation that one man is another man's "husband."

So you think they are out to get you? Seems silly.

And yet not so silly before the eyes of 5000 years of civilization that two men or two women can be "married" to each other.

If you don't care than why object?

Because things like laws and tax codes are attempting to compel me to accept a perversion.

Look, I've presented my case, and you've presented yours.


Lets just agree to disagree, and that my position will inevitably be upheld by the more vital culture that supplants our decadent one.

 

[Oftencold]

That's not educating anyone. Every here passed 5th grade social studies. Further, a republic is a type of democracy. Referring to democracy only as pure and absolute is moronic.

A republic is not a form of democracy. Nope. Look 'er up. A republic has democratic aspects.

Look up what the founders had to say about democracies. It's a most fertile area to study on the topic. By and large, they held democracy in contempt, as being inherently self destructive, suicidal even.

 

[ecofarm]

A republic is not a form of democracy. Nope. Look 'er up. A republic has democratic aspects.

Look up what the founders had to say about democracies. It's a most fertile area to study on the topic. By and large, they held democracy in contempt, as being inherently self destructive, suicidal even.

Of course pure and absolute democracy is disaster. Any 5th grader can tell you that.

A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. This understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison, and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828. It was a novel meaning to the term; representative democracy was not an idea mentioned by Machiavelli and did not exist in the classical republics.[44]

Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CLAX1911]

The point, to again simplify for you, is that those wishing so very desperately for approval from normal people, will make it a court's business to insure that said clerk comply with their cultural and linguistic perversion and make a public affirmation that one man is another man's "husband."

Sounds like paranoia to me.

It wouldn't be the clerks business what a man calls his lover, and if he inserts himself into personal business of others he should be prepared to face consequences.

And yet not so silly before the eyes of 5000 years of civilization that two men or two women can be "married" to each other.

all through history the term marriage has applied to different things. So before 5000 years of history it seems to have yet another expansion.

Again who cares?

Because things like laws and tax codes are attempting to compel me to accept a perversion.

don't accept it. Nobody is forcing you to accept anything, you are quite sensitive.

Look, I've presented my case, and you've presented yours.


Lets just agree that your to disagree, and that my position will inevitably be upheld by the more vital culture that supplants our decadent one.

Societies don't typically regress. I don't agree with your delusion.

 

[Oftencold]

Of course pure and absolute democracy is disaster. Any 5th grader can tell you that.



Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most modern Fifth Graders of my acquaintance couldn't spell "democracy," much less define one. Which is of course, just the sort of little civic larva the ruling class craves.

 

[ecofarm]

Most modern Fifth Graders of my acquaintance couldn't spell "democracy," much less define one. Which is of course, just the sort of little civic larva the ruling class craves.

Look, if you think you're impressing anyone with your rant against pure and absolute democracy, you're fooling yourself. Even people in HS would be unimpressed.

 

[CLAX1911]

A republic is not a form of democracy. Nope. Look 'er up. A republic has democratic aspects.

Look up what the founders had to say about democracies. It's a most fertile area to study on the topic. By and large, they held democracy in contempt, as being inherently self destructive, suicidal even.

Yes we know, republics can be communist as we saw in China. But our leaders are chosen through a democratic process in this republic. I am sure you would love a dictator. But we are a free society. You are free to feel how you wish about homosexuals, but not to dictate to them that they must accept your esoteric definition of marriage. Sorry that isn't how it works here.

You can move to Iran.

 

[Oftencold]

. . .

Societies don't typically regress. I don't agree with your delusion.

?!

Babylon.
Athens.
Sparta.
Pharonic Egypt.
The Roman Empire.
The Byzantine Empire.
The Mayans.
The Toltecs.
The Aztecs.
The Mongols.
The Republic of China.
The Soviet Union.
Czarist Russia.
Mongolia.
The Ottoman Empire.
Imperial Japan.
Imperial Russia.
Wiemar and Nazi Germany.
Fascist Italy.
The Spanish Empire.
The British Empire.
The French Empire.
Modern Egypt.
Cambodia.
Detroit.

And by the looks of things, the civilization that supplants us will be Islamic. Would you care to guess where they'll stand on same-sex marriage?