"Marriage is for a man and a woman," HE believes

[TheParser]

"He" is the president of Grindr, the app for gay men in the world to meet other gay men.

He immediately explained that he supports gay rights, including gay marriage.

But he said that as a straight man with a wife and two children, his personal opinion clashes with his support for gay rights.

He respects everyone's view on this subject.

He has since deleted his controversial remarks.


*****

You can read the whole article on the British newspaper Guardian's website. It was posted on November 29, 2018. Just google the newspaper's title and the words "Grindr president." (I learned about this matter when checking the Drudge Report this morning.)

 

[Helix]

the rational world has already accepted that some people are born gay or transgender. they have no more choice about it than the rest of us had a choice to be born heterosexuals.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

the rational world has already accepted that some people are born gay or transgender. they have no more choice about it than the rest of us had a choice to be born heterosexuals.

Agreed. Why some people get into a snit over this is amusing but also sad.

 

[StillBallin75]

What rationale is there that prevents a gay union from being just as legitimate a marriage as a straight one? His opinion is baseless.

Forgive me if I don't buy the logic of "I support gay marriage but I don't personally believe marriage is for gays." The ****?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

What rationale is there that prevents a gay union from being just as legitimate a marriage as a straight one? His opinion is baseless.

Forgive me if I don't buy the logic of "I support gay marriage but I don't personally believe marriage is for gays." The ****?

I think he's trying to eat his cake and have it too.

 

[Rickeroo]

the rational world has already accepted that some people are born gay or transgender. they have no more choice about it than the rest of us had a choice to be born heterosexuals.

I agree, but note that being born with a tendency doesn't automatically grant acceptance. The behavior itself must be accepted. I have no choice on whether I am turned on by a 3 year old.

 

[Helix]

I agree, but note that being born with a tendency doesn't automatically grant acceptance. The behavior itself must be accepted. I have no choice on whether I am turned on by a 3 year old.

save strawman arguments for someone who cares about your opinion.

 

[Rickeroo]

save strawman arguments for someone who cares about your opinion.

It is true that I used a rather harsh example, however this is to show that "born with it" isn't a justification, even for heterosexual behavior. I'm actually on your side here - I'm simply pointing out the flaw in your logic.

It's ok to say that homosexual behavior is ok, we don't need "born with it" as further justification. Logically, this hampers the argument for gay marriage.

My thoughts on marriage (legal marriage that grants a set of contractual benefits) are far more liberal than most here.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I agree, but note that being born with a tendency doesn't automatically grant acceptance. The behavior itself must be accepted. I have no choice on whether I am turned on by a 3 year old.

True, but the huge difference here is the actions between consenting adults and those of a predator adult preying on children and/or animals.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It is true that I used a rather harsh example, however this is to show that "born with it" isn't a justification, even for heterosexual behavior. I'm actually on your side here - I'm simply pointing out the flaw in your logic.

It's ok to say that homosexual behavior is ok, we don't need "born with it" as further justification. Logically, this hampers the argument for gay marriage.

My thoughts on marriage (legal marriage that grants a set of contractual benefits) are far more liberal than most here.

Why do you think that hampers gay marriage? Do you believe the Constitution gives us our rights or that we're born with rights and the Constitution limits government?

 

[Rickeroo]

True, but the huge difference here is the actions between consenting adults and those of a predator adult preying on children and/or animals.

Correct - hence the social acceptance aspect, not the 'born with it' aspect.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Correct - hence the social acceptance aspect, not the 'born with it' aspect.

There are two parts to this topic: human psychology and the law. Gay marriage is a legal thing and, therefore, a 14th Amendment issue. The human psychology aspect comes into play with those who scream gays are perverts and "unnatural".

 

[Rickeroo]

Why do you think that hampers gay marriage? Do you believe the Constitution gives us our rights or that we're born with rights and the Constitution limits government?

It hampers the argument for it, easily dismissed with a counterexample of how people who have no control over their urges does not then make those urges socially acceptable.

The Constitution limits government, of course.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It hampers the argument for it, easily dismissed with a counterexample of how people who have no control over their urges does not then make those urges socially acceptable.

The Constitution limits government, of course.

So you don't think being born straight and having "urges" for the opposite sex negates the law on marriage? WTF?

BTW, it wasn't that long ago that sodomy laws including Male-Female oral sex. Ergo, not "socially acceptable" even though many couples found pleasure with it.

 

[Rickeroo]

So you don't think being born straight and having "urges" for the opposite sex negates the law on marriage? WTF?

BTW, it wasn't that long ago that sodomy laws including Male-Female oral sex. Ergo, not "socially acceptable" even though many couples found pleasure with it.

I think you may be reading too much into my post. I merely state that if one uses the justification that behavior A is ok because the person has the innate urge for it, then behaviors B and C, if innate and without choice, must also be ok.

If not, then it must be that some innate urges are ok, and others not. Merely because they are innate does not make them ok.

 

[RamFel]

the rational world has already accepted that some people are born gay or transgender. they have no more choice about it than the rest of us had a choice to be born heterosexuals.

It's a wrong view of the world and it doesn't matter what people think. It stinks.

 

[Helix]

It is true that I used a rather harsh example, however this is to show that "born with it" isn't a justification, even for heterosexual behavior. I'm actually on your side here - I'm simply pointing out the flaw in your logic.

It's ok to say that homosexual behavior is ok, we don't need "born with it" as further justification. Logically, this hampers the argument for gay marriage.

My thoughts on marriage (legal marriage that grants a set of contractual benefits) are far more liberal than most here.

some people are born something other than heterosexual. it isn't a behavior.

 

[Helix]

It's a wrong view of the world and it doesn't matter what people think. It stinks.

i disagree with this statement because it is not correct.

 

[RamFel]

So you don't think being born straight and having "urges" for the opposite sex negates the law on marriage? WTF?

BTW, it wasn't that long ago that sodomy laws including Male-Female oral sex. Ergo, not "socially acceptable" even though many couples found pleasure with it.

You're wrong. Of coiurse, all a person has to do is hide what he does. Not show the world what he likes. It doesn't matter what a person likes. If it's wrong, then it's wrong.

 

[RamFel]

i disagree with this statement because it is not correct.

And I disagree with this statement because it is the most correct statement you can make.

 

[Helix]

And I disagree with this statement because it is the most correct statement you can make.

we'll agree to disagree, then.

 

[Rickeroo]

some people are born something other than heterosexual. it isn't a behavior.

I agree with you, however hetero/homo/pedo only become significant when those innate traits are manifested and expressed through behavior.

Take 3 men. One is hetero, one is gay, one is a pedo. All 3 have innate urges that they can't control and have no choice over. However, none of them behave in any way to express their urges. Society would never be able to tell the difference between the 3 men.

Only when they express their urges through behavior do we then determine (wrongly) whether or not the choice of that urge makes the urge more or less acceptable.

 

[maquiscat]

What rationale is there that prevents a gay union from being just as legitimate a marriage as a straight one? His opinion is baseless.

Forgive me if I don't buy the logic of "I support gay marriage but I don't personally believe marriage is for gays." The ****?

It's the difference between legal marriage and social or religious marriage. You can support the legal institution while still believing that gays can't be married under the social or religious institution.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

i disagree with this statement because it is not correct.

It is an opinion and therefore it is also not incorrect. I don't agree with it, bit it is still opinion nonetheless.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

I agree with you, however hetero/homo/pedo only become significant when those innate traits are manifested and expressed through behavior.

Take 3 men. One is hetero, one is gay, one is a pedo. All 3 have innate urges that they can't control and have no choice over. However, none of them behave in any way to express their urges. Society would never be able to tell the difference between the 3 men.

Only when they express their urges through behavior do we then determine (wrongly) whether or not the choice of that urge makes the urge more or less acceptable.

One problem with this is that the urge might not be the driving force of the behavior. A hetero man might engage in homosexual behavior if the reward is satisfactory to him. Likewise a homosexual man might also engage in heterosexual behavior for a sufficient to payoff. This also applies to women of course. A pedo can engage in either behavior with an adult, without displaying the pedo urges within them. Likewise, even if they have no sexual urges towards children, an adult seeking to harm a child or an adult through the child might engage in a sexual a t with the child. An urge and a behavior might hold a common correlation, but they are not dependant upon each other .

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk