Omaha Mall Shooting

Pages

AuthorTopic: Omaha Mall Shooting
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #381
"Absolute morality" doesn't apply when we consider what role the government should play here. It doesn't play this role, or shouldn't. Consider that there's a population of tens of millions of mouth-breathing God-fearing Southern Baptists out there that say your spin on "absolute morality" is incorrect, Stillness (of course, they hate the gays, I mean the sin, just as much as you, though this is beside the point). What does that say about your absolute morality, and more to the point, do you really trust them to enact their spin on morality into law that affects your freedoms? The secular nature of the government starts to look pretty good when it is protecting your rights.

It is not the government's role to regulate or enforce morality, precisely because no one has absolute authority when it comes to morals. This goes to the heart of what the Establishment Clause is all about.

EDIT:
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

But, if the government sees some particular type of action as generally good, why can’t it encourage that while not discouraging or making illegal other types of actions?
To qualify federal recognition of marriage based on what kind of sex is likely to occur or whether a child could come of that union is completely absurd, because hetero couples not meeting that definition can still enjoy the benefits. The notion that I could get my tubes tied now and only have anal intercourse with my wife from here on out yet enjoy the benefits of marriage, whereas a gay couple could not enjoy those same benefits, is patently unjust. Any other basis the government may have for promoting marriage/civil unions would apply equally to same-sex couples.

As for why the federal government gives special recognition to marriages, I explained this back on page two. As far as the federal government and marriage go, most of the benefits provided stem from the tax code:

quote:
Originally written by Drew:

Procreation wasn't the motivation for the tax incentives. It had a lot more to do with recognizing the particular cultural norms of the time. Traditionally, there was only one income earner per family. Because that income earner had more people to support than an unmarried individual, the government decided to create the "married" and "head of household" tax rates to ease the burden, with respectively adjusted tax rates, standard deductions, and personal exemptions. Times however, have changed - it seems there's hardly a family anymore that doesn't have two income earners, and therefore, two taxpayers. As such, the marriage categorization became a "penalty," since the standard deductions of two individuals together filing seperately were greater than the single marital deduction they would receive filing jointly. The tax code has since been adjusted to at least restore balance, but times and understandings have changed.
I just don't think you see homosexuals as a class worthy of civil liberty protection, the same as a bigoty Southerner is unable to see the need for black people to have "special" civil rights.

[ Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:57: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #382
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Contrary to the opinion of some, marriage is strongly related to child rearing and sex.
Child-rearing is completely different from child-producing. Gay people can raise kids. (They can also produce children, though not with each other — but that has led to various solutions by various same-sex couples.) Gay people can also have sex (and same-sex intercourse is not inherently unhealthy, and any claims to the contrary are baseless and absurd). These do not make same-sex relationships different in any important way from opposite-sex ones.
quote:
But, if the government sees some particular type of action as generally good, why can’t it encourage that while not discouraging or making illegal other types of actions?
It can, I suppose, but if it makes arbitrary distinctions between things that do not differ in any important respects, then it is acting on the basis of prejudice. This is why I keep stressing that same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage do not differ in any respects related to marriage, any more than same-race or opposite-race marriages do.

To take the example of your empowerment zone, presumably the government has some legitimate reason from wanting to see growth in some particular area. If the government arbitrarily selected certain zones for monetary benefits and excluded others for no legitimate reason, that would be called "pork" and would be unjust. It happens, but it is inappropriate. In the same way, making this arbitrary distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage is inappropriate.

[ Tuesday, December 18, 2007 12:28: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #383
Drew, I don’t hate homosexuals, or you, or anybody that doesn’t recognize my God.

And I’m not buying the cultural norms protection argument. All your argument did was express [/]how[/I] the government encouraged marriage, not why. A lot of families in our culture get together during the Christmas-New Year holidays, but I don’t see the government subsidizing airline tickets or fuel for road trips. There are a lot of cultural norms, why subsidize marriage unless it’s viewed as beneficial?

And by the way, you keep talking about what people can do and still take advantage of the benefits. Governments can’t afford to micromanage, though. They have to be big-picture oriented. You’re always going to have some people who don’t do exactly as you hope. Let’s say that a stabilizing, civilizing, and sustaining influence is the basis for recognition of marriage. Of course you’ll have people marry that will never contribute to this effect, but if the majority do, it’s worth it. And then, maybe some of those that do not now, will. Maybe your wife keep getting sick and hurt and insist that you all do it the normal way and some of your little soldiers will get through the tube tying (it happens) and you all get pregnant.

Blacks have “special” civil rights?

-----

Kel, I meant child-rearing including the reproduction. If you argue that homosexual marriage doesn’t differ in the benefits to society, again, I don’t have an argument with you (I know for a fact you’re absolutely wrong, but that a subject for another day). But we’ll have to agree to disagree that a marriage with a man and a woman is the same as other unions since sex, reproduction, and child-rearing are viewed, by the government, as connected marriage and these are substantially different with heterosexual pairs. Neither of us seems to be budging. We’ll probably have to let it go.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #384
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

But we’ll have to agree to disagree that a marriage with a man and a woman is the same as other unions since sex, reproduction, and child-rearing are viewed, by the government, as connected marriage and these are substantially different with heterosexual pairs. Neither of us seems to be budging. We’ll probably have to let it go.
It's the "substantially different" business that we're having a problem with. I say that same-sex intercourse is essentially equivalent to opposite-sex intercourse (which is why the Lawrence v. Texas ruling is the logical descendant of the Griswold v. Connecticut ruling). I say that adoption (or any of the various other means for gays to have children) is not only analogous but in fact sometimes identical to what opposite-sex couples do. And I also say that same-sex parents can raise children in essentially the same way as opposite-sex parents do.

Even if we assume that these things are important for marriage, same-sex couples can do things that are equivalent or identical to what opposite-sex couples do. I think that the only reason to believe otherwise is prejudice. And that's why I think that opposition to same-sex marriage is rooted in prejudice.

[ Tuesday, December 18, 2007 13:25: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #385
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

All your argument did was express [/]how[/I] the government encouraged marriage, not why. A lot of families in our culture get together during the Christmas-New Year holidays, but I don’t see the government subsidizing airline tickets or fuel for road trips. There are a lot of cultural norms, why subsidize marriage unless it’s viewed as beneficial?

And by the way, you keep talking about what people can do and still take advantage of the benefits. Governments can’t afford to micromanage, though. They have to be big-picture oriented. You’re always going to have some people who don’t do exactly as you hope. Let’s say that a stabilizing, civilizing, and sustaining influence is the basis for recognition of marriage. Of course you’ll have people marry that will never contribute to this effect, but if the majority do, it’s worth it. And then, maybe some of those that do not now, will. Maybe your wife keep getting sick and hurt and insist that you all do it the normal way and some of your little soldiers will get through the tube tying (it happens) and you all get pregnant.

Sheesh.
Really? This is how you want to discuss this? Drew clearly stated that government recognizes marriage in a legal sense because of the tax implications of a one income household of more than one spender. It was deemed inappropriate to tax a 4 person house at the same rate as a 1 person house. So to reiterate, government recognizes marriage (in a legal sense) because the tax code used to impoverish middle and low income families with only one income. The tax code has been changed, but the recognition of marriage hasn't changed. Why? For the same reason it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk in Boston or to allow your cow to graze on Boston Common on Sunday. Although the good people of Massachusetts may have recognized the stupidity of keeping those laws on the books and had them stricken.
And that is the problem. Who in hell is going to stand up in the US Congress and demand that the government cease recognizing marriage as an institution? Oh yeah, it's the guy that has terminal cancer. The lady who wants to commit political suicide.

And as far as if the majority do, it's worth it goes, please exit stage right. This country was founded to protect the rights of all, not the majority. It was founded because of that attitude, and the idea that a moral authority figure was wrong. I don't know how or when your view got so skewed, but it does show through. You may not like the "weak parallels" that I draw for you, but you have to own the word "weak." Most of the rest here just see parallels, and don't ascribe any morality to them.

And please don't try to get this topic locked. This is a family forum, and comparisons like you suggested be made do not have any place here. :(

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted"
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Shaper
Member # 32
Profile #386
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

And as far as if the majority do, it's worth it goes, please exit stage right. This country was founded to protect the rights of all, not the majority.
I feel like the election in 2000 deserves some reference here... :P

--------------------
Lt. Sullust
Quaere verum
Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #387
Stillness may be arguing that not recognizing gay marriage is not discrimination, but I'll still assert that underlying that stance is nothing other than religious belief. It's not discrimination in the same way that the Bible thumper will not see discrimination in "God" having the "evil" people of Canaan slaughtered by the Israelites, so they could take the land from them. Homosexuals are evil and immoral, and don't deserve the same normal rights of non-homosexuals. Is this not the simple bottom denominator of one whole side of this argument? Stillness may grasp at naturalistic straws why homosexuality is unnatural and undesirable, or anything else "secular," but none of it pans out. I still see this as left only with, "Because God said so," as an argument how one can take this stance. Stillness doesn't see a moral difference between gender or races at this point, but there was a time when the lovely "Godly" people of America saw blacks as a race cursed by God and inherently, naturally, not deserving the same rights as whites. They used the Bible to explain where these poor, cursed souls came from. The same lingering attitude is held toward homosexuals, because of many centuries of this assumption and attitude...and for no other practical reason.

Seriously, so much of the rest of the stance is all distraction from this obvious basis. Thus again, I will make the comment that arguing with the religious convict is virtually never at all useful or satisfying. There is an absolute truth handed to them from the outside in, so there is no room for changing one's mind. Someone else's mind has given them theirs.

There are two ways to live your life: live someone else's truth for you, or find your own. I believe in a God Who makes truth readily knowable through feeling, thought, and experience, if we are listening. And if we believe it. No one else needs to tell you your truth.

-S-

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator N:R Items The Lonely Celt A5 Items A5 Map
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
BANNED
Member # 10021
Profile #388
I don't understand why you guys care about what other people think. So what someones gay, so what you don't like it, None of you people matter at all compared to anything else in the universe (or the world for more local matters) you are specks of worthless dust and so am I so can't we either go away and be alone or live in harmony?...........That was a mouthful.

--------------------
When I close my eyes at night I see David Bowie.
Posts: 157 | Registered: Saturday, August 25 2007 07:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #389
If you believe you are worthless, you will behave accordingly. I'll venture to say that we are each worth far more than we comprehend, and thankfully, regardless of whether or not we believe it at the moment.

-S-

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator N:R Items The Lonely Celt A5 Items A5 Map
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
BANNED
Member # 10021
Profile #390
Ah but you think tha ti care that you arsaying I am worthless and yet you couldn't be more wrong. It's how your natural instint was to lash out pointlessly.

--------------------
When I close my eyes at night I see David Bowie.
Posts: 157 | Registered: Saturday, August 25 2007 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 4784
Profile Homepage #391
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

I can imagine the whole thing would be very troubling to people who are fairly evangelical yet nevertheless intelligent. Because if homosexuality is something more that just the way someone decides to act (i.e., a decision derrived from the individual - not from God - which could therefore qualify as a sin) but is actually something inherent to a person, then that would mean that God made someone that way - and yet there're all those rigid prohibitions in the Bible allegedly *against* homosexuality. Oh noes! Just what is this God trying to do? Or maybe there really is a fly in the ointment, and now they need to deal with all these unsettling questions.

I think homosexuality is an inherent characteristic in a person; perhaps repressible, like other personality traits, but ever present. If that's the case, then it wouldn't be that individual's choice to "sin." For people who believe in God, this leaves two alternatives: either God is cruel for creating a person with inherent sin, or people are misinterpreting God (the likely answer). Of course, the easiest thing to do is to avoid this uncomfortable consideration and just assume that since one isn't gay and can't understand what it means to be gay, then those people who are just aren't controlling themselves enough ("I mean, it's so disgusting, right?"), and so are in fact choosing to sin. That, or God is "testing" their souls or some crap. Best not to question, though! That upsets the apple cart of comfort.

Sorry for jumping in with a reply to a page old post, and sorry for not reading 80% of the posts before or after it was made, and sorry in general for opening my big mouth when I'm way too tired, but Diki just had to point out this post on KoL as a shining star.

God created man perfect. Man was tempted and fell into sin. All mankind is now born with inherent sin. It shows itself in many different ways, greed, idolatry, lust, etc. No one can overcome their inherent sin in their own power, whatever it may be. It's why God did the whole, 'sending His son to die on the cross' thing. For redemption. No one is beyond redemption. The only choice that matters is 'Do I accept the gift of redemption?'

Yes, that was completely religous. Not a scrap of secular ground to stand on. If I seem to ignore a response that wants a counter response, just have Diki or Salmon poke me.

*glares at Diki*
See what you made me do. :P

--------------------
Forever Always on Past the End

TrueSite for Blades - Blades Walkthroughs
Pixle Profusion - BoE Graphics Archive
Posts: 563 | Registered: Tuesday, July 27 2004 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #392
Stillness, I tried to find more info on the testing and video watching that you described. While doing so I happened upon this quote.
quote:
In 2004, the American Anthropological Association released this statement:
The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

I know that in Oregon, the only requirement to receive a marriage license is that both parties be present and have identification. Most states have similar requirements, as you can see from
this page. Only 5 require a blood test. I'm surprised any do, but I guess it takes time for idiotic laws to change. Heck, interracial marriage was illegal in some states until 1967. Laws can be dumb. I saw some states have how-to videos as part of the marriage requirement. One comment there. If you need to watch a video in order to understand relationships, you shouldn't be getting married.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted"
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #393
Your point makes no sense. We are finely honed evolutionary machines based on thinking we are, each and every one of us, the center of the universe. Also, Synergy didn't call you worthless. You did, and he disparaged you comment.

For Stillness:
quote:
Originally from PubMed:
Infections associated with homosexual activity

Sexually transmitted diseases are common in all gay people with a high number of different partners.Their management is the same as in the heterosexual communityThe transmission of infection through vaginal and anal intercourse is no different, apart from HIVHepatitis A and Giardia are spread through oro-anal contactThe greater incidence of hepatitis B is an indicator of a large number of partners, not of specific sexual practices
So it looks like many sexual partners tends to be bad, but that's true of all sexual practices. Guess what? Marriage tends to include a reduction in the number of partners to two.
To Gizmo: Frankly, that's one of the reasons I can't quite stomach Christianity. My mythical ancestors from hundreds of generations ago do not affect the state of my soul. I was not created with terrible urges that can never be reconciled to righteousness. God isn't playing some sadistic shell game with humanity. When we sin, it's our fault, and we atone, but it's a personal error, not some systematic flaw in humanity.

—Alorael, who is still looking for studies of the effects of same-sex relationships on child-rearing, family stability, and the like. So far he's found nothing at all, positive or negative, from reputable sources.

[ Tuesday, December 18, 2007 21:56: Message edited by: Narrow Ways ]
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #394
quote:
Originally written by Jewelz:

just have Diki or Salmon poke me.
:eek: ... :P

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted"
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #395
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

Most states have similar requirements, as you can see from
this page.

I got married in 2000, and unless the requirements in Michigan changed since then, that information doesn’t give you the whole picture. The department of Health (I think) made suggestions to us and had us watch a video.

And I don’t know what you mean by trying to get the thread blocked, but I don’t think my language constitutes as pornographic or obscene. You’re being ridiculous.

quote:
It was deemed inappropriate to tax a 4 person house at the same rate as a 1 person house. So to reiterate, government recognizes marriage (in a legal sense) because the tax code used to impoverish middle and low income families with only one income.
Let’s explore this. You may have a point, but I’m not getting it yet. Why can’t the other three people get a job? Children can do productive labor at a fairly young age. Women can do work that doesn’t require heavy lifting like a man can. So why make this allowance? I think a person can claim dependants until they reach age 25. Why?

And you’re misapplying my comments about the majority. I’m talking about special grants and the like, not withholding civil rights. Recognition of marriage infringes on no ones civil rights. Reread, because you’re missing the point.

-----

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

It's the "substantially different" business that we're having a problem with. I say that same-sex intercourse is essentially equivalent to opposite-sex intercourse (which is why the Lawrence v. Texas ruling is the logical descendant of the Griswold v. Connecticut ruling).
It doesn’t even have to be substantially different. If you’re one step outside the development zone the government is fair in not giving you the grant.

You all will have to explain how you think Lawrence v. Texas relates to this issue, because I’m not seeing the connection. It struck the law criminalizing homosexuality, right? We aren’t talking about action against, but inaction in not recognizing.

-----

Alo, It’s not just the promiscuity more common with homosexuals, but the nature of their activity. “Genetic material” (I’m trying to be nice for the babies or babyish reading) can penetrate the colon wall adversely affecting immunological response; look up the connection between saliva and yeast infection in women; look up rare bowel disease (aka gay bowel disease); look up over expanding and tearing of rectal muscles and colon lining and infectious disease that can result. They have an incidence of infectious disease about ten times higher than the normal population. Why? If the answer is partially promiscuity, then the question is still why?

I really think that this is a little outside of the scope of this discussion, but you all are being fooled or fooling yourselves if you think homosexual sex = heterosexual sex. For non-promiscuous heterosexual couples with good hygiene the transmission of disease is next to nil. This reason is because they use their equipment according to the design (take “design” however you please). Reproduction only happens with male-female pairing. And don’t talk about old people past reproductive age, or couples with infertility problems, or heterosexual couples that have similar intimate practices to those considered the norm in the homosexual community. None of those change the facts. All of us are here because a man and woman got together, not a group of people, or a homosexual pair.

And the promiscuity mention above strongly indicates an adverse psychological component as well. So, they do not equate…not by a long shot.

On the other hand, I truly believe that a homosexual individual, couple, and/or a group could provide a better home for a child than the state or even a dysfunctional nuclear woman-man family. But it is certainly not the ideal. Equating the two types of unions does not make for a logical case. What does seem to be a good case is arguing that homosexual marriage would make for less of the promiscuity more typical among that community. The argument for homosexuals adopting also makes sense.

-----

Starman1985, please stay on the thread. I know you don’t care, but your comments bring a certain balance to Synergy’s rants. I appreciate them, even if I think you’re wrong.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 4248
Profile #396
quote:
Originally written by Alorael:


To Gizmo: Frankly, that's one of the reasons I can't quite stomach Christianity. My mythical ancestors from hundreds of generations ago do not affect the state of my soul. I was not created with terrible urges that can never be reconciled to righteousness. God isn't playing some sadistic shell game with humanity. When we sin, it's our fault, and we atone, but it's a personal error, not some systematic flaw in humanity.

Technically, in this case meaning "in the context of evolutionary biology and chaos theory", what your ancestors were and what they did are still reflected in your being. Your basic desires and mental workings are quite similar to those humans had tens of thousands of years ago. While there might not be any supernatural sadomasochist involved, you might want to reconsider that "flaw in humanity" thing.

As an another kind of side note, I'm puzzled about what actually keeps this conversation running. You've been repeating the same arguments over and over again for pages now, and I have to wonder why you aren't bored to death already. It's like watching two steel robots trying to destroy each other with feather-filled pillows.

Your daily dose of impoliteness was served to you by some idiot from Finland <3

--------------------
Life is a neverending carneval where everyone has multiple costumes. I just hope mine are pleasing to the eye.
Posts: 617 | Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #397
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

It doesn’t even have to be substantially different. If you’re one step outside the development zone the government is fair in not giving you the grant.
That a difference in substance. Which neighborhood in the development zone you're in is not. What kind of intercourse is a difference in neighborhood; you're not outside the zone.

quote:
You all will have to explain how you think Lawrence v. Texas relates to this issue, because I’m not seeing the connection.
It put same-sex intercourse on the same legal level as opposite-sex intercourse.

I was going to refute your health claims, but it doesn't really matter. They're on the same legal footing. That's what counts.
quote:
But it [a same-sex couple parenting] is certainly not the ideal.
This statement is based solely on prejudice.

[ Wednesday, December 19, 2007 10:04: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #398
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Alo, It’s not just the promiscuity more common with homosexuals, but the nature of their activity. “Genetic material” (I’m trying to be nice for the babies or babyish reading) can penetrate the colon wall adversely affecting immunological response; look up the connection between saliva and yeast infection in women; look up rare bowel disease (aka gay bowel disease); look up over expanding and tearing of rectal muscles and colon lining and infectious disease that can result. They have an incidence of infectious disease about ten times higher than the normal population. Why? If the answer is partially promiscuity, then the question is still why?

I looked up gay bowel syndrome. Now please look up GRIDS (Gay-related immunodeficiency syndrome). There is no documentation of gay bowel syndrome since the 70's and the disease has been rejected. Damage is a possibility in all sexual intercourse; most gay men don't go around trying to cause muscle tearing. Saliva is not a particularly good way of transmitting yeast infections unless the transmitter has oral candidiasis, and oral sex is certainly less dangerous than any kind of genital penetration. You really don't understand the biology well enough to be pushing your agenda on this front.

Higher promiscuity among gay men is a cultural phenomenon, and a large part of that culture is a remnant of an era when homosexuality had to be clandestine and partnership couldn't be legally recognized, and it also reflects ties between new acceptability of homosexuality and aftereffects of sexual liberation, free love, and other happy 60's fun. Oh, wait... it still can't. Anyway, making it harder to have a permanent gay partnership exacerbates the problem.

quote:
[b]I really think that this is a little outside of the scope of this discussion, but you all are being fooled or fooling yourselves if you think homosexual sex = heterosexual sex. For non-promiscuous heterosexual couples with good hygiene the transmission of disease is next to nil. This reason is because they use their equipment according to the design (take “design” however you please).
[/b]

Among healthy couples of any sexual orientation the transmission rate is next to nil. Safe sex practices reduce the risk in any pair dramatically. This has nothing to do with the "equipment" and everything to do with how and with whom sex is performed, and your unsubstantiated biases don't change that.

quote:
Reproduction only happens with male-female pairing. And don’t talk about old people past reproductive age, or couples with infertility problems, or heterosexual couples that have similar intimate practices to those considered the norm in the homosexual community. None of those change the facts. All of us are here because a man and woman got together, not a group of people, or a homosexual pair
Not actually true. Reproduction requires male and female gametes and a woman to carry the pregnancy to term, not a man and a woman having sex per se. IVF, surrogate mothers, and other modern fertility aids have their place.

quote:
And the promiscuity mention above strongly indicates an adverse psychological component as well. So, they do not equate…not by a long shot.
Sure does. And as I said, the adverse psychological component is an artifact of the way homosexuality has been stigmatized and criminalized for centuries.

quote:
On the other hand, I truly believe that a homosexual individual, couple, and/or a group could provide a better home for a child than the state or even a dysfunctional nuclear woman-man family. But it is certainly not the ideal. Equating the two types of unions does not make for a logical case. What does seem to be a good case is arguing that homosexual marriage would make for less of the promiscuity more typical among that community. The argument for homosexuals adopting also makes sense.
The merits or lack thereof of same-sex families still have not been documented, so I'll assert that it is the ideal. The case is as logical as yours.

—Alorael, who finally will point out that disease is still largely irrelevant, as you yourself have noted. The government does not regulate consensual risky behavior (and lesbians are considerably lower risk than anyone else). Homosexual intercourse happens without marriage just fine, so marriage should, if anything, have a limiting effect. There's no case to be made on this basis.

[ Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:24: Message edited by: Narrow Ways ]
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #399
(Found a better use for an otherwise wasted post.)
quote:
Originally written by Frozen Feet:

Technically, in this case meaning "in the context of evolutionary biology and chaos theory", what your ancestors were and what they did are still reflected in your being. Your basic desires and mental workings are quite similar to those humans had tens of thousands of years ago.
This is true, but if my grandmother happened to be a blackjack dealer in a casino (she was), that doesn't mean that I have "blackjack dealer" genes in me necessarily. A thing that one ancestor did way back in the distant past probably won't have any genetic impact on me today. It's only if gazillions of ancestors did it that it matters.

But hey, this is another way in which the Bible can be found to provide interesting metaphorical truth. Adam and Eve are a metaphor for millions of years of evolution, just as the creation story is a metaphor for the Big Bang. I like it.

[ Wednesday, December 19, 2007 12:23: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #400
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

A thing that one ancestor did way back in the distant past probably won't have any genetic impact on me today. It's only if gazillions of ancestors did it that it matters.
Do watch the way you phrase that: you're confusing cause and effect. I'm sure we both know what you meant to say, but I don't think any of us here are Lamarckians.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #401
Given that organized religion, and Christianity in particular, has been so breathtakingly wrong about the nature of creation so many times, how can anyone say with certainty that it's actually right on the homosexuality matter? Given past stances on matters of race, whether the Earth revolves around the sun, the crusades, etc., how does it have any credibility on this issue?

EDIT: Oh, and Stillness, it seems to me that you're pretty much grasping at straws at this point. The paradigm when the federal income tax was created was that there was typically a single breadwinner per family unit. The federal income tax wasn't created until after the Gilded Age was over, so your bizarre points on children working and contributing to the family is moot.

This is seriously one of those moments where you're pointing out the motes in our eyes in spite of the log in your own. You seem intent on needling our assertions with minutiae and diversion, all the while ignoring the substantive points of our arguments. It's pretty tiresome.

[ Wednesday, December 19, 2007 16:47: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #402
It may be tiresome, but it certainly does remove any doubt on the basis of Stillness' involvement in this discussion.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted"
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 4784
Profile Homepage #403
quote:
Originally written by Aloreal:

To Gizmo: Frankly, that's one of the reasons I can't quite stomach Christianity. My mythical ancestors from hundreds of generations ago do not affect the state of my soul. I was not created with terrible urges that can never be reconciled to righteousness. God isn't playing some sadistic shell game with humanity. When we sin, it's our fault, and we atone, but it's a personal error, not some systematic flaw in humanity.
And yet, all have sinned. That seems like a systematic flaw to me. Sin is our own fault, but none can escape it. As I said earlier, we can be reconciled, anyone can be reconciled to righteousness but not of any atonement by our hand. There is only one atonement that is acceptable and only one that is needed. It has already been made. One need only accept it.

[ Wednesday, December 19, 2007 18:43: Message edited by: Jewelz ]

--------------------
Forever Always on Past the End

TrueSite for Blades - Blades Walkthroughs
Pixle Profusion - BoE Graphics Archive
Posts: 563 | Registered: Tuesday, July 27 2004 07:00
Shaper
Member # 247
Profile Homepage #404
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Let’s explore this. You may have a point, but I’m not getting it yet. Why can’t the other three people get a job? Children can do productive labor at a fairly young age. Women can do work that doesn’t require heavy lifting like a man can. So why make this allowance? I think a person can claim dependants until they reach age 25. Why?
LOL. Women can do work that doesn't require heavy lifting and the children should go work down in thar coal mine. Man, you have archaic opinions. lol.

--------------------
The Knight Between Posts.
Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #405
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

A thing that one ancestor did way back in the distant past probably won't have any genetic impact on me today. It's only if gazillions of ancestors did it that it matters.
Do watch the way you phrase that: you're confusing cause and effect. I'm sure we both know what you meant to say, but I don't think any of us here are Lamarckians.

Yeah, I meant that loosely. Would you approve more if I said, "If something happened to gazillions of ancestors..."?

Although, come to think of it, I don't think I'm entirely wrong. If a species has some behavior, it can evolve traits because of that behavior, right? (The behavior can also become modified due to the environment, but in principle it seems as though it could happen as I said, too.)
quote:
Originally written by VCH:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Let’s explore this. You may have a point, but I’m not getting it yet. Why can’t the other three people get a job? Children can do productive labor at a fairly young age. Women can do work that doesn’t require heavy lifting like a man can. So why make this allowance? I think a person can claim dependants until they reach age 25. Why?
LOL. Women can do work that doesn't require heavy lifting and the children should go work down in thar coal mine. Man, you have archaic opinions. lol.

Child labor for the win.
quote:
Originally written by Jewelz:

As I said earlier, we can be reconciled, anyone can be reconciled to righteousness but not of any atonement by our hand.
It seems like the Christian God isn't really into personal responsibility. I'd much rather that I deal with what I've done than cast it off on someone else.

And I'm a little weirded out by the notion that God thinks that I've done stuff that's so bad that I deserve to be chained to a lake of molten sulfur and burned for all eternity. I mean, have I really done anything that bad?

[ Wednesday, December 19, 2007 19:39: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00

Pages