The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Johnnypenso]

Should we debate whether I can marry my 18 year old daughter? How about my exceptionally hot Aunt? How about my wife, her sister, and her best friend all at the same time? How about my 17 year old male first cousin? How about my brother?

Sounds ludicrous, but those are the logical extension, in my eyes, of the gay marriage debate. I don't see how one can reasonably deny legalizing polygamy for example, based on the exact same arguments for legalizing gay marriage. I love her...and her...and him...how can you deny me the right to marry each of them?

Justice Alito and I have something in common:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ex-marriage-advocate-four-in-a-marriage-okay/

Alito: Well, what if there’s no — these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it’s not — it’s not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. And let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated. They’re all lawyers. What would be the ground under — under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? What would be the logic of denying them the same right [marriage]?

I'm an advocate for gay marriage, but I also believe that you cannot deny polygamy is the inevitable, logical next step.

 

[Zuku]

If anyone calls you names that would be breaking the AUP and would be dealt with. Most of us just want to have a reasonable discussion.

Well I'll response to this it's not anyone on here some of you I already know in other threads, but it's not here I was talking about.

When I made that statement it was people outside in RL I mean.

@Johnnypenso

I said I would be out, and I am, but maybe I should have said IMO because things get lost when you can't hear someone's voice, and I feel as though I'm being fed to the wolves that's why I'm completely out of the discussion at least now.

If ya want just PM me some time.

 

[Danoff]

I'm an advocate for gay marriage, but I also believe that you cannot deny polygamy is the inevitable, logical next step.

Why?

Why is there a next logical step? The parameters of the marriage contract can unite two entities without any concern for violating equal protection. A marriage contract between more than 2 entities is a much more complex contract involving hierarchies in case of dispute.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Why?

Why is there a next logical step? The parameters of the marriage contract can unite two entities without any concern for violating equal protection. A marriage contract between more than 2 entities is a much more complex contract involving hierarchies in case of dispute.

I don't believe there is any logical reason to deny polygamy, just like there's no logical reason to deny same-sex marriage. Complexity is not logic, it just means it's more difficult like any contract involving more than 2 parties. It takes a village to raise a child so they say, one might even argue that polygamy is the natural progression of marriage and the most logical way to keep a family unit together, given that adults could leave the relationship and a family unit captained by 2 or more adults can remain intact. I also think there's no logical reason to deny incestual marriage so long as the medical issues surrounding natural conception are ironed out. If I want to marry my brother or sister or cousin and adopt a kid or artificially inseminate, why not?

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm an advocate for gay marriage, but I also believe that you cannot deny polygamy is the inevitable, logical next step.

Assuming that it is: So what?

I also think there's no logical reason to deny incestual marriage so long as the medical issues surrounding natural conception are ironed out. If I want to marry my brother or sister or cousin and adopt a kid or artificially inseminate, why not?

I don't even care without a logical reason. Consenting adults are consenting adults, even if they share similar genetics.

Lets be honest, marriage does nothing to allow the thing that makes incest and polygamy unpalatable to some.

Alito is just setting up his argument for when he writes his brief on why he voted against allowing gay marriage. His decision was likely made before the case even began.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Assuming that it is: So what?

There is no so what. I'm just making an observation. That Alito agrees with me tells me I chose the wrong profession My ex always said I shoulda been a lawyer..only it wasn't usually a compliment

Alito is just setting up his argument for when he writes his brief on why he voted against allowing gay marriage. His decision was likely made before the case even began

Most likely. In which case I'd applaud his logical reasoning about one leading to the other, but decry his political/religious/other objection to voting in favour of gay marriage.

 

[Danoff]

I don't believe there is any logical reason to deny polygamy, just like there's no logical reason to deny same-sex marriage. Complexity is not logic, it just means it's more difficult like any contract involving more than 2 parties. It takes a village to raise a child so they say, one might even argue that polygamy is the natural progression of marriage and the most logical way to keep a family unit together, given that adults could leave the relationship and a family unit captained by 2 or more adults can remain intact. I also think there's no logical reason to deny incestual marriage so long as the medical issues surrounding natural conception are ironed out. If I want to marry my brother or sister or cousin and adopt a kid or artificially inseminate, why not?

The contract for a marriage between more than 2 parties simply needs to be more customized for that particular arrangement. It's not some boilerplate agreement the way the government does now for 2 parties. There's no reason for the government to need to institute a default polygamist contract, it would be pointless. I didn't say anything about preventing people from creating their own polygamist contract, I'm not one to get into the way of people freely entering into contracts.

 

[nascarfan1400]

My view on polygamy is neutral. I would think it kind of tarnishes the point of marriage, no?

 

[Johnnypenso]

The contract for a marriage between more than 2 parties simply needs to be more customized for that particular arrangement. It's not some boilerplate agreement the way the government does now for 2 parties. There's no reason for the government to need to institute a default polygamist contract, it would be pointless. I didn't say anything about preventing people from creating their own polygamist contract, I'm not one to get into the way of people freely entering into contracts.

Well I don't think you can simply write up a contract that may entitle/bind you to certain legal protections/obligations like custody, child support and visitations, alimony etc. without establishing some guidelines. The state has an obligation to look after the interests of the child in these situations as well. You'd be breaking new ground here, some legislation will be required, but it's not like it can't be worked out. Plenty of lawyers and bureaucrats around to sort it out.

 

[Famine]

I'm an advocate for gay marriage, but I also believe that you cannot deny polygamy is the inevitable, logical next step.

I doubt it's either inevitable or even next - and while it seems reasonable it's not de facto logical either. As @Danoff points out, there's an extra layer of complexity regarding contracts involving "three or more" people that make it a different entity (what happens if one spouse of three wants out but the other two don't - would they have to 'divorce' before remarrying with a new contract? What if they all want an additional one? What if two of them want an additional one but one doesn't - or wants a different additional one?)

But no, I'm not against that in any way.

 

[Pseudopod]

I'm sure most incest happens without there being a marriage involved. Being legally allowed to marry a close relative probably has little bearing on their likelihood to have sex with each others.

I don't think there is a problem with any adult person entering into a legal contract practically indistinguishable from a marriage contract with another adult person, so, what's in a name? Might as well just call it marriage because it's a term most people know the meaning of.

I really doubt there is going to be any significant volume of close relative marriages. I can't see it being anywhere near as common as the 5-10% gay-rate we have. Again, I don't really care if relatives marry. It's not my problem. I still wouldn't recommend that they breed, of course. Get a vasectomy and **** like rabbits and I would have no issues with it.

Here's a fun situation though: Two women and two men married together as one single marriage. each man would be married to another man and two women, each woman would be married to two men and one woman.

 

[LeMansAid]

My view on polygamy is neutral. I would think it kind of tarnishes the point of marriage, no?

That doesn't read as very neutral to me. Do you think that polygamous marriages tarnish where gay marriages don't?

Seems fairly blatantly ideologically inconsistent to me.

 

[nascarfan1400]

That doesn't read as very neutral to me. Do you think that polygamous marriages tarnish where gay marriages don't?

Seems fairly blatantly ideologically inconsistent to me.

Nono. I'm saying that's what I'm under the impression of. I'd still vote to pass it because equality for everyone-- I just don't know how well it would work, I'd love for someone to properly explain it to me.

 

[nascarfan1400]

That doesn't read as very neutral to me. Do you think that polygamous marriages tarnish where gay marriages don't?

Seems fairly blatantly ideologically inconsistent to me.

Nono. I'm saying that's what I'm under the impression of. I'd still vote to pass it because equality for everyone-- I just don't know how well it would work, I'd love for someone to properly explain it to me.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'd love for someone to properly explain it to me.

Insane guy thinks more than one wife is a good idea.

Seriously though: As I understand it, a person loves two other people and wants them both in his/her life forever. The concept of "I love you both and I don't want to have to choose" is not an unknown idea. Ultimately, it seems to me that it creates a good situation for someone who would have an affair for emotional reasons or someone who might destroy a typical marriage with thoughts of what if.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I know this should probably be posted in the other thread. But homosexuality has been brought up, so I want to chime in cause reading that people are born gay is ludicrous.

What about the children who were sexually molested and turned gay from the trauma?
What about the women who were victims of domestic violence and turned lesbian?
Think real now, do you honestly believe they were born gay?

Source required... you're making quite a strong claim there, how many children are there whose sexual orientation you can prove was changed by assaults?

 

[dylansan]

Even if that were true, it wouldn't make it a choice, so...

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm still trying to find these people that were made gay by trauma. I had a straight guy friend that was molested as a kid, by a dude, and dated two women who were abused as kids. One or two of them may have acted out in sexual ways, but the closest they got to homosexuality was in a group scenario.

The fact is that abuse and trauma happen more than is reported, but we don't see this huge amount of gay people coming from that.

The best anyone might be able to show, and I do know that there was a New Zealand study that showed it, is that victims of abuse had a higher rate of homosexuality than among non-victims. But what does that prove? You can't rule out that predators manage to often find vulnerable victims who are too scared or ashamed to report it. In a place where homosexuality is controversial or still a difficult concept I could image that a young homosexual makes an ideal victim for predators.

Fact is, even if his statement is true, it is not causal data and does not rule out other factors. It also fails to address all other homosexuals, or that if abuse creates homosexuals that they didn't choose it and are victims. That makes denying them equal rights even worse, as we are now victimizing a victim for suffering a form of PTSD.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm still trying to find these people that were made gay by trauma. I had a straight guy friend that was molested as a kid, by a dude, and dated two women who were abused as kids. One or two of them may have acted out in sexual ways, but the closest they got to homosexuality was in a group scenario.

The fact is that abuse and trauma happen more than is reported, but we don't see this huge amount of gay people coming from that.

The best anyone might be able to show, and I do know that there was a New Zealand study that showed it, is that victims of abuse had a higher rate of homosexuality than among non-victims. But what does that prove? You can't rule out that predators manage to often find vulnerable victims who are too scared or ashamed to report it. In a place where homosexuality is controversial or still a difficult concept I could image that a young homosexual makes an ideal victim for predators.

Fact is, even if his statement is true, it is not causal data and does not rule out other factors. It also fails to address all other homosexuals, or that if abuse creates homosexuals that they didn't choose it and are victims. That makes denying them equal rights even worse, as we are now victimizing a victim for suffering a form of PTSD.

And again I'd say that this argument, born or choice, is irrelevant, and just a red herring in any argument about gay marriage, being gay, becoming gay or anything else. To me it's a scientific curiousity and nothing more. If I'm born with my sexuality or I change it mid-stream, it should not affect my ability to marry whom I want and sleep with whom I want either way, and I shoult still be entitled to the same protections as anyone else under the law.

I've heard this argument many times over the years and always defused it by simply conceding the point. Yup, you're right, he/she chose to be gay. You win. So what?

 

[Daniel]

And again I'd say that this argument, born or choice, is irrelevant, and just a red herring in any argument about gay marriage, being gay, becoming gay or anything else. To me it's a scientific curiousity and nothing more. If I'm born with my sexuality or I change it mid-stream, it should not affect my ability to marry whom I want and sleep with whom I want either way, and I shoult still be entitled to the same protections as anyone else under the law.

I've heard this argument many times over the years and always defused it by simply conceding the point. Yup, you're right, he/she chose to be gay. You win. So what?

Getting science to prove that homosexuality is not a choice adds to the agument supporting it. Proving it helps educate people that sexuality is just one of the many attributes that you are born with, meaning that it's something you don't decide, and it's not something that you can change on a whim. I don't remember having a day where I said "y'know what? Let's be gay!" Nor did my boyfriend.

Many people know this already, but it'll help those who need further proof.

Somewhat related (language warning):

 

[LeMansAid]

Getting science to prove that homosexuality is not a choice adds to the agument supporting it. Proving it helps educate people that sexuality is just one of the many attributes that you are born with, meaning that it's something you don't decide, and it's not something that you can change on a whim. I don't remember having a day where I said "y'know what? Let's be gay!" Nor did my boyfriend.

And the point where even greater enlightenment is reached is what @Johnnypenso is getting at. Who cares if someone does choose? It's not suddenly someone else's business which gender a person wants to marry, simply because they weren't born that way.

We need to fight for an objective and holistic equality, not against a subjective and circumstantial inequality.

 

[Johnnypenso]

And the point where even greater enlightenment is reached is what @Johnnypenso is getting at. Who cares if someone does choose? It's not suddenly someone else's business which gender a person wants to marry, simply because they weren't born that way.

We need to fight for an objective and holistic equality, not against a subjective and circumstantial inequality.

Exactly:tup:

 

[FoolKiller]

And again I'd say that this argument, born or choice, is irrelevant, and just a red herring in any argument about gay marriage, being gay, becoming gay or anything else. To me it's a scientific curiousity and nothing more. If I'm born with my sexuality or I change it mid-stream, it should not affect my ability to marry whom I want and sleep with whom I want either way, and I shoult still be entitled to the same protections as anyone else under the law.

I've heard this argument many times over the years and always defused it by simply conceding the point. Yup, you're right, he/she chose to be gay. You win. So what?

But is it easier to convince people that these civil rights matter when the subject group is seen as making choices or being unable to change it anymore than they could change their race?

Yes, we should accept that life choices do not negate rights, but that is a much harder sell in a society where we openly accept judging people for bad life choices, tax choices we don't agree with differently, regulate your ability to make that choice, and so forth. Plus, some opposed to homosexuality would be offended at racism. You can change hearts and minds, not just laws, by teaching them that it is the same.

In the event some kind of family values movement gains majority control of legislature the argument that you can't disenfranchise people for how they were born holds up much better than 'it shouldn't matter if you disagree with their choices.'

Society, not just laws, can change if people understand the subject better.

 

[LeMansAid]

But is it easier to convince people that these civil rights matter when the subject group is seen as making choices or being unable to change it anymore than they could change their race?

If we're going for easiest, "It's none of your damn business" should be a contender as well.

 

[Daniel]

Thought it would be interesting to get everyone's opinions (especially those of the LGBT community) on homophobic slurs and gay jokes that might be deemed 'offensive'.

I'm pretty thick skinned so I personally don't take offence nor get bothered by it. I've got friends who will use 'gay' occasionally if they're mimicking, say, Señor Chang or using the term ironically and I'll admit to using it once in a great while as a joke.

 

[Com Fox]

Thought it would be interesting to get everyone's opinions (especially those of the LGBT community) on homophobic slurs and gay jokes that might be deemed 'offensive'.

I'm pretty thick skinned so I personally don't take offence nor get bothered by it. I've got friends who will use 'gay' occasionally if they're mimicking, say, Señor Chang or using the term ironically and I'll admit to using it once in a great while as a joke.

When someone does homophobic slurs like "This show's, gay" I just laugh at their stupidity to make a better insult .

 

[Johnnypenso]

But is it easier to convince people that these civil rights matter when the subject group is seen as making choices or being unable to change it anymore than they could change their race?

Yes, we should accept that life choices do not negate rights, but that is a much harder sell in a society where we openly accept judging people for bad life choices, tax choices we don't agree with differently, regulate your ability to make that choice, and so forth. Plus, some opposed to homosexuality would be offended at racism. You can change hearts and minds, not just laws, by teaching them that it is the same.

In the event some kind of family values movement gains majority control of legislature the argument that you can't disenfranchise people for how they were born holds up much better than 'it shouldn't matter if you disagree with their choices.'

Society, not just laws, can change if people understand the subject better.

When the main objection of the hardcore objectors originates with religion, I don't really think born vs. choice is going to make any difference either way. One could easily argue that the whole born vs. choice is actually harming the gay marriage debate, as it shouldn't matter in terms of your freedom to choose your partner in a free society. Why should I have to prove I was born the way I am in order to be married? No one asked me to prove I was born straight when I went for my marriage certificate.

 

[FoolKiller]

When the main objection of the hardcore objectors originates with religion, I don't really think born vs. choice is going to make any difference either way.

But they have a much larger legal and moral hurdle to overcome. They reinforce their religious belief by saying it is a choice. Prove to them that it isn't and they can easily be reminded of the Christian anti-civil liberties arguments and that they are trying to enforce religion as law, which many I meet will deny they are doing unless forced to confront it.

One could easily argue that the whole born vs. choice is actually harming the gay marriage debate, as it shouldn't matter in terms of your freedom to choose your partner in a free society. Why should I have to prove I was born the way I am in order to be married? No one asked me to prove I was born straight when I went for my marriage certificate.

This why I say government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. But if they are going to be...

 

[Scaff]

Well this is nice.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...ransphobic-game-removed-from-steam-greenlight

What the article doesn't point out however is that the studio head and lead designer is (and I quote his twitter) "Composer, 3D artist, game programmer/designer, skateboarder, and follower of Jesus Christ."
Source: https://twitter.com/randallherman

He's quite evangelical in his approach as well, setting up a skate shoe company to “to promote the words and teachings of Jesus Christ through quality footwear,”; given that I find his 'just trolling' justification a little hard to swallow.

Nice to see however that just about every voice actor and musician associated with his studio have pulled the right to use their material from him. He had his moment of free speech and now has the consequences.

 

[nascarfan1400]

Well this is nice.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...ransphobic-game-removed-from-steam-greenlight

What the article doesn't point out however is that the studio head and lead designer is (and I quote his twitter) "Composer, 3D artist, game programmer/designer, skateboarder, and follower of Jesus Christ."
Source: https://twitter.com/randallherman

He's quite evangelical in his approach as well, setting up a skate shoe company to “to promote the words and teachings of Jesus Christ through quality footwear,”; given that I find his 'just trolling' justification a little hard to swallow.

Nice to see however that just about every voice actor and musician associated with his studio have pulled the right to use their material from him. He had his moment of free speech and now has the consequences.

That's disgusting. I don't care if it's just trolling, that's awful.