Poop gate has been overpooped

[PeterVenkman]

Existing in nature doesn't mean its natural. I'm not trying to get into anything, but it should be obvious that your argument is a complete wash.

No, I think the point is an indict of the idea of "natural" in the first place. The only time we use the term "unnatural" it is to denigrate things or demonize them. Single mothers are not natural, GMOs (which could feed the world if adopted) are not natural, homosexuality is not natural, etc. These statements criticize something because it isn't natural.

But everything is natural. Humans are natural to Earth and therefore everything about us and everything we make is also natural. If everything is natural, then it is a useless to say things are unnatural and should be exposed as a bad form of social engineering.

 

[kiff]

so... then nuclear weapons are natural?

 

[M.A.D.X.W]

But everything that happens in the universe is natural and every thought.
The unnatural things are things that don't exist and aren't naturally possible.
A God's existence is unnatural, but the idea of a God is very natural.
In my opiomions.

 

[Larkin]

So now everything we create is natural? You guys just keep on adding to this bitch.

 

[dragonfliet]

Anyone that argues that something is not "natural" automatically loses. It has zero merit. Is mending a broken leg "natural?" How about heart surgery or organ transplants? How about complicated recipes? How about the construction of airplanes?

Further, if something consistently shows up in nature, as homosexuality does, doesn't that completely negate the idea that it isn't natural (as worthless as an argument as that is)? Further, how can something seen abundantly in nature not be natural, the definition of which is being in accordance with nature?

Elmer, there is nothing "unnatural" or dangerous, or harmful about homosexuality. The only possible arguments against homosexuality are religious ones as there is no other logical reason to be against it.

Homosexual couples should be afforded all of the benefits and rights as heterosexual couples. It is a matter of civil rights on par with what happened in the 60's and the fact that minorities are against it despite the obvious parity shows how inherently prejudiced people are and how pervasive religious doctrine is in our society. Denying marriage to homosexuals is like denying marriage to mixed race/nationality/social status/religions/etc. couples and it saddens me to see so many people offer lameass unsupported arguments (that echo past racist/classist/nationalist/religious/etc. arguments)about how it would somehow magically destroy society.

~Jason

 

[Rambowjo]

@ the tag... biblically God doesn't hate homosexuals he hates the act homosexual sex between men specifically and women ambiguously. If your gonna make fun of something it helps to have your facts straight. As for the incest the negative societal stigma is rooted in the puritan religious movement according to my understanding.

-----------------------------------------------

The established view in the field of psychology is that Zoophilia(the sexual attraction too and/or sexual interaction with animals) is a mental disorder.

The established view in the field of psychology is that Necrophilia(the sexual attraction too and/or sexual interaction with the dead)is a mental disorder.

These bear a common thread with homophilia (aka homosexuality) in that they are all unnatural attractions. They are all 3 a mental disorder. However only homosexuality has people trying to validate it and make it normal. In psychology this is known as denial.

I don't think we should validate the behavior with laws that create a sort of exclusion zone, I also don't think they should be discriminated against.

Unlike Zoophilia and Necrophilia, homophilia is a fairly victim-less disorder and those with it are very functional. That though further complicates things because the more a person is able to deal with a problem the harder it is for them to see one. That feeling is only compounded by time.

My opinion is prop 8 is ridiculous and it shouldn't even be on the table. You don't tell a drug addict "naw your fine. Here, have some more drugs." If there is a law put into place that makes same sex marriages legal that is basically what it's saying. It's not a religious question to me. It's a question of how we address human beings with problems. We made our buildings handicap accessible and yes it took laws to do it. I simply say we should be making the right laws and this isn't 1 of em. My view on it anyway.

Fuck you.

 

[M.A.D.X.W]

So now everything we create is natural? You guys just keep on adding to this bitch.

Yerb, sure peopleos are natural and the things people create are created from natural things. It's just an arrangement of atoms.
A lot obviously. But you know

 

[kiff]

Homosexual couples should be afforded all of the benefits and rights as heterosexual couples. It is a matter of civil rights on par with what happened in the 60's and the fact that minorities are against it despite the obvious parity shows how inherently prejudiced people are and how pervasive religious doctrine is in our society.

OK, but is that what the 14th amendment really says?

 

[Benfica]

I WILL regret joining this discussion ...

Homosexuals are normal, and happy with their lifestyle.

Some gays considered themselves aberrations or are very unhappy, live in isolated neighbourhoods and so on.

Even with doubts, should we really care? It's for THEM to worry about. There must be room for all citizens, regardless of how "normal" they are or how prone they are to stigma. Some stuff must be taken so lightly that it's not even an interesting subject for discussion. Social pressure has gone too far and some people must learn to mind their own business. If you want to evaluate people, do so based on how they behave towards others or their contribution, not what they are or their personal life. Gays aren't usually violent, crime rate is very low within the community, they are productive, work, pay taxes and so on.

Gay marriage was approved here by large majority. Before the legislation was written, the gov asked for technical opinions from a medical organization. I don't know the exact wording but they refused to qualify it. Rather, they would help and guide any homossexual acording to his personal views. That means psycological support in case of depression or if the individual considered his/her own condition a disease. Again support and guidance if someone was willing to admit it. Medical help for the ones that wanted to have sex related surgery. You get the idea.

Regarding people reactions, what I liked was that they mostly weren't pro or against, they didn't care! Sure, some "hate fags" but what annoyed people wasn't morality or if gays are this or that, but rather that they were forced to think about it. If the economy is having problems, why are having to deal with this monumental waste of time?? Get married already and GTFO!

 

[kiff]

Listen up gays!

Pissed that Republicans won't let you get a gay marriage? Have your own goddamn ceremony anyway. What, is it not REAL because there isn't a law that says you can yet?

What a waste politics is. You guys are all fools.

 

[M.A.D.X.W]

I WILL regret joining this discussion ...

Some gays considered themselves aberrations or are very unhappy, live in isolated neighbourhoods and so on.

Well yerp, there is heterosexual people who are unhappy and happy also I was just saying they don't see it as a disorder usually you know.

But yerx,

 

[Larkin]

Homosexual couples should be afforded all of the benefits and rights as heterosexual couples. It is a matter of civil rights on par with what happened in the 60's

No, its not. Why do people keep saying this? Its completely different and based on completely different ideas and principles on both sides.

Denying marriage to homosexuals is like denying marriage to mixed race/nationality/social status/religions/etc. couples....

No, its not. Again its completely different.

 

[dragonfliet]

OK, but is that what the 14th amendment really says?

Yes, it is. By saying that people of age are allowed to get married and then singling out certain types of marriages between consenting adults they will not allow, they are "abridg[ing] the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This was the case of anti-miscegenation laws, which were ruled unconstitutional for violating the 14th amendment and there is no essential difference here.

~Jason

edit:

No, its not. Why do people keep saying this? Its completely different and based on completely different ideas and principles on both sides.

They keep saying it because it is true. What is different? Read the speeches about why anti-miscegenation laws were needed. They claimed that if white women married black men it would lead to a breakdown in society, they claimed that it was biblically condemned, they claimed that it threatened the entire institution of marriage, etc. Language that is repeated nearly exactly by anti-gay marriage advocates.

What is different here other than the specifics (white+black, protestant+catholic, man+man)? A threatened group is claiming that by affording equal rights society will be destroyed, the bible will be negated and the entire institution will somehow be undermined.

There is not a single good reason to prevent homosexual marriages.

 

[Larkin]

Yes, it is. By saying that people of age are allowed to get married and then singling out certain types of marriages between consenting adults they will not allow, they are "abridg[ing] the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This was the case of anti-miscegenation laws, which were ruled unconstitutional for violating the 14th amendment and there is no essential difference here.

~Jason

So because I allow some people to do something I must allow all regardless of conditions because otherwise I'm abridging....privileges. privileges? So now privileges are the same thing as rights? Ok?

 

[kiff]

This was the case of anti-miscegenation laws, which were ruled unconstitutional for violating the 14th amendment and there is no essential difference here.

OK, but that's a racial issue, which that section of the 14th amendment was intended to fix. What bridges the gap to "sexual preferences" ?

 

[dragonfliet]

So because I allow some people to do something I must allow all regardless of conditions because otherwise I'm abridging....privileges. privileges? So now privileges are the same thing as rights? Ok?

Yes, that's what it says. You don't get to make arbitrary conditions in which to deny people things: you don't get to say you can't be married because each of you are of a different race or you can't be a CEO because you're a woman or you can't get married because you're both men.

~Jason

 

[dragonfliet]

OK, but that's a racial issue, which that section of the 14th amendment was intended to fix. What bridges the gap to "sexual preferences" ?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Show me where that says based on race. Oh, wait, you mean it doesn't? You mean that ALL PERSONS are covered here, regardless of race, sex, nationality, religion, sexual preference, etc? WOW! Reading!

 

[Larkin]

Yes, that's what it says. You don't get to make arbitrary conditions in which to deny people things: you don't get to say you can't be married because each of you are of a different race or you can't be a CEO because you're a woman or you can't get married because you're both men.

~Jason

If I make the privilege I can make the rules of membership of the privilege.

 

[Larkin]

Show me where that says based on race. Oh, wait, you mean it doesn't? You mean that ALL PERSONS are covered here, regardless of race, sex, nationality, religion, sexual preference, etc? WOW! Reading!

Did you actually read that yourself?

 

[dragonfliet]

If I make the privilege I can make the rules of membership of the privilege. I don't give a flying **** what the fourteen admendment says, that is makes a privilege a privilege.

It's okay Larkin, no one gives a flying **** what you say, either. The difference is, the fourteenth amendment is the law of the land and must be upheld. You're an idiot, and must be ignored or berated.

~Jason