|
Marc2b -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/28/2006 4:21:04 PM)
|
This is getting really interesting. I could easily start responding and soon take off on some grand philosophical tangents. As much fun as that would be I’m not going to be spending Saturday night pounding on the keyboard, drinking way to much Diet Dr. Pepper, and getting a bad case of eyestrain to four in the morning. Still, there are a few things I would like to touch upon:
SirKenin said: quote:
Ahh, but that is where your entire argument has failed and thus the post may only be worth $.02 or less. Who is trying to force their beliefs on who? The infrastructure is already in place and has been since the founding of the United States. Homosexuals are trying to come out of the woodwork for the last couple of decades and trying to force themselves on everyone else to be "included" to the point where it is now considered the "in" thing to do to "come out". Just look at the bullshit coming out of Hollywood.
So, if you are going to debate a point of forcing one's beliefs on someone, let us truly examine the reality of who is really forcing their beliefs on who, and thus your argument fails miserably.
I in no way deny that elements of both the Left and the Right (those are truly inadequate terms from my perspective, but they’ll do for now) engage in wholesale attempts to deny rights and freedoms to their perceived ideological enemies. As far as I’m concerned, both sides are guilty of rank hypocrisy. That is the crux of the problem. For a free society to truly work those participating in it must hold in common the belief that everyone has the same rights. Even those who beliefs, behaviors, etc., they find offensive. We are not there yet. We may never get there. But I continue to hold out hope.
The question isn’t wether you or anybody else believes homosexuals are normal or sinners or perverts (which would be a truly bizarre accusation coming from anyone in the BDSM scene) or perfectly average every day people. The question is wether we, as both individuals and as a society, recognize that homosexuals are our fellow citizens and are our fellow human begins and are therefore due equal rights ("are, are, are," I'm begining to feel like a pirate [:D]). If some "Pastor Righteousness" of "The Bible Says What I Say It Says Church" wants to denounce homosexuals as "Godless sinners" and mouth trite rhetoric like "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" he is free to do so. Let him rant and rave to his hearts content. But the government should remain neutral. If Adam and Steve want to go down to city hall and fill out a marriage licence, they should be able to do so – and Pastor Righteousness better not stand in their way.
As for Hollywood, you’ll get no argument from me that it’s mostly bullshit that comes out of Hollywood (though I suspect that we would differ on what constitutes bullshit) but that is the free market at work. People go see the movies they want to see and don’t go to see the ones they don’t want. Although I support homosexuals in their just quest for equal rights I have never seen (nor will I probably ever see) the movie Brokeback Mountain. The reason is very simple. Movies about gay cowboys don’t interest me. If they don’t interest you, don’t go see them – and don’t worry about the people who do go see them. I said it before and I’ll say it again, for freedom to work it has to go both ways.
ZenRageTheKeeper said: quote:
I'm as serious as a heart attack. What better way to keep the government out of the consensual actions of loving adults than for the government to only recognize marriage as nothing more than a promise between two people? When the law ceases to recognize the union, the union will only mean something to those participate in it - and no one else - just as it should be.
Because if there is one basic premise that all forms of marriage hold in common it is that two (or more) people are now considered related even though there be no blood relation between them. In short, that a new family has been formed (why do I have the feeling I am going to get into a debate about what constitutes a family?). There are all sorts of legal implications in this concerning taxes, visitation rights in hospitals, inheritance rights, etc. If people don’t want to get married, that is their choice, if people do want to get married then that too is their choice so long as they accept the responsibilities involved along with the rights.
gooddogbenji (to MistressCamille) said: quote:
Not saying you're wrong, but think on this little tidbit:
"Pedophilic rapists posing as Masters doesn't change BDSM in any way."
When a seemingly positive thing becomes associated with a seemingly negative thing, the people in the seemingly positive will always defend theirs against the seemingly negative, in order to not be lumped into the same group.
I like the way you think. The point is well taken but it really comes down to a matter of perceptions and how we act on those perceptions. On one hand a pedophile rapist posing as a Master would not affect the relationship of Master X and his loyal slave Y both of who are consenting adults. But you are right that it may affect how others perceive their relationship and how they perceive BDSM in general. That is where freedom of speech comes in. BDSMer’s have their freedom of speech to let the world Know that the pedofile rapists is not representative of BDSM.
Your analogy, however, doesn’t quite work. The pedophile rapist is committing a crime. He is violating the rights of someone else (whereas Master X and slave Y are not). The questions each and everyone of us must answer are: are the aforementioned Adam and Steve violating anyone’s rights by getting married. Are we violating their rights by denying them a legally recognized marriage. To the first I answer no, to the second I answer yes.
SirKenin (to Lordandmaster) said: quote:
This is the position I side with as well and is certainly 100% Biblical.
As for the inhumane treatment of homosexuals, though, I most certainly do not agree with it. I never have. They are people too, just like everyone else. I do not believe that this particular marriage fight is to "right wrongs" though. I can not find Myself aligning with that perspective. There are other ways to right the wrongs of inhumane and bigotted treatment.
It is not a case of righting a wrong but of eliminating a wrong, in this case, denying equal rights to homosexuals
SirKenin (to orfunboi) said: quote:
orfunboi, you and Camille really have a hard time grasping at the fundamental differences between social norms and biological norms. Social norms are aesthetics shared by a culture of people. Biological norms are scientifically defined – and not by a show of hands – as follows:
Homeostasis
Organization of one or more cells
Metabolism
Growth
Adaptation
Response to Stimuli
Ability to Reproduce
The true homosexual has the ability of the first six. But it does not have the seventh attribute because there is no natural gender counterpart for the homosexual to reproduce with.
Homosexuals are not a separate species. They are part of the human species. They are perfectly capable of reproducing their own kind (human) with their own kind (human). They may not as enjoy it as much as heterosexuals but the invention of the turkey baster pretty much sidesteps that issue anyway. And it is irrelevant. Sexuality is about more than reproduction.
I feel like I am repeating myself here but I feel like I have to. It doesn’t matter what causes homosexuality, wether it is a perversion or merely another form of human love. The only thing that matters is that homosexuals are human beings and are therefore due the same rights and privileges (and responsibilities!) that come with belonging to the human family. If a person truly believes in "freedom and liberty for all" then they will support equal rights for every human regardless of how they feel about others religions, lifestyles, sexuality, etc.
|
|
|
|
