Miss California?

[Slytovhand]

I just want homosexuals to stop trying to get the rest of us to accept them as normal and

And once again, human beings are being reduced to an action which affects no other people on the planet.. and being judged as less than human (yes, this does presume that heterosexual people are human beings, and have certain entitlements).

And I just want them to be treated as a person, and have all the same rights as any other person on the planet.

I don't want the government to give them tax breaks for what they do.

So, 'what they do' is the sole reason a government shouldn't allow for a tax break... something that does not have any direct impact on the rest of society (and, by that, I mean there is absolutely no other legal area in which homosexuals are allowed to be discriminated against - as per your constitution).

Those are not questions of "normal" or "abnormal". The first is a question of relative ability. The second is a question of superiority vs. inferiority.

And this is a question of relative worth of a human being, and their basic Human right to choose whom to take as a life partner, and, in doing so, to have access to all the same legal rights and priveleges that any other human being has access to (in your country).

Do you want to have a world wide poll?

To back Raps up on that - if you're going to throw in 'stats', then yes... cos we can say who the majority is, and you can say the majority is.. and if neither of us can prove the validity of the claim then either both of us have to pass on using such terms, or we both get to use them. Fair? (oh, sorry, probably not the right question to be using here, is it?)

I'm not sure how obvious it is to you, but I do hope you are aware that what you are in essence suggesting is that if a certain portion of a population deems something as 'unacceptable', then the government has an obligation to do something about it. Now, from your side of things, and on this particular debate, the ball seems to be well and truly good! But.... (and this is what governments are really about), what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? What happens when you are in the minority, and your basic human rights are being walked over? Do you still think that it's ok for a majority to reject your appeals to fairness? I think you've indicated you are Judeo-Christian (esp from your line about "Jews are God's chosen people..."). Every attitude you have indicated towards homosexuals has happened to the Jews and to the Christians at one time or another. Now, they have equal rights (at least in the eyes of some laws... as I mentioned, if you're pagan, you're SOL still...). Speaking of which - according to Christians and Jews (and Muslims too...), what we do (well, what it's claimed we do) is barbaric and disgusting and an insult to the various 'God's of the religions aforementioned. Does that mean I should not be allowed to have equal rights as Christians/Muslims/Jews? Or should only some of my rights get walked over?

You see, we are arguing for a much larger goal - one that has massive repercussions. It's not about gays and lesbians having the right to marry (in the eyes of the law)... well, I hope not! It's about allowing human beings to act in a away that is true to themselves, and having that way acknowledged and legally accepted by the government. If someone is not to have the exact same right as the person sitting next to them, then there had better be a damn good reason for it. What a person 'does in the bedroom', who they hold hands with, whos eyes they look into, should be of no concern to anybody else. If what a person does has no effect on anyone else (in a negative way, without consent), then what does it matter? Want to marry a car? Why the hell not... it's not like the car will want to walk into the hospital and want to see you if you're sick..(unless it's KITT, of course ) Not that we're suggesting such a thing. We're just arguing against a slippery slope - avoiding a really bad precedent... well, ok, it's a precedent that had been set thousands of years ago...

How about - we're trying to see humans as humans? Is that really too much to ask?

[smileyeagle1021]

Rubystars, on the topic of tax breaks. I could just as easily argue that The world has too many people on it, we should cut our population by at least a third, most humane way to do that is to prevent heterosexuals from having children... therefore, I believe the government should not give tax breaks to heterosexual couples, and tax them even more for having children... after all, to do anything else is to condone the overpopulating of the planet.

Doesn't that argument sound ridiculus? Most people would read that argument and think I was insane, the tax code doesn't promote overpopulation... and they'd be right. The tax code recognizes the efficiency of people entering into committed relationships and cohabitating... why then, is a gay couple in a committed relationship and cohabitating to be deemed any less efficient? And yes, I know that that ideal is not written anywhere in the tax code, but I've had at least two different accounting professors point blank say that's what the government is after. Hell, it is more efficient for the government, they now only have to provide fire and police protection to one household rather than two, a married couple being more likely to have joint insurance through their employer lowers the cost of medicare/medicaid, with both of them able to work it is less likely if one is unemployed that they will file for unemployment while the other still has an income, I'm sure there are other examples, those are just the ones I remember from my tax accounting classes. There are plenty of economic reasons for the government to promote marriage besides it being the social norm, and on those grounds homosexuals should have even more reason for tax breaks because a homosexual couple isn't going to be popping out babies that will cost tax dollars to put through school, and if they are permitted to adopt they will reduce the burden on the foster care system, once again saving tax dollars.

Also, on the discussion of the persecution of the Jews, you admit that none of it made sense, that it was a result of society first forcing the Jews into seclusion and then allowing that seclusion to bread distrust... so why then do you support forcing homosexuals into seclusion?

And you mentioned that you did know some homosexuals that met the stereotype so therefore it isnt a stereotype... I hate to point this out, but's that's exactly what a stereotype is, basing one's image of the group as a whole based on an oversimplification from observing a small part of the group, there wouldn't be a stereotype about lazy mexicans if there weren't at least some lazy mexicans, nor would there be one about the penny pinching jew is some jews didnt penny pinch, likewise, there wouldn't be a stereotype about the flamboyount homosexual if there weren't any flamboyount homosexuals (that tidbit brought to you by Professor Blake).

Oh, and a will... you mean that thing that my father filled out that clearly stated I should inherit his entire estate... that same thing that was damned near legally contested by his mother, that thing that the only reason it was enforced was because under probate rules a spouse (my mother) becomes the default inheritor if the will is invalidated, and her decision after probate fell to her was to enforce the will? Oh yeah, those do a lot of good. Nothing beats a marriage license when it comes to probate rights.
And speaking of death of a partner issues, especially relevant to gay marriage and in particular adoption rights (since you reminded me of this with the topic of wills), my mother made it very clear that she had no intention of remarrying, she intended to live with her mother and have her and her mother raise me. My father's mother contested my mother's custody on the grounds that she would be unsuited to raise me because of her clear intentions not to remarry and thus introduce a new father figure into my life, she wanted custody of me to be granted to my father's brother. Do you want to guess what the judge ruled? I'll give you a hint, I didn't grow up with my uncle. That's right, the judge recognized that there was no legal precedent to require a child live with both a father and a mother, that a mother and a grandmother was a perfectly suitable environment for a child to grow up in. Really, taking that precedent, it doesn't take too much of a stretch to say that two fathers or two mothers would also be a suitable environment for a child to grow up in, and as it is that so many people have made it clear how important marriage is for a stable child raising environment, would it not be better for a gay couple to be married to raise that child in what could legally be considered a perfectly suitable environment?

[Rapscallion]

I think how it works is this, they realized that there was no way society was going to accept something that extreme, so they are now asking for something less extreme and are having better luck.

That's what you said before. Please provide me with this 'gay agenda'.

If you're talking about a pastor, then of course he has a right to say who is and who isn't following his religion properly.

It's a hypothetical pastor. It's a generalisation of what I can hear from intolerant people.

I think they are unequal. Gay sex is not equivalent to straight sex. If I believe that, and someone else believes differently, we both have the rights to have our beliefs prevail. The belief that gay sex is normal and perfectly ok is just that too, a belief.

Both have the rights to have our beliefs prevail? All beliefs are right? I think not.

Jews are God's chosen people to be a light to the nations, and when evil people see the physical representation of God on earth, they react badly to it. I think this is the real reason why Jews have always faced unreasonable hatred and persecution. Of course all kinds of lies were made up against them, they were accused of everything from killing Christian children, to deicide, but it was all false, all lies. Europeans forced Jews into certain professions and then complained about them controlling those professions. Nothing about the persecution of Jews makes any sense.

The jews were brought into this merely as an example of what your ideas of closeting gays would bring about - humans in groups will dehumanise humans of other groups who are vulnerable because of such actions.

I'm not asking that anyone be locked away, murdered, or harmed. I just want homosexuals to stop trying to get the rest of us to accept them as normal and legitimize their behavior.

The net effect will be that they are harmed. There is already harm - financial harm through the lack of equal tax breaks, for example.

Bringing in your views on closeting will bring real harm, as it did with the jews.

Deviants?

As people.

Do you want to have a world wide poll?

Since the issue at hand is the Californian beauty pageant winner, or whatever it is she got stripped from her, then I think it may be more acceptable to have a poll that reflects the preferences of the US or California. If you want to provide a worldwide poll as well, then fine, but I do know that islamic countries would generate a high level of non-acceptance simply on religious grounds.

Got any of the above?

It's called a will. As for the tax breaks, they shouldn't have tax breaks because I don't want the government to give them tax breaks for what they do.

A will is an extra step someone has to take - it's not a currently a standard of the state that they automatically provide for their loved ones. That's unequal. I consider that unacceptable.

They want special rights.

Exactly which special rights are gay groups demanding? Please spell this out for us. All I can see is a demand for equality, and that's not unreasonable.

Rapscallion

[Rubystars]

So NAMBLA in the pride marches was a tactic? I think not. If anything, I suspect it was born of a desperation to get anyone on their side, since they were faced with so much opposition.

Do you really think that a large body of people like that has the ability to meet in secret and plan a tactic like that, mobilising so many others for so long, with one strategic aim such as that in mind? Why, that would be like someone suggesting that a right-winger wants homosexuality firmly back in the closet as the thin edge of a wedge to allow discriminating against people legally.

There is no gay group of which I am aware involved in the pride rallies these days that would have anything to do with Nambla, and it's not as a tactic.

I think how it works is this, they realized that there was no way society was going to accept something that extreme, so they are now asking for something less extreme and are having better luck.

Pastor: We're going to discriminate against a minority, but you're not that minority, so that's fine. You can feel good about that.

Congregation: Great! Who next?

Yup - a really common technique. My example has as much proof behind it as your claim.

If you're talking about a pastor, then of course he has a right to say who is and who isn't following his religion properly.

The problem with legal headway being made it? Oh, you disagree with it. Tab A shouldn't go into slot C. You want separate and unequal status for people, forcing them to go underground for something they cannot control.

I think they are unequal. Gay sex is not equivalent to straight sex. If I believe that, and someone else believes differently, we both have the rights to have our beliefs prevail. The belief that gay sex is normal and perfectly ok is just that too, a belief.

No. No it won't. What happened with the jews? The term 'ghetto' came from an area of Venice known as 'Borghetto', an area of the place on an island where jews were confined between certain times of the day. Similar happened all over Europe. Of course, as soon as they were safely confined behind those walls, the rumours began of the jews perpetrating sorcery and abominations behind the walls, leading to popular unrest against them.

Jews are God's chosen people to be a light to the nations, and when evil people see the physical representation of God on earth, they react badly to it. I think this is the real reason why Jews have always faced unreasonable hatred and persecution. Of course all kinds of lies were made up against them, they were accused of everything from killing Christian children, to deicide, but it was all false, all lies. Europeans forced Jews into certain professions and then complained about them controlling those professions. Nothing about the persecution of Jews makes any sense.

History has proven humans to be all too fallible time and again. Segregation is not the answer. Treat people as if they should be locked away and soon they will be.

I'm not asking that anyone be locked away, murdered, or harmed. I just want homosexuals to stop trying to get the rest of us to accept them as normal and legitimize their behavior.

It won't be spent promoting or encouraging anything. All it will do is accept people for what they are.

Deviants?

Majority of people find it disgusting? I'd love to see your source for that.

Do you want to have a world wide poll?

It certainly affects them. You die, and your husband gains some form of financial recompense. You know your husband can inherit your goods after your death - he'll be looked after to the extent of the goods you leave behind. Same goes if he dies - you inherit his goods.

A gay person in a partnership not recognised by the state? Their partner cannot benefit in the same way. As a living couple, they cannot attain the same tax breaks afforded to heterosexual couples.

It's called a will. As for the tax breaks, they shouldn't have tax breaks because I don't want the government to give them tax breaks for what they do.

I can see why they'd want the same rights as you, not a subordinate position, and most definitely not a superior position.

They want special rights.

[Rapscallion]

The real problem here is that they were considered part of the larger movement to expand "sexual rights" at one point.Now the tactics have changed where homosexuals are trying to ask for something more modest in hopes of getting that.

So NAMBLA in the pride marches was a tactic? I think not. If anything, I suspect it was born of a desperation to get anyone on their side, since they were faced with so much opposition.

Do you really think that a large body of people like that has the ability to meet in secret and plan a tactic like that, mobilising so many others for so long, with one strategic aim such as that in mind? Why, that would be like someone suggesting that a right-winger wants homosexuality firmly back in the closet as the thin edge of a wedge to allow discriminating against people legally.

There is no gay group of which I am aware involved in the pride rallies these days that would have anything to do with Nambla, and it's not as a tactic.

It's a really common technique. Imagine a kid "Mom can I have 10 candy bars?" Mom: "No, that's too many to eat at one time" Kid: "Can I have one?" Mom: Well, ok

Pastor: We're going to discriminate against a minority, but you're not that minority, so that's fine. You can feel good about that.

Congregation: Great! Who next?

Yup - a really common technique. My example has as much proof behind it as your claim.

These gays had these outrageous pride parades with NAMBLA in them, now they are saying "We're monogamous couples just like you and hate that stuff". By comparison, the latter seems more reasonable, more acceptable, and the gays are making legal headway.

The problem with legal headway being made it? Oh, you disagree with it. Tab A shouldn't go into slot C. You want separate and unequal status for people, forcing them to go underground for something they cannot control.

I think by that time people will be content just to let them do what they want as long as they keep it to themselves. Why can't they be discreet about it instead of saying "we're here, we're queer, and we're in your face?"

No. No it won't. What happened with the jews? The term 'ghetto' came from an area of Venice known as 'Borghetto', an area of the place on an island where jews were confined between certain times of the day. Similar happened all over Europe. Of course, as soon as they were safely confined behind those walls, the rumours began of the jews perpetrating sorcery and abominations behind the walls, leading to popular unrest against them.

History has proven humans to be all too fallible time and again. Segregation is not the answer. Treat people as if they should be locked away and soon they will be.

Since the government represents the people, if the government officially condones gay marriage, then it affects me because my tax money and my government will be encouraging something that the majority of people find to be disgusting. I'm not ok with that.

It won't be spent promoting or encouraging anything. All it will do is accept people for what they are.

Majority of people find it disgusting? I'd love to see your source for that.

It really doesn't affect me if two people decide to get "married", unless they try to force society as a whole to recognize that as a marriage. That's what they want to do.

It certainly affects them. You die, and your husband gains some form of financial recompense. You know your husband can inherit your goods after your death - he'll be looked after to the extent of the goods you leave behind. Same goes if he dies - you inherit his goods.

A gay person in a partnership not recognised by the state? Their partner cannot benefit in the same way. As a living couple, they cannot attain the same tax breaks afforded to heterosexual couples.

I can see why they'd want the same rights as you, not a subordinate position, and most definitely not a superior position.

Rapscallion

[Rubystars]

Those are not questions of "normal" or "abnormal". The first is a question of relative ability. The second is a question of superiority vs. inferiority.

[Pedersen]

Cute but you still aren't addressing what I brought up. If something is normal, why do people have to insist that it is? Why is it not obvious and just accepted?

You mean like women being just as smart as men, just as capable as men, just as able to anything that a man can do? Or do you mean like how black people are not inferior by virtue of their skin color?

Good point. I wonder why those groups had to (and, to some degree, still have to) insist on these obvious points. Even though most people agree with it today (at least, in countries with similar norms as the US, Canada, Australia, and the UK), not so long ago these groups had to tell people every day how normal that thought was.

[Rubystars]

Begging the Question fallacy

Cute but you still aren't addressing what I brought up. If something is normal, why do people have to insist that it is? Why is it not obvious and just accepted?

[Slytovhand]

Begging the Question fallacy

[Rubystars]

You've been continually saying this, but saying something repeatedly does not make it so.

When pressed to provide a factual and reasoned argument to support your conclusions, you come back with some version of "Because that's what I and a lot of other people think." But as other people have pointed out, some of what the majority of people has believed in the past is ludicrous.

Read the links that AFP has provided. The first, especially. This is where factually supported and well-reasoned thinking will lead you.

If you can never accept homosexuality as normal, fine. But don't kid yourself in believing that your reasoning is sound. I think that the arguments you've put forth so far are incredibly weak at best.

To me it's obvious that it isn't normal. If it were normal, why would people react to it so strongly? Why would there even need to be a political movement to push it on the rest of society? Gays are fighting hard to get their deviancy accepted as "normal", but if it really were normal, then they wouldn't have to insist so very hard that it is.

[Rubystars]

You don't think hetero couples should engage in anal sex something that not all gays do?

Really, why are you so obsessed with anal sex?

It's other people who have been saying I'm obssessed with it, not me. I do think it's gross but I believe that any kind of sex just shouldn't happen between people of the same gender.

I did a little googling on this. They don't any more. They haven't for a long time.

The real problem here is that they were considered part of the larger movement to expand "sexual rights" at one point.Now the tactics have changed where homosexuals are trying to ask for something more modest in hopes of getting that.

It's a really common technique. Imagine a kid "Mom can I have 10 candy bars?" Mom: "No, that's too many to eat at one time" Kid: "Can I have one?" Mom: Well, ok

Another example would be someone trying to sell something and asking a very high price for it, then very deliberately allowing the customer to talk them down to a price that is reasonable but still makes the seller a profit.

These gays had these outrageous pride parades with NAMBLA in them, now they are saying "We're monogamous couples just like you and hate that stuff". By comparison, the latter seems more reasonable, more acceptable, and the gays are making legal headway.

If your views take hold and it's not recognised, how long before it becomes an illegal act?

I think by that time people will be content just to let them do what they want as long as they keep it to themselves. Why can't they be discreet about it instead of saying "we're here, we're queer, and we're in your face?"

Again, I ask what effect gay marriage has on you? Please, enlighten us as to how your life is materially affected by two people who love each other making the commitment that a large number of heterosexuals make.
Rapscallion

Since the government represents the people, if the government officially condones gay marriage, then it affects me because my tax money and my government will be encouraging something that the majority of people find to be disgusting. I'm not ok with that.

It really doesn't affect me if two people decide to get "married", unless they try to force society as a whole to recognize that as a marriage. That's what they want to do.

[Boozy]

That is exactly why it is different, heterosexuality is normal.

You've been continually saying this, but saying something repeatedly does not make it so.

When pressed to provide a factual and reasoned argument to support your conclusions, you come back with some version of "Because that's what I and a lot of other people think." But as other people have pointed out, some of what the majority of people has believed in the past is ludicrous.

Read the links that AFP has provided. The first, especially. This is where factually supported and well-reasoned thinking will lead you.

If you can never accept homosexuality as normal, fine. But don't kid yourself in believing that your reasoning is sound. I think that the arguments you've put forth so far are incredibly weak at best.

[Rapscallion]

I think it's the really weird ones that get stuck in people's minds though. The fact that they let NAMBLA into their parades also doesn't help, especially as most gays are not pedophiles.

I did a little googling on this. They don't any more. They haven't for a long time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...ve_Association

They were being ostracised by the gay movement in the early eighties, and despite the attempts by a very small minority they were regarded as persona non-grata. You're talking about events that are nearly thirty years old - nearly a generation or so.

I don't care if people do it if they would just not ask the public to condone it and call it normal.

You don't see it as normal. I see your views as just tribalism - "Those lot are different from my lot because they do X or Y or Z, and therefore we're different. We can therefore feel superior to them, or discriminate, because they're different."

Depends on the drug.

I specified the addictive drugs quite deliberately.

I'm not saying their "butt sex" should be illegal. I just don't want some official recognition of it as if it were a marriage situation.

If your views take hold and it's not recognised, how long before it becomes an illegal act?

Again, I ask what effect gay marriage has on you? Please, enlighten us as to how your life is materially affected by two people who love each other making the commitment that a large number of heterosexuals make.

Rapscallion

[AFPheonix]

I'll just drop in a quick bit... my 'where's the evidence' wasn't for homosexuality being a 'sickness', it was 'where's the proof it is genetic or evolutionary?'....

(I love how the topic is still on being gay, not on being human...)

article on study of genetics

social evolution/anthropology article on homosexuality

article on a book about homosexual phenotype

You are right though, one can argue all day about the nuts and bolts of it, but to do so loses sight of the fact that we're not talking about inanimate objects here. We're talking about obviously not mentally ill people who have wants and needs just like the rest of us, and all they want is to be able to do that which the majority takes for granted.

[Flyndaran]

...
I'm not saying their "butt sex" should be illegal. I just don't want some official recognition of it as if it were a marriage situation.

You don't think hetero couples should engage in anal sex something that not all gays do?

Really, why are you so obsessed with anal sex?