71% support for gay marriage, Christian Democrats squirm

[CthulhuFhtagn]

Originally Posted by Der Teutoniker

I honestly disagree with you finding that humans are animals,

-Biota
 |-Eukaryota
    |-Animalia
      |-Bilateria
        |-Deuterostomia
          |-Chordata
            |-Craniata
              |-Vertebrata
                |-Gnathostomata
                  |-Tetrapoda
                    |-Amniota
                      |-Synapsida
                        |-Therapsida
                          |-Mammalia
                            |-Theria
                              |-Eutheria
                                |-Euarchontoglires
                                  |-Euarchonta
                                    |-Primates
                                      |-Haplorrhini
                                        |-Simiiformes
                                          |-Catarrhini
                                            |-Hominoidea
                                              |-Hominidae
                                                |-Homininae
                                                  |-Hominini
                                                    |-Hominina
                                                      |-Homo
                                                        |-H. sapiens
                                                          |-H. s. sapiens

We're animals.

[Jerizstan]

Originally Posted by Soheran

[Well, there's the extensively-documented fact that it's been found in nature, for one.]

The question is whether homosexuality is a choice or biological, with no proof from either side of the equation. Animals are products of their environment as well as followers of their nature.

[Nice to know that you find equality to be of so little importance.]

Given the issues faced by mankind today, such as, but not limited to, genocide and starvation, the issue of whether or not a homosexual couple can have a piece of paper that states they are married is low on my priority list.

[Big difference: we're right about them. They're wrong about us. ]

Thank you for proving my point.

["Eventually" is not good enough. Especially when it means "stop fighting"... because then "eventually" fades into "never." [/URL]?

Not true, considering that the issue here is gay marrige, where the actual benefits that would be achevied by homosexuals is minuscule, the real issue is acceptance. Homosexuals have achevied a level of acceptance unheard of since classical times. Don't you realize that being combative about the issue mobilizes the opposing forces? Oh well. Why am I arguing about this issue anyway? One quick question: my local political correction officers (also known as my college teachers) have informed me that the term "homosexual" is now considered to be derogatory. Not that I care, but for curiosities’ sake what is the new term?

[Maximus Corporation]

Originally Posted by Soheran

This is not a question of what they are doing "from their perspective." It's a question of what they're actually doing. What they're actually doing is arbitrarily differentiating between same-sex sexual attraction and behavior and opposite-sex sexual attraction and behavior. That's bigoted.

What you're actually doing is arbitrarily* differentiating between your opinion and behavior and their opinion and behavior. You are using your own measuring stick to define someone else just as you are upset that they are doing to you. No one has proven that human sexuality is purely genetic. Just as no one has proven that it is purely a learned behavior. Until then both sides are acting on faith and either both sides are bigoted or neither.


*Neither are arbitrarily decided - most people who decide their opinions don't just wake up one day and decide. Many of them have done a lot of reflecting and do use logic, the problem is that both sides disagree on premises.

[Dempublicents1]

Originally Posted by Maximus Corporation

No one has proven that human sexuality is purely genetic. Just as no one has proven that it is purely a learned behavior. Until then both sides are acting on faith and either both sides are bigoted or neither.

Sexuality is not a behavior. It is a trait. So it can't really be a "learned behavior."

Meanwhile, why assume that it must be purely genetic or purely something else? Such a position is really rather untenable.

[Maximus Corporation]

Originally Posted by Dempublicents1

Sexuality is not a behavior. It is a trait. So it can't really be a "learned behavior."

Meanwhile, why assume that it must be purely genetic or purely something else? Such a position is really rather untenable.

My point is that there is no real tenable position. That's why people shouldn't be calling others bigots if they disagree with them.

[Skaladora]

Originally Posted by Maximus Corporation

My point is that there is no real tenable position. That's why people shouldn't be calling others bigots if they disagree with them.

Fuck that. I'll call bigots on their bigotry if I feel like it. A racist is a racist, an homophobe is an homophobe, a sexist is a sexist, and so on.

I don't give a damn what the rationale behind the prejudice is; it's still prejudice, and I'm still exposing it for what it is. There is no excuse. Half-assing around the issue, trying to paint it like it's actually only an enlightened disagreement on some abstract philosophical or theological notion does not cut it.

There is, quite simply, no valid ground other than homophobia or base ignorance for not supporting equal rights for everybody. There is no valid ground for feeling superior or morally superior to a subgroup of people due to your beliefs, religious or otherwise. This is not a mere "point of view" or a question of perspective; it's bigotry. Plain, simple, obvious bigotry.

[The Alma Mater]

Originally Posted by Maximus Corporation

My point is that there is no real tenable position. That's why people shouldn't be calling others bigots if they disagree with them.

Why is the question if it is chosen, genetic, a combination or something else entirely relevant to the debate and the bigot calling ?

Is there an objective reason to dislike homosexuals y/n ?
Is there an objective reason to do not allow homosexuals to marry y/n ?

Those are the questions that determine if you are right to call anti-gays bigots.

[Der Teutoniker]

Originally Posted by CthulhuFhtagn

-Biota
 |-Eukaryota
    |-Animalia
      |-Bilateria
        |-Deuterostomia
          |-Chordata
            |-Craniata
              |-Vertebrata
                |-Gnathostomata
                  |-Tetrapoda
                    |-Amniota
                      |-Synapsida
                        |-Therapsida
                          |-Mammalia
                            |-Theria
                              |-Eutheria
                                |-Euarchontoglires
                                  |-Euarchonta
                                    |-Primates
                                      |-Haplorrhini
                                        |-Simiiformes
                                          |-Catarrhini
                                            |-Hominoidea
                                              |-Hominidae
                                                |-Homininae
                                                  |-Hominini
                                                    |-Hominina
                                                      |-Homo
                                                        |-H. sapiens
                                                          |-H. s. sapiens

We're animals.

I maintain my disagreement. However, had you at one point learned to read a whole idea, you would have realized that I am not arguing based on any scientific merit (nor indeed, am I arguing that we are scientifically not humans). I stated that I feel, through Biblical explanation, that humans are set apart from, and above, animals, this is a theological/philosophical standpoint... not a scientific one, so your claim continues to have no merit against my point at all.

[Maximus Corporation]

Originally Posted by The Alma Mater

Why is the question if it is chosen, genetic, a combination or something else entirely relevant to the debate and the bigot calling ?

Is there an objective reason to dislike homosexuals y/n ?
Is there an objective reason to do not allow homosexuals to marry y/n ?

Those are the questions that determine if you are right to call anti-gays bigots.

Because several have stated that 'they can't choose the way they are' - Perhaps it is irrelevant.

As to the other two questions :

It really depends on the answer's definition of objective.

(It's also my understanding many people who dislike homosexuals are not following their faith very well.)

[Soheran]

Originally Posted by Maximus Corporation

What you're actually doing is arbitrarily* differentiating between your opinion and behavior and their opinion and behavior.

No, my differentiation is not arbitrary at all.

No one has proven that human sexuality is purely genetic. Just as no one has proven that it is purely a learned behavior.

So fucking what? That has nothing--nothing whatsoever--to do with the question of same-sex marriage.

Neither are arbitrarily decided - most people who decide their opinions don't just wake up one day and decide. Many of them have done a lot of reflecting and do use logic,

You can think about an issue and still make arbitrary judgments. "Arbitrary" does not mean "whimsical."

the problem is that both sides disagree on premises.

Which premises?

[Skaladora]

Originally Posted by Der Teutoniker

I maintain my disagreement. However, had you at one point learned to read a whole idea, you would have realized that I am not arguing based on any scientific merit (nor indeed, am I arguing that we are scientifically not humans). I stated that I feel, through Biblical explanation, that humans are set apart from, and above, animals, this is a theological/philosophical standpoint... not a scientific one, so your claim continues to have no merit against my point at all.

Well, my religion says that trying to deny scientific reality using theology or philosophy is stupid and inane.

Pastafarianism FTW!

[The Alma Mater]

Originally Posted by Maximus Corporation

As to the other two questions :

It really depends on the answer's definition of objective.

Fair enough. Shall we change objective to "how well they can back it up with reasoning" ?
Or, we could just wait until some opponents provide us with what they personally think is objective. "It is icky" obviously is not.

[Maximus Corporation]

Originally Posted by The Alma Mater

Fair enough. Shall we change objective to "how well they can back it up with reasoning" ?
Or, we could just wait until some opponents provide us with what they personally think is objective. "It is icky" obviously is not.

As I had stated, if two parties disagree on premises it is difficult if not impossible to reconcile them. Calling each other 'bigots' is not conductive to an educated discussion.

[CthulhuFhtagn]

Originally Posted by Der Teutoniker

I maintain my disagreement. However, had you at one point learned to read a whole idea, you would have realized that I am not arguing based on any scientific merit (nor indeed, am I arguing that we are scientifically not humans). I stated that I feel, through Biblical explanation, that humans are set apart from, and above, animals, this is a theological/philosophical standpoint... not a scientific one, so your claim continues to have no merit against my point at all.

When dealing with a matter of biology, a biblical stance is, quite frankly, worthless. Which is why I didn't bother with it, because it's totally irrelevant.

[The Alma Mater]

Originally Posted by Maximus Corporation

As I had stated, if two parties disagree on premises it is difficult if not impossible to reconcile them. Calling each other 'bigots' is not conductive to an educated discussion.

Examining the premises would be the first step.