The religious bigots march onward in their futile fight against gay marriage (Page 4)

davesdatahut: And what's that about a "lifetime of handjobs?" Whatsa matter Shadow, you got an objection to handjobs? What about anal sex and oral sex? You forgot to mention those disgusting gay acts that straights also happen to have in their bedroom repertoire.
(another post with no editing! i'm on a roll, Shadow)

shadowline: Pretty funny stuff, dave, but none of it is making any serious point, or answering any serious point made by me. I repeat, your view of homosexuality (which you needn't fear for - it's under no threat from me, or anyone else you would merely mock at for wondering what is wise and right) is wholly dependant on one thing - proof that homosexuality is inborn and physical in basis. And there is no such proof. If homosexuality is NOT inborn and physical in basis, then it MAY be what I (and, as it happens, one of the greatest psychologists of the modern period) think it is. And if it is that, then it would be more reasonable to see it as a problem than as a matter of rights, which is why I make use of the analogies I do. You are buying into a myth, and flinging accusations and cheap shots around as a result. You seem to be impressing yourself with that performance, but, so far, I'm not joining the club.

Congratulations on the unedited posts. It's kind of hard to make a mistake that matters when you are expressing yourself like an over-excited 15 year old anyway, I'm thinking.

chronology: shadow. Interesting points. One of the problems with the early studies done of Gays was that they were made when homosexualism was illegal, and Gays were often leading very secret lives constantly in fear of blackmail by criminals and arrest by the Police. A very hostile conclusion of Gays was submitted by Alfred Adler. Dr Adler is considered one of the giants of psychology like Freud and Jung the 'Big Three'. Adler concluded Gays were really anti social people motivated by hatred of other people. The 'love making' of Gays was really veiled abuse of another person masquerading as affection he speculated. But the Gays he was analysing were people leading double lives and meeting in secret. Most of the Gays I have known are just men who seem to be addicted to as much sex as possible with other men, just like Paris Hilton supposedly said 'they are horney as hell'.

Today the tables have turned around completely and absolutely. It is the Gays who are in positions of advantage. I doubt if any psychologist would dare submit a negative view of homosexuals unless he lived in an Islamic or communist country. And with major elections now being won or lost by very close margins and Gays a very well organised voting Block, few politicians want to drive Gay voters to the other Party.

The13th: I think this debate is heading in a healthy direction with the mention of handjobs, sodomy etc. Add some steamy gay sex and i will be thrilled. One thing I believe that should not be mentioned is upholding of civil right. I think everyone including all the faith based bigot that we love to hate agree with outlawing discrimination based on sex, age, race. Won't even surprise me if the civil right act were championed by some of these bigots. To those couragious chiampion of the act we salute, but to those hide behind civil right banner in this debate we tend not to hold too high of a regards. Members of the jury please disregard all mentioning of civil right act. Your job is to decide, based on all other arguments put forth and to be put forth in subsequent page in this thread alone, whether same sex marriage should be (1) banned, and if not (2) should it be legalized.

pyroclastic flo: "hiding behind the Civil Rights banner"? who's hiding? the advancement of Civil Rights is what this is all about. Church and State need to remain separate so arguments against affording someone their Civil Rights based Biblical law just doesn't cut it in a secular country working under secular law. this is the whole of it and you must know this or you wouldn't be so intent on not only squashing equal Civil Rights for Gay folks but the very discussion of it.

so the conversation devolves into descriptions and moral parsings of sex acts b/c for some weird reason anti-Gay people are fascinated by homosexual sex.

PS. i always edit my posts. what's the problem w/ that? is it some indicator of moral failure?

The13th: My point is not to ban discussion of civil right, but that I recognized that church leaders are not blind and ignorant to civil right, but have in fact been the pioneer of many movements and initiatives that eventually lead to civil right act, and therefore there is no point in hold high the banner of civil right and scream "I won I won, I am the champion of civil right. You lost. You violate civil rghtt". Church records on the betterment of mankind, and embracing the discriminated probably has no equal and that we have to recognize.

And since we are all equal point on understanding and upholding of civil right, that no longer need to be mentioned. we now have to put forth all the reasoning to argue whether same sex marriage is right or wrong. This is where grand standing stop, and rigorous reasoning start.

pyroclastic flo: "right" or "wrong" according to who? you? a group of Bible or Quran based bigots? who determines who is moral enough to enjoy Civil Rights? be careful what you wish for b/c if taking morality litmus tests were to become a requirement for the allowance of Civil Rights you, yourself, may not pass the tests.

i just read that Charles Manson, murderer and evil whacko, applied for and received a state issued marriage license so obviously "right and wrong" and the morals of individuals applying for and getting a marriage license has nothing to do with it.

law abiding Gay folks have less right to a state issued marriage license than Charlie Manson? really?

davesdatahut: Shadow...notwithstanding your views about homosexuality, based on the theories of man last heard from more than 50 years ago, the question remains this: what has this to do with equal rights under the law?
Let's assume, arguendo, that we should accept this crackpotism about homosexuality as accurate, and concur that this is a condition based on some kind of immaturity that can be cured, kind of like low self-esteem or maybe the common cold. This is an assumption that would be wholly debunked by modern psychological research. But let's go there, apply some suspension of disbelief like we do at the movies and agree that homosexuality is a personality problem.
We then ask: so what? Why should people with this supposed personality deficiency not be allowed to marry? This is the question. Why should it be legal to deny them the right of marriage that is bestowed upon straights? Is there a provision under the law that declares that personality problems are a legitimate legal obstacle to marriage?
THIS is the question. What is your answer?
(poops! i needed to correct a grammar error! i am no longer on a non-edit roll! i am feeling incompletely individuated! shit shit shit shit)

pyroclastic flo: maybe psychiatric testing should be a requirement for the receiving of a marriage license so that any and all people w/ personality deficiencies can be identified and denied the right to state issued marriage licenses. might wanna include DNA testing as well so those w/ genetic flaws can be disallowed the right to marry too. and why stop at marriage licenses? the state issues all kinds of licenses and perhaps there should be psychiatric tests required for those as well. you know... like psychological testing for licenses for guns, driving, opening businesses and such.

wheeeeee! down the slippery slope we go!

sprocket girl:
I want divorced people banned from remarrying since The Bible says they can not do so!

here is the simple sollution.....
1 eliminate the discrimination against single people
2 end tax advantages of being married
3 government gets out of personal business and has nothing at all to do with marriage
4 it is then a religious or cultural ceremony only and it makes no difference who does it

as to property you can have joint property with someone you are not sleeping with.... no need to marry for this. same goes with finances...

so, if discrimination against those who do not chose to marry is ended and the government stops giving advantages to married people there is no need for them to recognize marriage at all. a government being involved and regulating who can be married is not freedom! regardless of who they say can be married as long as they have the say you are not free!

pyroclastic flo: that's reasonable, sprocket.

sprocket girl:
the divorce comment is showing religious hypocracy.... I do not infact care who is married in the governments eyes... since I believe they should be not involved in any manner!

the fact that the government could change the rules to exclude anyone should be everyones concern... the fact that people do not recognize they are not free and that the government is regulating your personal choices that affect no one but you, is what concerns me the most....

I would venture posters on both sides do not deem the US government as a police state or oppressive... but this very thread shows otherwise. the same can be said for my UK, not picking on the USA... we accept what we are told is freedom but upon close examination is it really?

pyroclastic flo: "I would venture posters on both sides do not deem the US government as a police state or oppressive."

um ... our civilian police force has been militarized and trained to view the workaday citizenry as "the enemy". the USA is ambling towards a police state wherein the exploitative corporatocracy is aggressively protected from the protestations of the increasingly disgruntled masses. but thats a topic for another thread.

davesdatahut: While we are at it, Shadow, didn't Jung actually have very little to say on the matter of homosexuality or sexuality in general? My limited knowledge of Jung is that this was not one of his major areas of study. I am curious where it is that you get you information on his theories regarding gays. Can you provide some insight into this?

sprocket girl:
Dave,
to be fair while Jung founded analytical psycology...
not trying to be contrary but all of psychology is not based on the work of Jung. nonetheless to my knowledge what Shadow states about human sexuality is not grounded in current psychology. not sure it is grounded in anything besides a personal disgust of sexual behavior.

also am less sure why anyone cares about the sexual acts of others... if one does not like a sexual act one can simply abstain. I personally abstain from all sexual acts. but why should I care what others do?

also, since when did prohibiting marriage stop sex?
and in what way does marriage being legal or not change sexual acts?

to police sexual acts seems a crazy concept and since countries can not even stop gun violence and drug trafficking it seems a waste to even attempt stopping sexual relations between consenting adults.

davesdatahut: Sprocket, those are all valid questions that perhaps Shadow and his fellow travelers arguing against gay marriage can answer.
As for Jung, he is credited by many with some great achievements in the field of psychology and psychoanalysis. He also is credited by others as having some crazy, sometimes hostile notions that strayed far from widely accepted theories of human behavior.

chronology: davedata. All some folks have been trying to do is preserve the respect and integrity with which the Institutions of the United States are held, and retain the dignity of the Institution of marriage. I believe it is to the credit of the American people and American Legal system, that the United States has not changed the definition of marriage like has been done on the other side of the Atlantic where Gays now stand in churches kissing and celebrating their sexual orientation with the full blessing and approval of the nations they live in. America has seen a debate and discussion of this subject like nowhere els on earth, and this is to the credit of America and it's people. This is not bigotry or hate, this is people who respect The Deity and who love and respect their country. You think these concerns by Americans are BS, fine, you are free to do so.

davesdatahut: That's how some people see it, Chron. Others see it as a violation of the rights of a class of law abiding adults. I fall into the latter category. As a lover of the great U.S. Constitution. I opt for equal rights, not unequal rights, bigotry and hate.
To borrow and modify your words: I believe it is to the DIScredit of the American people and American Legal system, that the United States has not changed the definition of marriage like has been done on the other side of the Atlantic where Gays now stand in churches kissing and celebrating their sexual orientation with the full blessing and approval of the nations they live in. Praise those countries on the other side of the Atlantic.
When it comes the unfair and discriminatory application of marital laws, I am embarrassed by the past in my country, but encouraged by the present. It is to the great credit of the American legal system that it is gradually correcting this.
Again, we are not a theocracy. We are a democracy. This is a distinction that should forever be high in the minds of all who advocate for equal treatment of all law abiding citizens.

davesdatahut: I have posted this here in the past. It is again worth posting it now: Are we to forego progress because of biblical fables, superstitions and fears?
These gays. They wish to be accorded the same rights as straights. They wish to marry.

and this, too

chronology: And I would recall the words of the Judge at Edmund Burk's Trial; 'Not having the Fear of God before his eyes, being seduced by the Doctrines of the Devil, he took it upon himself to tear asunder the Peace of these United States'.

davesdatahut: And, Chron, your point is?

sprocket girl:
chronology, three questions then a response to misinformation do to glaobal issolation.

1) why is divorce people being remarried not a slap to the dignity of the institution of marriage?

2) why does a government have the right to say who one marries?

3) how do we determine who can get married? If you say The Bible refer back to question 1

now, I disagree with the typical closed minded viea of Americans.... it is not true that America is the only Nation who have had great debate on this subject. gain some global awerness! it isa huge topic in Scotland and was actually one of the reasons behind the vote for independence. seems the Scots have a different view of gay marriage than the English. there has been great debate in many other countries and many have stricter laws than America in regards to America. but that is outside America so of course few Americans know this. Chron your post is an example as to why many Europeans think American's arrogant and ignorant.

I have spent time in America I do not view Americans poorly as many of my countrymen or fellow Europeans, only because I understand they for the majority simply have little understanding of the rest of the world. mostly because of media bias and a lack of first hand experiance.

seems no one against gay marriage will defend adulterers being married nor divorcees being married. also, seems no one will explain why gays should not get married when others can defy Biblical scripture and get married....

seems those against gay marriage are hypocrites... but someone on that side could answer my questions and disprove my assumption of hypocracy.

sprocket girl:
If it is based on God and The Bible fine outlaw gay marriage but also outlaw divorced adulterers being married... or defy God and allow one sin and condem another.

The13th: Other than suggesting we don't mention civil right when tabulating our argument here because church has good record on civil right and thus church opponent will not score any net point here, I also want to suggest we dont mentioned bible or Quran. The fact is church stand on same sex marriage might have been derived from bible or letter from pope, but when they file the case in supreme court they did not based their case on bible. They did not argue that: since the bible stated so, please ban same sex marriage. Rather their stand is as a group of people, we are officially requesting supreme court to hear the case of same sex marriage and consider banning it. None faith based people like myself also wish the case to be considered, and we don't care about what the bible said. So to bring other clauses in the bible into this thread and say if you ban this you must also ban that - I don't think judge would allow that sort of argument.

sprocket girl:
I have to ask if not on religion on what grounds do they wish same sex marriage banned?
What is the sanctity of marriage?
Ummmm sanctity is a religious word...

Just a minor not The Pope bans adulterers and divorcees from marriage also... Because he takes his stand based on The Bible. Not that it matters if not a religious decision.

Honestly I can see no reasonable reason besides religious faith why anyone would care who is in bed with who. So, someone please enlighten me, if not religion or homophobia what is the issue?