Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[Whaleboy]

So what if a guy next to you on a bus unzips his pants and starts jerking off? Would you object to that? (Give your reason why.)

If a guy next to you a bus kisses the guy next to him, just as the straight couple in front are kissing would you object to that? Give your reason why.

The fact that these discussions always head back to sex is a sign that what bothers people is not so much the relationship (straight men should approve... higher ratio of women to them), but they are intimidated by anal sex.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Note "public", I don't mind them hiding themselves away and perverting themselves, that is their choice, but in public NO WAY. And I am in the majority.

Your bigotry really shines through.


There are no negative social effects of a gay couple showing the same affection for one another in public that is appropriate for anyone to express -- regardless of sexual orientation.


Sometimes, when I'm in an irrate mood and I see a straight couple in public holding hands or whatever, I go over in my mind, "why do they have to push their sexual orientation in everyone's faces" -- as if I were talking to them, pointing out the unfair, bigoted double standard.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
The fact is, Whaleboy, any sex or touching/kissing in public between man and man is a perversion.

Perversion is a subjective, social construct -- there have always been subjective social norms that were not justified.

For instance, at one time, it was considered an act of insubordination for blacks walking on sidewalks to refuse to get off the sidewalk for a white person even when there was room for both to pass each other.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd think that any touching/kissing of Park Avenue would be a perversion

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


So you disapprove of sex in public because it is unhygenic?

So what if a guy next to you on a bus unzips his pants and starts jerking off? Would you object to that? (Give your reason why.)

Believe it or not, the majority of gays have the same common sense and decency when it comes to appropriate public behavior, just as the majority of straight people do.

I know -- shocking

[Whaleboy]

Or indeed a perversion for a Jew to marry a Christian woman. Not Nazi Germany, Britain less than five generations ago .

[Solly]

Whale,

Considering that homosexuality is relatively commonplace among some higher mammals like chimps and possibly even dolphins, I'm inclined to disagree

Humans are above animals so trying to defend the perverse behaviours of some of our species through references to monkeys and others is just ridiculous and shows how desperate you are for an argument.

I don't know where you're from but down here, you certainly wouldn't be in the majority, not that that is in anyway relevant to the ethical question pertaining to this situation.

I believe you're a proponent of the "no objective ethics" argument, so please explain this. How else does society decide what is moral/ethical than apart from what the majority thinks?

I'm inclined to think instead that the law should respect individual freedoms where that does not harm another.

Define harm, simply.

Would I rather someone recognise their homosexuality/bisexuality than be unhappily chained to heterosexuality when that does not become them

I would have thought there's more people unhappily chained to homosexuality. After all, nobody tends to kill themselves because they are straight.

Bull. An increasing number of parents are becoming as accepting of homosexuality in their children

Not difficult when it's starting from 0% acceptance.

Some people find being entrenched in dogma comforting. When these types of people achieve power, innocent people invariably suffer.

Whatever this is about..

If a guy next to you a bus kisses the guy next to him, just as the straight couple in front are kissing would you object to that? Give your reason why.

Because it is unnatural, and not what society wants to see.

MrF,

Your bigotry really shines through.

So does your naivety.

There are no negative social effects of a gay couple showing the same affection for one another in public

There is, what about parents who don't want their children to see it that kind of behaviour. I know a lot of people who don't want to see it to. In the end, the majority decides what happens.

Perversion is a subjective, social construct -- there have always been subjective social norms that were not justified.

But suddenly yours and Whaleboy's opinions become an objective norm rather than just your personal opinions?

For instance, at one time, it was considered an act of insubordination for blacks walking on sidewalks to refuse to get off the sidewalk for a white person even when there was room for both to pass each other.

And that was correct, at the time in which it was happening, for that is what society decreed.

Believe it or not, the majority of gays have the same common sense and decency when it comes to appropriate public behavior

This is good. I haven't yet seen any gays holding hands in public so I'm inclined to agree with you here.

[Jarouik]

OK, i thought this was a sensible conversation... but people like Ben and, even more, Park Avenue, make this something quite else. Just makes me want to and and and

Is this really the extent of people's capability to think sensibly as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction against a "perversion"... I am not arguing my opinion on gay marriage is the truth, but it saddens me to see people stating as a "truth" that same-sex contact is wrong and should not be seen in public. So much for equality... why is it some people hold on to their rigid medieval values so much they cannot see and understand the people they are judging? How about values like humanity, equality, tolerance or love?

The only people I have encountered on the net this far with similar opinions are christian fundamentalists, and they are impossible to try to reason with. And yep, I know my comments will elicit fiery feedback from Ben and PA and such, but I expect no better... I guess judgement is the thing you do to make sense of the world, even if most people think it would be uncalled for. I just don't understand how you can think "values" and "traditions" or whatever your motivation is are more important than the happiness and love of people living today, or how PA can argue no gays should be seen in public based on nothing but his personal distaste.

I guess it isn't worth it to pursue this conversation...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


There is, what about parents who don't want their children to see it that kind of behaviour. I know a lot of people who don't want to see it to. In the end, the majority decides what happens.

But suddenly yours and Whaleboy's opinions become an objective norm rather than just your personal opinions?

And that was correct, at the time in which it was happening, for that is what society decreed.

This is good. I haven't yet seen any gays holding hands in public so I'm inclined to agree with you here.

First, to those homophobic parents who are living a society that is increasingly willing to recognize the human dignity of gays -- I say tough sh*t. It's not our problem that there are still paranoid, bigoted parents out there -- that is THEIR problem for THEM to deal with.

Second, where did I say that our opinion is becoming an objective social norm?

Third, even at that time, it was not acceptable for many people the way blacks were treated in the era of Jim Crow. There were organizations and public leaders of both races who protested the Jim Crow laws.

Fourth, you're just trying to belligerently distort my implications behind my last statement. The inappropriate behavior is NOT holding hands in public, but pulling your pants down. Thus, the standards for acceptable behavior ought to be the same for everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

[Solly]

"Thus, the standards for acceptable behavior ought to be the same for everyone regardless of sexual orientation."

I totally agre

Two straight men shouldn't hold hands/kiss in public either.

[Aeson]

So instead of discriminating based on sexual orientation you now wish to discriminate based on gender PA? Otherwise it would read:

"Two people shouldn't hold hands/kiss in public either."

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
"Thus, the standards for acceptable behavior ought to be the same for everyone regardless of sexual orientation."

I totally agre

Two straight men shouldn't hold hands/kiss in public either.

Do you realize how inane your attempts to distort my statements have become at this point?

[Solly]

I'm not distorting anything, but clarifying.

[MrFun]

You're distorting my statement by making a claim that you agree with something that I do not even argue in favor of.

In this instance, I argue in favor of the same standards for public behavior with my argument implicating same standards for couples -- regardless of whether that couple is of two people of opposite genders, or of the same gender.



So yes -- you are distorting and now you're lying about it, too.

[Ming]

I think some people need to chill...

And PA...
Some people seem to be able to argue against gay marriages in a reasonable and civil fashion... you aren't one of them. So enough with the bigoted crap. You are one more bigoted comment away from yet another restriction.