Marriage, Gays, and Atheists

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Now why didn't you say this 5 posts ago? That's all I was after.

Because you kept saying that I refer to my SO as a wife?

I agree with you here, but I am also saying that an alternate interpretation is that your orientation has in fact changed, and you are lying to yourself right now. If in fact you have accepted that you were lying to yourself and others when you said you were bi, why would you accept with such confidence that you have it correct now?

Because orientation is not just a word or a label, it is who you are capable of being attracted to. I am not attracted to women, the genuine thought of having sex with a woman again is repulsive to me (to put it mildly). Just as I am sure the thought of having sex with men is repulsive to most straight men. It's how we're wired. There are physical differences in the brain between straight and gay men, Ben, so this isn't purely someone deciding "I think I'll be gay now" or "I think I'll be straight now".

That says nothing about me personally though.

It does, unless what you're saying does not apply to you. And if it does not apply to you, how can you assert it is the case?

You are either bisexual or a chronic, pathological liar and intellectual dishonest douchebag. I've got money on all of the above.

[Ming]

"douchebag"

Now now Asher... try to be civil

[chequita guevara]

Should Aspies have children?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ming
"douchebag"

Now now Asher... try to be civil

Can we just all agree "Kenobi" is synonymous with that word? Then I can keep using it in code?

[Ben Kenobi]

Never said that... and dogs are irrelevent to this discussion. You are bringing it up only as a smoke and mirror.

No, I was after the distinction between platonic and romantic love, which Mr. Fun gave to me.

The point being that just because you love someone doesn't mean you should be married. Saying that because you love someone means you should get married is irrelevant to the issue.

But unfortantely, they don't have laws that will protect that relationship.

That's not the same as saying that they are being prevented from having that relationship in the first place.

Why should there be laws to protect that relationship over other ones? Why should we privilege one relationship?

Gays should have the same rights as straight people. To say otherwise is to be bigoted and advocating discrimination.

They have precisely the same rights. They are asking for privileges that others don't have. If I want to get married I have to follow the same rules as everyone else, I don't get to change the game. Saying that I love someone is not sufficient justification for me to demand that the relationship be recognised as marriage.

Yes, marriage discriminates. Why is this a bad thing? There are many rules surrounding marriage that are there for a reason. If you remove one rule then the question is going to arise about removing others, such as age limits, consanginuity and monogamy.

Got me there... I did say couple. Frankly, I think that any single person that can prove they can provide a loving and secure home should be able to adopt as well.

Ok, thanks for being honest Ming. I appreciate that. I'm sorry if I've been hostile to you earlier.

The only reason I would have a problem with this, is not because I don't want kids to be placed, but because I have a problem with this loophole being abused by others who do not have the best interests of the child at hand.

If I were married and someone in my family were left without a mom or a dad, I'd see to it that they had someone to look after them, and if no one wanted them I would take them in without hesitation. I don't think the current adoption system serves anyone well at all, and that the kid's best interest is to stay with other family or relatives.

I've always wanted to have kids to look after.

That doesn't prove that gays can't provide a loving home. Straight people break up too.. yet you have no problem with straight people adopting. The chance of a break up has more to do with the couple... not stereo types.

I have a problem with any kid who's been adopted having to go through a divorce, gay or straight. If I am going to be rolling the dice, I want as narrow a range as possible.

And I did say we should be doing all we can to get kids into loving homes... which is why gay people should be allowed to adopt if they pass the screening.

Ok I apologise for what I said. That was wrong of me. I think there are serious problems with the current system that is set up that need to be solved before this innovation should be adopted. I am very worried about the instability I see everywhere, with straight couples, so I am not impressed when someone tells me that it is only 'marginally' worse for gay couples. That's like saying something that is already risky is acceptable over something that is just slightly less risky.

You have proven no such thing. You don't even know how to read the studies you produce as proof. The one you did even admits it can't make any conclusions.

The numbers that they do cite are shocking, not encouraging. I'm not sure why everyone is jumping on the bandwagon and is happy about those numbers.

Why risk exposing kids to religion when there is a high risk that they will get abused by a clergy person.

What chance will they have of getting abused when they are with you?

They have to get education... but they don't need religion. The risk is higher than the return
Especially if the religion is teaching our children to discriminate against others.

Then that's your choice. I was waiting for that.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Asher

Can we just all agree "Kenobi" is synonymous with that word? Then I can keep using it in code?

I agree.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

They have precisely the same rights. They are asking for privileges that others don't have.

You've said this hundreds of times every year for many years, and it's always hilarious.

Why are we wasting time with gay marriage as an issue, we should really be doing IQ tests to make sure people like Ben Kenobi never have kids.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because orientation is not just a word or a label, it is who you are capable of being attracted to.

That's a philosophical statement which can be contested. There is no consensus precisely on what the word applies to even by those who coined the term.

I am not attracted to women, the genuine thought of having sex with a woman again is repulsive to me (to put it mildly).

My question would be if it were just that women who was repulsive or whether all women would be such?

Just as I am sure the thought of having sex with men is repulsive to most straight men.

True, but saying that something is 'repulsive' to you is different then saying that it is hardwired.

It's how we're wired. There are physical differences in the brain between straight and gay men, Ben, so this isn't purely someone deciding "I think I'll be gay now" or "I think I'll be straight now".

No, I've seen that study. What you do impacts the structure of the brain. I would expect gay people and straight people to have brain differences just because they act in different ways. Are you assuming that your brain doesn't change based on how you use it?

It's like any form of addiction. Your mind gets adapted to a certain use, and it is difficult to change.

It does, unless what you're saying does not apply to you. And if it does not apply to you, how can you assert it is the case?

Good question, I'm asserting because of my observations of others. Including you asher.

I've seen folks flip back and forth depending on their whims. I find that extremely hard to believe is possible if sexual orientation were fixed.

You are either bisexual or a chronic, pathological liar and intellectual dishonest douchebag. I've got money on all of the above.

You lose, I'm afraid.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why are we wasting time with gay marriage as an issue, we should really be doing IQ tests to make sure people like Ben Kenobi never have kids

Where would you set the threshold?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Then that's your choice. I was waiting for that.

So you are proud of the fact that your religion demands that you discriminate ?

[Ben Kenobi]

So you are proud of the fact that your religion demands that you discriminate ?

What would be the point of a religion that didn't distinguish between sheeps and goats?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Oh, really? Then why do many people change over time?

The only thing that changes is when a person realizes he is gay and finally comes to accept it and then chooses to come out to family and friends.

His sexual orientation never changed. He was always a gay man before he came to admit this to himself that he is.

The only change this gay man made is his behavior, not his sexual orientation.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


What would be the point of a religion that didn't distinguish between sheeps and goats?

Sheeps and goats are two different species - men and women are of the same.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No, I was after the distinction between platonic and romantic love, which Mr. Fun gave to me.

The point being that just because you love someone doesn't mean you should be married. Saying that because you love someone means you should get married is irrelevant to the issue.

You continue to distort other people's arguments.

My point never has been that you should marry anyone/anything that you love. If you are romantically in love with someone with whom you are sexually involved with, or plan to become sexually involved with soon, then you may wish to marry that person if both of you want to sustain a life-long commitment.

I'm explaining all of these rudimentary basics to you that pretty much everyone else understands. No one here says that because you love someone or something you should get married with him or it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's a philosophical statement which can be contested.

Not unless you are saying you are saying you are only straight because you say you are straight, and you are capable of being sexually attracted to both genders but choose females...in which case you are bi.

My question would be if it were just that women who was repulsive or whether all women would be such?

It's all women. I'm not attracted at all to the female anatomy, just as I'm sure straight men are not at all attracted to that of the male anatomy.

It's really simple, you only choose to complicate it to excuse your homophobia.

True, but saying that something is 'repulsive' to you is different then saying that it is hardwired.

I never said, nor implied, they were the same. But it is hard-wired for me to be attracted to men, not women. I have been all of my life.

No, I've seen that study.

I like how you imply there's only one study. There's many. It's generally accepted now, scientifically, that there are biological differences in how gay and straight brains are wired. You ascribe the concept that the only reason they're different is because of how we behave, as if ****ing a man is changing the chemical balance in your brain, which is cute. This is not the generally accepted scientifical consensus, and in fact many studies point to the mother's hormone levels during birth as being a key factor in a child's sexuality.

As usual, there are more factors than you can care to know or understand, so stop defaulting to your opinion that this is all a choice or a result of behaviour rather than acknowledging the scientific evidence that it is not.

It's like any form of addiction. Your mind gets adapted to a certain use, and it is difficult to change.

I like how you say being gay is like a form of addiction. That's amazing, you're so awesome.

I've seen folks flip back and forth depending on their whims. I find that extremely hard to believe is possible if sexual orientation were fixed.

ONCE AGAIN. Sexual orientation is not just what someone says, and if somebody is constantly flip-flopping on who they are GENUINELY ATTRACTED TO, they are simply BISEXUAL. I can never be attracted to women, even when I tried VERY HARD for years.

I'm assuming for straight men, the same is true for them.

Whether you are different, that's not the point. If you can choose, you are bisexual. If you cannot choose, you don't even ascribe to your opinion you spout here -- what an intellectual dishonest Kenobi you are.

You lose, I'm afraid.

Yeah, I'm the loser here. Did you notice no one -- NO ONE -- is taking your side on this? Everyone, from republicans to democrats to communists are mocking you here. You are way, way wrong. And you are also a loser. Also, you lose this argument.