Sexuality: What's right or wrong?

[Claire]

[FONT="Arial"]This is all I have time for right now:[/FONT]

[quote name='ChibiHorseWoman']Hey as long as you practice safe sex I'm all for promoting lust.[/quote]

[font=arial]And I think there are much bigger problems to face than the legalization of same-sex marriage potentially condoning the corruption of society. Such as: the amount of sexual content and violence young people can see on TV. Such as: peoples' access to hard drugs. Such as: poverty and hunger in this country. The list goes on.[/font]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Though I do raise one question: Why "marriage"? Why not just become business partners, room mates, neighbors, best friends through thick and thin if sex is not involved?[/QUOTE]
[FONT="Arial"]
This is entirely up to the people involved, but I'm going to hazard a guess that it's because marriage is seen as the ultimate union. It means commitment. It means both parties promise they will be together no matter what, until death. And maybe for the cynical, it means that the other person is going to have to go through a lot of trouble if they want to break the contract.

But as mentioned before, over and over again, there are benefits that married couples have that the unmarried do not. I don't know what they are, I believe something about insurance and property claims, as well as smaller things. There are over a thousand, if I read one article correctly.

For most people on the planet, a relationship is just not enough unless it's recognized as final by the government, and for many, God.[/FONT]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote name='Crimson Spider']Last time I checked, the law doesn't suddenly show favor one relationship instead of another. If you are talking about hte law aspect, then they have all the rights, and are free to exercise them, regardless of their will to do so.

If you are not talking about law, then they can't have the rights, regardless of what law states. This is due to the fact that they are not a couple with a biological dicthotomy capable of producing children through intercourse. No amount of legal changes will create a "make believe" world where this is true.[/QUOTE]I'm pretty sure she's talking about favoritism in regards to the legal rights that gay couples can't get since they don't have the option to be [I]legally[/I] married, something she already mentioned in her post here:[quote name='Sabrina'][FONT="Tahoma"][CENTER]Follow Link To Original Post[/CENTER][/FONT][/QUOTE]In that respect it [I]is[/I] favoritism since there is no recognition for same sex marriages on a federal and local government level. Meaning they can't access the benefits that a regular couple can. So in a nitpicking manner, you're correct, they aren't suddenly showing favoritism to straight couples, they [I]always[/I] have. lol

Once again you skirt the issue so you can maintain your own views and keep them intact. Since you have clearly declared (in your continual rehashing of the same argument) that you will not accept same sex marriage or homosexuality as being normal in any manner, I kind of wonder why people continue to debate with you. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Vicky]

[quote name='Room Service'][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]
I'm sorry to jump in like this, but I feel this whole debate is [I]re-****ing-diculous[/I]. The whole thing is based on pre-concieved notions of normality, the sense of what is 'right' instilled in us by the culture that raises us. That means that it's all just silly human stupidity. Love is love. Gay or straight, bi, curious, whatever troubles your tribbles, it's all the same.

Sex? What is sex but the physical act of love? If you tell me I can't love someone because we've got matching parts, well, kindly jog the **** on. The mind reels at the kind of busy-bodied, self-righteous toff who acts like somebody elses love is their business.

Ugh. Like I said, sorry to kind of interrupt the flow of this thread, but it's easier than reading the whole thing before contributing anything. Jesus, come on, would [I]you[/I] want to sift through this thing at 4 in the morning? But I must say, this whole debate is rediculous. The only way to win this arguement is to prove your own moral superiority, but in order to do that, you have to invalidate people's right to privacy and personal happiness, something which would automatically defeat any sense of moral high-horseitry you could muster.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]How do you know the debate is [i]ridiculous[/i] if you haven't read it? Sorry, I just had to pick at that. There's been some valid points thrown out here.

I've been neglecting this thread but I'm responding to something earlier (because I do like to give answers to the questions I'm asked):

[quote][b]Deuteronomy 22:11[/b]
Do not have clothing made of two sorts of thread, wool and linen together.[/quote]

Simple as.

Homosexuality is a sin according to the very vague bible then I guess the majority of Christians are sinners, if, of course, you're using the bible as the ultimate infallible guide to all that is right and wrong.

There's a million points I want to make and a million points I want to agree with but I really can't be too bothered at all. It's like running around in circles and the fact of the matter is... opinion, actually, haha. The only thing that should be debatable, really, is the law regarding gay marriage.

And even so it shouldn't be a debate.[/size]

[Andrew]

[size=1]I'm more than likely gonna get hanged for this post, but hell, what the hey right? To quote CHW, "Live and let live."

So, after a conversation in work today I got really curious. When a guy decides he's gay/bi/whatever, is it a conscious decision to start talking/walking like a woman or something that develops naturally? Seriously.

I'm all for gays and lesbinans, so long as they respect the fact that I'm straight and really not ever gonna be different and don't get all gay up in my face.[/size]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Andrew'][size=1]So, after a conversation in work today I got really curious. [B]When a guy decides he's gay/bi/whatever, is it a conscious decision to start talking/walking like a woman or something that develops naturally?[/B] Seriously..[/size][/QUOTE]

A lot of people, mostly those who are anti-gay, say it's a choice. GLBT people will tell you that's the way they were born, and I'm inclined to agree with them. Many have even said, why would anyone [I]choose[/I] to live a life that other people so demonize? If it was a simple matter of choice, we wouldn't be having the arguments we have over this.

[chibi-master]

WOW!!! 14 pages of this stuff already (maybe 15 once I post this!)

Anyway, may I say that I truly do love the nonchalant way most of the members think about this topic! Seriously, you're all really accepting! I want to give all of you a hug!

Oh yes, I was wondering...does anyone here know a homophobe? I'm not talking about people who think homosexuality is wrong, but people who scream or something when homosexuals are even mentioned. I've never understood why there would be any need to get freaked out by gays or lesbians or bisexuals...

[Vicky]

[quote name='chibi-master']

Oh yes, I was wondering...does anyone here know a homophobe? I'm not talking about people who think homosexuality is wrong, but people who scream or something when homosexuals are even mentioned. I've never understood why there would be any need to get freaked out by gays or lesbians or bisexuals...[/QUOTE]

[size=1]There's a reason I get into fights often =p.

Apparently I look very gay. There was an incident in college the other day which resulted in a nice pair of cut knuckles (wanna see?) that was a hint at me being gay. The majority of my high school was full of homophobic little wankers, but I kind of left them alone content with the immense feeling of pity and despise I had for them. You get homophobia a lot around here - it's Chav Kingdom - but I don't react to it as much as other thing ('mosher' gets me the most).

It's mostly the girls, boys seem to love lesbians (you're not getting any obviously...) but hate gay men. Transsexuals are another story and we won't go into what I've heard there. Anyway, you get the stupid little girls who sing that irritating song: "I KISSED A GIRL AND I LIKED IT!" on the friggin' bus then proceed to give a genuine gay couple a load of crap for... being gay =/.

Then you've got the blatantly homophobic Asian group in my college (not racism - they're Asian and they admit it all too often "no because I'm Asian," "yeah it's cause I'm Asian," "nah mate I'm Asian," etc...) who had a paddy because the LGBT group was on the same day - IN SOME COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BUILDING AT SOME COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TIME - as some Muslim thing. There was apparently some whole 'issue' about it. Because we're going to spread our disease around from the other side of the campus...

There's also the story of the woman who, drunk out of her face, tried and get me and my friend arrested for 'looking too gay'. In the Gay Village (place with lots of clubs and shizz nizz). In front of Gay bouncers.

[i]That[/i] was the funniest homophobia I've ever seen.[/size]

[Claire]

[FONT="Arial"]I get very angry whenever I hear someone say "that's so gay," or call someone a "***." It's common in high schools, I'm assuming everywhere. I don't understand how that could be funny. It's just ignorant and disrespectful. What else is new.

But people IN MY FAMILY'S CHURCH say things like that often. That infuriates me even more than the church does already. The sunday school teachers are always going on and on about "taming the tongue," but do absolutely nothing when some kid calls another gay.

What the hell.[/FONT]

[Lunar]

[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]I get very angry whenever I hear someone say "that's so gay," or call someone a "***." It's common in high schools, I'm assuming everywhere. I don't understand how that could be funny. It's just ignorant and disrespectful. What else is new.

But people IN MY FAMILY'S CHURCH say things like that often. That infuriates me even more than the church does already. The sunday school teachers are always going on and on about "taming the tongue," but do absolutely nothing when some kid calls another gay.

What the hell.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Sienna"]Ah, right. I'm sorry alex for calling you a ***! it's just that you were being a butthead! *ahem* sorry about that little outburst of emotion. Anyways, if you get angry at people calling others gay or a ***, you shouldn't be saying "what the hell" hell's a real place ya know!:catgirl:[/COLOR]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]I get very angry whenever I hear someone say "that's so gay," or call someone a "***." It's common in high schools, I'm assuming everywhere. I don't understand how that could be funny. It's just ignorant and disrespectful. What else is new.

But people IN MY FAMILY'S CHURCH say things like that often. That infuriates me even more than the church does already. The sunday school teachers are always going on and on about "taming the tongue," but do absolutely nothing when some kid calls another gay.

What the hell.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

I have a friend, kind of like a younger brother to me, and he would say that a lot, and if we were in public I'd ask him not to say it, because he might inadvertently offend someone.

Have you mentioned to the people in your church how angry it makes you? Perhaps it's worth a try to talk about it, hopefully they will listen.

[URL="http://www.365gay.com/blog/ruby-sachs-thats-so-gay/"][U]Article I just found that should interest you.[/U][/URL]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]I get very angry whenever I hear someone say "that's so gay," or call someone a "***." It's common in high schools, I'm assuming everywhere. I don't understand how that could be funny. It's just ignorant and disrespectful. What else is new.

But people IN MY FAMILY'S CHURCH say things like that often. That infuriates me even more than the church does already. The sunday school teachers are always going on and on about "taming the tongue," but do absolutely nothing when some kid calls another gay.

What the hell.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff]I don't get the phrase 'That's so gay' It's as dumb as Paris Hilton's 'That's hot' I just have to throw in what Wanda Sykes said in a recent PSA for one of the Gay rights organization: How would you like it if I thought this napkin holder looked stupid and I said 'This is so teenage boy with a cheesy mustache.'

Gay is such an over-used adjective for so many inanimate objects let's find a more relevent one shall we? Personally I vote for: That is so G.W. Bush.[/color]

[Lunar]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman'][color=#9933ff]I don't get the phrase 'That's so gay' It's as dumb as Paris Hilton's 'That's hot' I just have to throw in what Wanda Sykes said in a recent PSA for one of the Gay rights organization: How would you like it if I thought this napkin holder looked stupid and I said 'This is so teenage boy with a cheesy mustache.'

Gay is such an over-used adjective for so many inanimate objects let's find a more relevent one shall we? Personally I vote for: That is so G.W. Bush.[/color][/QUOTE]


[COLOR="Sienna"]Yeah.............................alot of people used to say that at my school. Man, it really got on my nerves because every time someone did something or said something wrong, they would say "That's so gay." People need to find other words. Then the world would be an almost happy place.:catgirl: Just as long as it isn't that's so G.W. Bush..............sorry, Chibi. I just don't really like when people take shots at presidents and stuff, I mean, it's hard enough on them to have to [I]be[/I] president. That's all!:animesmil[/COLOR]

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]I'm going to get behind the condemnation of the "that's gay" derogatory. Not only is it [I]highly[/I] insulting to homosexuals?I mean, what if we went around saying "That's so Darkie!"??but it's also completely ignorant. Calling a situation "homosexual" makes no sense at all.

Really, I'm just as miffed that the term can no longer be used to describe carefree happiness, but seriously. Don't be a moron. Use an insult that's an insult, and not a by-word you say to sound cool.

Also, 'retarded' should fall under that category. I'm guilty of that one myself.[/FONT]

[Darren]

[quote name='Andrew'][size=1]I'm more than likely gonna get hanged for this post, but hell, what the hey right? To quote CHW, "Live and let live."

So, after a conversation in work today I got really curious. When a guy decides he's gay/bi/whatever, is it a conscious decision to start talking/walking like a woman or something that develops naturally? Seriously.

I'm all for gays and lesbinans, so long as they respect the fact that I'm straight and really not ever gonna be different and don't get all gay up in my face.[/size][/QUOTE]
*hangs you*
But seriously, I agree with Time Chaser that the majority of gays and lesbians don't choose to be gay. (That's not to say that some don't choose) And I will tell you that only the really flamboyant gay men actually act like a woman. They're what gives homosexuals a bad name. More than likely, you've run into (or perhaps even known personally) a gay man and didn't even know it because he didn't act really flamboyant. Not all gays are like that. :rolleyes:
[quote name='chibi-master']Oh yes, I was wondering...does anyone here know a homophobe? I'm not talking about people who think homosexuality is wrong, but people who scream or something when homosexuals are even mentioned. I've never understood why there would be any need to get freaked out by gays or lesbians or bisexuals...[/QUOTE]
I live in Oklahoma. [The Bible Belt] So... I'm sure you know what I'm going to say. My whole opinions on homophobic people are that they either
A) Think that gays are simply attracted to all men and don't want to be hit on by another man. (And it's funny especially when that homophobe is really ugly)
B) They think that gay people can turn them gay. (Which I guess that can happen, but still, I find that to be uneducated)
or C) They're closeted.
[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]I get very angry whenever I hear someone say "that's so gay," or call someone a "***." It's common in high schools, I'm assuming everywhere. I don't understand how that could be funny. It's just ignorant and disrespectful. What else is new.[/FONT][/QUOTE]
Calling a gay person a "F**" is as bad as calling a black person a "You-know-what," in my opinion. Unfortunately, not everyone in this world finds the word as taboo as I do. And just the same way, I know someone would get jumped if they ever said you-know-what to a black kid, I'd totally kick someone's you-know-what if they ever directed that word at me in a derogatory manner. But I don't mind saying, "that's gay." I used to say it all the time, but now I say "That's lame," or "Lamesause," or "FAIL!" etc. I don't really think it's offensive at all. Again, I can only compare this to African-Americans. Gay is what people call homosexuals not to offend just the same way that black is what people call African-Americans to avoid offending them. And in the same context, coming from Oklahoma, I have heard the phrase "That's so black." (Of course, there's a difference because when someone says "that's gay," they usually mean stupid or unfair. When someone says "that's black" they're usually talking about actions that stereotype and degrade the black community.) But other than that, I don't see how the word "gay" is offensive. I don't see how the word "black" is offensive. I actually know a couple of black kids at my school that got really mad when I referred to them as African-American. Some people don't mind either words. And anyone who makes a big deal out of those words is just looking to cause a confrontation. (Especially when the person who said it didn't mean anything negative by it)

[Lunar]

[quote name='Darren']

Calling a gay person a "F**" is as bad as calling a black person a "You-know-what," in my opinion. Unfortunately, not everyone in this world finds the word as taboo as I do. And just the same way, I know someone would get jumped if they ever said you-know-what to a black kid, I'd totally kick someone's you-know-what if they ever directed that word at me in a derogatory manner. (But I don't mind saying, "that's gay." I used to say it all the time, but now I say "That's lame," or "Lamesause," or "FAIL!" etc.) I can only hope that as homosexuality becomes a more accepted concept in the world, that people will realize how horrible the word is.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Sienna"]*ahem* *scratches head* not really sure what to say to this statement.:animeswea Although I may be guilty of calling someone a ***, I've never called a homosexual one.............that i believe is wrong. Actually, if someone called you a you-know-what, it really wouldn't offend you as much as it would an African American............... Lamesauce.........I like that word. But anyways, although I'm against people being homosexual, i would never stoop as low as to calling them f** , because that would be wrong and unncessary. I mean, just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean you have to switch to derogatory terms, right?:catgirl: Another word that a homosexual should not be called is "homo" that is one of the worst terms there is. Here's something that's off topic, but true. there's a lot of african americans who are not in fact thugs. it's just what one or two african americans do that reflect upon the whole society. by the way, although I don't mind "black" could you use the term african american??? I doesn't offend me, it's just that in my head.............nevermind.[/COLOR]

[Guest HighTide]

[quote name='chibi-master']Okay, E.D. stated in a different thread that being gay or lesbian was wrong. And rather than be an a** and spam up The 13th Man's thread with that arguement, I decided to start this thread.

Okay, I personally believe that there is nothing wrong with a person being bi, les or gay. People can love whomever they wish. But I understand that some people dissagree. I don't understand why, though. And since I know someone will bring this up, YES, I KNOW that the bible says being bi, lesbian or gay is wrong. My rebutle is, DO YOUR OWN D*** THINKING AND STOP LETTING THE BIBLE DO IT FOR YOU!!!

Anyway, your opinion please? And by the way, please be civil, guys. I don't need a bunch of "EEEW!!! DATS SO MESSED UP!!! WTF?!?!", okay?[/QUOTE]



Well I personally don't agree with that life style because I was raised in a Christian house hold but I also believe there is no reason to condemn others for it. One thing we Christians need to realize is that we ourselves are imperfect. Matthew 7:3 :p

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='Clurr']
[FONT="Arial"]
This is entirely up to the people involved, but I'm going to hazard a guess that it's because marriage is seen as the ultimate union. It means commitment. It means both parties promise they will be together no matter what, until death. And maybe for the cynical, it means that the other person is going to have to go through a lot of trouble if they want to break the contract.

But as mentioned before, over and over again, there are benefits that married couples have that the unmarried do not. I don't know what they are, I believe something about insurance and property claims, as well as smaller things. There are over a thousand, if I read one article correctly.

For most people on the planet, a relationship is just not enough unless it's recognized as final by the government, and for many, God.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Cynicism is fun, but usually not a very good point. However I digress: Marriage is seen as commitment, but then again, so is friendship, family, and business. Gangs (though they engage in all manner of illegal activity) are often seen to have relationships within them so strong that they call themselves "brothers". A phrase also gaining in popularity is BFF, or Best Friends Forever. It has even been featured on Spongebob.

The next question to ask in the line of reasoning is the following: Why is marriage seen as the ultimate union, instead of other things?


Anyway, claiming benefits is, IMO, a cop-out to the real issue at hand. Let me explain: Whether or not someone has the right to insure their room mate, or leave their house to their maids or their friends, that is hardly an issue of "marriage", but an issue of real estate or insurance. That question should be raised independently, because it doesn't have anything to do with marriage, other than the ease in which marriage can grant these privileges.

Everyone does have alternatives (not just civil unions). There are a variety of living wills, medical permission forms, and insurances that can extend all of the rights that marriage does to anyone you want to. These are granted, and are practiced regardless of anyone's gender or sexual preferences. If a woman I know is in an accident and is in a hospital, I cannot see her because I am not married to her, either. The convenience in which marriage grants these rights simply isn't enough to legalize them, especially when these abilities are being sold in "marriage-like" packets already.

The rights, they are not being denied to anyone.


Though some people do feel that they need their relationship to be ordained by God and the government in order to be happy, that happiness is a personal responsibility more than it is the responsibility of the Government to ordain the relationship as final or for God to do so either (change biology?).

[quote name='Vicky'][SIZE=1]
Homosexuality is a sin according to the very vague bible then I guess the majority of Christians are sinners, if, of course, you're using the bible as the ultimate infallible guide to all that is right and wrong..[/size][/QUOTE]

That is correct. Something that I have seen amongst almost all of the Christian Community is that yes, Christians are sinners. It is this inherited sinful nature that makes Christ a necessity to wash away the sins that someone has.

Part of the walk with Christ is about emulating Christ, and trying to avoid the dangerous actions of sin. It is impossible to be in a perfect walk, but that isn't to stop someone from attempting to do so. In doing so, someone must discern what is sinful and what is not, and then act accordingly.

Anyway, something that I have seen over and over again is how people take things out of context, not understanding what the original function of any statement or law is. You can use the same manner of snipping to say that Christianity is fundamentally atheist due to a verse in Psalms that says "There is no God.". If you want to make progress on the issue, then a verse must be evaluated within the entire context, and must be an honest representation of the statements and opinions of the Bible.

However I digress, since Christianity is more or less a red-herring to the issue.



[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]I get very angry whenever I hear someone say "that's so gay," or call someone a "***." It's common in high schools, I'm assuming everywhere. I don't understand how that could be funny. It's just ignorant and disrespectful. What else is new.

But people IN MY FAMILY'S CHURCH say things like that often. That infuriates me even more than the church does already. The sunday school teachers are always going on and on about "taming the tongue," but do absolutely nothing when some kid calls another gay.

What the hell.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Well, this really isn't a discussion point, but I believe I understand why it is an insult to call someone "gay":


Originally, the term "queer" originally didn't refer to homosexuals, but rather towards strangeness, questionable character, mentally unbalanced, and such. It recently modernized to be a slang term for someone who is a homosexual, expanding on the definition of strangeness or unconventional nature.

Children in middle school primarily use the insult from my experience. At this point in time, individuals are going through puberty, and begin to gauge things in manners of how closely it is associated with their own sexual identity, or rather an idolized generalization of it. Conformity towards this generalization (which, ironically, promotes a sense of "closed individuality") leads people to view things which are counterproductive to this idol negatively. A "homosexual" is seen as "less of a man", because "men go after women'. It isn't actually reasoned in their minds, but this is the steps that are undergone to create this behavior. Majorities will discriminate against minorities, only because they are a minority. The reasoning along this line is "Majorities define what is normal, minorities are not majorities, therefore there is something off about minorities".

In highschool and college age (from my experience, again), people begin to have a much wider and more flexible definition of "normal". Eventually, sexuality is seen more commonplace, and then is recognized as a "normal minority". Also, parents and media continually influence children with ideas, like absolute freedom from discrimination.

My little corner of the world can't contain all of the information I need, but this is an observation I came to.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Anyway, to get on with my personal story regarding sexual preferences/attractions/ect.

Something that I noticed one day is that I regard animé style drawings with way too much humanity. When I would watch a show, I would sometimes think to myself: "Man, she's hot", never acknowledging that I was doing so. The day was when I saw someone make a thread talking about "pixel love". Prior to that time, I hadn't given it any thought. But then, I sat back as an adult, and then evaluated exactly what was going on.

The first question I asked was: Why is it that some ink splotched across some lines on a paper is sexually appealing to me? A rather good question to ask. I came to an answer which re-defined how I look at sexual perceptions: "It wasn't just Ink Blots to me." No, it was much more.

What really happens with "pixel love" is someone adapts a much wider definition of what constitutes as male/female form. How this is done is by the eventual personal involvement into the storylines: There is a group of people that have a much greater fulfillment from television shows and books. These are the people who like to enrapture themselves into the storyline, the combat, and the characters, creating a much deeper experience with their entertainment. In this mode of entertainment, you can forget reality for a moment and enjoy the show being presented towards you. Yes, these are the people who cried when old yeller died. These people break down the walls of whether or not a movie is a cartoon, 3-D, claymation, or live action. Who cares to them? All they see is a love triangle that spans across many countries and threatens all of the entire known universe.

It is through these attachments that someone develops an affinity for inanimate objects, and animated but not real objects. This comes in many forms. There is distaste, pride, attraction, comfort, ect. Someone can like reading by candle light, have a favorite color, or preferring a Cadillac to a Corvette (I do not know cars. Disclaimer right here). This is also why people cried when old yeller died: because they fell in love with the characters of the movie. This also happens with cartoon characters as well. The characters cease being just lines and colors and become people. This is also why a lot of people complain when a cartoon makes a character do something unusual: it violates the established persona of that character that everyone has.

This comes with assignments of attraction. When a character is considered sexy in the cartoon, someone who submerges themselves into that universe will see that character as sexy. After the show is over and everyone has moved on, that basic cultural instillment remains into that person, and can carry on to other genres. Thus, someone likes cartoon characters.


That evaluation, in itself, caused me to regress back all the way to my original thoughts regarding what was considered "sexy". I remember back when I first chose (and retain today) an affinity toward dark purple hair. I remember the era when I thought that Asians were hot. I remember back to one of my earliest notions, red hair. I remember the minor foot obsession that I had as a child. I think I can even pinpoint when it was that I discovered the parallel association between asphyxiation and the climax. I also remember how those issues came and went, and how some of them still haunt me today.

Early childhood stimulation is key. From my experience, it is at about ages 5-9 when someone begins to really develop the model for sexual identification and behavior. That is, ironically, the time when my brother was renting various anime DVDs that were not hesitant to have their busty girls bear it all. It is also the time when my father came under the notion that children would die of pneumonia if they ever walked around without socks on. In regards to the hair, pop groups were becoming popular, and contrasted against the spice girls, we were very quick to pick "favorites" from among the sailor scouts. Little did I know that would stay with me some 11 odd years later, picking Mars.

This is also when I came to the conclusion about the arbitrary nature of it all. These associations, they were established primarily by me, and how I responded to my environment. They were concepts of perception, and not much else. When looking at what is attractive in various cultures, the random things epitomized to represent perfections, it only follows so many trends. Back in ancient egypt, the hottest thing around were fat white chicks.


Now, in regards to the "choice". You can say that I never made a choice in regards to "pixel love", and that I was conditioned into doing so. Though this doesn't have any relevance on the ability to resolve the issue, I found this also to be incorrect. It wasn't a "choice" in the manner which most people think it is, where at some point in time a child sits back and says "I'm going to like women!" and carry on from there. It was actually much more complicated.

When presented with growing media and revelation about past behavior, the choice is "made" at precisely one point: The moment that you willingly/actively seek out a particular aspect as part of entertainment. This is the moment (though a span of time, really) in which you suddenly acknowledge, embrace, and apply this nature towards yourself as a characteristic (either through possibility or through willing acceptance) of who you are. The point in time it was for me about pixel love is very hard to pin down. I would say that it was at about 8 or 9 that I first sought out to see the "fan service" episode of a particular series (Something like "All-cultural cat girl Nuku Nuku"). It was a very plastic and rudimentary seeking out, not much simpler than "I want to see girls in bikinis". That was the earliest moment. From then on, a series of other instances in which I sought out or embraced unusual fan service cemented my paradigm.

I think that it is of great irony that the "choice point" for homosexuals is around the point in which they administer "the test". After reading several essays about someone's personal revelation on the manner, I always found in interesting that ones that weren't hindsight adjusted beyond reason continually reflected that someone would come to a realization of a factor, accept/embrace it, then administer a test in order to prove it wrong. Similar to Plato's Apology, in which Socrates finds out he is wise by trying to prove that he wasn't wise, this test was more or less a "given", unaware of their own actions/influence on the manner.

[Claire]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Cynicism is fun, but usually not a very good point. However I digress: Marriage is seen as commitment, but then again, so is friendship, family, and business. Gangs (though they engage in all manner of illegal activity) are often seen to have relationships within them so strong that they call themselves "brothers". A phrase also gaining in popularity is BFF, or Best Friends Forever. It has even been featured on Spongebob. [/quote]

[FONT="Arial"]Yet none of these involve as much devotion as marriage. It's the romanticism of marriage, I believe, that is really why people want to do it. It's the promise of forever. [/FONT]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']The next question to ask in the line of reasoning is the following: Why is marriage seen as the ultimate union, instead of other things?


Anyway, claiming benefits is, IMO, a cop-out to the real issue at hand. Let me explain: Whether or not someone has the right to insure their room mate, or leave their house to their maids or their friends, that is hardly an issue of "marriage", but an issue of real estate or insurance. That question should be raised independently, because it doesn't have anything to do with marriage, other than the ease in which marriage can grant these privileges.

Everyone does have alternatives (not just civil unions). There are a variety of living wills, medical permission forms, and insurances that can extend all of the rights that marriage does to anyone you want to. These are granted, and are practiced regardless of anyone's gender or sexual preferences. If a woman I know is in an accident and is in a hospital, I cannot see her because I am not married to her, either. The convenience in which marriage grants these rights simply isn't enough to legalize them, especially when these abilities are being sold in "marriage-like" packets already.

The rights, they are not being denied to anyone.[/quote]

[quote]On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
[list]
[*]joint parenting;
[*]joint adoption;
[*]joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
[*]status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
[*]joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
[*]dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
[*]immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
[*]inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
[*]joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
[*]inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
[*]benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
[*]spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
[*]veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
[*]joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
[*]wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
[*]bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
[*]decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
[*]crime victims' recovery benefits;
[*]loss of consortium tort benefits;
[*]domestic violence protection orders;
[*]judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
[*]and more....[/list]

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for....

...However Vermont now allows same-sex couples to enter into civil unions. This will bring them all of the state benefits of marriage, [B]but none of the 1,049 federal rights, benefits and privileges that are routinely given to married couples.
[/B][/quote]

[FONT="Arial"]Source: [url]http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm[/url]

I could and would find a lot more if I wasn't short on time. (I should stop trying to reply to this when I'm in the process of getting ready for school!)

And if the rights [i]are[/i] available in separate places, wouldn't that mean a lot more work for the couple? Is it fair to offer someone the same privileges as someone else, but force them to do a lot more work for it than the other? Wouldn't that fall under discrimination?
[/FONT]

[Lunar]

[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]
And if the rights [i]are[/i] available in separate places, wouldn't that mean a lot more work for the couple? Is it fair to offer someone the same privileges as someone else, but force them to do a lot more work for it than the other? Wouldn't that fall under discrimination?
[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Sienna"]
Okay, althought I'm not agreeing that gay marriage is right, if you do give them the same privileges as someone else but had them have to work harder.............I'm kinda on both sides. I mean, it wasn't really meant to be in the first place so why make it easier? However, we still have the fact that America is a free country. So it doesn't really makes sense because it's something like "seperate but equal" which goes against the word "free" altogether.:animedepr[/COLOR]

[Darren]

[quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="Sienna"]So it doesn't really makes sense because it's something like "seperate but equal" which goes against the word "free" altogether.:animedepr[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
Actually, I think you've summed it up pretty accurately. That's why many states are now recognizing civil unions between gay/lesbian couples... And even though I had never thought of it before, separate but equal could be used as an example of what's going on here since the government is trying to say civil unions are equal to marriage. But just as it was during the civil rights movement, "Separate but equal is inherently unequal." Now, if only that argument made it's way to the supreme court... :rolleyes:

[Lunar]

[quote name='Darren']Actually, I think you've summed it up pretty accurately. That's why many states are now recognizing civil unions between gay/lesbian couples... And even though I had never thought of it before, separate but equal could be used as an example of what's going on here since the government is trying to say civil unions are equal to marriage. But just as it was during the civil rights movement, "Separate but equal is inherently unequal." Now, if only that argument made it's way to the supreme court... :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Sienna"]Ha! That would go down in history.[/COLOR]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Separate but equal is impossible if the human element is applied. If you are just going off of tax benefits and legal rights, you can get rights through multiple means, each one of them as equal as the last.


Anyway, I'm glad that you are aware that the "devotion" comes from the romantic connotation. That is the fundamental point for which the same-sex marriage argument stems from. If the romantic case isn't present, the legal case doesn't doesn't make sense anymore, because then there isn't any foundation to claim that someone can't exercise rights anymore. The cultural shift towards greater acceptance, that also won't exist without being seen as a victim group fighting the good fight for freedom.

The ultimate goals of re-defining marriage, those are also completely rooted in the romanticism. People, when they think of same-sex marriage being legalized, their end goal is this picturesque world in their head where homosexuals can hold hands and be regarded innocently and unaware of the unusual nature of their relationship. Numbers, statistics, observed effects, those count for little in lieu of the great philosophy.


Right are not applied to a "couple", but to an individual. I, myself, could go out and get court orders and living wills if I wanted to. Nothing is denied here. Whether or not someone wants to exercise a right, or go through an alternative means, that is largely up to personal responsibility. In ten days, I will gain the legal right to drink alcohol. Whether or not I want to, and for whatever reason, that doesn't change the right from being applied in the nature it is.

Whether or not an institution should be re-defined out of convenience of a separate factor all together, that shouldn't be an issue. If someone thinks it is too difficult to obtain a living will, then is that not an issue of bureaucracy?

[Claire]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Anyway, I'm glad that you are aware that the "devotion" comes from the romantic connotation. That is the fundamental point for which the same-sex marriage argument stems from. If the romantic case isn't present, the legal case doesn't doesn't make sense anymore, because then there isn't any foundation to claim that someone can't exercise rights anymore. The cultural shift towards greater acceptance, that also won't exist without being seen as a victim group fighting the good fight for freedom.[/quote]

[FONT="Arial"]So are you implying that romance is absent from gay couples? The biggest part of marriage is being in love with your partner. Love is love. I cannot accept your view of human beings as pure survivalists, merely getting married to continue a family. I know it's not true.[/FONT]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Right are not applied to a "couple", but to an individual. I, myself, could go out and get court orders and living wills if I wanted to. Nothing is denied here. Whether or not someone wants to exercise a right, or go through an alternative means, that is largely up to personal responsibility. In ten days, I will gain the legal right to drink alcohol. Whether or not I want to, and for whatever reason, that doesn't change the right from being applied in the nature it is.

Whether or not an institution should be re-defined out of convenience of a separate factor all together, that shouldn't be an issue. If someone thinks it is too difficult to obtain a living will, then is that not an issue of bureaucracy?[/QUOTE]

[FONT="Arial"]Do you want to pursue [B]over a thousand[/B] rights each by yourself, whereas if you were to marry you would receive them in one single package? If something IS too difficult, why should anyone have to undertake it just so they can have the same privileges as their straight brother?

That doesn't make [i]any[/i] sense to me at all. Like I said before, this is 2008, not 1964. People should not have to fight for their personal freedoms anymore.

[I]Later in the day:[/I]

These ideas came to me in between this morning and now, and are merely reflections on some of my earlier points, and probably seem pretty scattered.

1) Gay marriage promotes lust, eh? Along those lines, you could say all you can eat buffets promote gluttony. For a small price, people can eat more than twice the size of their stomach (if such a thing were possible). I suppose if gay marriage must remain illegal to prevent feelings of lust increasing, then as additional measures to preserve society, all you can eat buffets should be banned.

2) The word "heart" has similarities amongst its different variations in each of the romance languages. The French say [i]coeur[/i], the Spanish say [i]corazon,[/i] the Portugese, [i]coracao[/i], the Italian, [i]cuore.[/i] Their common trait is that they are all derived from the Latin root [i]cor[/i], meaning heart (duh).

The heart is symbolically the base of emotions. It's what hurts, literally, when a personal loss is endured. "Heartbreak." Perhaps this is a mental thing, but when emotions such as love, happiness, and sadness are felt in extremes, there is an actual sensation in the heart not unlike the gut feeling of anxiety.

The heart, the generator of love, is the core of the body. Emotions are the core of humanity. Love is the core of marriage.

Love is the most important prerequisite. Without it, people would not consider making such an eternal promise (disregarding gold diggers, which probably exist in all sexual orientations).

Of course people won't like it, of course there will be protesters. When has there been a constitutional amendment that didn't cause dissent? What resulted from each occasion? Women became widely seen as equals in the workplace and the home. Ditto, African-Americans. Interracial couples no longer cause widespread disgust. We've covered pretty much everything.

What gay marriage really promotes is tolerance. Acceptance. The diminishing of ignorance. The banishment of discrimination. It promotes equality. [/FONT]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]So are you implying that romance is absent from gay couples? The biggest part of marriage is being in love with your partner. Love is love. I cannot accept your view of human beings as pure survivalists, merely getting married to continue a family. I know it's not true.[/FONT][/quote]

Nope. I am aware that there is "romance" between homosexual couples. Love is love, and sex is sex. Love is not sex, and hence the issue. Homosexuals want marriage over sex, because otherwise they would just accept that two people of the same gender can't marry, or accept that two people of the same gender can't procreate. So, they plead the case that ignores biology, physics, or the legal standard.

[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]Do you want to pursue [B]over a thousand[/B] rights each by yourself, whereas if you were to marry you would receive them in one single package? If something IS too difficult, why should anyone have to undertake it just so they can have the same privileges as their straight brother?

That doesn't make [i]any[/i] sense to me at all. Like I said before, this is 2008, not 1964. People should not have to fight for their personal freedoms anymore.[/quote][/font]

You don't "receive" them in a single package when you marry. You still must pursue most of the rights on your own (joint bank accounts, medicare, annuity, social security). The government will allow you to do these things more easily, but then again, ease is not a good enough reason to re-define a completely separate institution. Lawyers already sell rights in packages that mimic marriage rights without being marriage. If you have issues with the method, then these are issues of bureaucracy, and not about marriage.

You know, I have asked the question: If I suddenly proclaim myself homosexual, what legal rights are immediately taken away from me? Where is the legislation that decides that I no longer have rights anymore? The straight man and his homosexual brother, they have the same rights. It is a question of whether or not someone chooses to practice them.



[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"][I]Later in the day:[/I]

These ideas came to me in between this morning and now, and are merely reflections on some of my earlier points, and probably seem pretty scattered.

1) Gay marriage promotes lust, eh? Along those lines, you could say all you can eat buffets promote gluttony. For a small price, people can eat more than twice the size of their stomach (if such a thing were possible). I suppose if gay marriage must remain illegal to prevent feelings of lust increasing, then as additional measures to preserve society, all you can eat buffets should be banned.[/quote][/font]

They do promote gluttony. Though if you want a more accurate analogy, Same-Sex marriages are akin to re-defining all restaurants to be all-you-can-eat places because people love food so much that it is incorrect for any restaurant to deny them this great love of food, and because there are restaurants that already do this.

Thankfully, buffets serve more than the purpose to allow fat people to get fatter. Unfortunately, Same-sex marriages don't serve any other purposes than to condone sexuality and sexual acts.


[quote name='Clurr'][FONT="Arial"]2) The word "heart" has similarities amongst its different variations in each of the romance languages. The French say [i]coeur[/i], the Spanish say [i]corazon,[/i] the Portugese, [i]coracao[/i], the Italian, [i]cuore.[/i] Their common trait is that they are all derived from the Latin root [i]cor[/i], meaning heart (duh).

The heart is symbolically the base of emotions. It's what hurts, literally, when a personal loss is endured. "Heartbreak." Perhaps this is a mental thing, but when emotions such as love, happiness, and sadness are felt in extremes, there is an actual sensation in the heart not unlike the gut feeling of anxiety.

The heart, the generator of love, is the core of the body. Emotions are the core of humanity. Love is the core of marriage.

Love is the most important prerequisite. Without it, people would not consider making such an eternal promise (disregarding gold diggers, which probably exist in all sexual orientations).

Of course people won't like it, of course there will be protesters. When has there been a constitutional amendment that didn't cause dissent? What resulted from each occasion? Women became widely seen as equals in the workplace and the home. Ditto, African-Americans. Interracial couples no longer cause widespread disgust. We've covered pretty much everything.

What gay marriage really promotes is tolerance. Acceptance. The diminishing of ignorance. The banishment of discrimination. It promotes equality. [/FONT][/QUOTE]

The heart isn't the generator of love. The heart is an organ that pumps blood through the body. It is associated with passion and feelings because it pumps harder in order to circulate hormones through the body for use. The "generator of love" is actually a portion of the brain that is stimulated by chocolate and cocaine. However I digress, because I see very little point in this elaboration.

You are correct that same-sex marriage promotes tolerance. Whether or not this is a beneficial factor is up for debate, though. It is also circular reasoning. It assumes that tolerance is good, then argues for legalization because tolerance is good (something that I do not agree with). I am not someone who believes that you should accept everything.

Though there are quite a few benefits outside of sex for making "eternal promises", or pledging fidelity for their lifetime, but I do agree that love is important to marriage. I would like to quote something that I said earlier:

[quote name='Crimson Spider']You can take any relationship of "love", and argue that you should not have sex with the individual. For instance, I can love my neighbor's wife, and in this love I will have enough respect for her in which I would not put her into a position where she would cheat or be given the option to cheat. Not be so cruel as to take my primal desires and ignore the situation that someone else is in.[/quote]

The thing is, love =/= marriage, either. Same-sex marriage isn't about "equality". It is about "special rights". A minority is unhappy with the current definition of an institution due to the connotation it has, and want it changed so they can be comforted about their current lifestyle. This isn't a question about the objective definition at all. They want the state to re-define marriage for them to be happy, and shame on anyone else who would be unhappy about it, because they're just a bunch of bigots.

[Claire]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Homosexuals want marriage over sex, because otherwise they would just accept that two people of the same gender can't marry, or accept that two people of the same gender can't procreate.[/quote]

[FONT="Arial"]This is a hasty generalization and a slippery slope, if you want to talk argument fallacies. So the parts don't fit together, they must be doing it for pleasure. What about the heterosexual couples who, as several of us have said over and over, are biologically incapable of having children, yet have sex and get married anyway? Or what about the heterosexual couples who do it for fun, using condoms or birth control to prevent a pregnancy from resulting?

Heterosexuals will also have children before marrying, sometimes on purpose. There are couples who are not married, but live together with their own children. I guess they didn't get the memo.

There is no real basis to say that allowing homosexuals to marry will cause anything negative. I have to use my history example again. What came out of granting all those "special rights" to people who were not white men? The corruption of society? Sure.

I'm seriously not expecting to change your mind, as you seem to be hellbent on preserving "family values," but I can't help but to challenge your idea.[/FONT]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']You are correct that same-sex marriage promotes tolerance. Whether or not this is a beneficial factor is up for debate, though. It is also circular reasoning. It assumes that tolerance is good, then argues for legalization because tolerance is good (something that I do not agree with). I am not someone who believes that you should accept everything.[/quote]

[FONT="Arial"]Tolerance [i]is[/i] good in this case. Tolerating differences in others makes for a much more peaceful society, instead of a hateful one fueled by dogmatic or illogical reasoning. It's not better than acceptance, but it's a step towards that goal.

There are things that do actual damage to families and society that people tolerate just the same: drugs, ignorance, abuse, dishonesty, discrimination. This is the tolerance of intolerance.

I fail to see how I'm talking in circles, here.[/font]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Same-sex marriage isn't about "equality". It is about "special rights". A minority is unhappy with the current definition of an institution due to the connotation it has, and want it changed so they can be comforted about their current lifestyle. This isn't a question about the objective definition at all. They want the state to re-define marriage for them to be happy, and shame on anyone else who would be unhappy about it, because they're just a bunch of bigots.[/QUOTE]

[FONT="Arial"]How do you feel about civil unions, then? Grant them in every state and give them the exact same benefits as marriage. Let the faiths and people concerned with family values call it what they want. Sure, it's just a matter of semantics now. But in this case we would not be redefining an ancient institution, but creating a new, identical one that is not as discriminatory.[/FONT]