Now that Gay Marriage is legal in NY.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let me get this straight, pseudo-righteous indignation aside, your response is "nuh-uh", right?

Was this thread just your way of luring people in to troll them?

 

[Father Heathen]

Attempting to equate a religious-ethnic minority with a quasi-social group again...naughty, naughty

Didn't your philosophy instructor crack your knuckles over non-sequitor arguments?

I'm merely following your lead, son.

Btw, I'm not sure if you were aware or not, but race (genetics) and religion (beliefs) are two completely separate things, and it takes quite a lack of integrity to try and blur the line between the two.

 

[Songbird]

Ok, if you'll bite, I'll illustrate to you that homosexual behavior is deviant. First question: what is the ratio of homosexuals per heterosexual in this country? Second, how do you define deviant? I await your responses.

Yosi, sentiments like that scare me as I see my three-year-old son blossom as a....girl. Regardless of whether he's in a phase, will have fluid concepts of gender, or will be transgendered or homosexual, I just want him to be happy and to have the same rights others have.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

I'm merely following your lead, son.

Btw, I'm not sure if you were aware or not, but race (genetics) and religion (beliefs) are two completely separate things, and it takes quite a lack of integrity to try and blur the line between the two.

I never said race, and it isn't I that blurred the line. The reality of the situation is that Judaism is not just a religion, and it is not just a culture. There is a wide spectrum of what is and is not Jewish, and the ethnicity is an inseparable part of it.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Was this thread just your way of luring people in to troll them?

That seems to be the way people are taking this thread, although that is not the way I intended it.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Yosi, sentiments like that scare me as I see my three-year-old son blossom as a....girl. Regardless of whether he's in a phase, will have fluid concepts of gender, or will be transgendered or homosexual, I just want him to be happy and to have the same rights others have.

Whether what I propose or what others propose comes true, your son will have equal rights. The problem comes into play as to what people define as equal rights. I don't think that we should change definitions of gender or marriage to suit a few people and make them feel "all warm and fuzzy" about the way society sees things.

 

[gnomon]

The entire justifications I hear have to do with the fact that homosexuality is looked down upon, therefore must be protected. I personally disagree that they must be protected, and don't get me wrong, I don't advocate violating anyone's civil or natural rights as they stand, but to elevate a quasi-social group who choose to engage in deviant behavior just because their behavior is looked down upon is a bit beyond the pale. Allowing them the power to change our societal standards places everyone other than them as second-class citizens.

Quasi-social group?

Deviant behavior?

It's clear where you stand. Basically at that point where every opinion you put forth should be treated like something we accidentally step on.

 

[Songbird]

Whether what I propose or what others propose comes true, your son will have equal rights. The problem comes into play as to what people define as equal rights.

If the definition of equal rights is a problem, then I foresee trouble with him having them.

I don't think that we should change definitions of gender or marriage to suit a few people and make them feel "all warm and fuzzy" about the way society sees things.

Oh, we aren't changing the definitions. We're changing the law. The concepts are as old as humanity. That only a small percentage of people are homosexual - or left-handed, or geniuses, or extremely talented circus clowns - isn't a good reason to continue excluding them from any right. Respectable, long-standing traditions sometimes need a kick in the pants.

"Warm and fuzzy" is irrelevant. Changing the law is a crucial step to viewing and treating people as human and not subhuman.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Quasi-social group?

Deviant behavior?

It's clear where you stand. Basically at that point where every opinion you put forth should be treated like something we accidentally step on.

Oh, I remember this game: "Kick the (assumed) bigot". No one has yet to begin to show(other than bald assertion) that homosexual actions are anything less than a conscious choice, leaving out anything resembling prohibited discrimination. A man choosing to have sex with another man is equivalent to trying to cross a crowded freeway on foot. You may feel compelled to do it, and it may be arguably your right, but the risk is all yours, and no protection should be afforded you.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Oh, we aren't changing the definitions. We're changing the law. The concepts are as old as humanity. That only a small percentage of people are homosexual - or left-handed, or geniuses, or extremely talented circus clowns - isn't a good reason to continue excluding them from any right. Respectable, long-standing traditions sometimes need a kick in the pants.

Or mass murderers, etc...It is about changing the definitions. The laws you are changing are redefining what has been known for centuries.

"Warm and fuzzy" is irrelevant. Changing the law is a crucial step to viewing and treating people as human and not subhuman.

Human and subhuman isn't the question. Whether actions are acceptable or not is the question. Whether we can redefine an age-old standard to make a few people "feel better" is the question. That's what's going on, and, regrettably, I see it as a sign of a crumbling civilization.

 

[gnomon]

Oh, I remember this game: "Kick the (assumed) bigot". No one has yet to begin to show(other than bald assertion) that homosexual actions are anything less than a conscious choice, leaving out anything resembling prohibited discrimination. A man choosing to have sex with another man is equivalent to trying to cross a crowded freeway on foot. You may feel compelled to do it, and it may be arguably your right, but the risk is all yours, and no protection should be afforded you.

I'm not making any assumptions.

 

[Songbird]

Or mass murderers, etc...It is about changing the definitions. The laws you are changing are redefining what has been known for centuries.

Human and subhuman isn't the question. Whether actions are acceptable or not is the question. Whether we can redefine an age-old standard to make a few people "feel better" is the question. That's what's going on, and, regrettably, I see it as a sign of a crumbling civilization.

No, I think you view the entire idea incorrectly. And I think that vague view perpetuates a culture where I'm scared my son will be in danger of being beaten by teens taught by their parents' vague views that he's a sign of crumbling civilization for being something he's been since almost infancy.

You essentially compared a murderer to my son.

 

[Sunstone]

Or mass murderers, etc...It is about changing the definitions. The laws you are changing are redefining what has been known for centuries.

It's been "known for centuries" that Jews were filthy animals who needed laws to keep them in their proper place. Were those laws not worth changing just because they'd been around for centuries? Let homosexuals be, Yosi. They are not really any concern of yours.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

It's been "known for centuries" that Jews were filthy animals who needed laws to keep them in their proper place. Were those laws not worth changing just because they'd been around for centuries? Let homosexuals be, Yosi. They are not really any concern of yours.

I'd argue that growing acceptance of homosexual acts in our society is everyone's concern. Then again, a growing number just don't care.

 

[Sunstone]

I'd argue that growing acceptance of homosexual acts in our society is everyone's concern. Then again, a growing number just don't care.

Why should anyone care, Yosi? It's like caring that my neighbor goes to a synagogue. What difference does it make to me?

 

[Father Heathen]

I'd argue that growing acceptance of homosexual acts in our society is everyone's concern. Then again, a growing number just don't care.

But what two consenting adults do within the privacy of their own homes has no impact on anyone else. Homosexuality is benign, and your objection towards it is based purely upon the ancient superstitions of primitive savages who sold their own daughters into sexual slavery. You have to question the integrity of someone who would use that garbage as a moral compass.

 

[blackout]

Whether what I propose or what others propose comes true, your son will have equal rights. The problem comes into play as to what people define as equal rights. I don't think that we should change definitions of gender or marriage to suit a few people and make them feel "all warm and fuzzy" about the way society sees things.

oh whatever.

Legal marriage is a LEGAL DOCUMENT.
Nothing more, nothing less.
It is a CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT,
having to do with 'personal life' partnerships,
as opposed to 'business partnerships',
(which allow for more than two partners of any genders)
that is subject to certain laws and rights.

It is RELIGIOUS people primarilly,
who turn "marriage" into an "all warm and fuzzy" thing.
Making legal marriage out to be 'something more' than a legal partnership contract.
If I had not been religious, I never would have seen marriage as "something more",
than contractual legalities,
and I never would have "gotten married".
Now I am in the process of divorcing with no money.
It's a whole legal process I TRULY would have done better without.
The whole thing, from "marriage" to divorce.
(contract instituted to contract disolved)
The whole contractual legal partner business.
I'm no fan.
Though I do champion equality of rights, so.....

If your RELATIONSHIP is not all warm and fuzzy to begin with,
neither Legal Marriage, nor cerimonial marriage,
nor public acceptance
is going to change that.

Legal documents are about rights and legalities, not warm fuzzies.

And words... utterances... are nothing intrinsically sacred either.
It is people, who like to think of them as such.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I take issue with redefining marriage...

So you dislike when traditional values are redefined and/or removed.

Such as the traditional values of slavery, indentured servitude, child labor, manifest destiny, racial purity, pederasty, women's rights to vote, monarchy, aristocracy, serfdom, caste systems, etc, etc....
You're an extreme traditionalist. I get it.:sarcastic

...to accomodate a select group of people who find traditional marriage distasteful.

Where do you come up with the gross generalization that support for homosexual equality in legal marriage equates to a "distaste" of traditional marriages?
None of my gay or lesbian friends and coworkers have ever expressed "distaste" in my "traditional marriage".

 

[Father Heathen]

Where do you come up with the gross generalization that support for homosexual equality in legal marriage equates to a "distaste" of traditional marriages?
None of my gay or lesbian friends and coworkers have ever expressed "distaste" in my "traditional marriage".

The notion that homosexual marriage would somehow in someway affect heterosexual marriage is wacky nonsense.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The notion that homosexual marriage would somehow in someway affect heterosexual marriage is wacky nonsense.

Indeed, I have always thought the "Defense of Marriage" argument to be extremely weak.
If your marriage is threatened by two men, or two women getting married, then your marriage has a lot more troubles than the supposed threat of "gay marriage."