Well, one of the problems.
While I don't live in the US, I follow the movement of issues that interest me. One of these issues is the idea of gay marriage. I support it. I believe that homosexuality is normal and natural. I don't think it is a 'lifestyle choice' any more than heterosexuality. We are simply born this way. There are those who argue that homosexuality is a perversion resulting from abuse or trauma during development. Research has produced strong evidence that there is a genetic difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals (
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b10...man.html.) I am aware of other research that attempts to refute this.
Recently, in New Jersey, a court has supported the idea that homosexuals should have equal access to marriage. 'Great!' I thought.
Unfortunately, it looks as though this issue might inspire conservative voters (who have recently become disillusioned with the Republican party due to the Mark Foley scandal, the endless violence in Iraq, evidence of corruption and / or racism within their ranks, etc.) to get out and vote. If this happens, and as a result the Republican party retains control of both houses, it will become impossible for any legislation to be passed legalising gay marriage.
Politics! There appears never to be an outright win.
John,
You get total agreement from me on this issue. The New Jersey decision (that same-sex couples must be afforded the same rights and benefits enjoyed by married, opposite-sex couples) seems to me a no brainer. Although it stopped short of actually approving gay marriage, it does seem to have paved the way for it, or at the very least, same-sex unions. Anything less would be discrimination, pure and simple.
Of course the Republicans will try to make this a wedge issue out of this as they did in 2004 to mobilize their evangelical, homophobic, and bigoted base in their attempt to hang on to power. You know, it bothers me to no end when people or groups try to force their own moral values off on everyone else, and it bothers me even more when they try to exploit an issue like this for political gain.
I've gotten in a pretty heated discussion about this via e-mail with an old college roommate who is a staunch Republican and who also happens to be a Mormon. He likes to point out the traditional values of marriage that has served the United States so well in it's 230 year history, but yet he can't quite seem to address my point that his religion's history (with it's practice of polygamy) has been out of step with these same "traditional values" of marriage that he has been touting. If you are interested, let me know your e-mail in a private message and I'll forward the e-mail to you--it will give you a pretty good idea on where I stand on this issue and it will save me the time of typing it out on this message board. :)
I wasn't able to get the link you provided to work. Here's a study I've read recently that lends credibility to the idea that gay people are born that way...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicaln...wsid=45962
Later!
jesterdood
John, You said;
>>I believe that homosexuality is normal and natural. <<
How u came to this conclusioin I dont know. Procreation would be the "normal natural" thing in my opinion. Its so totally obvious that males are biologically by nature supposed to mate with females for the purpose of procreation. Like HELLO????
>>We are simply born this way<<
Not everyone is "simply born" with normally functioning bodies.
Don't misunderstand me, Im no homophobe. Although IMO homosexuality serves no higher purpose. Only self gratification. Whether its a "choice" or were born gay I dont know or care. There are pretty powerful arguments for both sides. Why does it matter?
However I do agree that gay marriages shouldn't be illegal. Laws should be in place to protect the general public, making gay unions illegal only inconveniences the gay communitikes of our general public.
Yep, I said normal and natural. That procreation occurs between a male and a female is irrelevant. Is the entire purpose of life simply procreation? What then is music for? What is art for? What is the simple enjoyment we get when someone cracks a good joke for?
All of that is beside the point, though. Homosexuality occurs in the animal world also when there are instances of overpopulation. Much like what is occurring on this planet with humans. Perhaps it is nature's way of reducing procreation when it is undesirable. Perhaps that is your "higher purpose". I don't know. What I do know is that it is a genetic difference that occurs with roughly 3% of human population. It is not a defect, nor a result of dysfunctional upbringing or abuse. That is what I meant when I said it is normal and natural. It occurs naturally.
You also state, "I'm no homophobe," when I remember quite clearly your reaction when I told you I was bisexual. You argued with me for hours telling me that I was not. "Like HELLO!" I think I fucking know. I have had sex with men. What more you need I neither know nor care. But it was quite clearly something that upset you a lot. Why?
Our first brawl!! I love it
If it gets any more heated tho, maybe you guys should christen the Ring!!! Go for it - duke it out
I don't intend to get in the middle of this, but might I suggest a goal of mutual understanding as opposed to attack or defense...
Cheers
K
>>Is the entire purpose of life simply procreation? <<
I didnt realise sexuality equated to the "entire purpose of life".
I was simply saying that each body organ has a clear function from an anatomical perspective. The penis serves a purpose of sewing seeds which coincidently implant themselves in a woman via her vagina... hence a function of the penis is clearly to sew its seed in the vagina. The function of the anus is to excrete waste. These are what I consider normal and natural bodily functions.
>>What then is music for? << Its certainly not relevant to whats normal and natural sexual function (not directly)
>>What is art for?<< Same answer as for music
>> What is the simple enjoyment we get when someone cracks a good joke for?<< laughter.
I have nothing further to offer on this thread other than what I have already written. Read it again if it confuses you.
John,
>>But it was quite clearly something that upset you<<
That was a long time ago. Ive changed my views since then particularly regarding  how i feel about your sexuality! Its your penis and your fetish and quite frankly I dont need to know it.....thats your business.
I dont need to re-read the thread either John. Im not lacking understanding. Just because my opinion differs from yours doesnt mean Ive misunderstood something or just dont get it. I respect what you've said (ie. it feels normal and natural for you to get it on with another man). I wish you could respect that same sex action doesnt feel normal or natural to me.
The animal kingdom might enjoy it too but how does that make it normal for humans? Male dogs pack rape females and its normal for them. There are lots of animal behaviours which differ from humans.
Jesterdood
Peoples idea of normal and natural differ, if they didnt then everyone would be bi or gay. Im not either. Sex with someone of the same sex just doesnt appeal to me and definitely feels NOT normal.
Hmmm. This thread has me thinking. I'm thinking this could be a good test case for pcW28. (see Proposed Credo page) The idea is that if any group of people is prepared to come to the table in a spirit of cooperation and exercise enough open and honest communication that unanimous agreement is possible.
Now before you take aim to shoot down pcW28, let me tell you that Mike and I have already analyzed it ad nauseum. We've already recognized that it may be an unworkable tenet. But we have agreed to try it on for size. So what do you say? Let's call this an experiment.
The objective is to come to a mutual understanding where all parties are able to come to an agreement of some sort. A successful outcome would be win/win. Everybody wins. Instead of someone having to be wrong so that someone else can be right, which is win/lose. That is an unsuccessful outcome.
My theory is that somewhere down beneath our superficial squabbles and head butting sessions lies a universal truth. The theory is that if we are patient enough with each other, and open enough, we can work past our apparent disagreements. I propose that our disagreements are illusions, and that if we persist with an open, honest dialog long enough, those illusions can be dispersed and we can all find ourselves standing together in the palm of mutual understanding and respect.
In order for this to work, you have to be prepared to go the distance. You can't just shut down. Of course, if at some point people have had enough, we can chuck it in.
So the first question I'm inclined to ask is, John, are you of the belief that James is simply incapable of understanding you? Cuz if that's the case, that pretty much puts a nail in it. Some of what you've said indicated to me that you question her capacity to really comprehend what you're saying. I suppose that's the first thing I'd like to clarify.
Let's go from there, any takers?
K