Revenge of the Return of *Homosexuals are Gay* Reloaded

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Jedi Merkurian, Jun 7, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. VoijaRisa Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 2002
    star 5
    I know several gays that have made the CHOICE to try and renounce their homosexuality because of all the persecution. They even ask God for help. Yet God offers none. Why? Either he's not there, or he doesn't care.
  2. IkritMan Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 11, 2002
    star 5
    I know of homosexuals who asked God to "correct" them, and they became straight (as far as I know) with no repercussions (psychological problems). So isn't it possible that God is there and he does care?

    I don't believe he does, but the whole personal story look-I-did-this-and-God-didn't-do-anything argument is really getting old (it's being used by both sides).

    And what does God have to do with homosexuality in the first place? Esp's post didn't mention God at all. Isn't that kind of derailing?
  3. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    You would attempt to tell us in your careful wording that any culture you "related" to us had "religion"...but that it(religion) played no part in marriage until "much later."

    That is correct, although the attempt was a success. You are intent on personal attacks, but you can't see through to refute anything I've posted. In fact, I realize now that I am the only one (of the two us) who has even bothered to show any element of research, and you have yet to indicate whether or not you have read any of the resources I provided for you that do give strong anthropological evidence in human history through custom and ceremony. I recognize that I could fit these books into a simple cyber-bite for you to consume. That is a skill deficiency on my part, I agree.

    As to the issue of any implied concession on my part... you're dreaming. I've made no such concessions. Quite the contrary, I have given you a small sampling of resources that do more eloquently prove the statement I'm defending. As you said, that statement is that while previous cultures had religious beliefs, the act of marriage did not become a religious function until later.

    And, you know this to be factually accurate, precisely how?

    It's called anthropology and historical sociology. Studying customs and rituals of previous cultures. Are you, by chance, one of those who think something only existed if it was written on a stone tablet? This is meant neither to be sarcastic nor condescending; I know a few people in the real world with this sort of empirical standard (one of whom has been arguing with me at great length over time that no human has ever set foot on the moon). I am curious though whetehre or not this is the mindset I am addressing.

    Until you see fit to refute anything I've said with anthropological resources, really, you're just wasting your keystrokes.





  4. son_of_the_tear Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 23, 1999
    star 5
    Can't just say in such a blanket way that it's "choice".

    It's not that easy and clean.

    It's nurture versus nature.

    For some it's a choice, for others it's not a choice, but they are born that way; genetic.

  5. SaberGiiett7 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2002
    star 6
    I think these camps were children and teenagers are dumped off to "correct" them are highly psychologically inimical. It is counter-productive to tell someone they are diseased and instill fear to cause them to repent.

    I think tolerance and understanding get a bad reputation. A lot of these individuals exhibit homosexual and lesbian traits from early ages were it is irrational to assume they are somehow "rebelling."

    Obviously, obviously these individuals are inclined to favor one gender, even the same gender, over another. I don't see how anyone can endure so much ridicule and harrassment otherwise. It's ignorant.

    Whether or not they can choose to deny themselves of this because it's "sinful" is not really my place to say. Scientists have yet to find the "gay gene." Based on lack of evidence, I am not going to assert such.

    <[-]> Saber
  6. Jansons_Funny_Twin Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    I call bull**** on that. It is you guys who are trying to get the government to tell people what is best for them. We are advocating no governmental interference between who can and cannot get married. You are the ones who want the government to tell people who they can and cannot marry.

    Hypocricy at its finest folks.



    Squ33k!
  7. IkritMan Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 11, 2002
    star 5
    It's hilarious how both sides are claiming that the *other* side is trying to use government to achieve their goals. Everything is done through government. Government telling churches that they have to allow gays is "government involvement." Government telling churches that they can't marry gays is "government involvement." I don't see how the use of the term "government involvement" is much of an argument.
  8. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Since when did the United States government ever tell any church it had to or was forbidden from marrying gays? Church's are free to marry anyone or not marry anyone they want.
  9. son_of_the_tear Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 23, 1999
    star 5
    That is true.

    A same sex couple can get married, under the term marriage under the traditional sense of the word in a church or temple that will carry it out.

    What they want is for that to be recognized by law.
  10. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Instead of locking the thread and ruining it for everyone else, I think I'll offer a reminder here.

    If anyone finds themselves becoming too attached to an issue, the best course of action is to step away for a short time, and refocus one's efforts.

    It's not worth bringing the entire thread down because of the actions of a few people who can't conduct a mature discussion.

    Instead of being locked, this thread was brought back to the last on topic post, and will proceed from there.
  11. Bruno_Fett Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 31, 2002
    star 4
    But you wiped out the best part!

    How is it that the people who want the government to keep out of their business are the same that are demanding that said government also acknowlege their marriage. How can you justify arguing for one AND the other?
  12. RavenKing Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 28, 2005
    star 1
    That's because they only agree with the government when it caves to their radical ideals. Otherwise they scream and whine when they don't get their way. I have a nephew like that.

    They all want to be treated fairly until they are, and then they demand to have special rights. I don't have the right to marry a man so why should they?

  13. Jansons_Funny_Twin Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    No, we want less governmental interference in this whole thing.

    This isn't my liberal side that's making me take this position, it's my conservative side that wants the government out of this game.

    I'm registered Republican by the way.

    Would you agree with the previously asserted idea of getting the government out of marriage and strictly in the game of civil unions for both hetero- and homosexual couples, thus leaving marriage to the churches, synogogues, shrines, mosques, etc?

    Seems a simple solution to me, one that all rational people on both sides should be able to accept.




    Squ33k!
  14. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    It appears words like "simple", "solution", "rational" and "accept" have no place in this thread.
  15. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    How is it that the people who want the government to keep out of their business are the same that are demanding that said government also acknowlege their marriage. How can you justify arguing for one AND the other?

    Because the two ideas, though misrepresented in your statement, coincide. The government is reduced by relenquishing its current ability to choose for us who we can and cannot marry. The government has seen fit to grant over a thousand rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities to the status of marriage. Because it offers these, it must offer them to all equally without gender-based discrimination. The government cannot tell us who we fall in love with. The government cannot dictate with whom we choose to partner for the rest of our lives. If it gives us benefits, it must give them to all equally.

    That's because they only agree with the government when it caves to their radical ideals. Otherwise they scream and whine when they don't get their way. I have a nephew like that.

    Civic Equality (ie, equal rights) is so radical a theory, isn't it.

    They all want to be treated fairly until they are, and then they demand to have special rights. I don't have the right to marry a man so why should they?

    Read back through this thread and the Same-Sex marriage discussion. This is addressed repeatedly. Same-Sex marriage is not a special right. Do you believe marriage is a special right worthy of discrimination?


  16. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Cheveyo,

    "Until you see fit to refute anything I've said with anthropological resources, really, you're just wasting your keystrokes."


    It's really simple.

    You made an assertion as though a fact.

    I don't have to read your resources when I already know the answer.

    1.)The earliest recorded mentions of Deity contained within the ancient records show it as exhisting due to a divine bestowel and ordination, within religiously based societies, and in myth.

    2.)If you refuse to accept those sources as accurate(and I am not inferring anyone should), then, there is nothing left but conjecture as to how marriage originated.

    Can you give us the date, time, location, and name of specifically who presided over the first marriage, so we can verify whether it was a merely civic or religious ceremony?

    (Y'know, the whole burden of proof thing.)

    Can any sociologist? Can any anthropologist? Of course not, they can only speculate. That's it.

    Of course not.

    Remove what the ancients left recorded, and no one knows, and most certainly not an anthropologist removed from the events by 1,000's of years with no "prehistoric" recording. That's why it is called pre-historic. Before history.


    Religious people will believe it was religious.

    Non-religious people will believe it was secular.

    But the choice to "believe" is not "fact."


    I don't know why you are attempting to argue what is blantantly obvious?


    By the way, "mating" is not "marriage."
    Every animal in the world "mates."


    Since you presented so many titles, one assumes you have read them as I am being requested to do.

    Save us the trouble, simply present the relevant pages and quotes.

    You presented the link to a "history of marriage" article which did not address where anyone believes marriage originated, but it did begin with this first paragraph;

    "Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species,a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs. For instance, ancient Hebrew law required a man to become the husband of a deceased brother's widow."
    [Emphasis mine.]


    Even throughout this article the author is utilizing info gleanded from extant ancient texts and recorded history.

  17. Bruno_Fett Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 31, 2002
    star 4
    Would you agree with the previously asserted idea of getting the government out of marriage and strictly in the game of civil unions for both hetero- and homosexual couples, thus leaving marriage to the churches, synogogues, shrines, mosques, etc?

    HELLO, that is exactly what I have been saying since something like page 13 of this thread. What should make everyone happy still does not sit well with some who just need to use the discrimination card no matter what. They will claim that they are being discriminated against because it is not called marriage. Other than title of the union ther eis absolutely no difference so I don't see the problem, but of course thats just me being logical again.

    The government is reduced by relenquishing its current ability to choose for us who we can and cannot marry.
    No, they are simply adhearing to the stipulations of the contract, one man and one woman.

    The government has seen fit to grant over a thousand rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities to the status of marriage. Because it offers these, it must offer them to all equally without gender-based discrimination.

    They why is it not a problem that the government see fit to discriminate against the single population? Would that not be a bigger complaint? That is more arbitrary discrimination than anything!

    The government cannot tell us who we fall in love with. The government cannot dictate with whom we choose to partner for the rest of our lives.

    NO AND THEY DO NOT! I do not recall any laws that forbid homosexuality?

    If it gives us benefits, it must give them to all equally

    WHY? The government gives welfare benifits to those who are poor (sorry, monetarily challenged), are they discriminating against the rich?

    That's because they only agree with the government when it caves to their radical ideals. Otherwise they scream and whine when they don't get their way. I have a nephew like that.
    =D= =D= =D= =D= =D= =D= =D=

    I don't have the right to marry a man so why should they?

    Good point, they are not discriminating against homosexuals if hetro sexuals are also not permitted to enter a marriage with a same sex partner, it is equal discrimination across the board when you look at it that way.

    Do you believe marriage is a special right worthy of discrimination?

    Yes, when the parties are not entering the contract under the stipulations of the contract itself. If you dose someone and then marry them while they are not of sound mind, it can be contested as a legal marriage. You can not be made to enter a marriage contract with a gun to your head either. If you attempt to marry your ficus it is descriminated against because a plant has both male and female sex organs, not to mention is of another Kingdom all together.
  18. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    As I said... wasting keystrokes.

    You made an assertion as though a fact.

    Yes, because it is I that wrote those many books. It was I alone who compiled those innumerable articles and sociological lectures. It was I who trained those sociologists and anthropologists. It was I, indeed, who singlehandedly expressed this wild notion as fact. Do you not realize that I am only reciting to you what I myself have learned from those far more experienced in this field than you or I? You probably don't, since you seem to think it's my "assertion".

    I don't have to read your resources when I already know the answer.

    So you refuse to read information. That is one of the best ways to remain knowledgable in a field of study. I commend you for your superior intellect and wisdom. Since I provided my resources, I assume you can provide yours, as well. Links, or even a simple bibliography will suffice. I have a library card.

    1.)The earliest recorded mentions of Deity contained within the ancient records show it as exhisting due to a divine bestowel and ordination, within religiously based societies, and in myth.

    Explain for my inferiority how this single sentence disproves "my assertion" that marriage occured in history before religion came into the mix. All you are saying in this sentence is that recorded history shows that cultures believed in various religious deities. It says nothing about the rituals and customs of human coupling.

    2.)If you refuse to accept those sources as accurate(and I am not inferring anyone should), then, there is nothing left but conjecture as to how marriage originated.

    What sources? You have provided none that highlight your thesis.

    Can you give us the date, time, location, and name of specifically who presided over the first marriage, so we can verify whether it was a merely civic or religious ceremony?
    (Y'know, the whole burden of proof thing.)
    Can any sociologist? Can any anthropologist? Of course not, they can only speculate. That's it.
    Of course not.


    Do you understand that this means also that you cannot prove you case, based on your own criteria? Probably not.

    Remove what the ancients left recorded, and no one knows, and most certainly not an anthropologist removed from the events by 1,000's of years with no "prehistoric" recording. That's why it is called pre-historic. Before history.

    Now I understand what you're getting at. You believe that anthropologists are wrong in this instance. This is an interesting development, given that you cited your anthropology studies earlier in the thread as proof positive that religion created marriage. You're now contradicting yourself. Would you care to rephrase?

    I don't know why you are attempting to argue what is blantantly obvious?

    Read my resources, and you will learn what is obvious. Oh right, you don't want to read them. So be it.

    Since you presented so many titles, one assumes you have read them as I am being requested to do.

    Save us the trouble, simply present the relevant pages and quotes.


    Thankfully, I did my homework (with some e-help from my old SOC prof ;)). It's up to you to read for yourself. Can you learn a field of study in a 3-sentence summary? Can you comprehend the history of an action from a sngle thought? Ummmm, no. Read the books. Get back to me when you're ready to discuss them.

    You presented the link to a "history of marriage" article which did not address where anyone believes marriage originated, but it did begin with this first paragraph...

    I'm shocked! You read one of my sources. Thank you. Of course, it seems you skipped over the part I actually quoted, but I realize that I'm asking too much to expect you to read everything.

    Since you missed,
  19. severian28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 1, 2004
    star 5
    WHY? The government gives welfare benifits to those who are poor (sorry, monetarily challenged), are they discriminating against the rich?


    Im sorry but thats an absurd analogy. Show me a person who'd choose welfare benefits over being rich and Ill show you a liar. This argument is about being gay period. The marriage dispute is just a cover for people who are of the contigency that believe that there is no scientific basis for homosexuality, that this a religious and not a civil issue, and that being gay is some kind of mental deviation. If it was agreed by all that it is a scientific fact that homosexuality is a biological truth in the human race, which of course it is, there wouldnt be an issue about homosexual marriage.
  20. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
  21. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    They why is it not a problem that the government see fit to discriminate against the single population? Would that not be a bigger complaint? That is more arbitrary discrimination than anything!

    You're not thinking it through. Every single person has the right to marry (except those who are denied their personal choice of partners, ie homosexual couples). So you see, even this argument points out the discriminatin of homosexuals.

    Every single [status] person has access to the rights granted by marriage.
    Not every single person has the right to choose their partner in the act of marriage with no just cause as basis.

    Understanding that marriage (as currently written) is a contract of exclusivity between two people, the government has no right to decide for us who we can marry if no just cause can be provided.


  22. Guinastasia Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2002
    star 6
    Maybe, maybe not. But since he stayed out of politics, wouldn't it follow that he wouldn't freak out over CIVIL marriages between those of the same sex?

    Dammit, I am so sick and tired of people trying to make THEIR religious beliefs into the law of the land.
  23. Guinastasia Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2002
    star 6

    Ever hear of Lawrence vs. Texas?


  24. Bruno_Fett Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 31, 2002
    star 4
    Come on, thats Texas, they don't really count. And I doubt any homosexual in their right mind would be caught dead living in Texas. (that was a joke by the way so don't jump all over me telling me about some friend of yours who is gay and lived in Austin or anything like that)

    Im sorry but thats an absurd analogy. Show me a person who'd choose welfare benefits over being rich and Ill show you a liar.

    But it still is discriminating towards the rich, whatever their situation may be. It does not matter if it is a choice or not.


    This argument is about being gay period.
    NO IT IS NOT, stop reading into things what you want to see in them. Unless you have proof from something that I have stated in the past 100+ freaking pages to support this crap, retract!

    The marriage dispute is just a cover for people who are of the contigency that believe that there is no scientific basis for homosexuality, that this a religious and not a civil issue, and that being gay is some kind of mental deviation. If it was agreed by all that it is a scientific fact that homosexuality is a biological truth in the human race, which of course it is, there wouldnt be an issue about homosexual marriage.

    Baseless, did you make that all up on your own or did you consult with Oliver Stone first?
  25. IkritMan Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 11, 2002
    star 5
    Bruno-Fett, if you personally have no problem with gay people being gay, why is it you want them to have an inferior status compared to yourself based on their being gay? Homosexual couples, in your opinion, should not be seen as equal compared to heterosexual couples. There has to be some reasoning behind your assumption that they should have less-than-equal status when it comes to marriage. The only reason I and most others can think of is that you dislike (maybe hate?) gays, think they are in some way deviating from some standard you think should be imposed on society, and think they should be punished for their actions.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.