Link

I didn't know you could catch the gay from hearing that same-sex relationships do, in fact, exist. Because that's what's being implied: that if kids hear about same-sex couples as they do straight ones, they'll turn out gay. It's like learning that some people bleach their hair will turn you into a blond. Doesn't make much sense, and is actually a very low fear-mongering tactic by the religious right. Appealing to people's fears (especially with kids involved) apparently is very effective.

If and when I become galactic overlord, I shall remember this stratagem in subjugating worlds, building massive battleships, and practicing general acts of infamy.....


......and I'll make gay marriage legal! Bwahahahaha!

Are you crazy?! Once the gays start marrying, nobody reproduces any more! Your empire will be doomed!

I think what's implied is that, because children are sponges who don't yet know how to critically think, their ideas about "relationship," "love," "sex," and "marriage" will essentially be screwed up.

I mean, to be honest, it's not as if gay marriage proponents aren't asking people to give up a lot, such as their ideas about society, especially one so fundamental and necessary. This is the first time in human history where its been postulated that homosexual sexual relationships and heterosexual sexual relationships are equivocal.

Oh my you totally can like in my case!!!! Dun.... Dun...Dunnnn!!!!! I was brought up in a family where i was never taught what gay meant, and the gay couple up the street were "two single guys" and that totally kept me from becoming gay.... or at least from my parents believing it possible when i told them..... hehehe

People were arguing the same thing about Blacks in the 1960s. It was the first time in human history where it had been postulated that interracial sexual relationships are equivocal with noninterracial marriage, and society turned out fine.

I hope you don't believe that these issues are equivocal. The differences between blacks and whites are accidental. The differences between homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are essential; unless sex doesn't mean anything.

Bah, I'm not proud to be an American again now. To bad for Maine. :/



Eh? I knew about homosexual relationships when I was a child, and my idea's of relationships, love, sex and marriage were not screwed up.

This post has been edited by FlyingNun: Nov 4 2009, 04:39 PM

but there are gay people in this world, and sometimes when they come to realize who they are might feel as if it's not the possible or equal to being straight.

And sometimes there are straight people that grow up and not realize that gay people can actually exist.

This post has been edited by Crescentheart: Nov 4 2009, 04:42 PM

Being gay isn't equivocal to being straight (or even roughly equal). Homosexuality cannot be considered the same way heterosexuality can be. Where a man and woman have sex, there is the potentiality for new life. When you have two men or two women, the act ends in the act by necessity.

"Potentiality" for new life. So what? Big deal. Not all heterosexuals have sex to create new life. Many do it as a form of expressing one's love for one another. Just like many homosexuals.

And btw, not all homosexuals have sex. You can be a homosexual virgin, so the "sexual act" argument is moot. It's got nothing to do with the right to equal marriage.

In the broader terms of gender identity and sexual identity, your pre-existing gender only defines tendency, not what actually becomes of it. Then again, I'm also in the "nurture" over "nature" camp, at least when it comes to sexual identity, so I'll state my bias.

This is of course assuming that the only goal of a legal marriage is procreation, which I am pretty sure isn't written in any legal statute.

Heterosexual sex has the potentiality of life. Homosexual sex doesn't have the potentiality of life.

Thus, proven they aren't equivocal.



In which case it wouldn't be very homosexual, would it?



Nurture wouldn't change the fact that a penis is still a penis.

No, but it would change what the penis supposed to do.

I wasn't arguing in legal terms. Its a fact that a merely legal perception implicates a different social perception. If its okay for gays to marry each other, why would it be wrong to teach our children that there's nothing different between their marriage and a heterosexual marriage?



Remove waste and be a vessel to transmit semen?

I see that, my point being that interracial marriage and homosexual marriage are in fact equivocal in terms of their legality. Thus making the issue of interracial marriage and homosexual marriage equivocal which you argued against.

The legal aspect is the equvication. Not who has penises or vaginas.

How are they equivocal? Because you just used the word "marriage?"

That's the technical function, yes. I assumed you could abstract a little bit further than that, my apologies.

It's function in relation to how it is used changes based on sexual identity.

You stimulate it until ejaculation?

My, this is getting rather graphic...

I am not sure whether you are intentionally dodging the point or not.

I don't worship my genitalia, so no, I'm missing your point. Am I to suppose that body parts have purposes other than those nature designed for them?

Nature (Notice I didn't say God, this isn't a creationism debate) does not designate functions for any part. It only uses parts in situations. Their secondary uses are determined by society. Ears are not designed to have things stabbed through them, yet we do it anyway.

And the word marriage pertains to legality, since marriage is a contract recognized by law. They are equivocal in the sense that both groups were denied a right to marriage despite there being no legal reason for marriage to be denied.

Silly Americans.