How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 This whole gay-marriage fiasco - Continu   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

This whole gay-marriage fiasco - Continued...

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


0 posted 03-04-2004 10:57 PM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

pick up on the last viewable thread from: http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum6/HTML/000950.html

A very interesting discussion!

If a genetic "anomaly" isn't debilitating to a person's quality of life (sans current social stigmata that may still be attached), then perhaps it shouldn't be viewed as a disability, at least no more than one's genetics determining a unique tone in their skin color, different color eyes, etc.

Homosexuality isn't a new thing just come to the fore. It's also far older than the history of this country. In many older cultures, it was an acceptable way to be. So that means that what's new is the prejudice. We're working on that (it is FAR more acceptable to be gay now than it was ten, twenty, forty years ago... almost to the point of being GQ now).

Both Ron and grassy ninja brought up good points leading in the same direction - why get married in the first place? Is it for the ceremony? religion? or is it for the civil rights? And why, oh why, does someone who's married (which means nothing these days outside a piece of paper - divorces can be as easy as a normal breakup anymore) have different civil rights than another?

It's all confusing. My opinion, on the front, however, is that if someone wants to get married and is of legal age of consent - let 'em. That's an individual choice and will no more tear at the fabric of our society than any of the quacks making me pay 28% in federal taxes this year... there's a new predjudice for you - the single person who makes a half-decent living; show me one tax break.

Sorry, i ramble. good discussion all.


oh yeah - polygamy (thanks hush, just saw your response after posting this) - i think it's fine. go ahead. this too has historical support (though generally limited to the nobility). that won't rip the metaphorical fabric either.
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


1 posted 03-04-2004 11:48 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

I'm confused.

Why does it say there are 33 replies to my original thread, and I can only view 29 (up to this last one Chris put here), including one of my own replies that for whatever reason, I can't load?

And... umm... why'd it get closed?
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


2 posted 03-04-2004 11:56 PM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

hush - http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum6/HTML/000951.html
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


3 posted 03-04-2004 11:56 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

read the thread titled 'error will robinson'
hush
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


4 posted 03-05-2004 12:14 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Well... I thought Jim did make a good point...

First about GLBT not being the "last" discriminated against group. I addressed that in the old thread, and my post got eaten by the internet monster... (heh, the corruption) So, anyway, yeah, prejudice still exists everywhere, and in some areas, still very severely.

But his other point... so, if gay people really feel that they ahve an illness and want to change (d/t deep religious belief, or for whatever reason) shouldn't they have that opportunity and option?
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


5 posted 03-05-2004 12:45 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant



If your lover woke up someday as the same sex as you and couldn't change back would you still be his or her lover?  
If that was your wife or husband would you get divorced?


icebox
Member Elite
since 05-03-2003
Posts 4246
in the shadows


6 posted 03-05-2004 09:56 AM       View Profile for icebox   Email icebox   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for icebox

I don't really care who lives/sleeps with whom as long as I am not involved.  You can call a unicycle a bicycle if it makes people happy; it just doesn't make it one.  

I think the issue (as a political/media tempest) is silly, but then I have always thought the romantic nonsense of marriage to be silly also.  Any formalized relationship which uses the death of any one or of all partners as one of the primary indicators of success is a little twisted.

Personally, I would love to have gay couples share in the burden of the marriage penalties in taxes.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


7 posted 03-05-2004 12:42 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Some people also nowadays say that "oral" "doggy" and other backward things are normal because they are more common.  It igets a bit frightening.  As sexual things these are deviations, and "fetishes" and often perversely done to twist nature on purpose.  And having sex with someone of the same sex is not exempt.  
I think homosexuality that is inevitable because one truly loves another in the same sex and put the right love above the wrong sex deserves society's opinion and every social freedom and right,  but homosexuality that is turned to for a sextoy and fetish, putting sex first, should be prohibted from all social exhibtion as any other kind of sexual outrage.  Giving due tolerance to homosexuality that is based on love should not loosen us against what we know of homosexuality as an unhealthy fetish that people toy around with.  Therefore when we approach marriage I believe it should be a due  respect because we know there are sincere homosexuals.  We should not let there road of rights and freedoms be ruined  because there are so many insincere ones as well, that look look more for the "right" fetish rather than the right love.  

grassy ninja
Junior Member
since 07-20-2003
Posts 45
Kentucky


8 posted 03-05-2004 01:34 PM       View Profile for grassy ninja   Email grassy ninja   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for grassy ninja

essorant-
how then are we to deal with heterosexual unions not based on true love?  do gay couples have to hold up their unions to a higher standard than straight couples?  also, how are the things you mentioned "deviations"?  how are they backwards?  is anything besides sex for procreation in the missionary position "deviant"?

about homosexuality being a physical anomaly, i have a thought: what if homosexuality is necessary in the scheme of things?  what if we need people who either can't or don't want to procreate in order to keep the population from exploding?  i
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


9 posted 03-05-2004 01:58 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I don't know, I think I'm pretty traditionalist on this one. One criticism of the homosexual community has been its blatant and flippant promiscuity. Promiscuity, these days, is a dangerous course of action for anybody.

If we recognize gay marriage, isn't it a small step to deterring unhealthy (physically, not morally) behaviour?

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


10 posted 03-05-2004 02:33 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"how then are we to deal with heterosexual unions not based on true love?  do gay couples have to hold up their unions to a higher standard than straight couples?  "

Unions are not the problem;  I just mean if people make a social exhibition of their sexuality they should be very restricted.
Just because exploiting sexuality and sex is common today and an "entertainment" does not make it right or even normal.  Sexuality and sex are not a toy.

"also, how are the things you mentioned "deviations"?  how are they backwards?  is anything besides sex for procreation in the missionary position "deviant"?"

Similar to the way putting makeup on is a deviation.  Nature doesn't put makeup on people, people put makeup on nature.  
People put makeup on though so much today, they seem to forget the difference between their makeup and their nature.  But all they have to do is take the make up off to see that again...


what if we need people who either can't or don't want to procreate in order to keep the population from exploding?  i

But the population has already exploded, don't you think?!  
How does sex for the sake of sex,  sexuality for the sake of sexuality, especially in the kind of widemedia we have today help us better control birth and population?  If our appetites are more sexual don't you think there is more danger of inadvertant procreation and an overpopulation?

[This message has been edited by Essorant (03-05-2004 04:12 PM).]

Nightshade
Deputy Moderator 5 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 08-31-2001
Posts 14673
just out of reach


11 posted 03-05-2004 03:24 PM       View Profile for Nightshade   Email Nightshade   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Nightshade's Home Page   View IP for Nightshade

Gee....I always thought a wedding was supposed to be festive and gay.
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


12 posted 03-05-2004 03:56 PM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

Brad - I hardly think that the increase of promiscuity is limited in any fashion to homosexuals. My father and i have talked about the differences between our generations on the sexual front - when he was a teen, only "bad girls" had sex prior to marriage. In my "day" it took a little effort, but sex was hardly uncommon.

As i understand it from my younger sister and her friends, it's still fairly common, but now tempered - not by any set of beliefs (religious or fairy-tale), but rather by an increase in education surrounding the potential physical harm that could come from promiscuous sex.

I'm kinda baffled by the whole focus on sex anyway... our society has become such that sex is no longer the dirty-word of a culture. It's acceptable for people to have sex outside marriage and even encouraged on many levels (take a look at advertising, tv, books, etc.). Sex shouldn't be the worry anyway - a look over the past years will show that today's fetish is just tomorrow's norm. If you want to discuss social stigmata regarding homosexual sex, I'll ask this - why is it more socially acceptable for women to have homosexual relationships than males? (And I draw this conclusion both from men AND women).
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


13 posted 03-05-2004 03:58 PM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

But Nature did not put clothes on us either. What happens if we follow that line and all get naked. Besides the obvious, of course, that we will be damn cold in the winter
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


14 posted 03-05-2004 04:42 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Chris,

Huh?

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


15 posted 03-05-2004 06:04 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Ah, Pete, nakedness seems Ess's ultimate goal...

except for that chastity belt we all oughta be wearing.

Ess... C'mon now... I can't refute your arguments too in-depth in a general forum... (but one argument goes along the lines of don't knock it 'till you've tried it)... however... echoing grassy ninja's point... did you know some animals masturbate? What about my neutered dog that tries to procreate with my other dog... even though he doesn't have the equipment? (Maybe it just feels good.)

And why aren't sexual alternatives a viable option for preventing pregnancy (and by options, I include same-sex sex.)
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


16 posted 03-05-2004 06:10 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Brad- your reply read like you are criticising gays for being too promiscuous. Chris, I think, was just saying gays aren't the only ones that sleep around.
Sudhir Iyer
Member Rara Avis
since 04-26-2000
Posts 7206
Mumbai, India : now in Belgium


17 posted 03-05-2004 06:11 PM       View Profile for Sudhir Iyer   Email Sudhir Iyer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Sudhir Iyer

But Nature did not put clothes on us either. What happens if we follow that line and all get naked. Besides the obvious, of course, that we will be damn cold in the winter

Pete,

maybe that's why clothes were invented... or were they discovered? (with a little help from our friends, the Martians )

there is perhaps, also the small matter of a fig-leaf, most probably for the obvious reasons

regards,
sudhir
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


18 posted 03-05-2004 06:44 PM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

Brad - sorry if i didn't make that connection more clear (clearer?)

As hush is saying, i was stating the supposition that gays would increase the likelihood of promiscuity is unlikely, as rampant promiscuity is already socially acceptable.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


19 posted 03-05-2004 07:01 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Hush and Pete

I think that getting dressed is based on a bit more nature and reason than having sex in some backwards or fanciful way because it feels good (or bad ?).  Getting dressed is full of fancy too.  But when it comes to serving the behests of the weather, we all must dress accordingly, with only as much difference as our body's need for a temperance may bend a bit.  I don't think having sexual encounters with someone of the same sex is wrong, but I don't think calling it normal is right.  It is not nature's wont, but something that humans accustom themselves to the "taste" of.  If that is one's choice, so be it.  
But trying to force it into the mainstream of things and people to accept it as normal I think is probably just as wrong as trying to force chastity belts on nature and on people.
Severn
Member Rara Avis
since 07-17-99
Posts 8273


20 posted 03-05-2004 07:04 PM       View Profile for Severn   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Severn

quote:
If you want to discuss social stigmata


Chris, you know - I think you're in the wrong thread? The passion of christ thread is just below this one....snicker.

And Essorant:

quote:
Some people also nowadays say that "oral" "doggy" and other backward things are normal because they are more common.  It igets a bit frightening.  As sexual things these are deviations, and "fetishes" and often perversely done to twist nature on purpose.  And having sex with someone of the same sex is not exempt.
  

That is just frankly disturbing.

Who determines what is deviant? It sounds as if you are expounding a social theory as fact. A social theory with strong patriarchal roots. (Think of women lying on their backs and thinking of England, Ess.) Do some research on deviancy theories. You might find some interesting information...

K
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


21 posted 03-05-2004 07:12 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Severn

I'm sorry.  I know it is disturbing.  That is part of my point though.  
Don't you think that disturbance is based on
something not competly invalid?

Severn
Member Rara Avis
since 07-17-99
Posts 8273


22 posted 03-05-2004 07:33 PM       View Profile for Severn   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Severn

What's disturbing is your attitude toward 'deviancy.'

Full stop.

K
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


23 posted 03-05-2004 09:50 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

If applauding commitment and monogamy is criticising promiscuity, then that's what I'm doing.

On a personal level, there is an element of hypocrisy here, but we live, we learn, we change our minds.

  

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


24 posted 03-05-2004 10:55 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Brad, I'd heard that criticism too of the homosexual community, that, typically, they were more promiscuous than the heterosexual community. I'd be interested in finding out if there is actually any data behind that criticism, or if it is just a misperception. I really don't know one way or the other. The couple of gay couples that I know seem to be monogomous, but I don't know that many. But I'd agree, committment and monogomy are healthier choices.

To me, the bottom line in the current fiasco is the rule of law. I think that if you don't agree with a law, you should work within the system to change it, not engage in civil disobedience, either as a form of protest, or as a 'thumbing your nose' at the system, especially by civil servants who have taken an oath to uphold the law, and I think that they should be removed from office for not upholding their oath of office. To me at least, the only acceptable or permissable time to disregard a law would be to save a life, mine or someone else's, if it ever came down to that, but not merely because I don't agree with a particular law. Otherwise you just have people being a law unto themselves and you have anarchy. I can't see that as being good for the overall social fabric.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> This whole gay-marriage fiasco - Continu   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors