Marriage: A victory today for those who love liberty.

Well, I was more specifically thinking of "separate but equal."

Clearly, the Court eventually reversed their stance on that.

 

Perhaps, perhaps not.

I don't see anything emotional or religious about my arguments. It's just that pro-homosexual individuals have the preconcieved notion that the only rational position is the one that is pro-homosexual marraige/sex.

And what if the relation is purely lustful? Does this mean you would want to ban fornication and/or prostitution?

And it's not like homosexuals don't have peculiar mental (and physical) characteristics.

That doesn't imply piety is a mental disorder.

Not that it matters, but what does "especially devout" mean, exactly? What kind of schizophrenia are we talking about? How did researchers reach this conclusion? I want details.

Yes, and some people are wired to be attracted to kids. Still does not make it biologically right.

I don't believe it exists just for the sake of procreation.

So what if it's just about sex?

Freedom in this case triumphs against what's right. The West doesn't care about what is right or wrong. Freedom is paramount.

Sure, and that definition of freedom can change.

Love itself isn't the problem. It's when it is coupled with a biological defect that the whole situation becomes an issue.

Blame the makeup of your present society, then.

Perhaps it's because of their poor arguments against consent. You never know what will happen in the future, though.

 

In other words, you got nothing.

 

I got the 14th Amendment...

 

So far, your arguments haven't been emotional, but they haven't been logical either.

I support legalized prostitution, actually. If it was legal, then it would reduce the spread of disease and would also allow for sex workers to have labor rights.

Sure, they do, but again, my mention of that with bestiality was not a justification to ban it. It was a statement that most bestiality isn't likely to involve the same kind of mental connection that you can have with another adult. That's why I don't view bestiality in the same terms as homosexuality. Honestly, it's rather insulting to suggest that homosexuality and bestiality are on the same level socially.

I'm not saying it is either, but likewise, neither is being gay.

This is what I'm referencing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_schizophrenia

There are several primary links within that link. Another example is here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4031576/

And again, consent is the essential difference here.

That depends on what you mean by "right." The West still has certain things it considers right and wrong, but it's not specific to any religion. It is merely based on whether or not someone is doing harm to someone else. Homosexuality, when consensual, is not harming anyone, so it is not "wrong" in the eyes of the law.

So what you view as "wrong" is not what we view as "wrong."

Yes, it can. It continues to change as society has progressed socially. There was a time when homosexuality was considered wrong, but now, we are more consistent about freedom. What is not likely to change, however, is the definition of consent with regard to minors.

How is it an issue? Are you saying it's an issue for society if someone chooses to love someone that is infertile? That's a biological defect. What about someone who has ALS?

It's not an issue for someone to love someone else who is a consenting adult in a society based on civil liberties.

What is there to blame? Society here mostly minds its own business, and we are thankful for that.

Anything is possible, but when something is extremely unlikely, it doesn't make much sense to worry about it.

 

Straight people have mental issues as well. Since when is mental "stability" a requirement for marriage?

 

Then why is it wrong for adults and children to have purely lustful relationships? You can't have it both ways. But yes, I know, it's about consent.

All I'm asserting is that in both cases, they are biological defects, period. And why would we want to encourage people to act on wrongs?

Well, I don't mean "mental disorder" in the sense that you may think I do. The difference between piety and homosexuality, however, is that the latter clearly is a biological defect. There are scientific studies that show that belief in God is innate, but that doesn't mean atheists have a mental defect.

 

Homosexuality is a mental disease.
Homosexuals have no "right" to "marry" anymore than they have a right to a congressional medal of honor.
Mark Levine, although I don't like much of his politics, nailed it yesterday. Homosexuals have had the right to love and live together. They have had a right to give each other power of attorney in health and legal issues.
They can will their property to each other. I've been pointing this out till I'm blue in the face. Levine is the only commentator I've heard who actually understands my argument, and Levine reputedly is a lawyer.
So what was it they wanted to achieve through gay marriage? Acceptance. They wanted to force the rest of society to grant them social approval of their behavior.
This follows in the footsteps of past left wing tactics. To go around social mores on a subject they make government subsidize behavior the left wants to make normal. Such as passing out free condoms in schools or mandating insurance coverage for abortions.
A great man once said "The slave does not want freedom. He wants to trade places with his master."
It's worse with the gays and their agenda. They were filling civil suits against bakeries that didn't want to cater gay weddings even before the court made it's decision.
Let me ask you one thing. When the 14th amendment was passed to protect the interest of former slaves, does anyone here believe that they continenced that the amendment would one day be the legal "basis" for adopting gay marriage??
To say that the authors of the 14th amendment would have stood for it sanctioning gay marriage doesn't pass the laugh test. The five justictes who voted for this have made themselves a joke.
We are in the midst of a cultural war (and a war to eliminate my white race as well). These issues are going to be settled on a wheat field in Pennsylvania. Soon.
I've been trying to warn the gay activist that they are likely putting their necks in a noose with all this marriage non-sense and their backing of the Demonic party.

 

Look on the bright side. In a few decades there will be no United States. Nothing lasts forever.

 

Originally posted by Di Salvo:

"Look on the bright side. In a few decades there will be no United States. Nothing lasts forever"


I've already read Chittum's "Civil War II".

http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPa...d_Authors/chittum-thomas_w/Chittum_Index.html

 

America was once unified by culture and creed. But those common bonds are gone. America no longer has a unifying principle that constitutes the residents of the United States into one indivisible people. A nation-state without a unifying principle can't withstand the vicissitudes of time. It can't endure. The polarization and tribalization of the residents of the United States prevent the existence of a shared and common identity. In fact, the different tribes in this country consider each other to be mortal enemies. For example, look at the way Obama talks about those who oppose him and his supporters. He doesn't refer to foreign enemies in such hostile terms.

 

Again, if you can't grasp the importance of consent, then there really is no sense in discussing this further.

Because homosexuality isn't a wrong.

Belief in God isn't innate, but it is common and somewhat of a natural impulse when lacking other means to explain natural phenomena.

How is homosexuality harmful to society or individuals?

The Constitution and natural rights are the basis of our rules, so to speak. Natural rights are pretty much a cornerstone of Western thought and modern society. And again, consensual acts are legal. Nonconsensual acts aren't (in the vast majority of cases anyway). Society progresses when it maximizes the freedom of choice without infringing on the choices of others.

A significant part of sexuality is innate. For someone who leans heavily in the gay direction, you can't expect them to prefer the opposite sex. Therefore, there is no sense in prohibiting them from marrying who they love.

But let me guess, you think that's equivalent to someone who is pedophilic or zoophilic who can't help their attraction to kids or animals. It's only equivalent in the sense of attraction. It's not equivalent in terms of consent or legality.

When there is no harm to others, there is no imperative for the state to prohibit it. The default position of an act should be legality, not illegality. It's only when something is deemed as harmful that the law should be used to restrict it.

To base freedoms on the opposite logic only encourages oppression by the state.

Sure, but some decades ago, we also thought it was unlikely (and often immoral) for black and white people to be allowed to freely associate.

Times change, and perceptions change, but that doesn't mean everything changes. We haven't changed our minds about stealing or child rape.

- - - Updated - - -

Why, hello there, Dylann Roof....

 

"The name is Smiley; George Smiley."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dh4tnvx2b8

 

I don't think there will be a wheat field confrontation in Pennsylvania or elsewhere. Democratic and republican forms of govt. always die through a process of excessive factionalism before the coup de grace is ultimately applied by a foreign power. Athens and Rome are examples. The US is no exception.

 

Just because I regard it as an excuse based purely emotion doesn't mean I don't grasp it. We will thus have to agree to disagree.

Biologically, it is.

No, this is a common belief of atheists, as if many who believe do so because they can't explain how the universe works. This is another example of the arrogance of atheists.

Anyway, consider the following literature:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...God-is-part-of-human-nature-Oxford-study.html

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/more_studies_sh088551.html

That would depend on whether society at large believes acting on homosexuality is unethical. It's irrelevant to my main argument, however.

Alright, so as I expected, it's all relative.

Love these days is a luxury. People back then didn't go on romantic dates and fall in love with the person they subsequently intended to spend their life with. Your definition of love in this case may really be one of lust. Indeed, true love comes long after people wed.

That's easy for you to say, given that legality (at least today) is on your side.

Disallowing people with a biological wrong to legally marry each other is oppression? Let's be realistic.

That doesn't mean what you are doing today in regards to homosexual marriage is necessarily right.

Yes, well, be thankful to God that these types of morals are innate.

 

The link above doesn't deviate much from what I said. "One of the studies, from Oxford, concluded that children below the age of five found it easier to believe in some “superhuman” properties than to understand human limitations." Also -- "Interestingly, we found that religion is less likely to thrive in populations living in cities in developed nations where there is already a strong social support network."

In short, it's a social mechanism that fills the void if you don't have other humans to support you. The fact that it's less prevalent in more developed nations and urban areas reflects this.

Evolution Views and News is a pretty suspect source connected to the Discovery Institute. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

Romantic love is definitely a more modern notion when it comes to marriage, but historically, marriage has been little other than an economic or political arrangement. Frankly, the modern conception of marriage has a lot more meaning.

Well, take heart... it's on your side in a lot of the world outside of the West, particularly in the Islamic World. I'm sure Lebanon has a very different view of gays than we do.

Well, as we discussed earlier, we disagree on what's right and wrong in what appears to be a fundamental sense.

Personally, I'm thankful that evolution has made certain forms of morality innate, but that's a whole other discussion.

 

It's less developed in Western cities, that's for sure, and there are theories to explain this. Western cities tend to be more liberal and less religious due a specific brand of education and economics.

True, but I just used it given the reputable references that the article seemed to contain. Laziness on my part.

Well, yeah, but this meaning is irrelevant to science. Science and rationality, you know, stuff atheists worship.

They are generally regarded as people with a mental problem (which is scientifically true). Privacy is extremely important in Islam, so they are generally left alone. When people make immorality public, that's when it becomes a problem.

But we agree that homosexuality is a biological wrong, yes?

 

I want to clarify something. Just because someone prefers rational skepticism over religion, that doesn't make them uninterested in acquiring emotional fulfillment. Relating to another human being via love is something any mentally healthy human can achieve and desire. Now, I realize that some people derive something similar via religion, and that's their business. People can believe whatever they want to.

However, where the line is drawn is when you use that belief system to hinder other people's personal decisions.

Believe it or not, what I stand for benefits people other than just atheists and Christians. The principles of the Constitution are specifically aimed at protecting minorities. If we didn't have them, Muslims would be treated a lot worse here.

The fact that religious minorities don't fare as well in a lot of the Islamic World as they do here is indicative of that. I'd much rather be a Muslim in the West than a Christian or atheist in Syria, Iraq, or even Egypt.

So, in other words, you want them to hide. Freedom of expression is an important aspect of modern life. It would be like us expecting Muslims to never wear hijabs or pray in public. Again, you might think being gay is a mental problem, but even if it was, there's no law here against being openly gay just like there's no law against being openly Muslim.

If "privacy" is really that important, then it's logically consistent to keep the government out of people's personal lives even if they openly express their personal beliefs or attractions.

No, we don't. It's abnormal compared to the norm, but it's not "wrong" per se. Evolution even has a place for being gay: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486

We don't fully understand the purpose for this phenomenon, but as we've discovered various other purposes for abnormalities, being gay isn't likely to be a "mistake."

 

Of course it doesn't make them uninterested in acquiring emotional fulfillment (though it's an atheist myth that religion can't have a rational component, but this is due to Christianity's failed history in the West).

It's just that you seem to contradict yourself when you believe that rationality should always trump faith, but encourage people to act on biological defects (which is not rational) for the sake of irrational purposes. Is the use of reason inconsequential on the one hand, but of great necessity on the other?

Society has and always will use the dominant belief system to hinder other people's personal decisions, regardless of the nature of the sphere wherein decisions that affect society are decided. It's just that certain spheres receive more public attention for the obvious reasons.

That’s because a lot of the Islamic world is a war-torn craphole. I wouldn't want to be anything in Syria. It's not like non-Muslims don't live good lives in the Gulf and other Muslim countries, however. Oh, they're living the good life.

Homosexuals are not the only ones "discriminated" against when it comes to public displays of affection. Laws like these apply to all people, regardless of the sexual orientation. You can be "openly gay" (to a certain extent), but you can't be making out with another guy in public.

Now, you can't be openly atheist or Christian simply because the state is based on Islam. Muslim countries are not secular. A good analogy would be one of Western states not allowing officials from foreign governments to spread state propaganda.

Does it make sense for America to allow non-Americans to vote? No, and that doesn't mean there is some sort of discrimination or oppression going on.

But unlike the West, morality trumps freedom in Islamic societies. For instance, one aspect of Islamic morality is that of modesty, so public displays of affection are disallowed, regardless of who is doing it. Again, it's a matter of principle, not discrimination.

Even if it has a place for being gay, why do you readily assume evolution meant for homosexuals to wed and sodomize each other? Where is the good in that?

 

I'm not sure how you would define religion as having a rational component, but feel free to elaborate. I'm not following you here.

No one is 100% rational due to things like emotions. Love itself isn't really a rational thing, but it can be tempered by reason. In a technical sense, we all depend on a certain amount of faith everyday.

I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, but given the extremely unlikely possibility that it won't, it doesn't take much faith. In healthy relationships, we have faith in the one we love. We usually refer to it as trust, but this form of faith is a bit more expansive than the one I mentioned before it.

Belief in a divine being takes a lot more faith due to the lack of evidence involved. Relating to another human being is definitely easier than relating to an invisible, all-powerful being.

Sure, you could say that constitutionalism is the dominant belief system here. However, there's a big difference in using an ideology to protect someone's freedoms rather than using it to restrict someone's freedoms.

That depends on if "living the good life" includes the same level of personal freedoms we have here. The Gulf states and more stable countries that are Muslim may allow for a decent amount of economic freedoms, but political freedoms and oftentimes social freedoms are quite a bit more restricted than they are here. Many aren't democratic, for example.

In short, there are some things money can't buy.

Well, in America, you can spread state propaganda from other countries. That's essentially what Russia Today often is.

That's not a comparable analogy, since you're now talking about differences between being a citizen and not being one. There are very few countries that allow non-citizens to vote.

That being said, there are actually a few cities that allow non-citizens who are living in America with certain long term visas to vote in local elections. They just can't vote for state or federal offices.

There is some of that here, like with laws against nudity, but we try to limit how much we do that.

The more a society tries to moralize through law, the more power that gives politicians. All it takes is for the authorities at hand to interpret a given religion in an oppressive manner for laws to become oppressive.

We already see this quite a bit when the political pendulum shifts in certain Islamic countries. When strict Islamists come to power, they usually oppress women and non-Muslims.

Evolution has nothing to do with weddings. I was merely pointing out that evolution doesn't necessarily push all individuals toward a path for procreation.

 

We all have mental problems, Goomba. Each and every one of us. It's called being human. Even if homosexuality were a disorder, so what? We don't deny citizens rights based on mental or physical stability.

 

But marriage is not a right no matter what SCOTUS says. SCOTUS can not bestow rights.

 

Civil rights aren't subject to the will of the people. And the judges didn't make law. They upheld the law.

 

Of course it's a right. And SCOTUS isn't bestowing the right. They are recognizing its existence.

 

Would you agree that a religion that is based on evidence (and not mere faith) as having a rational component?

And God works similarly, in the sense that we trust in Him, and feel secure and hopeful regardless the circumstances. It can be argued that this inherent sense of hope (which has been found in animals) is God, regardless if one believe in Him or not.

Sure, but that depends on how you define evidence. There is no absolute rule that evidence concerning God must entail scientific evidence that directly proves His existence. Similarly, just because there is no concrete evidence of Love does not diminish the existence of it in any way.

Faith in the Divine is difficult, yes, but this faith can be strengthened to the point where one's trust in God is so firm that any hardships and tribulations are accepted as being the Will of God, and thus there is not point in worrying or bemoaning one's current state. It's just that some people end up quitting.

The point is that freedom will always be restricted one way or the other. America maybe more free nowadays in regards to certain social issues, but I do remember it being much more laid back when it came to other areas.

But the people of those societies don't care about Western democracy, as they're content with their traditional form of government. Americans have "freedom," yes, but they're generally a depressed and anxious nation. Freedom in America is a materialistic illusion. Based on my observations, they are a complacent peoples, unhappy and simple, who live just to work. To quote Qutb:

This is novel coming from an American. Surely you don't disagree that America worships the dollar, above anything else?

Exactly, and Islam is the fusion of religion and the state. Henceforth, the fact that Islamic countries allow non-Muslims to engage in activities that are forbidden in Islam (and allow non-Muslims to take settle legal affairs in their own courts) proves just how tolerant they are. I don't see that in the West.

That's what I mean. Nothing is sacred in America (anymore at least). There is no dignity, modesty and virtue or sense of community. It's just a place where everyone is on their own to get rich fast.

Well, this deserves a thread of its own. I'll just say that the Islamic world is in a malaise, and some people think they can save it by merely mimicking those successful Islamic societies that were around centuries ago.

It has nothing do with weddings, yes, but if we were to translate biological evolution to the social realm, gay marriage is nothing of benefit. This is unlike heterosexual marriage, which is the very basis of human society.