Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 12, 2012, 03:50 PM   #26
Queen of Spades
macrumors 68020
 
Queen of Spades's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Iron Throne
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliber26 View Post
while I do agree that I never chose to feel that way about men, it is 100% my choice as to whether I practice or involve myself in this lifestyle.
Whether or not you "practice" the lifestyle, you are still gay, and the people that truly have a problem with such things still will. I can't really see or understand an argument for separating an innate trait and the natural, normal expression of romantic love that follows. It's also not practical or healthy. Could you clarify what exactly you mean, because I'm honestly perplexed by this position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliber26
And I can tell you that ALL of it is always going to be my choice. What I wear, where I go, who I have sex with, who I date. It is purely my CHOICE and no one else's.
All of that has nothing to do with sexuality - it's the free will of all humans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliber26
But I also know there are a lot of good-hearted people who call it a choice as well.
They may be good hearted, but they are ignorant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliber26
Our actions are the only thing that will damn us. I believe it is accepted and understood that the desires, feelings, wants, and urges come naturally to us but ultimately it is up to us to CHOOSE whether we give into it or abstain from it. So, technically speaking, I do have the choice to exercise that lifestyle and I also have the choice to suppress it.
I suppose that is the only alternative if you happen to subscribe to the idea that being gay and (gasp) having an actual sex life is wrong in some way, and so the only choice is to ignore or suppress it. I just can't fathom how this idea passes any kind of logic test for reasonably intelligent people.

I have a huge problem with any ideology that presents my own personal suffering as the acceptable alternative to being gay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliber26
Whether that is considered to be a healthy alternative is a whole other story, nonetheless that is a choice. And by abstaining from the lifestyle I'm not suggesting forcing oneself to become heterosexal, either. If you don't like the opposite sex, there's nothing that will make you like it. But there is the choice to remain celibate. All these things are choices we can make for ourselves. It's entirely up to us. Just because I choose not to be with a man, that does not mean I "have to" be with women now. I can choose to be with neither.
I'm not sure why you keep calling it a "lifestyle." This isn't like being a vegan, it's about relinquishing the right to fall in love, to cuddle on a Friday night, to have sex while watching Romy & Michele's High School Reunion - in short, it's a huge part of life.

I suppose if we're going by semantics, having any kind of relationship or sex is a "choice," but it's not really like choosing whether or not you'll eat bagels again. I mean, really? You think abstinence is a viable alternative to being gay? Who would want that life?
__________________
It's mercy, compassion, and forgiveness I lack. Not rationality.
Queen of Spades is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 09:22 AM   #27
AP_piano295
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen of Spades View Post
Whether or not you "practice" the lifestyle, you are still gay, and the people that truly have a problem with such things still will. I can't really see or understand an argument for separating an innate trait and the natural, normal expression of romantic love that follows. It's also not practical or healthy. Could you clarify what exactly you mean, because I'm honestly perplexed by this position.
I think he might be making the point that some anti gay activists don't deny the innate nature of homosexuality. But they make the argument that their attraction to men is a test from god and they should still deny their feelings and not live that lifestyle (because it is sinful).

So again focusing on the aspect of choice plays into their argument.

Choice is not the point, denying gays the right to be married is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Denying gays the right to marry is establishing certain religious doctrine into the government which is a clear violation of the establishment clause.
__________________
Smile
AP_piano295 is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 11:05 AM   #28
MadeTheSwitch
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliber26 View Post
I have to disagree with you.

I am a gay male and have identified myself as gay my entire life. I have memories of homosexual inclinations, thoughts, and even actions that date all the way back to when I was about 4 or 5 (I'm 31 now) and I while I do agree that I never chose to feel that way about men, it is 100% my choice as to whether I practice or involve myself in this lifestyle.
Why is the word "lifestyle" only used with regard to homosexuality? I never hear people refer to heterosexuals as choosing to live a "lifestyle" because they do not "choose" to remain celibate and become nuns and Catholic preist instead. Why is that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AP_piano295 View Post
I think he might be making the point that some anti gay activists don't deny the innate nature of homosexuality. But they make the argument that their attraction to men is a test from god and they should still deny their feelings and not live that lifestyle (because it is sinful).
Which is a ridiculous notion for them to make. Why should gay people bear an addition "test" burden put on to them that no straight person has?
MadeTheSwitch is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 11:57 AM   #29
Queen of Spades
macrumors 68020
 
Queen of Spades's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Iron Throne
Quote:
Originally Posted by AP_piano295 View Post
I think he might be making the point that some anti gay activists don't deny the innate nature of homosexuality. But they make the argument that their attraction to men is a test from god and they should still deny their feelings and not live that lifestyle (because it is sinful).
Well, if that's the crux of his argument, he only needs to take a look at the catholic church to realize forced abstinence is a colossally stupid idea, with negative repercussions for all involved.
__________________
It's mercy, compassion, and forgiveness I lack. Not rationality.
Queen of Spades is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 12:44 PM   #30
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch View Post
Why is the word "lifestyle" only used with regard to homosexuality? I never hear people refer to heterosexuals as choosing to live a "lifestyle" because they do not "choose" to remain celibate and become nuns and Catholic preist instead. Why is that?
Catholic doctrine relies heavily on a concept called "free will". Jehovallah gave humans the independence to make their choices, and the choices they make will determine how it judges them in the book of life. Hence, if buggery is sinful, you must choose to not do it or the god person will be mad at you (unless you duly absolved yourself with penitence). As a homosexual, your are to be chaste and not act twinky (or bullish, if you are a woman). I think various christian sects have differing opinions about "sinning in your heart", but most of them tend to uphold it as just as bad as doing it.

The biggest problem with "free will" is that it is just doctrine. There is a fair amount of evidence that our actions are in large part reactive rather than proactive and that the lion's share of what we do is based on a complex array of historical and external forces. Which means that if "free will" is a minimal to negligible component of our behaviors, even the very idea of sin itself is in jeopardy.
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is online now   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 06:51 PM   #31
Caliber26
macrumors 65816
 
Caliber26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Orlando, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen of Spades View Post
I suppose if we're going by semantics, having any kind of relationship or sex is a "choice," but it's not really like choosing whether or not you'll eat bagels again. I mean, really? You think abstinence is a viable alternative to being gay? Who would want that life?
Do I personally think being abstinent is a good alternative? Hell no, I'll tell you myself: I'm the biggest slut there has ever been and I'm quite comfortable with that. But I'm not silly and narrow-minded enough to believe that this is THE ONE AND ONLY way I can choose to live my life.

I can sit here and CHOOSE to have sex with animals from here on out, for the rest of my life. I can also CHOOSE to marry a woman and never touch another man again. I can CHOOSE to keep doing what I'm doing. And I can also CHOOSE to never have sex again. No matter how you want to try to argue your point, you cannot take away the fact that we all have those choices. What any one of us does with our lives is a choice ALL. DAY. LONG. I'm not here to argue with you about whether it's fun, realistic, or viable. That's neither here nor there, and entirely it is entirely subjective because what's hard for you, may not be hard for another. What I am saying is that it is a choice I have and I choose to keep on sleeping with men because that's what I find to be more interesting and what I'm attracted to. But rest assured nobody's making me do it.

What it comes down to is, how comfortable are you in doing what you're doing? If you feel your god or diety is cool with it, by all means, keep engaging in emotional/sexual relations with people of your own gender. But if your morals and your heart make you reconsider the wisdom behind your actions, you also have the freedom (aka: THE CHOICE) to stop what you're doing and conform to the rules of your religion. I'm not saying it's easy, but it is entirely possible.

I just hate it when my fellow gay men and women try to convince others there's other way but this way. To hell with that! None of us are slaves to anything and we all live our lives how we see fit. If I ever got slapped around by God Himself and I felt it was time for me to clock-out from this way of living, I'll stop and that's the end of it. I'm not saying I'll go find a chick and marry her and make some babies. That's NEVER going to happen. But I certainly have the choice to control the behaviors that I think I'll be judged on.

Last edited by Caliber26; Nov 13, 2012 at 06:58 PM.
Caliber26 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 07:24 PM   #32
Caliber26
macrumors 65816
 
Caliber26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Orlando, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch View Post
Which is a ridiculous notion for them to make. Why should gay people bear an addition "test" burden put on to them that no straight person has?
Actually, it's just as ridiculous for you to imply that straight people have no test burdens of their own. Not everyone is handed the same life, therefore your tests and burdens will greatly differ from everyone else's. It's illogical to try group everyone under the same umbrella and think that life actually works like that.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen of Spades View Post
Well, if that's the crux of his argument, he only needs to take a look at the catholic church to realize forced abstinence is a colossally stupid idea, with negative repercussions for all involved.
And these negative repercussions are....................??

And would you please explain why/how forced abstinence is a colossally stupid idea? I need you to support your claim, otherwise it's just your personal opinion. And nothing more.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen of Spades View Post
They may be good hearted, but they are ignorant.
Eh, I don't think so. Ignorance, by definition, is to lack knowledge or awareness. Those who arrive to the the conclusion that what we do is a choice, are doing so based on what they know and believe in as Christians/Muslims/Whatever.

They might not believe in what YOU personally believe in, but that does not make them ignorant. It makes them different.

As a gay man who has had to convince others to accept my choices and lifestyle, it's only fair that I accept how others think and believe. I would never call anyone ignorant for thinking differently than me. Not even the bigots. I'm better than that.
Caliber26 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 07:42 PM   #33
Caliber26
macrumors 65816
 
Caliber26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Orlando, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macaroony View Post
Caliber26, don't confuse choice of attraction with choice of action because that's where this whole misunderstanding stems from.

Yes, you can "choose" to act out your sexual orientation but you can't chose to be attracted to men or women. This whole choice-argument is all about justifying homosexuality as being a voluntary choice to have same-sex relations opposite living "normally".

You and I know well we can't help ourselves when another man - attractive to us - makes us fluster with butterflies. Many people actually believe we just pretend to when in fact it's our natural response - just the same they get when it comes to someone of the opposite gender.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that the majority of us never chose who we are attracted to. Long before I even knew what sex was or what society and religion's views on the issue were, I knew I loved boys. It's always been there for me. I'm not saying that aspect of my homosexuality is (or ever was) a choice.

What I do say is that ultimately we are all given the freedom to act out on our desires and attractions. Technically speaking, we don't have to. Sure, I'll be the first to say it... we want to, we feel like we need to...but we don't have to, and that's what a lot of religions argue: that we succumb to our desires and cravings as opposed to abstaining in the name of God/Allah/Buddah/Whoever.

My biggest problem is that the gay community (and its supporters) have gotten so outta control. It embarrasses me to be part of that community. This day in age, no one can openly state that they don't believe in gay marriage without being crucified and called a hate-filled bigot. Come on! That's so FFF'd up!!! I'm not saying we have to agree with them, but to vilify those who oppose it is wrong. They have the right to their religious beliefs as much as I have the right to go on Grindr and find the nearest dill-pickle to suck on. I think there is just as much bigotry and close-mindedness in the gay community these days and that's why I'm always quick to vocalize my (rather unique and unconventional) points of view. Because I want the rest of the people out there to know that not all of us are so narrow-minded and one-sided. Sadly, though, the world we live in will never allow for harmonious coexistence. Everything has turned into a nasty war between sides.

Last edited by Caliber26; Nov 13, 2012 at 07:54 PM.
Caliber26 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 08:09 PM   #34
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliber26 View Post
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that the majority of us never chose who we are attracted to. Long before I even knew what sex was or what society and religion's views on the issue were, I knew I loved boys. It's always been there for me. I'm not saying that aspect of my homosexuality is (or ever was) a choice.

What I do say is that ultimately we are all given the freedom to act out on our desires and attractions. Technically speaking, we don't have to. Sure, I'll be the first to say it... we want to, we feel like we need to...but we don't have to, and that's what a lot of religions argue: that we succumb to our desires and cravings as opposed to abstaining in the name of God/Allah/Buddah/Whoever.

My biggest problem is that the gay community (and its supporters) have gotten so outta control. It embarrasses me to be part of that community. This day in age, no one can openly state that they don't believe in gay marriage without being crucified and called a hate-filled bigot. Come on! That's so FFF'd up!!! I'm not saying we have to agree with them, but to vilify those who oppose it is wrong. They have the right to their religious beliefs as much as I have the right to go on Grindr and find the nearest dill-pickle to suck on. I think there is just as much bigotry and close-mindedness in the gay community these days and that's why I'm always quick to vocalize my (rather unique and unconventional) points of view. Because I want the rest of the people out there to know that not all of us are so narrow-minded and one-sided. Sadly, though, the world we live in will never allow for harmonious coexistence. Everything has turned into a nasty war between sides.
You make some good points. While I believe that persons should have completely equal legal rights in terms of formal legal marriage, that doesn't mean that people cannot have their own religious or personal beliefs that may or may not coincide with others, and labeling them immediately is, if anything, going to deepen the divide rather than promote understanding. We have a right to disagree. While I have a hard time supporting those who promote legal discrimination, I look at personal beliefs as something completely different.
__________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in ENGLISH, thank a Veteran.
NickZac is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 08:39 PM   #35
Caliber26
macrumors 65816
 
Caliber26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Orlando, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
You make some good points. While I believe that persons should have completely equal legal rights in terms of formal legal marriage, that doesn't mean that people cannot have their own religious or personal beliefs that may or may not coincide with others, and labeling them immediately is, if anything, going to deepen the divide rather than promote understanding. We have a right to disagree. While I have a hard time supporting those who promote legal discrimination, I look at personal beliefs as something completely different.
And that's exactly where things get messy and nasty. Denying us gay marriage can be viewed as a legalized form of discrimination, but I also have to understand that those in power to control these issues are not leaving their religious convictions at home. People want a separation from church and state (and I certainly understand why they want it) but I have to be logical and accept that those who believe what they believe in are going to believe it 24 hours a day. Their votes and decisions are, no doubt, going to be influenced by their faith and it is what it is. You can't ask a Christian to stop being a Christian for a few moments, any more than you can ask a cop to stop being a cop after his shift is over.

I believe we all have a right to fight for what we believe in, but I think the fight is being fought the wrong way. Some of these folk act like they're stuck in quicksand and instead of keeping it together, they're kicking and screaming and only making it worse for themselves.
Caliber26 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 09:34 PM   #36
DakotaGuy
macrumors 68030
 
DakotaGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: South Dakota, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by AP_piano295 View Post
I think he might be making the point that some anti gay activists don't deny the innate nature of homosexuality. But they make the argument that their attraction to men is a test from god and they should still deny their feelings and not live that lifestyle (because it is sinful).

So again focusing on the aspect of choice plays into their argument.

Choice is not the point, denying gays the right to be married is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Denying gays the right to marry is establishing certain religious doctrine into the government which is a clear violation of the establishment clause.
This is the position of the Catholic Church. Being gay is not a problem, but you must remain celibate to be an active participant in the church. It's not very realistic, but then again Catholic birth control methods aren't exactly realistic either.
__________________
Mac: 21.5" iMac Core i5 2.5 Ghz "Sandy Bridge"
iPad Air 16 GB WiFi - iPod Classic 80GB - LG G3
DakotaGuy is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2012, 11:51 PM   #37
AP_piano295
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen of Spades View Post
Well, if that's the crux of his argument, he only needs to take a look at the catholic church to realize forced abstinence is a colossally stupid idea, with negative repercussions for all involved.
I'm not trying to claim that it isn't a stupid argument, I think it's very very stupid don't get me wrong.

I just don't think that we should be allowing ourselves to be drawn into such a stupid argument. Their argument is entirely based in religion, so instead of debating them on the grounds of choice (which is the ground that they've chosen) I think the argument should remained focused on the separation of church and state.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen of Spades View Post
Well, if that's the crux of his argument, he only needs to take a look at the catholic church to realize forced abstinence is a colossally stupid idea, with negative repercussions for all involved.
Again, not saying it isn't a stupid argument just that it's the argument they're making. And that I don't think we should allow the opposition to draw us into a stupid argument which is un-related to the fundamental issue which is the failure of the separation between church and state.
__________________
Smile
AP_piano295 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 03:13 AM   #38
Andeavor
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliber26 View Post
What I do say is that ultimately we are all given the freedom to act out on our desires and attractions. Technically speaking, we don't have to. Sure, I'll be the first to say it... we want to, we feel like we need to...but we don't have to, and that's what a lot of religions argue: that we succumb to our desires and cravings as opposed to abstaining in the name of God/Allah/Buddah/Whoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DakotaGuy View Post
This is the position of the Catholic Church. Being gay is not a problem, but you must remain celibate to be an active participant in the church. It's not very realistic, but then again Catholic birth control methods aren't exactly realistic either.
I have the theory that the priesthood, monasteries and convents were created for homosexual people to "work off" their sins for God working for Him - sort of a "community service life sentence". It's the best way to stay celibate and not act out on those sinful thoughts while spreading the message of God. I know it's a bit of a stretch but homosexuals have been around since the damn of time, how else could they live in peace while serving a purpose for society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliber26 View Post
My biggest problem is that the gay community (and its supporters) have gotten so outta control. It embarrasses me to be part of that community. This day in age, no one can openly state that they don't believe in gay marriage without being crucified and called a hate-filled bigot. Come on! That's so FFF'd up!!! I'm not saying we have to agree with them, but to vilify those who oppose it is wrong. They have the right to their religious beliefs as much as I have the right to go on Grindr and find the nearest dill-pickle to suck on. I think there is just as much bigotry and close-mindedness in the gay community these days and that's why I'm always quick to vocalize my (rather unique and unconventional) points of view. Because I want the rest of the people out there to know that not all of us are so narrow-minded and one-sided. Sadly, though, the world we live in will never allow for harmonious coexistence. Everything has turned into a nasty war between sides.
I agree with you that the LGBT community has gotten out of control in the glitter department, but since we're the same age, I must remind you that you and I haven't lived through the Stonewall era, which has started this crusade against the anti-gay lobby.

Back before our time, gays and lesbians were shunned, imprisoned or even killed just because of who they were and what they do in their own bedroom. We were labeled mentally sick and there were no laws against harming us. Even the police would ignore the beating of gay men back in the 60s and 70s, hence the Stonewall riots where the toughest drag queens would finally fight back to defend the rights of everyone who is different from "the norm" - even if they were thrown in jail for that.

40 years later, the climate has changed and the LGBT community has become a part of "normal society" in most of the Western and some of the Eastern countries with laws and all. Still there are many people all over the world who'd love to see us go away or even die out, if not cure us from our "defect". If you haven't found out already, in December, Uganda is going to enact a law that allows for the imprisonment or even death of gays and lesbians - many have fought against it but but the religious and bigoted have prevailed.

Just because you and I have it easier to act out our sexual desires, remember there were and are times and places where this was or is impossible and for anyone standing in our way, even in a progressive state, is an offense to our own freedom of religion, sexuality and life itself. Don't let the bigots take away our "choices".

------------------

Side note: Where in the world is leekohler?
Andeavor is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 03:49 AM   #39
AP_piano295
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliber26 View Post
I'm not saying we have to agree with them, but to vilify those who oppose it is wrong. They have the right to their religious beliefs as much as I have the right to go on Grindr and find the nearest dill-pickle to suck on.
That's not where it stops though that's never where it stops. Anti-gay activists in the United States have actively funded the "Kill the Gays Bill" in Uganda.

Bigotry should be vilified, should be attacked, should be actively combated. The reasons for this are many but among the most simple of them is this.

I hate to be the one to incite Godwin's Law but I feel that it's appropriate here. So long as these bigotries are allowed to go un-opposed they are dangerous (they are very dangerous). It might seem like today in America gays are safe, people are less bigoted towards them every day etc. But things might change faster than you can imagine, all it takes is some event a major recession, a major war, a massive disease outbreak. These things have happened throughout the course of human history and they will happen again. Suddenly things are in turmoil people are afraid, they're angry, they're vulnerable.

Come the right moment and come the right man and suddenly everything that's going wrong is because of the wrath of god. Suddenly the problem is the gays, the atheists, the Muslims, any majority group which doesn't mesh with the "moral majority". And in just a few years things can become very very scary.

Fight bigotry wherever you find it, not for the good times, but for the bad times when the hearts of men are tested.

I'm not saying we need to be politically correct. I can't stand political correctness I keep a lid on my language in public but if you heard me with my friends you'd probably punch me in the face (for the sake of honesty).

I'm not saying that everyone has to like all gay people, I don't like quite a few of the gay people I know. Not because they're gay but because for some reason a-lot of gay culture seems to have centered around being really materialistic and acting like a valley girl. I might even make fun of those people (though no differently than I make fun of girls who behave like that).

But when it comes to actual discrimination I will confront someone about it every time I've done it before and I'll do it again. Not because I think gays are in danger today (I think we're pretty inevitably moving towards equality) but because gay people might be in danger tomorrow, because that kind of thinking is always dangerous.

"Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. The grave will supply plenty of time for silence." -Christopher Hitchens

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macaroony View Post
Side note: Where in the world is leekohler?
I've been wondering this too.
__________________
Smile
AP_piano295 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 06:18 AM   #40
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliber26 View Post
And that's exactly where things get messy and nasty. Denying us gay marriage can be viewed as a legalized form of discrimination, but I also have to understand that those in power to control these issues are not leaving their religious convictions at home. People want a separation from church and state (and I certainly understand why they want it) but I have to be logical and accept that those who believe what they believe in are going to believe it 24 hours a day. Their votes and decisions are, no doubt, going to be influenced by their faith and it is what it is. You can't ask a Christian to stop being a Christian for a few moments, any more than you can ask a cop to stop being a cop after his shift is over.

I believe we all have a right to fight for what we believe in, but I think the fight is being fought the wrong way. Some of these folk act like they're stuck in quicksand and instead of keeping it together, they're kicking and screaming and only making it worse for themselves.
But politicians IMO should put their personal beliefs and biases on hold because denying the same legal rights is institutional discrimination...with all morality aside, if we are going to be an equal state, we need to be equal and equitable, which means no more and no less for any one person or group over the other. But you are right as our experiences and beliefs influence how we think. And I do think the anger that people approach the issue (from both sides of the argument) often drives a deeper divide rather than promote a mutual understanding, but I can understand someone's frustration when they are being denied a right because of who they are drawn by a biological distinction that they had no say over (i.e.: how you were born). To me it seems logical to grant completely equal legal rights regardless of personal values...I even see value in the people who have promoted dissolving the concept of "marriage" in the legal sense and having the State just use a standardized legal definition that can be given to any two people, regardless of sex, because it would be equal to everyone. We have the 1st Amendment which gives anyone the right to disagree, and choose our personal value sets as we please. At the same time, I feel the law should be equal in every way.
__________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in ENGLISH, thank a Veteran.
NickZac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 11:36 AM   #41
chown33
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
To me it seems logical to grant completely equal legal rights regardless of personal values...I even see value in the people who have promoted dissolving the concept of "marriage" in the legal sense and having the State just use a standardized legal definition that can be given to any two people, regardless of sex, because it would be equal to everyone.
Limiting it to two people discriminates against polygamists.

Just sayin'.
chown33 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 12:22 PM   #42
Queen of Spades
macrumors 68020
 
Queen of Spades's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Iron Throne
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliber26 View Post
My biggest problem is that the gay community (and its supporters) have gotten so outta control. It embarrasses me to be part of that community. This day in age, no one can openly state that they don't believe in gay marriage without being crucified and called a hate-filled bigot. Come on! That's so FFF'd up!!! I'm not saying we have to agree with them, but to vilify those who oppose it is wrong. They have the right to their religious beliefs as much as I have the right to go on Grindr and find the nearest dill-pickle to suck on. I think there is just as much bigotry and close-mindedness in the gay community these days and that's why I'm always quick to vocalize my (rather unique and unconventional) points of view. Because I want the rest of the people out there to know that not all of us are so narrow-minded and one-sided. Sadly, though, the world we live in will never allow for harmonious coexistence. Everything has turned into a nasty war between sides.
We'll have to agree to disagree, then. I'm not embarrassed that people are willing to speak up about inequality and not let it slide anymore. I'm proud that we're finally at a point where many people realize that the idea of separate but equal is not going to fly, and that denying an entire segment of the population certain rights is not an "agree to disagree" issue. It's effectively tyranny of the majority, and it's why the rights of minorities should never be decided on by the majority. I'm thrilled that the position of "not believing in gay marriage" is taken to task as ignorant. It's not about disagreeing on the Bears/Packers, it's about civil rights, and most successful civil rights movements in the history of the world happened because people got tired of the same old BS and were willing to speak up about it. Get loud even.

It's also weird to me that you think vilifying people (on the internet? facebook? I'm not seeing mass public riots about it) that want to deny another human being rights is on par with the actual act of denying another human being rights.
__________________
It's mercy, compassion, and forgiveness I lack. Not rationality.
Queen of Spades is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 03:12 PM   #43
Grey Beard
macrumors 6502a
 
Grey Beard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Antipodes.
Send a message via AIM to Grey Beard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macaroony View Post
Side note: Where in the world is leekohler?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AP_piano295 View Post
I've been wondering this too.
Lee is, I believe taking some time out, as is the OP who is wondering where Lee is. The US Elections have so much to answer for.

KGB
__________________
I am what I am.
Grey Beard is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2012, 11:49 PM   #44
Caliber26
macrumors 65816
 
Caliber26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Orlando, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen of Spades View Post
I'm thrilled that the position of "not believing in gay marriage" is taken to task as ignorant.
It might be taken to task as ignorant but it is not ignorant. Big difference there.

These people's beliefs/decisions/votes actually come from a system (or religion) that has taught them to believe and think a certain way, therefore they act accordingly. That's what they know: that it's "wrong".

You may not like how they think or what they know, but they believe what they know and therefore their position is not ignorant. Like I said earlier, ignorance is to lack knowledge or awareness. Just because you don't agree with what they know, that doesn't make them ignorant. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if someone called you ignorant because you allege to know there's nothing wrong with being gay, would you??? That's your position and you're every bit entitled to it. Well, the same goes for them.

We need to set a better example. Calling people bigots, ignorant, hateful, etc, is just as disgusting as all the other names and adjectives we have been called for centuries.
Caliber26 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:42 AM   #45
niuniu
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: A man of the people. The right sort of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iJohnHenry View Post
Live long enough and it will acquire you.
On form
------------------



The 'Not a choice argument' is essential to maintain as it is a powerful political weapon against the traditional argument against homosexuality (which was an erroneous appeal to nature).

Whether it is a choice, a genetic defect or a big practical joke being played out by millions doesn't actually matter. People should be free to be with who they want, regardless of anyone elses preference. That's a basic human right that largely thanks to religion, humanity still hasn't reached in the year 2012.

Until equal rights are the status quo - the 'not a choice argument' needs to be maintained. It's the best leverage there is.
niuniu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 08:23 AM   #46
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliber26 View Post
It might be taken to task as ignorant but it is not ignorant. Big difference there.

These people's beliefs/decisions/votes actually come from a system (or religion) that has taught them to believe and think a certain way, therefore they act accordingly. That's what they know: that it's "wrong".

You may not like how they think or what they know, but they believe what they know and therefore their position is not ignorant. Like I said earlier, ignorance is to lack knowledge or awareness. Just because you don't agree with what they know, that doesn't make them ignorant. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if someone called you ignorant because you allege to know there's nothing wrong with being gay, would you??? That's your position and you're every bit entitled to it. Well, the same goes for them.
Eh, I think you're debating semantics. The fact is, they should be taken to task, shouldn't they? Call it whatever you want - ignorance, stupidity, conservatism - but the only way things are going to change is when they are called out on their "beliefs". If this was just a matter of different opinions or ideals, it would be one thing, however, we have people using their "beliefs" in order to pass laws denying our rights. What do you suggest we do? Hug it out?

Quote:
We need to set a better example. Calling people bigots, ignorant, hateful, etc, is just as disgusting as all the other names and adjectives we have been called for centuries.
The difference is that we are speaking the truth, and they've been speaking nonsense for centuries.

It seems like you want to fight for our rights in a passive agressive manner and, frankly, that's just not going to work. Why shouldn't we be loud? Why shouldn't we tell them they are wrong? I'm not sure what you've experienced that has made you show ashamed of our community and our civil rights movement, but it seems like you have it backwards. It's hard not to strike out at people who are belittling us and treating us as second class citizens. How can you compare us calling someone a "hater" or a "bigot" to an organized movement meant to deny our rights?

Maybe there is a lot of close-mindedness and bigotry in the LGBT community, but don't you think there's a reason for that? And again, it's one thing to believe someone is a bigot or call them a bigot it's another thing to try and deny civil rights because of it. That's always been the difference between our community and those who are against us. And if you're going to be ashamed of our fight for equality, you may as well step back into the closet.
Moyank24 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:08 PM   #47
MadeTheSwitch
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Hmmm, think there is a bit of a conflicting disconnect here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliber26 View Post
I just hate it when my fellow gay men and women try to convince others there's other way but this way. To hell with that! None of us are slaves to anything and we all live our lives how we see fit.
vs.

Quote:
I'm not saying I'll go find a chick and marry her and make some babies. That's NEVER going to happen.
See the problem??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliber26 View Post
Actually, it's just as ridiculous for you to imply that straight people have no test burdens of their own.
I never said that. I specifically said that it's ridiculous to put an ADDITIONAL burden onto gay people that no straight person has. I do not think I was unclear here.
MadeTheSwitch is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:31 PM   #48
dime21
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by AP_piano295 View Post
Maybe they haven't maybe this is just my interpretation because the anti-gay side of the argument's claim that sexual orientation is purely choice
Wrong. Choice or not a choice isn't all that relevant. Sure, homosexuality could be a birth defect, or it could be caused by a chemical imbalance in the womb, or who knows. The fact is that right now today, nobody knows.

The other fact, is that SSM is a fundamental break from the concept of marriage. SSM Proponents would compare it to the historical equality struggles of inter-racial marriage, or of inter-faith marriage, but that's a false comparison. SSM is fundamentally different from inter-racial marriage, and from inter-faith marriage. Marriage brings the two halves of humanity together, man and woman, and the result is a complementary balance, yin and yang, that isn't present in SSM. Furthermore, marriage is based on the biology of the species. Reproduction requires exactly one man and one woman. A child's DNA comes from exactly one man and one woman. There is no other valid combination that can produce human life. That makes SSM a very different animal indeed. To claim that SSM is somehow "equivalent" to traditional marriage is absurd, and it's factually wrong.
__________________
B.O. Stinks! Prevent embarrassing B.O. problems- Vote Republican!
dime21 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:46 PM   #49
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by dime21 View Post
Wrong. Choice or not a choice isn't all that relevant. Sure, homosexuality could be a birth defect, or it could be caused by a chemical imbalance in the womb, or who knows. The fact is that right now today, nobody knows.

The other fact, is that SSM is a fundamental break from the concept of marriage. SSM Proponents would compare it to the historical equality struggles of inter-racial marriage, or of inter-faith marriage, but that's a false comparison. SSM is fundamentally different from inter-racial marriage, and from inter-faith marriage. Marriage brings the two halves of humanity together, man and woman, and the result is a complementary balance, yin and yang, that isn't present in SSM. Furthermore, marriage is based on the biology of the species. Reproduction requires exactly one man and one woman. A child's DNA comes from exactly one man and one woman. There is no other valid combination that can produce human life. That makes SSM a very different animal indeed. To claim that SSM is somehow "equivalent" to traditional marriage is absurd, and it's factually wrong.
This is such an antiquated and, frankly, tired argument. Unless, of course, you start making it illegal to have a child out of wedlock, or making it illegal for infertile people to get married, or making it illegal for people who have gone through the "change" to get married, or for making it illegal to get things like hysterectomies/tubes tied/vesectomies....While we're at it, let's make it illegal for heterosexuals to have intercourse for any other reason than procreation.

Yin and Yang? Please. I'm sure you know that I have two children - and I didn't have to get married (to a man) to create them, carry them, or give birth to them. Why should my family be treated any differently than yours? Of course I needed a man to create them - but because I'm not married to him doesn't make them any less, or me any less of a mother. And if I get married one day it won't make us any less of a family.

500 years ago traditional marriage could have been defined as something else entirely. Women sold by their families' to their "husbands" in exchange for land, money, and animals. Why don't we do that any longer? Is that how you are planning on finding a wife?

We don't do that anymore because the world has changed - and along with that change we have evolved (at least some of us have).

The facts as you believe them have nothing to do with reality. And the fact that you think they do is absurd.

Last edited by Moyank24; Nov 15, 2012 at 11:42 PM.
Moyank24 is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2012, 04:22 AM   #50
MadeTheSwitch
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by dime21 View Post
SSM Proponents would compare it to the historical equality struggles of inter-racial marriage, or of inter-faith marriage, but that's a false comparison. SSM is fundamentally different from inter-racial marriage, and from inter-faith marriage.
Really? Then why are so many of the same arguments against those things used now against SSM?
MadeTheSwitch is offline   3 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iTunes "Restore from Backup" only has 1 choice even though "Devices" Tab lists many Maverick1337 iPhone 0 Sep 5, 2013 08:43 AM
The old "Shipped vs Sold" argument - Apple admits.... Assault Alternatives to iOS and iOS Devices 24 May 14, 2013 08:31 PM
What is the logic of "no label" for 1st argument of a function Vishwas Gagrani iPhone/iPad Programming 7 Jan 7, 2013 05:08 PM
The homosexuality-as-choice argument Coleman2010 Politics, Religion, Social Issues 153 Aug 31, 2012 02:45 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:06 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC