What's JazzFanz's stance on Marriage Equality?
- Thread starter Xsy
- Start date
asian_roger
Well-Known Member
My many posts in this thread would easily outline the answer.
I fear that passing a law, making homosexuality so mainstream, would make too many kids question (overly) their sexuality.
I prefer to show respect to the respectful .. but I DO NOT BUY IT that the % of gays has always been as high as it is today .. and will be tomorrow, if such attention persists. Does that bother me? Yes.
Yes you did. But mostly from a religious stand point... which is often rejected or dismissed by non-believers as it doesn't apply to them.
I just wonder if there is a way we can show the potential impact/implications of the policy from purely a non-religious stand point and see where that takes us, and whether or not we want to go down that road.
Note re Rog's point: Could the Asch experiment potentially answer that phenomena?
Not only do I believe that the Asch experiment applies, but I think it's so obvious that the Asch experiment was never necessary .. kind of duh, as I am concerned.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
See, now this makes sense, but its really not like there will be zero female figures in that daughters life that could step in as a surrogate mother in times like those. Have grandma, an aunt, a doctor or somebody explain things to her. I had my uncle explain a bunch of puberty-related things to me when I was younger instead of my father. Of course, this is an inherent disadvantage to same-sex couples, but I mean is this reason enough to wish for them to not be allowed altogether?
No, but I'm not the one who's talking about having a moral republic. I like living in a secualr republic.
There is no shortage wanting to adopt babies. Older kids are not so lucky.
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/waiting2009.pdf
Not if such adoptions become commonplace.
It's better than foster care.
Please name two of the world's languages that have not significantly changed in the past 1000 years, using writing from 1000 years ago to compared to today's. The only such languages are dead languages, which no one speaks like a native (or else it would not be dead).
Yoju don't know the difference between dominance mounting and sex?
Here's the problem I see with the gay rights movement insisting that being gay isn't a choice. I firmly believe that pedophiles did not chose to be attracted to underage kids. I firmly believe that many rapists have a genetic defect that causes them to be sexually aggressive and not know how to take no for an answer. So if gay people want to throw their lot in with the idea that they can't help it they are throwing their lot in with others whom I'd assume they'd prefer not to be associated with.
If lack of choice is the only reason being gay is acceptable and the only reason why gay people should have rights equal to heterosexuals then I suppose we need to give pedophiles and rapists the right to be who they are.
On the other hand, if we can say that it doesn't matter if it's a choice or not, that gay people can be gay and participate in homosexual activities because it's their right to live their life any way they choose so long as they aren't hurting anyone or forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to do, then I think we've actually taken a step forward. To act like homosexuality is something we should tolerate only because gay people can't help themselves is taking a big step backwards, imho.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't equating consensual relations to non-consensual relations be more of a step backwards?
I think that would be a bigger step backwards, yeah. But the counter to the notion that being gay, or engaging in homosexual activity, is bad in and of itself (a sin) being that gay people can't help but to be gay is weak, in my opinion. It's a flawed argument. The argument that should be made is: It doesn't matter why we are gay, the fact is that we ARE gay and you don't have a right to force us to either pretend not to be gay or take away the privileges that other couples enjoy based on a special legal status that we cannot attain (marriage).
Treatment-wise, that might make more sense. "You will always be a pedophile, here are options that can help you to not molest children" might be a more effective treatment strategy than "you can stop being a pedophile". That is diffferent from legalizing their relationships.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Kid's don't deserve the choice?
I can see you stating the reality that they don't get a choice, but they don't deserve a choice?
Kids deserve to be raised by a by a loving mom and dad who are respectful of their marriage vows. We have a lot of screwed up people because they didn't get this.