Pro Gay Thread.

• Syrphid wrote on 2010-07-03 19:07

  Quote from Sayoko;81195:

  The Civil Rights Movements has a few differences compared to the Gay Rights Movement. Civil Rights is about race and other unchangeable factors whereas Gay Rights is about a lifestyle. For most anti-gays ,especially in small churches (not the extremists), it is not the gay as a person they dislike. It is more that churches are against the lifestyle itself and try to make it so that gay people can "change".
  
  Most churches view gay people as choosing the wrong lifestyle, just like how alcoholics might have chosen the wrong life style. Again, no one dislikes the person, it is the lifestyle that should be changed.
  
  Now of course that sounds like a denial of human rights. Who says that people have to change? Why force beliefs onto other people? Homosexuality is also about love, some couples with more love than couples with heterosexual marriages.
  
  To earlier arguments about love, I believe that love is not enough to justify the cause.
  
  -Pedophile relationships are about love too right? Why are they wrong even if it's mutual such as in the case with Mary Kay Letourneau and her 12 year old student? Source: Letourneau Marries Former Student - CBS News
  
  -Polygamy is about love too. One person may have multiple spouses all with mutual love and yet most countries deem it wrong and illegal. This is perfectly natural too, such as in the case of animals mating with multiple spouses. Furthermore, is it okay to teach kids to accept polygamy in school? Because after all, kids need to appreciate and accept the diversity of different people.
  
  -A man married a video game girlfriend for love as well Tokyo man marries video game character - CNN.com

  
  
  Your first paragraph implies that being black is ok because they can't help it, but it would really be better if they were white. Analogously, gay people would really better be straight, but they can help it, therefore they are obligated to be straight.
  
  Please correct me if I am wrong (esp the bold).
  
  ~~~
  
  Anyway, to carry my objection to its conclusion.
  
  I hate arguments that sprawl over entire pages, so I will attempt to condense Sayoko's argument as follows (again, please correct me if I am wrong)
  
  
  1. It is wrong to be different from the majority.
  
  This is because Sayoko implied that it is immoral to be black, even though they can't help it. She has not given any other justification for this premise.
  
  2. Homosexuality is different from the majority.
  
  Homosexuality occurs at ~10%, so this should be non-controversial.
  
  3. Homosexuality is therefore wrong.
  
  Indeed, this conclusion follows inescapably from the premises. All that stands is for Sayoko to justify premise 1.
• Sayoko wrote on 2010-07-03 19:37
  Responses below:
  

  Quote from Syrphid;81297:

  Your first paragraph implies that being black is ok because they can't help it, but it would really be better if they were white.
  
  Response: Sorry if I was unclear, I meant that people can't change their race, not that it would be better if they were one race or another.
  
  Analogously, gay people would really better be straight, but they can help it, therefore they are obligated to be straight.
  
  Response:
  Yes, I do believe gay people are better off straight. However, forcing a gay person to be straight is about as useful as forcing a person to change a habit. Rather, I believe people should try to work at becoming straight like they would a bad habit. Again, this is my personal opinion which is neither politically correct nor necessarily true.
  
  Please correct me if I am wrong (esp the bold).

• Syrphid wrote on 2010-07-03 19:38
  Well, I ninja edited, so let me repost my addition.
  
  ~~~
  
  Anyway, to carry my objection to its conclusion.
  
  I hate arguments that sprawl over entire pages, so I will attempt to condense Sayoko's argument as follows (again, please correct me if I am wrong)
  
  
  1. It is wrong to be different from the majority.
  
  This is because Sayoko implied that it is immoral to be black, even though they can't help it. She has not given any other justification for this premise.
  
  2. Homosexuality is different from the majority.
  
  Homosexuality occurs at ~10%, so this should be non-controversial.
  
  3. Homosexuality is therefore wrong.
  
  Indeed, this conclusion follows inescapably from the premises. All that stands is for Sayoko to justify premise 1.
• Virtue wrote on 2010-07-03 19:44

  Quote from Syrphid;81309:

  2. Homosexuality is different from the majority.
  
  Homosexuality occurs at ~10%, so this should be non-controversial.

  Actually, the common figure of "10% of the population is homosexual" is often bandied about, but that number is derived from a misapplicaiton of a Kinsey study which was not based upon a representative sample of the population. One can find estimates that place of the percentage of the population considered to be homosexual anywhere between 1-2% and 25-32%, but a reasonable survey of the more controlled studies would put the figure in about 2-3% range (for males, at least.)
• Sayoko wrote on 2010-07-03 19:45
  Sryhid, I can't help but think you took my words and twisted it to make them sound ridicolous.
  
  1. It is wrong to be different from the majority.
  
  I disagree with this statement. Majority and minority have nothing to do with right or wrong. Some of the majority beliefs are right and others are wrong. The majority of the belief in the US is in fact pro-gay, as shown by polls saying 53% of Americans would support a gay candiadate.
  
  How do states legislate and approve of gay marriage? Because a majority of the voters voted in FAVOR of it. I would say pro-gay is the majority in the US. Just look at the forums too =D
  
  Furthermore, no where do I say being black is immoral. The only connection to being black I drew was the Civil Rights Movement, which many try to aliken the gay rights movement to.
  
  Hope that clarifies what I said earlier.
• Syrphid wrote on 2010-07-03 19:50

  Quote from Sayoko;81315:

  Sryhid, I can't help but think you took my words and twisted it to make them sound ridicolous.
  1. It is wrong to be different from the majority.
  
  I disagree with this statement. Majority and minority have nothing to do with right or wrong. Some of the majority beliefs are right and others are wrong. The majority of the belief in the US is in fact pro-gay, as shown by polls saying 53% of Americans would support a gay candiadate.
  
  Furthermore, no where do I say being black is immoral. The only connection to being black I drew was the Civil Rights Movement, which many try to aliken the gay rights movement to.
  
  Hope that clarifies what I said earlier.

  
  
  Can you put forth a substitute premise or argument then, since I have failed to grasp your argument?
  
  I believe you do not currently qualify for Osay's get-out-of-ban-free card because I don't see a single reason to oppose homosexuality in your post thus far.
  
  The only reason I could gather was that everyone else says it's wrong, so I summed that up as an argument from majority opinion, producing premise 1.
  
  [I call bs on the 53% voting for gay prez, that just does not reflect what I see in America]
• Virtue wrote on 2010-07-03 19:53

  Quote from Syrphid;81317:

  I believe you do not currently qualify for Osay's get-out-of-ban-free card because I don't see a single reason to oppose homosexuality in your post thus far.

  I could see her reason, it was very clear in fact. I saw it, why can't you?
  
  And for the 53% number: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/29/half-of-americans-say-the_n_517164.html
• Syrphid wrote on 2010-07-03 20:00

  Quote from Sin;81318:

  I could see her reason, it was very clear in fact. I saw it, why can't you?
  
  And for the 53% number: Half Of Americans Say They'd Support An Openly-Gay President (POLL)

  
  
  I prefer giving people the benefit of the doubt.
• Sayoko wrote on 2010-07-03 20:13

  Quote from Syrphid;81317:

  Can you put forth a substitute premise or argument then, since I have failed to grasp your argument?
  
  I believe you do not currently qualify for Osay's get-out-of-ban-free card because I don't see a single reason to oppose homosexuality in your post thus far.
  
  The only reason I could gather was that everyone else says it's wrong, so I summed that up as an argument from majority opinion, producing premise 1.
  
  [I call bs on the 53% voting for gay prez, that just does not reflect what I see in America]

  
  
  I don't see why I should get banned for trying to express my beliefs in a non hostile way and trying to open up for discussion. If you do not agree with my beliefs, I respect that. Also, there is no discussion or point if everyone just agrees right? The reason I'm posting isn't for anyone to suddenly agree with my beliefs just by reading posts. Rather, I post because it is interesting to see discussion and reasoning from both sides.
  
  For example, this quote is taken from another post about gay marriage. What a lively discussion!
  
  

  Quote from Phunkie;26617:

  But what about civil marriages? They're more legal than religious.
  
  Changing the name would only happen to satisfy certain groups of people, I agree. But that's so unfair and wrong.
  
  
  lol @ this debate btw. We're all pretty much for it and no one's against it.
  
  I'm boooored.

• Virtue wrote on 2010-07-03 20:15

  Quote from Sayoko;81331:

  I don't see why I should get banned for trying to express my beliefs in a non hostile way and trying to open up for discussion. If you do not agree with my beliefs, I respect that.

  Exactly.
  
  She is far from being a 'troll' or anything, Syrphid.
• Syrphid wrote on 2010-07-03 20:17

  Quote from Sayoko;81331:

  I don't see why I should get banned for trying to express my beliefs in a non hostile way and trying to open up for discussion. If you do not agree with my beliefs, I respect that. Also, there is no discussion or point if everyone just agrees right? The reason I'm posting isn't for anyone to suddenly agree with my beliefs just by reading posts. Rather, I post because it is interesting to see discussion and reasoning from both sides.
  
  For example, this quote is taken from another post about gay marriage. What a lively discussion!

  
  
  That was a joke. -_-
  
  I meant you haven't given a single reason supporting your views. It would've been funny to see someone carry a get-out-of-ban-free card around.
• Virtue wrote on 2010-07-03 20:18

  Quote from Syrphid;81336:

  That was a joke. -_-
  
  I meant you haven't given a single reason supporting your views.

  
  

  Quote from Sin;81318:

  I could see her reason, it was very clear in fact. I saw it, why can't you?

  
  u blind?
• Osayidan wrote on 2010-07-03 20:19
  Can someone explain how homosexuality is a lifestyle?
  If being attracted to the same gender is a lifestyle, then being attracted to the opposite gender is also a lifestyle.
  
  I think this "lifestyle" is derived from the stereotypical gay male depicted in the media. The type whose flamboyant, is a god of interior decoration, enjoys exotic and colorful drinks, and uses the word "fabulous" all the time. That is a lifestyle, however that's something anyone can choose to do regardless of sexual orientation.
• Sayoko wrote on 2010-07-03 20:29

  Quote from Syrphid;81336:

  That was a joke. -_-
  
  I meant you haven't given a single reason supporting your views. It would've been funny to see someone carry a get-out-of-ban-free card around.

  
  
  Oh nice joke =D.
  
  I believe it is morally wrong. And one thing, I believe religious reasons are certainly the worst way to support that fact. Quoting from the Bible, Koran, etc makes the argument even weaker and makes the religions look even less appealing. It's like trying to explain why democrats suck with a book written by a hardcore republican. However, this secular argument sums it up rather nicely, defending the role of the traditional marriage and the martial chaos that can ensue and the pain kids must go through to be deprived a mother or a father due to being adopted into a gay family without both a male/female role model. Of course, there are cases in heterosexual marriages too but in a homosexual marriage, almost 100% of the time, a child is deprived either a mother or a father while in heterosexual marriage, it is a much lower percentage, only resulting if the family is divorced or never married in the first place. Furthermore, breaking down the role of marriage to whatever people see fits does affect families adversely, making many take marriage not as seriously as they had 100 years ago when it was near PERMANENT.
  
  This article I found sums up a secular argument about why gay marriage is "morally unethical":
  
  "Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
  
  The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos. "
  
  

  Quote from Osayidan;81338:

  Can someone explain how homosexuality is a lifestyle?
  If being attracted to the same gender is a lifestyle, then being attracted to the opposite gender is also a lifestyle.
  
  I think this "lifestyle" is derived from the stereotypical gay male depicted in the media. The type whose flamboyant, is a god of interior decoration, enjoys exotic and colorful drinks, and uses the word "fabulous" all the time. That is a lifestyle, however that's something anyone can choose to do regardless of sexual orientation.

  
  
  
  life·style
     /ˈlaɪfˌstaɪl/ Show Spelled[lahyf-stahyl] Show IPA
  –noun
  the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group
  
  Part of what constitutes a gay lifestyle:
  
  Tastes- attraction of a person of the same gender
  Moral Standards - homosexuality is correct
• Virtue wrote on 2010-07-03 21:04
  ps check your PM inbox, Sayo