Marriage is a right, or more specifically, a privilege and at the same time a claim. According to the Hohfeldian system for describing the form of rights, to say that one has a privilege-right to do something is to say that one has no duty not to do it, whereas when one has a claim-right on something it means that at least one other person has the duty to provide it. Do gay couples have the right to marry? No – not in this country, or at least not yet. While there is nothing in our Constitution that prohibits same-sex marriage, our Family Code requires that the contracting parties must be a man and a woman.
And this is why same-sex marriage advocates would be wasting their time if they try to convince the bishops of their so-called rights. Aside from the fact that the Church hierarchy could never go against its own doctrine, the fight should be brought where it belongs – in congress – to lobby our legislators into amending the Family Code by giving same-sex couples the right to marry.
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “[r]ights dominate modern understandings of what actions are permissible and which institutions are just. Rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done.”
By giving gay couples the right to marry, we would be dramatically reshaping our country’s morality, and this is why the Church is vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage because it goes against its moral teachings. At this point it is important to note that the bishops and priests are not violating the separation of Church and State by speaking out against what they believe to be a grave wrong; they are merely asserting their right to freely exercise their religion as guaranteed by the same constitutional provision that commands the State not to respect an establishment of religion by passing “laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.”
While the non-establishment clause enjoins our lawmakers from crafting laws aiding the Catholic Church or any religion for that matter, the more important issue to be resolved is, why should we grant gay couples the right to marry in the first place? The moral philosopher Warren Quinn gives a very compelling argument:
“A person is constituted by his body and his mind. They are parts or aspects of him. For that very reason, it is fitting that he have primary say over what may be done to them—not because such an arrangement best promotes overall human welfare, but because any arrangement that denied him that say would be a grave indignity. In giving him this authority, morality recognizes his existence as an individual with ends of his own—an independent being. Since that is what he is, he deserves this recognition.”
It is high time our society truly recognize that lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders are individuals with ends of their own, and if we look deeper we will find that beneath the differences in sexual orientation, their ends are not really unlike our own, and that is to find happiness in love and companionship. Giving them the right to marry accords them the much-needed legal recognition and protection of their partnerships, including property rights, successional rights, pension benefits, presumed insurable interest on the lives of their partners, and especially next-of-kin rights in hospitals. Is that too much to ask?
I'm gonna share this blog in regards to this article http://babaylangkempet.blogspot.com/2011/06/madam…
Yeah.. I think I'm actually with innerminds on this one.
Miguel, is that really you? Or did you hack Miguel's intensedebate account? 🙂
Well, I am speaking out of my depth here; I'm not aware of all the arguments from both sides –I'm sure there must be persuasive arguments from both. My gut, however, leads me to think gay marriage should be fine.
Thank you, but having a cousin who's a Muslim, I'm quite acquainted by the process. What irks me is the authoritative tone.
Open marriages, polygamy, multiple sexual partners, contraceptives, gay-ness, homosexuality, and sex in general, what is it about intercourse that you and some religious hierarchy are so sensitive about? Everyone dipping into everyone else is none of your business. If our genitals fall off, that's none of your business. If your genitals fall off, that's none of anybody's business.
The fact that most countries have laws against bigamy, polygamy and adultery shows that it is a societal norm that the different governments see to the greater good of its members and the greater good is to prevent these kinds of immoral and unethical behavior. It has nothing to do with religiosity or religious hierarchy. Perhaps your ethics and morals are very confused!
//The fact that most countries have laws against bigamy, polygamy and adultery shows that it is a societal norm that the different governments see to the greater good of its members and the greater good is to prevent these kinds of immoral and unethical behavior.//
Red Herring. You never did manage to convince anybody why these are associated with gay marriage.
I am not trying to convince anyone, bloke. As far as I am concerned, it's the advocates of this bloody affair that needs to do the convincing. At the end of the day, if it's no ones business if people want to behave in a gay and sexually deviant manner, then why bring it to the public sphere and ask to legalize gay marriage? You want to do things privately, that's fine, so keep it private and out of the politics because that is public! Get it mate?
Godfrey is so pissed by the idea obviously. but when asked why, he answers with anecdotes and prophetic events which, is the typical method in guilt-inducing confidently-bigoted delivered sermons.
when ideas become stale and inapplicable, the best resolve is to start innovations. conserving it pays more price than taking the risk and gladly retreating in case of a problem. we can't be corrected if we always deny the problem – as what your logic on things is. as what the logic of most conservative is.
I seriously suspect that Godfrey is dboncan's sockpuppet account.
They use almost exactly the same argumentative waffling.
Not to mention Godfrey's name is taken from a famous Templar, which is funny since Dickie's DB account avatar was recently changed to a Templar as well.
In the article about prayer as no substitute for doing shit, I already noticed the same thing when he attacked my facts with his anecdotes. If proven to be one and the same person, I can only imagine what pushed him to create a sobriquet for himself. Losing face? Fallen from grace? :p
In linguistics, we have a way of mapping out a person's idiolect (i.e., their personal language, preferences, mistakes and errors, punctuation marks, in other words, personal style of speaking/writing). So there is a scientific way of proving whether two subjects are the same person or not by analyzing their language. In this case, both subjects interchange "its" and "it's" and "your" and "you're." Both subjects also have a preference for using the ellipsis to connect ideas. And both subjects seem to make the same mistake in hyphenating words that start with "re-" (as in re-think and re-dip versus rethink and redip).
There's also a way of measuring a person's idiolect to find out if the person is a native speaker. In this case, the person presents himself as British or Australian by using expressions like "G'day" and "bloody" and "mate." Native speakers tend to gravitate towards a more consistent use of one expression. However, the subject inconsistently uses "G'day." On some occasions, the subject typed "Good day" sometimes "G'day" and sometimes "G'Day."
It's quite amusing, really. I'd love to do a statistical analysis of these two subjects but alas, I have more important things to do. Cheerio! :p
//Are you also saying that when Catholic leaders say that enacting laws for divorce or gay marriage in your country will lead to the destruction of the marital institution and hence society, this is only a purely religious concern? Are you blind to the experience of western countries? //
So prove that it's not merely a religious concern: Show us evidence that legalizing gay marriage and divorce have led to the destruction of "the marital institution and hence society."
I suggest you start you search in Europe, namely The Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden 😉
"It's a tortuous path that tortuous minds seem well to take. " – Godfrey_Buillon
TORTUOUS MINDS? Well, let's see how these tortuous minds fare well in world history. To begin, let's start with the following:
1. Socrates (470-399 B.C.) Greek Teacher and Philosopher
2. Plato (427-347 B.C.) Greek Teacher and Philosopher
3. Alexander The Great (356-323 B.C.) Macedonian King and Military Leader
4. Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) Italian Renaissance Artist, Teacher, Scientist and Inventor
5. Michelangelo (1475-1564) Italian Renaissance Artist and Sculptor
6. Virginia Woolf (1882-1941) British Writer and Publisher
7. Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) Euro-American Philosopher, Naturalist, and Peace Activist
8. Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Irish Writer and Dramatist
9. Elton John (1947 – ) British Singer/songwriter/musican
10. Boy Abunda (with that accent your sporting, I guess you'd have to do some research on this one)
– From the list above, homosexuality or gay-ness or whatever, does not affect one's ability to function in life, nor impede his ability to contribute something in society.
//homosexuality or gay-ness or whatever, does not affect one's ability to function in life, nor impede his ability to contribute something in society. //
Neil Patrick Harris and Ian McKellen are gay. 'Nuff said.
Let's not forget that the world's wealthiest author openly defended one of her beloved character, when she expressed that "It has certainly never been news to me that a brave and brilliant man could love other men…" Sure she was bombarded by criticisms coming from fundamentalist Christians and ultra-conservative parents, but there's no stopping children from adoring Hogwarts' gay headmaster.
– http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/38095/jk-ro…
"Neil Patrick Harris and Ian McKellen are gay. 'Nuff said. "
– And so is TV host Ellen DeGeneres, who is a very active supporter of the Breast Cancer Awareness Month in America. Also, Ellen’s current favorite cause for charitable resources appears to be The Gentle Barn (TGB), whose mission is the rescue and rehabilitation of farm animals. Ellen even supported the Hurricane Katrina Relief Fund through the American Red Cross, with former President George H.W. Bush sending a videotaped message thanking her for her fundraising. And she has a bombshell partner named Portia de Rossi.
Now what does this tell us? Bigots have ignored a homosexual's philantrophic deeds and overlooked their personal success, simply because their choice of sexual partner goes against the norm.
– http://www.sheknows.com/sheknows-cares/top10/ques…
– http://news.muckety.com/2008/02/08/the-big-heart-…
– http://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/61-ellen-…
"It is high time our society truly recognize that lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders are individuals with ends of their own"
I do fail to find what laws in the Philippines prevent a homosexual person and the like to receive and benefit from those rights accorded to every citizen, i.e., drivers/business/firearm etc, licenses, Birth Certificates, Suffrage, Use of public transport/facilities, Public display of their lifestyle, employment as well as police protection… what on earth are you talking about not being recognized? Have you seen your noon-time shows??
//I do fail to find what laws in the Philippines prevent a homosexual person and the like to receive and benefit from those rights accorded to every citizen, i.e., drivers/business/firearm etc, licenses//
For one thing, the right to be legally married to the person they love, while enjoying all of the rights and benefits of a straight couple. And for another thing, the right not to be singled out for discrimination in public. And outside the legalese, there's the matter of convincing our painfully retarded and conservative society that being gay is not wrong just because the bible says so.
//Have you seen your noon-time shows?? //
Following your logic, I could also say that we should not fight for a women's right to access to better reproductive health services and protection domestic violence just because so many popular starlets like Kim Chu appear on noontime shows, gossip magazines, and teledramas.
Really Godfrey – do you ever listen to yourself talk?
Singled out? Your country is by far one of the most tolerant when it comes to gays. It's tolerant and yet the people know that it is disordered behavior. Marriage is an ancient institution that has changed over time but not in terms of sexual partnerships but purpose and reasons for commitment. It has always been between men and women because the natural good of all societies dictate it. A homosexual union is sterile and self serving. Hear about the lesbian couple who had IVF only to have a child of a diff'rent race as theirs? Boy were they peeved!
//Public display of their lifestyle, employment as well as police protection… what on earth are you talking about not being recognized? //
Your inability to "see" anything wrong speaks volumes about how out of touch you are.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/philippinelgbthat…
So laddie tell me, aside from what I have mentioned, what benefits do gays not have? You seem to point out only one, the recognition of being legally married… What else is not accorded them? Can they not form unions? What are you after tax exempt status for married couples? What else?
[what benefits do gays not have? You seem to point out only one, the recognition of being legally married]
And that's all the article is pointing out in the first place.
[I do fail to find what laws in the Philippines prevent a homosexual person and the like to receive and benefit from those rights accorded to every citizen]
Technically you are correct, because in this country heterosexuals are also not allowed to marry persons of the same gender. But does that make a difference? Imagine a country that allows only same-sex marriage to homosexuals and heterosexuals alike (let's assume that heterosexual relationships and sex and even child bearing are allowed as long as a man cannot marry a woman), would you really say that such country truly recognizes all its citizens as individuals with ends of their own? And besides, I never said that homosexuals do not have the same access to licenses, public transport/facilities, etc., but only that our society doesn't truly recognize them as individuals with ends of their own. You really do seem to have a habit of twisting others' statements.
"You really do seem to have a habit of twisting others' statements. "
– Then he starts accusing you of diverting to another topic to evade the issue at hand. Let's wait for a few minutes and see. :p
"While the non-establishment clause commands our lawmakers not to listen to the Catholic Church or any religion for that matter"
I have read your constitution as it pertains to the separation of church and state and I have not seen any part of that clause that states that lawmakers cannot make decisions based on their convictions.
Art. III Sec. 5: “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion…”
By the way, please don’t twist my words. I never said that lawmakers cannot make decisions based on their convictions, only that when they are in congress they should remember that they are representing the Filipino people and not their religion. They can surely make decisions based on their convictions, but they have to justify the laws they enact based on secular reasoning. For example, they cannot pass laws prohibiting contraception simply because it is prohibited by Humanae Vitae.
So when the church reminds lawmakers that it is their responsibility to uphold good morals and ethics in governance how is that a push for establishing religion? Where does it say that one has to follow purely secular reasoning in the crafting of laws? This is quite an asinine thought considering that the bill of rights under which you live and under which you argue and are able to speak was established by Christian tradition and philosophy. You want a purely secular interpretation of laws go look at the PROC. Oh and are you saying that you can't buy condoms and contraceptives in your local pharmacy? Last time I checked condoms were available at your 7-11… So much for your Humanae Vitae prohibition theory!
[So when the church reminds lawmakers that it is their responsibility to uphold good morals and ethics in governance how is that a push for establishing religion?]
You mean when the Church reminds lawmakers that it is their responsibility to uphold CATHOLIC morals and ethics?
[Oh and are you saying that you can't buy condoms and contraceptives in your local pharmacy? Last time I checked condoms were available at your 7-11… So much for your Humanae Vitae prohibition theory!]
Did I say that contraceptives are already illegal? The following are my exact words: "For example, they cannot pass laws prohibiting contraception simply because it is prohibited by Humanae Vitae. " You really should try not to twist other people's statements.
Are you telling me that enacting laws that are contrary to your own constitution, i.e., contraceptives that are also abortifacients, is only a Catholic thing? Are you also saying that when Catholic leaders say that enacting laws for divorce or gay marriage in your country will lead to the destruction of the marital institution and hence society, this is only a purely religious concern? Are you blind to the experience of western countries? It's ridiculous to think that these are peculiarly Catholic since we see these same moral convictions being held by many Muslims, Evangelical Protestants and the like.
[Are you telling me that enacting laws that are contrary to your own constitution, i.e., contraceptives that are also abortifacients, is only a Catholic thing?]
Are all contraceptives also abortifacients? Are condoms abortifacients? Again, my exact words were: "For example, they cannot pass laws prohibiting contraception simply because it is prohibited by Humanae Vitae. " See, I mentioned contraception in general. It's a totally different issue if certain contraceptives are proven to have abortifacient effects, in which case they will be banned but without prejudice to the other contraceptives with no abortifacient effects like the condom. So aside from twisting others' words, you also have a habit of adding your own. Tsk tsk tsk.
[Are you also saying that when Catholic leaders say that enacting laws for divorce or gay marriage in your country will lead to the destruction of the marital institution and hence society, this is only a purely religious concern?]
You mean laws that are against the CATHOLIC doctrine on marriage? By the way, if you want to discuss about divorce, I have written an article about it and you might want to debate with me there:
https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/09/03/what-g…
[Are you blind to the experience of western countries? It's ridiculous to think that these are peculiarly Catholic since we see these same moral convictions being held by many Muslims, Evangelical Protestants and the like.]
Doesn't change anything. Jurisprudence has expanded the non-establishment clause to mean that the State may not pass “laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.”
//So when the church reminds lawmakers that it is their responsibility to uphold good morals and ethics in governance how is that a push for establishing religion?//
So it's good morals and ethics to promote discrimination? https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/03/31/its-no…
//Oh and are you saying that you can't buy condoms and contraceptives in your local pharmacy? Last time I checked condoms were available at your 7-11… So much for your Humanae Vitae prohibition theory! //
Who says the CBCP and their minions haven't tried?
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/colum… http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,181…
"ONE RESIDENT confided to me that some weeks back she was asked to sign a petition supporting the CBCP Pastoral Letter against the RH bill. She refused to sign, saying that she in fact supported the bill. A day later, unidentified persons pelted her house with raw eggs, scaring the daylights out of her children and prompting her husband to beg her to keep quiet."
– The Philippines' Birth Control Battle (By: Emily Rauhala, Manila)
WHAT THE F***!
//Your country is by far one of the most tolerant when it comes to gays.//
Compared to what country? Iran?
//Marriage is an ancient institution that has changed over time but not in terms of sexual partnerships but purpose and reasons for commitment. //
//It has always been between men and women because the natural good of all societies dictate it.//
Define "natural."
//homosexual union is sterile and self serving.//
You're working under flawed assumptions, Godfrey.
First, you're assuming that all straight couples marry with the express intent to have kids – I can tell you point-blank that this is not the case, and it is quite easy to find plenty of couples who either decide not to have kids, or are simply incapable of reproducing due to sterility.
Since these couple choose note to have kids at all, by your logic, we shouldn't give them the right marry either, because their union has no obvious "natural good" to society.
//A homosexual union is sterile and self serving.//
Gay couples can adopt, Godfrey, and there will be plenty of opportunity for them to do so here. The sad fact is that the DSWD is swamped with the issue of abandoned kids who need loving homes.
//Hear about the lesbian couple who had IVF only to have a child of a diff'rent race as theirs? Boy were they peeved! //
Since I know how IVFs work, this isn't even remotely funny.
I do, however, thank you for saving me the trouble of showing everybody here that you aren't just a Scottish impersonator – you're also a racist prick.
Russia, Poland, Hungary, and yes with some surreal humor, the Islamic countries. Tell me, what part of Philippine society, aside from getting married, are gays disallowed to participate in? As far as I can tell, none! So that's being quite accepting and tolerant. Sure there is bullying but show me where there isn't any.Natural… That which is innate in ones nature. The core essence of the thing. Have you ever seen dry water or soft granite? In history marriage has taken quite a few forms; arranged, polygamy, monogamy but never of the same sex and at least not openly as an institution supported by the state. Even in societies that have approved it, it is still done so with much anxiety and debate.
//As far as I can tell, none! So that's being quite accepting and tolerant. Sure there is bullying but show me where there isn't any.
//
Just because it's normal doesn't make it right. Like I said, your argument could very well be used to defend xenophobia – just because pinoy make nigger jokes doesn't make it right, nor does that make it acceptable.
//n history marriage has taken quite a few forms; arranged, polygamy, monogamy but never of the same sex and at least not openly as an institution supported by the state. Even in societies that have approved it, it is still done so with much anxiety and debate. //
//Natural… That which is innate in ones nature. The core essence of the thing. Have you ever seen dry water or soft granite?//
Non sequitur. What does finding either of the two have to do with homosexuality? And furthermore, there is plenty of evidence showing that homosexuality occurs in the natural world, as in it's innate.:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolu… http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6066606.stm
/In history marriage has taken quite a few forms; arranged, polygamy, monogamy but never of the same sex and at least not openly as an institution supported by the state.//
Is it really? Let's heard from marriage historian Stephanie Coontz:
http://www.salon.com/2011/07/03/monogamy_3/
//What kind of cultural history is there for open marriage?
Not very much! In the late 18th century what was quite open was that men had rights that women didn’t have. We have stunning letters from American men of that period talking to fellow male friends, including a brother-in-law or a father-in-law, about how they contracted syphilis from a whore, how they visited a cute little prostitute! They were fully open about their non-monogamy but totally unaccepting of women’s non-monogamy. But that’s not what Dan Savage means by open marriage; he means equal rights to non-monogamy.
Now, certainly cross-culturally there have been a lot of societies that have built into the expectations of marriage a certain amount of tolerance [of affairs], and some of them even for females as well as males. In the United States, open marriage based on equality is really an untried institution — although there have always been exceptional individuals who have been able to do it. I think we’re getting more of them now as people come to marriage with more sexual experience, with higher expectations of friendship and intimacy, and less confusion of sexual attraction with love. I’m dubious, though, that we’ll ever institutionalize it.//
Basically Godfrey, you forgot to mention that men being able to go whoring was also part of the tradition of marriage until a few centuries ago.
hey bloke that's what I said… whether or not it's monogamy it has always been between men and women!
Missed the point mate… I said marriage has taken many forms but never ever between the same sex… I have Coontz book and read it, did you?
putting aside their sexual orientation, LGBT's are perfectly normal in terms of their humanity. the only barrier that fails many to recognize this is our own ignorance of their situation. it is not our "straight" orientation that makes us normal, being normal itself is tied to what we are accustomed. this should not be the case in individuals who are really trying to understand one another.
this is like the movement in the 60's for Afro-Americans.
Exactly.
Every time some gay-bashing god-botherer tries to start the argument that being gay is not "normal," I remind him that slavery was also normal until the 1800s, and so was racial segregation, and women being unable to vote.
Hey bloke, there isn't even any comparaison between Slavery and Homosexuality. Slavery is one man taking advantage over another because of reasons of skin color or social status, homosexuality is a personal chosen behavior or lifestyle. Just to be clear, I am not talking about homosexual orientation but gay-ness.
//Slavery is one man taking advantage over another because of reasons of skin color or social status, homosexuality is a personal chosen behavior or lifestyle.//
That's why I also cited women's suffrage and segregation too, mate. Much like these two, a lot of the arguments for gay discrimination are religious in nature. 😉
Did you miss those? I think you need a new pair of glasses.
//Just to be clear, I am not talking about homosexual orientation but gay-ness. //
Then why even say "homosexuality" twice in the previous sentences leading up to this one? Seriously, define "gayness"; It's spelled without the hyphen btw.
The point is gayness has absolutely no comparison to skin colour or sex (male or female) and thus has no business bring treated as a civil right. Would you accord polygamy and ephebophilia the same rights? Why not make adultery acceptable as well? Those my friend are behaviours not inherent in our nature. It's a tortuous path that tortuous minds seem well to take.
As a quick reference, you can visit this website and find more tortuous minds:
http://main.uab.edu/Sites/students/life/safe-zone…
//The point is gayness has absolutely no comparison to skin colour or sex (male or female) and thus has no business bring treated as a civil right. //
So gays shouldn't have the basic civil right to be NOT discriminated against for their sexual orientation?
//Would you accord polygamy and ephebophilia the same rights? Why not make adultery acceptable as well? //
Your turn, my friend: Explain how ephebophilia and adultery are similar in any way to homosexuality.
That aside, thank you for showing everybody here a classic example of a Slippery Slope Fallacy http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery…
//Those my friend are behaviours not inherent in our nature.//
Homosexuality is not natural?
Oh dear, somebody tell Evolution! http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolu…
Aside from actually marrying what activities have gays been discriminated against in the PI? Didn't you fellows recently follow the idiocy of Trumps Miss (misnomer) Universe decision to allow homosexuals to participate?
The right not to be bullied, and the recognition of gay bullying as a matter that CANNOT be protected under religious speech.
Then there's the matter of the CBCP trying to push for anti-discrimination laws that do not cover sexual orientation:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/106981/cbcp-wants-an…
Hey mate the right to be free from being bullied is everyone's right and there are laws in place that make sure it is applied to everyone. It falls under the right to equal protection under law. When several students walked out of a Dan Savage vitriolic talk, he called them pansy asses… so the one who was supposed to give a talk about media bullying was bullying those who didn't agree with him… what an arse! At any rate if there were any laws on bullying that should be enacted, it should be for all and not just for gays!
//When several students walked out of a Dan Savage vitriolic talk, he called them pansy asses… so the one who was supposed to give a talk about media bullying was bullying those who didn't agree with him… what an arse!//
First, let me agree that Dan Savage used the wrong choice of words in his talk – he could have conveyed his message in more proper manner.
That aside, accusing Dan of sounding mean does not change the fact that he rightfully called out the Bible used as a convenient excuse to promote discrimination against the gay community.
And as for accusing Dan of "bullying," Adam Lee puts it nicely http://bigthink.com/ideas/on-dan-savage-and-marty…
//So, for the professionally confused, let's clarify some things: Bullying is a form of emotional abuse which takes the form of targeted coercion, harassment, intimidation, and violence against people who lack power to fight back. Savage had no special power over the people at his talk; they weren't a captive audience. And his speech neither coerced Christians to do anything, nor harassed or intimidated them, nor called for any violence. It was, again, a criticism of bad ideas in the book they claim to believe in. When Christian teenagers are committing suicide in despair over being bullied by atheists and atheist school administrators are fighting efforts to do something about it, or when gay advocates are counseling parents to beat their children until they renounce Christianity, then these Christians will have a valid complaint, but obviously nothing like this has happened.//
So please Godfrey, cut it with the persecution complex. Nobody is about to believe your codswallop.
//The point is gayness has absolutely no comparison to skin colour or sex (male or female) and thus has no business bring treated as a civil right. //
Like their skin color and genitalia, a gay person's orientation is an integral characteristic of who they are. it's also been the source of a good deal of discrimination, which you seem to bullheaded to understand.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-tow…
Frankly, Godfrey, I see no difference between you or people like LaBarbera or Michelle Bachmann.
So then what you are saying is that if I believe that I am made for more than one woman then I should be given the right to marry as many women as I wish? So adultery and bigamy laws must go too. If I felt that I like teenaged girls, that I should be free to have this for as long as it is a consenting relationship… because that is where your logic will take you.
//So then what you are saying is that if I believe that I am made for more than one woman then I should be given the right to marry as many women as I wish?//
Good luck trying to pass polygamy/bigamy laws here, friend 😉
That's not my department anymore – it's an entirely different animal from gay marriage.
Nope it's not a different animal, it's the same dog with different fleas. I am taking your advocacy to its ultimate conclusion. when you allow a certain form of sexual behavior to be a “right” you open a can of worms. Adultery, polygamy and pedophilia are just as valid under this system.
//I am taking your advocacy to its ultimate conclusion. when you allow a certain form of sexual behavior to be a "right" you open a can of worms. Adultery, polygamy and pedophilia are just as valid under this system. //
Classic slippery slope argument. Can you even provide evidence, or are you just going to bark out this rhetoric again?
What rhetoric? I am telling you that is where it will end up. You on the other hand cannot provide me with substance regarding the difference between polygamy, adultery and homosexual habits! You allow one, you have to allow all. Why do you think Savage is all for open marriages?
actually, since your the one that claimed that that's what will happen, the burden of proof is on you, not on twin skies. typical, you apologist claim something and expect the other side to prove that it is not so. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?
o yeah, polygamy is having many spouses, adultery is having another sexual partner/s beside your spouse, and homesexuality is being attracted to the same sex. see? those three things are different. and another thing, homosexuals can be guilty of polygamy and adultery, but so can heterosexual people.
Hey what part of future tense don't you get mate?
oh, so you can predict the future now, eh, mate? but, please, where is your evidence that what you said will be the FUTURE of our country if gays/homesexuals are allowed to marry will surely happen? is it the only LOGICAL CONCLUSION, as you so said in your earlier post? please feel very very very free to provide your evidence, instead of asking me if i know what future tense is. you do know what EVIDENCE is, right?
//I am telling you that is where it will end up.//
Like I said, slippery slope argument. You're the one making the claims, so you're obligated with providing hard evidence that said events will happen when gay marriage is legalized.
// You on the other hand cannot provide me with substance regarding the difference between polygamy, adultery and homosexual habits! //
That you even have to ask this question speaks volumes about your ignorance. Stop diverting the topic – whether or not I answer your inane demands does not impact your inability to provide hard evidence that legalizing gay marriage = polygamy.
//Why do you think Savage is all for open marriages? //
The bigger question everybody should be asking is this: Does Godfrey have any solid proof that legalizing gay marriage will cause the destruction of society?
As he says:
//Are you also saying that when Catholic leaders say that enacting laws for divorce or gay marriage in your country will lead to the destruction of the marital institution and hence society, this is only a purely religious concern? Are you blind to the experience of western countries? //
//when you allow a certain form of sexual behavior to be a "right" you open a can of worms. Adultery, polygamy and pedophilia are just as valid under this system. //
Really?
http://www.alternet.org/story/154970/5_countries_…
^Or, you could always become a Muslim 🙂
Godfrey's logic is soooooooo damn familiar. Im starting to think that only the name has changed, but the line of reasoning and style of argument is eerily similar to ________.
*goosebumps 😮
I'm fine with polygamy, actually, as long as it's consensual. I don't think anybody is harmed by big love.
Ephebophobes… hmm this is iffy because of the variability of ages of sexual consent, and actual ability of teenagers to be sexually responsible.
Adultery is not acceptable of course. It's lying.
If both you and your partner are perfectly happy with an open marriage and occasional threesome / swinging party, and you're honest about it to each other, who cares?
Yup I am sure you are. It's the snot-nosed young buggers who think it's cool to do that. I imagine you're probably a petri dish by now. You'll probably change your mind once your polygamous arrangement also has polygamous arrangements with others then you won't even know where you got that thing that's causing your genitals to fall off. Everyone Dipping into everyone else, good luck! Hahaha
//You'll probably change your mind once your polygamous arrangement also has polygamous arrangements with others then you won't even know where you got that thing that's causing your genitals to fall off.// -Godfrey_Buillon
– TO MUSLIM READERS (in a polygamous marriage): try checking your genitals, now! This guy doubles as a preacher and as an ob-gnye/urologist. Are you implying that STD's are automatically associated with people in those kinds of arrangement? Are you suggesting that they are idiots for not using contraceptives?
//Everyone Dipping into everyone else, good luck! Hahaha// -Godfrey_Buillon
– Another ad hominem? This is a funny remark of yours, considering that you once found my comments as "lackluster" of some sort.
/Just to be clear, I am not talking about homosexual orientation but gay-ness. /
What is the difference, pray tell?
Well a homosexual Is one whose attraction is directed towards the same sex. A gay is someone whose lifestyle is the culmination of the practice of that orientation. I personally know homosexually oriented individuals who are not gay.
//I personally know homosexually oriented individuals who are not gay. //
Anecdotal references don't make for a solid case, friend.
//Well a homosexual Is one whose attraction is directed towards the same sex. A gay is someone whose lifestyle is the culmination of the practice of that orientation. //
Are you a psychologist? Under what authority do you have to arbitrarily change the definition of two words that basically mean the same thing?
It is anecdotal and it is true. The point is it exists! Homosexual orientation is not the same as gay.Maybe you would like it to be the same… to be valued solely for what you do not who you are!
//It is anecdotal and it is true. The point is it exists!//
1. Claiming that the story you said is true because you say so is a blatant attempt at circular reasoning.
2. I accept that they exist, much in the same way straight guys decide not to get into sexual relationships or to marry. The bottom line is that it's their choice to make, not yours.
//Maybe you would like it to be the same… to be valued solely for what you do not who you are! //
As per Sartre, we are the sum of all of our actions. Telling somebody that they CANNOT fall in love with somebody, even in a constructive, non-harmful manner, is something I would call unhealthy.
Telling them that what they are or what they do is inherently wrong has already led to suicides, mate. Or is your head too far up your ass for you not to read the newspaper?
COMMON FALLACIES USED
//It is anecdotal and it is true. The point is it exists! // – Godfrey_Buillon
1. CONFIRMATION BIAS: This refers to a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs. Confirmation bias plays a stronger role when people base their beliefs upon faith, tradition and prejudice.
//Maybe you would like it to be the same… to be valued solely for what you do not who you are! //
2. AD HOMINEM: An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.
I was thinking the exact same thing.
To put an ounce of credibility to those words, he should've provided updated sources from textbooks, medical journals, scientific findings, breakthroughs in Pyschology, etc..
But all we get is a sermon.
What's wrong with having consensual sex with another person of legal age, regardless of them being both "male" or "female"?
Nothing.
That's the point we want to make against you homophobes.
Yes, gay couples deserve to fuck each other like straight couples!
Yeah through the crapper! Did you know that the highest incidence of HIV is still from sodomizing homosexuals. They also have higher rectal cancer and e. coli infections from rectal perforations. So if that doesn't bother you then indeed you have one sick twisted mind. Homophobe… that's such a hilarious invented word by the same people who complain and whine about bullying and bigotry. It seems you blokes call anyone homophobic who merely disagrees with sodomy. I personally don't care to be called one, at least I know that the anus is for crapping, do you?
//Yeah through the crapper! Did you know that the highest incidence of HIV is still from sodomizing homosexuals. They also have higher rectal cancer and e. coli infections from rectal perforations. So if that doesn't bother you then indeed you have one sick twisted mind. //
By your logic, we should also be discriminating against blacks as well, because they experience among the highest incidences of AIDs as well.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/incide…
//They also have higher rectal cancer and e. coli infections from rectal perforations.//
And your solution your ilk resorts to is to bully and browbeat them until they end up hating themselves to the point of suicide. Right. That sounds healthy.
Are you a doctor, Godfrey? At what point does a doctor ever dictate to his patient to "Stop being gay!" as a way to address their medical conditions? And furthermore, shall we also start calling out straight men and women who also enjoy anal?
Yeah mate I can see that you totally ignore that MSM, a sexual lifestyle is still steadily increasing how does that compare with ethnicity where the incidence is mixed between IV drug use, sex and MSM. That's a very dimwitted argument. Thanks for the info!
//Yeah mate I can see that you totally ignore that MSM, a sexual lifestyle is still steadily increasing how does that compare with ethnicity where the incidence is mixed between IV drug use, sex and MSM.//
The other factors you forgot to mention, Godfrey, is that it's people like you who are considered part of the problem. From the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm
/Many MSM with HIV are unaware of their HIV infection, especially MSM of color and young MSM. A recent CDC study found that among urban MSM in 21 cities in 2008 who were unaware of their HIV infection, 55% had not been tested in the previous 12 months. Low awareness of HIV status among young MSM likely reflects several factors: they may have been infected more recently, may underestimate their personal risk, may have had fewer opportunities to get tested, or may believe that HIV treatment minimize the threat of HIV. CDC recommends that all MSM get tested for HIV once a year— and more often if they are at higher risk. MSM at higher risk includes those who have multiple or anonymous sex partners or use drugs during sex.
Stigma and homophobia may have a profound impact on the lives of MSM, especially their mental and sexual health. Internalized homophobia may impact men’s ability to make healthy choices, including decisions around sex and substance use. Stigma and homophobia may limit the willingness of MSM to access HIV prevention and care, isolate them from family and community support, and create cultural barriers that inhibit integration into social networks.
Racism, poverty, and lack of access to health care are barriers to HIV prevention services, particularly for MSM from racial or ethnic minority communities. A recent CDC study found a strong link between socioeconomic status and HIV among MSM: prevalence increased as education and income decreased, and awareness of HIV status was higher among MSM with greater education and income.
Complacency about HIV may play a key role in HIV risk, particularly among young MSM. Since young MSM did not experience the severity of the early HIV epidemic, some may falsely believe that HIV is no longer a serious health threat because of treatment advances and decreased mortality. Additional challenges for many MSM include maintaining safe behaviors over time and underestimating personal risk.//
I thank you for raising the point of the issue of HIV, my friend – it's been illuminating on how much of this is your ilk's fault. 😀
//Yeah mate I can see that you totally ignore that MSM, a sexual lifestyle is still steadily increasing how does that compare with ethnicity where the incidence is mixed between IV drug use, sex and MSM.//
And what drives them to resort to such desperate measures, genius? http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligenc…
//It is true that LGBT people suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population. But studies done during the past 15 years have determined that it is the stress of being a member of a minority group in an often-hostile society — and not LGBT identity itself — that accounts for the higher levels of mental illness and drug use.
Richard J. Wolitski, an expert on minority status and public health issues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, put it like this in 2008: "Economic disadvantage, stigma, and discrimination … increase stress and diminish the ability of individuals [in minority groups] to cope with stress, which in turn contribute to poor physical and mental health."//
Funny how it works Godfrey. The more you try to raise a stink about how unhealthy being gay is, the easier it gets tracking down the source of the problem – people like you.
//So if that doesn't bother you then indeed you have one sick twisted mind.//
What bothers me is that you're sick enough to think you know better than what an attending doctor would do to handle these issues.
A sick mind is the schmuck who thinks himself riding some moral high horse, and doesn't see anything wrong about discriminating against a community just because they have a higher incidence of a certain medical problem than anybody else. And instead of offering constructive, medically sound advice, you decide to toot your horn. Really Godfrey, you are one deluded, sick fuck.
But to humor your logic, I guess you won't mind if we call out hypocritical pricks like you for a having a much highest incidence of STDs compared to the rest of the population:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0109/ST…
And btw, your also has the highest overall incidences of AIDs. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/opinion/aids…
Funny how the stink you raise gets boomeranged back, huh?
Moral high horse? To say that the arse hole is used for pooping and not for sex, that's being a moralist? LOL Twisted indeed mate! To say tha MSM's have the highest incidence of HIV and rising… those are your facts laddie. You want your butt used for that purpose be my guest but I hope you don't expect your government to pay for your treatment if you get a bug that eats you from the inside. Cheerio!
//To say tha MSM's have the highest incidence of HIV and rising… those are your facts laddie. //
Any health agency will tell you that a proper fix is to encourage HIV testing, and the promotion of safe sex.
What's your proposed solution?
Yeah and yet the infection rates for Homosexuals continues unabated. What bloody thing do you need testing for once you're infected? I think only an idiot would even have sex with an HIV positive person regardless of the “protection”.
//Moral high horse? //
You're the one who fancies himself a medical expert, mate.
Bloody hell mate you mean you need an expert medical opinion to figure out that the rectum and anus are expelling excrement and not for sex, can I quote you on that?
//Did you know that the highest incidence of HIV is still from sodomizing homosexuals.//
And did you know that the highest incidences of AIDs – not to mention chlamydia, gonorrhea and teen pregnancies – are the Bible Belt states?
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/opinion/aids…
Strawman, and you call me illogical! HAHAHA
So it's a strawman to point out the facts now, laddie?