Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2789101112131415 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 299
  1. #221  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    I think that is a Kinsey Scale 3 or 4. The interesting thing about the Kinsey scale is that there are more 1s and 6s then the sum of 2-5. It is called a dumbell distribution.
    are we allowed to rate board members on the homosexuality scale ?
  2. #222  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    are we allowed to rate board members on the homosexuality scale ?
    Are we forbidden to?
  3. #223  
    Don't ask, don't tell

    Surur
  4. #224  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Don't ask, don't tell

    Surur
    Quote Originally Posted by stars and stripes
    United States Department of Defense Says it erred in classifying homosexuality as mental disorder

    Stars and Stripes
    Mideast edition, Thursday, June 29, 2006

    ARLINGTON, Va. — The Defense Department has acknowledged that it made a mistake when it classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, a Defense Department spokesman said.

    “Homosexuality should not have been characterized as a mental disorder in an appendix of a procedural instruction. A clarification will be issued over the next few days,” Lt. Col. Jeremy Martin said in a Tuesday e-mail to Stars and Stripes.

    The about-face comes after a review of the policy that followed criticism from lawmakers and medical professionals earlier this month.

    Martin downplayed the significance of the Defense Department’s now defunct stance on homosexuality.

    “Notwithstanding its inclusion, we find no practical impact since that appendix simply listed factors that do not constitute a physical disability, and homosexuality of course does not,” he said.
    And seek help.
  5. #225  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Yes I can
    Then one might consider you pansexual or bisexual. Best of both worlds?
  6. #226  
    Coming into this late, but have a few points that I don't think I saw raised as yet. Marriage has always satisfied both religious and business/political needs -- recall that for many generations marriage was used to basically make women property or a means of barter (dowry). I don't think anyone necessarily expects (or wants, really) to be able to marry someone of the same gender so that they won't go to Hell. (I'm going and I'm doing damn well enjoy the ride! LOL ) The desire to marry is driven almost completely by the desire (and, as some would argue, the right) for legal protections of the couple... financial, medical, etc. When you look back at what sparked this debate, it was things like one partner's family (in denial over their family member's orientation) shutting out a partner when they fell ill, died, etc. Frequently, this also resulted in split families due to the couple having had or adopted children. And always the explanation for why these protections were denied was "well, are you this person's spouse?", "are you married?", "but you're not family". In fact, a whole industry of special trusts and use of other protections has grown from this. And all the while, the quite simple act of getting married provides all of them in one easy step.... as long as the law permits you to do so.

    So, in a very real way, if you could separate the religious and legal aspects of marriage then you would see these folks following the path of legal proctection and almost none of them opting for religious/moral recognition. Yes, we frequently moralize with our laws -- and call it public policy -- but is public policy really just about "the will of the masses" or is it moreso about "the public good"? I think part of what makes any debate on this subject so difficult is that we have so enmeshed religion, morality, and law in the way marriage is defined that we think it has to be all or nothing.

    Personally, if I ever chose to marry someone it would never ever be about religion or morality. Instead, I would do it to (a) demonstrate my devotion to my partner and (b) to ensure protections and benefits for us as a devoted couple under the law. People who filter everything they do through religion may have a difficult time understanding that everyone is all about God. But really some of us aren't... no, not even a little.
  7. #227  
    Quote Originally Posted by taroliw
    Coming into this late, but have a few points that I don't think I saw raised as yet.
    A welcome addition to the discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by taroliw
    Marriage has always satisfied both religious and business/political needs -- recall that for many generations marriage was used to basically make women property or a means of barter (dowry).
    I think that it is fair to say that it has also been very much about property. That was certainly true in earlier generations when life was short and wealth was accumulated primarily by families across generations.

    [I was recently cautioned by one of my many siblings to be careful in my estate planning, lest one or more of those siblings, natural heirs, attempt to overturn my intentions.]


    Quote Originally Posted by taroliw
    I don't think anyone.....
    Gays you mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by taroliw
    ...... necessarily expects (or wants, really) to be able to marry someone of the same gender so that they won't go to Hell. (I'm going and I'm doing damn well enjoy the ride! LOL ) The desire to marry is driven almost completely by the desire (and, as some would argue, the right) for legal protections of the couple... financial, medical, etc.
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by taroliw
    When you look back at what sparked this debate, it was things like one partner's family (in denial over their family member's orientation) shutting out a partner when they fell ill, died, etc. Frequently, this also resulted in split families due to the couple having had or adopted children. And always the explanation for why these protections were denied was "well, are you this person's spouse?", "are you married?", "but you're not family". In fact, a whole industry of special trusts and use of other protections has grown from this.
    I have already noted a preference for contract.

    Quote Originally Posted by taroliw
    And all the while, the quite simple act of getting married provides all of them in one easy step.... as long as the law permits you to do so.
    However, marriage is a contract. We pretend that it is a one-size-fits-all contract but it really isn't. The solution to many of these problems is not as simple as legalizing gay marriage. Contract may be, not only preferred, but in many circumstances, specialized ones may be necessary to accomplish our intentions.

    While the quotes you use above may be anecdotal, the Terry Schiavo case demonstrates how difficult and contentious these situations can be in any family. For gays these situations are aggravated by the stigma of homosexuality and AIDS, secrecy, and family denial. While the health care industry comes across as being unfeeling and unsympathetic, it was often caught in the middle.

    Quote Originally Posted by taroliw
    So, in a very real way, if you could separate the religious and legal aspects of marriage then you would see these folks following the path of legal proctection and almost none of them opting for religious/moral recognition.
    I think that it is interesting to observe the "White" weddings among gays. While the wedding ceremony has always been primarily about publicly committing the community and the two families to the union, for the couple it is about making their committment to each other public. While I would agree with you that the gay marriage movement is rooted where you suggest, it may have gone beyond that.

    I suggest that, while the debate about gay marriage has been polarized and divisive, the publicity has been salutory. While I am certain that the moss-backs will be dragged screaming and kicking into the twenty-first century, the issue is decided. Whatever we may end up calling it, gay marriage is. Attempts to turn back the clock will be unsuccessful and destructive.

    Quote Originally Posted by taroliw
    Yes, we frequently moralize with our laws -- and call it public policy -- but is public policy really just about "the will of the masses" or is it moreso about "the public good"? I think part of what makes any debate on this subject so difficult is that we have so enmeshed religion, morality, and law in the way marriage is defined that we think it has to be all or nothing.

    Personally, if I ever chose to marry someone it would never ever be about religion or morality. Instead, I would do it to (a) demonstrate my devotion to my partner and (b) to ensure protections and benefits for us as a devoted couple under the law. People who filter everything they do through religion may have a difficult time understanding that everyone is all about God. But really some of us aren't... no, not even a little.
    Last edited by whmurray; 07/15/2006 at 08:31 AM.
  8. #228  
    Quote Originally Posted by bheuss
    I think the key part of your statement is "if the above is true". I agree with you about statistical bias and believe it's unavoidable. Numbers may not lie, but interpretation of numbers is another thing.

    Personal experiences (family housing, foster care) have shown to me that who makes up the home is not as important as the "home life". A child in a nurturing environment (regardless of one, two, or more people; regardless of their genders) is much better equipped to handle life than children raised in a non-nurturing environment. "Strong families" are not dependent on a female mother and a male father.

    I agree that "the preponderance of historical evidence shows that strong families need a mother and father figure represented". Mainly because there has been no other history. There is scant, if any, relevant (i.e., gay/lesbian households with children) sociological historical data to compare it against.

    I was raised by my parents, a man and a woman, and I am gay. Of my gay/lesbian friends raising children, most of those children identify as straight (the rest are too young to be considering dating or interest in sex). I don't think you can draw a conclusion between sexual orientation and parental gender identity.

    So, "if the above is true" I would posit that a change in the laws could bring about a more stable family unit. Which could contribute to society, business, and the well-being of the nation.
    I can't argue with your personal experience; I'd only say that it is anecdotal, just as my personal experience is. And, while there may not be much data about non-traditional family structures as it relates to same-sex adoptive parents, there is data about other non-traditional family structures. From what I've read, the data on the effects of unmarried parents, single parents, divorced/re-married parents is all negative. That's key because the data available also shows that in countries where same sex unions have been available for several years, only between 1-5% of homosexuals actually entered into such a union. And nearly half of those chose to did so primarily for legal and financial reasons. This and other studies seem to show that the longevity of same sex relationships is much lower than that of opposite sex relationships. This also seems to echo the sentiments of at least on prominent gay activist:

    We know that a 30-year relationship is no better, no better, than a nine-week, or nine-minute, fling – it's different, but not better. Both have value. We know that the instant intimacy involved in that perfect 20-minute [omited] in Stanley Park can be a profoundly beautiful thing.

    ...

    Marriage belongs to heterosexual culture and we should respect that. It's a ceremony tying a woman and a man together (though I would argue that marriage inherently puts the woman in a subservient position).

    Not that marriage works, of course. It is a morally bankrupt institution...

    Valuing honesty and honouring lust, we almost always open up our relationships to sex with other people after a few years. A recent federally funded health study of Vancouver gay men found that only two percent were in long-term relationships.
  9. #229  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Thats just your opinion. The catholic church would not agree.

    Surur
    I'm not Catholic, nor am I advocating that the Catholic view of divorce should be public policy.
  10. #230  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    And if that moral proposition is hatred, it's not a good law.
    Which law is based on hatred?
  11. #231  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    I am not a proponent of single parent families. I intended to make that clear. It takes two to conceive and I do not believe people who are not committed to one another for a term at least long enough to raise the children should conceive.

    But we cannot have it both ways. We cannot oppose single-parent households and then tell willing and able gay couples that not only can they not adopt, they cannot even foster. We cannot oppose single-parent households and say that a man who is willing and able may be a husband to more than one woman and father to their children may not do so.
    One difference is that I'm not advocating any legal opposition to single-parent households. But, I'd refer you to my previous post to bheuss regarding the fitness of the average same sex couple for raising children. Now, before I get flamed, let me be clear that I am not specifically saying anything about the fitness of homosexuals to be parents; I'm only refering to the average same sex relationship. Again, we seem to be agreeing that two-parent households are preferable. So, in determining adoptive parents it would seem to be a reasonable thing to investigate the chances that those parents would be together in, say, twenty years.
  12. #232  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    I actually think if you dig deep enough you will find words such as perversion and feelings such as revulsion at the bottom of all these rationalizations, probably related to America's Puritanical roots.
    You're perfectly free to voice your opinion. I'm sure that, to be consistent, you'd make the same judgement of Muslim societies that prohibit not only same sex unions but homosexuality itself.
  13. #233  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    You're perfectly free to voice your opinion. I'm sure that, to be consistent, you'd make the same judgement of Muslim societies that prohibit not only same sex unions but homosexuality itself.
    I'm nothing but consistent. Any society where mores are dictated by Semitic religions have this problem. I would just have thought America, the archetypal western nation, would have moved past this.

    Surur
  14. #234  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I'm not Catholic, nor am I advocating that the Catholic view of divorce should be public policy.
    The point is that their view point has as much baisis as yours. Why do you make an exception to the sanctity of marriage for the unhappiness of heterosexual couples, but not for the happiness of homosexuals?

    Surur
  15. #235  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    I'm nothing but consistent. Any society where mores are dictated by Semitic religions have this problem. I would just have thought America, the archetypal western nation, would have moved past this.

    Surur
    Consistency check, surur. Go lookup article 121.1 and see how the godless Communists dealt with homosexuals. You might also note that homosexuality is illegal in India.
  16. #236  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    The point is that their view point has as much baisis as yours. Why do you make an exception to the sanctity of marriage for the unhappiness of heterosexual couples, but not for the happiness of homosexuals?

    Surur
    I didn't say anything about happiness.
  17. #237  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    One difference is that I'm not advocating any legal opposition to single-parent households. But, I'd refer you to my previous post to bheuss regarding the fitness of the average same sex couple for raising children. Now, before I get flamed, let me be clear that I am not specifically saying anything about the fitness of homosexuals to be parents; I'm only refering to the average same sex relationship.
    It would be hubris on a congressional scale to pretend that anyone knows what that is, much less that it is significantly better or worse than any other.

    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Again, we seem to be agreeing that two-parent households are preferable.
    I will grant you that they are usually preferable to single-parent households but they are far from ideal. In my seventy plus years, my ideal has come to be extended multi-generational families with close ties to a neighborhood or other community.

    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    So, in determining adoptive parents it would seem to be a reasonable thing to investigate the chances that those parents would be together in, say, twenty years.
    My understanding is that adoption agencies always try to do that, however, with limited success. I am not ready to concede that the marital status or the gender of the prospective parents are reliable, or even very useful criteria for reaching such a judgement. However, in a society in which traditional marriage is under stress and single-parent households on the increase, we had better be ready to take a little risk. The last thing we need is laws that try to foster one kind of household by prohibiting all others.

    I would assert that the best predictor of whether or not a couple will be together in twenty years is whether or not they are part of the ideal family that I describe above.

    [I recently lost a dear friend. He and his partner had lived together for more than forty years. They were committed when such commitments were much less likely and much more difficult than they are today. However, their commitment to each other lasted in part because their families were committed to it. (Their nieces and nephews thought "uncle" was always used in the plural. They thought that "gay uncle" was one word and they knew it long before they knew what it implied.)]
    Last edited by whmurray; 07/16/2006 at 08:03 AM.
  18. #238  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Which law is based on hatred?
    Certainly the proposed constitutional anti-gay-marriage amendment is rooted in fear and hatred. Like flag burning, gay marriage is not sufficiently significant to warrant a constitutional amendment.
  19. #239  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I didn't say anything about happiness.
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Divorce may not be optimal but its preferable to keeping hateful or abusive situations together.
    Its inferred, unless happiness and hateful relationships are not mutually exclusive (I guess if you are a masochist it may not be).

    Surur
  20. #240  
    Quote Originally Posted by bheuss
    Because, then we'd have to face real issues like the economy, poverty, jobs, education, and crime.

    To an extent, I believe that is true. What many people see as important issues, and not to detract from them, I consider to be attempts at misdirection. For example, gay rights, flag burning, swearing on TV/radio. Overall, none of those things will demonstrably improve/degrade anyone's life.

    But the first list of things doesn't have the flash value of the second list.
    No, nor does it lend itself to simplistic solutions.

Posting Permissions