Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 ea®ly
Joined: 11/7/2006
Msg: 51
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?Page 3 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
collapse of civilization as we know it.


Gay and Lesbian Marriage has been guaranteed via the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for many years now.

For those so vehemently opposed to this idea because of speculations of a slippery slope of consequences:

What, exactly are they? ...I mean, we should have seen them by now in Canada (or any other country with a inclusive view of Human Rights), ...what are they again?


When governments begin to impose...


Quite the contrary, allowing couples of all gender preference to marry is a REMOVAL of government imposition, ...by definition.

Or are you going to now use the red herring fallacy and change the subject?

Edit: Thought so.

When one can't answer to faulty logic, change the subject. Nice hijack.
 ea®ly
Joined: 11/7/2006
Msg: 52
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/17/2010 7:50:37 PM
its the government making the final say in what is--against what anyone else happens to believe


What, the government is forcing people into same sex marriages?

its best for the entire issue to be removed from government control then to have them interpreting reality for you


It's exactly what they did here, they left it up to ANY "anyone else" to be FREE to decide what their reality is in regards to marriage and gender preference, Q.E.D.


but you would have to be free to get where I'm coming from, perhaps?


You spelled "bigoted" wrong.


federal hate crimes law to include speech against sexual orientation.


All the bigots will have to move, ...yay!


But I did call to your attention that you no longer enjoy free speech in Canada. What do you think about that?

I think it's a red herring (already told you), you can't reasonably explain your position so you're changing the subject. Par

egalitarianism - look it up, it's a good thing.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 53
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/17/2010 7:58:36 PM

But I did call to your attention that you no longer enjoy free speech in Canada.


Actually, it just means you can't publish pamphlets, etc., calling for the execution of people based on race, creed, colour or sexual orientation. It's how we deported Ernst Zundel for denying the Holocaust. And Germany wanted him back because of his website, which was based here in Canada. You see, in Germany, it's illegal for its citizens (Zundel was still a German citizen) to denounce the Holocaust, no matter where they are.

But hey, before you start making proclamations about what another country allows as rights and freedoms, you might want to read the actual document. Here's our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
 ea®ly
Joined: 11/7/2006
Msg: 54
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/17/2010 8:01:45 PM
But I did call to your attention to the fact that you no longer enjoy free speech in Canada.
try not to contaminate your good neighbors, ok?
Ha ha, posted on a Canadian website no less, ...oh the irony.



Actually, it just means you can't publish pamphlets, etc., calling for the execution of people based on race, creed, colour or sexual orientation. It's how we deported Ernst Zundel for denying the Holocaust. And Germany wanted him back because of his website, which was based here in Canada. You see, in Germany, it's illegal for its citizens (Zundel was still a German citizen) to denounce the Holocaust, no matter where they are.


Precisely
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 55
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/17/2010 8:13:06 PM

First, define marriage..

A legal marriage is really an amalgamation of corporations ("persons")

A lawful marriage is usually defined, sanctified and performed by the church, who will make the determination as to whether or not same sex marriage can be lawful based on their scriptural interpretation of the will of God. If the church says same sex marriage isn't allowed, it of course means that a same sex couple can't be lawfully married in that church. This can create an interesting problem if the state has legalized it, as a same sex couple can then be legally married, but not lawfully so in their church.

In my own opinion (and as Trudeau once said) "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." and a "lawful" marriage would just be two people declaring their love for each other in a private two party contract, however I do think it should be written and signed ad witnessed as proof of the marriage, in the event one party breaches the contract and the other wants remedy.

I'm intrigued, however at the prospect of adoption (the ONLY way a same sex couple could have children, unless it's a lesbian couple and one opts for in vitro fertilization). On the one hand, I suspect most same sex couples might make great and loving parents. On the other, I really believe a child (of either sex) needs parents of both sexes, to serve as models of appropriate behaviour for a given sex within the context of the society in which they live (which is predominantly heterosexual). In the sense that I believe free adults can pair (or triple, quadruple, etc) up as they please, I feel that they should have the right to do so, but as far as children go, I can't help but think they should be raised in a home that represents the societal norm (a monogamous heterosexual pairing), but maybe that's just my personal prejudice showing? It might be worthwhile to consider that children ought only be raised in a circumstance that would normally create them by its very nature. This would limit adoption (AND artificial insemination) to marriages of heterosexual people (which I suppose could be polygamous, much as I dislike the idea personally).

It might be worthwhile to look at the intent of marriage in terms of natural law (my favorite):

Marriage probably evolved naturally as an optimal situation for the propagation of the species. I suspect it enhanced the survival of the next generation. Obviously children arose from heterosexual relations (naturally). Inasmuch as we don't know what the social order of the caveman was, we can't say that only a heterosexual couple constitutes "legitimate" parents. The only thing we can really deduce is that there had to be at least one man and one woman involved. There may have been more people who acted as parents in a communal setting, so polygamous or communal "marriages" quite possibly could have been the norm at one time, and may be the norm in societies other than ours, so we can't rule that out as "marriage" under natural law (try as I might). An exclusively same sex marriage is about the only thing we can say wouldn't have produced children in the old days, so I would call a same sex marriage unnatural in that sense. Being as it is probably less than ideal to raise children in an "unnatural" environment,I suspect that natural law would suggest that adoption between same sex couples ought not be allowed. If it doesn't by its nature allow for propagation of the species, it ought not be considered of equal standing for adoption and only considered a "last resort" in the absence of a heterosexual adoptive set, or single parent (again not to have equal standing as at least one parent is "missing", but of higher standing than a homosexual couple, since I'm sure there have been many cases of single mothers & widows raising children throughout history. It is certainly (and unfortunately) approaching the social norm in today's society.)

To make a long and exceedingly boring story short, I'd say natural law would consider a homosexual marriage lawful, but adoption by homosexual parents generally a no-no.

Good Lord!...Did I type all this drivel?...I need a beer!...
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 56
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/17/2010 8:18:18 PM

Be ashamed. The wording in your coveted law was altered to include disallowing your ability to "communicate statements in any public place" which might "willfully promote hatred against any identifiable group."


Ashamed of what? That we acknowledge as a society that some forms of speech are unacceptable? Besides, do you know what punitive (if any) actions the Tribunal can take?

Oh, and while your First Amendment does protect free speech, that' s not to say Americans have full freedom of speech, either.

Here's how your country deals with it:


Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.[36] See, e.g., Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), Patterson v. McLean Credit Union (1989).
In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[37] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Doe v. Michigan (1989), UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin (1991), Dambrot v. Central Michigan University (1995), Corry v. Stanford (1995). Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[38] - source: Wikipedia


Seems some forms of speech aren't acceptable to Americans either and some legislative approaches have been attempted. Hmm...
 ea®ly
Joined: 11/7/2006
Msg: 57
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/17/2010 8:19:40 PM

"willfully promote hatred against any identifiable group."

I see where you're coming from now

You got a daddy to control your tongue.


How is that, I don't willfully promote hatred against any identifiable group?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 58
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/17/2010 8:27:18 PM

You see, in Germany, it's illegal for its citizens (Zundel was still a German citizen) to denounce the Holocaust, no matter where they are.

It's far worse than that. In germany it is illegal to QUESTION official holocaust dogma. Try suggesting that maybe less than six million Jews died in the camps and see where it gets you. THAT is legislating a dogma and criminalizing free speech! It ought not be tolerated in any society that dares to call itself civilized!

The hate speech laws of both Canada and Germany are in themselves a crime against humanity!
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 59
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/17/2010 8:35:09 PM

The hate speech laws of both Canada and Germany are in themselves a crime against humanity!


No, genocide is a crime against humanity. Let's keep the hyperbole to a minimum, shall we? The hate speech laws of Canada may not be the best approach, but it certainly is a means to hold those accountable who would spread hate against another group, don't you think?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 60
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/17/2010 8:51:14 PM

it certainly is a means to hold those accountable who would spread hate against another group, don't you think?

Actually, I think the libel & slander laws were and are more than adequate to provide remedy for those injured by genuine hate speech. They are certainly preferable to criminalizing free speech by legislating a dogma as official truth.

If genocide is a crime against humanity (which it is of course), why does the prime chimp of Canada appear to support Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people? Does he hate them?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 61
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/17/2010 9:00:09 PM
Actually, I think the libel & slander laws were and are more than adequate to provide remedy for those injured by genuine hate speech. They are certainly preferable to criminalizing free speech by legislating a dogma as official truth.


Except that the burden of proof shifts from the alleged to the aggrieved. In other words, if I published a pamphlet that stated that was from "Straight Men who think Gay Men should die," then by the anti-hate speech laws, I would be in the wrong. However, under libel, it would then be up to someone to prove they were harmed in some way.


If genocide is a crime against humanity (which it is of course), why does the prime chimp of Canada appear to support Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people? Does he hate them?


That is way outside the purview of this discussion, I'm afraid. I fear we are already there and can look forward to a great deal of this discussion cut by the mods.

Edit


I agree %100 which is also why I can't stand "hate crimes" legislation. I also say this as a Jew who is supposedly protected by such legislation despite the fact that it breeds resentment.


I'm of two minds with this. As someone who made his living as a journalist, I value free speech. However, I also recognize that with free speech comes a certain responsibility to that speech. It's the classic "yelling fire in the theatre" conundrum.
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 62
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/17/2010 9:01:15 PM


A legal marriage is really an amalgamation of corporations ("persons")


Agreed...


It might be worthwhile to look at the intent of marriage in terms of natural law (my favorite):


Of course it is your favourite, didn't you write it?


To make a long and exceedingly boring story short, I'd say natural law would consider a homosexual marriage lawful, but adoption by homosexual parents generally a no-no.


I think that homosexuals, should be allowed to adopt.

But I also think, that what we constitute as the idea of a "family", ought to exceed our bloodline...
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 63
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/17/2010 9:52:14 PM

However, under libel, it would then be up to someone to prove they were harmed in some way.

That's as it should be. The "hate law" route is based on a presumption of guilt. Even worse, the hate crimes tribunal (not a real court of law) didn't even allow truth as a defense! Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act has to go! Being as this is a thread pertaining to homosexuality, I thought I'd post this link to get the gay views on the matter.:

http://blog.freedomsite.org/2009/02/canadas-gay-press-repeal-section-13.html

That is way outside the purview of this discussion

Agreed. I confess I got "wound up". It's a very emotional issue for me.

It's the classic "yelling fire in the theatre" conundrum.

Even that is well covered under existing law. There is no need to pass a law forbidding the word "fire" in theatres if no fire exists.

I'll say no more about it. It isn't relevant to this thread.


I think that homosexuals, should be allowed to adopt.

I do too, but I resist the idea (all other things being equal) that they should have equal standing with a heterosexual couple. In consideration of the kids (who have rights of their own), I think they should preferentially adopt out to the parental model closest to the norm in the society in which they are to be raised. That said there are many factors to be considered in an adoption; the sexual orientation of the adoptive parents is only one of them.


what we constitute as the idea of a "family", ought to exceed our bloodline...

Of course I agree...so long as the children know who their genetic parents are (They have that right...I've seen too many adopted people trying to hunt down their genetic parents...If you saw the sadness and longing in their eyes...)
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 64
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/17/2010 10:02:01 PM

I don't see where hate crimes could possibly be permitted in Utopia

They couldn't be, or it wouldn't be a utopia. That said, Utopia won't prosecute thought crimes or engage in pre-emption of any kind. But denying someone his opinion, however foul infringes on his right to free expression, so that can't be tolerated either.

Calling somebody a "low down skunk" could be a provocation, or a slander and prosecuted accordingly if the "hater" can't back up his accusation with facts. Saying "In my opinion, you're a..." is an opinion and nothing more. Who's gonna tell a guy he isn't entitled to his opinion? Not me.
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 65
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/17/2010 10:20:48 PM


I do too, but I resist the idea (all other things being equal) that they should have equal standing with a heterosexual couple.


??????

When you say equal standing, do you mean pre-adoption or post?


I think they should preferentially adopt out to the parental model closest to the norm in the society in which they are to be raised.


Then that would be the single parent household, since the divorce rate is over 50%.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 66
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/17/2010 10:55:36 PM
do you mean pre-adoption or post?

Pre-adoption

that would be the single parent household, since the divorce rate is over 50%

Yes and it's a damn shame, however, owing to remarriages, the two parent family (I think -- haven't checked the stats) still predominates, though the single parent is unfortunately coming up fast.

The single parent household is again a less than ideal situation and in my opinion and with respect to adoption, probably even less so than a homosexual couple in terms of the needs of the child.

With the disintegration of the two parent family becoming a societal norm, and single parent families becoming a norm, I'm forced to consider that maybe the extended family/communal setting (that was probably the setting back at the dawn of time) is to be preferred above all. It gives the children more kids to play with, distributes the available parenting among the extended family members (Handy for a mom who's got to go to a hospital say) and in the event that even both biological parents die, there is still a loving family remaining to provide continuing parenting & support (so the loss, while always devastating, is minimized in terms of the disruption to the lives of the kids). Moreover there could be plenty of male & female hetero and homosexual models for the children to observe and learn from and that can only be healthy.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 67
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/18/2010 3:03:25 AM

if its just your opinion intended to be hurtfull, keep it to yourself.

It's a matter of manners, not justice. Justice would be you retorting with what Trudeau said of Nixon (after Nixon called him an a$$hole) "I've been called worse things by better people." or (if you aren't feeling particularly clever) giving me a "wedgie." You can't legislate on insults. As I say, it's manners, not law.

On the other hand, if I'm running around town saying that crap behind your back, opinion or not, with the intent of turning people against you, that's slander, a crime. In short, you can accuse someone of anything, but you'd better be able to back up the accusation with facts, or your in trouble and EVERYONE has the right to face their accuser to hash things out, one way or another. IMO, even a duel with pistols is permissable in Utopia, it is a form of contract between two parties and nobody else's business; the only involvement the community should have is keeping it fair. Got a problem with that? Am I all wet? Then maybe the community will decide otherwise and write "no dueling or insulting" into the contract and I won't even be able to argue about it. My choice will be to either sign up and abide or leave. A larger body of reasonable people will have spoken, and they will have legislated a new rule of the community. (Note the difference in that from the current system -- They can't simply pass or change a rule and hold you to it without making sure you understand and have your written assent (as opposed to tacit consent). I think though, that such stuff should be kept to a minimum, or the contracts are going to get pretty long & complicated (and start looking like the crappy legislation we have now) and people will find they have to form juries to adjudicate disputes like so-and-so caused "harm" when he deliberately burped at the dinner table in front of the children. even Utopia, as a practical matter is going to have to tolerate some imperfections. And besides, if I couldn't argue, make cracks and insult people in verbal duels it sure as hell wouldn't be Utopia for me!

I offer all rococco's opinions as proof

Cute!
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 68
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/18/2010 5:41:05 AM

^^^ Its actually an attempt to indoctrinate you.




That's right, they're rounding people up, putting 'em in camps, making them watch one of those swirly things go round and round as they say repeatedly "You want to be gay! You WANT to be gay!!"



Actually, I wonder if we compared the number of gay indoctrination camps compared to Christian camps, I wonder what there would be more of. And who would be more inclined to preach intolerance for other people, other beliefs, etc. Hmmm, I do wonder.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 69
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/18/2010 8:00:19 AM
Rococco, do you ever answer a post with anything other than the same old neo-Conservative rhetoric? Compliments to your uber-religious indoctrinators.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 70
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/18/2010 8:09:09 AM

No one should let contempt of religion keep them from pondering facts.


I have no contempt for religion, just those who use their religion as justification for a world view that places them in a position of moral superiority to judge others for how they live their lives, and to make proclamations for what basic human rights they're entitled to.

But hey, if you actually have FACTS, I'll be happy to ponder them. All I've seen from you are the same old rhetorical warnings of doom and gloom commonly used by neo-Conservatives, should an extremely small percentage of the population be given a right to which all others in the population enjoy freely.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 71
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/18/2010 8:16:47 AM

Fact: define sexual reality for human beings and take two step backwards in freedom.


Fact: Rococco has yet to actually address the question of "how" in her little nightmare scenario.


Address the idea, not what you imagine.


Good advice. Wish you'd follow it.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 72
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/18/2010 8:36:51 AM

Please address the idea.


What? Defining sexuality is somehow a detriment to personal freedom? Baseless and inflammatory.

Actually, since the neo-Conservative movement led by the religious right has sought to restrict the definition of marriage as being strictly between an man and woman, then that would seem to be YOU and your ilk seeking to restrict freedom.

Hmmm....so who's more dangerous to personal freedom.
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 73
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/18/2010 10:43:16 AM

Mad, enjoy your own thoughts and I will enjoy mine. Keep the snide, ugly attitude out of this--it detracts from the issues being explored.




Next, Roco will be saying, how Mad's snide comments aren't sexy! And then she will go back, and re-edit her posts! (Although I must say, he should be showing more cleavage in his photos...just sayin'.)




Opinions are what divide us.


And from that division, lies fertile ground for growth, and further understanding...I think opinions are a beautiful thing, because they so often reflect a person's values, and life experiences. When I hear (or read) a person's opinion, I wonder, "What shaped that perspective? What titillating moments caused a person to come, to the conclusions that they have come to?"

It is when someone tries to present their opinions, as facts, that I have a problem with.

The Op begged the question, which response is automatic, and which one is learned? (Nature vs. Nurture)

Since homosexuality can be found, in the "animal" kingdom, does that mean it is a "nature" thing? Or does that imply a different line of questioning?

Does a response of recoil, to a homosexual, a chemical production of innate hard-wiring that sees the lack of reproduction, of our species, a serious threat?

Or is it taught?

I think it is taught...
 ea®ly
Joined: 11/7/2006
Msg: 74
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/18/2010 1:01:32 PM
I'm doing is shedding light on what defines a person's view of the modern homosexual

Some people define their views by considering the perspectives of others in the mix, as in "people" (all people), this is an egalitarian view that recognizes that we are all different, ...like snowflakes. There are also objective ways using logic and reason that you can apply to any and all stated views concerning their own "...view of the modern homosexual".

It's like an "if/then" proposition in math; if you are giving an opinion on something, you are expected (in discussion/debate) to support that opinion with a reasoned argument, it's in how one reasons that their "view" is defined. - own it.

But don't you DARE attempt to control this discussion by re-defining my intention.

Intent is defined by the reasoning in your arguments, that simple. Any control is in the dialectic, the framework of "meaning" is already defined by logic/critical thinking .


We all have something to contribute to the discussion--not just those who's opinions you happen to agree with, MAD


And, all contributions can be scrutinized via critical thinking whether you agree or not, ...that's the "why" that defines one's view.

When you try to reason that "Human Rights" are not inclusive to all "Humans" because of gender preference, you aren't even talking human rights any more, you're talking about suppression of rights for the ones you don't agree with by dehumanizing them.

Table an argument for your position that treats everybody's Human Rights as being first and foremost, Human based.

If you base your reasoning on nothing faith and any/or religious "truth", It ultimately boils down to, "God said so" (...don't know if you've noticed or not, but there's no consensus here), which really just works out to "I say so" how ever you slice it.

Expect to be called on it.

Nobody is excluded from "Human Rights" with an egalitarian position, your position suppresses human rights for some because of gender preference and repeatedly arguing that; "making human rights inclusive infringes on the human rights of some", is indefensible as anything other than bigotry.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 75
What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?
Posted: 1/18/2010 2:05:11 PM

People in groups tend to naturally identify those who don't fit in around them and pick on them. I'm not sure whether that's learned or natural. I think it might be a bit of the two, actually, since we are naturally inclined to hang out with people who think like us, but we can be taught to be inclusive of those who are different.


Actually, when examined from an evolutionary standpoint, it makes a lot of sense. There's always great danger in "the other." Hey, look at what happened to the Mayans after the Conquistadors came. They didn't even have time to do another calendar.

However, most behaviours are learned, especially when it comes to how to handle new people and new situations which is why we see adults having the worst reactions to homosexuality. For most children, it's not even an issue (until their parents make it so) because it's not on their radar.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > What defines a straight mans view of homosexuals?