So What if Your Dad...

[Art Greylace]

Refer to this. Specifically, these relate to your situation.

Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
 

[noigel]

He just needs to be educated and informed.
'Das all.  

[She Promised You Cookies]

snowleopard_1116

This is all i have to say:

 

[Meeatu]

Artemesia Greylace

Refer to this. Specifically, these relate to your situation.

Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

All these points are based on logical fallacies.
Propensity to grow tall is genetic, environmental factors are limited, and as far as we know, psychological factors are null and void. As such, it is a whole different ball-game to homosexuality.

Legalizing gay marriage may indeed open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. Your counter argument rests upon the idea that people cannot reinstate legal standing to something that previously did not have it. Have you never heard of women's suffrage? Laws are revised constantly. Is it so far-fetched to believe that at some state animals may be given legal standing? After all, it's the way history has been heading for all other groups who got dragged into political debate.

For your last point, endless studies have shown that homosexual parents ARE more likely to raise homosexual children. No they won't do it all the time. In fact, it's only about 20% of the time - but given that for heterosexual families it's closer to 8%, they are still more than double as likely.  

[Art Greylace]

Meeatu

Artemesia Greylace

Refer to this. Specifically, these relate to your situation.

Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

All these points are based on logical fallacies.
Propensity to grow tall is genetic, environmental factors are limited, and as far as we know, psychological factors are null and void. As such, it is a whole different ball-game to homosexuality.

Legalizing gay marriage may indeed open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. Your counter argument rests upon the idea that people cannot reinstate legal standing to something that previously did not have it. Have you never heard of women's suffrage? Laws are revised constantly. Is it so far-fetched to believe that at some state animals may be given legal standing? After all, it's the way history has been heading for all other groups who got dragged into political debate.

For your last point, endless studies have shown that homosexual parents ARE more likely to raise homosexual children. No they won't do it all the time. In fact, it's only about 20% of the time - but given that for heterosexual families it's closer to 8%, they are still more than double as likely.

First point- the real thing is that, although it is not impossible that some measure of what you're attracted to is determined outside of genetics, we all know that if someone isn't attractive to us, nothing is really going to change that one way or the other. Around age twenty, everyone has a fair idea of what they do and don't find attractive and no amount of hanging around people who think differently is likely to change that. If someone discovers they're gay after hanging around gays, they were probably just lying to themselves beforehand.

Yes, yes, women's suffrage movement. Honestly, that makes sense- for all but one thing. Animals have historically never been given legal standing and furthermore, are very clearly not working on the same level as humans. Even Koko the gorilla couldn't speak with anywhere near what is expected of adult humans. They are to all effects and purposes incapable of getting beyond the mental capacity of a ten-year-old, if that. It would take a whole lot of legislation-changing to reorganize what is thought of as equating a human. Particularly, most pets are not capable of signing their own names, so definitions of a signature would also have to be changed. Unlike simply lifting a restriction, this would take a LOT of work. Furthermore, unlike sex between homosexuals, sex with animals is still generally banned under animal protection laws.

Thirdly, yes. I didn't know the numbers, but I kind of did guess. It's probably got to d a lot of Freud's work, but the general idea is that yes, what you're exposed to as a child makes an impact on what you find attractive growing up. So quite honestly, what needs to be argued there is the underlying assumption that gay is bad. I mean really- does the world need more people in it?  

[Meeatu]

Artemesia Greylace

First point- the real thing is that, although it is not impossible that some measure of what you're attracted to is determined outside of genetics, we all know that if someone isn't attractive to us, nothing is really going to change that one way or the other. Around age twenty, everyone has a fair idea of what they do and don't find attractive and no amount of hanging around people who think differently is likely to change that. If someone discovers they're gay after hanging around gays, they were probably just lying to themselves beforehand.

Yes, yes, women's suffrage movement. Honestly, that makes sense- for all but one thing. Animals have historically never been given legal standing and furthermore, are very clearly not working on the same level as humans. Even Koko the gorilla couldn't speak with anywhere near what is expected of adult humans. They are to all effects and purposes incapable of getting beyond the mental capacity of a ten-year-old, if that. It would take a whole lot of legislation-changing to reorganize what is thought of as equating a human. Particularly, most pets are not capable of signing their own names, so definitions of a signature would also have to be changed. Unlike simply lifting a restriction, this would take a LOT of work. Furthermore, unlike sex between homosexuals, sex with animals is still generally banned under animal protection laws.

Thirdly, yes. I didn't know the numbers, but I kind of did guess. It's probably got to d a lot of Freud's work, but the general idea is that yes, what you're exposed to as a child makes an impact on what you find attractive growing up. So quite honestly, what needs to be argued there is the underlying assumption that gay is bad. I mean really- does the world need more people in it?

1) Nonsense. Prove it. Sexuality and the such is always in constant flux. If we agree that nurture holds predominance over nature, then it has to be, given that the world we're living in is constantly changing. Take myself for example. I was first straight, until I was 15, then I was gay for the next 3 years, and since then, I'm still gay, but in love with a woman. Note: I didn't say I 'thought' I was straight, or suggest that my homosexuality was only being repressed. No. I 'was' straight. All it took was a change of circumstances, and I was straight no longer (In this case, meeting Kaylen and getting to know/understand both him, and the concept of homosexuality). Similarly, I did not after then like women at all. It's not like I just repressed the will to like them until recently. No. I was gay. And then circumstances changed, and now I'm in love with a woman.

2) My point exactly. Women have historically not been considered human. Same goes for 'nigers' (if you'll pardon me the idiom of the time), Australian aboriginals etc. They were all considered sub-human and were clearly incapable of rational thought. And yet lo' and behold they all have the right to vote now. Also, the inability to print their own name is irrelevant. Very rarely is a law as simple as lifting a band. Take gay marriage for example. It's not just allowing gays to get married, it's changing the legal definition of marriage altogether. Furthermore, I know bestiality is illegal in most places of the world, but that's what we're talking about... the future.

3) I agree completely.  

[Art Greylace]

Meeatu

1) Nonsense. Prove it. Sexuality and the such is always in constant flux. If we agree that nurture holds predominance over nature, then it has to be, given that the world we're living in is constantly changing. Take myself for example. I was first straight, until I was 15, then I was gay for the next 3 years, and since then, I'm still gay, but in love with a woman. Note: I didn't say I 'thought' I was straight, or suggest that my homosexuality was only being repressed. No. I 'was' straight. All it took was a change of circumstances, and I was straight no longer (In this case, meeting Kaylen and getting to know/understand both him, and the concept of homosexuality). Similarly, I did not after then like women at all. It's not like I just repressed the will to like them until recently. No. I was gay. And then circumstances changed, and now I'm in love with a woman.

You sure you aren't just bi?

Honestly, I am not sure that sexuality isn't something that can be changed. Peer pressure, particularly when you're young, can have a huge impact. It is EXTREMELY common for ment to date/marry women despite being gay because they're scared to admit they are- and then only realize they've been lying to themselves years down the road. However, this is similar to the "true love" concept- you have to question whether this is really something that's been true all along, or i they just changed their minds late in life.

I can easily imagine that hanging around gay people could make some people gay. But I can also imagine just as many people for whom meeting gay men reinforces their knowledge that they're straight as an arrow.

Just like, for example, advertisements- they can make you want a product, or get you so pissed at the company you never want to buy from them again. Some people are contrary.

Meeatu

2) My point exactly. Women have historically not been considered human. Same goes for 'nigers' (if you'll pardon me the idiom of the time), Australian aboriginals etc. They were all considered sub-human and were clearly incapable of rational thought. And yet lo' and behold they all have the right to vote now. Also, the inability to print their own name is irrelevant. Very rarely is a law as simple as lifting a band. Take gay marriage for example. It's not just allowing gays to get married, it's changing the legal definition of marriage altogether. Furthermore, I know bestiality is illegal in most places of the world, but that's what we're talking about... the future.

Yes. Actually, in Colombia, donkeys have historically been considered an acceptable alternative to women for young, sexually frustrated, men.

The suggestion that gay marriage opens the door to scarier things is really kind of scary to me and gets scarier every point you make, because it winds up implying that we should never have given women the vote because it opened the door to this debate- in short, that any and all social progression should not occur because it could lead finally to things that people now are unwilling to consider.

Meeatu

3) I agree completely.

Thank you.  

[Atrum_Anima]

Meeatu

2) My point exactly. Women have historically not been considered human. Same goes for 'nigers' (if you'll pardon me the idiom of the time), Australian aboriginals etc. They were all considered sub-human and were clearly incapable of rational thought. And yet lo' and behold they all have the right to vote now. Also, the inability to print their own name is irrelevant. Very rarely is a law as simple as lifting a band. Take gay marriage for example. It's not just allowing gays to get married, it's changing the legal definition of marriage altogether. Furthermore, I know bestiality is illegal in most places of the world, but that's what we're talking about... the future.

Speaking of fallacies, what you're discussing is a post hoc fallacy. You're suggesting that same-sex marriage will cause marriage between humans and animals, or at least cause it to be the next issue for debate. However, there is absolutely no evidence of this causation. There are no places in the world where marriage between humans and animals happened directly after same-sex marriage became legal, so you have no basis to say that one causes the other.
On another note, scientifically speaking, women and people of other races and ethnicities have always been human, not just on an anatomical level but on a genetic level. There is a distinct difference between the DNA of a human and a dog, or even a monkey (despite the fact that the DNA of a monkey is much closer to a human's). So, to suggest that "black people weren't considered human once, so in the future, dogs will also be considered humans" is flawed.

EDIT: I wanted to add that there seems to be this idea that, "If we start giving rights to these people, eventually everything (horses, rocks, clouds, planets, etc.) will have the same rights we have." But people don't realize that this will never happen. Why? Because so far, we've only been giving equal rights to scientifically-defined humans. This definition of human in scientific terms is static (at least as far as it is relevant). Unless the government literally goes insane, rocks will never have the right to vote, because rocks are not humans. The only things besides humans that could ever get equal rights would be intelligent extra-terrestrials (if we ever find them, if they exist).
Animals do have some 'rights', but in actuality, these 'rights' are just laws keeping humans from doing cruel things to them. Since animals can't comprehend human languages (comprehend: Just because a dog understands the word "pizza" or a parrot can say "Shithead" doesn't mean they comprehend the language) we have no way of definitively knowing a dog's opinion, if they even have one, on politics, consent, love, etc.

To be concise: Dogs are not humans.
Rocks are not humans.
Monkeys are not humans.
Plants are not humans.
Humans are humans.  

[Meeatu]

Atrum_Anima

Meeatu

2) My point exactly. Women have historically not been considered human. Same goes for 'nigers' (if you'll pardon me the idiom of the time), Australian aboriginals etc. They were all considered sub-human and were clearly incapable of rational thought. And yet lo' and behold they all have the right to vote now. Also, the inability to print their own name is irrelevant. Very rarely is a law as simple as lifting a band. Take gay marriage for example. It's not just allowing gays to get married, it's changing the legal definition of marriage altogether. Furthermore, I know bestiality is illegal in most places of the world, but that's what we're talking about... the future.

Speaking of fallacies, what you're discussing is a post hoc fallacy. You're suggesting that same-sex marriage will cause marriage between humans and animals, or at least cause it to be the next issue for debate. However, there is absolutely no evidence of this causation. There are no places in the world where marriage between humans and animals happened directly after same-sex marriage became legal, so you have no basis to say that one causes the other.
On another note, scientifically speaking, women and people of other races and ethnicities have always been human, not just on an anatomical level but on a genetic level. There is a distinct difference between the DNA of a human and a dog, or even a monkey (despite the fact that the DNA of a monkey is much closer to a human's). So, to suggest that "black people weren't considered human once, so in the future, dogs will also be considered humans" is flawed.

EDIT: I wanted to add that there seems to be this idea that, "If we start giving rights to these people, eventually everything (horses, rocks, clouds, planets, etc.) will have the same rights we have." But people don't realize that this will never happen. Why? Because so far, we've only been giving equal rights to scientifically-defined humans. This definition of human in scientific terms is static (at least as far as it is relevant). Unless the government literally goes insane, rocks will never have the right to vote, because rocks are not humans. The only things besides humans that could ever get equal rights would be intelligent extra-terrestrials (if we ever find them, if they exist).
Animals do have some 'rights', but in actuality, these 'rights' are just laws keeping humans from doing cruel things to them. Since animals can't comprehend human languages (comprehend: Just because a dog understands the word "pizza" or a parrot can say "Shithead" doesn't mean they comprehend the language) we have no way of definitively knowing a dog's opinion, if they even have one, on politics, consent, love, etc.

To be concise: Dogs are not humans.
Rocks are not humans.
Monkeys are not humans.
Plants are not humans.
Humans are humans.

Are you suggesting this hypothetical discussion could be argued (from either side) without employing post hoc logic? Should I perhaps have run a study, gathered my sample-size of people and had them have sex with people of their own gender, then stick them in a room with a pig and tell them to have fun? Aside from the fact that such a test would be completely illegal at the moment, it also wouldn't factor out any of the variables.

All one can do to suggest at causation in such circumstances is to look at both correlation, and historical evidence. And as for "There are no places in the world where marriage between humans and animals happened directly after same-sex marriage became legal, so you have no basis to say that one causes the other"... There are no places in the world where marriage between humans and animals happened, full stop. Rather a null point.

Are you suggesting that DNA coding has an input into how well society reacts to a group? I'd like to see you prove that. We're talking acceptance here, not biological similarity.

The scientific classification of a human is irrelevant when it comes to rights. What matters is LEGAL classification of a person, which have changed significantly over the years. If it was the other way around, and all that mattered was biological differentiation, then animal abuse would not be a crime. Clearly, over the years, animals have been considered differently from a legal standpoint, and been granted greater rights which (although they don't equate to) certainly mirror basic human rights. People (and creatures) can clearly be granted rights and status without having any understanding or input into the political process - rendering your final argument void.

And here's a funny point to part with.
In terms of pure terminology, it's actually more in keeping with the definition of marriage for animals to get married than for homosexuals to.
"man and woman" doesn't specify species.  

[Meeatu]

Artemesia Greylace

Meeatu

1) Nonsense. Prove it. Sexuality and the such is always in constant flux. If we agree that nurture holds predominance over nature, then it has to be, given that the world we're living in is constantly changing. Take myself for example. I was first straight, until I was 15, then I was gay for the next 3 years, and since then, I'm still gay, but in love with a woman. Note: I didn't say I 'thought' I was straight, or suggest that my homosexuality was only being repressed. No. I 'was' straight. All it took was a change of circumstances, and I was straight no longer (In this case, meeting Kaylen and getting to know/understand both him, and the concept of homosexuality). Similarly, I did not after then like women at all. It's not like I just repressed the will to like them until recently. No. I was gay. And then circumstances changed, and now I'm in love with a woman.

You sure you aren't just bi?

Honestly, I am not sure that sexuality isn't something that can be changed. Peer pressure, particularly when you're young, can have a huge impact. It is EXTREMELY common for ment to date/marry women despite being gay because they're scared to admit they are- and then only realize they've been lying to themselves years down the road. However, this is similar to the "true love" concept- you have to question whether this is really something that's been true all along, or i they just changed their minds late in life.

I can easily imagine that hanging around gay people could make some people gay. But I can also imagine just as many people for whom meeting gay men reinforces their knowledge that they're straight as an arrow.

Just like, for example, advertisements- they can make you want a product, or get you so pissed at the company you never want to buy from them again. Some people are contrary.

Given that I'm not sexually attracted to women, yeah.

You've confused, you're arguing two opposite points in the same paragraph.
Firstly, you say that sexuality is fluid, and can change (which I agree with), but then you suggest that rather than sexuality 'change' when you're older, it is simply 'uncovered' from a facade of another sexuality. That you were always of one sexuality, lying secret or dormant beneath another.

I'd suggest that the liberation of homosexual feelings can be permitted more easily in a homosexual community, so by associating with homosexuals, one makes it easier to tap into those feelings. You'd be surprised at just how deeply uncomfortable this makes people (even if they have almost no homosexual urges to let loose). Very few people are confident enough to simply be bolstered in their heterosexual path by a homosexual. It's where xenophobia springs from - it's less fear of the foreign or strange, as it is a fear of having to question your own way of life.

Though of course, I would never doubt that there are exceptions to every rule. But if you say that sexuality is not in constant flux, you'll need to prove it better than that.

Artemesia Greylace

Meeatu

2) My point exactly. Women have historically not been considered human. Same goes for 'nigers' (if you'll pardon me the idiom of the time), Australian aboriginals etc. They were all considered sub-human and were clearly incapable of rational thought. And yet lo' and behold they all have the right to vote now. Also, the inability to print their own name is irrelevant. Very rarely is a law as simple as lifting a band. Take gay marriage for example. It's not just allowing gays to get married, it's changing the legal definition of marriage altogether. Furthermore, I know bestiality is illegal in most places of the world, but that's what we're talking about... the future.

Yes. Actually, in Colombia, donkeys have historically been considered an acceptable alternative to women for young, sexually frustrated, men.

The suggestion that gay marriage opens the door to scarier things is really kind of scary to me and gets scarier every point you make, because it winds up implying that we should never have given women the vote because it opened the door to this debate- in short, that any and all social progression should not occur because it could lead finally to things that people now are unwilling to consider.

Ahhh, you're under the impression that it's a bad thing?
I never suggested that.  

[Art Greylace]

Meeatu

Given that I'm not sexually attracted to women, yeah.

Okay. Sure. Stranger things have happened.

Meeatu

You've confused, you're arguing two opposite points in the same paragraph.
Firstly, you say that sexuality is fluid, and can change (which I agree with), but then you suggest that rather than sexuality 'change' when you're older, it is simply 'uncovered' from a facade of another sexuality. That you were always of one sexuality, lying secret or dormant beneath another.

I don't think the two ideas are contradictory. I'm implying that though there may be some genuine flux, the "always-one-sexuality" is also a reasonable possibility in most cases.

Meeatu

I'd suggest that the liberation of homosexual feelings can be permitted more easily in a homosexual community, so by associating with homosexuals, one makes it easier to tap into those feelings. You'd be surprised at just how deeply uncomfortable this makes people (even if they have almost no homosexual urges to let loose).

I agree, but I also think that those people should suck it up. Being uncomfortable with things doesn't justify taking them down. The right to free speech doesn't make provisions for "but let's not expose people to things that might make them uncomfortable", and really neither should anything else.

Meeatu

Very few people are confident enough to simply be bolstered in their heterosexual path by a homosexual. It's where xenophobia springs from - it's less fear of the foreign or strange, as it is a fear of having to question your own way of life.

To the contrary, I know quite a few people who live in close contact with gays, and I am one of them myself, and I can assure you that there is a lot more real confidence in your 'nope, I'm straight' when you don't feel like being gay is wrong.

The use of xenophobia as in example is irrelevant because 'an unreasonable fear of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange', as wikipedia puts it, is something that doesn't characterize the majority of the population.

Meeatu

Though of course, I would never doubt that there are exceptions to every rule. But if you say that sexuality is not in constant flux, you'll need to prove it better than that.

It would seem common sense. Sexuality is not in constant flux, but it is liable to change. Thus, what you're attracted to may or may not change. The change is not constant, at least not for some/most people, because there are periods of stability between changes.

Meeatu

Ahhh, you're under the impression that it's a bad thing?
I never suggested that.

I'm not sure I did either. What are you referring do when you say it?  

[Atrum_Anima]

Meeatu

Are you suggesting this hypothetical discussion could be argued (from either side) without employing post hoc logic? Should I perhaps have run a study, gathered my sample-size of people and had them have sex with people of their own gender, then stick them in a room with a pig and tell them to have fun? Aside from the fact that such a test would be completely illegal at the moment, it also wouldn't factor out any of the variables.

All one can do to suggest at causation in such circumstances is to look at both correlation, and historical evidence. And as for "There are no places in the world where marriage between humans and animals happened directly after same-sex marriage became legal, so you have no basis to say that one causes the other"... There are no places in the world where marriage between humans and animals happened, full stop. Rather a null point.

Are you suggesting that DNA coding has an input into how well society reacts to a group? I'd like to see you prove that. We're talking acceptance here, not biological similarity.

The scientific classification of a human is irrelevant when it comes to rights. What matters is LEGAL classification of a person, which have changed significantly over the years. If it was the other way around, and all that mattered was biological differentiation, then animal abuse would not be a crime. Clearly, over the years, animals have been considered differently from a legal standpoint, and been granted greater rights which (although they don't equate to) certainly mirror basic human rights. People (and creatures) can clearly be granted rights and status without having any understanding or input into the political process - rendering your final argument void.

And here's a funny point to part with.
In terms of pure terminology, it's actually more in keeping with the definition of marriage for animals to get married than for homosexuals to.
"man and woman" doesn't specify species.

Anyone can make an argument without a post hoc fallacy, as long as there's an argument to be made. If you could explain how legalizing same-sex marriage will promote bestiality and/or marriage between humans and other animals, then your argument would have more credibility.

Although it's true that, historically, biology has only played a tiny part in politics and popular thought, this is not accurate in describing today's times. In discussions about everything from sexuality, to abortion, to stem cell research, to religion, people are using much more scientific evidence to support their arguments. Obviously, if marriage between a human and another animal ever became a serious issue, the big question would become, "Are animals people?". From a biological standpoint, the answer would most likely be "No" on the basis that other animals are not humans, can not speak a language, and thus are not "intelligent".

Again, I agree that animals are gradually getting more "rights". However, these "rights" are only being given to animals to protect them from abuse and cruelty. Animals rights groups like PETA have been the main advocates of these "rights". Since animals can't clearly show consent in a definitive way, the marriage between a human and another animal would be considered abusive towards animals by most animal rights groups (especially in terms of bestiality). It's also pretty clear to imagine the outrage that talks of these marriages would instill in the religious community.

On a personal level, I doubt that I've met a single person who would want human-animal marriage in the first place. I doubt that I've met a single person who wouldn't be heavily opposed to the idea. Realistically, who would want this kind of marriage to be legal at all?

Lastly, "Man" and "Woman" almost always refer to humans. I can't think of a single time where I've heard either of them refer to other animals. I only say "almost always" because I can imagine someone has used "Man" or "Woman" to refer to an adult of a species before. Looking at the dictionary, the most ambiguous definition of "Man" seems to be "a person", while all of the other definitions refer specifically to humans. So how does the idea of marriage being between "A man and a woman" leave room for human-animal marriages?  

[SharpenedMoonlight]

Homophobia can lead perfectly nice people to say, think, and do crazy things.  

[FunnyJump]

He's joking
dear god right