Well, yeah, that’s my point.
I could probably explain that better. There is, legally, a clear distinction between same-sex and different-sex couples. There shouldn’t be; they are both two people who love one another and that’s all we need to know. They should both be allowed marriage; giving them something different gives them something unequal, and denying equality to gays and lesbians only promotes intolerance.
This is a good example that proves the point that you guys just refuse to understand. She probably did have good parental supervision and societal role models, when she was young. But she’s lived quite a long time since then. She is less a product of her parents now than she is a product of society. My argument isn’t about specifics like one single old lady or one homosexual couple. It’s about the general condition of society. I have to use specific examples to get my point across, and that is why her lawsuit is an excellent one. Her lawsuit is a product of society. She wasn’t RAISED to sue. Her willingness to sue was CREATED by society. It’s the WHOLE of SOCIETY that encouraged her to sue. Had frivilous lawsuits not been so accepted or encouraged, she would not have sued McDonalds. And if she did sue, it would be for medical bills and reasonable pain and suffering.
I see you still haven’t read up on the specifics of her case.
While this whole “It wasn’t her, it was society’s fault” tact is rather amusing (Party of Personal Responsibility, anyone?), you really don’t seem to know the first thing about the case, other than it involves McDonalds and coffee. It has been discussed numerous times here, including quite recently in the Pit, so the facts are readily available to you, where you might learn that that is exactly what she was after. What medical lawsuits have to do with SSM is still hazy. You still have some bizarre “Leave it to Beaver” esque idea of what society was and now is.
I linked to his article because, as I said, I thought he could cogently present my argument more clearly than I. I was obviously wrong about that one.
Okay. I’m busted. The specific case of the coffee burn was a bad example. I see that she tried to settle, and bravo for her. But that doesn’t refute my argument at all. Frivilous lawsuits ARE too common today. They ARE evidence of the corruption and selfishness of society.
And this has what to do with SSM?
But that’s what makes us question whetheryour estimation of what the “general condition of society” is an accurate one: all the examples you seem to be providing, which presumably are what helped you form your image of the general condition of society, seem to be poor or misunderstood examples.
Again: you obviously didn’t read the case because she originaly did sue for a fairly minor sum: barely enough to cover her medical bills, ignoring pain and suffering recompense entirely. McDonalds refused to settle for that sum. What pressed her to continue the suit was when she found out that McDonalds was also refusing to do anything about the problem in question, even though there had been almost 700 other related incidents. The ultimate purpose of the suit (and most awards of that size) was to change McDonald’s irresponsible behavior: and it succeeded. McDonalds now serves it’s coffee at a temperature that, when spilled, will cause minor scald burns just like everyone expects coffee too (just like coffee everywhere else that everyone is used to dealing with)… instead of serving it at an extreme and uncommon temperature that was enough to melt flesh in seconds.
See? You guys aren’t getting it. SSM is a continuation of the devaluation of the family. The devaluation of the family is partly responsible for the worsening condition of society.
Apos, You’re right about the lawsuit. We must have been involved in some kind of simulpost. Read two posts before yours.
In response to your accusation that I don’t understand the general condition of society, let me ask you this, are people (in the US) more selfish today than 50 years ago? Are they more over-indulgent now? Do they seek to fulfill selfish pleasures first, then do for others? I say yes. That is what I mean by the worsening condition of society. And it is responsible for much of today’s suffering. I say that reducing the effectiveness of family is at the heart of this trend. And SSM continues the trend, because it further reduces the effectiveness of the family*. SSM is not responsible for the condition of the world, but it lies along the path.
*A baby/child/adolescent/teen needs to be raised by a woman and a man. The child needs positive male and female role models in the home. I’m not saying that a gay man or a lesbian cannot be positive role models. They certainly can. But they can only be one kind of role model, either male or female. It’s no secret that men don’t understand women, even gay men. And I think it’s safe to say that lesbians don’t get men 100% either. So how is a male/male marriage or a female/female marriage supposed to provide both role models for their children?
Thank you so much Cicada for recognizing and defending that I am not voicing or promoting hate. Indeed I love all of God’s creatures. I am tolerant, but I vote my opinion. I’m deeply sorry that my vociferousness, passion, and defensiveness is giving the impression that I hate homosexuals. I certainly don’t.
Based on what demonstratable facts? If I say “no”, how do you contradict that?
You have not effectively demonstrated any of this to be true, other than your opinion. Nor have you linked this to any ‘decline’ of society. So far, all you have is assertion, without proof. The part about “men not understanding women, not even gay men” and its opposite reads like something out of a stand-up comic’s routine.
Except you cannot separate voting against rights for homosexuals from the homosexuals themselves. The parallel to the civil rights movement of the 60s seems too obvious to even point out here. Tolerance does not include keeping people in a societal prison. It seems an attempt to deny that there are real people involved in this. “I’m not against you, Joe the homosexual, I’m just against homosexuals.”
No, it’s not. We’ve said repeatedly why it’s not and how it’s not. It is demanding family. It is strengthening family. It is acknowledging that family is so important that we are willing to be criticized and humiliated and put on display specifically for our right to have family.
Who exactly is “not getting it,” here?
I don’t. I simply disagree.
Well, it’s a good thing then that my purpose is not to prove anything to you. Only to give you reasons for why I vote a certain way.
As a related hijack*, I honestly believe that civilization has created many (not all) homosexuals. I’m not blaming any of you personally (it’s society’s fault-and you can’t blame any individual for partaking in society). But I also think that a lot of homosexuals would not feel the way they feel towards or agains any sex if certain things didn’t happen to them in their lives. And it’s not just rape or incest. Many women “experiment” with bisexuality. I know that it’s not too uncommon for a woman to swear off men after she has had too many bad sexual experiences with men and too many good sexual experiences with women. (Yet another reason to be against pre-marital sex.) Does the fact that other women know how to get her off make her a lesbian? Who is she physically attracted to? What makes her sexually aroused? Why does she have sex in the first place? Is it for self-gratification or to express her love for the other party? I say these lesbians really aren’t lesbians. Had they never experimented, I believe most of them would have met a sexually man who was willing to communicate with her and they would have a sexually fulfilling marriage together. I’m not saying that lesbianism isn’t possible from birth. But the line between homosexuality and heterosexuality is becoming more grey.
*If you really want to discuss, let’s open up another thread.
Unacceptable basis for your argument.
You seem to be under the impression that no one should try and refute you. You have expressed your opinion, and now other are expressing their opinion of your opinions, are countering your beliefs with facts. It is Great Debates, after all.
I think what you “know” about homosexuality and its “causes” could fill a thimble and seems to come from the thinnest and most condesending stereotypes imaginable.
Do you also believe that civilization is responsible for homosexual behavior in other species? If not, why would it be different for humans?
I’d be interested in seeing that thread.
Did you read what I wrote earlier? I wasn’t safe in schools, and that was before anyone in my small town admitted to knowing what homosexuality was. To someone who finds herself at the bottom of society, schools haven’t been safe for over 30 years. Check out the suicide rates among teenagers. Oh, please consider that being told attracted to the people one’s attracted to, wanting simple human contact with a peer one finds attractive means one is a hopelessly immoral sinner might increase the odds of severe depression and suicide, which just might account for the higher suicide rate among teens.
An old friend of mine, a guy I’ve known since 5th grade has been with the same partner for over a decade now. If one of them were female, they would be legally married, and it’s as good a marriage as any I’ve seen. They’ve bought a home together, have a few pets, and, in general, live a nice comfortable suburban existence. If one of them were a woman, no one would think twice about this. Because that’s not the case, people like you will label them immoral and a threat to society.
Since you refused to rise to my bait earlier (probably wise of you), I admit to being a straight woman. I can have a picture of the gentleman I’ve been seeing on my desk at work, hold hands with him in a restaurant, and hug and kiss him good-bye in public and not have to worry about anyone thinking I’m a threat to society or flagrantly immoral because of it. I certainly don’t have to worry about being on the receiving end of physical violence. As a gay man, Spectrum doesn’t have that privilege, and the inequality troubles me greatly. Once again, I urge you to read the “What Is Gaybashing Like?” thread so you can see what types of immorality your beliefs can result in if carried to a logical extreme.
You’ve posited that openly acknowledging homosexuality exists and allowing homosexuality pose a vague and nebulous “threat to society”. I’d like concrete evidence. I cannot see how allowing a class of people to marry would increase promiscuity or sexual immorality. Even if you consider homosexual sex inherently immoral, I can’t see that allowing them to marry would increase instances of homosexual sex. Indeed, isn’t there an old joke that marriage decreases the amount of sex two people get? I heartily agree with you that children should be raised by two parents and I do consider having children outside of marriage to be immoral. However, I’m not entirely sure how this ties into homosexual marriage logically, although obviously you think it does. We had a record number of people killed by their spouses this year in my area. Are you honestly trying to tell me it would be worse for a child to be raised by two homosexuals who love and respect each other than by a man or the parents of a man who killed their mother? Is it honestly better for a child to be raised by a lesbian living alone than by two lesbians in an honest, committed relationship? If so, why? Also, if the raising of children is so important, then why are you so focussed on homosexual marriage? Why not do something about reducing the divorce rate or speaking out against those forces which make single parenthood more likely? If you don’t want society to encourage things which are prohibited by the Bible, why don’t you speak out against adultery, which is specifically prohibited by the 10 Commandments and Christ? If you’d tell me adultery isn’t an issue in this society, I’ll point out to you that there were rather loud and vocal protests about Ellen when Ellen DeGeneres revealed she was gay, but I never heard of anyone protesting Frasier which had adultery as a running joke.
I do, unfortunately, know of one case in real life where a homosexual directly destroyed a marriage, and I am close enough to one of the participants to know. What destroyed my friend’s marriage had nothing to do with this individual’s homosexuality and everything to do with the vicious gossip, lies, and rumours he spread for his own aggrandizement. It’s been my experience that gossip, lies, and rumours do far more harm than sexuality, especially when those three are directly at one’s sexuality. As I may have mentioned earlier, a few years ago, in the high school I used to go to, “virgin” was used as insultingly as “gay”. If you want to change society for the better or protest the way it’s deteriorating, I suggest you do something about the former, especially if you’re going to take on the latter.
In my opinion, your arguments hold less water than a colander. Indeed, some of the things you’ve written could have been written by Socrates, if I recall. Yes, people sue. A few years ago, I was prepared to be a witness if a lawsuit was brought against a man who sexually harrassed a 19 year old girl who worked for him. I would have been party to the suit because he tried to harrass me. The reason I used the word “tried” is because I worked in a different department and outranked him. In the ideal world you posit, this would have been swept under the rug, as it was to my regret, and this man would have been free to continue to act the way he did.
You say “selfishness” has increased. In what way? Look, I was raised by an engineer. I need something more than vague terms. Also, if it’s selfish to want to come home to one person in particular who loves you and who wants to be with you and be free to acknowledge that relationship in public then add me to the “selfish” list.
I’ve thrown a lot at you early in the morning, and I realized you haven’t acknowledged a word of written so far, but I’ve still got to give it a shot. Look, if nothing else I’ve written gets through to you, please read that “What Is Gaybashing Like” thread, if only so you can see why some of us object to your beliefs as strongly as we do.
CJ
Er… riiiiiiiiiiight. This sounds like a perfectly unbiased, objective look at the effects and society of homosexuality. I’d like to see some cites backing up these claims, at the very least, before I do anything short of laughing at the mention of “OSC”
This is so patronising, and it boils down to: “try to understand, they don’t hate you personally, they’d just vote for a hateful amendment denying you equality.” Great. These people probably have gay friends, too.
At last! A real example to back up the unpleasant assertions. And you are going to educate us as well, despite our ‘prejudice’. :eek:
Cite?
Cite?
An **excellent ** example. Good. Now we can get down to discussing facts.
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
Well this is a useful education for you. Instead of just spouting wild propaganda, have some evidence to back up your case.
Actually having every example you give comprehensively refuted does indeed refute your argument. It should also make you wary of further such blunders.
Apparently not. :rolleyes:
Cite?
Cite?