Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | ... | 41
3044 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 467

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 793154 4-Apr-2013 13:18
Send private message

Klipspringer:


You're aware of these annoying things called "recessive genes" right?  i.e. ones that do not present in every generation?  Also, genetics isn't entirely decided by the parents - all sorts of changes can occur during in-utero development.

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  Reply # 793168 4-Apr-2013 13:36
Send private message

Kyanar:
You're aware of these annoying things called "recessive genes" right?  i.e. ones that do not present in every generation?  Also, genetics isn't entirely decided by the parents - all sorts of changes can occur during in-utero development.


Show me scientific proof that those "recessive genes" contain the so called "gay gene"

I have been asked to supply scientific proof now numerous times in this thread to back up some of my opinions.

Until this so called "gay gene" is discovered I am going to have to say Adios amigos ...

Its pointless to carry on here. PM me when this gene is found.

Play nicely guys. The debate has been good.

My apologies if I have offended some. It was by no means intentional. Just expressing my views and my sincere apologies to those that have been offended by my posts.

 
 
 
 


998 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 168

UberGroup

  Reply # 793188 4-Apr-2013 13:48
Send private message

I do love how you avoid the hard questions, enjoy your second "quitting" of this thread




Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated 

1083 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 63

Trusted

  Reply # 793205 4-Apr-2013 13:57
One person supports this post
Send private message

Beccara: Your argument centered around...

Take what I said, or leave it. I can't really be much more clear than:

My point is that the size of the change makes it hard to present any incontrovertible evidence to oppose the move... but that doesn't negate the validity of the opposition.


"There are people such as myself that think that the breakdown of the family unit and/or morality in society is responsible for the rise in violent and sicker crimes over the last 30 years"

This is in every way provably false

Maybe it is; maybe it isn't. I think it is subjective, which is (at the risk of repeating myself) why I didn't try to make an argument about it. Rightly or wrongly it is my position, and I'm telling you up-front that you would have to present remarkably overwhelming evidence (in other words, replace my brain) to cause me to change that view. Again, I'm not trying to make this point and I strongly suggest that it would be a waste of your time to continue to respond on this subject.

The example I listed was simple on purpose, This isn't the stats of "muggings done per year while the offender was wearing pink" stat's this was cold,hard,basic stat's of bodies in the ground by the hand of another.

While those metrics are important and conveniently very measurable, in my opinion they don't make a good measure of the society's morality (which is what the comment that you've picked out was about).

Your fighting a "social trend" that's in your head, The world seems scary now to you because you can't bury your head in the sand of ignorance.

It was after reading this comment that I knew you'd completely misunderstood me or are intentionally trying to pick a fight. I hope it is the former. To be clear, I'm not scared of the world. I'm a 26 year old single white male with money in the bank and a well paying job. The world is my oyster. I'm saddened at the choices that some people make, but... scared?

I imagine a few people in here anti-gay would be spitting alot more hate if you were around other's like you privately, Which does sadden me as I had hoped we would have moved past this crap after segregation and slavery

I don't fully understand what you mean in the first part of that comment, but it seems like you're saying that my viewpoint is tantamount to the views of people that supported segregation and slavery.
*sigh*
If you had read my posts earlier in the thread you would find that I'm [reluctantly] pro-SSM. For that reason I don't really understand why you're attacking me. If you feel you need to resort to these sorts of comments then I would suggest that you consider why you're participating in the debate. If your objective is to convince everyone that doesn't hold the same opinion as you that their viewpoint/opinion is wrong or flawed and that yours is correct or better then you'll likely be disappointed that people probably hold the same opinions after 29 pages of discussion.

1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user


  Reply # 793222 4-Apr-2013 14:22
Send private message

Klipspringer:
1080p:
Once again, how will this amendment affect those bringing up children in heterosexual marriages?

The answer which you've refused to supply a half dozen times already is that it will not. At all.

Its a question that I have been giving a lot of thought. And I have been pondering whether I should try and answer it or not. I had chosen not to because of what it relates to. But here is my answer it anyway.

Not sure if you are familiar with the term "affirmative action"?

The affirmative action law tries to eliminate racial differences between applicants for jobs, uni entrances,  etc... but guess what! It creates a new target for discrimination, white males. (There are many white South Africans who emigrate to New Zealand. I wonder why?)

This law is trying to eliminate the so called discrimination against gay couples but it will at the same time open discrimination to those people who oppose it. The proof is actually in this thread. The so called Bigot racists!!!!!

People are different. We all have different views about different things. The law is trying to force people to be the same and just accepting of everyone and everyone sharing the same views. The natural differences between people is huge, yet some people are insisting that there should be no differences at all. No law can change that.

With regards to adoption. in the name of fairness, children will be distributed to same sex couples. How will that affect hetrosexual marriages? I think it will have an affect on hetrosexual married couples who are wishing to adopt.

In the name of fairness, Churches may be forced to marry gay couples.

How will this law affect current traditional marriages? You right not by much. But long term I think it will.

I have tried answering your question. Would you mind answering mine?

Back on the subject of Gay being a choice. As said earlier its what I believe. Why is there no such thing as a "gay gene"? We have genes for our hair colour, everything else. But none for being gay. Science has not proved that there is such a thing.

This is why I believe being gay is a lifestyle choice. Until somebody can find that "gay gene" I will continue to believe that. And as long as I beleive that its a choice we going to be bumping heads continuously on this thread.




I have already answered your question. There is no 'best' environment for a child to be brought up in. One cannot objectively state that two heterosexual parents are better than two homosexual parents because that data either does not exist or is incredibly inconclusive/circumstantial. There is a lot of data confirming that two parents are better than one in most circumstances.

I'm familiar with the idea behind affirmative action. In terms of homosexual couples potentially adopting children it will not apply given that they have been adopting children for years now. Children being adopted are not casually distributed among waiting couples. There is a very high standard that needs to be met before adoption is allowed. This will not change under the amendment.

Persecution of people who oppose this law does not exist. Persecution of ideas which a patently false or irrelevant to the argument does exist.

How would you feel if NZ law said: "murder is wrong because Jesus told us not to kill one another." with no other mention as to why it was wrong or an infringement of a person's right to life? I imagine most Christians would not mind at all but everyone who is not Christian would be upset. This is precisely what we're saying when we argue against religion having any determinant when we define legal marriage. Christian marriage may be defined as Christians desire, the same is true for Islamic marriage and Hindu marriage and so on. As long as no laws are broken or rights infringed upon religion is free to do as it pleases.

The argument against bigots in this thread is based upon ideas around marriage which are strongly religious and the refusal to allow every person in New Zealand an equal chance because your religion prohibits it - and no other valid reason.

At no point is anyone persecuting opponents with legitimate claim to oppose this amendment but it is fair to persecute those who assume, in a bigoted fashion, that their religion is a basis to set law in a free society. I guarantee you would be the first to use this argument if New Zealand proposed that every child must read from the Quran and pray to Mecca while at school.

You're correct. People are different. All this amendment will accomplish is to set a level playing field for all relationships under the law. Christians are perfectly entitled to define marriage as they see fit and there will never be any compelling a Christian church to marry someone who is not in a heterosexual marriage. That would be religious persecution and something no one here wants. In fact, given that the majority of homosexuals realise that Christianity rejects their relationships, I doubt they will have any desire to be married in a church.

I'm willing to hear you out with regard to your thoughts on how heterosexual marriage will change long term if we allow homosexual couples to marry too. Please elaborate.

1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user


  Reply # 793256 4-Apr-2013 14:55
Send private message

mm1352000:
1080p: Even if you're correct (there is no evidence I have seen to support this yet) and an environment with a biological mother and father is the best environment for a child to be raised in. Why does it matter?

Is the burden of proof (if there is one) is on proponents of SSM to prove that raising a child in a SSM family is not harmful, or is it the other way around? I've seen anecdotal evidence from both sides presented, but not scientific evidence. Although I think the question of the best environment is somewhat irrelevant (things are never ideal/perfect anyway), the question of "is an SSM family environment harmful to the childrent?" is definitely relevant.

Once again, how will this amendment affect those bringing up children in heterosexual marriages?

If you ask me, that is a leading question and not entirely fair.

The change doesn't have to affect me or a particular societal group that I am a member of for me to have an opinion on it (or indeed to object to it). I think a change (such as this) that is more likely to have an impact at a wider societal level should be considered as such. To me your question is like saying to a non-drinker that they can't have an opinion about alcohol reform because they choose not to drink, but of course that position ignores the wider societal impacts of alcohol (the binge drinking culture etc. etc. etc.). Admittedly the impacts of SSM on society are comparatively much harder to quantify than those of alcohol, and there is much less of a consensus on what is positive and what is negative (because it is more subjective)... but that doesn't mean that there won't be (or aren't already) effects or that people are not entitled to believe SSM has a wider impact (either for good or ill).

There are people such as myself that think that the breakdown of the family unit and/or morality in society is responsible for the rise in violent and sicker crimes over the last 30 years. I was talking to my Grandma about this yesterday and she remembers when there was hardly a [high profile] murder per year in New Zealand. So I ask you what has changed? My answer to that question is that society's values have changed for the worse; more of a focus on consumerism and greed, less of a focus on family and morality. In some ways changes like legalising prostitution and legalising SSM seem to be more steps along that path.

How does one fight such a societal trend?

The step change is always small in legal terms, which makes it hard to say that it will have a measurable impact on society. For example, think of the arguments about decreasing the age of alcohol purchase several years back. It was hard to show that it would make a practical difference. My point is that the size of the change makes it hard to present any incontrovertible evidence to oppose the move... but that doesn't negate the validity of the opposition.


I'd agree. The philosophical burden of proof does rest on the shoulders of those suggesting we expand our definition of marriage. The arguments for this are simple.

Basic observation would be my number one argument. Observe the fact that homosexual relationships have existed for thousands of years and across the globe marriage-like relationships have been entered into by homosexual couples for a long time now. Have we witnessed any problems as as direct result of homosexual marriage-like relationships? Not to the best of my knowledge.

Given the fact that homosexual couples have been adopting and raising children for a long time now across the globe, are there any major issues with that arrangement compared to, for example, single parents/foster families/orphans and so on...? Not to the best of my knowledge. I agree there are, as you have said, plenty of anecdotal accounts and 'evidence' that both this may or may not be the case. We could spend years trolling the parenting blogs and throwing links back and forth for discussion on this idea.

Given that it has been happening for some time and no real evidence one way or the other has emerged I would err on the side of no, it is not harmful. If you were to approve a new car for manufacture and the incident rate over the car's lifetime was neither higher or lower than the other types of cars you produce then it is safe to assume no fault exists with that design.


I agree with you that the question is leading. It was meant to be. I was being asked to answer a leading question by another commenter and wanted to make a point.

I also agree that one does not need to be a drinker in order to have an opinion on the debate. If I were to quote the Bible and argue that drinking to excess is prohibited by God and actually expect people who weren't Christian to take that opinion seriously then I would firstly be little help and secondly be holding an unjustified point of view in terms of an objective debate regarding drinking. Holding religious views is perfectly fine but when debating something in open society there must be something behind the views to back them up or no one will take any notice.

I'm happy to reply to your thoughts that homosexual marriage is contributing to the breaking down of the family unit. If entering into a family unit (marriage) by two members of the same sex is considered breaking down the family unit I don't know if it is possible to save the family unit.

I see that you're basically arguing a slippery slope here which is normally considered a fallacy especially so in this case as contributing to moral breakdown is almost impossible to define. From what point were morals 'better' than they are today? I would argue that the ease with which one may obtain information today has simply illuminated that which man has always been and was merely dark back in your grandmother's day.

EDIT: I accidentally a word.

998 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 168

UberGroup

  Reply # 793273 4-Apr-2013 15:15
Send private message

mm1352000:
Beccara: Your argument centered around...

Take what I said, or leave it. I can't really be much more clear than:

My point is that the size of the change makes it hard to present any incontrovertible evidence to oppose the move... but that doesn't negate the validity of the opposition.


"There are people such as myself that think that the breakdown of the family unit and/or morality in society is responsible for the rise in violent and sicker crimes over the last 30 years"

This is in every way provably false

Maybe it is; maybe it isn't. I think it is subjective, which is (at the risk of repeating myself) why I didn't try to make an argument about it. Rightly or wrongly it is my position, and I'm telling you up-front that you would have to present remarkably overwhelming evidence (in other words, replace my brain) to cause me to change that view. Again, I'm not trying to make this point and I strongly suggest that it would be a waste of your time to continue to respond on this subject.

The example I listed was simple on purpose, This isn't the stats of "muggings done per year while the offender was wearing pink" stat's this was cold,hard,basic stat's of bodies in the ground by the hand of another.

While those metrics are important and conveniently very measurable, in my opinion they don't make a good measure of the society's morality (which is what the comment that you've picked out was about).

Your fighting a "social trend" that's in your head, The world seems scary now to you because you can't bury your head in the sand of ignorance.

It was after reading this comment that I knew you'd completely misunderstood me or are intentionally trying to pick a fight. I hope it is the former. To be clear, I'm not scared of the world. I'm a 26 year old single white male with money in the bank and a well paying job. The world is my oyster. I'm saddened at the choices that some people make, but... scared?

I imagine a few people in here anti-gay would be spitting alot more hate if you were around other's like you privately, Which does sadden me as I had hoped we would have moved past this crap after segregation and slavery

I don't fully understand what you mean in the first part of that comment, but it seems like you're saying that my viewpoint is tantamount to the views of people that supported segregation and slavery.
*sigh*
If you had read my posts earlier in the thread you would find that I'm [reluctantly] pro-SSM. For that reason I don't really understand why you're attacking me. If you feel you need to resort to these sorts of comments then I would suggest that you consider why you're participating in the debate. If your objective is to convince everyone that doesn't hold the same opinion as you that their viewpoint/opinion is wrong or flawed and that yours is correct or better then you'll likely be disappointed that people probably hold the same opinions after 29 pages of discussion.


What is the "correct" measure of morality then? You are saying homosexuality is immoral and in your view immortality of world today is why it's a nasty place.

As for fighting against small change being impossible I call rubbish to that, Small changes are stopped all the time they just aren't worth the ink sometimes. I don't know why this debate has lingered on children for so long, Gay's already have kids, can already get kids and have done so for some time now so this section whilst opening another door for them is fairly moot on the "think of the children!" front

You are a single, straight,employed, white male - Part of group that is least likely to suffer hardship in their lifetime, least likely to face discrimination and least likely to be on the receiving end of attitudes like the one you hold right now. As such you are part of a group with the most to lose from change

The world right now is your oyster, As change occurs this statement can become more true or less true but neither of us can say for sure which way.

I'm in the debate because people should stand up against acts of hatred and discrimination no matter how hidden it is and that's what this is, People quietly breathed a sigh of relief when a pope was elected who was only anti-gay rather than one of the candidates who defended Africa's "Kill the gays" law.

This sums up the issues with lefties/greenies/liberals today:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCSMyFWTjRc

So my question to you is this, Why are you reluctant to support SSM other than the moral decline?




Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated 

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 56


  Reply # 793285 4-Apr-2013 15:38
2 people support this post
Send private message

freitasm:
Klipspringer: Lets make it a “perfect relationship” then. A  great loving marriage between a husband and wife. No social issues, a  loving relationship. A family raising kids.

Now take that exact same “perfect” relationship and substitute the female from above with a male. Or Vice-versa

Which family structure is best for the upbringing of the child?

It’s a no brainer.


"which family structure is best for the upbringing of the child" is whichever family structure shows this child love. It could be a mother and father, two fathers or two mothers.

Yes, a no brainer.




No it's NOT a no brainer. Mothers and Fathers bring very different perspectives to a marriage because males and female are different (although there are those these days who would deny that).
Studies prove this, even left-wing studies. 

Yes, if it is not possible for a child to have a mother and a father then of course it is up to whoever can care for the child to care for them the best - if a parent is lost or something, but this is very different from consciously choosing a single parent or two same-gender parents over a child's biological mother and father.

A family structure can "show love" to a child as best they can, but "love" is no qualifier as to whether one structure is better over another. 


Leading mainstream child-advocacy organization Child Trends:

An extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage… Thus, it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seem to support child development.  (Emphasis in original)

This paper can be found at: http://www.childtrends.org/files/MarriageRB602.pdf

1083 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 63

Trusted

  Reply # 793320 4-Apr-2013 16:31
One person supports this post
Send private message

1080p: I'd agree. The philosophical burden of proof does rest on the shoulders of those suggesting we expand our definition of marriage. The arguments for this are simple.

Basic observation would be my number one argument. Observe the fact that homosexual relationships have existed for thousands of years and across the globe marriage-like relationships have been entered into by homosexual couples for a long time now. Have we witnessed any problems as as direct result of homosexual marriage-like relationships? Not to the best of my knowledge.

Although I'm not particularly familiar with the history of homosexual relationships or what medical and social sciences have to say, I'd have to agree that I have not observed direct problems myself. However my gut response from purely naturalistic observations says: homosexual relationships can't produce children, so why should relationships which do not [naturally] result in children be conferred with the legal privileges of a relationship that I would argue is intended for safeguarding children? Something doesn't feel right about that.

For me this leads to questions like "if a homosexual relationship cannot naturally produce children, then what is its purpose?". Further, "what is legal recognition of 'marriage' meant to convey? - acknowledging the fact that some kind of relationship exists between two people, sanctioning a relationship between two people... the list goes on".

Given the fact that homosexual couples have been adopting and raising children for a long time now across the globe, are there any major issues with that arrangement compared to, for example, single parents/foster families/orphans and so on...? Not to the best of my knowledge.

Again, I agree with the same caveat as above. Though other situations that you mentioned are not "natural" arrangements (in the sense that the child is not looked after by both its biological parents), for me homosexuals parenting children is slightly different.

Fundamentally, my belief is that parents are meant to be role models for their children.

So what does it say to a child when their parents are the same gender?

Regardless of what you believe about homosexuality, I think you'd have to agree that sends a message to the child that homosexuality and amorous same-sex relationships are normal. And yet, I don't think nature shows this to be the case. Yes there are possibly examples that someone will want to bring to my attention, but the exception doesn't make the rule. So in other words, a family of two homosexual parents and one or more children to me seems like an anomaly, and this law is artificially normalising/supporting it.

To me, same-sex people in a platonic relationship (ie. friends, and nothing more) to be caring for a child in an informal arrangement due to extenuating circumstances is one thing. Same-sex people in a romantic relationship recognised by the law choosing to adopt children is quite another.

Given that it has been happening for some time and no real evidence one way or the other has emerged I would err on the side of no, it is not harmful. If you were to approve a new car for manufacture and the incident rate over the car's lifetime was neither higher or lower than the other types of cars you produce then it is safe to assume no fault exists with that design.

To be clear, in saying this to me you are saying that you have no problem with a homosexual relationship being the primary relationship that a child may model his or her relationships and sexuality on for the rest of their life. Yes?
I think this clearly gets into "morality territory" which I think you're asking me to avoid. Suffice to say that although I'm sure a homosexual individual can be a great role model in many respects, the homosexual model of sexuality is not one that I would want to present as a normative example to my children.

I also agree that one does not need to be a drinker in order to have an opinion on the debate. If I were to quote the Bible and argue that drinking to excess is prohibited by God and actually expect people who weren't Christian to take that opinion seriously then I would firstly be little help and secondly be holding an unjustified point of view in terms of an objective debate regarding drinking. Holding religious views is perfectly fine but when debating something in open society there must be something behind the views to back them up or no one will take any notice.

Yep, absolutely - fair enough.

I'm happy to reply to your thoughts that homosexual marriage is contributing to the breaking down of the family unit. If entering into a family unit (marriage) by two members of the same sex is considered breaking down the family unit I don't know if it is possible to save the family unit.

I see that you're basically arguing a slippery slope here which is normally considered a fallacy especially so in this case as contributing to moral breakdown is almost impossible to define. From what point were morals 'better' than they are today? I would argue that the ease with which one may obtain information today has simply illuminated that which man has always been and was merely dark back in your grandmother's day.

Yeah, I see your point of view here. I guess the summary of what I'm saying is a parent is a role model with a lot of power to influence child's perspective on the world. Those children form our society of the future. If we normalise things for our children, we normalise them for the society of the future. That is the limit to which I intend to rely on a slippery slope.

In moral terms, I think the prevalence of certain family arrangements that we have today (single parents, foster parents... etc.) are at least partially a consequence of our society's consumerism and desire for immediate gratification. Especially the sexualisation of so many aspects of our culture and acceptance of sleeping around for sexual gratification.

I don't want to reject or hate people but I am going to put my foot down and say I don't think homosexuality is a natural environment for raising children.

Note: I'm aware this is a debate of whether to legalise same sex marriage and that I've strayed into topics like same sex adoption. From my perspective we're starting from a false position. I can't effectively argue my position from an acceptance of same sex adoption; I do object to that.

1083 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 63

Trusted

  Reply # 793355 4-Apr-2013 17:16
One person supports this post
Send private message

Beccara: What is the "correct" measure of morality then? You are saying homosexuality is immoral and in your view immortality of world today is why it's a nasty place.

I get the impression that you're trying to lure me into a trap with the first question. Either to get into an argument about which measure to use, that it is impossible for one measure to be perfect, or to attempt to use the measure that I name to prove that I am empirically wrong. Again, my original comment was not the important point in my post, but it seems like you're going out of your way to pick up on it. As if discrediting that belief will change an attitude that you seem to have taken issue with.

To be honest I'm still somewhat confused as to whether you're angry with me or just intentionally baiting me.

Where did I say I believe homosexuality is immoral? Please use direct quotes.
What I have said is that I come from a Christian background. That upbringing has had a very profound influence on my world view. An excellent example of why it is important to take care who you allow to be role models for your children. (That is intended to be funny. Laughing ). I think the world can be a nasty place today because of the choices people make. What we believe (what I call morality) has a large influence on our choices. So yes, I think we have to be careful what and who we choose to believe.

As for fighting against small change being impossible I call rubbish to that, Small changes are stopped all the time they just aren't worth the ink sometimes.

When the consequences are clear then the right choice to make in a small decision is obvious. That is not the kind of change I'm talking about, and I don't think SSM is one of those changes. Would you care to give a concrete [political] example please if you want to debate this further.

I don't know why this debate has lingered on children for so long, Gay's already have kids, can already get kids and have done so for some time now so this section whilst opening another door for them is fairly moot on the "think of the children!" front

As I said in my previous post, that is a false position for me. Honestly, I don't know if I can make a coherent argument against supporting SSM if I accept such arrangements. But to be clear, for me it is as much a "think of the children!" argument (ie. the children raised in a SSM family) as it is a "think of our society and think of what my children might have to face argument".

You are a single, straight,employed, white male - Part of group that is least likely to suffer hardship in their lifetime, least likely to face discrimination and least likely to be on the receiving end of attitudes like the one you hold right now.

The first bit is something I'm very aware of - part of the reason why I said it in the context of "the world is my oyster". Can you please clarify the last bit - *exactly* what attitude is it that I hold that you are taking issue with. Please be as specific as you can.

As such you are part of a group with the most to lose from change

The world right now is your oyster, As change occurs this statement can become more true or less true but neither of us can say for sure which way.

I said the world is my oyster only to show the contradiction between my true point of view and the fearful view that you claimed I hold. Again, I'm not afraid of the world though I am saddened by the choices that some people make. I fully acknowledge I can't say for sure how the world will change in the future.

I'm in the debate because people should stand up against acts of hatred and discrimination no matter how hidden it is and that's what this is, People quietly breathed a sigh of relief when a pope was elected who was only anti-gay rather than one of the candidates who defended Africa's "Kill the gays" law.

You seem to have assumed that discrimination, hatred and a desire to kill gay people all follow from not supporting SSM. I'm sorry but I don't agree with that statement. I have the capacity to disagree with somebody without reprisal, hating them, or killing them. I think that is normal for all but the most extreme humans. And for what its worth, all the Christians I grew up with and still know now are the same in that respect.

This sums up the issues with lefties/greenies/liberals today:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCSMyFWTjRc

I watched the video, but I don't fully understand what you're trying to say by sharing that. Either about me or about yourself. Would you care to elaborate?

So my question to you is this, Why are you reluctant to support SSM other than the moral decline?

As I said in my previous post, it is not obvious to me that a homosexual example of sexuality being the primary example for a child is a good thing.

119 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 17


  Reply # 793361 4-Apr-2013 17:31
One person supports this post
Send private message

Klipspringer: I dont believe there is such a thing as a "gay animal"
bisexual yes.


And you would be....wrong again  Undecided

998 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 168

UberGroup

  Reply # 793374 4-Apr-2013 17:55
One person supports this post
Send private message

mm1352000:
Beccara: What is the "correct" measure of morality then? You are saying homosexuality is immoral and in your view immortality of world today is why it's a nasty place.

I get the impression that you're trying to lure me into a trap with the first question. Either to get into an argument about which measure to use, that it is impossible for one measure to be perfect, or to attempt to use the measure that I name to prove that I am empirically wrong. Again, my original comment was not the important point in my post, but it seems like you're going out of your way to pick up on it. As if discrediting that belief will change an attitude that you seem to have taken issue with.

To be honest I'm still somewhat confused as to whether you're angry with me or just intentionally baiting me.

Where did I say I believe homosexuality is immoral? Please use direct quotes.
What I have said is that I come from a Christian background. That upbringing has had a very profound influence on my world view. An excellent example of why it is important to take care who you allow to be role models for your children. (That is intended to be funny. Laughing ). I think the world can be a nasty place today because of the choices people make. What we believe (what I call morality) has a large influence on our choices. So yes, I think we have to be careful what and who we choose to believe.

As for fighting against small change being impossible I call rubbish to that, Small changes are stopped all the time they just aren't worth the ink sometimes.

When the consequences are clear then the right choice to make in a small decision is obvious. That is not the kind of change I'm talking about, and I don't think SSM is one of those changes. Would you care to give a concrete [political] example please if you want to debate this further.

I don't know why this debate has lingered on children for so long, Gay's already have kids, can already get kids and have done so for some time now so this section whilst opening another door for them is fairly moot on the "think of the children!" front

As I said in my previous post, that is a false position for me. Honestly, I don't know if I can make a coherent argument against supporting SSM if I accept such arrangements. But to be clear, for me it is as much a "think of the children!" argument (ie. the children raised in a SSM family) as it is a "think of our society and think of what my children might have to face argument".

You are a single, straight,employed, white male - Part of group that is least likely to suffer hardship in their lifetime, least likely to face discrimination and least likely to be on the receiving end of attitudes like the one you hold right now.

The first bit is something I'm very aware of - part of the reason why I said it in the context of "the world is my oyster". Can you please clarify the last bit - *exactly* what attitude is it that I hold that you are taking issue with. Please be as specific as you can.

As such you are part of a group with the most to lose from change

The world right now is your oyster, As change occurs this statement can become more true or less true but neither of us can say for sure which way.

I said the world is my oyster only to show the contradiction between my true point of view and the fearful view that you claimed I hold. Again, I'm not afraid of the world though I am saddened by the choices that some people make. I fully acknowledge I can't say for sure how the world will change in the future.

I'm in the debate because people should stand up against acts of hatred and discrimination no matter how hidden it is and that's what this is, People quietly breathed a sigh of relief when a pope was elected who was only anti-gay rather than one of the candidates who defended Africa's "Kill the gays" law.

You seem to have assumed that discrimination, hatred and a desire to kill gay people all follow from not supporting SSM. I'm sorry but I don't agree with that statement. I have the capacity to disagree with somebody without reprisal, hating them, or killing them. I think that is normal for all but the most extreme humans. And for what its worth, all the Christians I grew up with and still know now are the same in that respect.

This sums up the issues with lefties/greenies/liberals today:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCSMyFWTjRc

I watched the video, but I don't fully understand what you're trying to say by sharing that. Either about me or about yourself. Would you care to elaborate?

So my question to you is this, Why are you reluctant to support SSM other than the moral decline?

As I said in my previous post, it is not obvious to me that a homosexual example of sexuality being the primary example for a child is a good thing.


The video reflects the sad state of the left, Too scared to call a bigot a bigot and stand up and say enough is enough.

Your view is to deny a right you enjoy to another, Thats the basic's of it. Because someone is different to you in their sexuality you are not prepared to give them the same rights as you. That's not disagreeing with someone that is discrimination and discrimination is born from fear. You can't respect someones belief when denying them something.

Everything above this basic principal is just fluff and position polishing, I do have to hand it to the anti-SSM crowd tho, They have learned alot about how to swing fence sitters over to their side. The campaigns are quite flashy whilst's targeting the heart-string plucking "think of the children" debate.

I'm neither angry with you nor baiting you, I'm sure your a nice person outside of your homosexual opinions but for too long the left has cowered away from calling a spade a spade. 
 




Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated 

1083 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 63

Trusted

  Reply # 793386 4-Apr-2013 18:32
Send private message

Beccara: The video reflects the sad state of the left, Too scared to call a bigot a bigot and stand up and say enough is enough.

Thanks for explaining.
I'm interested to know: why do you think Destiny church marched? They claimed they were standing up for what they believed and their very slogan was "enough is enough". Of course everyone called them hateful and intimidating bigots for doing that. I think you're saying that you're effectively doing the same (standing up for what you believe in, that is) and I have no problem with that. But what's fair for one has to be fair for another too.

Your view is to deny a right you enjoy to another, Thats the basic's of it. Because someone is different to you in their sexuality you are not prepared to give them the same rights as you. That's not disagreeing with someone that is discrimination and discrimination is born from fear. You can't respect someones belief when denying them something.

You did read that I'm pro-SSM, didn't you?
I'm pro-SSM precisely because I recognise the law is not an appropriate medium for enforcing moral beliefs (whatever they are - Islamic, Christian, Atheist or otherwise) and because I fundamentally believe in treating others as I'd like to be treated myself. The so called "golden rule" if you will. The opinions you have of my view seem to be entirely the opposite of the views I actually hold. I'm absolutely and fully prepared to give people the same rights as me (if they'll accept any corresponding responsibilities), even when I disagree with them.

I really honestly feel like you've misunderstood my position. Yes, I've played the devil's advocate a bit, and yes I have some internal conflict about what I believe that has obviously come out in what I've written. But ultimately I want to be very clear that the last thing I want to convey is hate or discrimination. That simply isn't me.

Everything above this basic principal is just fluff and position polishing...

That is a huge simplification. Again I have to say take me at my word or don't.

I do have to hand it to the anti-SSM crowd tho, They have learned alot about how to swing fence sitters over to their side. The campaigns are quite flashy whilst's targeting the heart-string plucking "think of the children" debate.

Both sides have powerful arguments, I think. That is part of the reason why I have internal conflict. It is not a subject where things are cut and dried for me.

I'm neither angry with you nor baiting you, I'm sure your a nice person outside of your homosexual opinions but for too long the left has cowered away from calling a spade a spade. 
 

I apologise to you (and anyone else) that has been offended by what I've said here. In my defence, I don't think I said that I believe homosexuality is immoral. For the record, I'm not sure what I believe.

2450 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 147


  Reply # 793531 4-Apr-2013 21:54
Send private message

toprob: Don't worry, folks, nobody is asking you to give up your current spouse and jump into an arranged marriage with someone of your own gender, they are just saying that anyone not yet married needs to find a same-sex partner. No, wait, that's not right, either...


That seems to be what anti-equal marriage people are worried about!

2450 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 147


  Reply # 793533 4-Apr-2013 21:54
Send private message

Klipspringer:

OK then don’t make it a perfect relationship then. Just make both the same. Good, great you choose. The only difference is a gay couple opposed to a Mom and Dad. Everything else is the same.

Which environment is better for the kid to grow up in?



Which is better vs which is likely to actually happen?


1 | ... | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | ... | 41
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.