I don't think PA's Gabe is a Transphobic Bigot.

Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

stienman said:
It should be obvious to you that our society is becoming more sexually permissive as time goes on. Do you honestly believe there's a line that we'll suddenly see and stop, as a society, at what you now consider "ok"?

Dismissing a slippery slope argument isn't as easy as simply calling it out. You should at least show that there exists a limit, natural or unnatural, that will halt progression.

Bestiality is legal in at least Belgium, Germany, and Russia - and you can't call those countries backwater third world societies. What, exactly, is stopping the 37 US states where it is illegal from reversing course? There are fewer states with anti-zoophilia laws on the books than there are with anti-homosexual laws on the books.

Human sexuality is complex. There are over over 500 different types of atypical sexual attraction observed in homo sapiens. Only recently were LGBT attractions considered typical, previously they too were placed in the same list with bestiality and others you might scoff at.

There's no question that we're on a slope and starting to accept, as a society, all types of human sexuality.

I also find it quite entertaining that you would put forth bestiality as a "Well, at least it's not as bad as" comparison for sexual behaviors you now accept as ok. I'm pretty sure if you did that on twitter and you were a celebrity you'd be treated just as harshly as Gabe was.
Click to expand...

I think he used bestiality because this is the go to argument put forth by Fox News. It's like a common kneejerk reaction. "Gays can marry now, people will be fucking animals in the street within the week!"
 
Tress

Tress

stienman said:
What, exactly, is stopping the 37 US states where it is illegal from reversing course?
Click to expand...
The simple concept of consent. And that's why it is, and always will be, ridiculous and insulting to compare homosexuality to bestiality or pedophilia.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
To say nothing of those who consider gay marriage to be tantamount to opening the doors to marrying inanimate objects.

"Mr McMillan, what is your position on gay marriage?"
"The Rent Is Too Damn High Party feels, if you wanna marry a shoe, I'll marry you."
 
Tress

Tress

stienman said:
It's actually much more complex than that - animals can and do initiate sexual activity with humans. Don't even bring up pedophilia - age of consent is arbitrary, varies wildly worldwide, and, like animals, children below the age of consent also initiate sexual activity - and some of them understand as well as any teen above the age of consent.

As far as I'm concerned, none of these are acceptable foundations for family.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Animals cannot give legal consent. This is not up for rational debate.

Children cannot give legal consent. This is not up for rational debate.

I believe your attempts to argue semantics in order to twist and equate these two things with homosexuality are disingenuous.
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

So at what point does this get moved to the politics subforum?[DOUBLEPOST=1372718403][/DOUBLEPOST]
Tress said:
I believe your attempts to argue semantics in order to twist and equate these two things with homosexuality are disingenuous.
Click to expand...
Next post will be that he wasn't equating; just discussing.[DOUBLEPOST=1372718458][/DOUBLEPOST]
 
Tress

Tress

stienman said:
Of course not. Rational debate has long since left the stage. There is no rational reason for society to encourage homosexual marriage by providing the same benefits they use to encourage heterosexual marriage.
Click to expand...
... and this is the part where I realize I've wasted my time talking to you at all on this subject.

Have fun being on the wrong side of history.
 
Frank

Frank

I'm not playing some dumb numbers game where you equate giving people equal rights to irrationality. It's fucking ridiculous.

You're being fucking ridiculous.
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

Frank said:
I'm not playing some dumb numbers game where you equate giving people equal rights to irrationality. It's fucking ridiculous.

You're being fucking ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Stienman is usually a very rational guy, but I feel this is one issue in which his personal religious beliefs overpower any ability to have a conversation.
 
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

I'd have thought that increasing the number of financially-stable parental units available to adopt foster children by itself would have been a fairly large incentive to legalize it.

Let alone, you know, the equal rights thing.
 
Cog

Cog

Is this gay marriage one of those things that are completely right and everyone who thinks otherwise is an intolerant bigot?
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

SpecialKO said:
I'd have thought that increasing the number of financially-stable parental units available to adopt foster children by itself would have been a fairly large incentive to legalize it.
Click to expand...
From what I gathered from a previous thread in the politics subforum, Steinman feels the jury's still out on whether homosexual couples should be adopting kids at all.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

stienman said:
There is no rational reason for society to encourage homosexual marriage by providing the same benefits they use to encourage heterosexual marriage.
Click to expand...
I took this statement completely at face value, and I agree with it, as it is stated. Encouraging homosexuality is a lot like encouraging celibacy. The net result is that births per capita will go down, and this means that the society in question will shrink. Ergo, it is harmful (and therefore irrational) for society to promote homosexuality. Look at what has happened to the Shakers, for instance. You would think that a society which values men and women equally would automatically flourish and prosper, would you not? Well, turns out it's apparently not that simple, and their tenets of Faith were not structured well for long-term survival.

I don't say this because I have some kind of man crush on stienman , either. I say it because it is logically correct. I believe a number of forumites may have colored in his black-and-whites with the colors they thought were appropriate and then been displeased with what they saw, but I believe the statement was meant to be regarded as colorless.

--Patrick
(I am frequently misunderstood for what I believe to be similar reasons, so it's possible I could be projecting a little)
 
Frank

Frank

PatrThom said:
I took this statement completely at face value, and I agree with it, as it is stated. Encouraging homosexuality is a lot like encouraging celibacy. The net result is that births per capita will go down, and this means that the society in question will shrink. Ergo, it is harmful (and therefore irrational) for society to promote homosexuality. Look at what has happened to the Shakers, for instance. You would think that a society which values men and women equally would automatically flourish and prosper, would you not? Well, turns out it's apparently not that simple, and their tenets of Faith were not structured well for long-term survival.

I don't say this because I have some kind of man crush on stienman , either. I say it because it is logically correct. I believe a number of forumites may have colored in his black-and-whites with the colors they thought were appropriate and then been displeased with what they saw, but I believe the statement was meant to be regarded as colorless.

--Patrick
(I am frequently misunderstood for what I believe to be similar reasons, so it's possible I could be projecting a little)
Click to expand...
Alright, what about this?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/boo...es-maybe-thats-why-theyre-still-among-us.html

Homosexuality directly contributing to the continuation of the species.

It isn't so cut and dry as that. You say he means it colourless when it's obvious his predisposition colours his opinions on the matter.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Frank said:
Alright, what about this [article about gay uncles]?
Click to expand...
I've had a gay uncle for 30+ years. It's great. Everyone should have one*. I even forwarded the article to him when I first found it. He'd already read it.
Frank said:
it's obvious his predisposition colours his opinions on the matter.
Click to expand...
My dear fellow, everyone's predisposition colours their opinions about everything. At this very moment, my predisposition is actively colouring your** opinions even as I read them! That tiny deflection of meaning is why people get divorced, nations go to war, and popular television shows get canned. How confident are you that what you are hearing matches what is being said?

If you follow my posts in other threads, you'll see I was called a "monster" for stating that I thought there were people who deserved to die. To that I can only respond that, if you laugh while reading the Darwin Awards, or can't wait to see the next episode of "Dexter", well...let's just say that this colours my opinion of you** a little bit.

--Patrick
*gay or not, uncle or otherwise, everyone should have at least one non-family member who supports you and loves you unconditionally despite not being a blood relative. It's wonderful. Helps you learn how to deal with people who are different, too.
**3rd person plural
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

For the record, with the resources of the planet being strained as much as they are, homosexuals are doing more for humanity than people who are pumping out multiple drains on the world resources.[DOUBLEPOST=1372755458][/DOUBLEPOST]That being said, I think I'll be putting steinman on ignore for a while so one or both of us don't end up getting banned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top