New Jersey and the "Culture Wars"

From politics to poetry, if it isn't covered in one of the other forums and you want to share it with us, put it here.

Re: New Jersey and the "Culture Wars"

Postby -Thrax » Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:46 am

I think that it's really an issue of pragmatism right now. People of different sexual persuasions are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, simply born that way. For them not to be able to participate in what is essentially the sign of cultural legitimacy is a real disservice to the values of Western democracy.

Frankly, the "rights" of those who want multiple wives don't seem to me to be very much a big issue. Not only is it not a pressing constitutional concern, but, as I mentioned, some of the people who practice it represent an attitude towards women that I find genuinely reprehensible. You aren't "born" a polygamist -- the number of wives you choose to marry is not a genetically pre-determined thing.

T
-Thrax
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: New Jersey and the "Culture Wars"

Postby warmongerclub » Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:48 am

Quote:
Do you think if it were legal Nidal would suddenly start marrying 13 year olds?


Don't answer that Nidal.

- Nidal's Lawyer
warmongerclub
 
Posts: 2037
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:24 am

Re: New Jersey and the "Culture Wars"

Postby -hokiegamer » Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:55 am

Thrax,

Yes. There's even some good evidence now that homosexuality is a trait that occurs in people for the same reason other hereditary quirks do: it helps the species in the long run.

Which is why some of that evidence is rather distressing to the religious folks and has been somewhat ignored in the media for the last two years.

And I agree. I can't say everyone who practices polygamy is a wife abusing, child molesting and generally dirty piece of sh*t. But that's what they seem to be from my experience. I'm not too interested in supporting their claims for constitutional rights because of those experiences.

For the same reasons, because of experience, I'm very interested in supporting my friends and other homosexuals who want to be able to be legally recognized as married according to the state.

Chris
-hokiegamer
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:43 pm

Re: New Jersey and the "Culture Wars"

Postby mauleed » Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:57 am

Quote:
People of different sexual persuasions are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, simply born that way


You can't possibly know that to be true.

Frankly I don't care if people are gay or straight as a matter of choice, fashion, or DNA. Personally, I think it's likely different degrees of each for each individual.

But regardless, you're effectively arguing that people are born pedophiles or beastiophiles (made that one up), and while I'm sure it's true in some cases that people are born wanting to fuck sheep and such, I'm not willing to agree that most sheepfuckers are born that way.
mauleed
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 2:23 pm

Re: New Jersey and the "Culture Wars"

Postby -Thrax » Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:03 am

*shrugs*

To be honest, I haven't given much thought to the genetic or behavioral predisposition of bestiophiles. Again, an issue of pragmatism: there either isn't enough of them for me to care, or that their behaviour is, regardless of its origin, bordering on the abuse of a creature who has no say in the act. Ergo: it's violation, rape, and should be dealt with as in the case of pedophiles and rapists. Once again, this is a smokescreen: we're not talking about an act between consenting adults.

T
-Thrax
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: New Jersey and the "Culture Wars"

Postby mauleed » Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:10 am

But what if the sheep likes it? We can't know for sure it wasn't born a sheep pervert, into fucking humans (of course to the scorn of it's sheep peers).

For the record though, I firmly believe sheepfucking is Baaaaaaahhhhd.

Regardless, I find the notion that people can't simply choose to be gay silly. I agree that some people are born pre-disposed to being gay. I've no doubt there's a genetic component. But to say that we have no choice in who or what we screw is, on some minor level, somewhat offensive to me.

And that is said with no malice to any, gay or straight. If I were gay I'd be just as offended that someone insisted I had no part in the decision making process.

I just think it's ok to say that some people opt to be gay, and that it still shouldn't be held against them. Being gay or straight isn't intrisicly good or bad. The argument that it's primarily genetic seems, at least to me, to imply we should feel some sort of pity for gays, or that we should accept them only because they are forced into that life and couldn't be 'like us' if they tried.
mauleed
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 2:23 pm

Re: New Jersey and the "Culture Wars"

Postby -hokiegamer » Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:11 am

Ed,

I think the term is zoophilia, but beastialty always seemed to sound more deviant.

Apparently, there is evidence that some people are born more likely to engage in social/sexual deviancy. But I don't think anyone can say what part of the population those people make up.

Anyway, it's been a while since I was back in NJ/NY. I hould be back this Christmas to visit with the folks.

Anyone seeing fallout from this decision? Any protests or plans for a "Marriage Sunday" broadcast from Trenton? Any gay or lesbian reps in the NJ state legislature that are trying to get a bill passed that would enact something like what Ken said: Consenting Adult Human = OK to marry?

Chris
-hokiegamer
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:43 pm

Re: New Jersey and the "Culture Wars"

Postby -Thrax » Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:31 am

Ed,

Certainly, people can choose to perform homosexual activities. Certainly, they can also choose a life partner who is of the same sex as they are, without considering themselves "inherently" homosexual. I don't argue with any of that. It's not an entirely deterministic issue.

On the other hand, for some people, this "persuasion" is so strong that to not be ALLOWED to engage in it is to infringe upon their rights and freedoms as free-thinking adults. And that is what is at issue here -- it's clearly more complicated an issue than either/or on the born that way/choose to be that way spectrum. But if too much weight is given to the "choose" argument, then it becomes an "option", and in the legal sense, this makes it more tenuous, as it then moves into territories such as the polygamy argument. There are plenty of people out there for whom this is how they feel, not how they chose to feel. And it seems as if this has been the case throughout history, and in nearly every society. That alone is enough to persuade me that it's not an entirely socialized phenomenon -- after all, there have not been that many "gay-friendly" societies throughout history. It's not a "welcoming" environment in which too many people would "choose" the option of being persecuted!

Quote:
But what if the sheep likes it? We can't know for sure it wasn't born a sheep pervert, into fucking humans (of course to the scorn of it's sheep peers).


As for this, I'll just say this: it doesn't matter. Not one bit. Again: CONSENTING ADULTS.

T
-Thrax
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: New Jersey and the "Culture Wars"

Postby mauleed » Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:42 am

I was assuming an adult sheep.

As for:

Quote:
there have not been that many "gay-friendly" societies throughout history.


I don't know if that's true either.
mauleed
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 2:23 pm

Re: New Jersey and the "Culture Wars"

Postby -Thrax » Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:52 am

From what I understand, and I'm not claiming authority on this, is that in the majority of instances where we could deem it "friendly" it was only "tolerated", and even then, only outside of the law. Ancient Greek society, from what I've been led to believe, saw widespread practice of homosexuality, despite it being illegal according to the observing laws. There is the old story about Socrates being boy-crazy, and that he was prosecuted for it not actually because of the act of pederasty (it was with boys, by the way), but because it was "out in the open". In this case, the laws of social decorum were stronger than the moral imperative.

So the old passive aggressive bigotry of, "do what you want, just don't let me see it" seemed to apply back then as much as now. :rolleyes

T
-Thrax
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:37 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron