?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Debating...

As it is getting long, and kind of verbose, I thought the rest of you might want to read it.

What? Well razorboi and I are having an interesting debate about gay marriage on one of my old entries.

If anyone thinks I've missed something (or I've dropped the ball and am infact way off base), feel free to join in and/or correct me.

Comments

( 21 comments — Leave a comment )
winters_edge
16th Jan, 2006 14:30 (UTC)
You might consider questioning whether a barren partner (female or male) in a marriage lacks the essential physiological chemicals necessary to give them the "proper" elements of a mother or father, since the argument of the opposition seems to be that a male and female influence are both required to properly raise a child, although they do not need to be the procreators of said being.

Additionally, you could ask if razorboi has ever noted that some people (women) tend to take on stereotypical male roles, such as becoming the main breadwinners and giving the discipline, etc, or a man happens to be more domestic and does all the cooking, shopping, and nurturing, and things of that like. If it's admitted that these traits have been noticed in individuals and are outside of what are considered to be the "norm" by the other side in your debate, you could then mention that it is theoretically possible for a same sex couple to contain one individual with stereotypical personality tendencies for their sex, and the other NOT TO, which would then give the child they are rearing both a mother and father influence in their lives.

Not to mention, that there are books and studies out there that will prove and disprove both sides of this argument, so quoting from any one expert over another is relatively useless; lying with statistics is easy, because the point of any good statistical study is to answer a question that was asked, not to prove a point, per se, or disprove one. It will do that in the course of answering, and that is what we call truth.
darkcryst
16th Jan, 2006 15:18 (UTC)
Exactly - which is why I laugh at those surveys that have a population of about 100 people and then make broad statements about the world at large.

There's a nice joke about that actually:

A Statisictian, Scientist, and Mathmatician are on a train together. They pass a field with a single white sheep in it. Moved to comment the Statisiction says
"Ahh, all sheep are white."
The scientist smiles, but shakes his head.
"No, no. All sheep that are in fields are white."
The Mathmatician also smiles and leans forward,
"There exists a field, which contains a single sheep, of which at least one side is white."

winters_edge
16th Jan, 2006 18:00 (UTC)
It is a good joke, and makes valid points. :) What's funny is that the statistician I live with would answer like the mathmatician. If, however, you were employing him? Well, he'd ask you:

"Why do you need to know if the sheep are white?"
darkcryst
16th Jan, 2006 19:35 (UTC)
haha, yeah thats true.

Its the same in software development though: different perceptions.
Back End Programmer: What does the application have to do?
Front End Programmer: What does the user have to do?
Designer: What does the user want to do?
mrs_silmarwen
16th Jan, 2006 14:44 (UTC)
Never in their wildest dreams could the Founders have envisioned a time in which homosexual marriage was a legitimate issue.
If they had been paying attention to history, they would have known that the ancient Romans did indeed marry women, but gave their love & sex consequently to their male lovers.
But ofcourse a lot of information that didn't "suit" them, was covered with the sand of time.

The Founders ideal was strict separation of church and state, but with the Bushes for president their dream seems to evaporate.

darkcryst
16th Jan, 2006 15:12 (UTC)
Yeah, I sort of alluded to that in another point (the one about gay marriage begets poligamy and beastiality).

Plus most of these arguments are about male - male relationships. Lesbians don't seem to be as bad, retoric wise, I wonder if thats because of the intial *squick* factor.

As I said to a friend of mine "dude, relationship talk is cool, but I don't need to visuallise you having hot sweaty butt-sex with a guy. It's a mental image of you I don't need!"
mrs_silmarwen
16th Jan, 2006 15:31 (UTC)
Not only because of that, but some people (amongst them Hitler) said/say that homo's are wasting seed that they could have produced children with. When lesbians make love, that isn't the case.

A teacher of mine once said something very interesting: "men seem to accept lesbians more than homo's, women seem to accept homo's more than lesbians."
I have no idea why that is, though...

Personally, I don't want to envision ANY of my friends in any kind of sexual position, whether gay or hetero.
darkcryst
16th Jan, 2006 15:55 (UTC)
hehe, true.

I think the opposites thing is because just that - a guy sees (in his fantasy) two hot women. What's not to like? Same with a woman - she sees two hot men. It's a visual thing - avoids the squick factor.

As far as the seed thing goes: when they manage to put the same effort into outlawing masturbation, then I'll concider that as a pillar of their argument.
mrs_silmarwen
16th Jan, 2006 17:04 (UTC)
^_^

That must be it.
Reminds me of another eppy of Oprah, where men tried to explain to women what the value was of porn; they need visualisation, whereas women need erotic stories on paper as stimuli. (Hence the popularity of "Harlequin"-book and slash.)lol

Well, I think there are still organisations (and not only in the USA, but all over the world) preaching masturbation is a sin. The republicans might very well be one of those, I don't know...
darkcryst
16th Jan, 2006 17:16 (UTC)
Ture, us men are visual creatures for the most part. However that's just the stymulus: how the fantasy is created. I've seen a lot of women pontificate about how that makes mens fantasies more.. I dunno... dirty.

Which of course makes no sense at all!
mrs_silmarwen
16th Jan, 2006 17:24 (UTC)
I suspect that their arguments would be that it is sinful/dirty because the actors REALLY have intercourse (and this while they not love each other at all), while their paper characters are just fiction and not humans of flesh and blood that can be exploited and/or risk (fatal) diseases.
darkcryst
16th Jan, 2006 19:32 (UTC)
Well it doesn't have to be hardcore porn though does it? Also many women enjoy that sort of porn.

Either way: thats the medium that's "dirty", not the fantasy. The fantasy often has nothing specific to do with the visuals.
mrs_silmarwen
16th Jan, 2006 19:41 (UTC)
Don't go soft on me now! :P
Yeah, I know.

The fantasy often has nothing specific to do with the visuals.
Now that you mention it, it makes sense. I think a lot of women/people tend to forget that or don't know about that.

winters_edge
16th Jan, 2006 18:02 (UTC)
My teenage daughter encounters that particular "squick" factor a lot in school. Her guy friends often think it's just fine for chicks to be gay, because "two girls together is hot," but gay guys, apparently? NOT okay, because of the mental image you mentioned. Good gravy, just detach from the image, double-standard dudes.
darkcryst
16th Jan, 2006 22:55 (UTC)
haha, oh dear. yeah, that's exactly the problem I think.

Oh well :(
rethought
16th Jan, 2006 15:11 (UTC)
You both have points. I don't want to cause any further argument, you seem to have plenty over there. :)

darkcryst
16th Jan, 2006 15:24 (UTC)
Oh sure. I'm not saying "hey jump in here and side with me", while most of my friends on here are what would be termed in the US as "left-wing liberals" (hah!) I'm glad I do have a few who aren't. It's all about balance :)

Obviously my side on the issue is pretty aparent, but I'm interested as to the arguments (ie, reasoning) of people who believe differently.

razorboi was doing quite well presenting the reasoning behind his opinion (even if I think/can argue that it's based on incorrect evidence) until his most recent "lifestyle" comments.
bodelian
5th Feb, 2006 01:45 (UTC)
Balance is overrated.

And let's face it, I am smarty-pants. I am conservative by my friend's point of view- so count your blessings you don't know them.

His responses are offensive at a fundamental level. He seems to be a misogynist to boot, as he only responds to your comments with any reasoning. Both of our (beachglass83 and mine) responses were met with mocking and derision. Like girls aren't smart enough to talk to- what an eejit.

And he doesn't speak sarcasm either.
darkcryst
5th Feb, 2006 13:02 (UTC)
True, I'd call most of what he's saying offensive. Especially some of his later comments.

I guess I was using the idea of "know thy enemy" but applying as "Know the other sides mind-set"

Which was all well and good until he started basically making statements that he bases on his own faith in the truth of them, not factual basis.
miriammiriam
16th Jan, 2006 18:50 (UTC)
fuck everyone and let god sort it out

darkcryst
16th Jan, 2006 19:35 (UTC)
hahahahaha! A good point ;)

Morning ;)
( 21 comments — Leave a comment )