UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

This argument is Dung, I don't understand why someone else love life and commitment affect anyone elses values. They're not asking to get married in your churches all it come down to is equal rights for all and people who can't deal with that to mind their own business.

Big Ev wrote:I guess I'm ok with happy marriage, but the really happy people make me quite uncomfortable. You know, the ones who work at steel mills and wear buttless chaps. Also, the happy pride parade is unnecessary and quite uncomfortable as well.

The happy pride parade will be necessary until attitudes like these are a thing of the past.

Tuk Tuk wrote:Diddle traditional morals and values. Traditional roles includes men holding all the power, basically buying women to be their wives, and stoning women who were raped.

There's a reason why my generation mainly supports happy marriage. Its all the natural progression.

First of all, stoning was never a traditional value, unless you want to talk about the Middle East (or do you want to bring the Salem witch hunts into this?)

However, I'm actually more curious what you mean by "the natural progression". Progression to what, exactly? Clearly, from the emotions-aside, strictly-nature and life-finds-a-way point of view, homosexuality is an aberration; it does not promote the species. You can argue that it is a matter of choice, or that it is a matter of how they were created/made, but you cannot argue that it is not the way it was intended by nature. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, evolution -- no matter what you want to call it, homosexuality does not "fit in" well.

Sorry to have gone off on a tangent, a bit. Back to this progression . What if cousins want to marry? First cousins, is that OK? How about brothers and sisters, or parents and their children? Abhorrent, you say? Why? What makes homosexuality more acceptable than incest (provided everyone has reached the age of consent, of course)? There are no laws against marrying someone old enough to be your son or daughter, just not you son or daughter (or sibling or first cousin). The underlying reason for this (other than the ick factor) is that it's a bad thing to do from a genetic point of view. It may promote the species, but in a potentially dangerous way, whereas homosexuality simply does not promote the species. You can argue semantics, how one brings about the extinction of the species more quickly than the other but, really, what is the point?

So I'll ask you again. Progression to what? Are you prepared to defend same-sex marriage while continuing to prohibit same-family marriage? Or how about inter-species? Or self-marriage (there was a movie on, the other night, where an unmarried woman in her 30s decided to marry herself; cute, but makes you think).

Or we can just return to talking about hockey.

Flo The Action wrote:

Big Ev wrote:I guess I'm ok with happy marriage, but the really happy people make me quite uncomfortable. You know, the ones who work at steel mills and wear buttless chaps. Also, the happy pride parade is unnecessary and quite uncomfortable as well.

The happy pride parade will be necessary until attitudes like these are a thing of the past.

Really? If I see a heterosexual couple start fondling each other in public I'd be uncomfortable. As a father of two young girls I am quite disturbed when I see teenage girls putting their wares on display. I watch Dancing with the Stars and I have no problem with Bruno -- in fact, he's probably my favorite of the judges. But they showed an old '80s Elton John video where he was one of the featured dancers (I'm still standing) and it clearly made me feel uncomfortable. There were butt-less chaps involved, among other things.

Maybe Big Ev could have expressed himself more eloquently, but what's wrong with feeling uncomfortable with very blatant sexuality displayed in public?

wprager wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:

Big Ev wrote:I guess I'm ok with happy marriage, but the really happy people make me quite uncomfortable. You know, the ones who work at steel mills and wear buttless chaps. Also, the happy pride parade is unnecessary and quite uncomfortable as well.

The happy pride parade will be necessary until attitudes like these are a thing of the past.

Really? If I see a heterosexual couple start fondling each other in public I'd be uncomfortable. As a father of two young girls I am quite disturbed when I see teenage girls putting their wares on display. I watch Dancing with the Stars and I have no problem with Bruno -- in fact, he's probably my favorite of the judges. But they showed an old '80s Elton John video where he was one of the featured dancers (I'm still standing) and it clearly made me feel uncomfortable. There were butt-less chaps involved, among other things.

Maybe Big Ev could have expressed himself more eloquently, but what's wrong with feeling uncomfortable with very blatant sexuality displayed in public?

Without being disrespectful I'd say what that's called is a hang-up.
Alot of people have them, admitting you have one and then finding ways to get passed them seems to me to be the way to go. Why should other people have to not have the same rights because some of us can't get beyond what we feel. Live and let live.

spader wrote:

Tuk Tuk wrote:Diddle traditional morals and values. Traditional roles includes men holding all the power, basically buying women to be their wives, and stoning women who were raped.

There's a reason why my generation mainly supports happy marriage. Its all the natural progression.

Agreed. Traditional values brought us things like colonization, patriarchy, slavery, gender inequality, and homophobia. I can't understand why we continue to cling to traditional "values" when we're so willing to innovate in every other aspect of our lives.

I guess it depends on your definition of tradition. Or, perhaps, the scope of it.

A long, long time ago we were cavemen. A man would pick up a club, hit the woman over the head with it, and drag her to his cave. You may now kiss the bride. Is that tradition?

How is slavery a traditional value? Gender inequality has a long history, but I wouldn't call it tradition. My mother, sister and wife all went to university; I will do everything I can to make sure that my daughters do, also.

You want to talk about gender inequality? When was the last time *you* spent $200 on Hayley Wickenheiser jersey?

wprager wrote:

Tuk Tuk wrote:Diddle traditional morals and values. Traditional roles includes men holding all the power, basically buying women to be their wives, and stoning women who were raped.

There's a reason why my generation mainly supports happy marriage. Its all the natural progression.

First of all, stoning was never a traditional value, unless you want to talk about the Middle East (or do you want to bring the Salem witch hunts into this?)

However, I'm actually more curious what you mean by "the natural progression". Progression to what, exactly? Clearly, from the emotions-aside, strictly-nature and life-finds-a-way point of view, homosexuality is an aberration; it does not promote the species. You can argue that it is a matter of choice, or that it is a matter of how they were created/made, but you cannot argue that it is not the way it was intended by nature. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, evolution -- no matter what you want to call it, homosexuality does not "fit in" well.

Sorry to have gone off on a tangent, a bit. Back to this progression . What if cousins want to marry? First cousins, is that OK? How about brothers and sisters, or parents and their children? Abhorrent, you say? Why? What makes homosexuality more acceptable than incest (provided everyone has reached the age of consent, of course)? There are no laws against marrying someone old enough to be your son or daughter, just not you son or daughter (or sibling or first cousin). The underlying reason for this (other than the ick factor) is that it's a bad thing to do from a genetic point of view. It may promote the species, but in a potentially dangerous way, whereas homosexuality simply does not promote the species. You can argue semantics, how one brings about the extinction of the species more quickly than the other but, really, what is the point?

So I'll ask you again. Progression to what? Are you prepared to defend same-sex marriage while continuing to prohibit same-family marriage? Or how about inter-species? Or self-marriage (there was a movie on, the other night, where an unmarried woman in her 30s decided to marry herself; cute, but makes you think).

Or we can just return to talking about hockey.

Ok, you want to mention procreation and what is the natural way.
There are cases of homosexuality in the animal kingdom so anyone can argue it's also natural. It could be natures way to keep population growth down. Something humanity hasn't been able to do with it's imposed morals.

Flo The Action wrote:

wprager wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:

Big Ev wrote:I guess I'm ok with happy marriage, but the really happy people make me quite uncomfortable. You know, the ones who work at steel mills and wear buttless chaps. Also, the happy pride parade is unnecessary and quite uncomfortable as well.

The happy pride parade will be necessary until attitudes like these are a thing of the past.

Really? If I see a heterosexual couple start fondling each other in public I'd be uncomfortable. As a father of two young girls I am quite disturbed when I see teenage girls putting their wares on display. I watch Dancing with the Stars and I have no problem with Bruno -- in fact, he's probably my favorite of the judges. But they showed an old '80s Elton John video where he was one of the featured dancers (I'm still standing) and it clearly made me feel uncomfortable. There were butt-less chaps involved, among other things.

Maybe Big Ev could have expressed himself more eloquently, but what's wrong with feeling uncomfortable with very blatant sexuality displayed in public?

Without being disrespectful I'd say what that's called is a hang-up.
Alot of people have them, admitting you have one and then finding ways to get passed them seems to me to be the way to go. Why should other people have to not have the same rights because some of us can't get beyond what we feel. Live and let live.

No problem. I have a hangup with public urination -- it's an act that should be performed in a place reserved for that purpose. I have a hangup with excessive spitting and horking, picking noses and other acts (all of which I do myself, thank you very much, just not usually in public). I have a hangup against people dropping their cigarette buts on the ground while giving me a dirty look for throwing my apple-core behind a bush at the bus stop (yeah, it happened).

I don't see any reason for finding a way past those hang-ups. PDAs are one thing, but what I've seen in some of those parades goes a few steps beyond it.

Flo The Action wrote:

wprager wrote:

Tuk Tuk wrote:Diddle traditional morals and values. Traditional roles includes men holding all the power, basically buying women to be their wives, and stoning women who were raped.

There's a reason why my generation mainly supports happy marriage. Its all the natural progression.

First of all, stoning was never a traditional value, unless you want to talk about the Middle East (or do you want to bring the Salem witch hunts into this?)

However, I'm actually more curious what you mean by "the natural progression". Progression to what, exactly? Clearly, from the emotions-aside, strictly-nature and life-finds-a-way point of view, homosexuality is an aberration; it does not promote the species. You can argue that it is a matter of choice, or that it is a matter of how they were created/made, but you cannot argue that it is not the way it was intended by nature. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, evolution -- no matter what you want to call it, homosexuality does not "fit in" well.

Sorry to have gone off on a tangent, a bit. Back to this progression . What if cousins want to marry? First cousins, is that OK? How about brothers and sisters, or parents and their children? Abhorrent, you say? Why? What makes homosexuality more acceptable than incest (provided everyone has reached the age of consent, of course)? There are no laws against marrying someone old enough to be your son or daughter, just not you son or daughter (or sibling or first cousin). The underlying reason for this (other than the ick factor) is that it's a bad thing to do from a genetic point of view. It may promote the species, but in a potentially dangerous way, whereas homosexuality simply does not promote the species. You can argue semantics, how one brings about the extinction of the species more quickly than the other but, really, what is the point?

So I'll ask you again. Progression to what? Are you prepared to defend same-sex marriage while continuing to prohibit same-family marriage? Or how about inter-species? Or self-marriage (there was a movie on, the other night, where an unmarried woman in her 30s decided to marry herself; cute, but makes you think).

Or we can just return to talking about hockey.

Ok, you want to mention procreation and what is the natural way.
There are cases of homosexuality in the animal kingdom so anyone can argue it's also natural. It could be natures way to keep population growth down. Something humanity hasn't been able to do with it's imposed morals.

There are cases of two-headed snakes, also, but I'd hardly call it "natural". Just because something happens in nature does not mean it is natural. Nature's way to keep population down is to not provide an inexhaustible supply of space, food and other necessary resources. If nature had the means, then population would grow without bounds.

By the way, Canucks won. Mike Fisher can get back home to his higher-income wife.

wprager wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:

wprager wrote:

Tuk Tuk wrote:Diddle traditional morals and values. Traditional roles includes men holding all the power, basically buying women to be their wives, and stoning women who were raped.

There's a reason why my generation mainly supports happy marriage. Its all the natural progression.

First of all, stoning was never a traditional value, unless you want to talk about the Middle East (or do you want to bring the Salem witch hunts into this?)

However, I'm actually more curious what you mean by "the natural progression". Progression to what, exactly? Clearly, from the emotions-aside, strictly-nature and life-finds-a-way point of view, homosexuality is an aberration; it does not promote the species. You can argue that it is a matter of choice, or that it is a matter of how they were created/made, but you cannot argue that it is not the way it was intended by nature. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, evolution -- no matter what you want to call it, homosexuality does not "fit in" well.

Sorry to have gone off on a tangent, a bit. Back to this progression . What if cousins want to marry? First cousins, is that OK? How about brothers and sisters, or parents and their children? Abhorrent, you say? Why? What makes homosexuality more acceptable than incest (provided everyone has reached the age of consent, of course)? There are no laws against marrying someone old enough to be your son or daughter, just not you son or daughter (or sibling or first cousin). The underlying reason for this (other than the ick factor) is that it's a bad thing to do from a genetic point of view. It may promote the species, but in a potentially dangerous way, whereas homosexuality simply does not promote the species. You can argue semantics, how one brings about the extinction of the species more quickly than the other but, really, what is the point?

So I'll ask you again. Progression to what? Are you prepared to defend same-sex marriage while continuing to prohibit same-family marriage? Or how about inter-species? Or self-marriage (there was a movie on, the other night, where an unmarried woman in her 30s decided to marry herself; cute, but makes you think).

Or we can just return to talking about hockey.

Ok, you want to mention procreation and what is the natural way.
There are cases of homosexuality in the animal kingdom so anyone can argue it's also natural. It could be natures way to keep population growth down. Something humanity hasn't been able to do with it's imposed morals.

There are cases of two-headed snakes, also, but I'd hardly call it "natural". Just because something happens in nature does not mean it is natural. Nature's way to keep population down is to not provide an inexhaustible supply of space, food and other necessary resources. If nature had the means, then population would grow without bounds.

Homosexuality is much more common then the deformities you speak of. Exaggerate if you must but there's no way getting around the fact that millions of human on earth are happy and denying them the same rights we claim for ourselves is a gross injustice.

ok the thing about steel mills and buttlesschaps was a joke...I thought of that Simpsons episode

The majority of well respected biologist will say that homosexuality is "natural", im almost certain. Especially because homosexuality is not always a choice. Just as I was born heterosexual, millions of people in the world were born with a natural tendency to be homosexual; its all in the brain.

Now these people could either ignore their natural urges, living a life of shame, humiliation, and misery, hiding a major part of who they are and how they were made, or they could be open about their sexuality, and proud of the way they were born.

If it's the former, then I am ashamed of our society for making them feel this way. If it's the latter, then they deserve to be treated no differently than the rest of us. We're a society that takes a long time to accept that other groups are equal. It looks like the only way out of this is to wait for the bigots die off.

Flo The Action wrote:

wprager wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:

wprager wrote:

Tuk Tuk wrote:Diddle traditional morals and values. Traditional roles includes men holding all the power, basically buying women to be their wives, and stoning women who were raped.

There's a reason why my generation mainly supports happy marriage. Its all the natural progression.

First of all, stoning was never a traditional value, unless you want to talk about the Middle East (or do you want to bring the Salem witch hunts into this?)

However, I'm actually more curious what you mean by "the natural progression". Progression to what, exactly? Clearly, from the emotions-aside, strictly-nature and life-finds-a-way point of view, homosexuality is an aberration; it does not promote the species. You can argue that it is a matter of choice, or that it is a matter of how they were created/made, but you cannot argue that it is not the way it was intended by nature. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, evolution -- no matter what you want to call it, homosexuality does not "fit in" well.

Sorry to have gone off on a tangent, a bit. Back to this progression . What if cousins want to marry? First cousins, is that OK? How about brothers and sisters, or parents and their children? Abhorrent, you say? Why? What makes homosexuality more acceptable than incest (provided everyone has reached the age of consent, of course)? There are no laws against marrying someone old enough to be your son or daughter, just not you son or daughter (or sibling or first cousin). The underlying reason for this (other than the ick factor) is that it's a bad thing to do from a genetic point of view. It may promote the species, but in a potentially dangerous way, whereas homosexuality simply does not promote the species. You can argue semantics, how one brings about the extinction of the species more quickly than the other but, really, what is the point?

So I'll ask you again. Progression to what? Are you prepared to defend same-sex marriage while continuing to prohibit same-family marriage? Or how about inter-species? Or self-marriage (there was a movie on, the other night, where an unmarried woman in her 30s decided to marry herself; cute, but makes you think).

Or we can just return to talking about hockey.

Ok, you want to mention procreation and what is the natural way.
There are cases of homosexuality in the animal kingdom so anyone can argue it's also natural. It could be natures way to keep population growth down. Something humanity hasn't been able to do with it's imposed morals.

There are cases of two-headed snakes, also, but I'd hardly call it "natural". Just because something happens in nature does not mean it is natural. Nature's way to keep population down is to not provide an inexhaustible supply of space, food and other necessary resources. If nature had the means, then population would grow without bounds.

Homosexuality is much more common then the deformities you speak of. Exaggerate if you must but there's no way getting around the fact that millions of human on earth are happy and denying them the same rights we claim for ourselves is a gross injustice.

Oh, we are talking about rights? I thought we were talking about the definition of marriage. What are these rights you speak of? Millions of people are getting by very happily (no pun intended) without getting married. They say that they don't need a paper to prove their love and commitment. And, as far as I know, Canada has extended all the rights/benefits to same-sex couples. (By the way, all those benefits are aimed at reducing taxes and lower the costs of raising children; yes, I know childless couples use some of those benefits; yes, I know some couples chose to not have children.)

Flo The Action wrote:I certainly hope a few of their clients drop them. Cash speaks volume. I hope they fall on their Donkey.

If I was a professional athlete (somewhere other than in my own head) and they were my agents, I would probably fire them on the spot. Not for their view and whether or not they think that happy marriages are right or wrong but for the gross lack of common sense they showed by tweeting their opinion on a topic like this. It's totally inappropriate and unnecessary. On the other hand, as somebody on this forum suggested, if my agent had a personnal account and tweeted this from his account, I might be more lenient.

By the way, I would feel the same way if they tweeted their opinion (as the company) on other "inappropriate" topics (e.g.: religion, politics, etc)

Tuk Tuk wrote:The majority of well respected biologist will say that homosexuality is "natural", im almost certain. Especially because homosexuality is not always a choice. Just as I was born heterosexual, millions of people in the world were born with a natural tendency to be homosexual; its all in the brain.

Now these people could either ignore their natural urges, living a life of shame, humiliation, and misery, hiding a major part of who they are and how they were made, or they could be open about their sexuality, and proud of the way they were born.

If it's the former, then I am ashamed of our society for making them feel this way. If it's the latter, then they deserve to be treated no differently than the rest of us. We're a society that takes a long time to accept that other groups are equal. It looks like the only way out of this is to wait for the bigots die off.

I can't believe I'm going there, but what about the people who are born with a "natural" tendency to get sexually aroused by children? It's all in the brain. Now, these people could either ignore their natural urges, living a life of shame, humiliation, and misery, hiding a major part of who they are an how they were made, or they could be open about their sexuality, and proud of the way they were born.

Please, don't interpret this as me saying homosexuals are pedophiles. I'm just saying that *if* you make that argument, prepare for it to be used to defend other lifestyles. In other words, pick a different argument to make your point.

And as for biologists saying that homosexuality is natural, bollocks. Natural disasters are natural, as well. Contracting skin cancer from exposure to the sun is natural, too. So what? Plus we're getting away from the point I made originally -- that homosexuality is not one of the tools in nature's tool-belt used for promoting the species, natural selection, survival of the fittest, evolution, intelligent design or whatever you want to call it. Unless you want to make a claim that homosexual tendencies are somehow linked to a gene that nature wants to eliminate. You don't want to make thar argument, do you?

TheAvatar wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:I certainly hope a few of their clients drop them. Cash speaks volume. I hope they fall on their Donkey.

If I was a professional athlete (somewhere other than in my own head) and they were my agents, I would probably fire them on the spot. Not for their view and whether or not they think that happy marriages are right or wrong but for the gross lack of common sense they showed by tweeting their opinion on a topic like this. It's totally inappropriate and unnecessary. On the other hand, as somebody on this forum suggested, if my agent had a personnal account and tweeted this from his account, I might be more lenient.

By the way, I would feel the same way if they tweeted their opinion (as the company) on other "inappropriate" topics (e.g.: religion, politics, etc)

"They"? I thought it was a single tweeter?

wprager wrote:

Tuk Tuk wrote:The majority of well respected biologist will say that homosexuality is "natural", im almost certain. Especially because homosexuality is not always a choice. Just as I was born heterosexual, millions of people in the world were born with a natural tendency to be homosexual; its all in the brain.

Now these people could either ignore their natural urges, living a life of shame, humiliation, and misery, hiding a major part of who they are and how they were made, or they could be open about their sexuality, and proud of the way they were born.

If it's the former, then I am ashamed of our society for making them feel this way. If it's the latter, then they deserve to be treated no differently than the rest of us. We're a society that takes a long time to accept that other groups are equal. It looks like the only way out of this is to wait for the bigots die off.

I can't believe I'm going there, but what about the people who are born with a "natural" tendency to get sexually aroused by children? It's all in the brain. Now, these people could either ignore their natural urges, living a life of shame, humiliation, and misery, hiding a major part of who they are an how they were made, or they could be open about their sexuality, and proud of the way they were born.

Please, don't interpret this as me saying homosexuals are pedophiles. I'm just saying that *if* you make that argument, prepare for it to be used to defend other lifestyles. In other words, pick a different argument to make your point.

And as for biologists saying that homosexuality is natural, bollocks. Natural disasters are natural, as well. Contracting skin cancer from exposure to the sun is natural, too. So what? Plus we're getting away from the point I made originally -- that homosexuality is not one of the tools in nature's tool-belt used for promoting the species, natural selection, survival of the fittest, evolution, intelligent design or whatever you want to call it. Unless you want to make a claim that homosexual tendencies are somehow linked to a gene that nature wants to eliminate. You don't want to make thar argument, do you?

But now why does that make it wrong? When did love and marriage become only about continuing the species? We have enough people as is.

And the big difference between homosexuality and paedophilia is that no one is inherently harmed by homosexuality. It's natural, and doesn't harm anyone.