Are you a homophile or homophobe?

[sjwaste]

Yeah, but gays? Pfft.

Now, people with religious slogans in their signatures, those are something else...

Damnit, my subtle trolling failed. I live in a pretty gay state. I think we were the first in the country to enact gay marriage by ballot. I couldn't care any less about someone's sexual orientation.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

... Nature did not intend for it to happen or both sexes would have a dick and a vagina.

So... you've never seen hermaphrodite porn, huh? :sneaky:

 

[shortylickens]

So... you've never seen hermaphrodite porn, huh? :sneaky:

 

[mnewsham]

So... you've never seen hermaphrodite porn, huh? :sneaky:

 

[SMOGZINN]

I'm not scared of gay people (what "phobe" normally means) but does not mean I agree with their life decisions.
...
If you want to be gay, fine, but don't go changing the definition of marriage and stop acting like it's the hip thing to do. Nature did not intend for it to happen or both sexes would have a dick and a vagina.

Ah, so you are afraid after all. You are afraid that it will change the meaning of marriage, and you are afraid that they are doing something 'unnatural'.

You are also anthropomorphising nature. Nature does not intend things. Nature just is.

Marriage shouldn't be a government service, period. What churches do is their own choice, but the government shouldn't be involved. My proposal is bi-corporation, where ANY two people can incorporate as a unit, and get the associated governmental, and civil benefits. Sex doesn't have to be involved. I could bi-corporate with a friend, or a relative. All that denotes is a legal "ownership" over each others affairs, and gets the same benefits traditionally given with marriage.

I agree with you here, but I question why stop at two people. If I am incorporating then why not use it fully. Let me, my wife, her wife, and her husband incorporate. Maybe we could sell shares, and instead of a wedding reception we could have an IPO.

 

[Fritzo]

That's simplistic, though. It doesn't answer much about good policy.

For example, how would you set various brackets' tax rates following that?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Homophobia DOES NOT MEAN afraid of gay people. The term homophobia was originally used to describe a fear of being perceived as gay by others. The word got co-opted by the gay rights movement to refer to any bigotry against gays or lesbians. It never had a thing to do with being afraid of gay people, it was about the concern that others might think you were gay. So enough with the semantic bullshit; the word doesn't really make sense from a literal translation, but that's true of a whole lot of English words, and we still use them. You know what homophobia has come to mean. Stop trying to dismiss the concept because the root could be better.

 

[Nebbers]

I'm not scared of gay people (what "phobe" normally means) but does not mean I agree with their life decisions. But it's their life, I'm not going to try changing it and it's not like it affects me. I find the word homophobe gets thrown around too much and people don't realize what a phobia actually is.

I do think it's silly how the whole gay thing is now considered the cool thing to do, and everyone wants gay marriage and all that. If you want to be gay, fine, but don't go changing the definition of marriage and stop acting like it's the hip thing to do. Nature did not intend for it to happen or both sexes would have a dick and a vagina.

When was the concept of marriage first defined?

Why does homosexuality exist in other animals?

You're right, it's not a phobia at all. That's just a nicer way of putting it than calling people the assholes that they really are.

 

[corwin]

Why does homosexuality exist in other animals?

If you really break it down science has nearly proven it's a birth defect caused by abnormal hormonal fluctuations during pregnancy.

And before people get all butt hurt over calling it a "birth defect" what would you call something that is caused by abnormal hormonal fluctuations during gestation? I'm not saying it makes them deficient in any way but it sure as hell explains why it isn't a "choice" and why it happens in other species as well.

 

[Nebbers]

If you really break it down science has nearly proven it's a birth defect caused by abnormal hormonal fluctuations during pregnancy.

And before people get all butt hurt over calling it a "birth defect" what would you call something that is caused by abnormal hormonal fluctuations during gestation? I'm not saying it makes them deficient in any way but it sure as hell explains why it isn't a "choice" and why it happens in other species as well.

I was mostly attempting to point out the lack of logic in Red's post about "what nature intended"

Seems that people will come up with all sorts of justification for the prejudices they don't consciously realize they have.

 

[gevorg]

Other: don't care and not afraid

 

[blankslate]

The point of the matter is that people shouldn't really be concerned about what other consenting adults do in the bedroom as long as no one is hurt (or hurt overly much depending on their predilections) or if one of those adults happens to be your spouse stepping out on you.

No your imaginary friend in the sky doesn't give you an excuse in that regard either. Take a look at the first amendment to find out why.

 

[Murloc]

I don't favour gayness, I just accept it is a statistically normal thing and I'm neutral towards it.
How can you be homophile and not be gay? Unless you give importance to the reasoning: less heterosexuals = more free wimminz.

 

[BudAshes]

I love the gays. It's platonic love but I love them all same.

 

[Gintaras]

When a woman wants to be like a man, she's - a businesses woman...
When a guy wants to be like a woman, he's - a lovely human....

 

[Gintaras]

Guys don't like gays, but gays LOVE nothing else but guys...

 

[lxskllr]

I agree with you here, but I question why stop at two people. If I am incorporating then why not use it fully. Let me, my wife, her wife, and her husband incorporate. Maybe we could sell shares, and instead of a wedding reception we could have an IPO.

I'm not opposed to that. That would be analogous to polygamous marriage, and I have no problem with that. The issue is bicorporation would be trivial to implement. It's basically what we have now, but no one would get screwed under my system. Add people, and it all goes out the window. Every single law and custom would have to be re-written to include more people, and you'd have a real clusterfuck as you go over three.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I'm not opposed to that. That would be analogous to polygamous marriage, and I have no problem with that. The issue is bicorporation would be trivial to implement. It's basically what we have now, but no one would get screwed under my system. Add people, and it all goes out the window. Every single law and custom would have to be re-written to include more people, and you'd have a real clusterfuck as you go over three.

You are right of course. I wonder how businesses do it.

Edit: BTW - The polyamory communities have been incorporating as a analogy of multiple marriage for several decades now quite successfully.

 

[lxskllr]

You are right of course. I wonder how businesses do it.

Businesses aren't as concerned with people(in a touchy feely sense), and it's a fairly tidy unit. What would happen when 3 people adopted a kid, and got a "divorce"? How about company health insurance? I imagine a lot of businesses would balk at adding your 6 partners to the family plan insurance. What happens when you're in the hospital, and 3 of your partners disagree on how to proceed with treatment if you aren't competent to inform the doctors?

I'm sure that could all be dealt with over time, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to deal with it.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Businesses aren't as concerned with people(in a touchy feely sense), and it's a fairly tidy unit. What would happen when 3 people adopted a kid, and got a "divorce"? How about company health insurance? I imagine a lot of businesses would balk at adding your 6 partners to the family plan insurance. What happens when you're in the hospital, and 3 of your partners disagree on how to proceed with treatment if you aren't competent to inform the doctors?

I'm sure that could all be dealt with over time, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to deal with it.

The way it is handled right now is through contract law. The members create legal documents ahead of time detailing a large number of possibilities. Dissolution of the corporation, custody of children and pets, durable medical power of attorney, advanced directives for all people involved, all that is standard. Insurance is an issue because companies don't want to recognize members as married but that would be easy to fix is our society wanted to.