Miss California and Her Opinion on Gay Marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
I realize the statement about getting a license to have children was facetious, but there's been some serious discussion about it.

My thought is that I'd be afraid about who exactly would be deciding the qualifications for parenthood. Sure, if everybody was reasonable, we can think of qualities that make people unfit, but can we be certain people enforcing the law would be reasonable? I don't think so.

If you trust a law to be enforced properly ONLY when people of your party or persuasion are in power, then it's a bad law.

For instance, suppose such a law was passed by reasonable people and had reasonable guidelines. But suppose further that somehow that the Aryan Nation came to power and decided that only white people could procreate. Absurd? Probably. Possible? Yes.

It's bad enough that bureaucrats interfere in the adoption process which prevents deserving people from adopting. Let's not compound it by extending that power to all procreation.
 
Last edited:

Bravo

Socialitest
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
5,336
Reaction score
1,446
Why are we so concerned about the sexuality anyway? Is that what makes gay and lesbians different from straights? What defines their identity?

AMC


i would like to know more about what defines their identity, but i don't have time to read the books you recommended. so please explain the distinction that you're making.
 

Bravo

Socialitest
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
5,336
Reaction score
1,446
are you just repeating slogans now?

just explain what you meant before, since this distinction seems to be pretty huge for you.
 

AMCrenshaw

...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
4,671
Reaction score
620
Website
dfnovellas.wordpress.com
are you just repeating slogans now?

I'm not gay or lesbian, for one thing, so I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying (or speculating) what the distinction is. But it's clear to me that it's more than sexuality. There's a way of thinking, a way of being, a way of seeing things-- a sensibility, in other words. Again, I'm trying not to reduce anything here.

Well this will help out (I'd read the whole page, but these two sections directly address our discussion):


Because of the context in which it was reclaimed, queer has sociopolitical connotations, and is often preferred by those who are activists, by those who strongly reject traditional gender identities, by those who reject distinct sexual identities such as gay, lesbian, bisexual and straight, and by those who see themselves as oppressed by the heteronormativity of the larger culture. In this usage it retains the historical connotation of "outside the bounds of normal society" and can be construed as "breaking the rules for sex and gender." It can be preferred because of its ambiguity, which allows "queer" identifying people to avoid the sometimes strict boundaries that surround other labels. In this context, "queer" is not a synonym for LGBT as it creates a space for "queer" heterosexuals as well as "non-queer" ("straight-acting") homosexuals.

For some queer-identified people, part of the point of the term 'queer' is that it simultaneously builds up and tears down boundaries of identity. For instance, among genderqueer people, who do not solidly identify with one particular gender, once solid gender roles have been torn down, it becomes difficult to situate sexual identity. For some people, the non-specificity of the term is liberating. Queerness becomes a way to simultaneously make a political move against heteronormativity while simultaneously refusing to engage in traditional essentialist identity politics.




AMC
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Land use planning and zoning seemed perfectly reasonable when first proposed, yet led to Kelo vs. City of New London. I'm sure the germans thought handgun registration was perfectly reasonable until the storm troopers showed up to take their guns.

Draw what parallels you will with "procreation licenses."
 

dclary

Unabashed Mercenary
Poetry Book Collaborator
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
13,050
Reaction score
3,524
Age
55
Website
www.trumpstump2016.com
I'm not gay or lesbian, for one thing, so I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying (or speculating) what the distinction is. But it's clear to me that it's more than sexuality. There's a way of thinking, a way of being, a way of seeing things-- a sensibility, in other words. Again, I'm trying not to reduce anything here.

Well this will help out (I'd read the whole page, but these two sections directly address our discussion):







AMC



I'm with Bravo on that. Jesus what a bunch of meaningless mumbo jumbo.

That, and I'm proud to be heteronormative.
 

Deleted member 42

seriously? this is what you're stooping to?

Bravo it's not me stooping; it's you abdicating your responsibility. You repeatedly expect other people to look up words for you, rather than spend your precious time. You say you don't have time to read a book--and expect someone else to summarize it for you.

You don't read carefully. You want things pre-digested for you.

no, it's a major logical conundrum.

Only if you view the world as a binary; as "gay or not gay," in your terms.

this is you attempting to do some semantic quibbling, but however many times you want to shift the goal posts, your statements are still wrong.

I'm not shifting the goal posts; I've been saying the same things, repeatedly.

Again: Go do some research. Read Kinsey. Notice how he, and I, and pretty much every responsible authoritative sex researcher out there says:

There's a spectrum of sexuality. There are lots of differences. People can in fact change sexuality, and in the current generation, sexual orientation seems to be far more fluid.

[snip]

what i'm getting from you here is that you're going to pick and choose what is locked in biologically for us and what we can discard. i would really like to know how you're doing doing this.

Again, my point is that if someone can't sexually function, it's not a fucking choice, Bravo. It really isn't.

pretty much everything that i've seen shows that sexuality is multi-factorial, and that it is a spectrum. what insight do you have that shows it is something that is statically created before we are born?

The fact again that there are men *who can't function sexually with a woman*

There are also men who can, depending on the individuals, function quite happily with either sex, and fall deeply in love, depending on the individuals.

In other words, there are heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, and asexual people, and all sorts of other alternatives.

Arguing that orientation is a "preference" is loaded language; that means that it's like whether or not you like broccoli. And the connotation is that you just have to learn to like broccoli or the opposite sex. It's the language of hate groups like focus on the family. It's the language that has parents sending their kids to "reorientation camps." It's the language that leads to books like Joseph Nicolosi and Linda Ames Nicolosi's A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality, which talks about being queer as "a disease eating away at the heart of our society," and suggests that suicide may be the best answer, after all.

because to you, everyone is an individual and should be capable of forging their own "destiny", even if it goes against their neurological impulses.

Don't tell me what I think Bravo, especially not when you can't even be bothered to read carefully. You don't know what I think--and apparently, can't be bothered to read carefully. Or consider any alternative beyond your comfortable yes/no, black/white binary.

You're the one arguing for binaries; not me.

And telling someone who specializes in language that she's arguing semantics? That's sort of . . . odd.

Get a dictionary. Learn what the words mean. Queer and Gay and Lesbian and Straight and Heterosexual--they aren't synonyms. They all have very different connotations.
 

Deleted member 42

I realize the statement about getting a license to have children was facetious, but there's been some serious discussion about it.

My thought is that I'd be afraid about who exactly would be deciding the qualifications for parenthood. Sure, if everybody was reasonable, we can think of qualities that make people unfit, but can we be certain people enforcing the law would be reasonable? I don't think so.

Exactly. And honestly, it's a slippery slope.

I'd rather find better ways of making sure there are no unwanted children, and that all children are fed and clothed and warm and loved.
 

MacAllister

'Twas but a dream of thee
Staff member
Boss Mare
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
22,010
Reaction score
10,705
Location
Out on a limb
Website
macallisterstone.com
Closing this. It's long since stopped being a useful conversation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.