Is homosexuality a bad thing?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

But I never in my life disagree that Gay couples are entitled to have a protected relation in Legal terms...what they want its not just that !

What do they want? Specifically.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

but this Fado of Coimbra specifically is very much about the display of MALE ROMANTIC AFFECTION

sounds like gay marriage to me

1 Reply

@failures art,

But whether you like it or not the Institution was not created by them...their understanding is fine just give it a different name and flavour it their own way...

1 Reply

@djjd62,

LOOOOL that was funny !!! Actually is very much Heterosexual by definition...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

But whether you like it or not the Institution was not created by them...

Correct. It was invented by old mean for the purpose of exchanging livestock and/or plots of land for several adolescent girls to be impregnated in the hopes of producing male heirs or more young females for barter.

Just like in 2010.

Appealing to the "institution" is vacant. The institution of marriage is not uniform anywhere on earth, nor has it ever at any point in time.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

their understanding is fine just give it a different name and flavour it their own way...

It requires no separate name. Why would it? When a homosexual person cooks spaghetti, they aren't thumbing their nose at any culinary institution, nor are they making "gay-spaghetti." They are just cooking like everyone else, and for the same purpose: To be fed and to feed.

A
R
The same gos for marriage, whether you can accept that or not.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Link:

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I guess is a question of opinion...as what I find narrow minded is exactly not accepting or admitting others the right to disagree with your cosmogony paradigm...note that I don´t oppose Legal Rights, I AGREE WITH THEM...

When did I say you couldn't disagree? When I disagreed you, you responded by calling me stupid rather than addressing my arguments.

It is YOUR action that points to not accepting others disagreeing.

Quote:

unfortunately you had exactly the response I was expecting,

I disagreed. But I never said you didn't have the right to your opinion.
In fact you continue to not address the specific issues that were raised by myself and others. I pointed out that US law can't allow discrimination unless there the state has an overriding reason. Rather than addressing that issue you attacked me personally and claim I don't understand.

Quote:

not understanding the confusion there seams to be between Democracy and participation with the right to protect conceptual structures and the groups who are behind them

So.. you decided that YOU know the facts and anyone that disagrees with you is just wrong. Never mind that your ideas are not supported by US law nor are they supported by political philosophies.

Quote:

note that I don´t oppose Legal Rights, I AGREE WITH THEM

But you don't agree with them when you argue that they can't have equality. You didn't address the issue of separate but equal that was clearly discarded in the US as unworkable.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I did answer them even before you asked...
I was very specific !

1 - Legal Gay Rights concerning Marriage would be more or less the same as Heterosexual couples have...excluding the conceptual definition and the name of the Institution as a symbolic mean of conserving the specificity of each interpretation, given as a Social contract each group is democratically entitled to have its own cultural understanding on Marriage !
There you have it...

But you contradict yourself in your statement.
Suppose one group has a cultural understanding of marriage. Now suppose another group wants a cultural understanding but it just happens to be close to the first groups. They can't be entitled to it if you deny it to them.

You are arguing that they can have whatever they want as long as they don't want what you won't let them have. It is not equality at all Fil. It is dictating the terms of what they can have while declaring they can have anything they want.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I did answer them even before you asked...
I was very specific !

1 - Legal Gay Rights concerning Marriage would be more or less the same as Heterosexual couples have...excluding the conceptual definition and the name of the Institution as a symbolic mean of conserving the specificity of each interpretation, given as a Social contract each group is democratically entitled to have its own cultural understanding on Marriage !
There you have it...

But you contradict yourself in your statement.
Suppose one group has a cultural understanding of marriage. Now suppose another group wants a cultural understanding but it just happens to be close to the first groups. They can't be entitled to it if you deny it to them.

You are arguing that they can have whatever they want as long as they don't want what you won't let them have. It is not equality at all Fil. It is dictating the terms of what they can have while declaring they can have anything they want.

In fact in this life a Man cannot be a "bird" just because he wants to...and my wants cannot go directly against others wants by destroying their identity...its about each finding its own space !

AGAIN, its not about not letting them have what they want, but they wanting what was build for my community !!!

WHY is it that, they seam unable to BUILD their own Institutions ???

Just imagine if I wanted your house or your car...

There is such a thing as SOCIAL PROPERTY whether you understand it or not.
...I don´t expect you do !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

In fact in this life a Man cannot be a "bird" just because he wants to...and my wants cannot go directly against others wants by destroying their identity...

You are directly destroying a couples identity, if you deny them the ability to self identify as they wish.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

AGAIN, its not about not letting them have what they want, but they wanting what was build for my community !!!

It's everyone's community, not just yours. You do wish to deny them what they want, and for what? You'd not be any less married if a homosexual was to be married. Also, you didn't build it, or even help build it.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

WHY is it that can´t they BUILD their own Institutions ???

They shouldn't have to. There is not need to do so.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

It's everyone's community, not just yours. You do wish to deny them what they want, and for what? You'd not be any less married if a homosexual was to be married. Also, you didn't build it, or even help build it.

I guess you don´t understand what Community means...(what there is in Common)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
It's everyone's community, not just yours. You do wish to deny them what they want, and for what? You'd not be any less married if a homosexual was to be married. Also, you didn't build it, or even help build it.

I guess you don´t understand what Community means...(what there is in Common)

A homosexual is just as likely to have as much in common with a heterosexual as another homosexual. A heterosexual is just as likely to have as much in common with a homosexual as another heterosexual.

You are drawing an artificial boundary that somehow excludes homosexuals, but includes many people who are very different than you that you have very little in common with.

I understand very well what community means. I don't believe you are aware who is in your community, and that makes you a poor neighbor.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
It's everyone's community, not just yours. You do wish to deny them what they want, and for what? You'd not be any less married if a homosexual was to be married. Also, you didn't build it, or even help build it.

I guess you don´t understand what Community means...(what there is in Common)

A homosexual is just as likely to have as much in common with a heterosexual as another homosexual. A heterosexual is just as likely to have as much in common with a homosexual as another heterosexual.

You are drawing an artificial boundary that somehow excludes homosexuals, but includes many people who are very different than you that you have very little in common with.

I understand very well what community means. I don't believe you are aware who is in your community, and that makes you a poor neighbor.

A
R
T

Communities are spontaneous ! So I guess is not up to you but to the majority or the minority that makes a stand to say that it does or does not identify with something !...

Besides you seam to be confusing Society Community and Neighbourhood all together...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

That's fascism, not community.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

No, that´s Human Nature !
Although you seam to have a poor understanding on what it means...
Your intellectual competence surely should understand the point I am trying to make...Why in the hell do you think there are Countries in the first place ?
Social common property, distributed in successive layers, up to the local community´s...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

1 - The Hard question you should be doing is why there is segregation in the first place wherever you look from here up to China ???

2 - Why does it seam to be a natural trend ?

Maybe its needed its the right answer !!!
Modern thinking is pretensions in its goals in many ways, but specially for its ignorance about what is natural !

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

History disagrees. The attempts at making community as you have described have always failed. It has been those communities that are rich with diversity that focus on what people have in common and not on how they are different that forge the strongest societies.

You're not anymore entitled to the word "marriage" than a homosexual. What you want is language that reinforces and validates your feelings of superiority. Heterosexual relationships are no more superior to homosexual ones. You choice and use of the word "entitled" earlier betrays your bigotry.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

No !!! My vision of Marriage is in NO WAY superior to gay vision, PARALLEL but NOT EQUAL !!!

You simply cannot accept my liberty in disagreeing with your perception on the problem, without faulting my reasons, and that´s what is obnoxious about it !

Modern life imply´s nowadays a silent majority which is not able to parade their beliefs and culture to not offend the minority´s and their sensibility ! Pathetic and artificial !

...of course being fully honest and speaking the truth always pay´s a price this days !...(flock thinking kills you)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

No !!! My vision of Marriage is in NO WAY superior to gay vision, PARALLEL but NOT EQUAL !!!

You are getting hysterical. How can it be not equal, but you don't consider your view to be superior? Is your view that gay marriage is superior? You are contradicting yourself in the the same sentence.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

You simply cannot accept my liberty in disagreeing with your perception on the problem, without faulting my reasons, and that´s what is obnoxious about it !

emphasis added

What "problem?" Specifically.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Its parallel, goes side by side, but not ensemble !
And by the way History does not disagree, Cultural RELATIVITY does not signify CULTURAL MIXING or LOSING IDENTITY...I can acknowledge the merit of other society´s and community´s without directly needing to share their perception...in fact, the more I see and comprehend my specificity´s, the best I can understand the right others have to theirs !

2 Replies

Is homosexuality a bad thing?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know