Thursday Next Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 It's pretty clear what she is saying to my mind: 1. She was married to a man she loved who is now dead. 2. What she misses most about that relationship is not the stuffing of body parts into orifices, but the emotional closeness. 3. Whatever her views on the physical elements of a homosexual relationship, she understands and accepts that two people of the same sex can have that same emotional connection. From this she draws the conclusion that we should not label a formalisation of that emotional connection differently to the one between a man and a woman. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 #3 is a leap of faith is what I'm saying. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Believing that any two people regardless of gender feel an emotional connection is a leap of faith. No two couples love each other the same way. If we're going to use that as the deciding factor as to whether you have a "marriage" or a "partnership" then it should be decided by a game of Mr and Mrs. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 It's just such a bizarre statement. If you want to actually get on the boat, she says her hetrosexual marriage was so wonderful that she wouldn't want to deprive anyone else of that but the argument is flawed because hetrosexual and homosexual relationships are inherently different. Because love is different depending upon who is loving? The love between man and woman is different to man and man? As a monosexual man are you sure you want to be making that assertion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 How is that a leap of faith? The amount of homosexuals in happy, loving relationships is reasonable evidence that homosexual relationships can foster deep emotional connections of the same kind heterosexual relationships can. You can not just claim that something is a leap of faith without backing it up. For something to be a leap of faith, it must be a claim made about a subject wherein we do not have data to determine the claim's correctness. For example, "there is a small tea pot orbiting around mars", or "there's a god and he thinks homosexual acts are bad." 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Well the most obvious difference is the psychological differences between men and women. Clearly that would have some sort of psychological differences in a relationship if you did not have those differences. That is of course if you're going to throw out the psychological effects of sex completely but I'm not sure that you can. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) EDIT: You know what, you're not worth my time ... Edited February 10, 2012 by Battra92 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Well the most obvious difference is the psychological differences between men and women. Clearly that would have some sort of psychological differences in a relationship if you did not have those differences. That is of course if you're going to throw out the psychological effects of sex completely but I'm not sure that you can. What about the psychological differences between whites and blacks? Rich and poor? Blue collar workers and white collar workers? Every relationship is different in that respect, but they when they publicly declare their commitment they can all get married. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Just to throw this one out there but "relationships" and "sex" aren't the same thing. Closely related, but not the same. You can love your mum dearly, but you don't want to fuck her. Same as you'd maybe want to have your way with the Page 3 lass, but not want to date her. This may blow your mind but there are people that can love other people regardless of the equipment between their legs too. There's also women considered tomboys and men considered feminine. Not all men and women are born of a defined mindset. That'd get boring anyway. Also I'm off to pub in like 15 minutes, why did this thread get interesting at this time, can't it wait like 2hrs? edit: really? Look if folks want we can have a religion thread. I'm pretty sure we have one already. Yep we do. Go argue the "leap of faith required for atheism" there. Believe me a bigger leap of faith would be to assume that you'll ever have sex (hetero or homosexual) in your life or that there will be something you don't hate. Also totally uncalled for. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) What about the psychological differences between whites and blacks? Rich and poor? Blue collar workers and white collar workers? Every relationship is different in that respect, but they when they publicly declare their commitment they can all get married. Well, maybe I'm using the wrong medical terms. Maybe physiological may be more correct. There are significant measurable differences in the way that women's brains work and think and such vs. men. I'm not sure you can say the same about a black guy vs a white guy or a rich guy vs a poor guy. Disclaimer: don't misconstrue this to mean that I'm demeaning men or women or anything like that. I'm just saying men and women are different. Edited February 10, 2012 by Yantelope V2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) Believe me a bigger leap of faith would be to assume that you'll ever have sex (hetero or homosexual) in your life or that there will be something you don't hate. Oh, we've started throwing insults out now, have we? Is this what it's devolved to? Not debate,not actual points in your argument, but responding with the equivalent of "Well, fuck you"? Frankly, I expected better from you. If you dislike homosexuals, if you think we're heathens, if you think that we're going to hell, and that it offends you to think we might be granted the right to marry, then just say it. It won't win you points, but it will certainly be better than trying to justify it with points that are simply untrue. But I will be having none of this foolishness of attacking another person just because they doubt the legitimacy of a higher being. It's a petty, selfish way to go about things, and I despise those who resort to such tactics. If we aren't going to discuss this in a civilized manner, then there's hardly any point in having the discussion at all. Edited February 10, 2012 by DukeOfPwn 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 How is that a leap of faith? The amount of homosexuals in happy, loving relationships is reasonable evidence that homosexual relationships can foster deep emotional connections of the same kind heterosexual relationships can. You can not just claim that something is a leap of faith without backing it up. For something to be a leap of faith, it must be a claim made about a subject wherein we do not have data to determine the claim's correctness. For example, "there is a small tea pot orbiting around mars", or "there's a god and he thinks homosexual acts are bad." Sorry I skipped over this. Nobody claimed that homosexuals cannot foster deep emotional connections. You can find examples of people fostering deep emotional connections to anything including inanimate objects. What I claimed is that homosexual relationships are not necessarily the same as heterosexual ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) What about the psychological differences between whites and blacks? Rich and poor? Blue collar workers and white collar workers? Every relationship is different in that respect, but they when they publicly declare their commitment they can all get married. Well, maybe I'm using the wrong medical terms. Maybe physiological may be more correct. There are significant measurable differences in the way that women's brains work and think and such vs. men. I'm not sure you can say the same about a black guy vs a white guy or a rich guy vs a poor guy. Disclaimer: don't misconstrue this to mean that I'm demeaning men or women or anything like that. I'm just saying men and women are different. I fundamentally disagree with that viewpoint. Women do not have a common brain pattern nor do men have an equivalent and different one. There's a disproportionately large amount of males in this forum and we're all very different, physiologically, psychologically, whatever. Some people here are creative, some are sensitive, some are stoic some are bullish, we've got gays, straights, Asians, Swedes, Brits and Americans we've all lead very different lives and I would bet a lot of money that we're all very different people. Of the serious relationships I've been in no two have been the same, had I got married to any of my previous girlfriends no test would have been applied to check our respective mental states, emotional connection, or personality traits so why should it affect the labelling of the union? The homosexual relationship between Elton John and his partner is not the same as the heterosexual one between Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, that said, the relationship between Brad and Angelina is not the same as the one between The Queen and Prince Philip. Since all three are very different, which one is the marriage? If you're going to apply sameness then you should apply it across the board, in which case every union between two people should be named by the people involved, if they all choose marriage, then so be it. Edited February 10, 2012 by Thursday Next 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Well the most obvious difference is the psychological differences between men and women. If you're going to go into stuff like that, there are psychological differences between each and every one of us. One person might be diagnosed ADHD. Another person might be an ex-convict with a shaky past and heavy paranoia. Etc. etc. I do not think there are any noteworthy differences in the emotional connection between a homosexual and heterosexual couple, that are any larger than the differences you see between individual heterosexual couples. Unless you can point out exactly how homosexual couples are different psychologically, based on data, you're making a statement not worth the time of day. That is of course if you're going to throw out the psychological effects of sex completely but I'm not sure that you can. Newsflash: homosexuals have sex. Believe me a bigger leap of faith would be to assume that you'll ever have sex (hetero or homosexual) in your life or that there will be something you don't hate. I'm sorry, which part was the one that upset you, me explaining the term "leap of faith", or describing the christian faith as a faith? Yes, I am still a virgin at age 21. A variety of circumstances made me pretty indifferent to trying to find a girlfriend earlier in life, and I was never too interested in casual sex. Since those circumstances went away I have not met anyone interesting willing to start a relationship with me. That's life. Considering nearly all people have sex at some point in their lives, however, I find it extremely unlikely that I won't at some point. Now, for your accusation that there is nothing I don't hate, there seems to have been a misunderstanding. Though you are not to be found among them, there are plenty of things I don't hate. There are plenty of things and people I love. My dear friends (some of whom can be found on this very forum!) and my family are good examples. EDIT: You know what, you're not worth my time ... This feeling is mutual. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 @Johnny, my statement is simply that the two relationships are not simply the same. It's impossible to prove that they are equal. You said "I do not think there are any noteworthy differences in the emotional connection between a homosexual and heterosexual couple". You can't really back that up with any objective data either. I think both you and TN have already agreed that the relationships are inherently different though. You simply say that the differences aren't noteworthy. I think that's where you transition to opinion. I'm not sure what kind of objective data I could provide though. Human psychology is a notoriously muddy branch of science anyway because there are always far too many variables to attempt to isolate. If you want me to provide basis for opinions I'd gladly admit that they're largely rooted in my religious beliefs. Those beliefs are rooted in evidence elsewhere. Anywho, my only point was the relationships are different. I'm glad we all agree on that. I don't agree that because all relationships involve different people that we can't classify homosexual and heterosexual relationships as being different. If you want to call a homosexual relationship marriage then you're redefining the original term. That is something that people object to. Anyway, it's all words too so you can call it whatever you want but that doesn't make it the same. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 "Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship." Not sure how homosexual relationships redefine that. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Two points: 1) I may not be a of expertise regarding psychology - if anyone here is, that'd be helpful - but just based off of listening to the people I know who are homosexuals, the way they describe their feelings for their chosen partner is pretty much identical to how the straight people I know describe their relationships. That suggests to me that it is the same on an emotional level. I think the only difference you can credibly argue is that they are physically two people of the same gender. I do not think there is any basis to judge that homosexual emotional connections are different from heterosexual ones. 2) I do not know why you think your definition of marriage is the original one. I've never seen a dictionary specifying that marriage is between a man or a woman, nor did I grow up in a community where the accepted definition is one where it has to be a heterosexual union. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Actually this is one of those rare cases where there is no right answer (differences between men and women). At least not scientifically speaking. TN's closest to the ball because of the focus on individuality which is true. There's not a world of difference in men and women if you take away hormonal functionality. The expression of the chromosomes and the hormones are pretty much what makes us. The fundamental difference between men and women is that you can't raise men and women to be a unigender or sexless and expect them to be equal. It doesn't work. Simple reason is this, sure you can isolate them for a while as children and give them the whole notion of equality but when children develop into adolescents they find out that there are certain advantages to being part of a gender (It's also why being neither and in-between is incredibly hard). Males compete with vigour, strength is key during the growth phase and they realise that possessing physical attributes helps them out while growing up. If they fail to take advantage of it, it only lasts during their youth. The intellectual males also are aware of this but not everyone focuses on physicality but on materialism and possession of tangibles which is also advantageous in getting a mate. Women know their physicality is definitely something that gets them up the social ladder and in fact use that in most cases combined with intellect to get where they want. In gender swapped roles for men and women it's only the obtaining of tangibles that swaps the gender roles technically (in a general case). The man who's unable to do so uses his physique or thinks he can use it (but it's only required in moderation) and in case of societies that are flourishing a protective man isn't required and thus more feminine men are preferred by women which leads to what we had in the early 2000s. The economy goes down and we see that 'protective' looking men are once again preferred. I chose the hetero example but it works similarly in most sexualities that are attracted to some sex (again depending upon your constituents). Technically there is no common brain pattern amongst men or women but there are strong hormonal exhibitions that cause men and women to exhibit certain traits. Both men and women have testosterone and estrogen and the balance in their bodies is key in determining their nature. Part of this is genetics and part food and environment. In all honesty it is highly possible to change the hormonal balance of a person and change their sexuality to some extent (not entirely though). Think of it like diluting what exists and no this does not mean that you can be convinced to be another sexuality and this isn't some simple procedure either that one day you wake up and find yourself of a different sexuality. It is the primary hormones that control our balance that makes us different from one another and as a result no group is entirely alike but at the same time there are people who can be quite alike regardless of gender and the relationships that come from these random combinations are a thing of beauty regardless they be good or bad. However there are similarities in every relationship and this is due to the functions of each partner in the relationship. For instance the breadwinners be it male or female generally go by the oldworld male patriarchal types of hunter-gatherer and that's definitely more of a testeronal effect. If it was more estrogenal they would want to make the growing and living environment better and this applies to both men and women. The relationship dynamics work only in that nuclear unit though; in the larger world it depends on individual and group interaction. The sad thing is that when both men and women who have one hormonal aspect dominant are forced into roles that they don't like it is quite detrimental to the individual. Being heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual, pansexual whateversexual is to do with your chemical constituents - the core will always be what you're made of and the rest would be environmental and chemical factors. Saying things like what Cynthia Nixon said as in choosing to be a lesbian is quite dishonest. It's like an ambidextrous person says oh I chose to be left-handed; not everyone has that choice. When it comes to marriage, it's already being redefined. It's hard to stick to original meanings of anything which I'm sure we can all agree on from the English vs English thread. It's only essential when it comes to legal terms because of the rights it grants people who are united as a couple under law. Besides personally despite being married I think it's an archaic instituion - the only reason I'm married in the legal sense is because it protects me and my wife's rights as a couple, ownership, visas (I hold multiple long-term visas in other countries and it's easier to bring your partner rather than your girlfriend, EU and US citizens do require visas in a fair number of Asian and Middle Eastern countries and visit visas are too short). If the governments recognised two people who were together as being together outside of 'marriage' I'd be all for it and be out of this stupid institution. I admit a 'wedding' is nice but the whole 'marriage' thing feels forced upon by laws that are outdated. For a moment I thought it would be political debate about candidates but it seems to be one about morality, sexuality and issues. There is one thing however that I will bring up. There are strong differences in conservative and liberal values in most societies as in amongst those who follow them. Typically people who vote conservative are afraid of change, fear their position in society is being eroded away as in things they value and the politics embarks on fear tactics. However they are more quicker to see the change as it happens. When it comes to liberals they generally tend to deal with conflicting ideals and sometimes a bit extreme and honestly they do fit in the more undecided and uncertain landscape. While they are open to new values, it's because of the internal conflict initially. They don't see the change but embrace change in general. BTW this isn't related to politics but rather personal ideology as when it comes to politics most parties are centrist today and out of touch with the real issues and focusses on issues that show up high on skewed statistics. P.S. You are free to tldr and ignore my wall of text 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 2) I do not know why you think your definition of marriage is the original one. I've never seen a dictionary specifying that marriage is between a man or a woman, nor did I grow up in a community where the accepted definition is one where it has to be a heterosexual union. Another equally valid contender for the "original definition" of marriage (to the extent that such a thing exists or is meaningful) is 1 high-social-status man and several women. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Mister Jack Posted February 10, 2012 Popular Post Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 This isn't really a scientific statement but I tend to feel that given how easy it is for straight people to get married (Vegas) and how hard it is for gay people to get married, it doesn't make sense to question the connection or commitment of gay people when they're willing to go to this much trouble to get married. Even if hetero marriage and gay marriage are like apples and oranges...well, apples and oranges are both pretty good, aren't they? Plus, while I'm not saying gay couples love each other more than all straight couples, I AM saying that a lot of gay couples probably love each other more than SOME straight couples who nobody tried to stop from getting married. Is anybody really going to try to claim with a straight face that the marriages of Dennis Rodman or Kim Kardashian were sacred? I'm betting that even the priest who presided over the ceremonies was secretly thinking "I give it a year." 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Little Pirate Posted February 11, 2012 Popular Post Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) I don't even think this whole gay marriage thing would be an issue if people learned to just mind their own business. Unless this person is directly related to you or has a direct impact on your life, you shouldn't be telling them who they can or can't marry. It's a personal decision between two people and their family/friends. And don't go into the whole 'sanctity of marriage' thing because I have yet to see anything running campaigns or propositions against divorce. Edited February 11, 2012 by LittlePirate 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 Heterosexual relationships are absolutely different than homosexual ones. One set is between folks with similar equipment, while the other represents relationships between folks with dissimilar equipment. Big whoop. Men and women are different, but not every man is different from every woman in the same way. Every couple's relationship is unique and wildly different from those of millions of other couples. Why worry about a particular matchup of traits so much? Using these sorts of generalities about populations to make blanket judgments and rules would appear to be anti-individualism. Let each couple decide for themselves. Let them figure out if it works for themselves. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 So, as I heard it explained, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, the big swing politically is that marriages have tax benefits that civil unions do not. The government wants to sponsor marriage and families as they are beneficial to society. You hear about that sort of thing a lot when you discuss education. The single biggest factor affecting grades, drop out rates, etc, is family. The governement acknowledges this and trys to encourage families through tax breaks and stuff. It's not all that different than encouraging home ownership by letting you deduct the interest you pay on your mortgage. The question that is yet to be answered is whether you see those same sorts of benefits with same sex couples. Clearly you can't bring forth children but then you could go into adoption. Anyway, it's not really a question that I personally care enough to try to answer but that's the reason why it's not as simple as "mind your own business". WE ALREADY OPERATE IN A MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS SOCIETY. IF YOU WANT TO GET MARRIED TO YOUR SAME SEX PARTNER YOU CAN. NOBODY WILL STOP YOU. The issue is over government endorsement of marriage and stuff like that. If you guys want to go on about that then have at it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 I know this is completely beside your point, but it's related and I find it interesting: they can now make sperm from human bone marrow, meaning lesbian couples actually could have their own biological children (and men are now reproductively superfluous). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) Marriages have some tax benefits (and some drawbacks, depending on the situation). The biggest measurable benefits are in the application of laws and regulations regarding everything from insurance coverage, who counts as family for hospital visits and the like, the rights of a surviving spouse, and so on. Pro-marriage policies have many salutary affects beyond benefiting children. Yes, that's *part* of the justification, but there are many other justifications as well. Couples tend to be more law-abiding and economically efficient. Couples strengthen community cohesion and involvement. Couples help out with relatives' children. The list goes on. To say that benefiting children is the only reason the government does or should promote marriage is asinine because sterile people, people beyond childbearing age, and people who have no intention of having children get married all the time and far outnumber possible gay marriages. You can say you're married, but the many state governments (and homophobic voters) will tell you it doesn't count. Edited February 11, 2012 by Mr. GOH! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.