Vote no on prop 4 + 8! (california)

[archibaldcrane]

I don't even want to think about the logistics of a child going to a doctor, the doctor saying "well if we do this I have to notify your parents", the child claiming abusive parents, a court date being set to rule if parental notification can be waived, etc. etc., all while the ticking clock of a hidden pregnancy is counting down until she starts to show and said abusive parents will find out.

For a 14-15 year old? No thanks.

[Remyo]

sickening how nonchalant you all are on abortion.

[Kuya]

Oh, remyo, you're always a riot.

[archibaldcrane]

If the topic of abortion was an easy, nonchalant, la-dee-dah one, I'd have no problem with parental notification - it's just another medical procedure.

But it's not. Stopping this bill is important, because abortion is a serious issue.

[Correction]

sickening how nonchalant you all are on abortion.

hitler cartman avatar

[Remyo]

hitler cartman avatar

siriusly making fetus milkshakes should require parental notification.

[archibaldcrane]

The parent of the fetus is aware, trust me.

[Remyo]

The parent of the fetus is aware, trust me.

parent wouldn't be the term I would use.

if they aren't responsible enough to not prevent pregnancy then they shouldn't engage in the act.


should spay and neuter with an abortion if they legalize it.

[quannum]

if they aren't responsible enough to not prevent pregnancy then they shouldn't engage in the act.

ITT: countering reality with idealism

[ZarakiKujata]

If this was true the Greeks would have failed to reproduce new generations. From what I remember about this subject, in Ancient Greece, some Upper-class men would have sexual relations with younger men and introduce them into high society life at the same time. Sexual relations between men of the same status/age was still taboo.

As far as prop. 8 goes, Is the definition of one word worth thousands, perhaps millions, of people's happiness?

I never said they did not have sex with women at all; just that it was regarded by a lot of males as simply for procreation of the species, nothing else, whereas sex with a man was superior because it was purely for enjoyment. There were those who did do it with boys/young men and yes homosexuality is a genetic variation that occurs to curb the population, hence why it exists in nature and why there has been documentation where homosexual animals will look after orphaned children in their group (which kind of helps the argument for gay people getting easier access for adoption imo). It's escaping me which class I've taken where the issue about homosexuality in ancient Greek society was brought up but it did occur between men of equal status/age within the military where the exercise served as a method of relieving sexual tension in the absence of boys/women and to increase the feelings of brotherhood amongst the soldiers. This similiar practice continues on amongst sailors pretty much up until the modern era.. when it became easier to get shore leave etc. To my knowledge homosexuality was never taboo or frowned upon in the west until the spread of Judeo-Christian beliefs. Also some juicy hypocrisy can be found in Islam since they disapprove of homosexuality, yet theres tons of traditional shit where men take on boys as concubines then when they come of age they marry them off to their own daughters... (this practice still largely occurs in Afghanistan).

[Kuya]

Homosexual practices did not become taboo because of Judeo-Christian beliefs, and in the Middle East, and in many countries they have a different conception which allows homosexual practices to not conflict with one's role as a male. The reason why it is taboo in the West is because homosexual activity become equated to sodomy and because its new interpretation (that of homosexuality as an inversion, as men becoming like women) became an assault to the very concepts which define manhood, which is why being a "true male" is seen as incongruent with engaging in homosexual activity. In the Middle East, homosexuality has no connotations of femininity, and when it comes to penetration, the penetrator is not considered to have lost his "manhood" because he has not been penetrated, therefore he continues to assert his role as male (this is what also happens in jails), while being penetrated is what gains you condemnation, unless you are by nature feminine, such as women, it is also acceptable for children because they are not considered masculine, therefore they do not loose masculinity.

In reality, the reason why there is opposition to homosexuality in the West, is because the West sees homosexuality as feminine, therefore this is an assault to manhood, which is also why, men who are educated to seek out masculinity (which can only be gained via recognition by your peers) avoid being associated with homosexuality like the plague. This has nothing to do with religion.

This is why gays "don't exist" in Iran.

[ZarakiKujata]

The taboo of homosexuality getting equated to sodomy in the West though came with Judeo-Christianity condemning sodomy and the practices of the Romans, I mean there are other factors at play I'm sure, but as Christianity rose to prominence in Europe so with it went out the door the ancient homosexual practices of the Greco-Romans and all the other ancient cultures of the Mediterranean/Palestine area that the Judaic people had been condemning for centuries prior.

I wasn't aware of alot of the specifics of the Islamic tradition just merely the info I gave, interesting stuff to say the least.

I would disagree in part, certainly opposition from segments of the population in this country to homosexuality do come from the notion of it as feminine and a threat to masculinity, but if anything I'd say this is decreasing as a primary point of contention for anti-gay rights people as more people get used to gay people being out in the open. The main supporters and initiators of all these gay marriage bans are Christians who are objecting on a religious basis that sodomy is against God as are homosexuals raising children because it violates the nuclear family structure that they have claimed as Christian.

[Ksandra]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-jc4ujp9Ok


apparently we need to vote yes because IT HURTS STRAIGHTS~ /sarcasm

[Kuya]

The taboo of homosexuality getting equated to sodomy in the West though came with Judeo-Christianity condemning sodomy and the practices of the Romans, I mean there are other factors at play I'm sure, but as Christianity rose to prominence in Europe so with it went out the door the ancient homosexual practices of the Greco-Romans and all the other ancient cultures of the Mediterranean/Palestine area that the Judaic people had been condemning for centuries prior.

Homosexuality continued to be practiced under the dominion of Judeo-Christian beliefs, the only difference was that it just wasn't supported or institutionalized by the kingdom or the religion, as it was for the early Roman empire and the Greeks. Homosexuality, all the way to the 20th century was simply considered child's play, something that kids grew out of, and though many did not view it lightly, no one really cared for it as long as men continued to uphold their duties of forming households, maintaining control over their woman, and raising their kids. Manhood was defined during those times as the adult who produces children and raises them properly, and of course, as the highest head of family and land. Homosexuality only became associated with sodomy during the rise of the medical paradigm, i believe around the 18th or 19th century. They were investigating was they considered an excess of pulse, as in excess of sex, and during this, they were reinterpreting sodomy as perhaps a disease. One of the first documented cases of a sodomite was a transgendered man; this was the first time the public ever heard of such a thing and this was the very first case that it was turned into a public issue.

It also needs to be noted that sodomy was a political accusation; it was mostly used by kings or the nobles to defame whomever they considered their rivals. In reality, most people in those times did not even know what sodomy meant. They knew it was bad according to the bible, but sodomy wasn't actually actively persecuted as a crime, until the entry of the medical paradigm, where many people, such as the poor or women, were largely accused of being propagators of mental illness and such other little misconceptions. It didn't take long for sodomy to turn from a moral wrong into a mental disease and a moral wrong, this is where they started to categorize these men as hypersexuals (they thought anybody could engage in these acts), and likely to become effeminate because of it. The views were very contradicting, but they were just trying to make heads or tails of what they thought was some new disease that made men want to try to procreate so badly that they would engage in sodomy with other men, and even act like women.

I would disagree in part, certainly opposition from segments of the population in this country to homosexuality do come from the notion of it as feminine and a threat to masculinity, but if anything I'd say this is decreasing as a primary point of contention for anti-gay rights people as more people get used to gay people being out in the open.

This is false, the West is not used to "gays" being out in the open, nor have they stopped being misogynists. The religious condemnation is just an effect of the real moral threat the concept of "gay" creates, and furthermore it is actually loosing power. Naturally fundamentalists are the ones creating most of the noise about it, but they understand very little. What they really fear, more so than any divine retribution is becoming "gay" themselves. People who are conservative often believe that gay people can make straight men gay, just like it was initially conceived of being something that could affect any man. They're opposition to it arises from the somewhat irrational belief that by allowing homosexuality to flourish, it will contaminate all heterosexuals and turn them. Homosexuality as perceived by the West is a danger to its foundations if it sees it as being a contagion and gender bending. This would be true, if "catching" homosexuality actually implied an abandonment of heterosexuality, and the reason why they belief this is because of the rise of the "gay" identity which proposes that homosexuals are not capable of having relations with the opposite gender just so long as they're homosexual. The essence of this belief is that a "gay" identity is polarizing, as is a "straight" identity. You can't be both, hence you can't be "gay" or else you won't pursue your duties as a male.

I'm going to make a another post because this is too much information.

[Trinsie]

Ok prop 4 (the one about teens needing parents informed to get an abortion)

I will break this down for you and tell you why voting against it should be a no brainer.


Ok so Ksandra said the part about teens not wanting to tell their parents so they preform what is known as a "back alley" abortion.

Well it is a risk but this is not the main reason to oppose it.

This law was passed in my home state of Missouri and what happened is the average teen did not want to tell their parents so they took on average a longer time to do it. Time is an issue here because the further you are into your pregnancy the higher risk for death to the woman.

Not only that but some parents don't react well to the news and kick the teen out of their home and disown them which I am sure i not good for them.

Ok now lets put all I just said behind and let's assume you don't care what happens to the woman because you think abortion is a sin against humanity and that the girl trying to get one deserves to die.

Well in this case you should be against it also. Why, you may ask. Well because it has been shown in the 4 states that this has passed its girls have taken on average longer to go through with it for unknown reasons (maybe trying to work up the nerve to tell their parents). But, what you need to know is this law does not make abortion illegal it only says the parents have to know. They don't have a say in it... they just have to be told. Due to the increased distance into the pregnancy on average this causes, the number of late term abortions drastically increases. Meaning instead of aborting a small cluster of cells you now are aborting more developed fetuses.

So in closing: If you are for or against abortion that is not the issue of this proposition. It has nothing to do with can or can't do it. It just causes a lot more hurt to all involved.

[Kuya]

You might take notice that the biggest issue that is brought up by certain conservatives is that gays can turn children into gays. They do not say this out of being coy. They actually believe this. As i've already said, these people believe that anyone can be turned gay, hence why they oppose it. They may sugar coat it as religious motivation, but the children issue always thwarts this. Religion, as an institution of the state, will obviously replicate and propagate the primary moral values of a society, and hence what religion does is not create condemnation for gays, but rather, perpetuate it. The issue remains at heart; homosexuality, as soon as it was turned into a disease and then into the "gay" identity, became a threat to the concept of gender, and its links to the male sex, and to a lesser extent, the female sex. They reason they oppose gays in the military is pretty much the same reason as most men are uncomfortable around queens, but it goes further. They do not want to be associated with this, this poses a danger to their masculinity, and for many men, having men whom they know have desires for men that close to them, is a threat to them, because they do not desire to be gay, and they believe that having gays this close to them will lead to a certain temptation. Why in the world do you think they oppose this so much? Sexual tension in the military is already enough of a problem, they certainly don't want it on their heads that they have gays there, and they would certainly want to keep the illusion that they aren't there, or rather, that only "gays" are the ones who are interested in men. Of course, that is silly, you would expect these men to be professional and not jump all over eachother in a lustful rage, but then you wonder why they're even worrying about such an issue, and then suddenly the reason hits you.

The opposition to same sex marriage is just a bi product of all of this; they don't want to legitimize homosexuality, which is what marriage would do for them. It is purely a political battle. Trying to tie religion at the core of this is just for people who have not studied this at all, and simply look at the superficiality of this entire situation.

Furthermore, i'd go as far as to say that most men, are homophobic, and this will not change just as long as homosexuality means femininity, or even closer to the core of the issue, as long as masculine and feminine remain polar opposites, and the prime method of the male sex to conceptualize itself is via the rejection of femininity; they have to, you can't prove masculinity, you can prove your sex, but certainly not a social identity, so it will need a foil, something to contrast it, and femininity serves this purpose by being that which males reject, which has the unfortunate side effect of making males have some contempt for anything feminine, including women.

Liberals aren't much better; they presume to know more than conservatives and just end up making horrid mistakes. The liberal "have your cake and eat it to" is pretty much to have gays imitate straights as the nice monogamous couples who marry and live happily ever after (just as long as they aren't too faggy!!).