Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 23, 2014, 03:56:16 AM
522851 Posts in 39397 Topics by 4876 Members
Latest Member: Dalek1
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  Being ethnic(?) makes you less...human? « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Author Topic: Being ethnic(?) makes you less...human?  (Read 6436 times)
Captain Tars Tarkas
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 76
Posts: 411



WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 15, 2008, 03:52:29 PM »

OK, GHouck, no hate, but let me respond to a couple of things you said:

"I find that entire statement arrogant. "by the clinical definition of the term, sexual deviants"? That's the stupidest, sheepish thing I've heard this week. Aren't the "clinicians" that decided this the same ones that were all for pumping kids with Ritalin on every whim?"

Words mean things.  Deviancy is a significant departure from a biological norm.  The biological norm for the humans species is heterosexuality; that is why about 95% of humans are heterosexual (I know Kinsey said that 10% of the population are gay, but modern studies have shown that finding to be inflated, probably because he oversampled convicts in his original study, where homosexuality is much more common as an adaptation to a single-sex environment).  Deviancy, in its proper clinical usage, is not a perjorative term but a statistical one.




That's nice that you are trying to use science as an excuse to call gay people nasty names, but by the same logic white people are "deviants" because they make up the minority of human races.  Therefore, all white people should be banned from getting married, because "historically" marraige has been between non-white people.
Logged

indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 1321
Posts: 7745


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #16 on: November 15, 2008, 04:22:53 PM »

Again, you are distinguishing between a BEHAVIOR and an innate, hereditary CHARACTERISTIC in an attempt to make me mean something I did not say or imply.

BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS are innate and inherited, BEHAVIORS are not.
Logged

"Carpe diem!" - Seize the day!  "Carpe per diem!" - Seize the daily living allowance! "Carpe carp!" - Seize the fish!
"Carpe Ngo Diem!" - Seize the South Vietnamese Dictator!
Menard
Guest
« Reply #17 on: November 15, 2008, 06:12:36 PM »

BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS are innate and inherited, BEHAVIORS are not.

Quite the contrary. There are many behaviors that are inherited, and much evidence to support that; more so than there is to disprove it.

Babies have been shown to develop the same behaviors regardless of external stimuli; even those who are blind and cannot possibly mimic the behaviors of others.

Would smiles and fears be biological traits then? Then why can't attraction be just the same?

Oh...I know...it doesn't fit with the 'norm'; regardless of how it came to be.

I don't care for norms; they try to peg people into predetermined categories.


I'm certain that the majority of members of this board don't fall into 'norms'.

If that makes us unacceptable or less than desirable to others, I personally would happily accept that.


I know, I'm irrelevant.

 TongueOut
Logged
ER
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 243
Posts: 1492



« Reply #18 on: November 15, 2008, 07:18:43 PM »

With respect and good will to anyone who differs, personally I can't see anything wrong with gay people being allowed to marry.

If heterosexuality and the institution/ordinance/sacrament of marriage has survived Elvis-themed wedding chapels in Las Vegas, the increasing commonality of non-platonic male/female cohabitation, and divorce attorneys so rapacious they advertise in church bulletins right next to the publishing of banns, then it seems to me a man and a woman in love and wanting to be together for life can and will do so even if two men or two women elsewhere wish to have that same privilege.

I just can't for the life of me see that gay marriage erodes society or harms anyone, but obviously most people disagree, and in a democracy a majority opinion usually carries the day.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2008, 07:20:24 PM by ER » Logged

Seeking Tir a 'nOg since 1978.
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 1321
Posts: 7745


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #19 on: November 15, 2008, 11:42:10 PM »

Well reasoned, as always, ER.

If we are going to redefine the world's oldest and most sacred institution - at least, in most cultures and most ages . . . . then let it be done at the ballot box, by the will of the people, not imposed from above by an activist judge, or by a city mayor whose contempt for Federal law is well-documented.

Again,  I know I'm being a curmudgeon, but calling a relationship something it is not, and has never been throughout the 5000 years of recorded history, does not make it that thing.  To me, no homosexual relationship, whether male or female, will ever be a marriage.

To all those who disagree, feel free to write me off as a hopeless intellectual neanderthal.  You wouldn't be the first!!!   Wink
Logged

"Carpe diem!" - Seize the day!  "Carpe per diem!" - Seize the daily living allowance! "Carpe carp!" - Seize the fish!
"Carpe Ngo Diem!" - Seize the South Vietnamese Dictator!
Menard
Guest
« Reply #20 on: November 15, 2008, 11:59:09 PM »

If we are going to redefine the world's oldest and most sacred institution...

I don't remember talking about prostitution...

...oh...wait a minute...that's world's oldest profession

Nevermind TongueOut
Logged
AndyC
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1398
Posts: 11161



« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2008, 12:15:14 AM »

Just to defend Indy for a moment, I think what he's trying to say (re: biology vs. behaviour) is that he does not agree with the trend toward viewing people of a certain sexual preference as equivalent to a racial or ethnic group.

I have to agree with that. I don't think sharing a sexual preference, whether picked up by nature or nurture, should be considered the same as being black, white, hispanic, Jewish or whatever. On the one hand, you have major populations shaped by evolutionary and cultural forces for millennia, and on the other hand, you have a percentage of those populations, who share one characteristic and not necessarily anything else. That should be an obvious distinction.

That's where I have a problem with debates like this - when people just aren't being honest with themselves. Indy is right. Homosexuality is abnormal. The human body doesn't work that way. From an evolutionary perspective, mating with your own gender is a dead end. Personally, I don't see how it differs from any other kink, except for being built up into a quasi-racial group on one side of the argument and a major threat to society on the other. Don't get me wrong; there's nothing wrong with being kinky. I would defy anyone on this board to tell me they don't have even a single, just slightly unusual turn-on. It's best to just be honest with ourselves. Homosexuality is abnormal. It's also fairly common, and generally no harm to anyone in and of itself. It just isn't that big a deal.

And isn't that the best thing? For it to be considered no big deal? This is where I have another problem. On the one hand, we are supposed to see gays as ordinary, normal people, which, by and large, they are. On the other hand, there is this tendency, at least by the activists, to wrap quite a lot of their identity up in this 'gay' label, and to present us with this monolithic group who flaunt their sexuality publicly in flamboyant annual parades. What's the deal with that?

To me, it seems counterproductive to go about redefining cultural institutions if acceptance is the goal. Again, we have a group of regular folks who just want to go about their business like everyone else. The whole purpose of gay marriage is to be viewed and treated like everyone else. The biggest obstacle to this is the many folks who see homosexuality as somehow threatening to their way of life. Tinkering with their most cherished institutions is only going reinforce that belief.

For that matter, I don't agree that governments have a right to redefine institutions that are cultural and not governmental in origin. Governments can, and do, extend spousal benefits to committed couples who are not 'married' in the strict definition of the word. And rightly so. However, society's institutions should only be tinkered with when society is ready to do so. That means a strong consensus, which isn't there right now.

I don't believe there will be such a consensus until people on one side stop viewing homosexuality as inherently evil and people on the other side stop seeing it as something more special than it is.

That said, my original intention was to leave that issue alone entirely and speak to the original post. Gang assault seems like the appropriate charge for most of the group, but I'm surprised at the manslaughter charge. How do you stab a guy without at least some expectation that it might kill him? Manslaughter is appropriate if you kill somebody while doing something that ordinarily wouldn't be fatal, like punching or kicking, but sticking a knife in somebody? That's murder. Maybe he didn't do it with intent to kill, but he must have understood there was a strong possibility. Maybe the others should be charged as accomplices to murder as well.
Logged

---------------------
"Join me in the abyss of savings."
Menard
Guest
« Reply #22 on: November 16, 2008, 01:06:22 AM »

For that matter, I don't agree that governments have a right to redefine institutions that are cultural and not governmental in origin. Governments can, and do, extend spousal benefits to committed couples who are not 'married' in the strict definition of the word. And rightly so. However, society's institutions should only be tinkered with when society is ready to do so. That means a strong consensus, which isn't there right now.

But they do have a right to go into somebody's bedroom?

There's two sides to that coin. One side say's that government, and others, should not redefine the institution of marriage (still looking for that definition myself) but the other side wants government to prevent 'undesirables' from taking part in it by enacting legislation on it; and this is the same coin. Isn't that just a bit hypocritical?

An institution?

To whom does it solely belong?

Christians?

Buddhists?

Muslims?

Were any of the people in those groups born that way?

That's another hypocrisy where people of one behavior by choice want to restrict others from a so-called institution on the claims of their chosen behavior; so we essentially have, if government makes laws to restrict, government telling us what is acceptable behavior based purely on religious doctrine and bigotry. Didn't we supposedly move away from that centuries ago?

Marriage is solely the business of two people; the two being married, and nobody else. It does not belong solely to any group (who have chosen to be that way). Defending that right is not claiming somebody to be special; just claiming that everybody has a right to make a choice.
Logged
Captain Tars Tarkas
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 76
Posts: 411



WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 16, 2008, 04:35:47 AM »

Through 5000 years of recorded history marriage has been many things, it has only been exclusively between a man and a woman very recently.  One has only to read the Bible and the numerous tales of dudes with multiple wives to see things weren't always Ozzie and Harriet 1950's.  Many cultures have polygamy and whatever it is called when there is multiple husbands, there is also arranged marriages which aren't done out of love, nor were lots of marriages throughout the ages.  The same arguments used here such as people marrying turtles are next are the exact same arguments leveled against interracial marriages.  No, that crazy lady's wedding is not legally recognized and never will be due to the dolphin not being a consenting human adult.  Nor is the lady who married a wall, that Indian guy who married a goat, or any other wacky marriage (I believe those Indian ones are just ceremonial, but then again, it is India...)

The greatest threat to marriage is not two dudes kissing, it is more the sky-high divorce rate.  According to the Bible, there is no divorce, but you don't see people adding those constitutional amendments, I am guessing it is due to the strangely large amount of divorced hardcore conservatives who like to tell people who they can or can't marry.  I say let gays get married, maybe the divorce rate will go down a bit.  It does not hurt my marriage one bit, and if it hurts yours, that is between you and your wife, not two strangers.
Logged

AndyC
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1398
Posts: 11161



« Reply #24 on: November 16, 2008, 07:04:39 AM »

But Menard, that was my point. Marriage is a cultural institution, defined by various cultural groups in their own way. Government should not be concerning itself with that either way, but rather just looking at the relationship. Governments already do that. An exclusive relationship between two people is already recognized as a de facto marriage, regardless of whether they've gone through any official ceremony. Partners in such relationships are generally entitled to the same benefits as those in a 'marriage' and in that way, government has already demonstrated that it has its own definition of marriage.

The problem is not whether the government recognizes the relationship as marriage, but whether the majority of people see it that way. Passing a law will not change that one way or the other. The people who don't agree with gay marriage will not recognize it, no matter what the law says, and forcing a new definition on them from the top down will only make them less inclined to do so. That's what this is about. The government already says it's marriage, even if it isn't called that. This is about making everyone call it marriage, which cannot be forced. Forcing it just invites a backlash, which is where we get legislation aimed at banning gay marriage.

That is why I say that it is more productive to work on changing the attitude first, then changing the terminology.
Logged

---------------------
"Join me in the abyss of savings."
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 1321
Posts: 7745


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #25 on: November 16, 2008, 09:38:05 AM »

Tars - "According to the Bible, there is no divorce"

Au contraire. Divorce was common and easy in the Old Testament. Jesus and Paul decried the easy divorce rate and said that infidelity should be the only real cause of divorce.  Just like everything else God gave us, man has take marriage, meant to be a lifelong and beautiful relationship, and screwed it up and cheapened it.

 "Many cultures have polygamy and whatever it is called when there is multiple husbands, there is also arranged marriages which aren't done out of love, nor were lots of marriages throughout the ages. "

True, marriage has taken different forms in different cultures and ages - but in ALL those forms it was still a male-female relationship.  That's my whole point.  Marriage has never been a same-sex institution before, and I see no reason to change that.
Logged

"Carpe diem!" - Seize the day!  "Carpe per diem!" - Seize the daily living allowance! "Carpe carp!" - Seize the fish!
"Carpe Ngo Diem!" - Seize the South Vietnamese Dictator!
Menard
Guest
« Reply #26 on: November 16, 2008, 09:45:08 AM »

But Menard, that was my point. Marriage is a cultural institution, defined by various cultural groups in their own way.

Then the question begs to be asked:

What makes a cultural group?

Is lifestyle one of those things?

Throughout this entire conversation, those opposed to gay marriage simply want to define marriage by their belief system, then proclaim it to be a sacred institution to them.



The problem is not whether the government recognizes the relationship as marriage, but whether the majority of people see it that way. Passing a law will not change that one way or the other. The people who don't agree with gay marriage will not recognize it, no matter what the law says, and forcing a new definition on them from the top down will only make them less inclined to do so. That's what this is about. The government already says it's marriage, even if it isn't called that. This is about making everyone call it marriage, which cannot be forced. Forcing it just invites a backlash, which is where we get legislation aimed at banning gay marriage.

No. Far from it. It's about difference. The majority of people did not accept interracial marriages when they were allowed in this country. Who's to say that the majority still do? Should we just turn around and ban anything that the majority doesn't like because of discrimination?

Allowing two people to be married is forcing nothing on you. If you don't want to call their relationship marriage, that's your problem. If you want to ban then from being married, that's you taking your problem and making it their's.

A lot of the arguments used against gay marriage are the same arguments that have been used against civil rights. As it was then, it is just discrimination candy-coated in rationalizations.

BTW, I am largely generalizing in my response; I am not pointing the finger at you, Andy.


For that matter, I don't agree that governments have a right to redefine institutions that are cultural and not governmental in origin. Governments can, and do, extend spousal benefits to committed couples who are not 'married' in the strict definition of the word. And rightly so. However, society's institutions should only be tinkered with when society is ready to do so. That means a strong consensus, which isn't there right now.

But they do have a right to go into somebody's bedroom?

There's two sides to that coin. One side say's that government, and others, should not redefine the institution of marriage (still looking for that definition myself) but the other side wants government to prevent 'undesirables' from taking part in it by enacting legislation on it; and this is the same coin. Isn't that just a bit hypocritical?

An institution?

To whom does it solely belong?

Christians?

Buddhists?

Muslims?

Were any of the people in those groups born that way?

That's another hypocrisy where people of one behavior by choice want to restrict others from a so-called institution on the claims of their chosen behavior; so we essentially have, if government makes laws to restrict, government telling us what is acceptable behavior based purely on religious doctrine and bigotry. Didn't we supposedly move away from that centuries ago?

Marriage is solely the business of two people; the two being married, and nobody else. It does not belong solely to any group (who have chosen to be that way). Defending that right is not claiming somebody to be special; just claiming that everybody has a right to make a choice.

But Menard, that was my point. Marriage is a cultural institution, defined by various cultural groups in their own way. Government should not be concerning itself with that either way, but rather just looking at the relationship. Governments already do that. An exclusive relationship between two people is already recognized as a de facto marriage, regardless of whether they've gone through any official ceremony. Partners in such relationships are generally entitled to the same benefits as those in a 'marriage' and in that way, government has already demonstrated that it has its own definition of marriage.

The problem is not whether the government recognizes the relationship as marriage, but whether the majority of people see it that way. Passing a law will not change that one way or the other. The people who don't agree with gay marriage will not recognize it, no matter what the law says, and forcing a new definition on them from the top down will only make them less inclined to do so. That's what this is about. The government already says it's marriage, even if it isn't called that. This is about making everyone call it marriage, which cannot be forced. Forcing it just invites a backlash, which is where we get legislation aimed at banning gay marriage.

That is why I say that it is more productive to work on changing the attitude first, then changing the terminology.

Could you kindly point out where we even even came close to making the same point?
Logged
ghouck
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 583
Posts: 3750


Afro-Mullets RULE!


WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 16, 2008, 11:50:59 AM »

Marriage has never been a same-sex institution before, and I see no reason to change that.

Of course not, it doesn't suit you personally and doesn't fit your religion.
Logged

Raw bacon is GREAT! It's like regular bacon, only faster, and it doesn't burn the roof of your mouth!

Happiness is green text in the "Stuff To Watch For" section.

James James: The man so nice, they named him twice.

"Aw man, this thong is chafing my balls" -Lloyd Kaufman in Poultrygeist.

"There's always time for lubricant" -Orlando Jones in Evolution
ghouck
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 583
Posts: 3750


Afro-Mullets RULE!


WWW
« Reply #28 on: November 16, 2008, 12:07:40 PM »

Again, you are distinguishing between a BEHAVIOR and an innate, hereditary CHARACTERISTIC in an attempt to make me mean something I did not say or imply.

BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS are innate and inherited, BEHAVIORS are not.

The insistence that homosexuality is a behavior and not a biological characteristic is ignorant. I see it as the witch hunt it has always been. Have you ever known or been related to a homosexual? Have you ever heard them truly speak about how they feel? It doesn't take much listening before one realizes that this isn't something they 'decided', as you try to make it sound by labeling it as "behavior". Homosexuals ARE what they ARE, there's no changing that, no need to anyways, and no need to discriminate against them either.

BTW, are you trying to tell me that the state of Hawaii actually knowingly issued a marriage certificate to a dolphin, and not just through a previously unnoticed loophole in the law? Supposing they did, please explain how that effects YOU.
Logged

Raw bacon is GREAT! It's like regular bacon, only faster, and it doesn't burn the roof of your mouth!

Happiness is green text in the "Stuff To Watch For" section.

James James: The man so nice, they named him twice.

"Aw man, this thong is chafing my balls" -Lloyd Kaufman in Poultrygeist.

"There's always time for lubricant" -Orlando Jones in Evolution
Allhallowsday
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 1496
Posts: 10459


Either he's dead or my watch has stopped!


« Reply #29 on: November 16, 2008, 12:11:02 PM »

Great discussion.  I'll stay out of the gay marriage debate, though. 
...It happened not too infrequently in Mississippi, Alabama, and other states just because a guy was black.

It seems there is no symmetry to progression. We elect a black man for the first time as president, yet there is a growing tide of xenophobia in this country; really, a lot of the same old hating others for their differences...
You don't think there's a corollary?  Our culture is changing, not entirely in good ways, but change is always frightening for people.  I'm very proud to be an American in the wake of this election, but I suspect there are millions of Americans who don't feel the same way. 

The author of the article you linked to states: "...We've raised two or maybe three generations of Americans who think they're entitled to shun the kind of jobs that their parents and grandparents did years ago..." 
I know too many parents who indulge their children and are horrified at the idea that they should make their children do chores, or work to earn money for a car... the very things their own parents often had insisted upon from them. 
Logged

If you want to view paradise . . . simply look around and view it!
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  Being ethnic(?) makes you less...human? « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.