Gay Marriage

Remove all ads!

To play Devil's Advocate here, how would that be possible? Banning the term "marriage" and calling any union a civil union? I'm certain that very few people would be happy with that solution.

I honestly fail to see any rational reasoning as to why any nation that prides itself on equality and freedom would have certain people barred from recieving rights that others recieve. Marriage is not a privilege, as of the present, you only need to find a consenting person of the opposite sex to engage in the act of matrimony. This carries no need to prove one's worthiness as privileges do.

This stinks of the racism controversy of the late sixties and should end the same way. Either ban marriage for everyone or grant the right to everyone. I'm much more in favor of the latter.

While there is no reason to ethically ban homosexual couples from adopting children, there is substantive evidence that both a masculine and a feminine "role-model" (parent) is required for healthy infantile and adolescent development. Can a homosexual union produce that as well as a heterosexual one? I don't know. There are major arguments for either side.

Agreed.

If the schools do a better job of infusing values into little Tommy than his parents do, then one must wonder at the quality of the parents.

 

I'm pretty much on the same lines as Shura here.


A married couple has over a thousand rights that an unmarried couple has not. Like it's been pointed out, rom the little things like name change to the big things like insurabnce coverage, some things are possible to achieve but some are not. And even those that a gay couple can achieve come with a financical cost way beyond that of a marriage lisence.

Besides, what is marriage but the joining of two capitals? So okay, I take the "love doesn't enter the equation" line here, seeing as for a very, very long time marriage had nothing to do with love and all to do with money.

If it is the concept of marriage that makes people so horrified of the idea of gay union, then it's their perogative to call it something else. If I were to be wed to another woman (unlikely since I detest the idea of marriage... not) I would have no problem refering to it as civil union, commitment ceremony or something along those lines.

The fact that homosexuality is wrong by the tenentsof some faits should not have any impact on the lives of the general public who may or may not share that faith. For those who believe so, it should be a personal decision if they engage in a behaviour they deem sinful, but it does not give them the right to start imposing their morals on everyone else... or words to that effect anyway.

And althought this is totally remark...

Not all gay couples have anal sex! It's a stereotypical assumption that's based on prejudice... Sex (and lovemaking) is not all about penetration!

*stops ranting now because she wants to stay on topic*

 

Love making put aside, there is no full intercourse without penetration. People may have oral sex which is having sex still, but it's not full intercourse. With gay men there are only two ways: oral and anal, simply because of the lack of other sufficiently large holes. I have not said "all" even once in this thread IIRC, so it's futile to to accuse me of stereotyping on this basis. Prejudice seems to be a common denominator for opposite view in this thread.

Equality is for all, children included. As all citizens are equal, no citizen is above or below another even if on various occasions authority, custody etc appear. Therefore, no citizen can be an object of someone's rights. As all humans have personality under law and are not subject to ownership, a human cannot be the object of another human's right. Nor is he means of someone else's fulfilment. For the sake of equality and directly inferred from it. In plain English, kids are not awards.

I wonder if you really didn't catch that, but let me repeat: you quote freely and infer randomly for the sake of your arguments.

Per Christianity God loves all humans, which means He also loves "fags". Well, He also loves paedophiles, necrophiles and all other philes, it seems. What's more, that's not really what I would prefer, if you ever think of asking me, as I spell properly and without lowering myself to those stupid leet patterns which to your mind govern Christians' speech. You apparently know better than I what I would prefer, heh.

It's amazing how I'm still presented as the quintessential zealot while I'm being bombed with insults and mockery by the noble defenders of love, equality, human and civil rights, open-mindedness and tolerance. In truth do I say, in your (this is a non-singular you) arguments you rely on faith and belief more than I do in mine.

People seem to call upon the "consenting adults" argument excessively. What's next? Polygamic marriage? Poliandric one? If we allow that, doesn't an eight person mixed gender group sex group consist of consenting adults? Should they be allowed to adopt children? If we're at it, paedophiles raise their heads as gay right activists are getting more and more of what they want. Lower the age of consent, they say. Eliminate it. Look, stretching the border more and more will lead in that direction. Whichever extreme we allow, those near to that extreme but still on the other side will demand their "rights" unavoidably.

This very same actually applies to arguments promoting gay love as just a different way, and an equal one. Borders tend to expand here too. If a large enough group of paedophiles gathered together, paedophilia would be scratched out of the list of disorders too, just like homosexualism was. Fetishism, zoophilia... everything short of necrophilia, I believe. I hope. It's just a matter of getting enough people by your side. After all, schizophrenia could be declared an alternative valid perception of the world and colour blindness (daltonism) a valid alternative way of perceiving colours. Which means we wouldn't be able to call green green and red red for the sake of civil rights of the colour blind people. I'm exaggerating? I'm talking about absurd extremes? Every such thing seems extreme and absurd until it happens. Most of those who fought for civil divorces and depenalisation of non-marital sex under law a century or two ago would probably see our gay marriage debate as one of such absurd extremes. Who would have thought paedophiles would try legal means to get their point through? Until they did, that is.

 

Aye, well spoken. I could not have said it better myself.

By the way, to you-know-who, I do not think anywhere any of us have said that we hate anyone.

In fact, a quote from myself.

So there we have it. Opposed to the idea on philosophical and moral tennets, yet I still make it clear that there is no bigotry involved.

I just wanted to highlight a couple of things from chev's post which many seemed to previously over-look.

Aye, a universal love, irrespective of the flaws inherent in humanity.

When was the last time we saw an 'dyslexic pride' parade. It would be non-sensical, as is this. And yet those suffering from learning disorders have the same guidelines to enter university or the work force as everyone else. More often than not they are unable to due to a defect since birth, or perhaps one caused by some sort of trauma further in life, through no fault of their own. No special considerations are made, nor should they be. I know, I am one of them, one of the few that made it. Yet I would have it no other way, it would be entirely unnecessary and serve no purpose.

Rastor has allready spoken of the validity that a child needs both spouses for a balanced upbringing. It is unfortunate when parents are forced into single-parent-hood. Let's not try to search it out actively.

In fact, this sort of thing (the root cause, not the specific situation) is one of the reasons I began the thread on rights. It comes down to pride and greed. Come-on people. I'm all for freedom, understanding people do what it is they so choose, but let's not kid ourselves about it.

As always. "You do not agree with me, you must be biased, and are therefore wrong, while my bias makes me correct." To disagree is no-where near the same thing as it is to hate. No-one here has shown even the slightest inkling of feeling that way towards homosexuals.

Ok. I've said enough.

 

Just leave it up to you guys to cause a perfect storm in a glass of water.

I don't understand what the fuss is all about, nowadays marriage means nothing else but a businessagreement. It's right there, in the fine print.

 

Hmm, hence the fault of the matter is revealed.

Not even business agreements should be just business agreements.

 

Can I make a request of all participants in this thread?

We're discussing civil unions/gay marriage between two responsible, free thinking adults. Pedophelia, Necrophelia, and Beastiality, etc. are completely irrelevant. Stop bringing them up. No one is being victimized, defiled or abused in the case of gay unions.

Also, stop bringing up the penetration sex arguement or child bearing. They have also been deemed irrelevant as neither are required for a heterosexual marriage to be valid, or any romantic relationship for that matter, and as such they are not required for gay unions.

To formalize my previous arguements: Speaking as an American citizen, in a nation with a secular government which recognizes no official religion, with a constitution that specifically separates church and state, I submit that there is no reason to deny gay couples the legal recognition of their union in the form of marriage, since the arguements against gay marriage come almost entirely from a religious standpoint. Gay couples break no laws by practicing the lifestyle they choose.

That said, I also respect the right of all married people not to be forced to redefine "marriage" to include homosexuals if they don't want to. Forcing one group to compromise their beliefs to accomodate another group is just counterproductive. What I suggest is a separate designation be allowed that gives gay couples similar or equal rights and benefits under the law that straight couples receive (i.e. civil unions). It's only fair. Denying them this right based on religious principles is not only unconstitutional, it is, in my opinion, immoral and unfair. No one should be expected to subscribe to the moral code of a religion or belief system they don't subscribe to.

To address the conservative side of the arguement: It's been suggested by Chev, Gray and others in this thread that I've been dismissive and judgemental on this issue. On the contrary; I don't dismiss your beliefs or point of view. I simply disagree with the assertion that the idea of gay marriage can be dismissed so easily on account of the bible, the "nature" arguement, or any other that tries to constitute the "correct" way of the world. Correctness is very subjective and is different for everyone. Dismissing it as ridiculous or suggesting the couples in question are misguided, confused or mentally infirm displays a lack of understanding of, or willingness to understand, the situations or lifestyles of those in question. Telling others they can't do something because you believe it's wrong and asserting that your beliefs override theirs is simply unfair.

It should also be noted that we're not talking about a small community. The gay community, in America and abroad, consists of millions and millions of people, and they aren't going anywhere. Not criminals or sexual deviants, but good, honest, hard-working people. They also aren't hurting anyone. It's time to treat them as we ourselves would like to be treated. Tolerance does not mean celebration. You can be morally opposed to a lifestyle on religious grounds and recognise it's right to exist at the same time. That's part of being a member of modern society.

I hope the clarification of my position helps to clear the air a bit. I don't think I can be any more clear about it.

 

Chevalier, in all seriousness, that statement was not meant for you, nor for anyone participating in this discussion. You may have noticed that I havent mentioned your name in my post. I was talking about those selfrighteous people who think homosexuality per se is something wrong. And I am sure this shoe doesnt fit you anyway, right?

But by implying that the same people who want more/the same rights for all aspects of humans life, are acutally the ones who are ignorant or intolerant because they struggle against intolerance... well, thats above me.
Sounds like: You cant disagree because by doing so you show the same behaviour your 'opponent' displays.

 

If we all subscribed to your philosophy on the purposes of government, then we couldn't legally prevent gay marriage. But for every political philosopher there is a slightly different belief on what the purpose of government should be. Personally, I think governments' first duty is to execute the will of the people, which means at this time gay marriage should not be allowed.

I find this an interesting quote as homosexuality is medically defined as a psychological disorder, all other explanations for the cause of it are without scientific basis. We've mapped the human genome and there's been no forthcoming evidence that homosexuality is caused by a gene. And if it was caused by a horomonal imbalance homosexuality wouldn't exist anymore as this is a condition that needs medical intervention. The cause is psychological, all evidence points to this, and there have been people that have successfully escaped from homosexuality. Though in all truthfullness, it is one of the hardest conditions to overcome.

 

@ Elendrile

You make some very good points, especially about the role of government. However...

That's just it though. Most gays don't want to "escape." They're happy with being who they are. It doesn't keep them from functioning as a productive member of society the way that dislexia or other phychological disorders would. Many (actually, every gay person I know) would argue that if someone successfully "escaped" homosexuality, they either buried their feelings deep inside or weren't even really gay to begin with.

 

Aha! The light of reason.

Elendrile, as much as I know what you say is true, you will most probably be called all sorts of names for it, by members a good deal more close-minded than they would attempt to paint you as. This hypocrisy and double-standards are evident for everyone to see.

Adversity exists so that we may learn from it, not blind ourselves with political correctness.

Doesn't mean any hate is there, I don't hate those suffering from daltonism either, why would I?

That last statement was unneeded I think, as anyone who hasn't realised that no bigotry exists allready, will more than likely ignore anything that is said anyway.

Edit: and it seems that DR has proven me right upon the stand political correctness. Shall I see you at the dyslexic pride parade then? Many things hamper one's self, and yet most are encouraged by this society.

Edit #2: Furthermore, love is not to be mistaken with physical attraction. Love may exist anywhere, as I have said, it is universal.

Physical attraction springs from biology and the need for pro-creation.

Lust, especially when excessive, springs from weak strength of will, undeveloped morality, an immature psyche, or an excessive hormonal imbalance, such as puberty changes or an increased level of testosterone or estrogen. Or perhaps some combination of the above.

So please no-one talk about physical attraction being unnavoidable, or of anything to do with 'the heart' for it is not. Of course, vanity will not permit this admission.

[ January 14, 2004, 18:07: Message edited by: Manus ]

 

I would like to see those studies you point towards Elendil. As far as I know not much have been done to study homosexuality and what has been done shows wildly different results leaving us where we started. I think the current view of homosexuality is like some men prefer blondes, other brunettes and further others prefer other men, albeit with stronger preference than the ones that prefer blondes or brunettes.

 

A woman can penetrate another woman. She just needs to take the issue in hand...

But, back on the main issue, marriage between any two consenting adults should be allowed. Marriage is traditionally about combining families - whether the desire is economic, alliances, etc...

Nowadays, it is truely about love. I cannot see any reason why the conservatives should prevent two people from pronouncing their love.

 

Sigh: @Manus, as usual.

+

Please help me understand, adversity is there to help you understand something... buuuuuut... when someone disagrees with you... its vanity?

 

no...

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology

 

And that's the bottom line. People who bring up arguments equating homosexuality to pedophillia, beastiality or necrophilia seem to be missing a very big point - mainly that these things are illegal. Granted there is historical presedence that gay acts were illegal - but I think all of those are off the books by now - regardless they are unenforcable anyway - unless you do such in public - which is illegal no matter what your sexual orientation happens to be...

Manus, this quote comes from two statments you made in the same post. Are they not mutually exclusive? If physical attraction springs from human biology, then it is unavoidable - unless you do not possess a human's biology. I think everyone can agree with that. Does anyone make a conscious decision whether or not to find someone attractive? To me it just happens.

 

And of course Homosexuality occurs is nature outside of humans and is therefore, a natural occurance.

 

Arabwel and Chev:

Historically, we have proof that the "opposite but equal" principle does not actually work. For all legal rights it does, but by society the people are often treated as second-class citizens and looked down upon. It may soon become an insult in schools to say that somebody's parents are in a civil union as opposed to being married.

There is a difference. In pedophilia, the relationship in question is not between two consenting adults of the same species. That also rules out zoophilia as being valid.

Color blindness is by its very nature a biological disorder. Color-blind people are generally missing a set of cones in their eyes which non-colorblind people do possess.

Schizophrenia is marked by numerous amounts of paranoid delusions in many of its incarnations. How could it be considered a valid alternative way of percieving reality for a schizophrenic to believe that he is ruler of the world when he is clearly not?

That analogy is flawed. For what you're saying to be accurate, homosexuals would have to want to want to be called heterosexuals along with the rest of the population. The truth is is that they do not. They merely want the same rights as everyone else whereas still being what they are.

Homosexuality is not an obvious deficiency in one or more physical areas. Therefore it cannot be accurately compared to such conditions. If it could, then we would have to allow people with crippling, highly contagious diseases to continue to work and interact with the population thus spreading their disease to others and harming them.

I would be all for giving the same opportunities to people with mental handicaps as to people without such conditions. The problem is as Manus indicated: Many people with mental handicaps cannot perform the tasks to the same degree of precision and expertise as an unhandicapped person.

Of course, if you excuse the idea that such groups exhibit questionable morals which would be passed onto said children.

And what of the people who know that their spouses have no financial capability at all yet still get married? Marriage is far more than a business agreement. It is the union of two people that want to dedicate their lives to each other's happiness.

Nor do they infringe on the rights of anyone else. Barring them the rights to marry is analogous from barring you from participating in your favorite hobby or dating the person that you want to be with.

Show me a place that says that the people of society truly care about this issue. Somehow, I doubt that the majority would be strongly opposed to the legalization of gay marriage.

That's actually true, but physical attraction and love are two seperate and different things.

What if we looked at this issue from the opposite perspective? What if gay marriages were the normal and it were illegal for a person to enter into a heterosexual relationship? Would you like that scenario? I know I wouldn't.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think governments' first duty is to execute the will of the people, which means at this time gay marriage should not be allowed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Actually, if you look at the way our laws are set up, they are intended to prevent tyranny by the majority.

 

be to others like you want them to be to yourself.

Now what happened to this very basic easy to understand guideline?

Those people against homosexual marriages, what justification do you have to bar someone something that you wouldn't want barred to yourself?