Gay Marriage

Remove all ads!

Apparently they want hospitals to be able to deny thier lovers the ability to see them if they are dying (sorry family only), they want the government or banks to get thier property if they die without first making out a will, and because they want America not to be the land of the free, but the land of the christians, and only the christians and if you dont like it we will do everything we can to make it that way. Of course, this was pretty much the exact same arguement used to allow slavery (jesus said its ok as long as you treat them nice), and keeping the race "pure" (sorry no intermarriage). Hell, Bob Jones university only changed its policy due to political pressure (Now they have to have thier parents permission to see any other race). If we don't have someone that we can blame all of our problems on that isn't hurting anybody they might have to deal with real problems and no one wants to do that.

 

@Manus: Glad to see that you realise your ignorance to some degree, as reflected in your reference to me as you-know-who which means that you don't even dare to address me. Don't worry, old boy, I'm sure you'll grow a spine and a functioning pair of testicles one day. There's nothing to be ashamed of where cowardice is concerned.

*Waits for some ridiculous comment on "vanity", more stupid rhetoric, and flushes them down the toilet the moment it comes while chuckling in amusement*

Next: Kids as awards? I have never implied that. There is no reason why a homosexual couple cannot bring up a child as well as a "normal" one.

By Bhaal, a decent, intelligent homosexual couple will make far better parents than fundamentalist ones.

On Hate: The BOVD [Book of Vile Dumbness, written by dudes with names like Luke, Paul, and silly titles like Genesis, The Revelation etc] is a book of hate, pure and simple. In any case, this topic is not one on literary discussion, hence I shall not bother to elaborate further.

Homosexuals do no harm by getting married. Laws are not broken, people are not hurt. Padeophilia, however, is sexual assualt, pure and simple. Necrophilia and Beastiality, well, hurt no human beings as well, so each to their own, although digging up graves IS against the law, as is animal abuse.

Therefore, all of Chev's arguments fall flat.

I shall restate my point from my previous post, albeit a bit more clearly: There is no cause to object to homosexual marriages except for reasons pertaining to hate, prejudice, and discrimination.

Or in other words, take your BOVD and shove it if you think you can force its application on the rest of the more intelligent world.

To appease those who have crucifixes stuck up their rectums, call such marriages "civil unions" but make sure that such a label is slapped onto ALL marriages as well, thus discarding the term "marriage" as far as the law is concerned.

But since the world owes these intellectually challenged individuals nothing, I say let the homosexuals MARRY!

[Shura - Please be less inflammatory with your opinions, especially (but not limited to) when referring to someone in particular - BTA]

[ January 15, 2004, 04:14: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

 

...too much...to respond to...losing...track...

Let me make sure I'm following the argument correctly.

A) Homosexuality is legitimate behavior.

1) It's part of someone's genetic makeup, and no one can deny their genes.
2) It's love/happiness/pleasure/whatever, and no one should deny these things, either.
3) Homosexual sex is not qualitatively different from heterosexual sex.

B) Because homosexuality is legitimate behavior, anything which stands against homosexuality is illegitimate and discriminatory.

1) Opposition to homosexuality is equivalent to racism, sexism, whatever-ism.
2) Opposition to homosexuality is generated by Christianity.
3) Opposition to homosexuality should be based on current scientific and social discovery, not reasons that are historical or moral.

C) Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, and we shouldn't stop people from doing what doesn't cause harm.

1) Harm is measured purely by a personally-judged, utilitarian rating of pleasure or self-fulfillment.
2) Another's sexual behavior has zero effect on one's neighbors.
3) Even if an individual's sexual behavior did have some effect on one's neighbors, the individual's appetites trump all.

D) Marriage is a purely social construction which may be altered at will to effect proper social change.

1) Polygamy proves that marriage has changed since the Garden of Eden.
2) Legal divorce proves that marriage can be legally, pragmatically separated from its original religious ideal.

E) But as for polygny, bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia...

1) These behaviors are not legitimate, for reasons that are...uh, historical and moral.
2) It's OK to outlaw these, even if that's biased against the differently-sexed.
3) They do hurt others, somehow, even if consensual (we kill and eat cows without their consent, certainly).
4) Of course marriage would NEVER apply to these behaviors. Not for a decade at least.

Given that I don't agree with A, B, C, or D...I understand Shura's venom!

[Oops...well, everyone else was making moral judgements...I figured it was my turn.]

 

May I sum up your argument strawmen like ? There's a wise group of people, having access to some defintions of "old". This defintions of "old" are pretty important, as they are the only source of common sense and decent human behaviour. It's completly indifferent, that over long time, they had no monopoly on this things, it just important that one swallows that those were the only defintions that were there, regardless of the truth of that. Then one has to accept, that only certain kind of people have the right to judge the validity and exact meaning of those defintions. They alone can decide what should be "right" and what should be "wrong". That is necessary, because without those certain people with the access to the defintions of "old", the normal populace would not be able to deal with anything, as it lacks common sense and will be having sex with animals on a regular basis in the matter of 10 years, because they "lust" for it somehow and don't have a brain to steer them. The only thing which keeps from that are the certain enlightend people with access to the defintions of "old", only those can really grasp the meaning of this defintions of "old" and know, how to save people from completly loosing it, as only they have a monopoly on "brain" and have to look, that the people around them not start doing what they really want, doing it with dogs.

Can't wait for the next shism, really.

 

@ GM - I'm probably getting in over my head in arguing with you, but I have to point out some inconsistancies.

All this is a very logical argument


EDIT: (except for the fact that there is no direct genetic link with homosexuality as there is to say, daltonism),

END EDIT

and so your next point...

Is also a logical conculsion to draw. However, some of your points to back this up are incorrect. Namely,

Yes, there are some people who place the burden on Christianity, but it goes far deeper than that. Plus, no one's arguing that people's religious views should be changed - that violates people's freedom of religion. To one is asking a Catholic priest to marry a gay couple. What people are in fact saying is that people's religious views should be held outside of a legal forum, and so a religious argument should not be used as a reason to prevent gay marriages - that's different than the point you were making.

The premise is fine, but you're supporting arguments aren't.

1. I don't remember anyone making this specific argument or one similar to it.
2. If practiced inside they're own home, it doesn't.
3. NO! Where did anyone say that? Yes, we have the right to a pursuit of hapiness, but that right does not extend to the point where it infringes on other's right to happiness. This third point is invalid.

I'm fine with what you said in part D. It's based on historical documentation, so no one can logically argue that the concept of marriage hasn't changed over the past few millenia.

No! At least not entirely. The reason why most of these things aren't legal is because of a consent factor.

Polygamy - I've got no probelm with that. Marry as many people as you want as long as everyone involved consents to the arrangements.

Beastiality - are you telling me you can get an animal to consent to something? That an animal's brain is attuned to reasoning ability, and that it further can communicate these reasons reliably to a human?

Pedophillia - actually a similar argument to beastiality. A child is likely to not understand what is going on, or the fullness of the actions being considered, and therefore, is not in a position to make an informed, logical decision. There are similar laws on the books that prevent minors from entering into legal contracts without parental consent for the same reason. If they are not capable of making reasoned decisions, then they better have someone acting in their own self-interest who can make reasoned decisions from them.

Necrophillia - I shouldn't even have to address this. Tell me how a corpse can consent to anything and then we'll talk.

It's OK to outlaw these because they don't involve two willing parties, or they involve two parties that are not in a position to convey whether or not they are willing, either through aptitude or natural ability.

Which is why they are illegal...

When did we start talking about becoming vegetarians? It has nothing to do with the arguement at hand.

Of course not, for reasons I've already outlined. With the exception of polygamy, they do not involve consenting adults. As a result, I find the polygamy arguement valid. Sure, everyone can take as many wives and husbands as they want, provided they tell the people they're marrying that they have other wives and husbands beforehand. All the other arguements? No way.

[ January 15, 2004, 20:32: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

@ Grey Magistrate

It should also be noted Grey that the Necrophillia, Pedophillia and Beastiality communities are not only non-existant, but aren't numbered in the hundreds of millions in the United States alone. So to suggest that these behaviors, which are criminal activities, are the next logical step in the social conciousness is just being naive. Trust me, you won't be seeing any Pedophillia Pride parades in your lifetime.

As I before and Aldeth now have pointed out, no one is being victimized or harmed in a consenting adult homosexual relationship.

Please explain to me, since you disagree with all these points, how you measure harm in this instance, how another's sexual behavior in the privacy of their own home has an effect on you, the neighbor, and why you believe not only that this person's "appetites" are any more harmful than your own, or why you think these "appetites" are apparantly infringing on someone else's rights.

 

DR have you also noticed that most of the people in the "against" camp, are completely fixated on the sex/penetration aspect of homosexuality discussion?

I've noticed claims that in a "real" marriage, its based on love/respect/whatever and sex doesn't have to be a factor in this pure/unselfish union.

However, when it comes to the gay marriage question, its all about the compatible parts... the "homosexual behavior."

If this is the case that we're basing legitimate marriage on, I certainly hope that all the "legitamate" man/woman unions are playing by strict rules in the bedroom.

None of that funny stuff!

 

I have noticed that. I've also noticed that I can't seem to be able, through the answers given from the nay sayers, to piece together the answer to one simple question, which is really at the heart of my whole philosophy.

If a gay couple wants to be together, and you yourself aren't gay or don't stand to benefit or be harmed in any significant way by that union, or even have your life impacted at all by the people involved, ever, why on earth do you care?

 

@ ArtEChoke

It seems to me that the conservatives are completely fixated on sex. In other words, the conservatives are the true perverts!

 

/me applauds Death Rabbit's blinding flash of logic

I haven't contributed to this debate beyond my initial post because you've been doing a good job of speaking my mind, DR. Keep it up!

 

Yeah, but the argument homosexuals now, pedophiles next has still no merit in my view. Because it is forbidden to have heterosexual sex between adults and teenagers. Yet heterosexuality among adults is allowed. So if acceptance of homosexuality would lead to acceptance of pedophilia, heterosexuality would have had done that job already done long, long ago.

The connection homosexuality/pedophily only makes sense when you think that the only reason that adult/teenage sex is forbidden, is actually because of a certain moral codex.

 

Yeah, but that's where the snake bytes its tale, as marriage between children and adults are typical for rural-traditional societies. The very same where those moral codexes stem from which forbid homosexual intercourse. So raising the age of consent actually was a moral achievment against older moral codes. The idea, that older morals where the better morals only work because one has (intentional) a selective memory.

 

@BTA

No, you aren't wrong. If years from now, something, somehow comes to pass, that allows beastiality and other things commented upon to be considered acceptable actions, then I suppose it would be possible to re-define the marriage or union concept. I can't think of how that would happen, but 500 years ago, divorce was believed to never be able to happen either. So, I'm saying while it's highly unlikely to ever happen, I suppose I cannot say it's impossible. However, I consider such a possibility EXTREMELY remote.

"I, AtFI, take this heffer to be my lawfully wedded wife, to have and to hold, etc. etc. etc. all the days of my life.

"Moo moo moo moo moo moo moo moo moo moo etc. etc. etc. moo moo moo moo moo moo moo moo."

NOTE: I also think that even bringing things like beastiality is twisting the argument here. We aren't talking about that. We're talking (based on the subject title) about gay marriages. Extending that to things like beastiality, pedophillia, and necrophillia is at the very least a leap of faith, if not of logic.

 

You are right. The crux is, we have already drunken from that bottle. There are many things allowed now, which are illegitimate. People can get divorced. People of protestant faith are allowed to merry and their marriage is not seen as void. Presbyterian couples can get divorced without spending a month in a dungeon, chained toghether. Couples are allowed to live together under the same roof without being married. Women can vote and they even can own stuff. This is all illegitimate and amoral according to tradition and values of (at least my) ancestors. And don't forget, taking interest rates is sodomy too, according to Martin Luther.

The problem is, who has the right to decide what is legitimate and what is not ? According to what rules ? And if you put something in stone, why don't you take the laws of a random country from 1740 and declare them for the only valid for eternity ?

 

@ Aldeth * snicker * He he he. Cowf***er.

Seriously though...

@ BTA - No, you're not wrong IMO. If off in the future, enough of a community arises out of Beastiality (and by that I mean millions, essentially), and enough sound "for" arguements are made, then that community should at the very least be heard out. I don't ever see that happening, as there is still the whole "free will and legal consent" issue, but who knows. The way genetics work these days, maybe animals will be made to be mentally conscious enough to be deemed competant to make such a decision, but that's not the reality of today.

Also, to my knowledge, there is more scientific proof that submits that Beasteality, Ped and Necro are definitively recognized to be mental sicknesses, whereas homosexuality is not - as someone in this thread earlier pointed out (Yago, I believe). Someone correct me if this is wrong though.

But anyway - I think Aldeth's "NOTE" pretty much nails it.

 

Pedophelia is the molesting and taking advantage of a child. How anyone can compare rape and love are totally off thier rockers. Beastality is taking advantage of or outright raping an animal. All these arguements are all lacking one thing. Two consenting adults. And of course as anyone who has studied psychology, the vast majority (over 90%) of all pedophiles are HETEROSEXUAL men, regardless of whether they abuse boys or girls. So maybe we shoudl outlaw heterosexual men and lock them up. As for adoption, studies have shown the safest enviroment for a child is actually a lesbian home. They have the lowest rates of violence of any form.