Gay Marriage

Remove all ads!

With that line of thinking shouldn't prostitution be legalized? There's certainly mutual consent there.

 

It is legal in some countries and probably would be safer healthwise if it was. More honest than being a politician. But we are talking about love, not fiscal transactions.

 

Somebody should start that as a seperate topic, though. WHOLE 'nother can of worms there.

 

I really do recommend the 'Marriage or Bust' article and would enjoy seeing a response to it.

Another good one: "Unveiled; The case against gay marriage crumbles."

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/homosexuality.php?artnum=20010813

In my opinion, the two articles, particularly when combined, are rather strong.

dmc just linked the old prostitution thread. I briefly looked at it and had forgotten that I'd participated in it. Over a year ago, on another issue, I wrote something that tends to be my view with many things, including gay marriage (and how pretentious to quote yourself, but I'm too lazy to write it again):

In my opinion, the default position should be to allow adults to do what they like. We need a compelling reason to prevent them. With regards to gay marriage, we've had a state act as a testing lab so that we could see the result of allowing them to take place. I think the evidence has shown that there hasn't been any harm done to society let alone grave harm. Therefore, gays should be allowed to marry.

Of course, I don't think there should be any tax incentives for married couples (and the "marriage penalty" was actually a marriage benefit for over 1/2 of all married couples even today). Legally, if it was up to me, marriage would only be significant for visitation, distribution of an estate, etc. But that's another debate I suppose.

 

Thanks, Laches, for the Andrew Sullivan recommendation! I follow his blog nigh-on every day - and everyone else here should, too.

Anyway, boiling it down once more, before we all boil over:

Precisely, Death Rabbit! The pro-homosexual marriage argument presumes:

1) "a gay couple wants to be together"

And what right does anyone have to deny someone's consensual wants? Oh, but wait...then we have a long string of posts splicing the difference between the consents of corpses, cows, kids, and prostitutes, explaining why society DOES have the right to suppose that it's OK to kill a cow and eat it without its consent, but heavens forfend that you marry it. Or why today it's of course not acceptable to be a pedophile, even though ancient Greece thought the practice perfectly acceptable.

2) "heterosexuals don't stand to benefit or be harmed in any significant way by gay unions"

Would you argue that marriage has not been damaged by divorce, rampant adultery, or Britney-style weddings? Those are examples of couples that consensually "want to be together". If marriage has been harmed by these perversions, I don't think it's a far stretch to presume that marriage will be harmed by homosexuality, too.

3) "or even have your life impacted at all by the people involved, ever"

That assumes that homosexuality has zero effect on non-homosexuals. If my neighbor commits adultery and I don't, does it affect me, if indirectly? If you say no, then we face an unbridgeable divide.

4) "why on earth do you care?"

Since when is it immoral to care about other people? Is it only legitimate to care about someone if you have some kind of personal interest or selfish agenda at stake? Is it morally wrong for me to be concerned about others? Or should I sit back, Pharisee-like, and bask in my comfortable self-righteousness?

 

People that care about other people want those other people to be happy. In this case, we let those "other people" (homosexuals) marry each other consenually. That argument simply does not hold up.

Actually, in the case of Britney, I wouldn't call that a couple that wants to be together, I'd call it a couple that wants to get attention.

What kind of a monster would you have to be to hurt somebody that you love and want to care for (as is the case of adultery). Divorce is the only one here that is legitimate. I don't like divorce, but the fact is that people make mistakes and then they "consensually" want to be together.

Very well then. Let's let the emetophiliacs throw their objects of attraction everywhere. Hell, it's not like vomit can consent.

Seriously, paraphilia is a mental illness. Eating is not. Plants can't consent, either. Does that mean we can't eat plants either?

From: http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/paraphilia.html

That is one thing that definitely removes zoophilia, necrozoophilia, and everything else from the argument.

So people that are trying to support a family with only one income shouldn't have more of their own money available to spend on that task?

 

I am still amazed by people who obviously cannot comprehend the simple statement "consenting adults". If two adults love each other and want to be with each other, give me one freaking example of how that hurts anyone!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Not necessarily. What if someone was happily blasting their brain with cocaine? Or cheerfully walking into traffic? Or was so depressed that their only hope was suicide? Or only got their happiness from sadism or masochism?

Is it really that hard to accept that maybe, just maybe, no matter how much happiness or love or pleasure or devotion or pick-your-virtue is involved, homosexuality isn't right? Look at Christianity - presumably it gives its adherents happiness, love, pleasure, devotion, virtue-of-the-week, etc., but if it's wrong, then are we really doing Christians any favors by not disabusing them of their illusion?

Again, this seems to be an unbridgeable divide. Either we have reckless tolerance, as BTA explained, for whatever brings us immediate happiness, doesn't seem to directly hurt anyone (immeasurable indirect hurts aside), and is more or less in sync with "the times" or "the majority"...or we have an ethos of social responsibility, personal restraint, and historic community, based on more than mere personal opinion, with a recognition that just because something feels good doesn't mean it IS good.

Ugh, I'm up too late...I've left my frosty, rationalistic arguments behind and gone all judgemental-like. Looks like I've finally come out of the closet.

[EDIT: I gave an example, Jschild - adultery. The louse of a spouse finds deep consensual happiness, pleasure, and emotional bonding with the homewrecker. That hurts the betrayed spouse; their children; their extended family; and the state, since the louse promised contractually to stay married 'til death. Oh, but what's that? Adultery is different because it's marriage, and therefore consent is not all that's important? Ahh, it is different...hence my reluctance to award the institution of "marriage" to one-night-stands, pedophilic proxies, bestial bindings, adulterous affairs, and homosexuality.]

 

@ Grey-

A couple of things strike me.

1)Where gay marriage/union has been allowed it hasn't had nearly the impact that divorce has had by comparison. So, if we're going to allow such huge and drastic changes as no-fault divorce why shouldn't a change that appears to have relatively little impact be allowed. Phrased differently, in what ways have gay marriages abroad and in the US (albeit called unions rather than marriage) negatively impacted marriage in those places? I am unaware of any evidence that there has been a negative impact. The only negative impact that I can perceive is that the gov't will be subsidizing the marriage of more people. However, we're likely talking about a small increase of a few % and, as mentioned above, the gov't shouldn't be subsidizing marriage anyways in my opinion. So, we don't have to imagine whether gay marriage will have a negative impact. We can just check and see whether Vermont has fallen into the ocean - hey, Vermont is good for something!

2)The second thing that struck me is perhaps more fundamental. You have expressed concern over how marriage will be impacted. To me, this looks to presume that we should be concerned foremost with how marriage will be impacted. I think I may not be alone in believing this question is not primary (nor secondary nor even tertiary). Rather, what is more important is how will society be negatively impacted? If society will not be negatively impacted in some type of real and tangible manner, then assertions that gays should not be allowed to marry because their marriage would have some vague and nebulous impact doesn't seem compelling.

I suppose what I am most driving at is that I am having difficulty seeing an articulable concern. Here is what I mean - you have said that Britney's brief marriage has in some way hurt marriage. I don't really see how 'marriage' can be hurt, it doesn't exist independent of two people. Your marriage might exist. My impending marriage will some day exist. But there is no 'marriage' independent of specfic marriages to be hurt. Unless Britney's marriage hurt, for example, your marriage or somebody else's marriage I'm not quite sure what to make of the assertion that 'marriage' is hurt.

I also liked the initial Andrew Sullivan article because he rejects the notion that marriage is an ancient and unmalleable tradition and makes some other interesting arguments.

Oh yeah, and Grey - you're an evil bigoted son of a *****. Thought I'd get in on the act.

 

I have no real problem with gay marriage, for the simple reason that it doesn't bother me at all in any way, and it makes people happy....which in my opinion is fine. Forcing churches that believe gays are evil and things like that is a different matter, but a church isnt the only place to get married obviously, so they can just go somewhere else.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm still with you. Just a little break doesn't mean you can say everything you like and get away with it

There's mutual consent in, let's say, assistance in suicide, which is penalised. There is ius cogens in civil law which makes contracts invalid despite even perfect concordance of will. Beating up masochists with whips is not really all right even if it gives them a triple orgasm. Mutual consent is not everything.

Yes, being a total non-violence person surely makes you safest. Especially in Iraq or Sicilly

The child needs harmony and needs to see the harmony in work. It shouldn't be biased towards any gender. How is the child supposed to be able to found a healthy straight family if he or she hasn't been brough up by one (this is not a perfect generalisation and there are exceptions)? Or has the choice been made for the child to be gay? After all, parents are free to bring up their children according to their beliefs (most constitutions include this bit), so gay parents would be free to raise children gay. As homosexualism is a psychological thing, influence is crucial. Especially such a strong one as that of the parents.

The -philia suffix is about liking something, usually in the bad way. What you're speaking about is just child molestation. Paedophilia is sexual drive towards children.

A very good point. More and more is being pushed through in sexuality.

Doesn't mean much. Inanimate objects can't consent either. Is fetishims therefore as "bad" as necrophilia?

So why isn't it illegal for kids to have sex with one another? The most important thing in kid-adult sex ban is that the kid is not fully developed and not really fit to have sex biologically. A teenager isn't fit to be a parent and a teen girl may not survive giving birth. The consent argument is so uberimportant for those for whom sex is... well... of primary importance in life

Especially in Judaism and Islam, let alone some atheists.

You invoked rights to have children, that's why I said kids couldn't be objects of someone's rights. There is a reason why a homosexual couple cannot bring up a child as well as a normal one: the kid will get full gay heritage and the legact of gay movements. Even if straight, it'll be pro-gay. Potential risks: becoming downright gay, feeling inferior for being straight, being unable to have a normal family, not understanding the basics of family, not having a harmonic house and lacking the support granted by a normal family. The most dangerous thing here is the right of parents to bring up children as they wish when it comes to axiological matters.

Doesn't it work for gay marriages too? Questionnable morals, a major factor. By the way, if it's all about morals, just why group sex is bad and gay sex is OK?

They want their unions to be called marriages and they want child adoption rights. Even without being called the same, they would like to be the same. Ie, normal sane and healthy relationship, and even a marital one. By "they" I understand the majority of gay people. I've heard from some gay folks who oppose the idea of gay marriage and child adoption. Note that if we allow gay union to be marriage, it's a matter of time before child adoption follows. You know, a real valid marriage but still inferior one because it can't adopt children. Unconstitutional inequality, hmm?

That's what it looks like with homosexualism. That's what the uniform view of it was like a few decades ago. That view would change if we decreed colour blindness or schizophrenia a valid alternative perception. As homosexualism was decreed a valid sexual orientation. It just changes when something becomes legal and accepted. If colour blidness or schizophrenia were accepted the same way as homosexualism, they would stop being sick and so obviously missing a few. It's enough to gather a large and powerful enough lobby, as it was in the case of homosexualism getting crossed out of the list of mental disorders.

Gay people should never be treated as second class citizens because of being gay. They're human beings like everyone. Doesn't mean homosexual carnal activity is all right. "Gay" is already an insult in some circles. Civil union parents would follow, and I've heard kids speaking to one another like "I like your parents, both fine guys/chicks" already.

Necrophilia occurs in humans, is it natural therefore? Cross-species sex (even that which can't produce offspring) occurs in animals too. Is it therefore all right for us to have sex with apes, with 98% similar genes and tend to be of the right size?

Legal or not not everywhere the same. Legal or not doesn't equal right or wrong, good or evil. I am well aware of which debauchery is deemed legal at the moment and which isn't. A law student, after all.

Let them pronounce whatever they wish so long as they pronounce it more or less correctly and with a semi-decent accent.

Combining as the spouses are combined. Combined because they complement each other and together form an entirety. Cannot be said about gay couples.

Still not real intercourse. It's just assistance in masturbation.

A Parade-of-Tall-and-Slim-Guys-Who-Can't-Buy-Clothes-or-Shoes-in-Normal-Shops for me, please.

Well, what if I make a Straight Pride Parade. Or say that I'm male, white and Catholic and proud of the fact? If I were female, black and Follower-of-Pink-Rabbit, it would be seen as politically correct, wouldn't it?

Good point, despite the political play of WHO.

Claiming that someone is misguided doesn't remove the possibility of trying to understand him. Mentally infirm etc follows the suit.

Your tolerant and open-minded beliefs apparently override my bigotry.

Not directed at me, but I fulfilled the criteria specified. Homosexuality isn't wrong as it can't be right or wrong. Homosexual carnal activity is. It is against the laws of nature, it is sick and deviated.

...with only slightly deviated sexual drive.

So let them continue that and be happy they're not criminalised. Allowing someone under law is no argument for propagating it or giving special treatment.

That's why you're being accused of being dismissive and selective. Show me what part of my argumentation is religious. It's also sure that atheists and agnostics against gay marriage have a religious motivation.

Deemed by whom? Whose beliefs override whose?

Examples of deviated sexual drive. Allow one, more will claim their 'rights'. Whatever is pushed through in such a way, receives a full load of prefabricated justification which serves to distract thoughts from what's really important.

Howgh!

 

In any decently tolerant society, anyone who mocks someone with homosexual parents will be the one suffering from a general lowering of opinion of others. Therefore, no child should have any reason to be ashamed, or feel inferior simply because he/she has homosexual parents.

So what if the child, influenced by his/her homosexual adoptive parents, IS brought up to be gay?

Is that a bad thing?

It only is if you hate homosexuals. And everything you have said has indicated that you do, but it's your character flaw and not mine.

I won't even bother to address your other points, which are totally wrong or senseless.

Trying to apply the BOVD in real life or truly civilised society does not work, btw.

 

+

Chev, its a thread about marriage, and you're still completely hung up on body part mechanics... what is your point? Gays can't marry because their body parts don't intermingle in the same way that straight couples do? Is that all you have?

Ok, so you've stated, gay sex (or any other kind besides the "straight" kind) is not right, and that's why gay couples shouldn't get married, or adopt kids, or any of that stuff.

So tell me, why is "straight" sex ok?

And, what the hell, what on earth does it have to do with marriage?

 

Because it is better to have straight sex in a loveless marriage than gay sex in one full of love and compassion. because if gay people who want to dedicate thier life to each other start doing so, that will make their heterosexual neighbors want to molest children and rape the dog. God, doesn't everyone know that!

 

@Jschild LOL!

These examples are all self-destructive. Gay marriage, unless you have a very different definition than I do, is not. Like you said, we may have an unbridgeable gap.

@ Chev

Please clarify this part of your arguement for me. (You gotta love Chev's arguements, even if you don't agree with them, btw.) To paraphrase one of your points, you say that children raised by gay parents would be brought up to be gay, and would therefore be pro-gay or gay themselves as adults. By that rationale, there should be hardly any gay people at all! All the heterosexual households must therefore raise their children to be heterosexual so that when they reach adulthood they would either be pro-heterosexual or heterosexual themselves, right? And since it's only been in the last few years that gays could raise their own children (lesbians can via artificial insemination), does that mean we are going to see a greater percentage of gays in the next generation?

To me all of that is flawed. I do not think people "become" gay. I think 97% of newborn babies will be straight as adults, regardless of whether they are raised by straight parents or gay parents. I think 3% of newborn babies will be gay as adults, regardless of whether they are raised by gay parents or straight parents.

While I don't think that a group of people representing 3% of the population should be afforded any special rights, I don't see why we should deny rights to that 3% of the population either.

 

Oh don't worry, he does.

Yes, drawing a logical conclusion based on the majority consensus of the medical and scientific community is totally caving to political pressure.

[ January 16, 2004, 17:25: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Aldeth, that 3% figure is pretty low also. Almost all studies actually show anywhere from 5 to 10% is the actual figure. And if you count homesexual experiences, its closer to 15%.

 

Making marriage of something that's not marriage is not recognising anything, it's a creation of a new entity.

It is hard for me to believe that most (!=all, FYI) gay activists would not indoctrinate their children. They're on a constant crusade contrary to straight couples who don't need to indoctrinate their offspring into straight-ness, which is the natural state of a human's sexuality.

Yes.

Once again you prove your selective perception. My previous post was FOURTEEN DAMNED PAGES LONG and ones before that weren't short either. Even such an able orator as I can't repeat one sentence all over 14 pages.

Passing life on, passing genes on. Evolution. If they perform carnal homosexual activity out of public sight, I don't care much. Sure, it's bad and I would try to talk people I know out of it, but it's not like I'm going to chase them and whack them on the heads with aspergillum Marriage, however, is too much. Adoption of children is beyond too much.

A child follows the patterns of his parents. Plus, I find it hard to believe most (!=all, FYI) gay rights activists wouldn't indoctrinate their children.

Yes. It's driving the poor kid into sexual deviation and psychic disorder, with all due respect to people suffering from it.

Especially when I said "Gay people should never be treated as second class citizens because of being gay. They're human beings like everyone."

I don't hate them. In fact, not all of my friends and acquintances are straight. So? Do I hate them? Do I not know them? Gay people need to be cured. It so happens they don't wish to be cured, they want their disorder acknowledged as perfect normality. To that I say no. No way.

I expected nothing else.

A very good argument on your part. Logical, sensible, entirely proven, objective and non-judgemental

It amuses me to hear "totally wrong" from tolerance activists and defenders of people to freedom and freedom from judgement. Well, that would be it. Apart from that it means more or less the following train of logical thought:

(The Law of Tolerance)

1. I am right. Axiom.
2. I am sensible. Axiom.
3. Something is either right or wrong.
4. Something is either sensible or senseless.
5. 1 & 3 => Whoever disagrees with me is wrong (modus tollendo ponens)
6. 2 & 4 => Whoever disagrees with me is senseless (modus tollendo ponens)
7. Chevalier disagrees with me
8. 5 & 7 => Chevalier is wrong (modus ponendo ponens)
9. 6 & 7 => Chevalier is senseless (modus ponendo ponens)

QED

 

I always love the I have gay friends so I can't hate them arguement. While I can't speak for you, every single person I have met that has made that claim knows someone who is gay but is not friends with them. And of course those damn "gays" will brainwash thier children. Just as those damn "black" people brainwashed theirs to believe that slavery is wrong which is contrary to the bible. Ergo, we should still have slaves as long as we treat them nice. Why? Cause Jesus said we could. No, the worst thing ( in your mind at least) that gay parents will do to thier children is to not judge people people. Unfortantly, false christians love to judge those whose sandals they have not walked in. They are usually the same people who cry for blood instead of loving their enemy. When you talk with such obvious disgust, you obviously do not speak out of love so don't act like you do. And that is that truth.

Also, like I told someone in a previous post, there is a difference between Sound Logic and Valid Logic. Stop using valid logic because it is dishonest.