Gay Marriage

Remove all ads!

yes, and in spite of this, you only dodge around and say its "wrong" and the only thing you specified as "wrong" was the intermingling of body parts, you mention that kids aren't supposed to have sex, this isn't that isn't, you're not really talking about marriage, you're talking about the Horizontal Mamba. Its different.

You also allude to a psychological deviation, but face it, you're no expert on it, and really haven't backed that up with anything (its the same as color blindness! no! its the same thing as necrophilia, no! its...), so it really just leaves the physical differences.

I'm going to start calling you Pervalier, its ok mods, don't take it as a personal insult, I keep bringing up the exchange of bodily fluids too, so call me... PervEChoke, if you'd like...

ooh! I was hoping you'd say that! So now we get down the meat of the matter (no pun intended).

Do you *honestly* think that when a married straight couple has sex, its to procreate every single time? How about even most of the time?

No sir, I don't think you can claim that at all. I think when a couple "gets their freak on" its usually a little more recreational, with something a little less permanent in mind.

Is that ok? Or is it a "deviation" to have straight sex without the intention of knocking up your partner?

So really, how different is a gay guy having sex without the intention of procreating any different than a straight man having sex without the intention of procreating?

 

And what if a married couple doesn't want to have kids? I guess thats not a real marriage then. But at least they can have it.

 

Prove it.

Spare me.

For the umpteenth time, no one is demanding special treatment, just fair and equal treatment.

The message is not that gay couples are better than straight couples. And if a set of parents indoctrinate their children into thinking that hetero couples are wrong and disgusting, than that's the fault of the intolerant, misguided parents - not gay marriage.

 

That's not really what I meant in my original question. Allow me to try again. If people become pro-gay or outright gay because of gay parents, how is it that we have gay people? Or are you saying that historically people who have been gay have routinely practiced heterosexual sex to pass their genes on?

EDIT: Jschild - my percentages could very well be off, although 15% seems really high to me. If my percentages are wrong, just stick to the spirit of the message instead of the numbers. I think I made my point regardless what the exact percentage is.

 

Okay, now I have to post my opinion too.

As for the origin of homosexuality, there is strong evidence that it is genetically ( Link: http://hcqsa.virtualave.net/studies.html ) determined or caused by unbalanced hormonal levels in the mother's womb (Link: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper2/Bodian2.html ) .
Is there similar evidence for psychological causes?


To GM and Chev:
Do gays harm other people with their sexual behavior? And as long as no-one sees them doing "it" (which may be equally offending if the couple is heterosexual), is there done any harm to the participants? I think not.
Pedophilists (sp?) and zoophilists do harm their "partners". Therefore, it is legitimate to ban such "relationships". And the causes for the latter phenomenons is not biological explained, but psychological. Or do you have other information?

I have not seen any logical or scientifical reason against gay marriage in this whole thread.
If you find one, please post it.

 

the 15% is roughly what comes up in sexual survey for people who have had a homesexual experience. That does not mean they were gay.

 

It's because you're looking for what you consider logical.

Of course. You can't hate a hold group if you don't hate each single one of them. You don't hate each single one if there's at least one you don't hate. See Chevalier's Universal Antigeneralisational Sylogism

Where did He? By the way, we're not talking about religions here. I'm very much willing to explain the issue of slavery in the Bible to you in a separate thread. Should you open it, that is.

Unfounded. It's just a nice-sounding call on emotions.

If you're not Christian or God, you're the last person to tell me if I'm false Christian. It's far beyond your scope of interest, if I may suggest something to you. In no place do I cry for blood and in place do I even advocate violence. I don't speak with disgust about gay people but about homosexual carnal activity. In Judeochristianic terms, to which I'm referring only because you started it, I'm speaking with disgust about seen. Much like God does in the Bible.

A hint: don't judge people if you don't know what you're doing. Especially if you're telling them not to judge others.

Judgement of Chevalier Part II. But it's I who's judgemental and not you. Please refer to the Law of Tolerance in my previous post.

Non-procreational heterosexual intercourse is still in the region, while homosexual intercourse is no more in the region as masturbation is, or satisfying oneself with inanimate objects. Which aren't hurt, BTW.

I have. Above.

For the umpteenth time, I disagree with your interpretation of fair and equal treatment. Can you not grasp the idea that I may not consider fair and equal what you consider fair and equal? And I've already said that a few times, BTW.

If homosexuality were passed in genes, it would be possible for women to pass homosexual genes to men without the said women being homosexual themselves. Like with haemophilia. As I said above, there's no such thing as hetero rights lobby or hetero rights activists etc. There's no stress on it, no fuss about it. Therefore, children need not receive any special pro-hetero education. It is not proven that homosexuality is passed in genes, so it's not sure at what point people become gay. As a personal opinion (I don't claim expertise here, though), I consider homosexualism evironmental disease. Therefore, contracted in special circumstances. Therefore, it's not necessary to be raised by gay parents to be gay. It's possible to be gay while comming from a heterosexual family, too. However, a person raised in gay environment is very likely to "pick up". That isn't automatic, granted, but the risk is high. What's more, the person will have a hardcoded image of family consisting of two mummies or two daddies. A bit like a seven year old single-mother-raised kid who asks his mother what "father" means.

Correct. On social basis, I may be friends with gay people. I may pay special attention not to say anything that could harm them. I may not argue against gay rights outside discussions like this one - specifically asked for, specifically intended for this purpose - frown on homo jokes, even defend individual homosexuals from attacks. However, I still consider homosexual behaviour not proper. Even though I realise it is hard for homosexual people, and how much they desire and need acceptation, kindness and well - love, I cannot say that what I consider wrong is right. I cannot change my beliefs, my principles for someone to feel better. Even if "someone" means myself who am collecting quite personal insults, including ones of the heavy kind, all over this and not only thread. And I can't keep quiet while something wrong is going on and I can possibly do anything about that.

Marriage is a public institution. It affects the rest of the people in a social way as well as in the legal way creating rights effective erga omnes. As for private performance, I believe I have said:

"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"

Unfortunately, people in this thread apparently believe that I'm a murderous personage thirsting for homosexual blood. That I disagree, means I hate. Basically, when you are talking with "tolerance" and "[minority_name] rights" activists, the worst of human feelings are attributed to you if you disagree. You also receive quite a comprehensive judgement from those how unjudgmental people. They will even judge you in the light of your religion they don't share, or even know much about. Tolerance and open-mindedness is apparently strong with them

 

Can, (stress: can) happen vice versa too. Often even.

 

I agree. Sincerely, Billy Graham.

 

No Chev, you didn't prove a damn thing. What you said:

Show me scientific proof that children exposed to homosexuality become gay as a result. In fact, show me proof that people become gay at all, rather than are born that way. Show me proof that homosexuality is an illness that CAN be cured, let alone should be, as you've suggested.

Links please, since apparantly my hand needs to be held to absorb this.

Please define for me fair and equal, according to you. Before you do that, bare in mind that one person getting one thing and another person getting less is neither fair nor equal.

Please, quit whining. You've been complaining about people attacking you in this thread even before anyone was actually attacking you, all the while lashing back with just as much, if not more venom. I honestly can't believe you're surprised at the response you're getting. (That said, Shura did take the Bible business a bit too far, but hey - that's Shura and we love him anyway.)

If you feel like we're picking on you, it's because the justifaction you provide for your views is, IMO, unfounded, highly opinionated, and frankly - condescending. (yeah yeah pot calling the kettle black...whatever). You've been asked several times in this thread to provide any kind of clinical evidence and you don't seem to be able to. I mean other than theories you've written and named after yourself. If you can, please start with my first request in this post.

Look - I respect your right to have your own opinion about the rightness/wrongness of homosexuality. I'm not on some crusade to crush all who disagree with me until every heterosexual couple on earth is stomped into submission (because that would be self-stompage). What I don't respect is the arrogance involved in denying homosexual couples the right to exist. From what I gather from your posts, they are lesser creatures than you, and I have a problem with that. If I felt your reason didn't stem from that notion, and instead came from something actually provable, then we would be in agreement, or at least acceptance of each other's views. As you may have noticed, I'm not alone here in thinking that.

But as has been pointed out, we appear to have an unbridgable gap here. Frankly, I grow tired of being the unofficial champion of gay union rights for today, so I'll leave you to keep the insult train a rollin'.

 

D.R., to quote Rallymama from way back on page 2: "I haven't contributed to this debate beyond my initial post because you've been doing a good job of speaking my mind" (plus I've been too busy this week).

@chev: re 'Chevalier's Universal Antigeneralisational Sylogism':
Who do you think you are, George Hammond?

 

Basically, it's gay couples who want to be considered lawful spouses for each other and it's they who want their peculiar sexual desire acknowledged as normal. The burden of proof remains with them. I have read and heard quite a bit on it, but I'm not really interested in the subject and so I don't visit related sites on the web. Sure, if I come to it, I'll post links. It was considered a valid medical unit and was scratched out of the list of medical units on doubtful basis. Therefore, I have doubts as to where it should have been scratched out. Therefore, I believe it may in fact be a valid medical unit.

To give a proof able to convince you that homosexuality is a deviated sexual drive is equally as possible as to prove the healthiness of heterosexuality in like fashion. Or any other drive from group sex to necrophilia. At some point it relies on agreement as to what's proper and what's not. Just like clinical or scientific proof. Such an agreement is impossible between us two, which is clearly obvious.

"an illness that CAN be cured" and "let alone should be": common sense dictates that if something is an illness and it's curable, it should be cured.

There has never been any proof to the widely used excuse of homosexualism being passed on in genes. That excuse serves to present homosexualism as indeed a valid "different option".

I'm not homosexual myself, so I can't tell you how it feels and for obvious reasons I'm not going to take gay rights activists' word on that.

It's you who are using the fair and equal arguement excessively, so it's more like you should prove it than I disprove it. However, I already have. Marriage is not a right, it's a descriptive category. Homosexual union doesn't fit in the category. Neither does heterosexual concubinate, for instance. Therefore, homosexual people get equal criteria: the same for all people. This is especially important in case of adoption.

A basic rule of discussion is attacking arguements and not persons. Insults are more than just attacks. Name calling is no less. I have already quoted some and commented on them, in case you're following the Law of Selective Nonexistence of Enemy Arguements at the moment.

Show me the venom. Where did I attack a person instead of arguements?

I'm not suprised. In fact, it's nothing new. Just how it normally is when it comes to discussion with tolerance advocates.

Same I've asked you. Prove to me that homosexuality is not a disorder and deviation but a normal, valid second option. I'm not buying the "it exists so it's natural" excuse.

I don't deny them right to exist, as I have said a few times already in this thread. I refuse to acknowledge homosexual union as a marriage. Even if it is indeed a legal marriage in a country, it's still "X law-wise legal marriage" for me. If a society chooses to pass such a union as a valid marriage, it's that society's own right to a common opinion by which they live. Society does not equal parliament or government, but rather majority of citizens. If it gets passed, it'll become a part of legal reality. It will be necessary to get used to it, heh. However, so far as the debate is going on, I'm not going to keep quiet. If that's arrogance, I'm arrogant.

 

While I write this, I have playing the background the nightclub music from Matrix: Revolutions. Best piece of the soundtrack - and oh-so-appropriate for this conversation!

Anyway, responses, starting with Laches:

Granted. I don't think you can get much more destructive than the one-two combo of high divorce and never-married single-parent families. But I don't think we need to demonstrate that homosexual marriage would be the downfall of Western civilization - just that it would be additionally corrosive to marriage. Oh, but that leads into your next point:

I guess that's another unbridgeable divide. Back in my day as a Hobbist individualist - now I favor Calvin over Hobbes - maybe I'd've agreed. But I'd suppose that "marriage", as an institution, exists beyond its couples. What I mean is, when two people get married, they tap into marriage-ness. It isn't that people started living together monogamously and then suddenly decided, hey, we need to call this something - why not "marriage"? Not that I can prove that institutions are merely artifical creations of isolated individuals and their accumulated consensual reactions...

Moving on to Fabius Maximus:

Homosexuality could be caused by genetics, or environment, or (more likely) a combination of the two. But its cause is irrelevant to whether or not it should be socially or morally acceptable, much less approved. Take an example - oh, say, alcoholism. Certain genes make it more likely that a person will become addicted to alcohol. Growing up with alcoholic parents or hanging out with drunk friends will nudge you towards addiction, too. But neither the genetics nor the environment excuse the deviancy.

Since everyone already knows I'm a Bible-thumping Shura-magnet, I guess I'll just write it outright. This may sound pret' obvious, but the whole idea of moral temptation is that it's...tempting! We aren't tempted by the stuff we aren't interested in, but the things that we're wired for. The guy with a temper problem is the one tempted to anger, not the happy-go-lucky fella who never gets upset; it's the dazzlingly handsome rockstar that has to constantly fend off groupies, not the homely accountant; it's those burning with ambition that are tempted to exploit underlings, not the humble supermarket checkers.

That difference - genetic and/or environmental - neither excuses moral failure, nor gives the untempted any kind of moral superiority. (You don't get any credit for not falling for a temptation you don't face!) So how homosexuality is caused doesn't affect whether or not it should be legitimized with the title of "marriage".

And ending with the inimitable Death Rabbit:

First - this isn't a thread about sodomy laws, but about whether or not we can hijack a preexisting institution to bless a newly-tolerated deviancy.

Second - "lesser creatures"?!? I can't vouch for everyone here, but I'm willing to bet that we're all several shots short of moral perfection. If we decide to call anyone ensnared by sin a "lesser creature", then we risk, to use your perfect phrase, "self-stompage". Homosexuality is just another lust, and there's not a fella here free from THAT. My lusts are purely traditional, but that doesn't make them pure.

Third - no, you're not alone in thinking that. Thank goodness that goodness isn't decided by majority vote. Oh, wait...that's kinda what we've been arguing, isn't it...

 

@ Chev:
Not expecting any better of me?

Well, I don't expect very much from a follower of the BOVD.

As usual, everything you have said is rubbish that does not even merit being refuted.

In any case, all the praying and ranting will do no good. Judging from the way the intelligent [BOVD users need not apply] responses lean here, there WILL come a time where this aspect of hate in the world at least, will be eradicated.

There should be no tolerance from those who fail to tolerate others. Oxymoronic, but I simply mean that there is a certain extent to tolerance. The BOVD [and its believers]has crossed that line a few thousand kilometers back.

So, homosexual marriages: 1
BOVD hatemongerers: 0

Hooray! Joy to the world!

 

Show me proof that homosexuality is self-destructive as these all are. Furthermore, show me that it has a negative impact on society, as these do (except for maybe the last one).

Aren't those ius cogens contracts invalid because one party gets hurt? Your assisted suicide example is irrelevant for the same reason. As is the masochism example. Neither party suffers any ill effects in consenual homosexual humans.

You do have a point there, although the following quote from you invalidates it:

We shouldn't have homosexualism at all then, as not too long ago all families consisted of a heterosexual union with children. Explain how a heterosexual family could exert influence upon a person that leads them to favor homosexuality.

It's the actions of said sexual drive that lead to the molestation and rape of children. It is impossible to have a consensual sexual relationship with a child, therefore how could you define any actions initiated by the pedophiliac toward the child as anything but rape?

Last time I checked, fetishisms were legal.

For the same reason that it isn't illegal for two adults to have sex with one another. Explain to me how two kids of the same mental capacity could take advantage of each other. You're a law student, so you should know that it is illegal for children of vastly different ages to have sex with one another (statutory rape) or for anybody to watch the two children having sex (pedophilia).

Nothing wrong with being able to tolerate the diversity of other people that are different than yourself. In fact, I'd say that's a positive thing. Said children are actually benefiting from their tolerance. Doesn't this world need more people that are willing to accept the differences in others?

Gay sex is between two people, same as heterosexual sex.

Not all heterosexual married couples can adopt children either.

They are clearly not. Even color-blind people recognise that they are handicapped. How can a deficiency be a valid perception? Any opthalmologist could tell you that the eyes of color-blind people are missing components which every "normal" eye possesses.

Schizophrenia can be cured. Homosexuality can't. Doesn't that mean something about the validity of such perceptions?

Why not?

Are you saying that you challenge the legitimacy of heterosexual marriages that have no children?

Just as heterosexual couples indoctrinate their children? Or children of hippy parents are attempting to revive the free-love, pot-smoking habits of their parents?

Show proof that homosexuality is contrary to human nature.

Why?

No, it's because we haven't seen any references to actual studies.

Aren't all satisfication of sexual desire?

Give us your definition of fair and equal then.

How does it affect us at all, except for expanding our definition of marriage?

Show me proof that it is not genetic. Your own arguments provide more evidence that homosexualism is genetic than not.

Wrong. Marriage is a right, that's why we don't deny the right the marry to people who are convicted serial killers, for example.

 

News, Shura: God still loves you no less.

On a more serious note, you may conclude whatever you wish, it's not like it's binding for anyone.

I'm not really going to debate your last post with you, I've already explained how your arguements work (see the Law of Tolerance).

Basically, there's no tolerance for opposition to tolerance activists and it's tolerance activists who decide the extent of tolerance to apply, and there are no formalised criteria for that. Ergo: it's their discretionary competence. Ergo: it relies on their judgement. They use it, ergo: they rely on that judgement, ergo: they judge. A lot. Done with that.

"Marriage is a right" + "that's why we don't deny the right" - hardly valid, logically. You prove premises from conclusions. Marriage is a descriptive category assigned to a union of two consenting adults of opposite sex. No matter if they're straight or gay. As marriage is not needed for couples who don't need children, it's not needed for homosexuals. While couples who don't have children may at any point change their mind, homosexuals can't impregnate one another.

Why except? That's one point. How else? By presenting a normal, parents & children family as equal to a formalised union of two men or two women with deviated sexual drive. With all respect, of course.

Ius cogens can't be altered by any agreement of persons, no matter what. Sort of hardcoded parts of civil legislation. Break it and your contract is invalid from the beginning.

Like with adultery.

Already asked and already replied. Sorry, but I can't keep repeating myself, my posts are already way too long for easy reading.

It's unclear, the moment when consent becomes possible and in what type of decisions. As I have already said, it's also the child's being unfit for sexual activity that is taken into account.

But they're unable to consent, as you said before...

If I studied American law.

The general rule is that age of consent becomes less important when the difference in age is little. Let's say one's year older and the other year younger than the age of consent. No judge would sentence the older. But according to your argumentation, the younger is no less unable to consent, while the older is fully aware.

Paedophilia is not an action, again. Funny thing, a law should adress such an issue as an adult watching two children having sex. Hmm...

So would I.

Whose tolerance? And why necessarily benefitting?

At the expense of having a hardcoded model of two-dad or two-mum family?

Group sex can be hetero only (ie no male-male or female-female activity), just as normal straight 1 vs 1

But that doesn't come from their being heterosexual, which would be the case with homosexual marriages. Therefore, they would be able to challenge the adoption ban as unconstitutional.

Seems you're getting my point

One doesn't need and ophthalmologist for that. Well, but how do we know which eye is normal? Maybe the usual build has too much components and produces colours as a result? A deviation of our black and white reality? So much depends on perception. And perception matters more if more people share it.

Some kinds of cancer can't be cured. Nor can leprosy. Are they any less diseases? And there's no proof homosexuality can't be cured. Granted, there's no proof that back-to-hetero conversion therapy works really, not just making people think they've been cured - for example.

They're not two different genders as man and woman are, cannot combine both elements. It's not a reason enough to penalise gay sex under law, but it's more than you need to ban child adoption by homosexual couples.

I'm saying what's written there. Plus, this question has been answered once or twice already.

Already addressed twice.

What else am I doing all the time? However, there's no ultimate proof here, one that wouldn't require agreement at some point. Hope you realise that.

Ever heard them talk? Ever seen a gay pride parade?

 

More valid logic from Chev, who really needs to learn the difference between valid and sound logic. Here's an example (btw, I respect real Christians - those who follow Jesus tenet's closely and not just those they like).

Valid Logic
Christians love all gays
Gays are murderers
Therefore Christians love murderers.

This is valid logic and works correctly. But Valid logic does not require the PREMISE TO BE TRUE.

Sound Logic.

All baseball pitchers throw baseballs at the catcher.
Jimmy is a baseball pitcher.
Jimmy throws the baseballs at the catcher.

See the difference. It all works but the Premise is true. Using valid logic is just an educated way to lie. Its a fun trick, you can do it with statistics too, which is why you never trust ANY study without seeing the entire thing and not just the final tallys.

 

Actually it seems you're playing a trick here:

I fail to see anything wrong with that, apart from some room for inconsistency, which could be dealt with by just putting "some" between love and murderers, since there's no way to prove it with regard to all murderers this way.

If Christian love all gays and some gays are murderers, then undoubtedly there are murderers whom Christians love. Kindergarten level of logic. All gays simply includes gay murderers, so much as it includes gays in black suits or white hats.

That Christians actually love murderers is another thing. Murderers are still humans. Therefore, love to humans has to include love to murderers, no matter what.

Which two examples are no less true than:

Therefore your distinction, developed to dismiss my points on formal grounds, is invalid. You have to learn a bit more about logic, it seems.

On a formal note, the premise need not be true for a purely formal implication to have a value of 1. However, to say that something comes from something, a value of 1 is required from the premise. This is like in case of mutual implication, where both sides need to be 1 for the whole to be 1.

I still have to praise you for efforts to resort to logic and limit personal references. A valuable quality.

Edit: Clarification: where I said "homosexuality is a psychological thing", it should have been "homosexual behaviour".

[ January 17, 2004, 03:05: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Immm, actually there is everything wrong with the first example. All christians do not love gays. That is a totally false premise. All gays are murderers, another totally false premise. all christians love murderers is the valid result of two incorrect premises. Basic Logic which you don't seem to understand, or since I actually believe you are quite intelligent, would prefer to ignore since if you acknolodged it, it would show that some of your previous "logic" arguements were bull. The flaw in the arguement btw, is ALL. Anyone who makes blanket assumptions about ANY group of people is totally blind to reality. All Christians do not love gays - many like Jerry Falwell blatently hate them (they were responsible for 9/11 after all). There are a few gays who are murderers, although statistically speaking they commit murder less than both sexes(actually it goes Heterosexual men, Homosexual men, Heterosexual Women, Homosexual women). Any logic arguement that makes blanket assumptions without any proof is almost guarenteed to be false.