View Full Version : Gay Marriage
ICantSpellDawg
05-30-2008, 15:12
Lets break this down as my main reason to oppose gay marriage.
Example:
2 men are gay. They request that they be allowed to marry one another. The court allows them to because they cannot, for some reason, find a reason not to.
This means that 2 gay males or 2 gay females can marry one another.
lets say that I am 45 and my wife has passed away. I have a few young children and a liver disease. I also have a best friend who is unmarried and loves my kids. We share a house. I want to have all of the government allowences of marriage so that my friend can adopt my kids, recieve my assets after I die and so that we can get the tax break before that happens. We are both heterosexual so it is not allowed (even though the government isn't supposed to be peeking into bedrooms - i'm sure that my best friend and I love each other anyway). Eventually, because that is clearly discrimination based on sexuality (2 men can marry because they are gay, but 2 other men are not afforded those identical rights because they are heterosexual?) my friend and I are allowed to "marry" because it is the logical conclusion.
This opens the way for same sex sybling marriages. Why can't I marry my brother? The obvious and long standing reasons not to allow sybling marriages ("bigotry" and the long repeated statistical birth defects) are gone since we obviously can't reproduce and bigots are herded into corners and berated. As soon as that happens brothers will push to be allowed to marry sisters because it is no longer about reproduction even abstractly.
Now - what is keeping us from allowing polygamy? David Patterson says that he will uphold any marriages recognized by nations or states when people re-locate to New York. Gay rights people are happy about this because it is an attempy to usurp the legislative process in the short term. This decision should include polygamous marriages but i'm sure that it doesn't, even though they are recognized by numerous Nations.
I'm tired of writing, but I could go firther with the polygamous marriage issue until marriage is just a government contract between any number of people without any concrete guidelines.
Long story short - we need to retain the idea that "marriage" is either between 1 man and 1 woman or destroy the institution entirely. There doesn't seem to be another oprion that is anything more than arbitrary.
What do you think?
rory_20_uk
05-30-2008, 15:18
To link gay marriage with marrying your sibling is about as logical as linking hetero marriage with molesting small girls.
Polygamy? Fine - why not?
~:smoking:
LittleGrizzly
05-30-2008, 15:22
lets say that I am 45 and my wife has passed away. I have a few young children and a liver disease. I also have a best friend who is unmarried and loves my kids. We share a house. I want to have all of the government allowences of marriage so that my friend can adopt my kids, recieve my assets after I die and so that we can get the tax break before that happens. We are both heterosexual so it is not allowed (even though the government isn't supposed to be peeking into bedrooms - i'm sure that my best friend and I love each other anyway). Eventually, because that is clearly discrimination based on sexuality (2 men can marry because they are gay, but 2 other men are not afforded those identical rights because they are heterosexual?) my friend and I are allowed to "marry" because it is the logical conclusion.
So you support a male and female best friend getting married just for the benefits and inheritance ect. because allowing straight marriage without allowing this would clearly be discriminaton ?
To link gay marriage with marrying your sibling is about as logical as linking hetero marriage with molesting small girls.
Polygamy? Fine - why not?
Indeed.
I've yet to hear any good argument for why anything which happens between consenting adults and which doesn't harm anyone else is anyone's business but their own.
As rory points out, incest is prevented by independent laws which would be unaffected by allowing gay marriage, so no slippery slope there.
What I really don't understand is why such a minor issue has become so ridiculously blown out of proportion, to the point where it can supposedly decide somthing as important as a presidential election.
So you support a male and female best friend getting married just for the benefits and inheritance ect. because allowing straight marriage without allowing this would clearly be discriminaton ?
https://img103.imageshack.us/img103/8775/houseofcardsvx2.png
Lets break this down as my main reason to oppose gay marriage.
Example:
2 men are gay. They request that they be allowed to marry one another. The court allows them to because they cannot, for some reason, find a reason not to.
This means that 2 gay males or 2 gay females can marry one another.
right...
lets say that I am 45 and my wife has passed away. I have a few young children and a liver disease. I also have a best friend who is unmarried and loves my kids. We share a house. I want to have all of the government allowences of marriage so that my friend can adopt my kids, recieve my assets after I die and so that we can get the tax break before that happens. We are both heterosexual so it is not allowed (even though the government isn't supposed to be peeking into bedrooms - i'm sure that my best friend and I love each other anyway). Eventually, because that is clearly discrimination based on sexuality (2 men can marry because they are gay, but 2 other men are not afforded those identical rights because they are heterosexual?) my friend and I are allowed to "marry" because it is the logical conclusion.
right once again...
This opens the way for same sex sybling marriages. Why can't I marry my brother? The obvious and long standing reasons not to allow sybling marriages ("bigotry" and the long repeated statistical birth defects) are gone since we obviously can't reproduce and bigots are herded into corners and berated. As soon as that happens brothers will push to be allowed to marry sisters because it is no longer about reproduction even abstractly.
why "we obviously can't reproduce"? why are you taking that out of the equation?
Society´s reason to encourage marriage is to stimulate the creation of stable families and encourage regeneration of the population.
Of course it´s a given that homosexual couples can´t reproduce, so they can´t help regenerate the population, but they wouldn´t anyway, but at the very least you provide some stability for that couple in terms of taking care of each other in old age and such....so that´s still a plus for society.
for siblings marrying each other cause a definite disadvantage to society as they increase the rise of number of children being born with defects.
Now - what is keeping us from allowing polygamy? David Patterson says that he will uphold any marriages recognized by nations or states when people re-locate to New York. Gay rights people are happy about this because it is an attempy to usurp the legislative process in the short term. This decision should include polygamous marriages but i'm sure that it doesn't, even though they are recognized by numerous Nations.
uhm...there is no reason for not allowing it...as long as it is accepted by all parties involved what´s the problem?
I'm tired of writing, but I could go firther with the polygamous marriage issue until marriage is just a government contract between any number of people without any concrete guidelines.
the obvious guideline is if the society as a whole is harmed by the existence of these contracts or not....
Long story short - we need to retain the idea that "marriage" is either between 1 man and 1 woman or destroy the institution entirely.
we have people working on that :laugh4:
There doesn't seem to be another oprion that is anything more than arbitrary.
What do you think?
marriage, even the classic one between 1 man and 1 woman is a societal construct...and therefore arbitrary anyway....that´s what I think.
Shouldn't be called marriage, that is between a man and a woman. Registered partnership with all the tax breaks sounds fine to me, if they want then that more I have to wonder why.
rory_20_uk
05-30-2008, 15:37
Shouldn't be called marriage, that is between a man and a woman. Registered partnership with all the tax breaks sounds fine to me, if they want then that more I have to wonder why.
So you say. Who made you lord of all? If two people want to say they are married, twinned souls or entangled particles then good luck to them!
~:smoking:
If the debate is really just about what we call the thing then this is even more of a storm in a teacup than I realised.
rory_20_uk
05-30-2008, 15:46
If the debate is really just about what we call the thing then this is even more of a storm in a teacup than I realised.
Isn't it always? The strongest against it must look longingly back 500 years when the argument was based around "well I'm not the one covered in pitch being burnt alive".
As there's nothing that one can say is wrong with what is being discussed then it has to either be that it will inextricably lead to the fall of civilisation, or it is clearly wrong for reasons that can't quite be defined.
~:smoking:
So you say. Who made you lord of all? If two people want to say they are married, twinned souls or entangled particles then good luck to them!
~:smoking:
Out of respect for people who see marriage as a man/woman thing, which it is, gays shouldn't want to call it marriage. That's intrusive and pushy.
ICantSpellDawg
05-30-2008, 15:55
why "we obviously can't reproduce"? why are you taking that out of the equation?
Marriage no longer means reproduction or the support of the child by the state. The state has enacted other laws that do just that which undermined the status of marriage long ago. Gay marriage would finally decide that "marriage" has nothing to do with reproduction, which has been in limbo since people started having infecund heterosexual marriages. If not about reproduction, then what is it about? A metaphysical concept? Leave that to churches because the water will get very cloudy.
Society´s reason to encourage marriage is to stimulate the creation of stable families and encourage regeneration of the population.
Of course it´s a given that homosexual couples can´t reproduce, so they can´t help regenerate the population, but they wouldn´t anyway, but at the very least you provide some stability for that couple in terms of taking care of each other in old age and such....so that´s still a plus for society.
for siblings marrying each other cause a definite disadvantage to society as they increase the rise of number of children being born with defects.
How would 2 brothers marrying be a "definite disadvantage to society?". What if a brother and sister wanted to adopt or they were infertile? What is the barrier there?
I know that there are "different laws" regulating the two ideas, but it is naive to suggest that they aren't absolutely connected from one another through a similar constitutional process. Again - the modern mudus operandi is not "Why?" but "Why Not?"
As an aside, this isn't an issue of what people can call themselves, one another or feel - that is not affected by the governmental interpretation. What is affected is of concern to us all as it is a civil matter and one based on taxable assets and government responsibility, to which we are all actively party.
Craterus
05-30-2008, 15:57
Let them eat cake.
Out of respect for people who see marriage as a man/woman thing, which it is, gays shouldn't want to call it marriage. That's intrusive and pushy.
So I guess that the catholics, mormons, protestants and what Christian sub-religion not shoud agree to not call a church a church.
the modern mudus operandi is not "Why?" but "Why Not?"
Or how about "Why care?"
Or how about "Why care?"
A lot of people care, so their sexual preference is more important then that? If it's all the same to them why want it. That's demanding respect without giving any.
Gay people seeking to wed have a reason to care about this.
Nobody else is affected by it. So why care?
How would 2 brothers marrying be a "definite disadvantage to society?". What if a brother and sister wanted to adopt or they were infertile? What is the barrier there?
There would be no disadvantage there...
but what are you suggesting here? that we should perform medical tests on everyone before deciding what laws apply to each person?
that doesn´t seem very reasonable..or practical...sometimes a rule of thumb is necessary.
ICantSpellDawg
05-30-2008, 16:25
Gay people seeking to wed have a reason to care about this.
Nobody else is affected by it. So why care?
That is faulty. Why does it matter what happens in Alaska to anyone who doesn't live there? Why shouldn't we drill in wildlife preserves up there?
This is a climate of carelessness. Carelessness is used way too much in our society to defend issues when a legitimate defence is in short supply. I hear the same thing about abortion. "It isn't your body (as a male) so you should have no say" or "why do you care". We were all unborn infants at one point - so it is my concern.
This is our government system and marriage has recieved special aknowledgment and tax assurances, so it is important to understand why that is, who qualifies, why they qualify, etc. It concerns us all - that is why it is a governement classification. It is, however, not my concern what 2, 5, etc. homosexuals call themselves when my government isn't involved.
that doesn´t seem very reasonable..or practical...sometimes a rule of thumb is necessary.
What rule of thumb would you suggest?
Gay people seeking to wed have a reason to care about this.
Nobody else is affected by it. So why care?
It annoys me that they find their sexual preference more important then the perception of billions of people on marriage. Mutual respect huh.
Out of respect for people who see marriage as a man/woman thing, which it is, gays shouldn't want to call it marriage. That's intrusive and pushy.
why? because it´s their religion?...that´s a non sequitur......by that logic the catholic church would have be abolished because I don´t agree with it...they´re being "pushy" with their beliefs towards me.
really religious people don´t want to get into "I´m rubber and you´re glue" territory with who's pushy...they´re not gonna come out looking good out of it.
HoreTore
05-30-2008, 16:32
Fortunately, as we recently allowed gay marriage in this country, people opposing gay marriage are largely ignored ~:)
ICantSpellDawg
05-30-2008, 16:34
why? because it´s their religion?...that´s a non sequitur......by that logic the catholic church would have be abolished because I don´t agree with it...they´re being "pushy" with their beliefs towards me.
really religious people don´t want to get into "I´m rubber and you´re glue" territory with who's pushy...they´re not gonna come out looking good out of it.
Frag isn't a really religious guy, so what does your statment mean in response to him?
Fortunately, as we recently allowed gay marriage in this country, people opposing gay marriage are largely ignored ~:)
We all know where Horetore stands on disenfranchising those who disagree. Were your laws decides through legislation or where they court made? If they were court made because the majority disagreed... congratulations on disenfranchising the dissenting majority!
What rule of thumb would you suggest?
the one I suggested above.....
marriage between siblings poses possible disadvantages to society because of the high possibility of the birth of defective children....so it should not be allowed.......yes if they are sterile the problem is not posed...but should the law reflect that? I don´t think instituting medical tests before allowing a marriage or not is practical.
ICantSpellDawg
05-30-2008, 16:40
the one I suggested above.....
marriage between siblings poses possible disadvantages to society because of the high possibility of the birth of defective children....so it should not be allowed.......yes if they are sterile the problem is not posed...but should the law reflect that? I don´t think instituting medical tests before allowing a marriage or not is practical.
But i'm saying that if homosexual marriages were allowed then that that rule would not apply to 2 brothers. Am I missing something?
This issue is about quite a few things and should be decided logically and through the legislative process. It is about parameters in marriage and the governments interest in marriage in general. This is not something to be tossed to the side. Marriage is socially important, so destabling the definition should be treated responsibly.
I am of the mind that people would be better served by a dissolution of civil marriage as a whole. Leave metaphysical recognition to the churches. Otherwise leave marriage the way it is in general doing only minor adjustments.
That is faulty. Why does it matter what happens in Alaska to anyone who doesn't live there? Why shouldn't we drill in wildlife preserves up there?
This is a climate of carelessness. Carelessness is used way too much in our society to defend issues when a legitimate defence is in short supply. I hear the same thing about abortion. "It isn't your body (as a male) so you should have no say" or "why do you care". We were all unborn infants at one point - so it is my concern.
I am not saying we should not care about anything. I am simply saying we should not care about things which harm no one and do not affect us.
Drilling in Alaska is a question of environmental vs economic interests, which I suppose is a question of how we should use collective resources. Biodiversity and economic growth both most definitely affect us, therefore we should care.
Abortion is a question of human rights. It is weighing the rights of the unborn infant against the rights of the mother. Either way someone will be harmed, it is a matter of deciding which is the greater harm. Therefore we should care.
Gay marriage in the form most people seem to object to is a question of mere semantics. It does not affect us and we should not care about it, any more than we should care about what colour car the president of Mexico drives.
This is our government system and marriage has recieved special aknowledgment and tax assurances, so it is important to understand why that is, who qualifies, why they qualify, etc. It concerns us all - that is why it is a governement classification. It is, however, not my concern what 2, 5, etc. homosexuals call themselves when my government isn't involved.
So is this really just a question of tax policy? I must say I find it hard to believe that that is what has got so many people so upset.
In the UK we have the concept of civil partnerships, which can be entered into by anyone and which confer all the legal status of a marriage, however it is not actually called a marriage. Strangely, this was a relatively uncontroversial measure to bring in, compared to actually allowing gay people to marry.
Frag isn't a really religious guy, so what does your statment mean in response to him?
Frag isn't religious at all, got protestant roots but that's it, but many people are. When gays wanted to hold a gay parade in Jeruzalem the why-not guys were also why-notting, I am more like why do. You know a lot of people care about that and that they are going to be upset, same with marriage. It's important to millions of people but they don't care, how egocentric can you be? I think they want people to be upset.
HoreTore
05-30-2008, 17:03
We all know where Horetore stands on disenfranchising those who disagree. Were your laws decides through legislation or where they court made? If they were court made because the majority disagreed... congratulations on disenfranchising the dissenting majority!
Only politicians make laws in this country, and they made it with a huge majority. So yeah, we've succeeded in disenfranchising the vocal minority consisting of dolts and people who point to old books. And I'm proud of that.
Only politicians make laws in this country, and they made it with a huge majority.
Only because of the pc-tyranny where nobody dares speaking against it. If you are against gay marriage your are of course really repressing your own homosexual feelings.
HoreTore
05-30-2008, 17:16
Only because of the pc-tyranny where nobody dares speaking against it. If you are against gay marriage your are of course really repressing your own homosexual feelings.
How is life on your planet anyway, Fragony?
Plenty of people speak against it, but the vast majority are for it. But hey, if you like your bubble, I don't mind you living in it...
ICantSpellDawg
05-30-2008, 17:18
If the majority wants to re-write the civil code on marriage then that is fine. I strongly disagree, but I can (and have to) live with it. I can, however, push to change people's opinions on the law as it stands as is my right in this country. Forutnately the general populace has not agreed to recognize the relationships as marriage in my country and it is up to those who wish to define marriage in easily acceptable parameters to ensure that it does not happen.
I believe that it will happen, either through courts strongarming laws or through eventual legislation, but that won't stop me from fighting it. I will continue to fight it after the decision has been set in stone. We all know from experience that stones are brittle, particularly political ones.
If Norway passed it by legislative means then I aknowledge the legitimacy of the decision in Norway while strongly disagreeing with the outcome.
How is life on your planet anyway, Fragony?
Plenty of people speak against it, but the vast majority are for it. But hey, if you like your bubble, I don't mind you living in it...
I don't know how it works in Norway but I know how it works here in the Netherlands. And since all this nonsense started here I have seen it up close.
But i'm saying that if homosexual marriages were allowed then that that rule would not apply to 2 brothers. Am I missing something?
A marriage between 2 siblings carries a potential disadvantage to society - the increase in the number of babies born with defects....gay marriage does not carry such a burden ....is that not clear?
I am of the mind that people would be better served by a dissolution of civil marriage as a whole. Leave metaphysical recognition to the churches. Otherwise leave marriage the way it is in general doing only minor adjustments.
A Civil Marriage is about something tangible...society gives special conditions (tax breaks, etc) to people that provide stability for the society (children generated are needed to replenish the population, family structure is important to the welfare of the elderly, etc)...church marriage is just about what some ancient book said....that you might or not believe.
if one of the two needs to be removed for sure civil marriage isn´t the one with it´s head on the block.
ICantSpellDawg
05-30-2008, 17:46
A marriage between 2 siblings carries a potential disadvantage to society - the increase in the number of babies born with defects....gay marriage does not carry such a burden ....is that not clear?.
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_taboo).
A social response to the costs of incest
One theory is that the observance of the taboo would lower the incidence of congenital birth defects caused by inbreeding. A society that had noticed this might tend to form an incest taboo.
Anthropologists reject this explanation for two reasons. First, inbreeding does not directly lead to congenital birth defects per se; it leads to an increase in the frequency of homozygotes. A homozygote encoding a congenital birth defect will produce children with birth defects, but homozygotes that do not encode for congenital birth defects will decrease the number of carriers in a population. If children born with this type of heritable birth defect die (or are killed) before they reproduce, the ultimate effect of inbreeding will be to decrease the frequency of defective genes in the population.
It doesn't sound that clear cut to me. It sounds like a ban on those grounds wouldn't hold up to scrutiny in the future. does it mean that those who are disabled and have a high percentage chance of passing it on should be barred from marriage? Dwarves suffer no such indignation for example.
A Civil Marriage is about something tangible...society gives special conditions (tax breaks, etc) to people that provide stability for the society (children generated are needed to replenish the population, family structure is important to the welfare of the elderly, etc)...church marriage is just about what some ancient book said....that you might or not believe.
if one of the two needs to be removed for sure civil marriage isn´t the one with it´s head on the block.
That's rich. By definition civil marriage isn't for procreation, isn't for child rearing, it isn't for love and it has no real limit after the gay marriage debate. What is it for? This is a question that we need to ask ourselves. It seems to serve a no concrete purposeand may need to be updated or scrapped.
It still serves the same purpose in Religion and that characterization is not our concern uless we are inside a specific denomination.
I think it would be helpful to exercise some restraint when discussing gay marriage. For some reason, people feel compelled to bring up incest, polygamy, bestiality and anything else under the sun when talking about it. As the inimitable Rick Santorum said, "That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."
I think there's plenty of meat to chew on when thinking about gay marriage without sliding down a slippery slope argument.
ICantSpellDawg
05-30-2008, 18:35
I think it would be helpful to exercise some restraint when discussing gay marriage. For some reason, people feel compelled to bring up incest, polygamy, bestiality and anything else under the sun when talking about it. As the inimitable Rick Santorum said, "That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."
I think there's plenty of meat to chew on when thinking about gay marriage without sliding down a slippery slope argument.
Okay - can you illuminate the issue for all of us? Are you suggesting that consequences should be ignored because people hate the "slippery slope" arguement?
Arguements usually consist reasons of reasons why and why not. Why not tends to include forseable consequences.
If we can't talk about direct and indirect consequences then i guess we don't really have any substantial reasons and we should just let it happen right? Talk about stacking the deck. Every idea would be taken up.
What is the meat of it? That almost every major religious doctrine calls it anathema? They've been using that one and it hasn't really worked - I thought logic would be more acceptable, but that doesn't appear to do the trick either.
woad&fangs
05-30-2008, 18:42
Marriage has nothing to do with love as far as the government is concerned. It is a legal and economic contract between 2 people which provides mutual benefits for both of them.
The marriage contract that revolves around love and sex is a seperate issue. This form of marriage is only between the 2 people and the religion of their choosing. If a Catholic priest refuses to marry Bruno and Lenny then that is perfectly fine.
I personally believe that the first version(economic&legal) should not be called marriage. It should be called a civil contract or some other vague name. I also believe that any 2 people in good mental health and over the age of 18 should be able to enter into this contract. So yes, A brother and sister should be able to have a "civil contract" in my opinion.
edit: Ronin said basically the same thing.
ICantSpellDawg
05-30-2008, 18:45
Marriage has nothing to do with love as far as the government is concerned. It is a legal and economic contract between 2 people which provides mutual benefits for both of them.
The marriage contract that revolves around love and sex is a seperate issue. This form of marriage is only between the 2 people and the religion of their choosing. If a Catholic priest refuses to marry Bruno and Lenny then that is perfectly fine.
I personally believe that the first version(economic&legal) should not be called marriage. It should be called a civil contract or some other vague name. I also believe that any 2 people in good mental health and over the age of 18 should be able to enter into this contract. So yes, A brother and sister should be able to have a "civil contract" in my opinion.
edit: Ronin said basically the same thing.
I agree wholeheartedly. Do away with the title marriage and let ANY 2 people enter into a civil and contractual agreement. Love should'nt enter into it.
OR keep marriage between 1 man and 1 woman for the general purpose of raising and supporting children. There needs to be a reason that we are giving some people tax breaks and not others - "love" can't be it. Yes there is more to it than that, but I think "marriage" will be stronger when the government butts out.
If we can't talk about direct and indirect consequences then i guess we don't really have any substantial reasons and we should just let it happen right? Talk about stacking the deck. Every idea would be taken up.
I fail to see how incest, polygamy and bestiality would be direct or indirect consequences of allowing gay marriage.
ICantSpellDawg
05-30-2008, 18:55
I fail to see how incest, polygamy and bestiality would be direct or indirect consequences of allowing gay marriage.
First of all YOU brought up bestiality. Polygamy is based on a similar rational but will take a little longer.
Incest will be directly related. Did you not read my previous posts?
PLUS when you annihilate one barrier that used to stand because of cultural and religious taboo, the others will get upset and push for themselves. They have been doing this and any court or legislative decisions will create PRECEDENT.
Are there any lawyers who agree with me or am I on my own? "I feel like I'm on crazy pills."
Also - you still haven't answered my question regarding the "real meat" that you were referring to
TuffStuff, I read your opening post. The whole bit about marrying your brother just seemed silly. How incest would be made obsolete by the allowance of gay marriage is a bit of an unknown. Abolishing one taboo does not equate abolishing all.
The legalization of miscegenation didn't lead to a free-for-all in the U.S., so it's a puzzler why you believe this will do more.
As for the "real meat" of the issue, why not discuss the implications of gay marriage itself, rather than these fantasies of moral malaise. How will gay marriages impact society? How will they impact straight marriages? What is the moral, ethical, economic and legal consequence of allowing two old men to get married? (And if you're going to say that this will naturally result in polygamy and incest, please structure out your reasoning so's we all can follow it.)
TuffStuff, I read your opening post. The whole bit about marrying your brother just seemed silly. How incest would be made obsolete by the allowance of gay marriage is a bit of an unknown. Abolishing one taboo does not equate abolishing all.
I wonder, let's take the gay parade in Amsterdam. Two years ago city allowed a boat with ' gay' minors 11+, last year they allowed a boat with ' gay' people with down syndrome, I wonder what this year will bring, gay pets?
ICantSpellDawg
05-30-2008, 19:21
TuffStuff, I read your opening post. The whole bit about marrying your brother just seemed silly. How incest would be made obsolete by the allowance of gay marriage is a bit of an unknown. Abolishing one taboo does not equate abolishing all.
The legalization of miscegenation didn't lead to a free-for-all in the U.S., so it's a puzzler why you believe this will do more.
As for the "real meat" of the issue, why not discuss the implications of gay marriage itself, rather than these fantasies of moral malaise. How will gay marriages impact society? How will they impact straight marriages? What is the moral, ethical, economic and legal consequence of allowing two old men to get married? (And if you're going to say that this will naturally result in polygamy and incest, please structure out your reasoning so's we all can follow it.)
I've only written a few posts - will you do me the honor of reading them?
What can I say? I don't know what the effects on society (in general) will be just as I don't know what the effects on society would be if we gave monkeys a brand new bicycle. I know that it would cost taxpayer money, lead to other types of primates wanting free bikes and I can't see the benefit.
More seriously marriage is supposed to be important. Also, our society seems to work in a direction that "if it doesn't directly physically hurt someone else and even one person wants it, then we should allow it and the government should subsidize it". That is assinine.
It is important for people to understand the consequences of their support for things, good and bad. This bizarre game that we play of hammering ideas into people until they eventually get too tired to defend their position is terrible. I have yet to hear a compelling reason to allow gay marriage, but I have heard plenty of people get tired of constantly sayign no. fortunately I am stubborn and will fight a bad idea to the death.
Louis VI the Fat
05-30-2008, 19:22
I wonder what this year will bring, gay pets?I should hope so!
Homosexuality is so common amongst mammals that it is the norm in the natural world. Humans are no different in this. The modern urge to repress homosexuality in fellow human beings is unnatural and unethical. But at least humans can fight back. To also prevent pets - animals that are by definition at the mercy of human beings - from expressing their natural love for one another is simply criminal. :whip:
rory_20_uk
05-30-2008, 19:26
I wonder, let's take the gay parade in Amsterdam. Two years ago city allowed a boat with ' gay' minors 11+, last year they allowed a boat with ' gay' people with down syndrome, I wonder what this year will bring, gay pets?
Trying to avoid the shower of spittle caused by the vehemence in the post (which is a good substitute for rational debate - or so it seems) it does raise some interesting points:
1) All minors can't be gay - coz someone said so / it's written somewhere in a book
2) All people with Down Syndrome can't be gay - coz someone said so / it's written somewhere in a book
3) All Animals can't be gay - coz someone said so / it's written somewhere in a book
Are there any more developed reasons why these three examples are oh so terrible?
Concerning hetro marriage: are you aware that in America there were children being forced into under age marriages, as also occurs in such places as Ethiopia / Pitcairn islands and probably many other places? This sanctified rape of children is abhorrent, and I move that marriage should be banned - for the sake of the children :soapbox:
~:smoking:
ICantSpellDawg
05-30-2008, 19:26
I should hope so!
Homosexuality is so common amongst mammals that it is the norm in the natural world. Humans are no different in this. The modern urge to repress homosexuality in fellow human beings is unnatural and unethical. But at least humans can fight back. To also prevent pets - animals that are by definition at the mercy of human beings - from expressing their natural love for one another is simply criminal. :whip:
Hahaha. How the tables have turned. Now we are the "un-natural abnormal freaks". If homosexuality is "the norm in the natural world" then what does that make heterosexuality? You guys are funny.
Craterus
05-30-2008, 19:28
if we gave monkeys a brand new bicycle. I know that it would cost taxpayer money, lead to other types of primates wanting free bikes and I can't see the benefit.
:laugh4: What?
rory_20_uk
05-30-2008, 19:28
Hahaha. How the tables have turned. Now we are the "un-natural abnormal freaks". If homosexuality is "the norm in the natural world" then what does that make heterosexuality? You guys are funny.
Such blinkered minds. The point is that BOTH are normal. :wall:
~:smoking:
Kagemusha
05-30-2008, 19:29
Its the business of gay people what they want to do, its none of mine business so who i am to tell what people can and cannot do.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-30-2008, 19:31
The marriage contract that revolves around love and sex is a seperate issue. This form of marriage is only between the 2 people and the religion of their choosing. If a Catholic priest refuses to marry Bruno and Lenny then that is perfectly fine.
Marriage isn't religious. Atheists get married. End of story.
Tuff, right now men and women can get married, but guys can't marry their sister. So if gay marriage is allowed that has nothing to do with guys marrying their brother. The reason incest is taboo is that there is a psychological effect that leads to repulsion among siblings. Any relationship that takes place despite that has it's consensuality highly questioned.
Samurai Waki
05-30-2008, 19:33
It doesn't bother me really. Call it what you will, Civil Contract, Marriage, Government Tax Regulated Partnership... Cake without the icing. Anywho, Gays really don't negatively affect me on a day to day basis, and my religious right winger televangelist spirit is only reserved for child molesters and rapists, so... let them "Marry" or whatever the hell you want to call it.
ICantSpellDawg
05-30-2008, 19:34
Such blinkered minds. The point is that BOTH are normal. :wall:
~:smoking:
first
How did you come to the conclusion that homosexuality is "normal" in the animal kingdom?
second
What does normality mean with regards to acceptability? Theft is normal, murder is normal, suppression of that which differs to an unacceptable degree is normal etc - Bigotry seems to be normal even theoretically with no physical implication, but we are told to supress all of those things by society.
I have yet to hear a compelling reason to allow gay marriage, but I have heard plenty of people get tired of constantly sayign no.
There's a very simple reason to allow gay marriage: formation of families is a good thing. Married people behave differently from unmarried people, generally in ways that we, as a society, want to encourage. The formation of stable families is a paramount building block for our society. Telling roughly 5% of the population, "Sorry, no marriage or families for you," seems counter-productive.
As for re-reading your posts, as instructed I have done so. Now I feel extra-bonus educated on what TuffStuff thinks about marriage.
How did you come to the conclusion that homosexuality is "normal" in the animal kingdom?
Let's not get hung up on the word "normal." Homosexuality has been documented as occurring in most mammal species. In other words, the idea that gayness is a uniquely human thing is verifiably false.
ICantSpellDawg
05-30-2008, 19:36
The reason incest is taboo is that there is a psychological effect that leads to repulsion among siblings. Any relationship that takes place despite that has it's consensuality highly questioned.
Tell that to the 30 year old brother and sister who want to get married. There are enough of them out there.
As for re-reading your posts, as instructed I have done so. Now I feel extra-bonus educated on what TuffStuff thinks about marriage.
Thanks
Let's not get hung up on the word "normal." Homosexuality has been documented as occurring in most mammal species. In other words, the idea that gayness is a uniquely human thing is verifiably false.
Nevermind words, definitions or consequence when discussing new ideas that are repulsive to the majority... I like the way you think.
Let me see if I can walk around this: TuffStuff, if gay marriage did not inevitably lead to incest and polygamy, would you still have an issue with it?
Nevermind words, definitions or consequence when discussing new ideas that are repulsive to the majority... I like the way you think.
Wow, who peed in your Cornflakes this morning? All I was saying was that homosexuality is documented in most mammalian species, and that we shouldn't get hung up over the (probably ill-chosen) word "normal," with all of its implications. "Common" would be a better word, as would "natural," "observable," or "demonstrated." "Normal" has baggage involving morality and society that seemed distracting to the conversation.
But hey, if my attempt to inject clarity strikes you as dishonest, by all means, get slap-happy.
Are there any more developed reasons why these three examples are oh so terrible?
How about concensual sex, how easy would it be for me to convince 14 year olds, when the weed grows on the shores the water is ready for the eel after all. But that would be me taking advantage and my appetite for women just doesn't go that far that I am willing to take advantage out of anyone.
rory_20_uk
05-30-2008, 19:42
How about concensual sex, how easy would it be for me to convince 14 year olds, when the weed grows on the shores the water is ready for the eel after all. But that would be me taking advantage and my appetite for women just doesn't go that far that I am willing to take advantage out of anyone.
Erm, I don't follow you. That youngsters are gay or straight when under the age of consent makes no difference.
Or is there another point embedded in there?
~:smoking:
Geoffrey S
05-30-2008, 19:44
Illustrating topic, in the sense of showing exactly why slippery-slope arguments are a poor excuse for failing to provide substantiated claims. Clearly a case where I quickly went from :inquisitive: to :laugh4:. Shouldn't take too long to reach the :wall: stage.
rory_20_uk
05-30-2008, 19:47
Oh, I'm there with the basic argument, but it's interesting seeing how others can try to tease a constructive way forward. As I want to become a Management Consultant it's a good skill to hone.
~:smoking:
Erm, I don't follow you. That youngsters are gay or straight when under the age of consent makes no difference.
Or is there another point embedded in there?
~:smoking:
Of course it makes a difference they can't be sure of that but are being forced into a direction while still being easily pushed around. But all that counts is why they want kids and mental patients to have their own boat in the gay parade. If you ask me gays are like adrenaline-junkies it is never enough there is always the next step. Or so it seems.
Cronos Impera
05-30-2008, 19:51
Just imagine:
You are a happy father who expects his son/daughter to bring home a nephew or a niece to raise.
He doesn't bring you a niece/nephew but instead a bloke/gal and calls him/her his/hers spouse and asks you to consent for their marriage.
Well, if I am still potent enough when this happens I'll have sex with my wife and erase the gay from my fammily tree.
Every man or woman has the right to be called "Grandpa/Grandma" and those homosexuals who oppose that sacred right can shove their civil liberties and sexual preferences up their "dorsal finns" because to put a matter of personal tastes above life and your fammily is selfishness.
On the other hand a bisexual is tolerable if he follows the normal procedures and settles into a nice heterosexual fammily.
rory_20_uk
05-30-2008, 19:55
Of course it makes a difference they can't be sure of that but are being forced into a direction while still being easily pushed around. But all that counts is why they want kids and mental patients to have their own boat in the gay parade. If you ask me gays are like adrenaline-junkies it is never enough there is always the next step. Or so it seems.
OK, people with Trisomy 21 are NOT mental patients.
There are plenty of ways that parents pressure children - little miss America pageants come to mind, as does the teen / pre-teen cage fighting in the UK. The issue here is not the event, but the pushy parents. You are "playing the man, not the ball" - banning something in case it is misused - which happens to be what you wanted banned in any case.
Zelots are equally adrenaline junkies. When they're not invading your space by knocking on your door, some moron is screeching that God loves me through a loudspeaker on the street...
In fact, I've never, ever been bothered by someone who is gay (maybe I'm just ugly...) but the number of religious fanatics who have wasted in total hours of my time is legion.
~:smoking:
Samurai Waki
05-30-2008, 19:56
hmmm... sounds like you'd rather hate your descendent for what he is rather than who he is. To many bloody people on the planet anyways, what gives you the right to declare that you can't have a gay child? or if you did, you'd essentially abandon them... Thats... cruel.
Cronos, if you're that worried about propagating your family, the answer is simple: don't have just one kid; have a bunch of 'em. That way the millions of things that can end your family if it's depending on a single person won't be relevant.
Heck, gayness is the least of your worries if you've got a single child: What about a car accident? Boom, no more continuation of the Cronos Impera genes. What about an accident or disease that causes sterility? What if the child is deeply anti-social and never marries anyone? What if the child shows adult-onset schizophrenia somewhere around age eighteen and needs to be institutionalized for the rest of his/her life? What if the child gets married but decides not to have kids?
Really, there are so many things that can break the chain, the mind boggles. Gayness should be very low on your worry list.
rory_20_uk
05-30-2008, 19:59
Cronos, I pity any children you might have.
~:smoking:
Craterus
05-30-2008, 20:01
Hey Cronos, sounds like you're in favour of gay adoption.
ICantSpellDawg
05-30-2008, 20:02
Wow, who peed in your Cornflakes this morning? All I was saying was that homosexuality is documented in most mammalian species, and that we shouldn't get hung up over the (probably ill-chosen) word "normal," with all of its implications. "Common" would be a better word, as would "natural," "observable," or "demonstrated." "Normal" has baggage involving morality and society that seemed distracting to the conversation.
But hey, if my attempt to inject clarity strikes you as dishonest, by all means, get slap-happy.
First of all most "homosexual behavior" occurs acutely - it doesn't tend to be pair bonding. This is also true of human history. most documented cased of historical "homosexuality" occurred when people decided to change it up - suggesting that they had a more bisexual lifestyle. Heterosexuality is "normal" while homosexuality acts have been an observable reality all over the animal kingdom - so is incest, murder, rape, torture, and theft etc. This says nothing about ethics - just reality - yet is consistently used by your side as evidence of acceptability.
The modern understanding of homosexuality is warped. The impact on the civil institution of marriage is obvious, but clouded intentionally by those who would obstruct truth. The obvious consequences are part of the discussion as is every other reason why to allow and not to allow our government to subsidize heterosexual or homosexual unions.
Let me see if I can walk around this: TuffStuff, if gay marriage did not inevitably lead to incest and polygamy, would you still have an issue with it?.
I didn't use the word inevitable. It is just that both incest and polygamy are logically consequential to the school of thought that would allow us to drop our understanding of traditional marriage and would be pushed further by the precedent.
If gay marriage had no negative consequences, would I support it? No, but I might not stand in the way. The simple reality is that it will.
This issue seriously pisses me off. The reality is that we don't have a say in the issue. We don't have a say in any issue. The courts decide big issues. We can draw up legislation in our home state but a federal court will deem it null and void. In fact if you think about any major issue it is never decided by the people. Slavery? Edict. Segregation? Edict. Sodomy laws? Edict. Abortion? Edict. Immigration? Edict.
Sometimes they make good decisions, other times they make bad ones. I don't even know why we call ourselves a republic.
Our laws don't matter - it's the decisions of a few at the top irrespective of the feelings of the electorate.
Samurai Waki
05-30-2008, 20:08
I fear if you keep standing for too long, you'll get pushed over by the tide anyways. Okay, question. So if a Man, who truly believes he is female, dresses, acts, and has his name and gender changed accordingly to fit the more accurate description of himself, wants to marry, this being to another man, who may or may not be "gay". should this still bar them from "marriage" in the traditional sense?
I fear if you keep standing for too long, you'll get pushed over by the tide anyways. Okay, question. So if a Man, who truly believes he is female, dresses, acts, and has his name and gender changed accordingly to fit the more accurate description of himself, wants to marry, this being to another man, who may or may not be "gay". should this still bar them from "marriage" in the traditional sense?
If I really believed I am Napoleon would you give me an emperial guard or just call the ambulance?
Geoffrey S
05-30-2008, 20:13
Every man or woman has the right to be called "Grandpa/Grandma" and those homosexuals who oppose that sacred right can shove their civil liberties and sexual preferences up their "dorsal finns" because to put a matter of personal tastes above life and your fammily is selfishness.
And you really, truly did not see the irony while you were typing that?
Lord, I'm going to need more smileys. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
ICantSpellDawg
05-30-2008, 20:18
The conservatives have seemingly left this issue. That is interesting and to be expected. The yare either tired of defending marriage or they have been converted. I'd bet exhaustion would best describe it.
First of all most "homosexual behavior" occurs acutely - it doesn't tend to be pair bonding.
Here we might have to go digging for sources, 'cause I've read multiple accounts of animals pair-bonding for life. Mostly birds, now that I think about it. There are some penguins who do same-sex bonding, as well as swans and geese. Not sure why this tends to happen with birds, but there you have it. I'm all in agreement, however, that the modern idea of neat, regulated sexuality is probably false to the core. Even if most people have a settled preference, there are probably many, many people for whom the idea of "straight" or "gay" is all a bit irrelevant.
homosexuality acts have been an observable reality all over the animal kingdom - so is incest, murder, rape, torture, and theft etc. This says nothing about ethics - just reality - yet is consistently used by your side as evidence of acceptability.
Other things that are common among animals: eating, drinking, sleeping and defecating. As you say, there's no moral angle to any of it.
However, many people think that humans are exceptional, somehow alien from every other living thing. This point of view is common among religious fundamentalists of all persuasions. So it is worthwhile to point out to them that when they call something "unnatural," they're talking out their fundamental orifice, since they haven't the foggiest of what constitutes natural or unnatural.
It is just that both incest and polygamy are logically consequential to the school of thought that would allow us to drop our understanding of traditional marriage and would be pushed further by the precedent.
Your entire argument seems to hinge on this notion, one which I find to be woefully unexplained and unexplored. Just because you, personally, see a logical connection between gay marriage and incest does not mean anybody else does. Nor does it mean that there is a genuine causal link between the two.
Your worry seems to go like this: "People who want gay marriage are saying 'If it doesn't hurt people, let it happen.' This means that incest and polygamy are equally valid to this mindset. If they win this battle, more non-traditional families will be given the protection of law."
But I just don't see it. For one thing, where's the political will to push through decriminalization of incest or polygamy? The gay population of the world is thought to be somewhere between 2% and 5%. That's a huge population. That's why everybody has a gay relative, or a gay friend, or a gay coworker. Seriously, if you don't have a gay person in your life somewhere, you're exceptional.
This large population has banded together and pushed for marriage rights. They're organized and well-motivated.
Where is the similar push for incest? Where are the Incest Parades? Where are the sitcoms devoted to the wacky lives of incestuous kids? Where's the Incestuous Eye for the Straight Guy?
Likewise, where's the political muscle for polygamy? Who's gonna push that through? Warren Jeffs? The FLDS? Seems kinda unlikely, no? How about polygamous hippies living on communes in Oregon? How much political weight do you think they can swing?
Nope, it just ain't practical. Gay marriage is a serious issue being pushed by people who genuinely want the rights and responsibilities of married people -- visitation when ill, inheritance, sharing of health insurance, etc. To endlessly drag in incest and polygamy just shows a certain level of distractedness that isn't helpful in the slightest.
-edit-
Our laws don't matter - it's the decisions of a few at the top irrespective of the feelings of the electorate.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the California legislature (all elected) try to enact gay marriage twice, only to be vetoed by the Governor? And isn't the Supreme Court of California also elected? And isn't there going to be one of California's famous ballot initiatives again on the subject?
I take your point about edicts, but it doesn't seem to apply in the case of Cali. If anything, the voters are getting heaploads of say on the issue.
ICantSpellDawg
05-30-2008, 20:22
.
Your entire argument seems to hinge on this notion, one which I find to be woefully unexplained and unexplored. Just because you, personally, see a logical connection between gay marriage and incest does not mean anybody else does. Nor does it mean that there is a genuine causal link between the two.
Your worry seems to go like this: "People who want gay marriage are saying 'If it doesn't hurt people, let it happen.' This means that incest and polygamy are equally valid to this mindset. If they win this battle, more non-traditional families will be given the protection of law."
But I just don't see it. For one thing, where's the political will to push through decriminalization of incest or polygamy? The gay population of the world is thought to be somewhere between 2% and 5%. That's a huge population. That's why everybody has a gay relative, or a gay friend, or a gay coworker. Seriously, if you don't have a gay person in your life somewhere, you're exceptional.
This large population has banded together and pushed for marriage rights. They're organized and well-motivated.
Where is the similar push for incest? Where are the Incest Parades? Where are the sitcoms devoted to the wacky lives of incestuous kids? Where's the Incestuous Eye for the Straight Guy?
Likewise, where's the political muscle for polygamy? Who's gonna push that through? Warren Jeffs? The FLDS? Seems kinda unlikely, no? How about polygamous hippies living on communes in Oregon? How much political weight do you think they can swing?
Nope, it just ain't practical. Gay marriage is a serious issue being pushed by people who genuinely want the rights and responsibilities of married people -- visitation when ill, inheritance, sharing of health insurance, etc. To endlessly drag in incest and polygamy just shows a certain level of distractedness that isn't helpful in the slightest.
Where was gay marriage 15 years ago? It's peoples innability to see down the road which is astounding.
I'm saying that if 2 males can get married and that taboo is gone then what about 2 brothers? The incest taboo about birth defects isn't there because it is not currently possible for them to reproduce, they love each other, other guys can get married etc. People have a tendency to push the envelope - particularly whne it is already open.
For the polygamy angle I was using the governor of New york as an example. He has stated that NY will recognize marriages recognized by other U.S. states and international marriages by witness. We don't currently allow gay marriage, but gay marriages will be recognized from other countries and states. This goes further than i think he intends it to because if we allow recognized marriages that contradict our laws, why keep officialy recognized polygamous marriages out?
I'm not playing with things that have no base - these are legitamate realities. I would honestly rather see brothers and sisters get married than homosexuals. It makes more sense and would probably have a less extreme societal impact.
Who will provide the political muscle for incest or polygamy? It's a straightforward question, and I don't think you've got a real answer.
Samurai Waki
05-30-2008, 20:27
If I really believed I am Napoleon would you give me an emperial guard or just call the ambulance?
I think your missing the point. But if I could give you an imperial guard, I'd tell you to have it.
The conservatives have seemingly left this issue. That is interesting and to be expected. The yare either tired of defending marriage or they have been converted. I'd bet exhaustion would best describe it.
Can't win that if everything is relative ' why not' becomes an argument on it's own. Where they want to go exactly, no idea.
Can't win that if everything is relative ' why not' becomes an argument on it's own. Where they want to go exactly, no idea.
Yup, kinda like doctors, with their amoral "First do no harm" motto.
ICantSpellDawg
05-30-2008, 20:33
Who will provide the political muscle for incest or polygamy? It's a straightforward question, and I don't think you've got a real answer.
The ACLU and organizations that find issues in hard to find places. After this happens long enough people will get behind it.
do you doubt this? Like I was saying the demographic wasn't behind gay marriage years ago, it takes time.
So, TuffStuff, we should actively deny productive citizens the privilege of forming a legally recognized family because ... the ACLU has a secret plan to legitimize polygamy and incest. In a few decades. Am I understanding this correctly?
ICantSpellDawg
05-30-2008, 20:41
So, TuffStuff, we should actively deny productive citizens the privilege of forming a legally recognized family because ... the ACLU has a secret plan to legitimize polygamy and incest. In a few decades. Am I understanding this correctly?
I never said that it was their secret plan - I said that it is logical to move on to the next project.
So in your opinion you need to be married to have a legally recognized family?
I believe that homosexuals should not have the right to marry because it corrupts the meaning of marriage and it is immoral by my standards. I also believe that it shows children an unhealthy lifestyle to look up to, will further reduce the birth rate and lead to higher STI transmission. Furthermore, should they be afforded that right, other types of alternative sexual lifestlyes will be afforded numerous footholds in the legal codex.
I think that there are better alternatives that will satisfy more people and be more acceptable in the long term. Alternatives that would not require people to subsidize homosexual relationships or homosexuals to subsidize heterosexual relationships. Instead, we would let EVERYBODY Choose 1 favorite person to share stuff with.
When religious concepts cross over into civil concepts the results can be confusing and repressive. If the state allows gay marriage then there will be pressure to force churches to allow it.
Whatever - i'm done. I don't have any more ammo. You guys will win this arguement like every other arguement and have your precious gay marriage.
You'll be able to kill all the babies you want, marry all the gays you want, crap in your personal food, use hard drugs, etc.
One day the political system will change and be based on a different standard and you guys will be pissing and moaning with little recourse other than disjointed "but,but,buts".
Yup, kinda like doctors, with their amoral "First do no harm" motto.
Let me try again. People should respect the way other people live, we all have our personal space. Sometimes you accidently enter someone's personal space, when you do you take a step back. When the concept of marriage is such a big deal for so many people, you respect that and don't try to take that from them just because you feel it should be otherwise, then you aren't just living your own life you are disrespecting the way other people are living their lifes. People say why not, but again why do? It's enforcing your way on others and that is never right. I said earlier that gays should have the same legal rights as hetero's, why do they want exactly the very thing that so many people believe to be sacred? Who is looking a fight exactly?
So in your opinion you need to be married to have a legally recognized family?
No, that isn't my opinion, it's how the law is at the moment. If you want to have the protections of marriage, you must be married. Otherwise, for instance, your spouse's family will take everything away from you if/when your partner dies. This is a too-common occurrence for gay couples.
I also believe that it shows children an unhealthy lifestyle to look up to, will further reduce the birth rate and lead to higher STI transmission.
As far as children go, the worst thing that can happen to a normal kids is called "divorce," not "gay marriage." If you're really concerned with child welfare you need to look long and hard at the causes of heterosexual divorce, not the fact that Tim and John want to get married.
"Reduce the birth rate"? Eh? America is one of the few industrialized nations where we don't have a problem with the birth rate.
"Lead to higher STI transmission"? Uh, no, that's a non-starter. Remember what I said about how marriage encourages behavior that we as a society want to encourage? Marriage generally reduces the level of promiscuity. Sheesh, who's going to go spreading more diseases, a fifty year old bachelor or a fifty year old married guy? No, sorry, this one doesn't pass any sort of logical test.
Furthermore, should they be afforded that right, other types of alternative sexual lifestlyes will be afforded numerous footholds in the legal codex.
As I've said, I think you're rolling down a slippery slope here, with no logical or empirical connection to the issue.
When religious concepts cross over into civil concepts the results can be confusing and repressive. If the state allows gay marriage then there will be pressure to force churches to allow it.
I'm all for universal civil unions, that would be fine by me. Leave marriage to the churches, but have the legal stuff entailed in a civil union. That would be grand. It ain't gonna happen, but it would be cool. As for this notion that chuches will be "forced to allow" gay marriage, the only person I've seen peddling this notion is Michael Savage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rswuepEZsf8), who is a confirmed nutball. (Divinus Arma was throwing this same idea around a year or two ago, how teh gayz would sue the Catholic Church out of existence once gay marriage was legalized. Never saw the legal sense of it, but he was quite convinced.)
You guys will win this arguement like every other arguement and have your precious gay marriage.
You'll be able to kill all the babies you want, marry all the gays you want, crap in your personal food, use hard drugs, etc.
"Crap in your personal food"? Now this I gotta hear about ...
PanzerJaeger
05-30-2008, 21:12
The conservatives have seemingly left this issue. That is interesting and to be expected. The yare either tired of defending marriage or they have been converted. I'd bet exhaustion would best describe it.
Sorry, man. Gay people are fine by me and I can't think of a good reason why it shouldn't be allowed. My #1 issue these days is Iraq and the fight against arab muslim ideology. After that, its taxes, size of government, personal liberties, etc. Gay marriage just isn't a big deal.
I'm sure some of the more religious-based conservatives will join in soon though. They're probably out earning money - you know, the way conservatives like to get it. :beam:
ICantSpellDawg
05-30-2008, 21:20
Great. We'll all see how it turns out. It will be legal very soon.
Conservatives lack a cohesive worldview these days. A presidential loss should fix that.
woad&fangs
05-30-2008, 22:07
Tuff agrees with me:inquisitive:
This isn't right. I must now shock and apall him with my liberalism...
A new group is struggling for acceptance. The group is people who are married to their cousins. These people note that 20 percent of marriages around the world are between first cousins, that Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin married their first cousins, and that first-cousin marriage, while prohibited in half the United States, is legal in Canada and throughout Europe. Now a study by the National Society of Genetic Counselors says that having a child with your first cousin raises the risk of a significant birth defect from about 3-to-4 percent to about 4-to-7 percent. According to the authors, that difference isn't big enough to justify genetic testing of cousin couples, much less bans on cousin marriage. From this, the media have concluded that marrying your first cousin is "OK." Is it?
rest of article on Slate.com (http://www.slate.com/id/2064227/)
awww... much better :devil:
It's actually an interesting article but Slate is disgustingly liberal so the author is almost certainly biased in favor of cousin marriage.
seireikhaan
05-30-2008, 22:23
Got a question for Tuff, for sake of utter clarity:
So marriage should, according to your definition, be limited to those who will naturally procreate and build families, correct?
Lord, I'm going to need more smileys. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I'm sure Tribesman got some to spare.
CountArach
05-30-2008, 23:55
Just imagine:
You are a happy father who expects his son/daughter to bring home a nephew or a niece to raise.
He doesn't bring you a niece/nephew but instead a bloke/gal and calls him/her his/hers spouse and asks you to consent for their marriage.
Well, if I am still potent enough when this happens I'll have sex with my wife and erase the gay from my fammily tree.
Every man or woman has the right to be called "Grandpa/Grandma" and those homosexuals who oppose that sacred right can shove their civil liberties and sexual preferences up their "dorsal finns" because to put a matter of personal tastes above life and your fammily is selfishness.
On the other hand a bisexual is tolerable if he follows the normal procedures and settles into a nice heterosexual fammily.
This isn't a matter of the rights of parents', this is a matter of institutionalised discrimination against homosexuals. Saying that "They have a right to be called grandparents" is quite probably the worst argument in opposition to gay marriage I have ever heard - it completely ignores the issue. A gay person who does not get married is going to have the exact same chance of reproducing as someone who does get married.
Good discussion of slippery slopes here (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/05/30/rick-hills-on-slippery-slopes.aspx).
The slippery slope argument has become shorthand for the view that if we try to make sure that all our social and legal conventions are morally justified, we will end up with no conventions or (what is almost the same thing) in a state of permanent transition between different conventions, which would be worse than tolerating existing conventions that are unjust. This argument is, at the extreme, an objection to any time of reform, and so cannot always carry the day, but it is not an argument that one can refute simply by showing that the proposed new convention is morally superior to the old one. But the reason this argument persists in the same-sex-marriage debate is that it is impossible to point out any concrete harms from recognizing same-sex marriage, and thus the only argument left is this anxiety about the arbitrariness of conventions.
Perhaps liberals and conservatives can make a pact: If liberals stop arguing that any reduction in civil liberties in order to combat terrorism will result in dictatorship, conservatives will stop arguing that any relaxation in our sexual conventions will lead to perdition.
Great. We'll all see how it turns out. It will be legal very soon.
Conservatives lack a cohesive worldview these days. A presidential loss should fix that.
I'm pretty much in lockstep with you on this one. Either leave marriage alone, or create something new that is equitable for everyone. My view is likely to remain unchanged, but I recognize the possibility that a democratic majority may think otherwise and while not approving of gay marriage, I would accept that it was democratically enacted.
We make our arguments, and if they're not compelling... fine. What I don't want to see is what has happened in 2 states now when you have the judiciary taking it upon itself to re-write marriage laws that were democratically enacted. This is unacceptable to me.
As to the argument itself, I don't see it as a slippery slope one. The main pro-gay marriage argument seems to hinge on it being unfair to restrict the privilege to only opposite sex couples. How can someone logically argue that it needs to extended for a small subset of the population, homosexual pairs in monogamous relationships, but not to homosexual threesomes? Can three gay men in a stable relationship not enjoy the benefits of such a contract? Why do they even have to be homosexual? What if Tuff needs his brother's medical coverage and wants someone to be able to manage his estate if something happens to him? Why can't Tuff and his brother enter into such a contract? How is it fair to restrict the new definition of marriage to only homosexual pairs?
If marriage is truly unfair/discriminatory, it still will be so after it's extended to homosexuals. I believe the purpose of legal marriage is to create stable environments for the procreation of and raising of children and should be left alone. If people instead want it just as a benefits program, then let's rewrite it entirely and make it fair and accessible to everyone- not just the PC cause du jour.
The 'divorce rate' defense is a red herring. I'm all for a serious discussion of making marriages more meaningful and lasting- but it's a separate issue.
PanzerJaeger
05-31-2008, 02:21
Great. We'll all see how it turns out. It will be legal very soon.
Conservatives lack a cohesive worldview these days. A presidential loss should fix that.
Its not that bad. I certainly would never stop voting for conservatives over a stupid issue like gay marriage, and most conservatives are still vehemently against it.
The Celtic Viking
05-31-2008, 12:37
A question to those who think they should have something that works just like a marriage, but under a different name: if it's exactly the same, why not also call it the same? How is what you're proposing anything else than a way for you to say "you can't have what we have"?
ICantSpellDawg
05-31-2008, 13:06
A question to those who think they should have something that works just like a marriage, but under a different name: if it's exactly the same, why not also call it the same? How is what you're proposing anything else than a way for you to say "you can't have what we have"?
Hehehe. Classic bait and switch. This is the argument I used against civil unions in general. Everybody said "just give it to them - it's not a big deal", but when you'd say "it will lead to gay marriage" people would call you a crazy, slippery sloped bigot. It is called strategy, not a slippery slope - and you've all fallen for it.
Whatever you think about a decision, just try to understand the consequences of making that decision. If you start smoking, don't lie to yourself by thinking it isn't going to have nasty effects. The nasty effects might not stop you from doing what you want to do, but recognize them.
Smoking is causal in several diseases, not the least of which is cancer. Feel free to demonstrate the harm caused by same sex marriage.
A conservative blogger discusses the slippery slope (http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2008/05/a-taxonomy-of-s.html) quite well:
The essence of the slippery slope is a metaphor about a mountain: The peak of the mountain is stable, the sides are unstable (“slippery”), and bottom of the slope is bad. (If you are an acrophobic non-skier like me, think the top of the ski lift with a jump at the end of the slope). Even if the slope is just as good (or bad) a place to be as the peak, one should stay off those slippery slopes to avoid sliding into a place that is worse than both the peak or the slope – the bottom.
He later expands (http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2008/05/more-on-slipper.html):
So, please, please, please stop the "slippery slope" rhetoric on same-sex marriage. Object as much as you please to the idea -- but on the merits and not on the ground that the justification for same-sex marriage somehow "slips" us down the "slope" to a sexual Babylon.
And finally (http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2008/05/why-do-conserva.html):
As a conservative myself, I'd like an answer to this mystery -- even at the expense of posting one more item (I swear, my last) on the topic. The "slope" is by far, the weakest and least plausible argument against same-sex marriage (see my last post on the subject). Why won't it go away?
ICantSpellDawg
05-31-2008, 13:18
Smoking is causal in several diseases, not the least of which is cancer. Feel free to demonstrate the harm caused by same sex marriage.
A conservative blogger discusses the slippery slope (http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2008/05/a-taxonomy-of-s.html) quite well:
The essence of the slippery slope is a metaphor about a mountain: The peak of the mountain is stable, the sides are unstable (“slippery”), and bottom of the slope is bad. (If you are an acrophobic non-skier like me, think the top of the ski lift with a jump at the end of the slope). Even if the slope is just as good (or bad) a place to be as the peak, one should stay off those slippery slopes to avoid sliding into a place that is worse than both the peak or the slope – the bottom.
He later expands (http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2008/05/more-on-slipper.html):
So, please, please, please stop the "slippery slope" rhetoric on same-sex marriage. Object as much as you please to the idea -- but on the merits and not on the ground that the justification for same-sex marriage somehow "slips" us down the "slope" to a sexual Babylon.
And finally (http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2008/05/why-do-conserva.html):
As a conservative myself, I'd like an answer to this mystery -- even at the expense of posting one more item (I swear, my last) on the topic. The "slope" is by far, the weakest and least plausible argument against same-sex marriage (see my last post on the subject). Why won't it go away?
Well there are physical risks to homosexual behavior. Higher incidences of STI's, anal prolapse, etc. Higher levels of social acceptance will most likely lead to more homosexual activity which would most likely increase these effects. I know, I know - we can't use those arguments because they are bigoted and pre 21st century.
BTW cigarette smoking is associated with numerous higher disease incidents, only CAUSING a select few. Chances are that if you do it only occasionally there is nothing wrong with it.
What kind of Conservative abandons the slippery slope argument? What is the point of conservatism? We try to hold back the tides as long as we can or propose optional compromise to solve problems. Consequence is a major source of our reluctance on numerous issues. I understand if you think it doesn't apply with this argument, but I totally disagree.
HoreTore
05-31-2008, 13:28
Well there are physical risks to homosexual behavior. Higher incidences of STI's, anal prolapse, etc. Higher levels of social acceptance will most likely lead to more homosexual activity which would most likely increase these effects. I know, I know - we can't use those arguments because they are bigoted and pre 21st century.
Last I heard, STD's are found with singles, not married people. Condoms is the proper weapon to fight that plague, not sexlaws.
And anal prolapse? You do know that quite a few straight people enjoy anal sex, right?
What kind of Conservative abandons the slippery slope argument? What is the point of conservatism?
Well, clearly, for some conservatives the movement means more than standing athwart history screaming, "Stop!"
The Celtic Viking
05-31-2008, 13:59
Hehehe. Classic bait and switch. This is the argument I used against civil unions in general.
The argument I brought forth is against people who wish to give homosexuals the same right to marry that heterosexuals currently enjoy, but don't wish to call a spade a spade. To use it as a reason for not allowing homosexuals any kind of civil union is begging the question.
Everybody said "just give it to them - it's not a big deal", but when you'd say "it will lead to gay marriage" people would call you a crazy, slippery sloped bigot. It is called strategy, not a slippery slope - and you've all fallen for it.
Whatever you think about a decision, just try to understand the consequences of making that decision. If you start smoking, don't lie to yourself by thinking it isn't going to have nasty effects. The nasty effects might not stop you from doing what you want to do, but recognize them.
What "nasty effects" would allowing homosexuals the right to marriage bring about? I have seen claims from your side, but a total lack of evidence supporting them.
LittleGrizzly
06-01-2008, 14:44
Thanks to a now comprehensive understanding of the 'slippery slope' i understand that we can't allow gay marriage because of all the evils it brings but also we must get rid of straight marriage before its too late, if a man and a woman can marry whats to stop a man and woman who are cousins, or whats to stop a man having lots of wifes, thanks to straight marriage we've been led down the slippery slope of ploygamy and incest, hell if men are allowed to marry women why not just let people marry monkeys, horses or whoever else they want ?!
Allowing straight marriage will take the place to hell! look at all the stuff it inevitably slipped down the slope to over the years, but it is not too late we can stop the sickness that is man and woman marriage and then all the beastility and other weirdo's would go away, because we removed the first step on the slope.
ajaxfetish
06-01-2008, 16:40
Well there are physical risks to homosexual behavior.
Physical risks to homosexual behavior =/= physical risks to homosexual marriage. Legally recognizing gay marriage will not make people become gay; keeping it illegal will not make all the gay people go away. There are risks to sexual behavior regardless of sexual orientation. Marriage tends to reduce those risks, rather than enhance them.
Ajax
All of the "risks" put forward apply only to homosexual men. So am I to understand that there is no objection to two women getting married?
This has been a very headache inducing topic.
I do not understand, however, how polygamists can't carry out their custom, but gays are fine. Gays have been awarded the "Consitutional Right" to marry, correct? Well, don't two brothers, or polygamists also are entitled to that right?
Some people will say polygamy or incest is "Immoral", and therefore has no right. However, some people view homsexuality as "Immoral", yet gays are awarded rights others do not get.
Gays have been awarded the "Consitutional Right" to marry, correct? Well, don't two brothers, or polygamists also are entitled to that right?
First of all, marriage is a privilege, not a right. Just because people are agitating for something doesn't mean they're confusing it with a constitutional right.
Why won't polygamy and incest be made equally valid? As I've already sketched in detail, because there is no political will or movement to give them such a status. While that's a trivial, non-moral reason, it's a real one. Ye gods, where would you people be without the slippery slope argument ...
First of all, marriage is a privilege, not a right. Just because people are agitating for something doesn't mean they're confusing it with a constitutional right.
"On May 15, 2008, the court ruled in a 4–3 decision that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict judicial scrutiny and that marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution"
Err......I don't know your position on the issue, but my court has ruled that marriage is considered a fundamental right in the Californian Constituion. So, yes, in my states case, marriage is a constitutional right, at least for gays and straights.
The Celtic Viking
06-01-2008, 19:46
This has been a very headache inducing topic.
I do not understand, however, how polygamists can't carry out their custom, but gays are fine. Gays have been awarded the "Consitutional Right" to marry, correct? Well, don't two brothers, or polygamists also are entitled to that right?
Some people will say polygamy or incest is "Immoral", and therefore has no right. However, some people view homsexuality as "Immoral", yet gays are awarded rights others do not get.
It is my opinion that there's absolutely nothing wrong with polygamy as long as all involved parties are aware of it and are consenting. If so, then it's really none of your business whether they want to have sex with one or fiftyone partners.
In fact, according to the essay that you can find here (http://www.rationalresponders.com/what_science_says_about_human_sexuality), it's actually in human nature to be slightly polygamous. It makes a lot of sense, and is definitely worth a read.
parties are aware of it and are consenting
Would you use the same principle for gay marriage? Even though we have a good portion of parties opposed to it.
The Celtic Viking
06-01-2008, 20:40
Would you use the same principle for gay marriage? Even though we have a good portion of parties opposed to it.
I think you misunderstand what I meant. When I said "parties" I was referring to the people involved in the polygamous relationship, not political parties.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-01-2008, 21:12
First of all, marriage is a privilege, not a right. Just because people are agitating for something doesn't mean they're confusing it with a constitutional right.
Why won't polygamy and incest be made equally valid? As I've already sketched in detail, because there is no political will or movement to give them such a status. While that's a trivial, non-moral reason, it's a real one. Ye gods, where would you people be without the slippery slope argument ...
Ok, well if marriage is a privilege, why to homosexuals deserve that privilege. Heterosexual marriage exists essentially to normalise the legal standing in relation ot their fathers. That's the reason, the ultimate justification, and DNA testing has made it irrelevant. So there's the heterosexual arguement, what's the homosexual one?
As far as the bestiality etc. arguement. In Western culture homosexuality was proscribed behaviour because of the Bible, which is the same basic cause for our other taboos.
Crazed Rabbit
06-01-2008, 23:22
Otherwise, for instance, your spouse's family will take everything away from you if/when your partner dies. This is a too-common occurrence for gay couples.
Um...how about a will?
I wouldn't oppose laws giving same-sex couple some of the legal benefits - hospital, inheritance rights, etc., but I don't want gay marriage. Like what we have in Washington. Slippery slope time; the gay activists still aren't happy, of course, and are still agitating for full-on gay marriage.
To me, it seems that the gay activists have said that they won't conform to the traditional Christian view of sexuality. Alright, fine. I don't care if they are gay or not. But now they want to force that Christian view to change and accept them. They want the view of that which they rejected to be changed to their wishes.
Semantics? Perhaps, but it's still important to me. Let them have civil contracts or whatever. But they should not be allowed to make the view they rejected now conform to what they want.
CR
ajaxfetish
06-02-2008, 05:41
But now they want to force that Christian view to change and accept them. They want the view of that which they rejected to be changed to their wishes.
Marriage did not originate in Christianity, nor is it a fundamentally Christian institution. How would Christianity be forced to change if gays were allowed to marry?
Ajax
Strike For The South
06-02-2008, 06:02
As long as they dont force the church to marry them it should be legal. Yes its true being a homosexual does induce a higher chance of contracting STDs but then so does being a dirty whore.
Crazed Rabbit
06-02-2008, 06:07
Marriage did not originate in Christianity, nor is it a fundamentally Christian institution. How would Christianity be forced to change if gays were allowed to marry?
Ajax
Marriage in the US does, though. And marriage is a sacrament.
CR
ajaxfetish
06-02-2008, 06:16
Marriage in the US does, though. And marriage is a sacrament.
CR
Marriage in the US does what? Nonreligious people can marry. Atheists can marry. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. marry. As far as I know, the Christian church has not had to extend their 'sacrament' to heterosexual atheists who wish to marry. I'm afraid I can't see the problem you're trying to identify.
Ajax
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-02-2008, 13:09
Marriage in the US does, though. And marriage is a sacrament.
CR
As I recall marriage is a sacrament in Catholicism only. In any case, the question people really want to answer is, "will homosexuals be able to force churches to marry them?" The answer will be "no" until Churches conduct civil unions.
LittleGrizzly
06-02-2008, 17:45
The only way christians can get put out by this is if they demand to get married in thier church, obviously they should only get married where their wanted...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-02-2008, 18:35
The only way christians can get put out by this is if they demand to get married in thier church, obviously they should only get married where their wanted...
Um, well actually christians could get put out over the whole sanctioning of something proscribed in their holy text, if they wanted to.
Seamus Fermanagh
06-02-2008, 22:09
Some thoughts:
Conservatism is divided on this issue.
Social Conservatives and the Churched in general tend strongly towards a more traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. This is drawn, fairly clearly, from religious teachings in the Judeo-Christian tradition. In that tradition, same-sex marriage (and most of the time same-sex sex) were officially proscribed.
Libertarian Conservatives are mostly annoyed at the folderol, but tend towards views ranging from "who cares, it won't really affect me" to "I'd prefer government to have no role sanctioning marriage in the first place."
Conservatism does not speak with one voice on this issue because many of those conservatives who personally oppose same-sex marriage are the same
people who oppose having government legislate such issues in the first place.
Matriomony is a specific sacrament of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, and as such is a specifically codified aspect of religious worship & belief. Civil marriage, as recognized by the state, is essentially a contractual relationship that has been provided specific advantages in order to encourage the institution (for the betterment of the state, not the individual). This relationship is also licensed and taxed by the government as well (or did you really think the license fee WASN'T a tax:smartass: ).
Anthropologist would (and have) noted that the Judeo-Christian/Western model for this is not the sole means of establishing stable and healthy societal norms for child-rearing and the like.
Yes, same-sex attraction and sex have been noted in a number of species and at different times and in "unconnected" places. Despite the prima facie contention that such a trait is largely anti-survival and would seem to be self-eliminating, homosexuality has been an ongoing component of human sexuality for the entirety of recorded history (SIDE NOTE: remember this, all those who revel in the prima facie belief that global climate change MUST be a product of human impact, not all "obvious" connections are borne out by better research). To assert that homosexuality is completely "unnatural" therefore misses the mark. At the same time, it is inappropriate to label it as "normal" or "common" since only minority components of each population self-select towards such behavior. Homosexuality is a naturally-occuring minority component of overall human sexuality, and the extent to which this is driven by genetic "hard-wiring" versus socialization "software" is indeterminate at present.
Ultimately, I think TSM is responding to what he perceives to be another attack on traditional culture and mores by a adamant minority opinion, using the courts as a tool for "by-passing" the will of the majority. Both sides of that point can be argued.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.