Gay Marriage

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[Ronin]

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]

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

[Lemur]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Lemur]

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]

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

[Lemur]

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.)

[Fragony]

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]

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]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

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]

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.

What?

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Kagemusha]

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]

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]

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]

Such blinkered minds. The point is that BOTH are normal.

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.

[Lemur]

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]

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[Fragony]

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]

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?

[Geoffrey S]

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 to . Shouldn't take too long to reach the stage.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Fragony]

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?

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.