Zehn raised an interesting point a little while ago: how is incest any less moral than homosexual relations? It's arguably more revolting, but as long as it takes place between two consenting adults and there is no child conceived, what is the difference?

He also wants to marry his couch. Taking the morals out of law and that's all you have left for this so-called "civil union" junk.

So, if it is "okay" for two guys to get married, what is wrong with five guys getting married, or five women and a man? It's hipocritical to allow one and not the other.

So, if it is "okay" for two guys to get married, what is wrong with five guys getting married, or five women and a man? It's hipocritical to allow one and not the other.

You're banking your argument on the fact that those things are inherently wrong, and while I don't think they are necessarily something we should all aspire to get involved in, can you explain whats wrong with them, and therefore wrong with homosexual unions between 2 people? If it reverts to "morals" then I'm going to have a hell of a fun time with this, we'll even get to throw in some philosophy (hip hip hooray!).





Or perhaps I can phrase it this way: If it is "okay" for a guy and a girl to get married, what is wrong with two guys getting married? Its hypocritical to allow one and not the other.

Now I know you're saying I'm a fucking idiot for saying that, but I want you to tell me why and lets see how well your logic flows. I think it'll be an interesting discussion, at the least.

Incest is disallowed because of the biological issues related to it, not because of morals. In fact, I think if you look at the cases of incest throughout the history of the US; a majority of them have been committed by "moral", church going types in the Bible Belt.

It's a weak argument comparing that to homosexuality, IMO.

As an aside, I find it oddly interesting that these threads here have driven me to defend homosexuality. I'm the type of guy that gets nauseous at the sight of a couple guys kissing each other. Still, I can't logically argue against their right to, and the myopic, homophobe stuff on here has really served to prove that to myself.

Biological reasons aside, what about just pure love without sex involved? What's wrong with that? After all, homosexuals marry without the intent to concieve, would it be allowable for a father to marry his daughter provided they didn't attempt to have a child together?

A sexual relationship is expected in pretty much every definition of marriage you'll find anywhere, though it's not uncommon for a heterosexual marriage to be without conception.

If you just don't like gay people and think they aren't good enough to get married, why not just say that instead of pussy-footing around it with all sorts of weird, hypothetical situations?

I've stated before several times that I could give a shit who or what you fuck. And I'm not posturing any kind of wierd hypothetical sitaution. It's a valid question. Who determines what the bounds of legalize marriage is? Who's to say that an incestual relationship is any less legitimate then a homosexual one? Or a relationship between a person and his/her favorite house pet for that matter?

Gokuu wants to legalize incest, his sister is bangin'.

You can't expect anyone to take you seriously if you're comparing a relationship between two people to a relationship between a person and an animal.

I still have a hard time believing you don't have a religious bias against homosexuality, given what you've said on the other thread:
The question becomes who's values are more important? The religious who's values have stood for thousands of years, or the fetish who wants to be able to apply for an insurance discount?
Not to mention this gem:
Now why is this? Oh yeah, it's because the voter majority says so. Homosexuality is nothing more then a fetish or even an aberration of nature.
Come on. Just because you and I don't personally partake, doesn't make it a "fetish". Just because the majority isn't into it, doesn't mean it's "wrong". Last I checked, we don't live in a Communist Republic.

By your logic, shouldn't we just kill everyone in the country that's a minority? Hell, maybe we should just kill everyone that doesn't have blue eyes and blond hair!

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>You can't expect anyone to take you seriously if you're comparing a relationship between two people to a relationship between a person and an animal. <hr></blockquote>

And yet I'm supposed to take two men who want to have sex seriously? Why is that? Why should I have to give prefence to one sexual orientation and not another? Afterall, I'm pretty certain furries/yiff/vores/etc... take themselves very seriously and they wish they were squirrels so they could be eaten by snakes.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Come on. Just because you and I don't personally partake, doesn't make it a "fetish". Just because the majority isn't into it, doesn't mean it's "wrong". Last I checked, we don't live in a Communist Republic. <hr></blockquote>

Are you even listening to yourself? I didn't say it was fucking wrong. I've said several times now that I don't give a fuck what you fuck, minus instances of victimization.

But to your average church-going Christian, same-sex intercourse is just as bad as rape. You accuse me of pussy-footing around, then act all insulted when I put my opinions out on the table.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>By your logic, shouldn't we just kill everyone in the country that's a minority? Hell, maybe we should just kill everyone that doesn't have blue eyes and blond hair!<hr></blockquote>

No, you're an idiot. Nice try though! You might as well call me a Nazi so that you lose the argument even faster.

You're dealing with something that the culture has held to be wrong, detrimental and a perversion for a long time. Right or wrong, that's the way it has been and continues to be for a lot of people. In some ways I think everyone has to admit "yeah there's the obvious fact that nature didn't design men to do that to each other."

The thing the push for gay marriage is about though is forcing society to officially recognize homo and hetero marriages as being equal, and therefore homo and hetero people as being equally acceptable. They've been getting hitched for years, but now its become something they want to shove down everyone's throats as if forcing it to be legislated is going to give them the acceptance they desire.

Just to add one little thing here

In some ways I think everyone has to admit "yeah there's the obvious fact that nature didn't design men to do that to each other."

Actually homosexual behavior does happen in nature.

The conspicuous science of some of the examples notwithstanding.... I was referring rather to the fact that the anus is not engineered to be a mate to the phallus. Not to mention that fecal material on the knob is nasty.

A sexual orientation is one thing. Orientation toward an entirely different species is quite another. Taking hyperbole to that point doesn't make any sense. You're just avoiding the actual issue by constantly throwing out ridiculous comparisons like that, because there isn't any justification for your homophobia other than the same old religious bias.

On one hand you relegate homosexuality to being a fetish, since its only been around a few thousand years, yet it's no more a fetish (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fetish) than oral sex. In fact, what about a homosexual couple who only performed oral on each other? Would they magically become worthy of marriage then? What about a heterosexual couple that performed oral? Does their marriage become annulled when Big Brother finds out?

On the other hand you're saying that because homosexual couples aren't in the majority, they don't deserve equal rights. The land of the free, long as everyone follows the rules of your particular religion? If your attitude was still prevalent in other aspects of our society, only white, male land owners would be eligible to vote.

Sure, you've said that you don't care what people do, but nothing else you've said has jived with that in the least. People that aren't white ride in the back of the bus, women are meant to be seen not heard, but you don't care what they do long as they follow those rules, eh?

>Gokuu wants to legalize incest, his sister is bangin'.

FUCK YOU ZEHN AND DRIZZEN

Okay, you just compared me to Hitler and are now using the discrimination "Get out of Jail" free card. You've lost the argument, so let's start over.

Here's one simple question for you.

Provided that the man and woman don't concieve, eliminating all biological concerns, should a man be allowed to marry his daughter provided they are both legally consenting adults?

Should incest be legal, since it is operating on the same principle as homosexuality.

Gokuu's sister is fucking hot.

I think if 2 consenting adults want to fuck each other, that is their business.


But I'm from West Virginia, Family Reunions are where we meet women!!!

...been getting hitched for years, but now its become something they want to shove down everyone's throats as if forcing it to be legislated is going to give them the acceptance they desire.
Actually, society has forced down homosexuals' throats legislated morality stating that their unions lack the same legal standing as heterosexual unions. I just don't see how a gay couple getting married has any impact on you or I, other than a lack of desire to see videos of the wedding night.

I was referring rather to the fact that the anus is not engineered to be a mate to the phallus.
If you think that's rough, you should see a baby's head trying to fit through a vagina.

Should incest be legal, since it is operating on the same principle as homosexuality.
It's a tricky question, but here's one answer. First, laws aren't made with the idea of exceptions to the rule. For example, you don't make a law against drunk driving that takes into account that Billy Bob only uses empty back roads when he's coming home from a long night at the saloon. Thus, a law wouldn't consider a "chaste marriage" between relatives when addressing incest. Marriages tend to involve sex, even if just for procreation.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that inbreeding can result in the emergence of genetic defects. This alone could serve as the basis for a law against incest. Granted, a single pairing between first cousins is unlikely to produce any problems with the progeny, but since homosexual unions don't normally produce any progeny at all, the justification to deny one but not the other exists.

How strong that justification is is a matter of personal opinion. However, having a scientific reason to back laws against incest makes it a stronger legal argument than the religous viewpoints that are used to argue against homosexual unions, IMO.

You're banking your argument on the fact that those things are inherently wrong

That's my point. What's right and what's wrong? You can't remove morals from law, it's one of the two pillars on which our government was founded.

can you explain whats wrong with them, and therefore wrong with homosexual unions between 2 people?

It's immoral to me and the establishment by which our civilization was founded upon.

If it reverts to "morals" then I'm going to have a hell of a fun time with this, we'll even get to throw in some philosophy (hip hip hooray!).

Well I guess "bring it on" comes to my mind, but I really don't see the point. You're going to try to change my morals? Or maybe you're going to tell me our civilization's laws were not founded upon a moral foundation...

I guess I would like to know: What's the difference between two men getting married and three men and a nine-year old daughter getting married?

Answer it without morality coming into it.

Edit: found this on Fark :rolleyes
http://barrygoldberg.net/fark/chancecard_gaymarriage.jpg

>I guess I would like to know: What's the difference between two men getting married and three men and a nine-year old daughter getting married?

well theres a problem in 3 men getting married as weddings are a union between a couple (two people), the 9 year old daughter is of underage

Who says marriage is just betwen two people? How dare they disciminate against bigamists.

Who says she's too young to marry? How dare you tell a pedophile what is right and wrong. Hell, how do you tell her she's wrong, she wants to just exercise her freedom of choice.

Polygamy isn't really under question here.

Societies recognize that children are unable to make reasonable decisions for themselves. Emotional development still takes place through the teenage years. There is no hard and fast rule that can be applied for when a person can make informed, logical choices, so societies invent one. It's artificial, essentially an age at which the individual is forced to be responsible for his/her actions, but since large societies aren't in a position to judge every individual on a case-by-case basis, they make a rule.

Again, science supports the inappropriateness of children as mates, since they've not mentally or emotionally completed their development. In a society that cherishes freedom of choice, having the innate ability to make those choices is vital.

Societies recognize...
As dictated by their morals...

Yes, it's very immoral to allow that 9-year old to marry. She needs to grow some so she can exercise her freedom of choice(the other pillar our civilization was founded upon.) Excellent, but you've based your statement from common sense and the morals of society.

Take morals away, what do you have? Science? Science says she see might even be able to conceive at that age, if not, then in a few years she can. Might as well give the husband some time to get to know her huh? Break her in if you will. That would be the financially responsible thing for the father to do too, let her new husband carry the burden of feeding and caring for her.

akip, the argument isn't for multiple people to get married to each other, the argument is if gay marriage should be allowed, what about incest?

the argument isn't expanding into what if people should be able to marry multiple people, as it stands marriage is still a union between two people, not two or more

Societies recognize...
As dictated by their morals...
Not necessarily, though that's how it's often viewed. But in fact, society's views have changed over time due to the nature of marriage. Weddings have taken place between 9 year olds and older partners in Christian societies. These were political arrangements to strengthen the standings of noble families. This was accepted as perfectly normal and moral. Actual attempts at child-rearing then waited until the teenage years.

Excellent, but you've based your statement from common sense and the morals of society.
No, I based my statement on practical wisdom supported by science. I would argue that the "morality" of it all is based on practical wisdom, not the other way around. The morality of this age and this culture says that freedom of choice is paramount. To exercise that freedom, an individual must be mentally and emotionally capable of making choices, particularly those with long-lasting impact on one's life. Morality doesn't state that a 9 year old can't make such choices, practical wisdom (supported by the more recently developed behavioral sciences) does.

In a society with a different moral viewpoint (such as countries that still practice arranged marriages), the "common sense" view might be

You guys aren't getting it.

Whether you're Taino or not, you have morals.

And those morals are based upon your scientific studies, wisdom, your grandfather told you, or you have voices in your head telling you what they are (priceless Amhorach) They are the foundations for all law is this country.

So, who wants to tell me how two men can be married morally? Because 5 judges in Massachusetts said it was ok? No, the moral majority in this country disagree by something like 85% or more.

If two men should be allowed to be married, how can you tell me three men cannot?

>Whether you're Taino or not, you have morals.

haha

>So, who wants to tell me how two men can be married morally? Because 5 judges in Massachusetts said it was ok? No, the moral majority in this country disagree by something like 85% or more.

thats just the society we live in, i may not agree with it, but i have to live with it, moraly inclined or not

after all marriage does have to deal with religion, as long as that religion does not agree with it, then what is a person to say against?

but there is one thing, you do get benefits based on marriage from the government, if a person wants to take advantage of these, but is gay, that person would not be able to hold his moral standing as well. I think all governmental advantages to marriage should be released if this is to be taken on the grounds of morals, especially if dictated by religion, then all this worry about gay people wanting to get married will be put to rest right? (i have no clue if that would dictate them still wanting to get married or not)

>If two men should be allowed to be married, how can you

for one thing you have to understand what marriage is, if these people want to hold vows to two different people at the same time in an ever evolving loop then who is to say, other then religion, they can't?

Whether you're Taino or not, you have morals.
Where have I ever suggested otherwise?

And those morals are based upon your scientific studies, wisdom, your grandfather told you, or you have voices in your head telling you what they are
Exactly. They are really quite subjective, and they change over time.

o, who wants to tell me how two men can be married morally?
By the government not interfering in the personal lives of two commited adults.

No, the moral majority in this country disagree by something like 85% or more.
I wonder what the percentages are like on oral/anal sex...

The real question is this: Why should the government prevent two committed adults from enjoying the same legal benefits as any other two committed adults simply due to their having the same gender? Forget all your fallacious, slippery slope arguments about 3 men, humans & dogs, fathers & daughters and the other non sequiturs. They simply don't apply to the question at hand. Why should the moral majority force their dogma down homosexual's throats, when the marriage of gay men/lesbian women has virtually no impact on that majority?

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Forget all your fallacious, slippery slope arguments about 3 men, humans & dogs, fathers & daughters and the other non sequiturs.<hr></blockquote>

That's the whole point of the argument. Why should we make exceptions to the law for one sexual oritentation but not another?

What makes homosexuality so special vs. incest, polygomy or beastiality?

/agree Zehn

And I disagree completely that this is a non sequitur.

The real question is this: Why should the government prevent two committed adults from enjoying the same legal benefits as any other two committed adults simply due to their having the same gender?

Since you believe a moral minority needs to be listened to on equal standing, how about this:

Why should the government prevent four committed adults from enjoying the same legal benefits as any other two committed adults?

At what point do you want the moral minority to become the governing majority?

Getting back to the original question here...

While there are some strictly biological reasons why incest is a 'bad idea' (loss of heterozygosity in the offspring being primary among them), what is interesting about this issue is that the *development* of aversion to becoming involved sexually with your relatives has less to do with genetics than it does with proximity.

Let me translate that into a semblance of plain English... There appears to be a very real, biologically based, aversion to, or elimination of someone as a 'possibility' mate wise, that develops as a result of being raised in a family group with someone. This aversion develops just as readily in step-parent/adoption situations as it does when someone is the biological parent (sibling), without force of law being necessary to 'stop' steps from frolicking with each other. It also functions in extended family groups such as communal households (or the kibbutzes in Israel, as psychologists found out :) ). This seems to operate in an identical fashion among our primate relatives as well, with either males or females (depending on the species) leaving their extended family group when they go to seek a mate.

On the other hand, if closely related individuals are raised separately from each other, this aversional barrier doesn't necessarily develop, and the result has been the inspiration for a lot of novels and dramas over the years...

On the original question as to whether it should be illegal for first-degree relatives to marry, really, if there is no evidence of coercion or pathology, and both are consenting adults, I don't know that there needs to be a law *prohibiting* it. I would expect that such cases would be extremely rare though, for the reasons mentioned. In most states, there is currently no prohibition against marriage to *second* degree relatives (cousins, etc), and marriages between cousins have historically been quite common as a means of securing/maintaining political alliances, etc.

To address Zehn's last point, as has already been stated, animals, and underage children, cannot give informed consent. Our current society has recognized that for biological and developmental reasons, animals and children do not have the same capacity to make informed choices as adults do, and so deserve some protection under the law.

As far as the incest and polygamy issues go, I've already stated my opinion on incest (personally repugnant at a very deep-seated level, as I presume Zehn's revulsion to homosexuality is, but ultimately, not my concern if the individuals involved are consenting adults), and I don't think that the government has any business harassing polygamists, either. Just because the country isn't currently debating the issue of legalizing multiple partner marriages doesn't mean that we should be in the business of hunting folks down who currently do this privately and prosecuting them.

So there you go, Zehn. Have fun declaring all of those things morally equivalent! The point that some of the other posters have attempted to make in this thread is that, if none of these instances affect you, then why get your panties in a snit about them? If you don't like that your friend is marrying his cousin, then don't go to his wedding, and educate your children (should you have them someday) that such is inappropriate behavior...

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

Why should we make exceptions to the law for one sexual oritentation but not another?

What makes homosexuality so special vs. incest, polygomy or beastiality?
Good point here, why should homosexuality be included with "exceptions"?
Or better reformulation : Why should homosexuality remain included with exceptions?
Can't our morale change enough to accept this sexual orientation?
Even if your morale only allows heterosexual weddings (even 60 years old man and 22 years old woman), you can't say that everything out of this standard is purely and equally wrong. There are degrees on what morality can/could/will accept, isn't it time to let homosexuality in?

Okay, you just compared me to Hitler and are now using the discrimination "Get out of Jail" free card. You've lost the argument, so let's start over.
I'm hardly using it as a get out of jail free card. If you don't like the comparisons, don't preach out ideas that are so strikingly similar to racism and sexism. Look up the word bigot (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot). Based on what you've been saying on these threads, that's you. Grats.

If me pointing out the obvious similarities between your myopic views and those of other infamous groups in history means that I "lose" then: I say you using such moronic comparisons as bestiality and incest, when talking about two adult humans with the right to do what they wish, means you "lose".

Gokuu, quick point: Marriage is not necessarily a religion based event these days. Many people are married without any notion of religion entering the proceedings. You don't go to the church for a marriage license, ya know...

I don't think I understand the morality argument at all. Yes, we all have morals. That isn't in question. Your Bible Belt moral beliefs don't stop homosexuality in any way. Gay guys are still going to make out in public, they'll still wear those rings, and they'll still be 100% homosexual.

They just can't get married. Wow, score a victory for the "Moral Majority". The homosexuals can do whatever they wish, but you sure got 'em when it comes April 15th. IMO, that is just beyond petty.

>Gokuu, quick point: Marriage is not necessarily a religion based event these days. Many people are married without any notion of religion entering the proceedings. You don't go to the church for a marriage license, ya know...


what i was saying is that, people seem to be against it based off of religious standards, not that its purely for a religious standard to get married and then that religion is carried into the government

i just think marriage shouldn't be recognized by the gov. period

Nowhere have I preached bigotry. That's why you lose. You flash that card without even thinking about it in an attempt to make me seem like some unfeeling monster who believes in the superior race.

The practice of homosexuality does not bother me in the least bit. I've often stated that I wish -more- guys were gay because it's less competition for the women.

Repeat that to yourself about 10,000 times until your teeth begin to hurt. Lord knows mine hurt just listening to you.

As human beings, they should get to enjoy the same rights I do, which includes -------marrying a female------ if they so choose.

Am I a bigot for saying homosexuals shouldn't get special benefits? Perhaps. But then your'e a bigot if I feel that people named Nick should be able to steal cars.

The practice of homosexuality does not bother me in the least bit. I've often stated that I wish -more- guys were gay because it's less competition for the women.

Repeat that to yourself about 10,000 times until your teeth begin to hurt.
Yet that's still not the point, everyone reading this thread GOT that you don't mind homosexual practice.
Am I a bigot for saying homosexuals shouldn't get special benefits? Perhaps.
Quick question : Are incest, polygamy, zoophily allowed in US? I mean, if one sister and one brother got caught having sexual relations, can justice punish them?
What I want to say is, homosexuality is accepted by our laws (in general), why should they have a special treatment excluding them from marriage?

Wrong.

The word bigot has nothing to do with racism specifically. Superior race or not, it's not what I meant. It's bigotry, plain and simple, if you believe that a MF union is somehow more deserving of tax and insurance benefits than a MM or FF union.

The point of those benefits are to aid the couple in establishing something of a household. Just because the household doesn't contain one penis and one vagina doesn't make it any less valid. Maybe to a Baptist preacher, but let me remind you that we live in a country founded to escape religious persecution. Certainly, the goal of the government shouldn't be to enforce and encourage it.

What ever happened to separation of church and state? That concept's all good and well when used to remove religious things from schools or to yank the 10 commandments out of a courthouse, but when it comes to discrimination it's fine to use religion as a basis for government?

I've never said that homosexuals should get special benefits. I could not possibly be more against special benefits for certain groups, like affirmative action. I say that they should receive the exact same benefits that any other couple would, should they decide to become a monogamous, committed couple.

edit: fixed a word.

Your Bible Belt moral beliefs don't stop homosexuality in any way. Gay guys are still going to make out in public, they'll still wear those rings, and they'll still be 100% homosexual.


And neither do my morals stop incest, bigamy, rape, and murder. But hey, there are still going to be men that will go out and find and rape some poor 8-year old girl. Let's make rape legal since some minority obviously feels they're entitled to it.

Zehn said:

"As human beings, they should get to enjoy the same rights I do, which includes -------marrying a female------ if they so choose.

Am I a bigot for saying homosexuals shouldn't get special benefits? Perhaps."

Zehn, this is splitting hairs, and even you have to know how rediculous this sounds. On the other hand, okay, where's my right to marry a female? :P

What's 'special' about asking for the *exact same* rights that heterosexual couples have, mainly a tax break and benefits for marrying their life partner? 'Splain please... :)

Regards,
Nydia

And neither do my morals stop incest, bigamy, rape, and murder. But hey, there are still going to be men that will go out and find and rape some poor 8-year old girl. Let's make rape legal since some minority obviously feels they're entitled to it.
When's the last time you saw someone prosecuted for homosexuality and thrown in prison? There's no law against being gay.

Comparing a lifestyle choice to a criminal act is a pretty weak argument.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I've never said that homosexuals should get special benefits.<hr></blockquote>

Yes you are, by saying that they should be able to marry whomever they want.

That's the point you don't get. The most crucial point really.

As it is now, "A man may marry an unrelated woman of consenting age."

You want homosexuals to get a special benefit in saying that the law -should- be

"A man or woman may marry a man or woman of consenting age."

What I'm saying is, if we're going to make an exception to the law for homosexuals, we should therefore make an exception for every sexual orientation, otherwise it's discrimination. Because if we make the exception, then we recognize homosexuality, a 'deviation,' as a legitimate practice. But what makes homosexuality legit, but not Incest, beastiality, polygamy, etc...?

That's what you can't answer.

I see three possible solutions to the whole matter which have all been suggested here.

1) We keep the things they are and moral society stays around.

2) We knock down the walls and legalize marrying whatever the hell you want so long as it's capable of saying/writing yes in front of an elected official.

3) We release marriage from the benefits it recieves. The whole reaason marriage lost it's 'religious' affiliation is due to the desire of athiest couples desiring the same benefits that religious couples recieved.

Because if not for religious or benefits reasons, why get married? To the athiest, what benefit does marriage have? You have no religion in which you're affirming to God that you bind your soul to your wife. It becomes a meaningless ceremony that's an excuse to get drunk and spend money.

You want to have a ceremony? Fine. You want to have a party? Go for it. But you're not getting married, because soem form of god is not involved.

It's like being an athiest and going to a funeral. Sure you want to grieve because you've lost a friend, but the body is just a hunk of meat to you now. You might as well chop it up and serve it to some people in a third world country.

Currently no laws that I know of, no. 100 years ago? Probably burned at the stack. Morals change, or tolerances in the law do obviously.

So another example: Bigamy, against the law and all are generally concenting adults. Why not allow that?

Or to stay on subject of the thread, incest between two consenting adults. Why not allow that?

We release marriage from the benefits it recieves. The whole reaason marriage lost it's 'religious' affiliation is due to the desire of athiest couples desiring the same benefits that religious couples recieved.

Because if not for religious or benefits reasons, why get married? To the athiest, what benefit does marriage have? You have no religion in which you're affirming to God that you bind your soul to your wife. It becomes a meaningless ceremony that's an excuse to get drunk and spend money.

You want to have a ceremony? Fine. You want to have a party? Go for it. But you're not getting married, because soem form of god is not involved.

It's like being an athiest and going to a funeral. Sure you want to grieve because you've lost a friend, but the body is just a hunk of meat to you now. You might as well chop it up and serve it to some people in a third world country.
See... This is where the blatant bigotry comes into play.

Just because you think that marriage has to be some religious experience simply does not make it so. I personally have attended more weddings than I can count where the officiant (yes, they called him that) made absolutely no mention of God or religion whatsoever. Those weddings involved a penis and vagina, but no God... Do you disapprove of those too?

You can't seriously believe that the only commitment you make in a wedding is to "God", and there's nothing between the two people getting married. I would be hard pressed to believe for 99% of marriages, it isn't the exact opposite. You must know this, if you give it even 2 seconds of thought. Bob and Sally don't go to church to get married to God.

I have answered (several times) why incest and homosexuality are different cases. The only other cases you can come up with are either illegal (rape, polygamy) or completely inane (bestiality, couchality). Do you have any rational arguments, or has Pastor Bob not covered that part of your brainwashing yet?

Currently no laws that I know of, no. 100 years ago? Probably burned at the stack. Morals change, or tolerances in the law do obviously.
Gass, see my post on the "Dean Republican" thread about open homosexuality in society and writing dating as far back as the BC era.

Or to stay on subject of the thread, incest between two consenting adults. Why not allow that?
They can't get married simply because of the biological reasons. Hence the blood test to get a marriage license. This has already been covered in the thread several times.

I'll have to research a bit, but I'm sure I remember those laws being a product of the fact that it was such a common practice to "keep it in the family" in many cultures; before the side effects were known. It being considered "wrong" is more because of that than any long standing morality basis.

The only other cases you can come up with are either illegal (rape, polygamy)

So is gay marriage. Why exactly is consensual polygamy worse?

I'm sorry Sanchek, but until you pull your head out of your ass I really can't continue trying to re-explain my position so that you'll understand.

From: usmarriagelaws.com/search...ndex.shtml (http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/polygamy/index.shtml)
Bigamy: Crime of marrying during the continuance of a lawful marriage. Bigamy is not committed if a prior marriage has been terminated by a divorce or a decree of nullity of marriage. In the United States if a husband or wife is absent and unheard of for seven (or in some states five) years and not known to be alive, he or she is presumed dead, and remarriage by the other spouse is not bigamous. It is not necessarily a defense to a charge of bigamy that the offending party believed in good faith that he was divorced or that his previous marriage was not lawful.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1878 that plurality of wives (polygamy), as originally permitted by the Mormon religion, violated criminal law and was not defensible as an exercise of religious liberty. The Latter-day Saints renounced polygamy in 1890, but the practice has persisted among some, although it has been rarely prosecuted.
A little further down that page, it points out that polygamy is actually a felony in many states. Homosexuality is not a crime. It's simply a group that is discriminated against, based on ignorance.

Another interesting quote from that site is:
Customary marriage: The marriage not performed according to legal proceeding of local civil authorities, but rather according to local custom, may not be accepted.
Sorta shoots a hole in that whole marriage is only for God freaks argument. "Legal proceeding of local civil authorities" desn't sound a whole lot like Pastor Bob to me.

Yet another quote from the site, that I found interesting:
Homosexuals make up at least 10-15% of our society. The practice has been in existence since at least ancient times; being accepted by Greek, Roman, Persian, and Moslem civilizations of that era. In our country, Homosexuality was considered to be a mental disorder of sexual deviancy until December 15, l973. At that time, the American Psychiatric Association voted that Homosexuality was no longer considered to be a mental disorder and was officially dropped from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-II, at that time). While mental health professionals do not consider homosexuality, per se, to be a problem, many people in our society lag behind this revelation. There are barriers against same-sex marriages, shared insurance policies, and many left-over discriminatory habits that make the gay lifestyle very difficult.

I'm sorry Sanchek, but until you pull your head out of your ass I really can't continue trying to re-explain my position so that you'll understand.
Basically, until I come to the revelation that Pastor Bob is right and anyone who disagrees is a dirty, deviant; my head's up my ass?

I'll take that as a no to my question as to whether you have any other rational arguments on the subject.

Homosexuals make up at least 10-15% of our society

Wow that number seems kinda high. 10 - 15%? Wonder how accurate it is, seems like a lot of people.

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

A little further down that page, it points out that polygamy is actually a felony in many states. Homosexuality is not a crime. It's simply a group that is discriminated against, based on ignorance.

You pointedly ignored what I wrote.
Gay marriage is to homosexual intercourse what polygamy is to sex with multiple partners simultaneously or in a very short timeframe.

Obviously, the latter in either pair is legal; if it were otherwise a good chunk of this board's population, most notably Bowler and Shewdogg, would probably be locked up in prison.

Gay marriage is the topic in question. Since there is a political shitstorm on the subject of LEGALIZING it lately, it must currently be illegal, right? Thus it's perfectly fair to compare it to polygamy.

Because you have no argument Sanchek. All you do is call me a bigot and then ask me to explain myself yet again. I'm sick of trying to find some way to explain it to you so that you can understand, but I can't express myself monosyllabically enough for you to grasp the concept.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Customary marriage: The marriage not performed according to legal proceeding of local civil authorities, but rather according to local custom, may not be accepted.<hr></blockquote>

No. It means jumping over a broom does not constiute legally binding marriage in todays society. If you'd read what I posted instead of wailing your arms around crying, "Bigot! Racist! Zehn hates gays omg loelz!" you might have caught on.

Marriage is a religious institution that has become bastardized by todays society because of the benefits that come with it and with how romanticized it's become. Let's put it this way. If it weren't for the legal beneifts, why would an athiest couple get married? They may want to have a ceremony to show their friends and family that they're a 'couple' now, but that's not what marriage was about but there's no other reason.

But then again, I believe there's a fundamental difference between two people wanting to commit to eachother and two people who want to get married.

That's point 1 where we disagree. Can we move on now?

Okay, next we come to the, as you claim, ridiculous and illegal instances. Now here's where we put two and two together.

Homosexual marriage was illegal in all 50 states until very recently.

*GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASP*

It's still illegal in the other 49 states, as is incest. The only argument -against- incest so far is the biological concerns which I agree with. But homosexuals don't desire to produce offspring together, so if an incestual couple took measure to prevent pregnancy...or hell even a homosexual incestual relationship.

Let's say Gokuu wants to marry his dad. Why should he be told no, while two random males should be told yes?

Slant: That's because those figures are false and have come under fire lately. It's called the Kinsey report, and iirc, the reason the number was so high is because they included "Have had homosexual thoughts" as -being- homosexual.

The figure is closer to 5% have practiced homosexuality, while less then 1% are strict homosexuals.

>Let's say Gokuu wants to marry his dad. Why should he be told no, while two random males should be told yes?


cause my dad's hotter then my sister, i'm all over that


wait...

Dear Zehn:

You keep making the same specious argument: namely, that by legalizing homosexual unions, we as a society then 'have' to legalize poly marriages, incest, bestiality, etc, and that all variants of sexual expression (other than penis + adult non-related vagina, which is sacrosanct) are 'morally' equivalent (perverse). This is simply not so. Societies can and do 'draw the line' on socially charged issues at different places over time and sometimes that line moves pretty rapidly.

Take the issue of enfranchisement to vote. At the time our nation was founded, only white male landowners over 21 had the vote. In 1864, this right was in principle extended to black males, but in practice many remained disenfranchised for the better part of a century because of the widespread attitude that blacks were too 'primitive' to vote and such things as literacy tests, poll taxes, etc, were implemented in order to discourage them. It was not until 1920 that women were given the right to vote, and all sorts of arguments which we now would consider ludicrous (that women had smaller brains than men, that the 'hormonal secretions' of women clouded their judgement and made them incompetent to vote, that they were property, etc) were used to deny their enfranchisement. Only 30 years ago, we extended the right to 18-20 year olds, who were previously considered too immature to do so. The point that I am making is that the human social gestalt on an issue, and the majority opinion, can and does change over time.

It's been thirty one years since the APA adopted the stance that homosexuality was *not* a pathological condition, but within the range of normal human sexual orientation, and that sexual orientation was a fundamental part of one's psychological makeup and not amenable to change. In that time a great many people have 'come out', and the majority opinion on homosexuality has evolved considerably.

Consequently, *on this issue*, in our society, it now seems irrational to allow heterosexuals the right to marry their life partners while denying this same right to homosexuals. Saying that homosexuals have the 'same' rights currently because 'they too can marry someone of the opposite sex!' is just silly. Someone who is heterosexual would not be denied the basic right to marry their true love by such a law, whereas a homosexual would.

This has nothing to do with the issues of plural marriages, bestiality, incest, etc, and despite what certain deranged Senators would have you believe, homosexuality does not contribute in and of itself to any of those things :) .

Sincerely,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

The whole argument is ridiculous because everyone is arguing around the issue and not even understanding what it is about. The majority of our society already "recognizes" same-sex unions on an individual level. What they want is a form of legislated validation of their union in order to feel that they are accepted on the same level as hetero marriages.

Its all irrelevant. If anything, the government should simply recognize civil unions with a legally binding vow to promote family stability. But then again I think that having children should be restricted to those with a good credit history and who pass a parenting workshop.

You pointedly ignored what I wrote.
...
Gay marriage is the topic in question. Since there is a political shitstorm on the subject of LEGALIZING it lately, it must currently be illegal, right? Thus it's perfectly fair to compare it to polygamy.
Actually, I didn't ignore your point. I just didn't spell out what I was saying in enough detail, I suppose. Polygamy is a crime, in most of the Western world, not just disallowed. A felony is quite a step above something that just isn't currently written into law.

For example, you can't build a Wal-Mart on a residentially zoned piece of land, yet all current Wal-Marts are sitting on land that was once residential land. A weird example, but very similar. The changes currently being made or proposed across the country is much like zoning laws on the official institution of marriage. This does not and should not have one iota of religious basis.

There's nothing illegal about homosexuality. There's nothing illegal about the "marriage" ceremonies that have been observed by gay partners for years. They just aren't legally recognized and given equal rights. That's a far cry from illegal in the criminal context that polygamy falls under.

Because you have no argument Sanchek. All you do is call me a bigot and then ask me to explain myself yet again. I'm sick of trying to find some way to explain it to you so that you can understand, but I can't express myself monosyllabically enough for you to grasp the concept.
It's just a word. Despite whatever connotation you have for it, it's one of the best words I know to describe your particular stance. If you find it offensive or somehow can't understand how it really does apply, I'll try to find another one for you.

How about dogmatist? Not quite as broadly accurate, but pretty close in this case.

Marriage is a religious institution that has become bastardized by todays society because of the benefits that come with it and with how romanticized it's become. Let's put it this way. If it weren't for the legal beneifts, why would an athiest couple get married? They may want to have a ceremony to show their friends and family that they're a 'couple' now, but that's not what marriage was about but there's no other reason.

But then again, I believe there's a fundamental difference between two people wanting to commit to eachother and two people who want to get married.

That's point 1 where we disagree. Can we move on now?
I think it's obvious that we disagree, but that's all there is to the argument. Whether or not non-religious people of any sexual orientation deserve to be "married" seems to be your hang-up. Saying atheists don't deserve marriage either is extremist, to say the least.

Regardless of how much you may pine away for the good 'ol days of the church being the most powerful force around, those days are over.

I have absolutely no doubt that you're right about the sanctity of a religious, Baptist marriage ceremony, but you have to accept that marriage isn't tied to religion anymore. That's not my opinion, it's fact. A marriage in today's society is simply not what you are claiming it is. It's a partnership. A union of two people. It's not exclusively available to people wanting some silly bonding to "God" bullshit.

It's still illegal in the other 49 states, as is incest. The only argument -against- incest so far is the biological concerns which I agree with. But homosexuals don't desire to produce offspring together, so if an incestual couple took measure to prevent pregnancy...or hell even a homosexual incestual relationship.
Again, you're resorting to silly hypothetical situations to cloud the main issue. We've been through this over and over. It's circular. See above posts.

It seems that the quote in your sig is very appropriate.

Well, I rarely use this, but the above posts by Sanchek and Nidia are perfect examples of "owning" someone on a message board.

Polygamy is a crime, in most of the Western world, not just disallowed. A felony is quite a step above something that just isn't currently written into law.

Polygamy was banned in the USA in the 19th century, as you posted a page or two back. This was prior to any serious successes on the part of the women's rights movement, if I'm not mistaken. It's safe to assume that it was predominantly made on the basis of religious morality rather than to protect the wives' rights.

So it's wrong to condemn one form of marriage on a religious basis, yet perfectly right to keep another illegal for similar archaic reasons?

There's nothing illegal about homosexuality. There's nothing illegal about the "marriage" ceremonies that have been observed by gay partners for years. They just aren't legally recognized and given equal rights. That's a far cry from illegal in the criminal context that polygamy falls under.

2) There's nothing illegal about living with multiple partners, assuming mutual consent. The tens of thousands of "felons" who practice this in Utah (and probably some Muslims in the US as well) are generally not hunted down and imprisoned. Why? I can't say for certain, but I'd imagine they don't actively pursue the legality thereof - being married in the eyes of their community and their church outweighs the pursuit of legality and the possibility of government reprisals.

If they were nearly as large a group in the US as homosexuals, I'm sure they'd attempt to seriously press for the legality of their marriages too.

I don't particularly care about the fairness of the entire thing. (I'm far too jaded to expect legal reform rooted in tolerance and reason to pass short of a change in the perceptions of society. It'll be a while.) I just disagree with your distinctions between the rights of the given groups.

Slightly on topic, today I saw someone with a bumper sticker that read "Marriage = Man + Woman, Marriage =/= Man + Man".

I pulled up next to them and promptly told them that I felt their bumper sticker showed great ignorance, made them feel really stupid and embarassed, and began to drive away. I watched them pull over to the side of the road and put their blinkers on in my rear view mirror, so I went around the block again. As I passed the second time I watched them peeling the bumper sticker off their car. Whipped out my camera and video taped it, and showed it to my good friend Ben. (This is the same Ben that was making out with a rather nice guy the entire evening in the corner of the dance floor during my last party, for those of you who I talked to about it or those of you that were there) It made my day.

I think your post shows great ignorance.

Ignorance of what, exactly?

You probably thought he was embarrassed but in reality the guy was a homo and someone put it on his car lol...good idea btw.


Ibudin

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

The guy was a fucktard if hearing some random persons opinion changed his views.

More on topic, any consenting adults should be able to get married if they so choose, regardless of family status or other wives/husbands. If man-man is allowed, so should be brother-sister,woman-woman-man, man-man-woman, and whatever combination of adult you can think of (no girl-dog for instance). Why should polygamy and incest be illegal in the first place? While incest may be for biological reasons (should be people's decision to make that choice at any rate), they do not need to have children in the same respect that gay couples do not have children (with each other, fucknuts).

After all, we know better than he does don't we?

Because not all of us believe that 'he' exists (or means the same thing to everyone), and yes, those laws (separation of church and state) *do*exist in part to protect citizens from the tyranny of 'his' followers...

I'm in the midst of my 'long' (12 hours, with one hour break) day today, so don't expect to get back to this for a while, but some of the statements in this last post really made me chuckle :)

Sincerely,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

those laws (separation of church and state) *do*exist in part to protect citizens from the tyranny of 'his' followers...

LOL

Tyranny?

LOL

You have no clue Nydia. Go to Iraq and find out what tyranny was like.

When you get back, I'll be waiting for those laws you speak of.

And if we let the Falwells and the Robertsons of this country have their way, we'd have just that kind of tyranny in the US.

Separation of church and state has been upheld by the courts since the very start.

If marriage is so good for individuals and society, why deny it to homosexuals? Society is benefitted by happy citizens. Married homosexuals -- whose marital state has zero impact on you -- make for happier citizens, which translates into a healthier society.

And if we let the Falwells and the Robertsons of this country have their way, we'd have just that kind of tyranny in the US.

Someone else who has no clue what tyranny is.

Is this why the Left can only get their agendas passed with a "vs" in the name?

And if we let any individual or group "have their way" of course it would tyrannical in the end. Duh.

But many people are attacking me and Zehn for holding a majority's opinion. Sorry for the reality check guys. If we're in the minority, then get your agenda passed through legislation and we might better respect it. I still won't agree though :p

been upheld by the courts since the very start.
Took 170 years for some Supreme Court to completely pervert the meaning though.

If marriage is so good for individuals and society, why deny it to homosexuals? Society is benefitted by happy citizens. Married homosexuals -- whose marital state has zero impact on you -- make for happier citizens, which translates into a healthier society.
Happy citizens ? Healthier society?

You can't compare the two. Marriage is between a man a woman.

But give me some proof, though. Holland I believe has had gay marriages for quite some time. All I see is a detrimental decline in marriage, increase drug use, increase in suicide among spouses.... Certainly nothing positive for married men and women and the rest of society.

Marriage is a religious institution that has become bastardized by todays society because of the benefits that come with it and with how romanticized it's become.
Actually, marriage is a legal institution that long ago came under the influence of religious institutions. Powerful families allied to one another through marriage. In superstitious times (read: 99% of recorded history), the happy couple would ask for a blessing from the local deity rep. No surprise, then, that priests of every stripe oversaw weddings; how could a religious couple (which has been pretty much everyone til the last couple centuries) hope to prosper without their god's blessings?

But even so, it started as a matter of property, wealth, and the need to bear children. Society now takes back marriage from the religious institutions that bastardized it. The romanticization has been around a few centuries already, as have many implicit benefits (social standing, etc.).

The majority of our society already "recognizes" same-sex unions on an individual level. What they want is a form of legislated validation of their union in order to feel that they are accepted on the same level as hetero marriages.
How about the idea that the two people might actually be in love with one another? Having benefits wouldn't hurt either. They want nothing special, simply to have the same benefits and standing as any other two married adults.

Just because you want to appear to be more "enlightened" or "open minded" by bowing before the APA altar, does not mean I have to denigrate my morals to "fit it" with your idea of our society.
But you certainly show no compunction about using your morals (such as they are) to denigrate others in order to fit in to your idea of society, when what they desire (marital recognition) has zero impact on you. Shit, it's like outlawing vegetarianism.

I wish I could write like that. |I

it's like outlawing vegetarianism
It's not immoral to eat only your vegies.

Some say it's immoral to eat anything but veggies.
I say it's not immoral for a man to wed a man or a woman to wed a woman.

It's all just opinions. For me, it comes down to the impact it has on my life or others' lives. If two gay people want to get married, it makes them happy and doesn't affect me a bit. Hell, I'll be happy for them. Love is a good thing, as is security. Society benefits.

Your "morality" encourages you to deny these people that affirmation of love and security. I find it particularly ironic coming from believers in a worldview that holds "love thy neighbor as thyself" in such esteem.

Not all the "Love thy neighbor as thyself" crowd is opposed to gay marriage. :)

Someone explain to me why if it is possible for gay couples to garner for themselves through various legal means the same rights and protections for themselves ( living wills, inheritance, trusts et al. ) as heterosexual couples get via marriage except for the so-called "tax advantages" then its immoral to simplify the process and allow gay couples to get married?

On the heels of that explanation you might as well explain for me why conservatives talk about the "marriage penalty" when they seek tax reforms but defend a denial of gay marriages partly on the basis of disallowing them "tax advantages" reserved for married heterosexual couples?

Saying that it is illegal to deny gay couples marriage is not the same as saying every religion must now allow gay marriages in their church or that sects are now obligated to perform the marriage ritual. It just means there is no civil reason to deny marriage to gays.

Some say it's immoral...

Key word being some. Majority rules, sorry.

http://home.pacbell.net/hobbez/yes.jpg

http://home.pacbell.net/hobbez/no.jpg

What they want is a form of legislated validation of their union in order to feel that they are accepted on the same level as hetero marriages.

Wrong. Its bad juju to tell me what I want. I dont care if you accept us on the same level, thats what you worry about in high school.

I just wanna be able to visit my partner in the hospital if he was in a car accident. I wanna be able to cover him with insurance benefits if he becomes unemployed.

I have no idea what "Insurance"/Tax breaks you are all refering too. It costs as much for me to include him on my policy as it does for him to carry his own. It actually costs more. In fact my company will not cover any spouse if they have other insurance available though their employment and dont use it first and then only make up the difference in limits. The days of doubling up are over.

Until this year there was no tax benefit for marriage.

Incest has nothing to do with this.

Morality helps people define themselves. It is just a set of guildlines that people use. If I wasnt gay my whole life I might be able to see the other side but so much of what people say about how I act and feel is wrong that I cannot. How do you even pretend to know?

Key word being some. Majority rules, sorry.
Well, at least you leave no doubt regarding your moral bankruptcy if that's all you have to offer.

And in actuality, the Constitution rules, whether the majority want it to or not. Ultimately, this will come before the Supreme Court. Right now, I'd wager the court would strike down (or refuse to hear a case) legalizing homosexual marriage, though it's close. Eventually, it's likely to pass, given that the only reason put forward against it is a religious matter.

...all you have to offer.

Guess you missed the other thousand spams I've done.

Didn't miss them, just refuted them.

You refuted my morals? Wow, I missed that.

The rich white slave owner George Washington said "True religion affords to government its surest support. Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."

You know, that Father of Our Country guy. He said alot of other God stuff that you probably chose to ignore in grade school, or rather due to the "seperation of church and state" you didn't even hear it.

Your morals are so inconsistent they refute themselves.

Want to quote our Founding Fathers? Fine by me..

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political and religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
--Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded project."
--James Madison

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
--James Madison

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes."
--John Adams, letter to John Taylor

"…[the Bible is] offensive to reason and common sense, and subversive of moral rectitude in general."
--Ethan Allen, "Reason, the Only Oracle of Man."

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
--Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason"

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England."
--Benjamin Franklin

Perhaps you missed them in school. =)

Thanks for googling up quotes that give us the reason we have the first amendment.

And nice sneaky way of introducing us to Ethan Allen, one of the country's first proclaimed atheists (as opposed to the other real founding fathers in there.) Oh, he captured a fort, got captured himself, set free by Washington, served him for awhile as repayment, then wrote a book about his "reasoning". Now he's burning in hell.

Haha, too amusing. You quote Washington like it's actually important or pertinent, then dismiss quotes from an array of Founding Fathers. I didn't use Google, btw, or any other search engine. No need for them.

I "snuck" in Ethan Allen? Goodness, no, not a Founding Father with an opinion! Not an...an atheist! And thank those guys we have a First Amendment. At the time James Madison printed one of his aforementioned quotes he could have been executed under Virginia's "Dade Code." We don't have to live in fear, at least not most of the time. There's no shortage of theists ready to kill for their beliefs.

Rotting in hell? How quaintly primitive. One more non-googled quote for you, since you place such stock in them (emphasis mine):

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787

If the reasons for opposing Gay Marriage arent religious in nature I have 2 questions.

What are the rational reasons for banning gay marriage?

Why do these discussions always turn into religious debates?

If it is religious in nature then we better make Covetousness a crime. In fact, Jesus said to even think ill thoughts puts you in sin. Matt 5:32

Ethan Allen a founding father? Hardly.

But anyway, you've missed the point obviously.

Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.

And earlier you attacked me for having the wrong morals.. or rather, no morals at all. I'm not Taino, I have morals and my bank is heaping with them. Perhaps because I believe in God and believe we need to look to him (just like our founding fathers) for guidance in our civil society, you think I'm a moron?

But of course you continue to confuse the issue and think morals (and faith) should be removed completely from the decision because of some "seperation of church and state" bunk. Uh huh.

I love bringing the "founding fathers" into religious debates. You'd have a fairly difficult time finding an American intellectual in that time frame who would have been considered Christian by conventional standards. It was called the Age of Reason for, well, a reason :>

You're a good guy Gass, but you're in way over your head if you think you can debate Thormir.

Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.
Religion is completely inessential to society. Morals are fine (there's really no escaping them), but morals aren't exclusive to religion, vary across religions, and change over time to reflect society's views (to the point of overturning religious views).

I have morals and my bank is heaping with them.
All a matter of opinion. I consider your reliance on ancient manuscripts of questionable worth debilitating. Clearly, your willingness to force your religious belief system upon others whose desire for recognition and security has no effect on you calls into question the value of your morality.

Perhaps because I believe in God and believe we need to look to him (just like our founding fathers) for guidance in our civil society, you think I'm a moron?
I never said you were a moron. However, instead of the "hundreds of spams" you could have simply stated, "I don't think my god wants this, so no matter how logical it is or how valid under our laws it may be, I will disagree with it." Stubborn dogmatism is a poor argument, but there's no overturning it.

I just don't think ancient manuscripts collected and reshaped by politically minded priests should serve as a guide to how we live. We've already had the Dark Ages; we need humanity more than religion.

False arguments. Bullshit. Deceptions.

The issue is pushing an agenda on society, not gaining freedom for the poor gay victims of moral tyranny.

Ah, the voice of reason at la...wait, no, that was the voice of baseless, paranoid rambling.

The issue is entirely about reversing discrimination in favor of personal freedom and security. The poor, frightened moral tyrants will just have to accept that their antiquated beliefs have no place in a modern country based on freedom.

Work over, g'night.

Personal freedom and security? They have it. Everyone that wants to recognize gay marriage already does. The government doesn't need to be involved just as it doesn't need to be involved in hetero marriages. My sister's a lezbo. She doesn't care whether the government recognizes her marriage or not.

Just one clarification :

Bowler wrote :
I just wanna be able to visit my partner in the hospital if he was in a car accident.
Is that really true? If you aren't spouse or family of someone in a hospital with serious injuries, it means you can't meet him/her? (I'm not sure about french legislations as well...)

If yes... I wonder what your sister would say about that, because her marriage isn't validated by official laws, she can't meet her mate in difficulties.
I guess we don't need an insurance until we get an accident.

In my experience, usually in the case of life threatening injuries, only spouse/family (and medical personnel) are allowed acces to the patient. Friends are not given access. I think it's really the doctor's call whether a gay partner qualifies as family at the present time.

Willgatus, I'm not going to quote your stuff since it's long. Basically, here are my replies.

I definitely haven't ever denied that many decisions in the past have been based on religious convictions. I'm pretty sure I've actually used that as part of my argument at times.

In most of the Western world, it is a felony to have multiple wives. Getting married while you still have another marriage contract in effect, is a felony. It's not a felony to be homosexual. It's not a felony to unofficially be married to someone of the same sex. It's certainly not a felony to be legally married to someone of the same sex, it's just not something people are allowed to do yet. There's a big difference between legal technicality and felony.

If you want to get down to brass tacks, I really don't see a problem with polygamy. I personally have no issue with it either way. In fact, the fuss about it in Utah that you're referencing is actually based on a religious group's long standing moral beliefs, you know? So much for religious freedoms, I suppose. Who cares about that pesky Constitution anyway?

Gass... Step away from the pulpit, man.
If there's nothing wrong with gay men, why do you write homophobic stories deploring their social activities?

You can't argue logically against it, but you can morally. But you choose not to. Why should I not choose to?

Just because you want to appear to be more "enlightened" or "open minded" by bowing before the APA altar, does not mean I have to denigrate my morals to "fit it" with your idea of our society.
First of all, you're getting mixed up. I'm not particularly moved one way or another by the APA. It was Nydia that used that in one of her posts. I am a big fan of logic though. Something that's in very short supply with all of these "God told me to, therefore I can't think rationally for myself" arguments being flung around.

I'll take it as a compliment that you have to run away from my actual points and try to bash my character, to make any headway with your own argument. The thing you can't seem to understand is that we don't have to approve of someone else's actions to approve their right to do so, based on the fundamental ground rules of our country.

Just because I'm not interested in watching two guys eat face, doesn't mean I think they deserve unequal treatment. People pestering me with their religious convictions annoy me to no end too, but you don't see me claiming that church goers shouldn't receive the "special" treatment of being able to get married in accordance to their faith. I guess that's the difference between you and I?

I'm certainly not trying to seem "enlightened" or "open minded". I have no motive to do that. If it hadn't been for people giving Nydia such a hard time on that original thread, I probably never would have touched the topic.

I'm glad I did get involved with it though. Participating in the debate and seeing the dogmatic extremism, that is the only basis for being anti gay marriage, has definitely shaped my own understanding of the issue. If it hadn't been for you guys spouting the zealot arguments, I probably would have remained indifferent on the subject.

The church is protected from the state, not the state from the church. And incidentally, it's not "okay" for the state to remove the 10 commandments from schools, libraries, and court houses.
You need to revisit some 10th grade level history. Separation of church and state was primarily meant to quell the church's control over the state. Throughout history, much harm has come from the church manipulating civil leaders. Think Pope Urban and the Crusades. In fact, if you research you'll find that in nearly every colonial state formed here in the 1700's, laws preventing clergy from holding any government office were established immediately. The people that founded your country were trying to escape the very attitude you're trying to promote.

The brand of religious extremism that you're selling us is the exact same thing that motivates suicide bombers and guys that pilot jets into skyscrapers today. I'm not sure I'd be so proud of that if I were you.

Logically no, there's nothing wrong with it. Unless you look at the mountain of evidence that supports the benefits to society when a man and woman get married. Longer life expectancy, better sex, healthier lives, and healthier children both physically and mentally.
I see no mountain. Cite sources.

Alcoholism and drug abuse are far more detrimental to a person's health and definitely the person's children, yet those people are free to get married just so long as they're straight. I fail to see how you can use that arguement seriously.

So, what about a straight crackhead couple, and a gay couple in excellent health who's only vice (in your opinion) is that they 69 instead of go at it missionary style? You'd rather endorse the crackheads' marriage than give the gay couple equal rights? Excellent representation of your religion. It should be obvious why organized religion's losing popularity faster than Vanilla Ice these days...

Yes, it's all about that pesky God guy. Who does he think he is anyway, telling us how to think and live? If we could just get him out of our morals, we might just be able to make the world a better place. After all, we know better than he does don't we?
I never said you aren't welcome to your own beliefs. In fact, I think I've made it painfully clear, over and over, that I think everyone is entitled to their own way of life. Gee, that's even what the Constitution happens to say about the subject too.

You're going to have to come to terms with the fact that there are many people for whom your particular deity doesn't have an iota of moral influence. In addition, you need to realize that this is the way that things are supposed to be here. Check out the 9th amendment some time.

edit: Fixed a word, because Malse is anal.

I'm sure that in some places, gay partners are not allowed the same visitation rights as hetero partners, but in the hospital where I work its not the case.

I'm sure that in some places, gay partners are not allowed the same visitation rights as hetero partners, but in the hospital where I work its not the case.
Thats neat but in 90% of the hopitals I have checked and 100% of the ones with the city I live in I would not be allowed to visit. Now for around 1500 dollars I can write up documents that would in a sense afford me the legal rights I ask for.

Enduring Power of Attorney and such but there are gaps and the hospital can still deny me access. In fact if I die and in my will leave everything to him my family (not that they would) could legally say I was in a "deviant, cooersive" lifestyle and the court would throw my will out. Isnt that a fun deal.

Again I ask how does me having these rights "attack, infringe on, ruin or destroy hetero marriages"? In fact, how does me getting married at all affect anyone but myself?
Im looking for factual answers as to how gay marriage affects breeder marriage. Does allowing gay marriage increase crime in residential neighborhoods? Does it cause grocery stores to close early?

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> In fact, how does me getting married at all affect anyone but myself?<hr></blockquote>

And how does fucking a goat in the ass affect anyone but yourself?

Yes, it's all about that pesky God guy. Who does he think he is anyway, telling us how to think and live? If we could just get him out of our morals, we might just be able to make the world a better place. After all, we know better than he does don't we?


So... can you do me a favor and describe this "God" you believe in? This is a serious question, tell me everything you can about this "God", and why you believe in him/her/it. This is completely serious, so please answer honestly, thanks.

Actually, there were studies recently at Harvard that indicated that homosexuality occurs naturally - meaning that it is not a choice but something one *is*. The studies discovered the possibility that there is actually a homosexual gene.

Further, homosexuality can be observed in nature. Recently the NYT wrote an article about a penguin gay couple. Two male penguins that have been mates for years and years.

So if you go back to the original topic of this thread (and someone already mentioned this way back whereever) incest has the possibility to have serious negative biological results.

There are hypotheses out there that posit that the combination of sexual types (grandmothers, lesbians, gays, teen mothers, etc.), are all required for human beings to reproduce. And I'm not referring to Cat's Cradle (for those of you who know Vonnegut).

Bowler quit the melodramatic bullshit. You're taking rare situations and crying yourself a river over them. Typical poor me crap. That being said... again I say that I support a complete change in the recognition of marriage as a civil union between two adults.

Ruthey... newsflash from 1979 finally get to you?

And how does fucking a goat in the ass affect anyone but yourself?
Still got nothing but hyperbole, huh?
Ruthey... newsflash from 1979 finally get to you?
We've established that homosexual activity has been out in the open for at least 2,500 years. Most of what we're talking about isn't exactly recent news. Your point?

And how does fucking a goat in the ass affect anyone but yourself?

Go ask the people at PETA that. The beastiality arguement has no basis here.

Keep embarrassing them Thoromir, this is a good read.

I love it when people try to argue against facts and logic with personal opinion and religious beliefs. Its like wearing a kick-me sign.

The fact of the matter is you guys can't come up with any reason why homosexuality differs from incest or beastiality reguarding exceptions to the current laws.

The minute someone provides a decent argument, I'll take you seriously. But up until now, you've done nothing but dodge the question, which is the whole point of this thread.

Incest is not allowed for biological reasons. Ask a judge, senator, or a lawyer and you'll get the same answer. That's just how it is. Remember that we're talking about the law and government here, not Sunday school.

Bestiality has nothing to do with a union between two people. While you may try to wax poetic about your feelings for your goat, that has nothing more to do with this than a debate about whether crickets should get to pollinate flowers in addition to bees.

The minute someone provides a decent argument, I'll take you seriously. But up until now, you've done nothing but dodge the question, which is the whole point of this thread.
I don't think anyone could possibly dodge the argument better than you have been. Who else would have thought up couchality to distract us from your lack of rational basis?

The minute you provide a decent, Constitutional argument, rather than bible thumping, the rest of us will take you seriously.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Incest is not allowed for biological reasons.<hr></blockquote>

Irrelevant. A homosexual couple has no desire to reproduce, so if an incestual couple had no desire either, then they both fill all the same requirements as a homosexual couple. Two consenting adults.

You call it a silly hypothetical situation. Why's that? Because it happens less then homosexuality? Oh nos! Homosexuality happens less then Hetero, so it must be a silly hypothetical situation as well.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Bestiality has nothing to do with a union between two people.<hr></blockquote>

So? From a scientific standpoint we share what...98% of our genetic code with some animals, if not more? Why can't we marry them? I'm pretty certain you'll find plenty of furries that would disagree with you on this.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The minute you provide a decent, Constitutional argument, rather than bible thumping, the rest of us will take you seriously. <hr></blockquote>

Call it bible-thumping all you want, you want equality for 'this set of people over here' but not 'that set of people over there.' Don't try to take the moral high ground, because you're just as guilty of discrimiantion in the matter as I am.

You accuse me of arguing over technicalities when you're arguing over a technicality as well. So what if gay people can't get tax benefits? You can still live with eachother and fuck at night.

The reasons for getting married are

A) To be able to apply for various benefits.
B) For the signifigance it holds in various religions.

Everything else is merely tradition and symbolism.

Winterworg, it was actually 1993, Dr. Dean Hamer, National Institutes of Health. The results were incidental to a study which was focused on genetic causes for cancer. And of course since then there's been bunkings and debunkings, as there often are with any scientific study.

For ThePerfectFlaw, you claim that no one has come up with a decent argument so far in this thread as to why homosexuality differs from Bestiality or Incest. I actually have a question for you on that point. Can you distinguish heterosexual behavior from incest or bestiality?

There is actually a group of monkeys human beings are the most closely related to, genetically, called the Bonobos. The Bonobos are notable because they respond to all kinds of situations by having sex - and not just with their mates. And not just between males and females.

The species is best characterized as female-centered and egalitarian and as one that substitutes sex for aggression. Whereas in most other species sexual behavior is a fairly distinct category, in the bonobo it is part and parcel of social relations--and not just between males and females. Bonobos engage in sex in virtually every partner combination (although such contact among close family members may be suppressed). And sexual interactions occur more often among bonobos than among other primates. Despite the frequency of sex, the bonobo's rate of reproduction in the wild is about the same as that of the chimpanzee. A female gives birth to a single infant at intervals of between five and six years. So bonobos share at least one very important characteristic with our own species, namely, a partial separation between sex and reproduction.


A Near Relative
This finding commands attention because the bonobo shares more than 98 percent of our genetic profile, making it as close to a human as, say, a fox is to a dog. More here (http://www.dhushara.com/book/socio/bonobo/bonobo.htm) or here (http://www.bonobo.org).

So, looking forward to hearing the response - how is heterosexual behavior different from bestiality or incest?

Edit - wups - thanks Cristo typed homo instead of hetero heh

That was actually his question..how does it differ.

Incidently incest/beastiality differs from adult hetero relationships in that the hetero relationships are normal behavior and the others are sexually/socially deviant behavior(as is homosexuality).

are normal behavior and the others are sexually/socially deviant behavior(as is homosexuality).

Who gets to decide the meaning of "normal?"

Personal freedom and security? They have it. Everyone that wants to recognize gay marriage already does. The government doesn't need to be involved just as it doesn't need to be involved in hetero marriages. My sister's a lezbo. She doesn't care whether the government recognizes her marriage or not.
The government is involved, however, whether you or I like it or not (and, clearly, neither of us do). Grats to your sister, but she doesn't represent all homosexuals, many of whom want legally recognized marriages.

The fact of the matter is you guys can't come up with any reason why homosexuality differs from incest or beastiality reguarding exceptions to the current laws. The minute someone provides a decent argument, I'll take you seriously. But up until now, you've done nothing but dodge the question, which is the whole point of this thread.
First, you're the dodgy one. The entire slippery slope argument is a prop to dodge what is actually being discussed. Nydia, Sanchek, and myself have already refuted your dodgings anyway; burying your head in a stack of bibles won't change that.

Irrelevant. A homosexual couple has no desire to reproduce, so if an incestual couple had no desire either, then they both fill all the same requirements as a homosexual couple.
And like I said before, laws aren't made for exceptions to the rule. Billy Bob may take empty back roads when he drives home trashed at night, but drunk driving laws aren't thrown out because of it. Marriages between man and woman normally net children; a single, given incestual couple's ideas don't figure into the law.

The reasons for getting married are

A) To be able to apply for various benefits.
B) For the signifigance it holds in various religions.

Everything else is merely tradition and symbolism.
Forgetting that tradition and symbolism can be at least as important as benefits and religious significance, this is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if someone wants to get married so they can hock the gifts or subject their friends to a night of Air Supply at the reception. The right to marriage should be available for any adult couple.

This is sadly funny. You guys want to be related to monkeys, and then you laugh at me when I base my morals off my faith in God.

So far in this thread I've been called a zealot, bible-thumper, homophobe, a pulpit preacher, myopic, petty, moronic, a God freak, and lastly, accused of believing in some "God bullshit."

Very civil. And Daidal wants me to write out my faith in God for all to read. Uh huh.

Anyway, there should be some reflex reaction inside you that tells you that we all have some higher purpose in life. You will not find that from reading what I have to say here.

Like the reaction you have when you see two guys eating face. Or when you think about having sex with your mother.

Where did that natural reflex come from? Why is it there? Evolution... ? I don't believe that, but you call me myopic. I'm not the one restricting my rationale.

This is sadly funny. You guys want to be related to monkeys, and then you laugh at me when I base my morals off my faith in God.
Us guys (whatever that means) don't want to be related to anything in particular. But the evidence shows that we share a common lineage with other primates, so we'll just have to settle for it. All scientists in Darwin's day were bible-believing creationists. Darwin (and German higher critics, and other thinkers of the Enlightenment, etc) changed a lot of minds.

But wait, Evolution is in another thread. We're talking about gay marriage. Many gays are Christian, I wager some of them even deny evolution. So your comment is irrelevant.

Where did that natural reflex come from? Why is it there? Evolution... ?
Perhaps, but I imagine a lot of it has to do with socialization. Gender alone doesn't account for it. People kiss same-sexed parents regularly, and in some countries a same sexed peck on the cheek is routine in greeting. If it's some kind of "message from a god," then that god needs to fix its tranceiver. But then, this is also pretty irrelevant to the Constitution and equality under the law.

Marriages between man and woman normally net children; a single, given incestual couple's ideas don't figure into the law.

The right to marriage should be available for any adult couple.

A bit contradictory, aren't we?

In any case, an increased risk of having children with birth defects may be a good reason not to have kids, but why should that - and especially the legality of a union between two people who carry such risks - be left up to the government? Should people afflicted by severe doses of radiation be allowed to marry? How about people with major inherent health issues?

The only argument you can conceivably fall back on is "it's morally wrong and disgusting." I agree with that stance, but it is a poor basis for a law.

The fact of the matter is you guys can't come up with any reason why homosexuality differs from incest or beastiality reguarding exceptions to the current laws.

It differs because:

1) a significant proportion of the population is same-sex oriented in their sexuality (not true for incest or bestiality);

2) homosexuality, unlike bestiality or incest, is a biological orientation which affects one's predisposition to an entire *gender*, not just a specific individual (relative or animal in the cases you cite);

3) homosexuality, as far as the biological evidence seems to stack up, is not in and of itself evidence of pathology, but a normal variant of human sexual orientation and perhaps as importantly, this is now accepted to be so by the majority of the population;

4) this proportion of the population (homosexuals) is denied a basic right that is enjoyed by the majority population, namely the right to marry *anyone* of the gender to which they are attracted (again, unlike incest or bestiality, which deals in specifics, and in the case of bestiality, non-persons);

5) perhaps most importantly, there is a sufficient groundswell of opinion that this is an inequity that needs to be addressed legally, that doesn't exist for incest or bestiality.

Next dodge? :)

Sincerely,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

Btw, just as an aside, I get a real giggle out of the 'unnatural' argument. When I was involved with a gay/bi women's support group at the small college I was a graduate student at, one of the things that I heard over and over from some of the women who were first coming to terms with their sexual orientation was that when they would describe that 'lightbulb' moment. Over and over again, what I heard was "For the first time in my life, I felt normal" or "It was the most natural thing in the world..."

For folks who are strictly homosexual in their orientation, it is *heterosexuality* which feels 'unnatural' and wrong.

I *do* find it interesting, however, that Zehn in particular feels the need to spend *so* much energy attempting to debase homosexuality, (which, in the final analysis, doesn't concern him, nor does gay marriage) by repeatedly grouping it with bizarre, rarely practiced activities. What, exactly, is it that makes you so uncomfortable about something that doesn't (presumably ;) ) concern you?

And, does anyone find it amusing that all of Kelraz's posts seem to contain in them, somewhere, a reference to making out :) ? Wonderful story though, and glad to hear that you are having equal opportunity makeout parties... ;) .

BTW, if anyone cares, there appears to be a sputtering of queer life in Laredo! Our little 4-year college has at last put together a Gay-Straight Alliance, and is, along with a local domestic violence shelter, hosting a 3 day run (English and Spanish) of 'The Vagina Monologues' this weekend... :)

Out for the weekend, have a good day everyone...

Regards,
Nydia

Im gay and a christian and a republican and I do believe in evolution.

Beastiality and pedophilia are not consentual. You can twist that one however you like but gay is about love not sex. This whole discussion is about sex. Get over your preoccupation. Breeders dont marry just for sex and if they do it fails. Its about love and until you realize that you will remain ignorant and blind.

Jesus told the Pharasees "If you divorce your wife and take another then you have commited adultry". I grow weary of people using the "its bad God hates it" argument yet spend 90% of their waking life doing things God hates. The circle is formed and the stones are in hand. "Let he who is without sin cast the first one"

Matt 5:31-32
John 8:1-12

Who gets to decide the meaning of "normal?"


I believe the number given here was 15% of the population was gay, and that was disputed as too high because it included people who simply had homosexual thoughts.

15% of the population is a pretty small minority even if it were not debated. So, to answer your question, the activities/preferences of 85% of the population define normality.

I say let anyone marry who wants to. At the very least, it will probably increase Zehns odds of getting hitched by 75%

15% of the population is a pretty small minority even if it were not debated. So, to answer your question, the activities/preferences of 85% of the population define normality.
Oh, so being straight automatically rules out any chance in a belief that homosexuality is just as normal? Ouch, logic strikes again!



And Akipt, I was entirely serious when I asked you to do that. You have a serious inclination to put your views into those perscribed through your religion. If you want the smallest shred of respect for your beliefs, they need to be tenable. I don't have to prove anything as I'm not professing a belief, but you, on the contrary, are. As soon as you are ready to stop pussy-footing around and actually justify yourself, please tell me about the "God" you believe in. I'm not asking you to explain your faith, just quickly define what this "God" is for me. It really shouldn't be that scary if this "God" is really a rational idea, so don't even worry about it. Until the time when you can provide such a reason for those beliefs to be held as legitimate, you will continue to be destroyed in this argument.

Im gay and a christian and a republican and I do believe in evolution.

You must really be at war with your self. Sucks to be you.

The fact of the matter is you guys can't come up with any reason why homosexuality differs from incest or beastiality reguarding exceptions to the current laws.

Yeah they have, and Nidia just did too. You're skipping right over them so you can still hold up your argument.

You must really be at war with your self. Sucks to be you.

Thats a pretty ignorant statement. Once again you dont know me, at all. Stop presuming that your simple minded ideals somehow enslave my thoughts. Im not at war with myself. Preconceptions are at war with me.

I dont believe in welfare. (See: Atlas Shrugged)
I dont want big government.
I believe that a mother and a father are needed for proper child rearing. Single parent homes are bad for our future. (lol stick that one in your bonnet).
I dont believe Illegal immigrants should be given ANYTHING.
I believe the constitution holds up even after 200+ years.
I believe that God created the Universe.
I believe he did so in a way that allows it to grow and adapt.
I believe that EVERYONE is in Sin unless Jesus releases you and then you are free PERIOD.
I believe I should have the freedom to marry whomever I love.

Oh, so being straight automatically rules out any chance in a belief that homosexuality is just as normal? Ouch, logic strikes again!


Personal beliefs have very little to do with the point being made.

In case you missed that point:

The very definition of "normal" precludes homosexuality from falling into that category. Something cannot be identified as normal(typical or average) when it occurs in such a small percentage of the population. This is not a belief or personal opinion, it is simply a fact.

Homosexuality only occurs in a small percentage of the population, therefor it is not normal behavior but abnormal or deviant behavior.

Is it really so hard to understand?

I would suggest you go back to logic school because you just got an F on your attempt to use it here..although you get an A for your speed in trying to jump on the PC bandwagon.

> Something cannot be identified as normal(typical or average) when it occurs in such a small percentage of the population.

Actually, that would be wrong. Something being a small percentage does not automatically make into deviant behavior. I'm sure you can come up with examples yourself if you think about it.

I concede the point that it's inevitable constitutionally. I also concede the point that gay couples should enjoy the same rights such as hospital visitation as hetero marriages have. I abhor the fact that its being done through the courts rather than through legislation which could be worded as equal but inherently different.

I abhor the fact that its being done through the courts rather than through legislation which could be worded as equal but inherently different.

Trust me, George Bush will push for and get a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage. People consistently vote against gay marriage because the phrase "protect marriage" makes them think their lives will change if gays can marry.

The very fact that he is trying to imbed the constitution with his religious ideals is just more proof that he is losing his conservative edge. LESS government intervention in private affairs not MORE is the way to real freedom. Marriage should not be a constitutionally protected status but a personal commitment between two consenting adults.

Something being a small percentage does not automatically make into deviant behavior

First example is ... THE WORLD IS ROUND!! The church fought against that statement as they always fight against the truth. Jesus hated their ways and so do I.

...its so simple...the definition of marriage: dictionary.reference.com/...q=marriage (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=marriage)

Who gives you the right to change the meaning of a the word. That is in fact what you are doing, if we allow gay couples to get "married" the term marriage will no longer exist.

Who says they have to you use your dictionary?

A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

Was this definition supposed to be for or against? Did you even read the whole thing? What the fuck were you trying to say?

This reminds me of the question somone posted before. If you have a clone and have sex with it is that incest or masturbation? And if it's incest does that also mean you are gay?
Anyhoo, if two people want to get married,who gives a rat's ass what sex they are.That's their business.
This is another area where church and state arent seperated and should be. It's religious beliefs that are effecting a legal issue.
IMHO,if you don't like gay marriage,don't marry a gay person.

This reminds me of the question somone posted before. If you have a clone and have sex with it is that incest or masturbation? And if it's incest does that also mean you are gay?
Shew post that?

Actually, that would be wrong. Something being a small percentage does not automatically make into deviant behavior. I'm sure you can come up with examples yourself if you think about it.



First example is ... THE WORLD IS ROUND!!


And...you both get F's as well.

It's good to see you are eager to put your foot into your mouth again Professor Qaman, btw.

de·vi·ant [Audio pronunciation of deviant] ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dv-nt)
adj.

Differing from a norm ...

The "norm" (do you need me to help you brush up on that definition too?) is, by a large margin, heterosexuality. Homosexuality, since it differs from that norm, is deviant or abnormal.

Is this really so hard to understand?

The "norm" (do you need me to help you brush up on that definition too?) is, by a large margin, heterosexuality. Homosexuality, since it differs from that norm, is deviant or abnormal.
Very much like the opinion that the world was flat.

The point is not whether fags are in the minority. The question is does that matter. I mean left handed people hold only a slightly higher population percentage than fags. Are you suggesting, based on that data, we should change the constitution so they are not allowed to use coffee cups which are clearly designed only for right handed people. Pretty much the same thing.

Still not one rational argument against gay marriage that doesnt involve "Well its just wrong cause I dont like those faggots"? Really what would it cause, other than more money for the state in marriage licenses.

"If we were blind and had no choice, differences hid. Would we hate each other by the sound of our voice"
-Anthrax

Not like the opinion that the world is flat at all, I don't see how you can even compare the two.


The point is not whether fags are in the minority


That is precisely the point that I was making, in response to the blind but politically correct stance in evidence here.

Normal means typical, homosexuality is not typical. It is abnormal/deviant behavior, a fact that evidently gets a few of your panties in a bunch and starts people ranting about how "being gay is normal"(and only evil evil bigots say otherwise)..which incidently is very much like your world is flat example, as it is a widely held -false- belief.

The rights of the minority, no matter how small, should be protected as zealously as those of the majority. The question is where the boundaries of society will be. The need is for a new entity such as a civil union... a contract between two individuals conveying the same rights as marriage.

"being gay is normal"(and only evil evil bigots say otherwise)..which incidently is very much like your world is flat example, as it is a widely held -false- belief.
Being left handed is deviant. Do we make laws to deny them civil liberties? Do you tell left handed people they arent normal and should be treated as outcasts? Your using selective thinking to justify thinly veiled intolerance, bigotry and hate.

The rights of the minority, no matter how small, should be protected as zealously as those of the majority
This is shockly true. If you dont protect the rights of the individuals then the "whole" is unprotected.

Still no one has a single piece of data that shows gay marriages will negatively impact the functioning of society?

The "norm" (do you need me to help you brush up on that definition too?)
Perhaps you should "help us". The part of the definition pertaining to biology, which is the most pertinent as to whether this human behavior is deviant or not, is defined as:

Normal
2. Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.



I would suggest you go back to logic school because you just got an F on your attempt to use it here
Oh the irony.



..although you get an A for your speed in trying to jump on the PC bandwagon
Oh, I'm trying to jump on the bandwagon now? Ironic, seeing as I made the 3rd post and you didn't join the argument until your Bigot's Bandwagon had helped make over 120.

Out of curiosity, have they determined what causes homosexuality? Is it genetic?

The namecalling is ridiculous.

The namecalling is ridiculous.
Doesnt seem to be anything left to talk about. No one has brought up any facts or any evidence. Its the "we dont like gays" against the "we dont mind gays" and there isnt any exchange of information.

As far as Im concerned..

Im ok with whoever wants to have a civil union. Give them all the contractual rights a married couple has. As far as the law is concerned they would be considered partners, and all the things that go with it.

But I am adamantly against it being called a Marriage. The gay rights people have an agenda thats being seen right here. It is an attempt to forceably change culture using the courts to Ram their values down peoples throats.
Sorry.. no.
Like it or not, homosexuality isnt a natural thing.. its not a "bad" or "evil" thing.. but its a abberation. People say that being Gay isnt a choice.. thats fine, we could have a Nature/Nurture debate all day long. I accept what they say. But.

Everything is not okay.. everything isnt acceptable. We as a society shouldnt have to kow tow to every single factional group.
I guess what I and alot of other people say is.. "fine, you are gay, get over it"

Out of curiosity, have they determined what causes homosexuality? Is it genetic?

They have not conclusively proved that sexual orientation is genetically based, no.

There are two studies that lead to news items in the early 90s. One was a study by Dr. Dean Hamer which isolated a genetic area (Xq28 ) that could potentially determine sexual orientation. The results of this study have never been replicated (but of course - funding is all in science so who knows if follow-up studies have passed political hurdles). Another is one by Dr Simon LeVay out of San Diego who noted differences in the hypothalamus in the brain of gay men versus hetero men. These were all reported in the journal "Science."

A study in Toronto in 2002 found that families with more male children had a higher probability of including a gay sibling in that number.

There have also been studies on flies which seem to show that sexual motivation is genetically-based.

All of this presupposes, of course, that if it's in the genes, you are fated to a particular destiny. So it gets even more complex if you consider that in fact your behavior might affect how powerful those genes are.

Personally I think we all exist with a bit more or less percentages masculine and femine traits and sexual urges, according to the circumstances we find ourselves in (including our genetic heritage) and the choices we make within those circumstances. However it is that we manifest, we do in such a way that, it seems to us, best suited to reconciling how we are to our circumstances - and our perception of what will make us happy and what will help us to survive with the least amount of possible suffering. Not a well-written sentence, but there you go.

(edit out an inadvertant smiley face)

There are no facts to bring up. Some people want societal parameters in one place, and some people want them in another. What's wrong with civil unions which are not called marriage?

The true debate is over the structure of society. There's another small minority of society in the group NAMBLA who want to be able to have intimate relations with young boys. Constitutionally there is no barrier to them doing so. It's only the belief by the majority that such things are wrong and legislation making it illegal which stops them.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> There's another small minority of society in the group NAMBLA who want to be able to have intimate relations with young boys. Constitutionally there is no barrier to them doing so. It's only the belief by the majority that such things are wrong and legislation making it illegal which stops them. <hr></blockquote>

So very true, yet I bet five bucks you're going to get an elaborate response that boils down to, "Homosexuality should be allowed because it's okay with me! But not pedophilia, beastiality, incest, polygamy, etc...because those things are wrong! Why is it wrong? Well, for the same reason that homosexuality is wrong, but homosexuality is okay!"

this thread is sick...

Being left handed is deviant. Do we make laws to deny them civil liberties? Do you tell left handed people they arent normal and should be treated as outcasts? Your using selective thinking to justify thinly veiled intolerance, bigotry and hate.


Hey I have an idea, take the "anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot!" card and shove it up your ass.

I said gay wasn't normal, I didn't say you should be penalized for it. In fact if you would look further back in this argument you would see I say the opposite.

Incidently being left handed is indeed deviant. Interesting how you can bring up a fact without me reading anything else into it(for instance that you hate lefties since you said they were deviant, you paw-bigot), wouldn't you say?


Perhaps you should "help us". The part of the definition pertaining to biology, which is the most pertinent as to whether this human behavior is deviant or not, is defined as:


Poor Daidal. Did you notice the definition with the little "1" beside it?

Refresher:

1. Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical

Heterosexuality is the norm(A standard, model, or pattern regarded as typical - ie 85% of the population) for sexual behavior. Homosexuality is abnormal(Not typical, usual, or regular - ie 15% of the population).


Oh, I'm trying to jump on the bandwagon now? Ironic, seeing as I made the 3rd post and you didn't join the argument until your Bigot's Bandwagon had helped make over 120.


Actually I posted in the initial discussion about it(that this thread is a tangent of). Please take the bigot card and follow my earlier instructions with the sticking it up your ass bit by the way.

When people ask a question such as "how is heterosexual behavior different from bestiality or incest?" there's no reason to start the hate and labeling because someone gave a logical reply.

Moderators, it was decided a while back that calling people racist at the drop of the hat(and falsely) was not allowed. I would appreciate the same courtesy being shown here, as several people are throwing out the bigot card to achieve the same end.

Hey I have an idea, take the "anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot!" card and shove it up your ass.

Best line ever!

Here I go posting drunk again. (I blame the girl buying me drinks all night)
Anyway, there should be some reflex reaction inside you that tells you that we all have some higher purpose in life. You will not find that from reading what I have to say here.

Like the reaction you have when you see two guys eating face. Or when you think about having sex with your mother.

Where did that natural reflex come from? Why is it there? Evolution... ? I don't believe that, but you call me myopic. I'm not the one restricting my rationale.
Gass, it is just amazingly ironic, but I was raised strictly as a Baptist. Till 10th grade, I was in Baptist, Christian private schools. I suppose I still retain some of their values and some of my gut reactions will always be determined by the way I was molded when young. So, if you must know... That's where my gut reaction when seeing two guys eat face is probably coming from.

Luckily, I woke the fuck up when I went off to college and realized what a short sighted, myopic view of the world I held. I mean, for crying out loud, I was taught that ANY music other than Christian hymn type songs was wrong to listen to. Even Christian rock was wrong, because if someone were to hear the beat outside my door without hearing the words, they might think I was listening to devil worship rock'n'roll.

Needless to say, I've long since shrugged off that ridiculous nonsense. I feel pity for people who's minds are still shackled by it. I still think they have every right to practice their chosen religion though. Just like I think that people should be completely free to practice homosexuality and treated as equals, even though I don't personally think it's all that great.
15% of the population is a pretty small minority even if it were not debated. So, to answer your question, the activities/preferences of 85% of the population define normality.
You are very erroneously assuming that the 85% of straight people are intolerant bigots who wish to condemn homosexuals to being "deviants". I have never had a homosexual experience and certainly am not exclusively gay, so I don't fall into that 15% whatsoever, yet I completely support homosexuals having the equal right to a legally recognized union.

Not to mention, as someone else pointed out, normal in the biological sense refers to things that normally occur in nature; which homosexuality does.

Moderators, it was decided a while back that calling people racist at the drop of the hat(and falsely) was not allowed. I would appreciate the same courtesy being shown here, as several people are throwing out the bigot card to achieve the same end.
You seem fond of dictionary.com. Look up bigot. It has absolutely nothing to do with racism. Racism is a form of bigotry, but bigotry does not imply racism. Seriously, understand the words if you're going to throw them around like you know what they mean.

The left handed thing is very interesting. I'm left handed, but absolutely none of my family is for at least 2 generations (mom/dad and grandparents are all right handed). So, it's obvious that biological conditions can randomly occur. It's also a good analogy to homosexuality. VERY few people are left handed, compared to the general population. However, when I eventually go to apply for a marriage license, they won't deny me based on the fact that I'm biologically in the minority. Why should they deny a homosexual couple for the same reason?

They shouldn't. Period.

Sanchek, you lost, get over it, move on. This by no means that the side you're fighting for has lost, it just means that you're doing more to hinder your side then help it. Feel free to call me a bigot though, because that makes you ignorant. Ask me if I haven't thought out both sides to this. I could just as eagily argue -for- gay marriage. Unlike you however, I don't have to resort to the old "You're discriminating!" argument to achieve anything like you seem to keep falling back on.

Besides, you're a bigot too, or didn't you notice the "or politics" part of the description? Yes my dear friend you've shown nothing but intolerance for anyone here having a different political view then yourself reguarding homosexuality. Oops!

Anyways. I'm done with people who have an IQ that would make a red brick embaressed.

Nydia.

Your five points were pretty weak. None of them really made me motivated to think that we should allow homosexual marriage but not incestual marriage or beastial marriage.

Why?

Because (And please reference to your own five points)

1) Same argument could be used to argue why hetero should be allowed and not homo.

2) How does a 'gender' make it suddenly more acceptable? In cold unfeeling terminology, how is 'gender' better then 'species' really? What if Fazin is right and I'd fuck anything so long as it had a hole?

3) You used a lot of comma's to essentially state, "The majority agree's that homosexuality isn't normal but not because it's a disease." As much as I'd like to believe that beastiality is a mental disease, I dare you to enter "Yiffy" into google and argue that on any one of the 1000+ message boards you'll find.

4) The basic right we enjoy is for a man to marry a woman. If you accuse me abusing a technicality, then I'll do the same when you say that, quote, "unlike incest or bestiality, which deals in specifics, and in the case of bestiality, non-persons." Because honestly, how is "Gender" any less specific then "Species" or "Relation?"

5) Repeat of 1, only this time you mention why 1 matters at all. The only reason anybody cares about homosexuality and the rights attributed to homosexuals is because a large portion of the population (about 5% if you include the trendy bi-sexual people) is homosexual. Keep in mind that if the number were lower nobody would care what homo's think (fact) and if it were much higher the species birthrate wouldn't be able to keep up with the death rate (speculation).

Don't get me wrong though, you thoroughly convinced me that ultimately there isn't much difference between homosexuality and beastiality, save that more people practice homosex and that homosex is gender-specific whereas beastiality is species-specific. Whoopity-doo!

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I *do* find it interesting, however, that Zehn in particular feels the need to spend *so* much energy attempting to debase homosexuality, (which, in the final analysis, doesn't concern him, nor does gay marriage) by repeatedly grouping it with bizarre, rarely practiced activities. What, exactly, is it that makes you so uncomfortable about something that doesn't (presumably ) concern you? <hr></blockquote>

I need something to do while I eat my cornflakes don't I? I never said homosexuality made me uncomfortable. In fact, I try to make it a point to not care what peple fuck. However if we were strolling along and you pointed to two guys and told me "They're gay" I'd go, "Oh." But if you pointed to another guy and said, "He likes to have horses violate him" I'd probably choke on the ice cream cone you bought me.

The reason I'm <blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>grouping it with bizarre, rarely practiced activities<hr></blockquote> is because

A) Homosexuality itself is a bizarre rarely practiced activity when compared to heterosexuality same as incest is a bizarre rarely practiced activity when compared to homosexuality.

B) If you strip away personal disgust and religious objections, there is really no difference in any sexual practice save that heterosexuality and polygamy are the only ones that produces -viable- offspring. So honestly, from a biological standpiont, polygamy and hetero should be sanctioned by the government if anything because they help ensure the survival of the species. Who gives a fuckall about homo's?

But then again I believe that if you strip away the religious implications, all marriage is is a really expensive, albeit romantic, way of giving eachother a friendship bracelet and saying, "I love you."

Honestly I think the only purpose marriage serves anymore is to provide legal documentation for when the couple gets divorced so a lawyer has an easier time getting his cut.

So....do I feel that a gay couple should be allowed to visit eachother on their deathbed? Sure why not. In fact, I think we should all be able to carry a little card around with us that says who is -not- invited to come visit me when I'm about to kick the bucket. If you know my name and you're not my Uncle Steven...feel free to drop by! Bring a baloon though. I love baloons.

Do I feel that a gay couple should be denied tax/insurance benefits? Fuck, I don't think straight couples should get them in the first place. Couples already get sex with half the mess, why should they get 20 bucks off on car insurance. Fuck you guys.

Biological reasons aside, what about just pure love without sex involved? What's wrong with that? After all, homosexuals marry without the intent to concieve, would it be allowable for a father to marry his daughter provided they didn't attempt to have a child together?

If two brothers or sisters (or a brother and a sister) was falling in love with each other, I would strongly reccomend against starting a sexual relationship.

I wouldn't condemn them, I don't think it would be "WRONG" of them. However...

*They grew up together, they have common relatives, and so on. Many relationships end up with the parties not wanting to have anything to do with each other for a long time, ofthen they want to saty as far as possible from each other for the rest of their lives. Having this much background in common means it will be hell if you ever break up like most people do.

* You are likely to hurt the feelings of youre relatives, and this in turn is going to get your own feelings hurt.

When it comes to a father marrying his grownup daughter, we have these same problems - and we ALSO have the problems of power imbalance and age difference.

All in all, it's a pretty bad idea.

Because you are a moron sanchek:


as several people are throwing out the bigot card to achieve the same end.


I didn't say anyting about whether they were the same, I said the label was being thrown around with the same intent that the racist label was when that rule was made.

Who says marriage is just betwen two people? How dare they disciminate against bigamists.

Oh, that's easy.
The spychological, socioecconomical, et cetera aspects of polyamory are not yet fully established. In the furure there will most likely be room for polyamorous civil unions. However, we shouldn't rush into a law-change that might hurt people. And there's a obvious risk here! WHat if A and B are married and it hurts B's feelings when A marry C as well?

Who says she's too young to marry? How dare you tell a pedophile what is right and wrong. Hell, how do you tell her she's wrong, she wants to just exercise her freedom of choice.

In your zeal to define YOUR morality as THE morality (a very self-centered thing to do), you advocate sexual abuse. I think your behaviour is extremely immoral, not worthy of a respectable person.

Yes, it's very immoral to allow that 9-year old to marry. She needs to grow some so she can exercise her freedom of choice(the other pillar our civilization was founded upon.) Excellent, but you've based your statement from common sense and the morals of society.

And on science.

Take morals away, what do you have? Science? Science says she see might even be able to conceive at that age, if not, then in a few years she can. Might as well give the husband some time to get to know her huh? Break her in if you will. That would be the financially responsible thing for the father to do too, let her new husband carry the burden of feeding and caring for her.

Science also have a lot to say about the emotional (and also biological) trauma this relationship would be for the girl.

It is true that science in itself doesn't say anything about traumas and suffering being a bad thing, but that falls under common sense and every reasonable sense of morality.

By the way, when a person seem to claim that morality as such is a bad thing, then he have misunderstood the word (believing some crap like that it's the same thing as rightwing moralism), or someone have misunderstood him. Or he's a lunatic. Take your pick.

I'll start a new thread about morality as such in a lil bit.

So, who wants to tell me how two men can be married morally? Because 5 judges in Massachusetts said it was ok? No, the moral majority in this country disagree by something like 85% or more.

If 85% of the population is white and decides that niggers ought to be extreminated, is it then the moral thing to murder every individual of the afro-american minority?

No.

Morality is not a popularity contest.

What makes homosexuality so special vs. incest, polygomy or beastiality?

What makes homosexuality so special vs. race-mixing?
Some people are very certain that it's extremely immoral for a white and a afroamerican/asian/nativeamerican to get married, have sex and make children. And lets not forget about the jews!

Why does society tolerate jews and mongrels to breed? Shouldn't we respect the people who hate them?

But hey, there are still going to be men that will go out and find and rape some poor 8-year old girl. Let's make rape legal since some minority obviously feels they're entitled to it.

Do I understand you correctly, akipt?
Homosexuality is bad because it's against YOUR morals, and rape is bad because it's against YOUR morals?

So, when someone rape a 8-year old gilr, you really thing that the real victim is YOU, not her?

That it's YOUR morals that have really been hurt, not her feelings, integrity and body?

Disgusting...

3) We release marriage from the benefits it recieves. The whole reaason marriage lost it's 'religious' affiliation is due to the desire of athiest couples desiring the same benefits that religious couples recieved.

/cheer consistency

Now, that's a much better one then the terribly flawed incest comparision.

If we for Protestant Christian reasons don't gelt gays get married, then why should we allow people who arn't protestant Christians to get married at all?

And while we are on the subject:

Atheists shouldn't be considered patriots, nor citizens. This is one nation under God.

Nah.
The founding fathers was REALLY FRIGGIN CLEAR about church and state being separated. It's a shame that some christians nowadays are trying to turn the country into a teocracy.

The law should be based on secular morality and science, not religious dogma.

Edeina, did you even read the thread? Or did you just look for snipits here and there to comment on with totally inneffectual arguments? I mean honestly.

In order for gay marriage to work, we can't care about people's feelings outside the union because homosexuality in general genuinely hurts the feelings of some people.

You talk about how it's wrong for people to force their moral views on others (Bible-thumpers), yet you're condemning people who don't adhere to your morality.

You talk about the consequences of a pedophillic relationship be both biological and emotional. Biological isn't a concern because we're not interested in sex and reproduction here, only love. And while a 9 year old might not be ready for a loving relationship, there is no garuntee as each individual is different.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>What makes homosexuality so special vs. race-mixing? Some people are very certain that it's extremely immoral for a white and a afroamerican/asian/nativeamerican to get married, have sex and make children. And lets not forget about the jews! Why does society tolerate jews and mongrels to breed? Shouldn't we respect the people who hate them? <hr></blockquote>

You are so missing the point it's not funny.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Do I understand you correctly, akipt? Homosexuality is bad because it's against YOUR morals, and rape is bad because it's against YOUR morals? So, when someone rape a 8-year old gilr, you really thing that the real victim is YOU, not her? That it's YOUR morals that have really been hurt, not her feelings, integrity and body? Disgusting... <hr></blockquote>

No, what he's saying is that in the dream society that some of these "omgz ur a bigotz" people are hoping for, the rapist wouldnt' be held accountable for his actions because rape isn't against his morals. HOwever, if the 8 year old girl wants to go vigilante on his ass, nobody should care either.

And your last post...really Edeina I'm starting to wonder if you have any thoughts of your own if you're coming straight out of your philosophy course and quoting your professors verbatim.

Crawl back into your hole. Sanchek had better points then you did.

Oh, that's easy.
The spychological, socioecconomical, et cetera aspects of polyamory are not yet fully established. In the furure there will most likely be room for polyamorous civil unions. However, we shouldn't rush into a law-change that might hurt people. And there's a obvious risk here! WHat if A and B are married and it hurts B's feelings when A marry C as well?

Hi, we live in a fairly equal society. If A decided to go on marrying C anyway, B would be perfectly free to divorce A. It would be hardly different from adultery, anyway, except it would be out in the open. We're past the era of "The Scarlet Letter" - why restrict such freedoms?

Edit: Besides, virtually any law hurts someone to some extent. Legalizing gay marriage, for example, strongly offends religious fundies in the country. That's a damn good reason to avoid passing such hurtful legislation!

i am all for gay people getting married, but i dont think being gay is right but it doesn't mean it is wrong.

Besides, you're a bigot too, or didn't you notice the "or politics" part of the description? Yes my dear friend you've shown nothing but intolerance for anyone here having a different political view then yourself reguarding homosexuality. Oops!
Either you haven't read the thread, or you're just trying to instigate to avoid the actual facts. I've pointed out over and over that I believe you should have the right to thump your bible all day long, so long as you don't start trying to dictate that other people have to thump with you.
Unlike you however, I don't have to resort to the old "You're discriminating!" argument to achieve anything like you seem to keep falling back on.
I didn't say anyting about whether they were the same, I said the label was being thrown around with the same intent that the racist label was when that rule was made.
I'm sorry you guys are both so scared of having your ideas accurately described. Saying that I resort or fall back on that makes no sense though, unless you're just pathologically avoiding the rest of the points in my posts (and I could see why you would). Of course that wouldn't be surprising, since you nearly always run away from the argument and quibble about the definitions of words that are completely irrelevant.

The only reason I keep using it is because it's funny how defensive you get about it. The truth hurts?

So, here's another point for you to run from. You keep bringing up yiffy/furry/whatever. I'm assuming those are all the same, based on some brief research I just did on Google (and an episode of CSI I saw in the gym!).

You can dress up any way you want to and get legally married, just as long as you're heterosexual.

What was your point? Are you just trying to help illustrate what a double standard currently exists when it comes to marriage?

The basic right we enjoy is for a man to marry a woman.
Perhaps you should inform the dictionary people. They seem to disagree: dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marry (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marry)

You can try to insult me or tell me I "lose" the argument all you want, but I'm not the one who can't argue the facts without running away and broadening the argument to a ridiculous level. Next thing I know, you'll be telling us that people born on February 29th shouldn't allowed to be married since they're such a small minority.

It's a sad representation of our education system when Edeina has better understanding of how our government is supposed to work than some of our actual citizens. You guys should go retake history and political science, before embarrassing us all further.

I said gay wasn't normal, I didn't say you should be penalized for it. In fact if you would look further back in this argument you would see I say the opposite.
Really ....
Incidently incest/beastiality differs from adult hetero relationships in that the hetero relationships are normal behavior and the others are sexually/socially deviant behavior(as is homosexuality).
Seems pretty clear your intent was to link incest/beastiality and homosexuality together using "deviant" as a link.
In fact I reread every post I could find from you in this thread and not once did you say gays should have the same liberties.

Kills me that we still have 8 pages of stuff and not a single factual argument against gay marriage. In fact the only thing anyone has said here was "gays are yucky" as justification. If you wanna say thats not bigotry please give us your definition of the word because the dictionary says-

obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.

Which pretty much fits.

Here.

Gay marriage does not assist in the survival of the species and should be banned outright as it merely takes potential mates out of the system.

Enjoy.

I tend to side with Bowler on most of his opinions here. I honestly don't give a flying fuck who's homosexual and who isn't. Far too much time and money is spent debating it. I believe that they should be allowed to marry, and that the "benefits" such as insurance should apply as they would in any other marriage/family situation. To say he can't visit his partner in the hospital on the basis of his sexuality/insurance situation is fucking absurd. I don't think a gay couple should be denied marriage rights, however I don't feel that homosexuality should be promoted as a "normal" thing, or the next step in human evolution.

This outdated morals argument is bullshit. How long till the next set of morals is outdated or evolved? I can't wait because then I can walk around and murder anyone who looks at me wrong.

I'll repeat it one more time, and nice and simple, since ya missed the first 5 times it was said.

Gay marriage is a union between 2 loving and able-minded people(unlike bestiality) which does not produce genetic defective children(unlike incest).

Tada.

You do have a good point about the species survival. It doesn't apply to the current state of the world though, since if anything, we have too many people having too many kids at the moment. So in that way, more gay=good!

If we have a nuclear Apocalypse and 98% of the human population is killed, then I can see a reason for forcing guys to make babies with girls.

Gays are yucky.

But as I've said over and over Bowler... the argument is over the parameters of society. You want them set in one place and I want them set in another. Your only factual argument is that the constitution doesn't deny you the right. It also doesn't guarantee it by the way. My argument is that if you extrapolate your argument out, then there is no limit to what we will allow.

There is no reason why we can't legislate civil unions granting homos the same rights as hetero couples, and still allow for the fact that much of society would like to keep marriage for heteros.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Gay marriage is a union between 2 loving and able-minded people(unlike bestiality) which does not produce genetic defective children(unlike incest).<hr></blockquote>

So?

ultimately there isn't much difference between homosexuality and beastiality,

Who's to say that an incestual relationship is any less legitimate then a homosexual one? Or a relationship between a person and his/her favorite house pet for that matter?

What I said is (one of)the difference(s).

(edit: I broke the post in the first edit, yay)

Your only factual argument is that the constitution doesn't deny you the right
Keeping liberties doesnt require proof but taking them away by force or law does.
There is no factual reason to restrict gay marriage and honestly I dont disagree with "civil union" as long as I dont have to worry about losing my rights in a time of crisis. You can call it a "Red Bull gives you wings" union for all I care.

So?
Well considering the topic of this thread I thought the "SO" was pretty clear.

"so" usually means "ive ran out of arguments, now im just being a asshole"

No, it means that unless you're religious, what special signifigance does sleeping with humans have over sleeping with pigs?

A pig can't hug you back.

And seriously, christianism really states that there is a difference between "sleeping" with animals and with humans?

It's taking care of everything isn't it?

No, it means that unless you're religious, what special signifigance does sleeping with humans have over sleeping with pigs?
What part of consent do you not understand? What part of mutual expression of love dont you understand? What part of 2 consenting adults dont you understand?

By your logic an employer would be just as successful by employing chickens as typists since, hell, whats the difference anyway.

Talk about hunt-n-peck typing...

Pathetic personal insults and "La la la I can't hear you"-argumets aside, Zehn had a few points worth responding to.

You talk about how it's wrong for people to force their moral views on others (Bible-thumpers), yet you're condemning people who don't adhere to your morality.

You miss one detail here.
A small but extremely important detail.
The difference between the individual's right to be the master of his own life, and the individuals "right" to be the master of the lifes of other people.

Rightwing christians want to marry rightwing christians of the oposite gender. I say that this is their right! And if some gay or communist say otherwise, i'd be the first one to call this gay/communist a bigot intolerant christianityophobe.

Gays want to marry gays of the same gender. I say that this is their right! And if some rightwing christian say otherwise, i'd be the first one to call this rightwing christian a bigot intolerant homophobe.

No, what he's saying is that in the dream society that some of these "omgz ur a bigotz" people are hoping for, the rapist wouldnt' be held accountable for his actions because rape isn't against his morals. HOwever, if the 8 year old girl wants to go vigilante on his ass, nobody should care either.

And I say he's wrong.
Rape is a crime against the victim, not a crime against some church or some gang of old nuns who don't wnat to hear about sexual behaviour.

If a grownup woman is "raped" and decides that she rather liked it and that it's okey with her, then the rapist wouldnt' be held accountable for his actions because rape isn't against her morals. That's the full extent of the truth to the statement. And I think we can all agree upon that one, lol.

Besides, virtually any law hurts someone to some extent.

To some extent, in some way.
Sure.

But extents and ways are not interchangeable just like that.
Real damage to the people really affected must be the primary concern.

Legalizing gay marriage, for example, strongly offends religious fundies in the country. That's a damn good reason to avoid passing such hurtful legislation!

No it's not.
It's a reason, sure.
But not nearly good enough.

Jehova's Wittnesses are strongly offended that blood transfusions are legal.

Scientologists are strongly offended that psychology is allowed to exist.

Fundamentalist christians are strongly offended that biology rather then theology is allowed to be taught in biology class.

Talibans in Afghanistan are strongly offended that they can no longer beat the living daylights out of any woman who doesn't look like Casper the friendly ghost.

And I'm sure that if there was a law that white people must jump on one leg instead of walking on two, then Nation of Islam and similar groups would be strongly offended if someone suggested that this limitating law ought to be lifted.

I find your argument to be valid only as a argumentagainst leftist "Politically Correct" extremists who want to forbid everytjing that someone might find offensive. It's a GOOD argument against those fools. But it's not very good for anything else.

Seems pretty clear your intent was to link incest/beastiality and homosexuality together using "deviant" as a link.


They are all deviant. So is being left handed as you brought up. Now since I said both bestiality, incest, and being left handed are all deviant..did I link being left handed with incest? Bestiality?

No.

You and daidal need to learn to think a little instead of going around slinging around the bigot label when you don't understand or care to understand what others are saying.

Oh, and since you were incapable of finding it yourself:


Republicans are usually for less govt involvement, and this really isn't a place for them to make an exception.



I'm sorry you guys are both so scared of having your ideas accurately described. Saying that I resort or fall back on that makes no sense though, unless you're just pathologically avoiding the rest of the points in my posts (and I could see why you would). Of course that wouldn't be surprising, since you nearly always run away from the argument and quibble about the definitions of words that are completely irrelevant.


First of all, not understanding the definitions of the words normal, abnormal, and deviant were the reason you jumped up to yell bigot in the first place, so those definitions were not only relative but at the core of your problem with what I was saying.

As for the bigot bit...you may not be pasting up a kkk picture and labeling it with our names, but your intent(once again) is the same.

Show me where I have said I hate gays. Show me where I have said I hate bisexuals or liberals or people not of my own ethnic group. Show me where I've even hinted at saying any such thing.

You can't, because I haven't.

Again, mods, a few people on this thread are throwing that label around in the exact way the racist card was played, and are violating the spirit of rule 4 for this section if not the exact letter of it.

First of all, not understanding the definitions of the words normal, abnormal, and deviant were the reason you jumped up to yell bigot in the first place, so those definitions were not only relative but at the core of your problem with what I was saying.

As for the bigot bit...you may not be pasting up a kkk picture and labeling it with our names, but your intent(once again) is the same.

Show me where I have said I hate gays. Show me where I have said I hate bisexuals or liberals or people not of my own ethnic group. Show me where I've even hinted at saying any such thing.

You can't, because I haven't.
I know I shouldn’t even respond to this at all, but what are you talking about?

You really need to look the word up this time, before you fly off the handle with another post proving your poor understanding of the language. Just for starters, the word bigot has nothing to do with hating anyone. Have you even taken English yet, junior?
Again, mods, a few people on this thread are throwing that label around in the exact way the racist card was played, and are violating the spirit of rule 4 for this section if not the exact letter of it.
Show me any poster here, who used the word bigot without actually having an argument to back it up. I don't think there's been one.

When the entire argument revolves around discrimination, it shouldn’t be a large surprise to you that one side is going to point out said discrimination. Duh?

If people were dropping this supposed “bigot card”, then you’d be seeing posts that just amount to “boo hoo, you’re a bigot so nothing you say is right”. In reality, the only people using that kind of tactic are the ones that keep posting inane garbage that has no factual support or relevance, just because Pastor Bob said so.

The only difference between bigotry and racism is hatred.

Besides.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> People that aren't white ride in the back of the bus, women are meant to be seen not heard, but you don't care what they do long as they follow those rules, eh? <hr></blockquote>

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>By your logic, shouldn't we just kill everyone in the country that's a minority? Hell, maybe we should just kill everyone that doesn't have blue eyes and blond hair!<hr></blockquote>

You said that about me. Wasn't until later you started using the term 'bigot.' Did you by any chance give your account info to Taino? You're pulling the very same, "I don't hate Americans, you just all suck," argument.

The only difference between a lot of completely dissimilar things is hatred. It's the difference between war and peace. I'm not sure what your point is, other than to reinforce the fact that bigotry doesn't equal hate.

Yeah, sure. I was baiting you with those comparisons. It worked. So sue me. Surely Mr. Couchality isn't going to cry foul about a little hyperbole.

The fact still remains that none of you guys have come up with much of an argument other than lame semantic games, and even those only take a few seconds at dictionary.com to dispel.

I will reiterate my post that was once again totally ignored for your little "I R not Bigot" rant.

Kills me that we still have 8 pages of stuff and not a single factual argument against gay marriage. In fact the only thing anyone has said here was "gays are yucky" as justification. If you wanna say thats not bigotry please give us your definition of the word because the dictionary says-
obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.

Which pretty much fits.

Its hard sometimes to admit that you qualify under a certain catergory but by the definition listed here Zehn you qualify. In fact the word is used to denote people who dont use evidence and facts but simply their opinion as a basis for discrimination. Its not like a racial slur at all. Its backed up by your words and by the dictionary definition of the word.

Crist0 - Im still waiting for you to show were you "said quite the opposite". The fact is you are denying your insinuations that I was not the only one to see. If you didnt mean it the way you wrote it and meant the opposite where is the post saying so. Please use your own words to show us.

Dictionary says DEVIANT means "Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society." Please show me where I disagreed that gay was deviant by that definition, at least the first part anyway. Use my own words if you would like. If you cant let it die cause its meaningless to this discussion.

First off, I DID just show you where I said the opposite, it was actually in the first thread(dean republican thread) on the subject and not in this little tangent.

Now then, if you agree it is deviant then what the fuck is your problem? Can I not say it is deviant, even though we both(again, by your own admission) agree that it is?

If that is the case what is your reasoning that I can't?

Why when I say homosexuality is deviant am I suddenly, to use your own words(and take note of these words sanchek ya fucktard), "using selective thinking to justify thinly veiled intolerance, bigotry and hate" but when you say it you are doing nothing of the sort?

Do I have to be gay to call homosexuality deviant and not just be hating in your book Bowler?

I'm VERY curious to hear your reasoning on this one.

I'm not making an argument against gay marriage Bowler, here. I'm just saying that if you want gay marriage based on it being discriminatory to not allow it, then it would also be discriminatory to disallow incestual, beastial or polygamic marriages (sex notwithstanding so don't give me any biology shit. Gays can't produce children so that's not the issue). So far, the only counter-arguments are...

Polygamy - It is illegal.

Beastiality - It's with animals.

Incest - Cannot produce viable offspring.

Now honestly, look at those, do any of them strike you as overwhelming arguments against legitamizing them? Remember, we can't look at this from a religious standpoint or someone will call us bible-thumpers or heaven forbid, "Pastor Bob."

The problem is people want to attribute some special 'thing' to mankind, that they aren't willing to give it all up for their beliefs. They still want to believe that they are somehow special, above the animals all because they can, what, sign up for different long distance carrier because the rates are cheaper and a monkey can't?

No, discounting religion, any and all arguments that can be made for the legitimizing of homosexual marriage can be made for any other sexual orientation.

It's only when you involve religion that the issue because less black and white. I believe that marriage is a sacred instutition between a man and a woman under Gods eyes uniting the two souls together. This union is reserved for a man and a woman.

However, I also believe that God would never forbid any two human beings, his special creations, from loving eachother outside of the bounds he's already put in place (such as polygamy, incest, pedophilia, etc...).

The only grey issue I feel is when it comes to homosexuality. For the longest time I was told and I believed that it was unconditionally wrong, as were all other sexual orientations. However it is barely commented on in the bible and I have yet to see conclusive evidence either way strictly forbidding, condoning or completely ignoring homosexual coupling.

So do I believe that homosexuals should be allowed all the same rights and priveledges as married couples? Yes. However, do I believe they should be allowed to get married? No. But then again, I feel that any marriage without God is completely pointless since all you're doing is, as I've said, buying her a really expesive happy meal and saying "I love you."

buying her a really expesive happy meal
The 6 piece chicken nugget one?

So far, the only counter-arguments are...

Polygamy - It is illegal.

Beastiality - It's with animals.

Incest - Cannot produce viable offspring.

So now ya go from totally ignoring the counter-arguments, to twisting/over simplifying what has been said to your benefit. The points have been made quite clear, so I'm done with this now.

He/she just doesn't care to listen to anything but the voices in his/her head.

Polygamy - It is illegal.

Beastiality - It's with animals.

Incest - Cannot produce viable offspring.
I'd like to read your input about homosexuality then.
Here we have the counter arguments against deviant sexuality, but we have yet to hear the argument against homosexuality, other than the cheap "If homosexuality, then all deviants". Go ahead!

As you bring it again, let's talk about religion a bit then (and mostly christianism I guess) :
You say :
This union (marriage) is reserved for a man and a woman.
and
However it is barely commented on in the bible and I have yet to see conclusive evidence either way strictly forbidding, condoning or completely ignoring homosexual coupling.
If there is no evidence or comment in the bible that homosexuals can't marry, why, under God's belief, should marriage only be "reserved" for opposite genders?
I didn't read all the bible (creation and apocalypse only), maybe there is somewhere written or hinted "thou shall not marry the wee wee", please enlight me.

On a last note (your post is a mine of quotes Zehn ;) ) :
But then again, I feel that any marriage without God is completely pointless since all you're doing is, as I've said, buying her a really expesive happy meal and saying "I love you."
I'm guessing the recognition of family, friends, people you cherish doesn't count when the moment to marry someone comes. It's just "an expensive meal".

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>So now ya go from totally ignoring the counter-arguments, to twisting/over simplifying what has been said to your benefit. The points have been made quite clear, so I'm done with this now. <hr></blockquote>

Obviously they haven't because it keeps coming back to those. Oversimplifying maybe, but that's what all your elaborate "counter-arguments" come down to. You say that perhaps these things aren't 'natural' because we don't witness them in any other animal. Then again, I haven't seen any ferrets picking out dresses for the dinner party on Friday so maybe seeking to mate outside of it's own species is an abnormal, but completely natural human desire?

Feel free to try to come up with concise arguments as to why homosexuality is any 'better' a sexual practice without bringing offspring or any rhetoric about the human species being more special then other animals though.

I don't mind letting my opinions change over time. I've been proven wrong on issues in the past and I've re-shaed my view of the world through that. However, when I believe that I am right I will not simply "see the light omgZzzz!!!one1!" because I'm being, quote, "a bigot."

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I'd like to read your input about homosexuality then.<hr></blockquote>

I've stated my stance on homosexuality several times. Very simply and quickly put, Homosexuality is completely natural though abnormal human behavior. God would never condemn one person for loving another in a pure manner. The actually act of homsexual sex however is a grey issue as I'm it's hard to believe that over 2000 years of Christian/Jewish doctrine is all based on a bad translation and neither side has put forth convincing evidence that isn't mired in propaganda.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>but we have yet to hear the argument against homosexuality<hr></blockquote>

That's because I have no issue with homosexuality.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If there is no evidence or comment in the bible that homosexuals can't marry, why, under God's belief, should marriage only be "reserved" for opposite genders?<hr></blockquote>

Every passage in the bible reguarding marriage relates it to the marriage of a man to a woman. It never says, "Between a man or woman and whatever he or she chooses to wed."

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I'm guessing the recognition of family, friends, people you cherish doesn't count when the moment to marry someone comes. It's just "an expensive meal". <hr></blockquote>

Pretty much. What's so special about these people? They're just all sacks of meat. So you're picking a mate, whoopity fucking doo. Cows do it all the time. I saw it on the discovery channel once when flipping during the super bowl at my aunts house. The farmers put chalk on the sacks of the bulls or whatever so they can tell which cows have been mated with.

Don't get me wrong. Marriages are fun. You get to oooh and aaah about how beautiful the bride is and then you get to go out and get wicked drunk on someone elses dime. But ultimately all that party is about is, "Hey guys...see the chalk on my balls? Oh yeah, check her ass tommarow morning if you know what I mean, huhu."

Keep it coming guys. This is way more fun then posting Chenoa's application to IvM on that new FD thread would have ever been and I need shit to read while I wait for new episodes of "Curb your enthusiasm" to download. God I love that show.

Keep it coming guys. :x
It's pretty hard to argue with someone who thinks his parents are just "sacks of meat" who fucked eachother like cows to inbreed their son.

I guess I have a higher stand point on mankind.

It never says, "Between a man or woman and whatever he or she chooses to wed."
Because it's not written, it's wrong? And again we are circling, if it's not "male and female" (I'm amazed you can still say "man" when you talk about humans), it's between "whatever". It couldn't ever be between (Lightning strikes me) "two humans".
Yeah I know, humans, meat, expensive meal, check my sack, ok!

It will hard to "taint" your views on this one I guess, if you feel like humans can compare to cows.

Are you reading what I say Anterak? I mean honestly?

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>It's pretty hard to argue with someone who thinks his parents are just "sacks of meat" who fucked eachother like cows to inbreed their son.<hr></blockquote>

I think my parents are children of God, inheriters of the Earth and the greatest of His creations, rulers over all other creation. I believe I was given life by God through my parents.

That makes me, my parents and everybody else I know, every human being on Earth for that matter, special. Of all of God's creation, we are #1. The essence that created everything from the vast expanses of the universe to the quantum physics of sub-atomic particles has deemed that human beings are the greatest and most precious of his achievements.

Not only that but if you're Christian, he goes so far to tell us that we're so special that he would rather suffer his own son to death and damnation to forgive us for any wrongdoing we do of our own free will which he gave us.

My point is Anterak, that without God or without some higher purpose...you're a nothing. You're just a part of ye olde circle of life. You're born, you maybe breed, you die. That's it. You're a sack of meat.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I guess I have a higher stand point on mankind.<hr></blockquote>

Why? What makes mankind so special? Either we're supernatual beings or we're not. You can't have it both ways. You can't say, "Well...I don't believe in God and all that crap...but we're still special beings." If we're special, what makes us special?

Jews can tell you. Christians can tell you. Muslims can tell you.

What's an athiest gonna tell you? "We can build spaceships!" Oh boy? Want a cookie? There's nothing special about us. We're just primates who learned how to make Grundge music. They can tell you how we're different, but they can't tell you what makes you special. We're more intelligent? So what? Fish swim better and what's gonna save you if your'e drowning, being able to count to ten or being able to swim?

So ultimately...

What's the difference between homosexuality, non-reproductive incest and beastiality? Just the nail you're throwing it at if religion isn't involved.

So the real question is, is homsexuality, homosexual sex and/or marriage against God's will? But that's a question for a different thread.

Not all of us need organized religion to validate ourselves.

Then again, I haven't seen any ferrets picking out dresses for the dinner party on Friday so maybe seeking to mate outside of it's own species is an abnormal, but completely natural human desire?
Gay and cross dressing are unrelated. If I wanted a woman I would date a real one. Not all animals show gay behavior but many do. However, going outside your species is not the discussion here because last time I checked men are both from the same species. If you wanna see interspecies sex just watch someones dog hump their leg.

Your argument still has said nothing. You consistently ignore that gay men have something beastiality/incest dont have ... mutual LOVE without biological repercussions!! Its not all about sex get over it. Your parents didnt marry just so they could have sex. Why do you think thats my motivation?

If you dont have an argument against gay marriage then stop trying because you dont have one to support the beastiality/incest idea either.

Facts, the truth, and evidence seem to be lacking here. If your so interested in God maybe you should stop reading these boards are read the Bible a little more. The phone is ringing and God wont leave a message.

We are all equal under God. This means we all have the same rights under God. So males can marry males if they so choose.

To judge on others like you do Zehn is not in your right if you would be a true Christian.
But then I have seen things you wrote here and true and christianity aren't your strongest features anyway.

He who throws the first stone ...

And another thing:
Irrelevant. A homosexual couple has no desire to reproduce

They do have the desire, they just don't have the "Tools" but in todays day and age, reproducing is not always about penetrating, having a sperm reach the egg etc etc ... You can adopt children and have a family just as easy. And this is what it comes down to, the need of having a family, people you love, people you want to share your life with other then just being friends, showing and receiving affection etc etc ...

Should incest be legal? If the daughter chooses to marry her dad and she is 18+ and not some mental case .. then by all means have them marry if that is what makes them happy.
Is beatiality the same? Nope .. caus ethe animal does not have a choice and so this "link" fails big time.

/agree PromiNentus

Just two things...

First, I too think bestiality with existing animals should be forbidden. However, if we one day invent or discover animals (e.i. nonhuman mammals) that can talk or otherwise communicate freely and have a intellectual capacity in the same range as adult humans, then by all means. Like you say, the problem isn't that the animal isn't human but that the animal doesn't have a real choice in the matter. :x

Second, gays DO have not onlt the desire but also the capacity to reproduce. I know of gay couples that chose to have group sex in order to make children. One male gay couple and one lesbian couple. All they have to do is to make sure the seed ends up in the womans vagina. Also, a few weeks ago some journalist here in Sweden became the father of a healthy newborn child. The mother was his daughters girlfriend, and the child will live with this lesbian couple. :D

Have a funny video to link here but I have no clue how to get it from email attachments to here.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> mutual LOVE without biological repercussions!!<hr></blockquote>

My cat loves me and I love my cat. On top of that, I'm willing to bet you haven't met my Uncle Steven. He's married and there's no love in that relationship. It was a marriage of mutual benefit. The government doesn't say that you need to love the person you're marrying.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If you dont have an argument against gay marriage<hr></blockquote>

You're still not reading it right. My point is that if you're not religious, and I don't care what religion you are, human beings are nothing more then another species in the animal kingdom. All our traditions and customs are either religious in nature or are a bi-product of our desire to feel 'special.'

So it has to come back to religion. In a religious/supernatural world, homosexuality -is- 'better' then all other 'deviant' sexual orientations in that it is between two humans. The question then becomes does God forbid homosexual marriage and does God forbid homosexual intercourse?

In the Bible during the sacrament of Holy Communion it states that it's bread and wine which is the body and blood of Christ. It doesn't staty wine and wine, or bread and fruit punch, etc...

So when the bible states that marriage is a union between a man and woman, we kinda take it that marriage is meant for man and a woman. That's how I, the church and Christianity has taken it for the past several hundred/thousand years. Even Jewish and Muslim religion dictate that marriage is between a man and woman.

But if you all you see is, "Vhex doesn't like gay marriage....VHEX HATES GAYS OMG! He must be homophobic! Christianity is homophobic!" then we have nothing more to discuss.

---------

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>We are all equal under God. This means we all have the same rights under God. So males can marry males if they so choose.<hr></blockquote>

That's assuming marriage is a right and not a priveledge given to a man and woman who choose to marry. And being equal does not mean we all have the same rights. It means we all have the same opportunities. Our actions and our decisions determine what rights we have as human beings.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>To judge on others like you do Zehn is not in your right if you would be a true Christian.<hr></blockquote>

I haven't judged a single person about being homosexual. If that's what you think, then you my friend need to seriously re-evaluate your life. My cousin is one of those vegetarians who thinks we should only eat vegies because hurting animals is wrong. She's a wonderful person and I love her dearly but when it comes to her views on vegetarianism...she's wrong.

-----------

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>They do have the desire, they just don't have the "Tools" but in todays day and age, reproducing is not always about penetrating, having a sperm reach the egg etc etc ... You can adopt children and have a family just as easy.<hr></blockquote>

Hi. You missed out on the last thread didn't you?

They can have the desire to have a child together, but here's the clue train woo woo, THEY FUCKING CAN'T.

Reproducing is 100% about the biological process of making and birthing a baby. After that it's all up to parenthood. Gay's can be parents, they can't reproduce (with eachother).

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Should incest be legal? If the daughter chooses to marry her dad and she is 18+ and not some mental case .. then by all means have them marry if that is what makes them happy.<hr></blockquote>

Thankyou, you win the cookie. You're the first person on this thread besides Nydia who had the revelation and then backed down to figure out what the whole point of this thread is.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Is beatiality the same? Nope .. caus ethe animal does not have a choice and so this "link" fails big time. <hr></blockquote>

That's an argument you'll have to bring up with furries. Curious though as to what your view on polygamy is though?

----------

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>First, I too think bestiality with existing animals should be forbidden. However, if we one day invent or discover animals (e.i. nonhuman mammals) that can talk or otherwise communicate freely and have a intellectual capacity in the same range as adult humans, then by all means.<hr></blockquote>

Then by that logic my argument about gay marriage being forbidden on religious grounds until we some day discover tht homosexual marriage -isn't- forbidden by the bible stands.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Second, gays DO have not onlt the desire but also the capacity to reproduce. I know of gay couples that chose to have group sex in order to make children. One male gay couple and one lesbian couple. All they have to do is to make sure the seed ends up in the womans vagina. Also, a few weeks ago some journalist here in Sweden became the father of a healthy newborn child. The mother was his daughters girlfriend, and the child will live with this lesbian couple<hr></blockquote>

By that logic I can reproduce with anything. All I have to do is say, "I love my couch" then go sleep with a woman. By your astounding logic here, that child is the offspring of myself and my couch. Woo woo! Go Edeina!

--------------

Ehr...
Did I claim that those lesbians was making children with each other? Nope. Only that one of them got pregnant, the other would be a biological relative of the kind, and they would bring it up together.

Anyway...

Then by that logic my argument about gay marriage being forbidden on religious grounds until we some day discover tht homosexual marriage -isn't- forbidden by the bible stands.

We're not talking about gays getting married in your church, we are talking about gays getting married at all. Do you believe in separation between church and state? Do you want a theocracy? If not, then why would "religious grounds" be the least bit relevant for the LEGAL and SOCIAL institution of marrige?

Curious though as to what your view on polygamy is though?

Like I said, I think that polyamprous marrige might be a good idea to include in the future. But not today, since we don't have sufficient knowledge on the subject. Let the polyamory subculture be it's own guinea pig.

By the way, polyamory is legal. It's just that they can't all get married. And one more thing. Bigamy usually don't mean merely taking a second wife/husband, but also doing it behind the first spouses back. This kind of betrayal will of course always be illegal.

www.humanplague.com/archi.../stfu3.jpg (http://www.humanplague.com/archive/pissoff/pics/stfu3.jpg)

www.humanplague.com/archi...mfairy.jpg (http://www.humanplague.com/archive/pissoff/pics/spamfairy.jpg)

www.humanplague.com/archi...itstop.jpg (http://www.humanplague.com/archive/pissoff/pics/makeitstop.jpg)

My point is Anterak, that without God or without some higher purpose...you're a nothing. You're just a part of ye olde circle of life. You're born, you maybe breed, you die. That's it. You're a sack of meat.


Unless of course... you believe otherwise. That is an opinion, not a fact. Just because I don't believe in your religion(or various others), doesn't mean I don't believe humans aren't "special" when compared to, say, cows.

Yeah, but what's your basis DiscW? "I'm special because I believe I'm special." What a crock of shit. News flash, your mommy lied to you.

In the same vane that Pastor Bob lied to you?

Either way, it couldn't be more irrelevant to the discussion at hand. There's no legal requirement that people must prove their allegiance to an arbitrary deity described in a random collection of old stories, to get married.

What you're talking about doesn't have bearing even on the old, antiquated laws we currently have. Certainly, it's meaningless when talking about how they should be altered to be Constitutional and fair.

Sigh.

You're so obviously missing the point it hurts. Promi got it, why can't anyone else? I mean seriously.

Again, I support civil unions, but the constitution says that all men are created equal. We all therefore have the same right to marry a woman. We're just asking for a new right that allows a civil union between two people regardless of their gender which conveys the same legal rights as a marriage. I don't see how anyone could be opposed to that.

Also, a few weeks ago some journalist here in Sweden became the father of a healthy newborn child. The mother was his daughters girlfriend, and the child will live with this lesbian couple


I'm my own grandpa!

Well, if that's your main point, then you need to stop wandering so far from it. Most of your arguments here have been rooted in your religious beliefs, and longing for a theocracy.

Incest (http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/violent_crimes/incest.htm), while not against the moral values of all, is illegal here whether married or not. In our modern society, it's not about morals or marriage, it's about protecting the gene pool from Hillbilly Bob keeping it all in the family.

It has absolutely nothing to do with homosexual marriage, any way you cut it.

It's for biological reasons, not biblical morals. In fact, there are references in the Bible to guys like Abraham, Jacob, Esau, and Lot getting freaky with their sisters, daughters, and first cousins. Getting shaky in that glass house yet?

Is that a clear enough explanation for you?

Sweden rocks.

www.humanplague.com/archi...heinfo.jpg (http://www.humanplague.com/archive/pissoff/pics/thanksfortheinfo.jpg)

lol the funny part of all of this is Gay marriage wont happen in our lifetimes. The country is still to buried by what their parents told them. All of the 50s generation needs to be dead first.

"Wait, before you turn off, maybe theres a chance we can relate
Wait, everybody turns on, why deny a fact thats so inate
Its not so easy anymore, the way you used to keep score
Not so black and white the colors of your sin
Take a walk inside my shoes, a path I didnt choose
Spend the night inside of my skin."
-Melissa Etheridge

All of the 50s generation needs to be dead first.


..
...

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHHAHA..

And you jumped all over MY case for just saying homosexuality was deviant behavior?

A lot of the hostility that you think is out there towards yourself sure looks like it's coming from the man in the mirror.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> In fact, there are references in the Bible to guys like Abraham, Jacob, Esau, and Lot getting freaky with their sisters, daughters, and first cousins<hr></blockquote>

Just read Leviticus, chapter 18. Really, honestly, people sinned alot in the bible. Ever read it? It's a good book. Plenty of murder, rape, incest, carnage, war, etc...

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>It has absolutely nothing to do with homosexual marriage, any way you cut it.<hr></blockquote>

Yes it does. The entire argument -for- homosexual marriages rests on being that to disallow marriage between gays is discriminatory.

Yet for the most part, everyone in favor of homosexual marriage seems to feel fine with discriminating against incestual, polygamic and beastial marriages.

I've asked, "Why are these relationships any less deserving of legitimization then homosexuality?"

And so far, nobody has put together a well thought out answer that hasn't been full of holes. Nobody here, not a single one has produced an argument that isn't flawed in some major respect.

In the case of beastiality the only solid argument is that marriage should be between two consenting human beings. The problem is nobody can tell me why it can't be between a consenting cat and human being. I'm certain that if my couch could say yes it would if I asked it to marry me. It certainly doesn't mind when I sit on it in my underwear, and if allowing someone to sit on you in your underwear isn't love I don't know what is.

In the case of Polygamy so far I've seen...what, that society couldn't handle the burden? Or that it's illegal? Well that's a little discriminatory isn't it? If they made a new law whereby black men aren't allowed to wear Khaki's you'd be up in arms, but if a man and a woman and a woman and a man and a woman want to all get married to eachother....it's suddenly illegal?

In the case of incest we have the viability of offspring as the only solid argument. Well, what about a homosexual incestual couple? Shouldn't we make an exception for them? Sure it may very rarely happen but it's still discriminatory. Or why don't we make it so that in order for an incestual couple to be wed, they have to take surgical measures to prevent pregnancy. Wouldn't be too hard to write that in as law. Now what? Your entire argument against incest is defunct.

The only one that's a strech is beastiality. Even so, that doesn't mean that we should discriminate against incestual or polygamic couples. There's really no factual basis that we as a society can't work towards to make these things work.

Either civil unions or gay marriage will happen... not only in our lifetime but soon.

I've asked, "Why are these relationships any less deserving of legitimization then homosexuality?"


I would imagine to some people they are not any less deserving, but I think most people still feel they are less deserving of legitimization.

Its only my opinion, but I think the laws are made or changed based on what the majority of society feels they should be. When a law is made, its made because most "feel" its the best thing to do. Over time the morality of a society can change (I think it has changed a LOT in the past 50 years). As most of society becomes more comfortable with a situation, the odds become more likely for laws to change to reflect that change.

That being said, I think Homosexuality has become more accepted over the past 20 years, and its more of a viable situation to change the law to allow them marriage. There are still a LOT of people that are against such changes thats why laws have not been changed yet.

As for marriage to animals or relatives, I don't think enough people have been convinced yet that those are even worth looking into for change. I am not going to argue about what I think is wrong with these situations, I am just giving my opinion on why I think they are less deserving of being legitimized. Someday there may be enough of the population that feels they are being repressed because they cannot marry their couch or their daughter, but I don't think we are even close to considering it with a straight face yet.

If you are one of the people out there that feel your being discriminated against because you want to marry your cat, I would suggest you form some sort of support group, then try and recruit more like minded people. By doing this, you can then start showing the general population that your way of life should be fully supported by the law. This may take several Decades, Society has to witness this behaviour from many people for a long time before they are ready to accept it. Once Society accepts this behaviour, it would be a good time to start trying to make laws that reflect it.

You could not seriously ask for an answer to your question that is correct, and all encompassing. Because the only answer you will be satisfied with comes from "your own point of view", or your opinion. If I am wrong about the correct answer only coming from your opinion, then I apologize. (please show me a link, or Fact from some publication though so I can see what the correct answer is myself)

^
|
|
Teh win.

That's the best argument anyone's put forth honestly. The only shortcoming is that it excueses any generally shitty behavior performed by a country because, hey....they just weren't comfortable with it yet. It's okay to discriminate until society is ready to accept you and your practices as human beings.

The only problem is I don't think a majority of the population is coming to accept gay marriage so much as a few judges here and there are trying to win the sympathy vote because people are too afraid to say, "Hey...what the shit?" I mean I did and look what happened here. Right off the bat people started comparing me to Hitler.

I don't doubt in time as marriage loses it's specialness and just becomes another commercialized event in peoples lives that it'll be just a piece of paper you get signed by the court and it will be up to the people to decide what to make of the particular event. In some ways that's good and in some ways it's bad.

Though I wonder why confirmation hasn't caught on. You could have a big party surrounding your child turning 13 and have special decorations and everything! Or maybe it's because society only wants to rape the ceremonies that people can sell catalogs for. Weddings are big business, so why cut off a potential market?

And you jumped all over MY case for just saying homosexuality was deviant behavior?
Um it was an under handed joke. I didnt say KILL THEM ALL. I was making a point that as the generations pass they are less and less "against" gays in general. That really has nothing to do with your comment and I never jumped all over your deviant comment. Where did you get that? I asked you to show me where I said gay wasnt deviant and you didnt so STOP USING IT.

Its like talking with a little kid. BUT BUT you said it I swear!

I dont have any anger or hate towards anyone and honestly I dont know anyone who hates me cause Im gay. My parents are "The Cleavers" and we love each other very much. Its not that they are bad people but their generation has a less tolerant outlook on a lot of things because their parents were even less tolerant and so on back to the Salem Witch Trials.

What does that have to do with your deviant argument again?

The only problem is I don't think a majority of the population is coming to accept gay marriage
Thats what I said but apparently that means I have too much self hatred.

Put all the homesexuals on two islands.

All the men on one island.

All the women on another island.

Let them all be married without the ability to create offspring.

The problem will solve itself :)

but what's your basis DiscW? "I'm special because I believe I'm special." What a crock of shit. News flash, your mommy lied to you.

And your basis for "the bible says I'm special" is just as much a crock of shit to those who aren't christian.

Work's been hell for the last couple of days, so haven't had the time or energy to get back to this thread, but actually, Bowler had something there with his 'left-handed' analogy.

Being left-handed is a condition that is *less* common than homosexuality, is a biological condition (and preference :) )with genetic underpinnings, and is something that was *once* viewed as a serious handicap and an undesirable condition. Sure, being left-handed is (statistically) deviant, but we don't attach a social or 'moral' stigma to it anymore (refer to it as 'deviant' in the perjorative sense).

Sixty years ago, when my mother was in elementary school, children who exhibited left-handedness were forced to write using their right hand. After much training, most lefties *could* learn how to write reasonably well using their right hand (having it entrained at age 6, while some neural plasticity still exists, helps), but nowadays going to such extremes to try to eradicate 'deviance' just seems silly. We just pass out the left-handed scissors and be done with it... :) .

I don't doubt in time as marriage loses it's specialness and just becomes another commercialized event in peoples lives

I find this statement to be rather odd. What makes you think that marriage is any less 'special' because it happens to be between two people of the same sex? Have you been watching the news at all lately? People have been driving to San Francisco from all over the country to get married, and not just for a stunt, but because being married has a *lot* of meaning to many folks. The first marriage sanctioned by SF's mayor was to a lesbian couple (Del and Phyllis) who founded the first support group in that city in the mid 1950s (the Daughters of Bilitis), have been together for *fifty-one* years, and despite half a century of committment to each other, couldn't legally get married to each other until now. I'm guessing that ceremony was pretty darned special to them...

Getting back to the scissors-as-analogy for marriage as an institution with legal benefits, this begs the question, do we pass out the left-handed scissors for folks who need them (if they don't fit your hand, you don't have to use them), reserve scissors for right handed people only, or take away everyone's scissors and force everyone to fold their paper and tear it?

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

That really has nothing to do with your comment and I never jumped all over your deviant comment. Where did you get that? I asked you to show me where I said gay wasnt deviant and you didnt so STOP USING IT.


Let's start from the top, because evidently either you can't read or you choose not to.

Remember this?


Something being a small percentage does not automatically make into deviant behavior. I'm sure you can come up with examples yourself if you think about it.


No, that wasn't you..but you sure rushed up to back up the point:


First example is ... THE WORLD IS ROUND!! The church fought against that statement as they always fight against the truth. Jesus hated their ways and so do I.


The next little gem of yours was in response to me saying:


Homosexuality, since it differs from that norm, is deviant or abnormal.


To which you responded:


Very much like the opinion that the world was flat


Still trying to back up the point Qaman made that homosexuality wasn't deviant just because it wasn't normal.

Then of course we have your best statement in the entire thread, where you say that because I said homosexuality was deviant...


Your using selective thinking to justify thinly veiled intolerance, bigotry and hate.


You don't remember posting that?


Its the "we dont like gays" against the "we dont mind gays"


Here you are saying we don't like gays. Now this could be just directed at winterworg and zhen..but since your previous post told me that I was trying to justify intolerance, bigotry and hate I am going out on a limb and going to say it was for me too.


Seems pretty clear your intent was to link incest/beastiality and homosexuality together using "deviant" as a link.
In fact I reread every post I could find from you in this thread and not once did you say gays should have the same liberties.


Yes, I said incest and beastiality were deviant and that homosexuality was deviant in the same sentence. Toss in the fact that I never said gays should have the same rights anywhere(nevermind that I never argued they should have less rights...or said anything about anybody's rights at all).

So to sum it all up for you Bowler, you started off trying to back up Qaman's claim that I was incorrect in calling homosexuality deviant(in two different posts). Then you move on to saying I am a intolerant, hating bigot because I called homosexuality deviant(it HAS to be for that reason, as that is the only thing I've talked about at all on this thread).

Then(I'm guessing here, but it fits), you realize just how fucking stupid you were in posting those earlier bits and you start trying to justify it: "Oh but you were trying to link homosexuality to incest!".

Finally you end up trying to deny the whole thing ever happened(again, because I'm guessing you realize how stupid your earlier postings were). That's where we are now, the part where you deny it every happened and try to say I'm the bad guy for suggesting you ever said anything like that.

/ponder FronTosa
Did you think that was funny?
It wasn't.

Of course you are "right".
If we remove all homosexuals from society by placing them in concentrationcamps like the third reich did or on islands or whatever, then we will no longer have to face the "problem" that they exist.

What is your point, exactly?

I have nothing other than technical problems with legalizing polygamy.

Bestiality, well, animals are incapable of giving the informed consent that marriage requires.

Incest, I'll leave to the biological arguements. That arguement is insufficient, I'll also admit (non-sexual marriage).

What should the age of informed consent be for a human then? Should I be able to marry an 8 year old?

What should the age of informed consent be for a human then? Should I be able to marry an 8 year old?

Well, if we go by the logic that has been used already, then yes, most definetly.

Hmmmm.....

I'd punt, and say when you are your own guardian (not a ward of the state either), you can choose to get married. However, using one of the many 'adult' thresholds would probably be acceptable.

However, that is a minor technical issue. The problem of when someone is considered an 'adult' is a problem that is outside of the scope of this discussion.

Crist0 has become better at removing things from context (01)

My point about the earth being flat was that although it was not the "traditional" ideal to think it was round, that didnt make it less right. I other words I was AGREEING with you.

My simple point was being deviant does not automatically make it wrong. I was stessing the idea that people and what they "accept" changes over time as we gain more knowledge and lose ignorance and fear.

I didnt say it wasnt "abnormal" I said being abnormal doesnt make it bad. The reason I used the word bigot is because your using the logical premise that abnormal means bad and it doesnt. Its just a less frequent variation.

"Mama Im strange
Im bending, pretending, Im blending Im going insane
And they want me to change
Mama Im strange"
-Melissa Etheridge

I think it's pertinent to this discussion because opinions vary widely on the subject and the only thing stopping an old man from legally having sex with an 8 year old is.... Law. That law is as it is due to the majority wanting it there. Follow the train of thought now. There are minority groups who would love that law changed to allow them to get with kids. There is nothing in the constitution which prohibits them from having sex with kids.

mispost

/agree Winterworg

Here in Sweden the age of consent is 15. Other places have drawn the line at 16, 14 or 18. All these lines are arbitary. There are 13-years-olds who can enjoy sex with the right person without getting damaged by it, and there are also 20-years-olds who are too immature, insecure and easy to manipulate.

And there are predators out there, who aim for the easiest victims they can get away with. I know of one creep who targets 15yearsolds and 16yearsolds. Rape is illegal, but manipulating and pushing is merely immoral. And if it would be made illegal, it would still be impossible to prove in court. He actually did do one illegal thing: trying to convince a 15yearsold girl to become a prostitute. But she didn't get it on tape, and he would simply deny it.

However, he won't touch 14yearsolds. Because then he could get busted. I wouldn't be supprised if he started targeting 8yearsolds if it became legal.

In conclusion, the age limit is bullshit in itself, but we need it as protection against sexual predators. And against random idiots, by the way. I had a 14yearsold girl falling madly in love with me last year. (I'm a 27 years old male IRL.) No matter their age, I think it's wrong to have sex with people who are in love with you when you aren't in love with them. But I know there are a lot of selfish bastards who think it's ok rip someone's heart out, toy with it for a night and then flush it down the toilet. If I had been one of those idiots and the age of consent had been lower, then that girl would have gotten seriously hurt. I have a female friend who had that very same bullshit happen to her when she was 14, and she got quite close to suicide. :(

My question then is why couldn't a group of pedophiles get together and demand their constitutionally protected right to have sex with kids?

And why couldn't a group of massmurderers get together and demand their constitutionally protected right to kill people?

www.choppingblock.org/d/20040217.html (http://www.choppingblock.org/d/20040217.html)

Well as much as I'd like to say thats a good point Edeina, I'm gonna have to say that killing someone is an entirely different issue than whom I marry or have sex with. It's a nice try to tie in a gaybashing site here though in order to equate anyone not supporting gay marriage with them.

using the logical premise that abnormal means bad


Yeah, I think we're just gonna have to leave it at you being a fuckin clueless oversensitive moron and you thinking I'm a bigot.

Clearly(ha) I was wrong and you weren't up in arms because I said homosexuality was deviant..not like you though, you're totally right that I was saying how BAD homosexuality was and how I hate those fuckin gay people and I hope they burn, burn, burn..you know, I meant all of that even though what I said was "homosexuality is deviant/abnormal behavior".

Idiot.

*giggle*

That site is NOT anti-gay in any way. And it's not anti-christian or whatever either. It's just a comic parody featuring a mass murderer. Here's a few good ones.

Canibal on a diet?
www.choppingblock.org/d/20040218.html (http://www.choppingblock.org/d/20040218.html)

Some regret...
www.choppingblock.org/d/20040128.html (http://www.choppingblock.org/d/20040128.html)

Pay Bills? Kill Bills!
www.choppingblock.org/d/20040120.html (http://www.choppingblock.org/d/20040120.html)

Lots of other good ones there too, if you have a sufficiently twisted sense of humor. Oh. And the joke I linked last time. It really have nothing to do with gaybashing. On the contrary, the point is that Butch DOESN'T discriminate. He kill both straights and gays in the same way. Tie the knot, allright.

www.tshirthell.com/shirts...p?sku=a286 (http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/tshirt.php?sku=a286)

Little late but Eh its appropriate.

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

Clearly(ha) I was wrong and you weren't up in arms because I said homosexuality was deviant..not like you though, you're totally right that I was saying how BAD homosexuality was and how I hate those fuckin gay people and I hope they burn, burn, burn..you know, I meant all of that even though what I said was "homosexuality is deviant/abnormal behavior".

Idiot.

Considering you have misconstrued 90% of my posts here its not even remotely astonishing that you exaggerate and try to draw fire from the idea that I simply agreed with you and you confused me with Qaman (lol you even quote him in the post where I was supposed to be quoted).

Really its a non issue. There will be a constitutional amendment and the issue will be over. Our constitution will become a source of removing freedoms instead of giving them.

It wont save marriage, especially here in Nevada. By 2006 over 50% of the population here will choose to remain unmarried. Single mothers will still continue to grow in population with no constitutional amendment to stop that from having an impact the nations children. Dont think having a single parent affect kids lives then you need to get off the gay issue and check with reality.
Gay people getting married is such an unimportant issue compared to other things it makes me laugh. Look around you. Your sacred institution is dying to the tune of 50% divorce rate. Its the straight population thats destroying marriage, not the gays.

I honestly dont care that much about marriage I can get that from other documents for about 500$. Really people there are REAL cultural issues at hand that need attention.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Look around you. Your sacred institution is dying to the tune of 50% divorce rate. <hr></blockquote>

I blame that on stupid women who hook up with the badass and act all surprised when he beats her.

there are REAL cultural issues at hand that need attention.

Marriage, as you say, is broken. Which leads directly to all the broken families. Then we have even worse social problems as a result.

And you gay-marriage people want to drive another nail in its coffin.

Sorry, fix the families (stronger marriages) and you'll have drastically fewer social problems. THAT's why it's the govt's business to see that marriage is protected.

Sorry, fix the families (stronger marriages) and you'll have drastically fewer social problems. THAT's why it's the govt's business to see that marriage is protected.

LOL you think that the government saying "Only straights can marry" is going to fix the marriage/single parent problem? What the heck have you been smoking? The problem is that your proposed solution doesnt even come close to the root of the issue. Perhaps you are reaching for a speck while ignoring the log?

Since gay marriage isnt allowed the current issues with marriage are not connected with it. So what IS the problem? How does not letting men get married make someone elses marriage stronger? How do you legally fix the families? You make it sound like men say "O yea since gays cant marry Im not going to beat my wife tonight."

I blame that on stupid women who hook up with the badass and act all surprised when he beats her.
But two men who actually get along and marry for love is gonna ruin their chance to do that. I see why you support it.

You act as if I think the wife beater is better than two gays getting married. I don't. It's the same result, a broken family.

Legally, yes of course they're different. Replace it with "man who cheats on his wife" if you'd like. That's as legal as being gay.

Explode your gasket on that one.

Edit: clarrified

Two gay men have no effect on families. They dont have kids and I dont believe they should. Children need a man and a woman as role models and as support for challanges. Most kids are straight and need to see the dynamic between husband and wife to develope that skill. A man beating his wife sends messages to his children that women are objects. A man cheating on his wife is no different.
Honestly I dont see the connection.

Gay marriage and gay adoptions/child rearing are 2 seperate issues because one doesnt give the right to the other and I have different opinions on both.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

"Equal, but not equal" or whatever that judge said.

You might stop there, but others won't. They haven't or we wouldn't be talking about it now.

Ohhkay, Zehn has brought up the issue of spousal abuse, and then someone else equates gay marriage to it...

http://s93876412.onlinehome.us/junk/images/explosion.jpg

then someone else equates gay marriage to it...

Nice revision.

You might stop there, but others won't. They haven't or we wouldn't be talking about it now.
The difference is one affects others while gay marriage affects only the people that want it. I can see several logical arguments against gay adoption or child rearing but still after 12 pages not a single one against gay marriage. My logical argument is as follows.

I think that straight parents are ill equipped to raise gay children and I think gay parents are ill equipped to raise straight ones. Granted my parents did the best they could and I love them very much but they didnt have the tools to teach me how to develop relationships just as a gay couple would not have the tools to teach a straight child those same skills.

I think the same issue is a problem with single parents. They can love and care as much as they can but they cant show the child a rolemodel for relationship developement. Does that ruin every child, no but why give them a hardship on purpose.

My bad, you didn't equate them, you equated how bad they are.

My bad, you didn't equate them, you equated how bad they are.
That has to be the most ridiculous statement made in the last few pages. To equate something you have to present at least a minor connection that would make one side of the equation balance with the other. No such thing has been done here.

Ok, I used the wrong word.

Although he did provide a minor connection.(not that I agree with it, but hey)

lol it shouldnt matter to you anyway since you think Im pretending to be gay.

And those morals are based upon your scientific studies, wisdom, your grandfather told you, or you have voices in your head telling you what they are (priceless Amhorach)..

Wow... I got a cross thread reference. Now, if I could just remember saying that...

Now, I just have to say: Ugh... what a read.

Regarding the argument “if two gay people can get married, why not X number of heterosexual people?” or “What is the problem with polygamy, anyhow?”

While there might not be any moral reasons against polygamy (there aren't, really) there are very strong legal reasons not to allow polygamy or multiple partner marriage. The current state of the law defines marriage as an economic contract between two people. There are default rights that are granted when two people enter a legally recognized marriage. The addition of more people into the mix would confuse things horribly. For instance, the rights of inheritance would become very muddled in the case a multiple spouse marriage, unless the laws were changed to suit them.

In another example, the power of attorney granted in marriage (in relation to life support issues, etc) could become very confusing if there were more than just two parties involved. I’ll point to the ongoing case in Florida regarding Terri Schiavo, her husband and her parents. Imagine that situation if there were two husbands with differing views involved. (this case also serves to remind us that the husband can’t remarry, even though his wife is (for all intents and purposes) a vegetable).

I’ve heard it said that granting the rights of marriage to gay couples would “Change the Way Marriage Is Defined”. Granting full legal status to multiple partner marriages would really have to change the way marriage law is defined and written.

Not a bad thing, but I don't see a big push to change the way this part of the law is written.

L2 (I think)
The issue is pushing an agenda on society, not gaining freedom for the poor gay victims of moral tyranny.

Show me the difference. All politics is about pushing an agenda. It just depends on which side of the argument you are standing on:
Freedom for the victims of moral tyrrany!
Or
Down with the insurgent moral rebels!

The fact of the matter is you guys can't come up with any reason why homosexuality differs from incest or beastiality reguarding exceptions to the current laws

Oh? How about consent in the case of animals? But I think that has been beaten to death.

As for incest: Give it enough time, and (due to bad genes) that issue can take care of itself, much like heroin addiction.

Irrelevant. A homosexual couple has no desire to reproduce, so if an incestual couple had no desire either, then they both fill all the same requirements as a homosexual couple. Two consenting adults.

Ok, in that case no problem. However, there are a horde of legal knots involved in an incestuous marriage- much like a polygamous one.

Why can't we marry them? I'm pretty certain you'll find plenty of furries that would disagree with you on this
The minute an animal can vocalize the “I do” and sign the required documentation, all of the current arguments we can offer would be invalidated. Until that time, they can’t consent.

Who gives you the right to change the meaning of a the word. That is in fact what you are doing, if we allow gay couples to get "married" the term marriage will no longer exist

You and Daniel Webster would have been great buddies, I bet. Language changes all the time- allowing gay people to marry might expand or change the word as it is used, but it wont cause it to go away forever. Want an example? Tell me what the root word of “terrific” is, then tell me how the current use of that word reflects its prior popular use.

But I am adamantly against it being called a Marriage. The gay rights people have an agenda thats being seen right here. It is an attempt to forceably change culture using the courts to Ram their values down peoples throats.

Radical change in a culture is seldom popular. I’ll cite banning slavery as an example of this. However, that doesn’t make it WRONG. Also, what is so bad about calling it a marriage? Language changes.

Edeina said this: Like you say, the problem isn't that the animal isn't human but that the animal doesn't have a real choice in the matter

Male animals have a choice to screw human females. Still, as I said, when they can say “I do” and sign the contract, then they can get married.

Nobody here, not a single one has produced an argument that isn't flawed in some major respect…..
The only one that's a strech is beastiality. Even so, that doesn't mean that we should discriminate against incestual or polygamic couples.

There isn’t one, other than for bestiality, which you’ve started to admit

Other than that, there isn’t any real basis to discriminate against polygamy (which is an accepted practice in some other cultures). Still, in the case of polygamy, the current legal status of marriage is not equipped to deal with it- so it is illegal. I’m sure if enough people wanted to change the law, it would change. Or, if some strange happenstance changed the male/female ratio to some very out of whack number, society at large would come around to a multiple partner marriage system quickly. Until then, there really just isn’t any DRIVE to change those laws.

As for incest, as stated, I kind of view that like heroin use. Not terribly smart, and certainly not for me, but other than that… /shrug.

All in all, there are twelve good reasons why gay marrige must never be permitted!

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses,
polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue they
produce children. Infertile couples and old people
can't legally get married because the world needs more
children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children,
since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay
marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 58-hour
just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time
and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks
can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the
courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not
courts, have historically protected the rights of the
minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a
theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are
imposed on the entire counrty. That's why we have only
one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in
the same way that hanging around tall people will make
you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all
kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry
their pets because a dog has legal standing and can
sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never succeed without a male and a
female role model at home. That's why single parents
are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of
society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a
long time, and we could never adapt to new social
norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars, computers,
or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits
as marriage with a different name are better, because
a "separate but equal" institution is always
constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans
worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and
lesbians will.

Nice list Edeina. Made me giggle. Unless of course the homosexual camp thinks that's the actual reasons we don't gay marriage. Then it's very very sad.

Edeina,

Those quips do wonderfully what the movement has already done in the past -- hijack language to control minds.

We already have homophobia -- it's not that you don't like homosexuals -- no no. You're irrationally afraid of them.

It's a topic wonderfully outlined in 1984...control the language and you control thought.

Next up is marriage, soon to be redefined as whatever doesn't offend anybody and renders the term deviod of meaning other than rights of hospital visitation, inheritance, and taxes.

What you'll see happen first is simply abolishing marriage altogether as far as the government is concerned. People will then be left with their marriage before society and god, where it should be anyway.