Homosexual marriage very unethical.

[Gunny]

No one is denying that interracial marriage as allowed in the 60s was between a man and a woman. That is why this is an analogy.

Analogy: noun. a comparison between one thing and another made to explain or clarify.
AskOxford: analogy

An analogy doesn't depend on the actual similarity between components of distinct circumstances, but on the relation of these components to one another. Just like the ban on interracial marriages did not provide equal rights to mixed race couples, the ban on gay marriage doesn't provide equal rights to gay couples. If the mixed race question were the same as the gay question, it would cease to be an analogy, it would be identical.

There is NO analogy. You are comparing apples to oranges. Race is scientifically proven to be hereditary. The only actual proof of homosexuality is behavior. The former inherent and not a choice, the latter a choice.

I see you cherrypicked definitions until you found one you liked.

Analogy:

1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.

Dictionary.com

Analogies compare similarities. The similarity does not exist in the reason for deny gay marriage and denying interracial marriage.

So much for that.

Again, gays are denied no rights anyone else is. A special law that caters to a behavior is exclusive to that behavior, and in fact gives gays MORE rights than heterosexuals or any other group that wishes special legislation based solely on their behavior.

 

[ReillyT]

There is NO analogy. You are comparing apples to oranges. Race is scientifically proven to be hereditary. The only actual proof of homosexuality is behavior. The former inherent and not a choice, the latter a choice.

I see you cherrypicked definitions until you found one you liked.



Analogies compare similarities. The similarity does not exist in the reason for deny gay marriage and denying interracial marriage.

So much for that.

Again, gays are denied no rights anyone else is. A special law that caters to a behavior is exclusive to that behavior, and in fact gives gays MORE rights than heterosexuals or any other group that wishes special legislation based solely on their behavior.

Little quiz.

An apple is to a pome fruit as an orange is to a _____ fruit.

Race is clearly hereditary. Is attraction to someone of another race also hereditary? I don't know. Is attraction to someone of the other sex hereditary? I don't know. Does it make a difference? No.

The Loving court noted that just because everyone has the same technical right (the right to marry someone of the same race), this is not equality. It looked beyond silly and technical definitions that have the effect of discriminating against people on the basis of race, just as current efforts exist to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation.

If you want to insist that marriage is between a man and a woman, then do so on moral grounds where at least your logic is not overturned by legal theories. Let your position be without logic, but only based upon what you believe is right. There is nothing wrong with a purely moral stance. That is respectable, no matter how much I may disagree with it. However, know that you are on the losing side of this battle. The tide has by and large turned, and subsequent generations will likely view your stance in the same manner we view the stance of the State of Virginia in 1967.

 

[Gunny]

Little quiz.

An apple is to a pome fruit as an orange is to a _____ fruit.

Race is clearly hereditary. Is attraction to someone of another race also hereditary? I don't know. Is attraction to someone of the other sex hereditary? I don't know. Does it make a difference? No.

It most certainly makes a difference. Heredity is not a choice. Behavior is. Punishing people for their heredity is obviously wrong. Punishing people for their behavior is pretty common. They have a choice to conform to society. Creating special legislation based on people's behavior begs the question "What next?" After all, it doesn't make a difference to you.

The Loving court noted that just because everyone has the same technical right (the right to marry someone of the same race), this is not equality. It looked beyond silly and technical definitions that have the effect of discriminating against people on the basis of race, just as current efforts exist to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation.

If you want to insist that marriage is between a man and a woman, then do so on moral grounds where at least your logic is not overturned by legal theories. Let your position be without logic, but only based upon what you believe is right. There is nothing wrong with a purely moral stance. That is respectable, no matter how much I may disagree with it. However, know that you are on the losing side of this battle. The tide has by and large turned, and subsequent generations will likely view your stance in the same manner we view the stance of the State of Virginia in 1967.

Sorry, but I disagree with your legal argument because it ignores the facts in favor of an agenda.

I never claimed I was on the winning or losing side of anything. I'm exposing the falaciousness of your argument. It is based on calling irrelevant comparisons analogies, and claiming gays don't have the rights everyone else does, and it is creating special law for a specific behavior.

As I pointed out earlier, I was a Democrat back when Democrats actually stood for something and were more conservative than Republicans are today. I'm well-aware our nation and society is sliding to the left right into the shitter. I've watched it happen. My stances have remained fairly consistent over the years. But I've watched the political spectrum keep going left until I've gone from hippy liberal to conservative in 30 years without moving a bit.

I'm not concerned about what subsequent generations think or believe. This Nation won't exist much longer anyway. It will go the way all democracies have gone. So far to the left that it doesn't even know how to defend itself anymore.

It's already not the nation I grew up in, nor even the nation I served. I'd think twice about serving this nation nowadays because there are just too many people that don't deserve the protection.

 

[Abelian Sea]

The case in California bothers me, despite the fact that it is in my interest in that it expands my options.

Partially it's the "judiciary making rules vs. the legistature making rules," which reeks of antidemocratic aristocracy, but division of power is the central wisdom of our system, even if it sometimes curtails the power of the majority. The question of whether the courts are constitutionally in their rights to make this change is bewildering to me and I'm perfectly happy to leave that question up to wiser old codgers.

What really bothers me is that marriage is, really, far more than a legal construct. It is more than a religious construct, too. It is such an ancient and universal institution - older than any government, older than any religion, older than any society - that I am, frankly, a bit in awe of it, and it makes me uncomfortable that we're tinkering so deeply with it.

And I do think we're tinkering pretty deeply with it. I'm not terribly impressed with the comparison to inter-racial marriarge. First, I think this change is far more fundamental; the implicit relationship between marriage and the biological family unit is pretty integral. Second, it doesn't really speak to the core of my discontent; exogamy may not be a historical constant of the institution, but the precedent for it is as ancient as the institution itself.

I don't know *shakes head*; I'm not going to sit here and proclaim that this will destroy America or draw down the scorn of the gods or anything; hell, if it propagates to and survives in my neck of the woods I may one day avail myself of it (like the opportunistic human I am).

It does bother me, though, and I feel that there's something disingenuous about being flippant about it.

 

[AtlasShrieked]

I must say, for the State of California to legalize Homosexual marriage,I think is very wrong.

Marriage is a special union between a Man and a Woman,that results in the creation of a family ,with children,eventually being added to expand the family.This is what God instructed us to do in the Garden of Eden.

nope. it's a civil ceremony people want recognized by the state so that they can get secular benefits. any religious overtones are not the place of government

Homosexual marriage, does not allow for any creation of offspring or children.

artificial insemination and surrogates

Yes, many say they can adopt, and also have a family,but it can not compare
to a Male Female marriage relationship, that reproduces a biological offspring,or extension of the married male and female couple.

In closing, I must say,not only is a Homosexual marriage viewed as blasphemous, in the eyes of God, it is, I feel, highly unethical and sinfull.
America may be damed by God himself for this sacrilage.

this god you speak of should be worrying about other things like rapists, murderers, plagues, sex with children, war, famine...I hardly think marriage is a high priority for a creator type,

 

[dilloduck]

The case in California bothers me, despite the fact that it is in my interest in that it expands my options.

Partially it's the "judiciary making rules vs. the legistature making rules," which reeks of antidemocratic aristocracy, but division of power is the central wisdom of our system, even if it sometimes curtails the power of the majority. The question of whether the courts are constitutionally in their rights to make this change is bewildering to me and I'm perfectly happy to leave that question up to wiser old codgers.

What really bothers me is that marriage is, really, far more than a legal construct. It is more than a religious construct, too. It is such an ancient and universal institution - older than any government, older than any religion, older than any society - that I am, frankly, a bit in awe of it, and it makes me uncomfortable that we're tinkering so deeply with it.

And I do think we're tinkering pretty deeply with it. I'm not terribly impressed with the comparison to inter-racial marriarge. First, I think this change is far more fundamental; the implicit relationship between marriage and the biological family unit is pretty integral. Second, it doesn't really speak to the core of my discontent; exogamy may not be a historical constant of the institution, but the precedent for it is as ancient as the institution itself.

I don't know *shakes head*; I'm not going to sit here and proclaim that this will destroy America or draw down the scorn of the gods or anything; hell, if it propagates to and survives in my neck of the woods I may one day avail myself of it (like the opportunistic human I am).

It does bother me, though, and I feel that there's something disingenuous about being flippant about it.

So prior to law and religion isn't the nature of the way men and women related to each other primarily just a means of survival ?

 

[Abelian Sea]

So prior to law and religion isn't the nature of the way men and women related to each other primarily just a means of survival ?

Survival and basic human nature, and that seems to have given rise to the general institution of marriage, with various variations and particulars imposed by various societies - none of them, as far as I've heard, including explicit homosexual marriage, even in societies relatively accepting of homosexuality.

Note that I am not trying to express some rational argument about how marriage should be handled by this particular nation at this particular time. I'm just trying to express my intuitive discomfort with the idea of gay marriage.

 

[AtlasShrieked]

The case in California bothers me, despite the fact that it is in my interest in that it expands my options.

Partially it's the "judiciary making rules vs. the legistature making rules," which reeks of antidemocratic aristocracy, but division of power is the central wisdom of our system, even if it sometimes curtails the power of the majority. The question of whether the courts are constitutionally in their rights to make this change is bewildering to me and I'm perfectly happy to leave that question up to wiser old codgers.

What really bothers me is that marriage is, really, far more than a legal construct. It is more than a religious construct, too. It is such an ancient and universal institution - older than any government, older than any religion, older than any society - that I am, frankly, a bit in awe of it, and it makes me uncomfortable that we're tinkering so deeply with it.

And I do think we're tinkering pretty deeply with it. I'm not terribly impressed with the comparison to inter-racial marriarge. First, I think this change is far more fundamental; the implicit relationship between marriage and the biological family unit is pretty integral. Second, it doesn't really speak to the core of my discontent; exogamy may not be a historical constant of the institution, but the precedent for it is as ancient as the institution itself.

I don't know *shakes head*; I'm not going to sit here and proclaim that this will destroy America or draw down the scorn of the gods or anything; hell, if it propagates to and survives in my neck of the woods I may one day avail myself of it (like the opportunistic human I am).

It does bother me, though, and I feel that there's something disingenuous about being flippant about it.

t really bothers me is that marriage is, really, far more than a legal construct. It is more than a religious construct, too. It is such an ancient and universal institution - older than any government, older than any religion, older than any society - that I am, frankly, a bit in awe of it, and it makes me uncomfortable that we're tinkering so deeply with it.

where is this coming from? marriage ceremonies are not older than religion and marriage is not older than government. I am pretty sure polygamy was a way humans formed families.

marriage or monogamy or what...are you talking about?

how does one tinker with marriage? your marriage is none of my business...unless yoiu ask the government to recognize it...then it is everyone's business. that is why a married person can get taken to court by a spouse or the government

 

[AtlasShrieked]

Survival and basic human nature, and that seems to have given rise to the general institution of marriage, with various variations and particulars imposed by various societies - none of them, as far as I've heard, including explicit homosexual marriage, even in societies relatively accepting of homosexuality.

Note that I am not trying to express some rational argument about how marriage should be handled by this particular nation at this particular time. I'm just trying to express my intuitive discomfort with the idea of gay marriage.

homo marriage does not pretend to be about survival though it can be: artificial insemination .

science!

 

[dilloduck]

where is this coming from? marriage ceremonies are not older than religion and marriage is not older than government. I am pretty sure polygamy was a way humans formed families.

marriage or monogamy or what...are you talking about?

how does one tinker with marriage? your marriage is none of my business...unless yoiu ask the government to recognize it...then it is everyone's business. that is why a married person can get taken to court by a spouse or the government

male and female relationships are older than any institution. Homosexual relationships are most likely just as old. THEN the "tinkering" and labeling began.

 

[Abelian Sea]

marriage ceremonies are not older than religion and marriage is not older than government.

Perhaps not in a general sense, in that societies with some kind of formal marriage probably had some kind of religion and government going on, too. What I was getting at is that it is older than any specific religion or government that we've ever heard of (and in particular older than our current government and religions).

I am pretty sure polygamy was a way humans formed families.

Yes, that is one variation of marriage practiced by many societies throughout history. If the case ruling were about polygamous marriages, it would not have caused the same gut reaction in me (or, at least, not one from quite so deep).

marriage or monogamy or what...are you talking about?

Marriage.

how does one tinker with marriage? your marriage is none of my business...unless yoiu ask the government to recognize it...then it is everyone's business.

You answered your own question.

homo marriage does not pretend to be about survival though it can be: artificial insemination .

science!

I acknowledge that my (extremely-)old-fashioned, basically irrational sentiment may well be out of place in this day and age.

Indeed, I think our society is capable of handling gay marriage, and as a practical matter I'm not going to go out and protest it, and may even take advantage of it one day.

That doesn't mean I have no misgivings at all about it, though. It strikes me as an awfully fundamental change, and my bones are a bit nervous about it.

 

[My Winter Storm]

I must say, for the State of California to legalize Homosexual marriage,I think is very wrong.

Just what does homosexuality have to do with you, though?

Marriage is a special union between a Man and a Woman,that results in the creation of a family ,with children,eventually being added to expand the family.This is what God instructed us to do in the Garden of Eden.

I don't believe in God, therefore, your religious beliefs mean nothing.

Homosexual marriage, does not allow for any creation of offspring or children.
Yes, many say they can adopt, and also have a family,but it can not compare
to a Male Female marriage relationship, that reproduces a biological offspring,or extension of the married male and female couple.

Infertile heterosexual couples cannot procreate eithor, yet we still allow them to marry - why is that?
There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals make worse parents than heterosexuals, so your argument is useless.

In closing, I must say,not only is a Homosexual marriage viewed as blasphemous, in the eyes of God, it is, I feel, highly unethical and sinfull.
America may be damed by God himself for this sacrilage.

Once again, your religious beliefs apply only to YOU, not to me.

 

[Diuretic]

I must say, for the State of California to legalize Homosexual marriage,I think is very wrong.

Marriage is a special union between a Man and a Woman,that results in the creation of a family ,with children,eventually being added to expand the family.This is what God instructed us to do in the Garden of Eden.

Homosexual marriage, does not allow for any creation of offspring or children.
Yes, many say they can adopt, and also have a family,but it can not compare
to a Male Female marriage relationship, that reproduces a biological offspring,or extension of the married male and female couple.

In closing, I must say,not only is a Homosexual marriage viewed as blasphemous, in the eyes of God, it is, I feel, highly unethical and sinfull.
America may be damed by God himself for this sacrilage.

Since marriage is defined by law I have to say you are absolutely wrong in all our premises therefore any conclusion you reach is wrong.

Marriage is a human invention, a social phenomenon that has been recognised for thousands of years as a legal contract. True, some marriages are solemnised by religious figures in religious situations but unless they are recognised by the secular law they have no validity as marriages.

So, marriage is (a) what we say it is and (b) what we recognise as legally binding on all the parties.

Any questions?

 

[editec]

News Flash!​

Gays legally marry in California.

Heterosexual married couples in California remain intact.

God, who has not yet smote the wicked, remains unavailable for comment.

 

[AtlasShrieked]

male and female relationships are older than any institution. Homosexual relationships are most likely just as old. THEN are the "tinkering" and labeling began.

big problem way back that gay thing. why else so many old laws (religious) warning men not to be gay?

 

[Shogun]

I see a lot of the same arguements being used as were being thrown around in the last thread having to do with california gay marriages. Indeed, looks like my prediction of an eventual scotus event is well on it's way to becoming reality. goddamn im good.

 

[AtlasShrieked]

Perhaps not in a general sense, in that societies with some kind of formal marriage probably had some kind of religion and government going on, too. What I was getting at is that it is older than any specific religion or government that we've ever heard of (and in particular older than our current government and religions).

I'd think it was not older than any government or religion because what relationships were like way back most likely would repulse civilized puritans like yourself.

lol

Yes, that is one variation of marriage practiced by many societies throughout history. If the case ruling were about polygamous marriages, it would not have caused the same gut reaction in me (or, at least, not one from quite so deep).

the gut reaction against gay marriage is based on irrational and silly beliefs most of us have.

I acknowledge that my (extremely-)old-fashioned, basically irrational sentiment may well be out of place in this day and age.

Indeed, I think our society is capable of handling gay marriage, and as a practical matter I'm not going to go out and protest it, and may even take advantage of it one day.

That doesn't mean I have no misgivings at all about it, though. It strikes me as an awfully fundamental change, and my bones are a bit nervous about it.

nervous nelly? you? hahahahahaha!

upon reflection, awfully fundamental change is a bit overblown don't you think? gays have been couples for ages now. our nation is so young. we and other nations are dealing with it like we did with slavery. it was always going to come to this. only with slavery...there was a fundamental change. gays getting married will not effect things that much. it may help lawyers and others involved in marriage and divorce, but not most people

 

[AtlasShrieked]

I see a lot of the same arguements being used as were being thrown around in the last thread having to do with california gay marriages. Indeed, looks like my prediction of an eventual scotus event is well on it's way to becoming reality. goddamn im good.

good? captain obvious has taken the lead.

 

[Shogun]

too bad you were not here to throw in your lot during the first thread about California's gay marriage issue. You might be surprised to note how many people on this board were not thinking these three steps ahead.

 

[AtlasShrieked]

too bad you were not here to throw in your lot during the first thread about California's gay marriage issue. You might be surprised to note how many people on this board were not thinking these three steps ahead.

I would not be surprised. I was there with Massachusetts and saw with my own eyes the stupidity of people with (supposedly) college degrees.

the lack of critical thinking skills will sink the future of America more than any gay marriage or oil/gas costs.

I hope Bill and Melinda Gates are on the right track and on time with their educational foundation grants