Homosexual marriage

[Cecilie1200]

I am totally against Gay Marriage and it is not their right to marry. Just like you cannot marry your own child.

Just ask yourself: Who should tell me who I can marry?[/QUOTE]

Disingenuous and obfuscatory. No one is talking about anyone being told whom they can marry. The topic here is which relationships society does and does not sanction. If you need society to give your relationship its official stamp of approval before you consider it to exist, then you are a sad, sad puppy.

If you answer anything other than "Nobody, it's my life, my business" you should seek to reduce the autonomy you have over your own life.

If you're so damned independent and autonomous and consider it your own private business, why the hell are you here arguing that it should be made public business via legalization and governmental endorsement? Inconsistent much?

As for marrying your child... sounds like a 'minor' someone you could not enter into a contract with... or even if they were adult, someone with whom your offspring would have genetic defects due to mising of 'too closely aligned' DNA. Is that really your reasoning regarding gay marriage?

Arguing that pedophiles, the incestuous, and the polyamorous will use homosexual "marriage" as a path-breaker to legalizing their own behaviors has a lot more ground to stand on than comparing homosexual "marriage" to interracial marriage. You can look at advocates of pedophilia, incest, and polyamory right now and see them pointing to homosexual "marriage" advocates and legal decisions as their forebears. On the other hand, race and homosexuality are not even remotely comparable.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Let me borrow from Thomas Sowell on the subject of homosexual "marriage", since I could not possibly improve on his words.

"The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.

Actions and not people. Um, both interracial marriage and homosexual marriage are obviously actions, i.e. the act of making a contract. Yet SCOTUS struck down anti-miscegenation laws, a tradition that went back 300 years, and cited the 14th amendment in doing so. So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with your source, which you didn't cite, on the nature of the 14th amendment.

Gotta love the bicycle analogy. Now that's a bogus analogy. The reason bicycles are not on the freeway is because that would create an unsafe situation. Does gay marriage create an unsafe situation for others?

Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.

Why does anybody care about preserving traditional definitions?

He must have been basing his actions versus people idea on the contention that while race is not chosen, sexuality is. First off, whether sexual preference is a choice or not is not a debate that is settled. Most likely there's a combination of factors. It seems it's more of a choice for some than others. I can neither choose to be attracted to men nor be attracted to most other ethnicities.

Secondly, this is not a valid distinction between gay and interracial marriage. What is outlawed in both cases is not whether a certain kind of person can get married at all, but rather who they can choose from. Anti-miscegenation laws were upheld for a century after the civil war on the premise that, "Well, they can marry their own race too so it's not violating equal protection." But if sexuality is a choice, then they could just choose to like somebody of their own race, right? Similarly, today people say, "Gays can choose somebody of the opposite sex just like straights." Even if I conceded that everything about sexuality is a choice (I don't), the question remains: Why should they have to be restricted like that? Who is harmed?

That impractical attitude is the reason why we have such a high divorce rate. However, I'm not talking in this case about what your marriage is about for you personally. I'm talking about what marriage is about for the purposes of the law. And the law doesn't give a rat's ass if you are happy or in love. That's none of its business.

A high divorce rate is better than people sticking to a marriage they're miserable in.

It always fascinates me that people who are vociferously advocating a complete change in society on the basis of "Some people don't like the way it is" consider "Most people don't want to change it" to be an illegitimate reason.

It's based upon harm to non-consenting parties. People should be allowed to do what they want if and only if nobody is harmed against their consent. Do you have a better standard?

Wrong. If you have a better reason for why society should behave in a certain way than the fact that the majority of the people who make up society want it to be that way, I'd like to hear it. I can promise you that "A small minority of people disagree" is not going to get it done.

Democratic proceses are checked by minority rights because the mob does not always care if they're oppressing a minority. The actions of any group of people, minority or majority, should be outlawed only when people are getting harmed against their consent.

Which is still an utterly irrelevant and incorrect analogy.

LOL. It's not perfect, for reasons explained in the bottom of the source in my last post. But it's A LOT better than the bicycle one.

Yeah, it's a great luxury to have an overwhelming chance of living below the poverty line because you've been convinced that you don't need men and marriage.

I say it's a luxury because it's true that not all women have that choice. Female doctors, lawyers, and pharmacists, for example, do have that choice. They can marry a starving artist or another doctor and will be fine, financially, either way.

What we're talking about is which relationships society recognizes and sanctions, and that's a whole 'nother issue entirely. Any attempt to pretend that the two are the same thing is disingenuous.

What society sanctions should be based upon giving people maximal freedom so long as they do not harm others.

I like how you dismiss things as "irrelevant" based on nothing other than your own personal disagreement with them. You think they're wrong, ergo they're irrelevant and don't require you to address them. Sorry, but no. Also, I will thank you in the future, when purporting to quote the arguments of the opposition, to quote ACTUAL arguments of the opposition, rather than your own snarky paraphrase of what you think their arguments are (ie. "Sex makes Baby Jesus cry"). If you want to argue against that particular argument, then you'd better be prepared to show me an exact citation of when a prominent opponent to homosexual "marriage" said it.

They say what boils down to my "snarky" comments. And obviously I have to address the children argument even though I consider it irrelevant because that's what many people base their opposition to gay marriage upon. Somehow they don't realize that even though their marriage may be mostly about providing an environment for their children, not all marriages need to be about children at all.

The majority is not treating a group differently. It is treating a behavior differently, and it needs no more than the fact that the majority does not wish to endorse that behavior as a reason for them not to do it. Certainly, YOU have no right to set yourself up as the arbiter which they must convince of the acceptability of their reasons. You are nothing but one voter who has been outnumbered at the ballot box, so why should they care if they meet your approval?

My objection is that they're opposing a behavior that harms nobody. The majority is perfectly capable of being irrational and that's why ad populum is a fallacy. As far as I can tell, I am basing my opinion on reason and they are not. If I had argued against anti-miscegenation laws back in the 1950s, or slavery in the 1700s, it would have been the same scenario. My only option is to try to persuade a few people to my side so that people won't continue to be oppressed arbitrarily.

Disingenuous and obfuscatory. No one is talking about anyone being told whom they can marry. The topic here is which relationships society does and does not sanction. If you need society to give your relationship its official stamp of approval before you consider it to exist, then you are a sad, sad puppy.

Obviously that's not the issue for most. The issue is to be treated equally and have equal access to the legal ramifications of a marriage as a contract.

If you're so damned independent and autonomous and consider it your own private business, why the hell are you here arguing that it should be made public business via legalization and governmental endorsement? Inconsistent much?

A marriage is not a government endorsement or public business any more than any other contract. I also have no idea why you find it necessary to take such an abrasive approach to people who disagree with you. Why do you feel so threatened by homosexual marriage?

Arguing that pedophiles, the incestuous, and the polyamorous will use homosexual "marriage" as a path-breaker to legalizing their own behaviors has a lot more ground to stand on than comparing homosexual "marriage" to interracial marriage. You can look at advocates of pedophilia, incest, and polyamory right now and see them pointing to homosexual "marriage" advocates and legal decisions as their forebears.

Silly slippery slope. That's like saying that unveiling women in the middle east would be a pathbreaker to adultery and so they should keep women veiled. I see no problem with polyamorous marriage so long as they don't end up with any special tax breaks (if that's possible) and all involved are consenting adults. The problem with incest is that it would cause deformed babies to be born and thus cause suffering. Pedophilia does not involve consenting adults. The step from interracial to homosexual marriage is a lot smaller because both harm nobody and grant no special rights (as polygamy potentially would).

On the other hand, race and homosexuality are not even remotely comparable.

As explained above, wanting interracial marriage is not based upon who you are racially, but who you're attracted to. It wasn't that Whites had a right Blacks didn't. Whites couldn't marry somebody of another race either. Rather, it was people with a sexual preference for another race that were not granted equal rights. Sound familiar? Some people claim to only be attracted to those of another "race," though I'm not familiar with the label for it. Are people born with a preference for another ethnicity? The parallels are quite close.

 

[Neser Boha]

On the other hand, race and homosexuality are not even remotely comparable.

As a matter of fact, one thing that sexuality and race have in common - and it is quite an important one IMO - is that you don't get to choose them before or after you're born.

I think that is the point previous posters were trying to make in using the example of inter-racial marriage being illegal some time ago.

-------

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents: I am for equality of all and every one. I believe that any couple that wants to get married and enjoy legal benefits connected to that, should be able to. Every couple should be able to enter such fiscally advantageous contract. As long as they are consenting adults, I see no reason why it shouldn't be that way.

When it comes to polygamy, I am not too sure how to approach this issue. I guess if they were all consenting adults entering the contract = relationship willingly, then why not. Whether I am asked the normative question of 'do you think it is right' then I'd answer - it is not right for me, but that doesn't mean it is not right for others. I know we're not discussing polygamy here, but it's been addressed during the discussion. Also, Cecillie addressed pedophiles - obviously, since there is the lack of the other 'consenting adult', there's no way such a relationship can be viewed as normal or even right by the society or the state. 'Consenting adults' is the defining term here.

I guess all the arguments have been beaten to death and beyond by now...

 

[Yukon]

The vile and disgusting display of hatred that I have observed in some of the posts is shocking. The "dinosaur, cave-man" attitude is alive and well. BRAVO my friends you have not let me down !

 

[del]

The vile and disgusting display of hatred that I have observed in some of the posts is shocking. The "dinosaur, cave-man" attitude is alive and well. BRAVO my friends you have not let me down !

shouldn't you be molesting a caribou?

 

[Terral]

Hi Yukon:

Deny homosexuals the right to marry and you deny them a basic human freedom.

Bullony! A true homosexual male or female HAS NEVER BEEN BORN (my thread = ttp://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5491687 = add the ‘h’). Everyone here is the product of exactly one heterosexual male and one heterosexual female, which makes them either a heterosexual male or a heterosexual female. Everybody has the same right to marry a person of the ‘opposite sex,’ so nobody has any ‘rights’ violated at all.

Conservatives have a deep emotional investment in keeping homosexuals repressed through the maintenance of their morals, just as they did in maintaining their moral boundaries underlying racial segregation in the Deep South a generation ago and slavery a century before that.

Bullony! Homosexuality is an abomination to God (Romans 1:21-32), so obviously you will have problems selling your nonsense to God-fearing Christians for whom Christ died!

Conservatism is based on the "strict father" metaphor of morality, in which a wise father (church or political leader) sets the rules, and the children (the people) are disciplined to comply, thereby gaining discipline. Moral boundaries exist in society, in the conservative's view, to maintain social order and discipline, and that is their primary purpose.

You are pretending that depraved people involved with ‘indecent acts’ (Romans 1:27) represent some ‘minority class’ like women and blacks fighting for the right to vote; which is nonsense. Those calling themselves ‘homosexuals’ have the same exact rights as everybody else, except that they want ‘extra rights’ to marry people of the same sex. Then roommates can enter into marriages to obtain the benefits of real married couples working every day to raise the next generation of Americans. Place 100 heterosexual couples on an island and return 100 years later and you will find life, but place 100 homosexual couples (male or female) on the same island and return 100 years later to find no human life at all. Do the fricking math . . .

Compliance to established moral boundaries implies acceptance of the legitimacy of the moral authority figures who established them, and it is this acceptance of the legitimacy of this moral authority that is viewed as the very basis of social order. Hence there is a deep investment in the legitimacy of the moral authority, often presumed to be none other than God himself.

. . . One nation . . . under God . . . Just keep your homosexuality behind closed doors and nobody need be concerned with ‘indecent acts’ done in private. Push this nonsense in our faces and in the faces of my children and grandchildren and expect to have problems . . .

What are your views on homosexual marraiges...are you for or against ?

Those calling themselves homosexuals have the same right to marry anybody of legal age from the opposite sex, just like everybody else. The heterosexuals also have the right to shack up and have consensual sex with most anybody they wish, just like the people calling themselves homosexuals. However, the sanctity of ‘marriage’ is reserved for those people seeking to take on the responsibility of bringing the next generation of our posterity into existence, which has nothing to do with those calling themselves homosexuals only thinking about themselves and their own selfish desires "receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." Romans 1:27.

I really don't care if homos get married but if it will make them happier people why not ?

The homosexuals I knew growing up all died from Aids, which seems about right considering everything written in Romans 1 of God’s Living Word. If men want to lay down with men (sick) and play house like Dick and Jane, then perhaps they can find some way of making themselves all happy inside ‘and’ without all the ‘in-your-face’ nonsense and stupidity. Where can you go to find a civilization dominated by homosexuality? No such thing exists, because homosexuals simply do not reproduce naturally to replace themselves ‘and’ that means new recruits must come from among our children and grandchildren!

In that case, I would much rather your grand kids be turned over to a ‘depraved mind’ (Romans 1:28) than mine . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[catzmeow]

Bullony! A true homosexual male or female HAS NEVER BEEN BORN (my thread = ttp://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5491687 = add the ‘h’). Everyone here is the product of exactly one heterosexual male and one heterosexual female, which makes them either a heterosexual male or a heterosexual female. Everybody has the same right to marry a person of the ‘opposite sex,’ so nobody has any ‘rights’ violated at all.

I may have to give out more rep so I can red-dot this idiot again.

 

[Yukon]

Terral,

PRAISE JESUS !

 

[Shogun]

hey Terral...

 

[AllieBaba]

Homos aren't born and there's no evidence that exists to prove they are.

 

[Yukon]

AllieBaba,

Are you homosexual?

 

[Valerie]

Homos aren't born and there's no evidence that exists to prove they are.

I think this qualifies for the idiotic thread.


I'm guessing you meant to say they aren't born "that way". And you have proof that they aren't? Allie, are you born preferring chocolate over vanilla.......or blue over red....a preference for jazz over heavy metal, etc?

What about preferring to use your left hand over your right?

You get my point? We're each unique individuals who deserve equal respect as human beings. Gays don't just "choose" to be attracted to people of the same sex so people can treat them like shit all their lives. It is simply who they are.

 

[Valerie]

Allie, a repeat from the other thread where you ignored my post.

Gay couples do not have the right to file joint tax returns. They may not be able to visit their spouse in the hospital or make medical decisions if the spouse is incapable. Gay people do not have the right to their spouse's Social Security or retirement. The list goes on and on.

The biggest difference is that gay people cannot serve in the military. Don't ask, don't tell is a joke. How can gay people be considered citizens of this country when they cannot have the honor of serving our military and our country?

The right to file a joint tax return is a tax privilege, not a civil and inalienable right. They are actually able to see their spouses in the hospital, so that's an erroneous example. Social Security and access to retirement: see above re: privileges not civil rights.

Gay people can't serve "openly" in the military. That's not a civil right, either, though.



I hate soundbites, and this one doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Your rights only exist to the extent they are enforced by the Courts and by the government.

And if the rights of gay people are not enforced, they do not exist.

So what don't *you* get?

What are you talking about?

It's about equality under the law. The law allows special tax privileges to married couples, the law provides social security benefits to married couples, the law provides automatic health benefits for spouses, the law provides automatic property & inheritance rights by virtue of marital status alone, the law provides health visitation by virtue of marital status alone. Homosexuals couples are denied this special status.

Granted, inheritance & property rights and hospital visitation can become "equal" for homosexuals by virtue of hiring a lawyer to make things equal, which costs money, therefore not really "equal" status.

It's true homosexual civil rights are already protected, but "equality under the law" does not exist for these couples.

You could find a Unitarian Universalist Church to "marry" a homosexual couple even if the state does not legally recognize the marriage. The states do not deny their "right", but it's a religious ceremony and nothing else.

In those states where gay marriage (or civil union) IS recognized by the state, the inheritance rights and the visitation equality are there, the health care coverage is there, but still no social security is provided and that is still inequality under the law.

 

[Sunni Man]

Homos aren't born and there's no evidence that exists to prove they are.

I think this qualifies for the idiotic thread.


I'm guessing you meant to say they aren't born "that way". And you have proof that they aren't? Allie, are you born preferring chocolate over vanilla.......or blue over red....a preference for jazz over heavy metal, etc?

What about preferring to use your left hand over your right?

You get my point? We're each unique individuals who deserve equal respect as human beings. Gays don't just "choose" to be attracted to people of the same sex so people can treat them like shit all their lives. It is simply who they are.

Homosexuals, just like rapists or child molesters, have chosen that lifestyle..

These people are not born child molesters or rapists.

They have developed a perverted mind that tells them it's OK, and "choose" to act on their perversions.

Same with homosexuals.

 

[N4mddissent]

Hi Yukon:

Deny homosexuals the right to marry and you deny them a basic human freedom.

Bullony! A true homosexual male or female HAS NEVER BEEN BORN (my thread = ttp://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5491687 = add the ‘h’). Everyone here is the product of exactly one heterosexual male and one heterosexual female, which makes them either a heterosexual male or a heterosexual female. Everybody has the same right to marry a person of the ‘opposite sex,’ so nobody has any ‘rights’ violated at all.

Conservatives have a deep emotional investment in keeping homosexuals repressed through the maintenance of their morals, just as they did in maintaining their moral boundaries underlying racial segregation in the Deep South a generation ago and slavery a century before that.

Bullony! Homosexuality is an abomination to God (Romans 1:21-32), so obviously you will have problems selling your nonsense to God-fearing Christians for whom Christ died!



You are pretending that depraved people involved with ‘indecent acts’ (Romans 1:27) represent some ‘minority class’ like women and blacks fighting for the right to vote; which is nonsense. Those calling themselves ‘homosexuals’ have the same exact rights as everybody else, except that they want ‘extra rights’ to marry people of the same sex. Then roommates can enter into marriages to obtain the benefits of real married couples working every day to raise the next generation of Americans. Place 100 heterosexual couples on an island and return 100 years later and you will find life, but place 100 homosexual couples (male or female) on the same island and return 100 years later to find no human life at all. Do the fricking math . . .



. . . One nation . . . under God . . . Just keep your homosexuality behind closed doors and nobody need be concerned with ‘indecent acts’ done in private. Push this nonsense in our faces and in the faces of my children and grandchildren and expect to have problems . . .

What are your views on homosexual marraiges...are you for or against ?

Those calling themselves homosexuals have the same right to marry anybody of legal age from the opposite sex, just like everybody else. The heterosexuals also have the right to shack up and have consensual sex with most anybody they wish, just like the people calling themselves homosexuals. However, the sanctity of ‘marriage’ is reserved for those people seeking to take on the responsibility of bringing the next generation of our posterity into existence, which has nothing to do with those calling themselves homosexuals only thinking about themselves and their own selfish desires "receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." Romans 1:27.

I really don't care if homos get married but if it will make them happier people why not ?

The homosexuals I knew growing up all died from Aids, which seems about right considering everything written in Romans 1 of God’s Living Word. If men want to lay down with men (sick) and play house like Dick and Jane, then perhaps they can find some way of making themselves all happy inside ‘and’ without all the ‘in-your-face’ nonsense and stupidity. Where can you go to find a civilization dominated by homosexuality? No such thing exists, because homosexuals simply do not reproduce naturally to replace themselves ‘and’ that means new recruits must come from among our children and grandchildren!

In that case, I would much rather your grand kids be turned over to a ‘depraved mind’ (Romans 1:28) than mine . . .

GL,

Terral

Don't make your argument on the back of the writings of quasi-literate, pre-enlightenment desert dwellers who didn't even understand that germs cause disease. That's not a good source for your biological assertions.

 

[Terral]

Hi N4m:

Don't make your argument on the back of the writings of quasi-literate, pre-enlightenment desert dwellers who didn't even understand that germs cause disease. That's not a good source for your biological assertions.

If you do not believe God and His Living Word, then nothing in any of my posts is directed at you. You present your case and I will present mine and everyone can decide for themselves. 1Corinthians 11:19. There are no homosexuals in my kingdom, because,

“Every morning I will destroy all the wicked of the land, So as to cut off from the city of the Lord all those who do iniquity.” Psalm 101:8.

GL,

Terral

 

[Sunni Man]

Hi Yukon:

Deny homosexuals the right to marry and you deny them a basic human freedom.

Bullony! A true homosexual male or female HAS NEVER BEEN BORN (my thread = ttp://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5491687 = add the ‘h’). Everyone here is the product of exactly one heterosexual male and one heterosexual female, which makes them either a heterosexual male or a heterosexual female. Everybody has the same right to marry a person of the ‘opposite sex,’ so nobody has any ‘rights’ violated at all.



Bullony! Homosexuality is an abomination to God (Romans 1:21-32), so obviously you will have problems selling your nonsense to God-fearing Christians for whom Christ died!



You are pretending that depraved people involved with ‘indecent acts’ (Romans 1:27) represent some ‘minority class’ like women and blacks fighting for the right to vote; which is nonsense. Those calling themselves ‘homosexuals’ have the same exact rights as everybody else, except that they want ‘extra rights’ to marry people of the same sex. Then roommates can enter into marriages to obtain the benefits of real married couples working every day to raise the next generation of Americans. Place 100 heterosexual couples on an island and return 100 years later and you will find life, but place 100 homosexual couples (male or female) on the same island and return 100 years later to find no human life at all. Do the fricking math . . .



. . . One nation . . . under God . . . Just keep your homosexuality behind closed doors and nobody need be concerned with ‘indecent acts’ done in private. Push this nonsense in our faces and in the faces of my children and grandchildren and expect to have problems . . .



Those calling themselves homosexuals have the same right to marry anybody of legal age from the opposite sex, just like everybody else. The heterosexuals also have the right to shack up and have consensual sex with most anybody they wish, just like the people calling themselves homosexuals. However, the sanctity of ‘marriage’ is reserved for those people seeking to take on the responsibility of bringing the next generation of our posterity into existence, which has nothing to do with those calling themselves homosexuals only thinking about themselves and their own selfish desires "receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." Romans 1:27.

I really don't care if homos get married but if it will make them happier people why not ?

The homosexuals I knew growing up all died from Aids, which seems about right considering everything written in Romans 1 of God’s Living Word. If men want to lay down with men (sick) and play house like Dick and Jane, then perhaps they can find some way of making themselves all happy inside ‘and’ without all the ‘in-your-face’ nonsense and stupidity. Where can you go to find a civilization dominated by homosexuality? No such thing exists, because homosexuals simply do not reproduce naturally to replace themselves ‘and’ that means new recruits must come from among our children and grandchildren!

In that case, I would much rather your grand kids be turned over to a ‘depraved mind’ (Romans 1:28) than mine . . .

GL,

Terral

Don't make your argument on the back of the writings of quasi-literate, pre-enlightenment desert dwellers who didn't even understand that germs cause disease. That's not a good source for your biological assertions.

Actually, they did understand grems and disease.

The Old Testament has guidelines for sanitation and health.

For instance to wash with water and then isolate your self from the community for a certain number of days after you had touched a dead body or diseased animal.

To dig a hole away from town for defacation and then to cover the hole when finished.

Or to wash your hands before eating.

In fact there is a complete section devoted to hygenic practices.

 

[manifold]

Like I said before, I don't know why anyone who's not gay would give a shit if two homos wanted to get married.

And now I add, whether they were born that way or developed perverted tendencies (as sunni suggests) doesn't make a bit of difference. Either way, they're not bothering me so why should I give a shit?

But as far as that other thread is concerned, it is my business when they feel entitled to preach their propaganda to my children.

 

[Ravi]

Like I said before, I don't know why anyone who's not gay would give a shit if two homos wanted to get married.

And now I add, whether they were born that way or developed perverted tendencies (as sunni suggests) doesn't make a bit of difference. Either way, they're not bothering me so why should I give a shit?

But as far as that other thread is concerned, it is my business when they feel entitled to preach their propaganda to my children.

Are you against sex education in general?

 

[manifold]

Like I said before, I don't know why anyone who's not gay would give a shit if two homos wanted to get married.

And now I add, whether they were born that way or developed perverted tendencies (as sunni suggests) doesn't make a bit of difference. Either way, they're not bothering me so why should I give a shit?

But as far as that other thread is concerned, it is my business when they feel entitled to preach their propaganda to my children.

Are you against sex education in general?

No