Should Same Sex Marriage Be Allowed?

[SpecialForces]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

You call it an illness, but I call it a variation. Perhaps it's a genetic variation, perhaps not. But it is certainly occuring and has been for all of recorded history.

 

In fact, why would you want to have sex with someone of an opposite gender? You only need to reproduce a few times in your life, but I would hazard a guess that you might consider "mating" more times than that, perhaps even after you've had all the offspring you want.

 

The answer, quite simply is pleasure.

 

* SpecialF., please tone down the slurs. -- SkinWalker

 

I hate when you make a good point

 

but they shouldnt get married...

and I still call it an illness.

 

whats a slur?

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Here's what I mean: it's the same people that espouse radical feminism (don't get me wrong, I think women's rights are awesome and absolutely essential - just not some of the extremist agendas), the homosexual agenda, and incredible degrees of moral relativism.

 

I'm VERY interested in hearing an example of an 'extreme' feminism 'agenda'...

 

If a woman does the same job as a man, then they should get paid the same wage... Does that seem extreme to you?

...it did seem too much for many religious groups - using the defense of 'it will harm the family unit'.

 

...it's one thing for a church to 'suggest' to it's members that the woman should stay at home and mind the kids -and get the dinner ready for her bread-winning husband. I may personally think those kinds of 'pigeon-hole' attitudes should have completely died back in the 60's. But if a particular religion wants to preach that to it's members - go right ahead - I don't mind...

 

...but to protest against it on a 'law of the land' level - and thereby trying to enforce their moral judgements onto ordinary citizens who have professed no belief in their particular religion and who just want to be treated fairly as individual human beings - well - it's offensive and rediculous...

 

and I still call it an illness.

 

please define your understanding of the word 'illness' and then explain how homosexuality would fall under the catagory of an illness. We've already been through this before in other threads, but I guess progress can only be made SO fast... :/

 

If thats not the case and you like your own sex, you must have been abused, raped, or have grown up in some way that damaged the way you think and behave.

 

LOL.

 

You either need to grow up, or get out more.

 

This myth that gay people are created by some kind of abuse of 'unhappiness' during childhood would be funny, if the insinuations caused by them weren't so serious.

 

If you actually open your eyes, it won't take you long to realise that there are many, many, many homosexuals who are prefectly happy, well adjusted individuals as 'normal' (whatever the hell that means) as your likely to meet.

 

..sure, there are quite a number who aren't exactly happy with their lot! But would you be, with the kind of rubbish that is being said about you?! Like the kinds of things that are posted on forums like these...?!

 

..it doesn't take a genius to work it out...

[ShockV1.89]

On the subject of radical feminists, to be perfectly fair, there are some weirdos out there. There's a group at my school (SUNY New Paltz) that sets up every now and then and starts telling (through a megaphone) everyone about all the injustices heaped upon women by men. It wouldn't be so bad, but they push for women to have HIGHER wages than men, and MORE political power, because "men have shown that they cannot run this world, and women have consistently displayed superior qualitys!"

 

So yes, they are weird. But there's weirdos in every circle.

 

I'm just waiting for MK to reply. I'm curious to see what he says.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

...but they push for women to have HIGHER wages than men, and MORE political power, because "men have shown that they cannot run this world, and women have consistently displayed superior qualitys!"

 

OK - if that is indeed what 'extreme' femamism is, then ok, I admit that is not right or correct. Any wages should be based on the abilities of the indiviual regardless of their sex - period.

 

Unfortunately, when a particular demographic have been unjustly treated and then this mistreatment has been recognised and 'corrected' by the majority, there will be some who still hold a grudge against all the injustices of the past and STILL want more 'payback'.

 

In one sense, I can't really blame some people for these attitudes. After all, were not talking about minor injustices here...

 

But anyway, we can't let these kinds of 'back-lashes' effect whether what happenned before WAS actually an injustice.

 

Women not recieving equal pay WAS wrong. THe fact that there are some women who can't let go of the past and who now want the inequality to go the other way shouldn't distract from the fact that the way it was before WAS wrong...

 

It's the same deal with the homosexual issue. Just because there can and will be extremists on BOTH sides of this argument, doesn't mean the central issue can't be discussed in a sensible manner.

 

...and to brand 'equal' or 'human' rights - in and of itself - as an 'extreme' issue, in ANY way, is a bit of a cop-out to try and avoid the actual issues imo...

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by SpecialForces

I hate when you make a good point

 

but they shouldnt get married...

and I still call it an illness.

 

whats a slur?

 

A slur is an insult.

 

Ah, but it should also work in reverse. However, if we had a straight parade today, how many cries of bigotry and anti-gay would you hear? It's a double standard, and one I am not very pleased with for one...

 

It's a double standard for both, you have to understand. I'm sure if we had a gay parade today, you'd hear many cries and protests against homosexuality.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by Darklighter

I don't like it that you're referring to them as if they are completely different people. We are all human beings, we all have different views and thoughts on certain subject...this one just happens to be sexuality. Well, what about someone who was asexual. Would you condemn them as "abnormal" because they didn't conform to the stereotype that they must be attracted to the oppositw sex?

 

I never meant it that way. You misinterpreted it. Sorry...I'll try be a little more politically correct next time;)

 

Oh and extreme feminism is bad...very bad...hey it's not like any man tries to stop the women from doing what they want(ok except for some retarded guys). They target everyone regardless of who they are and what they meant to do.

 

I remember someone saying something about one of Arnold's movies where he sticks a woman's head into a toilet. They said it was offensive toward women. It's a movie damn it!!!

 

Just an example of extreme feminism...

[Lathain Valtiel]

Originally posted by Tyrion

It's a double standard for both, you have to understand. I'm sure if we had a gay parade today, you'd hear many cries and protests against homosexuality.

 

Of course. BUT in the case of the anti-gays, it is not politically correct to do so, and they will be branded bigots by a good portion of the population.

 

While the pro-gay crowd will be branded as heroes of gay rights, and will have politically correct politicians and leftist judges backing them up, ala Massachusetts.

 

Notice the difference?

[RoxStar]

I say let people do what they want. But to those people in same sex marriages: Don't come crying to me when there aren't any children left in the world to run it and Earth turns into an old people armmagedon. I also agree mostly with Reborn Outcast.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by RoxStar

I say let people do what they want. But to those people in same sex marriages: Don't come crying to me when there aren't any children left in the world to run it and Earth turns into an old people armmagedon. I also agree mostly with Reborn Outcast.

 

Whoa whoa whoa...

 

Not everyone is gay...hell, here in Quebec we have too many old people and it doesn't have anything to do with gay people...

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Don't come crying to me when there aren't any children left in the world to run it and Earth turns into an old people armmagedon.

 

LMAO

 

That's hilarious!

 

When all sensible reasons to oppose gay unions have been defeated, you can of course fall back on the classic:

 

'Homosexual marriages will bring about the end of the world!!'

 

LMAO

[ShockV1.89]

Originally posted by RoxStar

I say let people do what they want. But to those people in same sex marriages: Don't come crying to me when there aren't any children left in the world to run it and Earth turns into an old people armmagedon.

 

Again, basing your statement off the premise that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. That is wrong. Your fears are unfounded, as it seems highly, highly unlikely that homosexuality is suddenly going to become a fad, or an "in-thing," or whatever.

 

Strong, scientific evidence has been presented to say that homosexuality is genetic and is related to certain aspects of the brain and levels of hormones within the body.

 

I'll quote sources shortly...

 

[edit] http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/nih-nyt.html

 

There's one. I'll quote a few more when I finish my finals I'm writing....

[RoxStar]

I was referring to the allowing of same sex marriages, not the allowing of someone to be gay.

[Master_Keralys]

Not much time but will try.

 

CTBD - right. But the thing I was getting at is that some liberals favor all of these - less for them than against traditional. And these are the most vocal.

 

Shock - it doesn't directly affect me, true. But the affect on the culture that it can have does concern me. I'll get to this later when I've got more time to write.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by RoxStar

I was referring to the allowing of same sex marriages, not the allowing of someone to be gay.

 

So are you suggesting that as long as gays aren't allowed to marry they'll eventually choose a mate with which they can reproduce?

 

Not a very logical argument if so... I'm inclined to believe that gay people will choose gay sexual partners regardless of whether they will be allowed to marry. The advantage of allowing marriage is simply a legal one.

 

Married couples have certain rights afforded to them, particularly with regard to property, insurance, employment benefits, etc.

 

I believe that the so-called Christian Right uses the anti-homosexuality position as a means of creating unity within it's organization. This is one of the lead arguments that this fundamentalist movement espouses. The reason is quite elementary: whenever a group or movement can create an other, the members of the group will band against the other and a sense of unity and cohesion is formed.

 

The same has happened throughout recorded history. White settlers vs the Indian; Amercian vs Japanese American (WWII); American vs Muslim American (Bush's War); White Americans vs the Negro; Aryan vs Jew; Arab vs Jew; Jew vs Arab; Serb vs Bosnian/Croat/etc.; Christian vs witches; and so on.

 

It's also been used with success by minority groups as a way to overcome oppression: African American vs the White Establishment; Women vs the Male Establishment; and so on.

 

As to the argument of "a Straight Parade would be seen as bigotted," I think this is a poor example. It would be similar to saying that "if a parade were held to commemorate White Achievement, it would be viewed as bigotted." Of course it would. Whites are already advantaged so it would be unseemly to hold a parade to march for more advantage.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by RoxStar

I was referring to the allowing of same sex marriages, not the allowing of someone to be gay.

 

Well if we mate as quickly as we are doing now, and bar any changes(i.e. homosexuality or world war)to the number, we will be massively overpopulated in the next 100 years. At the most.

 

See? If we go too extreme in either solution, of course it'll spell armageddon.

 

And explain to me how gay marriages will cause more heterosexual people to become gay? I'm sure most heterosexuals wouldnt marry homosexuals..or else they would become homosexuals.

[Elijah]

Originally posted by IG-64

NO NO NO NO! BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD! GROSS GROSS GROSS GROSS! I'M A CHRISTIAN CHRISTIAN CHRISTIAN CHRISTIAN! BLARGG!

Please excuse me when I say its christians like yourself who come off so strongly about thing, that makes me (sometimes) embarrased to call myself one...

 

Just consider the feelings of others before you spout off with things like "NONONO YOUR BAD, YOUR WRONG, IM RIGHT! YOU ARE GOING TO HELL!!!111ONE"

[Master_Keralys]

Where'd all my backup go? Hmm.... deserters.

 

Anyway, still not much time, but I'll give you what I've got.

 

As I've said, I don't have a problem with gays/lesbians choosing that lifestyle. It's their business, and while I think it's wrong and is sin, it's their decision. However! Marriage is a different issue entirely. I'm going to go look up the surveys I was talking about literally right now, but the point I was getting at is that most of the proponents of gay marriage are more against the traditional family than for gay marriage.

 

Skin - I think it was you who pointed out about the nuclear family being recent and western. True. But the rest of the family's involvement has nearly always been in conjunction with the heterosexual marriage - even in primitive cultures.

 

Next - question: if homosexual commitments can be defined as marriage, what's wrong with polygamy? Sodomy? Incest? I know I'm going to get slammed for this, but there is literally no difference: if it's between consenting adults, it should be fine (and acceptable for marriage), according to this forum and many Deomocratic leaders. Now, I'm off to find a study!

[ShockV1.89]

if it's between consenting adults, it should be fine (and acceptable for marriage), according to this forum and many Deomocratic leaders.

 

Sure, why not? If it's between consenting adults, why not? As long as they're not hurting anyone else, where's the harm? I mean, some of it is weird... like incest. Yikes. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

 

The only one I might have a problem with is incest between brother and sister, as that yields a very, very high chance of birth defects. (Note: This is not to say that I would have sex with my brother, even if I had a broither. I would not. Ick.)

[CloseTheBlastDo]

most of the proponents of gay marriage are more against the traditional family than for gay marriage.

 

This statistic may be true, but that does not affect the facts surrounding the main issue.

 

...I for one am certainly NOT against the traditional family. I was raised in a traditional family, and I plan to raise my family ... when I get married (to a woman, I'm hetro...) ...in a 'traditional' way. NOT because I think that's the only choice I've got, but because - well - it's a perfectly valid way to live.

 

But I am STRONGLY against you, or my goverment telling me how my family should work. I'm not talking about a family which is abusive. Of course in these cases, the law has a right to intervene. But this has no relavence to homosexual marriages...

 

As far as your insistence that :

 

a. homosexuals don't want marriage

b. homosexual marriages wouldn't work

 

...I - along with the others - are waiting for you to back these claims up properly. Until then, they are just words. I know for a fact that in many, many cases, the above statements are LITERALLY not true. (Where a long-term homosexual relationship is taken in equivalance to a marriage, and where a marriage would have taken place had it been legal)

 

and as far as these notions that allowing homosexual marriages will bring about the downfall of society - please -save those for people who are impressed by over-dramatic statements with no basis...

 

if homosexual commitments can be defined as marriage, what's wrong with polygamy? Sodomy? Incest?

 

THis is the ONLY sensible argument I've heard from the anti-homosexual union side in this debate, and it's worth debating.

However, to quickly show an example of not debating it properly, I'll just quote what you said straight after...

 

I know I'm going to get slammed for this, but there is literally no difference:

 

...there is no difference between homosexuality and incest...?! These are exactly the kind of crazy, inaccurate points which turn these kinds of discussions into the intellectual equivalent of bar brawls!

 

Yes, incest COULD be consenting. That doesn't make it the same as homosexuality! That's perfectly obvious...

Hetrosexual sex can also be consenting. So now hetrosexuality is the same as incest?!

 

If were going to debate this, for goodness sake, be willing to debate it properly...!

[Master_Keralys]

Okay, here's some data to begin with.

 

This is an interesting article on homosexual parenting at The Christian Institute. Yes, I'm aware that it's Christian, and so "biased" - but this is good info. See the section where it talks about "Incidence and Partnerships" on length and whatnot.

 

Next is a reference on various sites regarding "Project SIGMA" which did intensive study of gay relationships. The thing is, it's almost impossible to find the actual study's results pertaining to this in a short amount of time (like what I have). If anyone else finds it, could they let me know?

 

I'll work on finding more, but until Christmas break and after finals, I'm going to be really busy.

 

CTBD - I was trying to make a point quickly. There is no difference in that it's between consenting adults (except in cases involving minors or force, which are obviously criminal). But there's no reason incest should be illegal if homosexuality in marriage is fine.

 

While I must run now (to next class) I will try to find studies regarding whether or not they want long-term relationships. If I could get a little help from the other Christians it'd be nice!!!

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Sure, why not? If it's between consenting adults, why not?

 

In the particular case of incest, I would disagree with you Shock. I know the point your trying to make, but the main reason I would say this has the right to be 'policed' is because of what you said later:

 

The only one I might have a problem with is incest between brother and sister, as that yields a very, very high chance of birth defects.

 

Polygamy? *shrug* if the women are stupid enough, and the men are crazy enough - I don't really give a monkeys. My only real concern on this issue would be whether kids born to polygamous marriages would recieve proper attention from their fathers...

 

...then again I saw a program once about a 'normal' family in India who had 33-odd kids!! That would be prefectly legal, but could you claim that each of THOSE children were getting the individual attention they deserved?

 

Polygamy has been present at one time or another amongst a lot of cultures (including American) and it hasn't caused the 'implosion' of the society. In fact, I really see a polygamous man as just a man who likes to sleep around, but under the 'pretense' of marriage. I'm sure it's not really THAT shallow in particular cases, but I think it's valid to view it to a certain extent in that light in general.

 

...but at least he has some kind of official ties and responsibility for each spouse and each set of kids - which aren't present for 'legal' casual sex...

 

 

MK -if your arguments were purely MORAL (well, at least your ideas of what is moral, and what is not), I would have more respect for them. But these ideas that homosexuals are fundementally abhorent of commitment (any more than your average hetrosexual!), or that allowing homosexual mariages will cause real, practical damage to society -well - let's wait to see the so-called 'evidence'...

[Datheus]

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

This is an interesting article on homosexual parenting at The Christian Institute. Yes, I'm aware that it's Christian, and so "biased" - but this is good info. See the section where it talks about "Incidence and Partnerships" on length and whatnot.

From Article

But what about the stability of relationships? Weatherburn et al looked at the sexual lifestyles of gay and bisexual men in England and Wales for Project SIGMA. (8) They found about 60% of gay men had a regular partner in any given year, but less than half of these relationships were closed. "Closed" was defined as not having had sex with a third party in the preceding month. (9) The median length of homosexual relationships in the SIGMA survey was 21 months.

So what exactly does this prove? Heterosexuals have an average relationship length of 2 years. Whoopie doo? I fail to see the connection between this and why homosexuality is less than correct. Are you trying to say that sexual promiscuity is bad? Because homosexuals arn't the only people on the face of the Earth who are so.

 

Although, I do like how the article says 21 months instead of 1.8 years. That doesn't make it sound slanted.

[Master_Keralys]

The only point I'm trying to make is that most don't want marriage. I haven't gotten enough info to prove that yet, nor do I have time do look it up now. I welcome anyone else doing so, though, and I'll be on it in about 2 weeks.

 

Most of my argument is moral - but in our rationality thread, we pointed out that moral arguments, while valid, are often not as strong as "factual" arguments. And moral arguments are being mocked in here, so...

 

Okay, but why not multiple guys in a polygamy? Why not animals, if they're aroused and consenting? My point is that there's got to be a line somewhere. Now, I've got to get to Calc II class, but I'll be back.

 

PS - CTBD: good to see you again. It's been a while;) .

[lukeiamyourdad]

Where can the line be drawn? Who ever said that people should be able to have sex with animals? Who ever said that men should have the right to marry animals?

 

That's different. An animal can't be consenting because it can't think like a human being. Two gay men or women are thinking properly and are aware of their situation. They're not animals. You've just compared them to animals...

 

As for multiple guys in a polygamy, that just doesn't affect anyone but the people concerned. Whether it be between heteros or homosexuals, it's none of your concern actually. Besides, if in certain country, you can have multiple wives, why can't there be multiple husbands(for one guy)?

 

Like it's been said earlier, even if most of them don't want marriage, it should still be allowed for the ones that want.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

PS - CTBD: good to see you again. It's been a while .

 

Good to speak to you again too man

 

Although I disagree with a lot of the stuff you are saying (heh, it wouldn't be the same otherwise ), it's refreshing to debate this kind of stuff with a person like yourself.

 

At the very least it feels like we are having a constructive conversation, which is more I can say for a lot of the other instances I've tried to debate topics like these...

 

That's different. An animal can't be consenting because it can't think like a human being.

 

I was about to make the same point - you beat me to it

Actually, I would say that while the animal COULD be consenting for all you know, I think you'd be hard pressed to prove it in a court of law!!

..so I think we can sensibly say that to err on the side of caution is the correct way to go for this topic, and assume that the animal isn't gonna be too happy about it!!

 

Two gay men or women are thinking properly and are aware of their situation. They're not animals. You've just compared them to animals...

 

While I know full he wouldn't mean this kind of insinuation, I'm afraid he's not making it easy for people to NOT think this either.

..I'd choose your analogies more carefully if I were you MK - because the above idea is insulting and doesn't do justice to the issue...

 

Most of my argument is moral - but in our rationality thread, we pointed out that moral arguments, while valid, are often not as strong as "factual" arguments. And moral arguments are being mocked in here, so...

 

Right -I understand. But we also pointed out that moral arguments are individual. They are not 'external' truths - they are internal.

To illustrate the point - MY morals say to me : freedom of choice and the ability to live the way you want to live (as long as it does not DIRECTLY affect the well-being and freedom of others). And from my point of view, you are mocking MY morals by saying these people can't do this - with (as far as I'm concerned) no better reason than YOU don't think it's right...

 

...so this is why moral arguments can't really be discussed in a 'scientific' manner- they are totally objective...

 

...is it REALLY that hard for you to imagine that two people of the same sex can REALLY fell just as much in 'love' for each other as a hetrosexual couple? As crazy, or as outlandish, or as offensive as the idea sounds to you, are you so sure that it's not even possible?!

Because I think this is what it ALL comes down to. If you simply refuse to accept this is even a possibillity, then of course you will never look at the issue objectively.

 

Of course, to do this - you simply have to believe that a hell of a lot of gay people - in fact I feel confident in saying MOST - are flat out liars. Or totally self-delusional.

You also have to discard all the modern medical evidence.

 

..if your willing to do this then, well - I guess you'll come to whatever conclusion you want to (or that which your religion prescribes for you)