Homosexuality & Same-Sex Marriage

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Technically, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Should homsexuals be allowed to live together and do what straight couples should do? Yes. Should they be allowed a ceremony that states their union? Yes. Should it be called marriage? No, since technically it isn't.

"Technically", that's been changing over time. The ancient Greeks and Romans allowed homosexual marriage, as far as I know. Then the Christians came along and condemned it.

[CapNColostomy]

"Technically", not outlawing consensual sex between men (what the greeks and romans did) and allowing homosexual marriage (what the greeks and romans didn't do) aren't the same thing.

[The Source]

Truthfully, I think this is more about a group of people who want others to accept their sexuality. I don't buy into the idea that they want to get married for the sake of marriage. I am a Christian by birth right, so I am going to try to keep this unbias as possible. I am certain to fail. Marriage 'The Religious' bond between man and women is sacred to religion, and God was very clear on how he wants people to behave. Marriage 'The Government' version of the bond is non-religious in nature, so anyone who doesn't have a religion can get hitched.

 

It is not God's way to shut a door on anyone. It is upto the person thenselves to find salvation. I have a problem when I hear, "We have evolved beyond the Bible." I find that as a foolish statement. We have not evolved far enough, and the Bible is light years ahead of mankind on several issues.

 

When it comes to the 'Homosexuality & Same-Sex Marriage' issue, I will fall back upon my faith for answers. God will not close a door to these people, for they are still his people. The problem is vice-versa, they have closed the door on God. When they are ready, God's door will be open. All they have to do is ask and listen.

 

I don't accept their sexual acts, but I do accept them as a humanbeing. They don't deserve to be married by a priest, for they turned their back on God. They do deserve a chance to learn from Sodom.

[SkinWalker]

I'm sure you'd expect that I would disagree about your statement that the bible is "light years ahead of man," since it was written by a bunch of superstitious, Bronze Age nomads bent on killing each other over their ethnic feuds (see Samuel, Exodus, etc).

 

But I will defend you right to have your opinion of homosexuality and its incompatibility with your religious beliefs to the end.

 

If you don't like homosexuality and same-sex marriage, don't bump uglies with or marry a member of your own gender. I don't even need religious superstition, and I chose quite easily to marry the opposite sex. But I wouldn't presume to limit the freedom of two other people in love, even if they were the same gender.

[toms]

Marriage 'The Religious' bond between man and women is sacred to religion, and God was very clear on how he wants people to behave. Marriage 'The Government' version of the bond is non-religious in nature, so anyone who doesn't have a religion can get hitched.

 

Exactly. Which is why its sooo stupid for people like george bush to try and stop GOVERNMENT homosexual marriage based on THEIR religious views. Government marriage should be open to anyone, whatever their race, creed, religion, eye colour, finances or orientation.

 

-

 

(OT but: Given your belief tht the bible is lightyears ahead of us, and we can't outgrow it, then i assume you believe that rape victims should be stoned or forced to marry their attackers and adulterers should be put to death. Though of course only christian ones.)

[The Source]

Exactly. Which is why its sooo stupid for people like george bush to try and stop GOVERNMENT homosexual marriage based on THEIR religious views. Government marriage should be open to anyone, whatever their race, creed, religion, eye colour, finances or orientation.

If the 'Government' version of marriage is based upon 'Religion's' version, I can see how this would be an issue. Only 2% of the US population is homosexual. 98% of the people don't support the issue.

[90SK]

If the 'Government' version of marriage is based upon 'Religion's' version, I can see how this would be an issue. Only 2% of the US population is homosexual. 98% of the people don't support the issue.

 

That isn't true. You don't have to be homosexual to support the issue.

[Nedak]

Only 2% of the US population is homosexual. 98% of the people don't support the issue.

 

Are you saying that only homosexuals support Gay Marrage?

[SkinWalker]

Only 2% of the US population is homosexual. 98% of the people don't support the issue.

 

Ever heard of the logical fallacy known as the non-sequitur?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Only 2% of the US population is homosexual.

10%, according to a 1948 figure by Kinsey.

[Totenkopf]

Much of Kinsey's work has been discredited. The 10% figure is considered to be on the high end of estimates, with the more likely figure being around 2-3%:

 

'In the last three elections, the Voter News Service exit poll registered the gay vote between 4 percent and 5 percent. While concluding that the Census 2000 undercounted the total number of gay or lesbian households, for the purposes of this study, we estimate the gay and lesbian population at 5 percent of the total U.S. population over 18 years of age, (209,128,094). This results in an estimated total gay and lesbian population of 10,456,405. A recent study of gay and lesbian voting habits conducted by Harris Interactive determined that 30 percent of gay and lesbian people are living in a committed relationship in the same residence. Using that figure, we suggest that 3,136,921 gay or lesbian people are living in the United States in committed relationships in the same residence. '4

 

So, if we accept that the data presented by the Human Rights Commission is indeed indicative of the real numbers, then it shows that the census data is only showing up a small percentage of the actual number of gay people living in America. Until, however, a nationwide survey is done, asking questions on sexual attitudes and behaviour, then we can only use data and analyses, such as the ones above, to work out an answer to the question of gay people living in America.

 

source:http://www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm

 

As to the question of marriage, no. Don't see a reason. There are other legal means by which homosexuals can cohabitate and transfer property to each other. Marriage, as ED has pointed out, is by definition a union between man and woman.

[ET Warrior]

Just like slaves, by definition, were only 3/5 of a human being?

[Totenkopf]

Geez, ET, then don't forget about how the Nazis didn't include Jews, slavs, blacks and others as being not even human. Nor how liberals are quick to deny humans any rights till the doctor has removed them COMPLETELY from their mothers' wombs. But seeing as how homosexuals are not treated as other than human (at least under US law), it's hard to make the argument you seem to be insinuating. Much of law is merely a high powered game of semantics. Gay people here (and no doubt in many western countries) tend to be in a higher income bracket and as such can generate market forces to cater to their needs (eg, insurance etc..). As it stands, there is little or nothing that stops gay people from cohabitating or leaving thier money to each other in case of death. Maybe they can't leave their SS to each other, but I'm guessing that can be tacked on as a rider to some bill. Politicians like to be sneaky that way.

[SkinWalker]

As it stands, there is little or nothing that stops gay people from cohabitating or leaving thier money to each other in case of death. Maybe they can't leave their SS to each other, but I'm guessing that can be tacked on as a rider to some bill. Politicians like to be sneaky that way.

 

I still fail to see a logical, reasoned argument against same-sex marriage. They're adults. They're consenting. They present no harm to others that can be measurably noted. The only excuse to disallow same-sex marriage is religious superstition -and such an excuse is not a reasoned one.

[Totenkopf]

Well, most people don't see a logical, reasoned need for gay people to be married. Frankly, the main reason for marriage in the first place was mainly to provide a stable setting for the raising of children by a mother and father. If you want to take the attitude that infertile couples should not be allowed to marry either, makes no dif to me. I'm not saying homosexuals should be legally prevented from doing whatever they do behind closed doors as consenting adults, just that there's no demonstrable need for gay marriage. They can call it a union as ED suggested earlier and other legal provisions (much like private corps are doing even now) can be made for their financial needs, as it were.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Well, most people don't see a logical, reasoned need for gay people to be married.

Nonsense. In fact, SkinWalker just listed them, and to shorten it down: "It does no harm to them or others, so what's the problem"?

 

Frankly, the main reason for marriage in the first place was mainly to provide a stable setting for the raising of children by a mother and father.

Do you know that? Back in the Roman Empire and ancient Greece, marriage was for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals - as long as you married only within your class, I think. Skin will correct me if I'm wrong, I suppose.

 

And homosexuals can raise children. And before anyone spouts the "the kid will be tortured on the playground"-myth imported from the equally stupid movement against inter-colour marriage and adoption: Statistics from countries where gay adoption is allowed shows that's not the case. They're as accepted as children of inter-racial couples.

 

And how many kids await adoption in the US alone again? 100 000? It's funny how the neo-cons don't want abortion and still

 

If you want to take the attitude that infertile couples should not be allowed to marry either, makes no dif to me.

It should. It makes a huge difference to the said sterile people.

 

I'm not saying homosexuals should be legally prevented from doing whatever they do behind closed doors as consenting adults, just that there's no demonstrable need for gay marriage. They can call it a union as ED suggested earlier and other legal provisions (much like private corps are doing even now) can be made for their financial needs, as it were.

Going by that reasoning, there's no need for inter-racial marriage either, or for that case, heterosexual marriage.

 

If you think it's good enough for them, then surely it's good enough for you, no?

 

Marriage, as ED has pointed out, is by definition a union between man and woman.

So?

[Totenkopf]

Far as I know, there's no NEED for interacial marriage, nor is there any reason to ban it. I mentioned infertile couples b/c most people try to argue that if the prohibition on gay marriage is due to inability to reproduce, then shouldn't infertile heteros also be denied.

 

Using your reasoning, perhaps we should allow public masturbation and coitus so long as the people involved clean themselves up and not contaminate anyone/thing.

 

Actually, I believe you (or someone else) was corrected about that in an earlier post. Such marriages weren't sanctioned, but homosexual activity wasn't necessarily discouraged.

[SkinWalker]

Using your reasoning, perhaps we should allow public masturbation and coitus so long as the people involved clean themselves up and not contaminate anyone/thing.

 

Your non sequiturs notwithstanding, lets stick to the issue at hand: same sex marriage. There are many more reasons for wanting to be married than to produce children. Indeed, if this were the sole reason for marriage, there wouldn't exist today many couples who chose to marry and not produce children. Indeed, I don't recall reproduction being mentioned in my marriage vows at all.

 

So, just because you fail to see logical reasons for joining with another adult in marriage, doesn't imply that they don't exist for the rest of us. Which brings us back to the main point: there are no reasons to restrict same sex marriage and many reasons to allow it. Reasons which I, and others, have already stated in the thread.

[Totenkopf]

The only reasons I see you mention are basically "b/c I wanna" and "it's not (measurably) hurting anyone" and they're consenting adults. You really haven't demonstrated, logically or otherwise, any real reason to turn marriage upside down to include homosexuals. Outside of govt benefits (SS, govt pension, etc..) there is no pressing financial reason either. Private companies are already setting up benefit plans that are homosexual friendly, from pension plans to medical benefits.

 

Your comment about your marriage vows are equally non-sequitur in nature. Not mentioning procreation in wedding vows doesn't change the original reason for why marriage was created in the first place. I was merely responding to the non issue about it "not harming anyone" as a reason for allowing something.

[SkinWalker]

I'll review the thread and give a post # later. Perhaps it was in one of the other many threads where the same topic was discussed. Either way, I'll summarize that point and the logical reasons later. Gotta run.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Far as I know, there's no NEED for interacial marriage, nor is there any reason to ban it.

Then support it. If you don't dislike it, what's the problem?

 

I mentioned infertile couples b/c most people try to argue that if the prohibition on gay marriage is due to inability to reproduce, then shouldn't infertile heteros also be denied.

And it is a valid argument. You imply marriage without child-birth is wasted or not fullfilling the meaning of marriage. We point out that by that reasoning you should be against infertile marriage, too, or marriage between two people who simply don't want to have kids.

 

Using your reasoning, perhaps we should allow public masturbation and coitus so long as the people involved clean themselves up and not contaminate anyone/thing.

Public sex is different from private marriage. Apples and oranges.

 

The only reasons I see you mention are basically "b/c I wanna" and "it's not (measurably) hurting anyone"

It's not hurting anyone, period. Show me how it's "immeasurably" hurting somone, please.

 

You really haven't demonstrated, logically or otherwise, any real reason to turn marriage upside down to include homosexuals.

The above-mentioned reason is a logical reason to support it. They deserve equal treatment, plain and simple.

 

Oh, and it was the disallowing of homosexual relationships turned it upside-down back in the day. We're merely repairing the damage.

 

Outside of govt benefits (SS, govt pension, etc..) there is no pressing financial reason either.

Nope. Besides from the important ones, there aren't any important ones.

 

Your comment about your marriage vows are equally non-sequitur in nature. Not mentioning procreation in wedding vows doesn't change the original reason for why marriage was created in the first place.

One word: Progress.

 

Originally, traditionally, the woman's place was in the home and the man's place was at work. Yet you're not complaining about them "turning roles upside-down" to allow women to work, do you?

 

I was merely responding to the non issue about it "not harming anyone" as a reason for allowing something.

It's not intended to hurt anyone, and it does not hurt anyone. No more than the end of segregation hurt anyone. No more than inter-racial adoption did. No more than inter-religious marriage does.

[Spider AL]

The thread's alive once more, and once more everybody seems to be ignoring an important aspect of the debate. Marriage itself should be abolished.

 

Gay "marriage", straight marriage, interracial marriage, marriage 'twixt man and fluffy bunny slipper... they must all be abolished. Reasons: State or religious sanctioning of a romantic relationship does not make the relationship stronger, nor does it make it more stable; the divorce industry lives vampirically off the equally vampiric marriage industry. The still existing financial breaks for married couples are an injustice to single people; one should not be given money from the state for living together, as sharing bills is ENOUGH of a break, thank you very much.

 

Silly people refer to the legalising of gay marriage as "progress". But it's not social progress in any conceivable form. Progress would be throwing away this pseudo-mystical ritual of marriage. Throwing away the state's sanctioning of it. Let religious people throw whatever strangely dressed party they want, but state-sanctioned financially advantageous marriages must go.

[Totenkopf]

Ya know, Spider, you almost convince me...

 

DE@ apples and oranges only in terms of both acts being intrinsically different. The underlying principle, however is not. Just because you think something isn't harmful (your argumnet) doesn't mean people should do it (hence my somewhat over the top examples).

 

Also, I say that if you want to set up a different type of union for infertile couples or people who want no chidren whatsoever, you'll get no argument from me. They can fall under the same style of civil union provisions that can be given homosexuals.

 

Since hurt is such a loaded concept, perhaps you should define your term before I deal with that issue. Also, your concept of progress seems a little odd. How is the inevitably higher rate of likely divorce amongst gay people going to benefit any one but wedding planners and divorce lawyers? Given that homosexuals have a higher rate of promoscuity than even heterosexuals, this isn't an unreasonable conclusion.

 

Ultimately, this goes to Skinwalker as well, there is no logical reason to change the traditional meaning of marriage, but arguably the law could be amended to deal with gay unions and their subsequent issues.

[ET Warrior]

How is the inevitably higher rate of likely divorce amongst gay people going to benefit any one but wedding planners and divorce lawyers? Given that homosexuals have a higher rate of promoscuity than even heterosexuals, this isn't an unreasonable conclusion.

You made all of that information up. I doubt you have any empirical evidence ot assume that there will be a higher rate of divorce, OR that homosexuals are inherently more promiscuous than heteros.

Just because equality doesn't seem like a logical reason to YOU, doesn't mean that it is not a logical reason. Homosexuals should be able to marry because heterosexuals are able to marry. You are intentionally discriminating against a specific group of people, just for the sake of maintaining the status quo.

 

Personally I'm partially in agreement with Spider, the only thing that I think is nice with marriage is the things like hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. etc. While all these things can be arranged, there are about 8 million forms and other procedures to go through, when a single marriage license takes care of it. However, as marriage isn't likely to go away anytime soon, I'd say it's best to offer it to everyone and let the people who want it choose to have it.

[Totenkopf]

ET, we'll just have to agree to disagree about the necessity of "homosexual marriage".

 

As to empiracal studies, there is one major problem with statistics. They're too easily skewed and often only reflect a small subset of opinion and behavior, while being extrapolated to reflect a much larger one. Further, given that you don't really know if the participants are being truthful, you have no way to know which parts of a study would have any validity. Everything is couched in assumptions. But, no, I didn't make the statement up. It is based on the claims of prolific sexual conduct on the part of many young gay males (perhaps lesbians are more monogamous). But as I've stated above, it's possible they are lying and that there is no real way to know. So, in the interest of fairness, I'll disclaim that statement.