Log in to check your private messages
Homosexuality
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 12, 13, 14  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove View previous topic :: View next topic  
 PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 7:43 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 5989
Location: Sailing into the unknown

Salaris Vorn wrote:
However, I feel OMB raised a particularly important issue: what is the purpose of this thread?

Well, I started this thread just to say how much I dislike the word "homophobe" (I now know it's the usage, not the word itself, thanks to Life). I just gave it the title "homosexuality" to keep the topic general for future discussions.
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2012 3:10 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Life Is The Path
Master
Master

Joined: 10 Sep 2010
Posts: 3433
Location: In a galaxy far, far - No, I'm behind you! Got you! Boo!

I'm not entirely sure where the board currently stands on discussing the legal side, so I'm rather hesitant in continuing with a question. I know, I'll put it in spoiler tags, and if a mod or admin signs off on it, then people can look (though I'm sure people will look anyway Razz ).

Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)

_________________
I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it. These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2012 8:38 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Dog-Poop_Walker
Master
Master

Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Posts: 686
Location: Official Med. Grove Troublemaker

Edit: I've decided to remove this post about legal precedence, for the time being.

PS.

Arnold Schwarzenegger wrote:
I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman.


Best quote ever.

Last edited by Dog-Poop_Walker on Sat May 19, 2012 11:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2012 2:47 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Salaris Vorn
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 02 Feb 2008
Posts: 2047
Location: New York, USA

Life Is The Path wrote:
I'm not entirely sure where the board currently stands on discussing the legal side, so I'm rather hesitant in continuing with a question.


I've sought the advice of the admins on this matter. Until such time that a mod or admin makes a post retracting my earlier statement it may be assumed that discussion on the legal aspects is at least temporarily paused.

I have not locked the thread (yet) as there are other aspects to homosexuality that can be discussed. Therefore I see no benefit to locking the thread and halting all discussion. That being said if some people continue to discuss it and attempt to use my earlier statement as a means to further their position without opposition temporarily locking the thread while I wait for admin feedback may be the only option.

(To be clear this is not a warning to you Life).
_________________
View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2012 8:45 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Corellias Dream
Knight
Knight

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 103
Location: UK

I thought that the issue of homosexual marriage was more of a moral one, than legal. Sure, changes to the law may be needed in some states/countries for homosexual partnerships to be legal, but objections to same-sex marriages are usually made on moral grounds.

There has been debate about same-sex marriages and the USA constitution (arguably a legal issue) but what about countries like the UK where the law has already been changed ? If it's legally OK in a country, then does that make it morally OK ? One of the main objections given to fully legalizing same-sex marriage is that it will legally redefine marriage into a form that the objectors dislike. They wish for it to remain one man-one woman, and to exclude man-man and woman-woman unions. Surely their objection is primarily with the morality of same-sex unions: the legal issue is a consequence of the moral issue.

As American citizens aren't affected by UK laws, do they therefore not object to homosexual partnerships in the UK ? If they think that homosexual relationships are wrong in other parts of the world too, then clearly they have a problem with homosexuality itself, rather than with specific legal issues.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 3:56 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Life Is The Path
Master
Master

Joined: 10 Sep 2010
Posts: 3433
Location: In a galaxy far, far - No, I'm behind you! Got you! Boo!

Salaris Vorn wrote:
Life Is The Path wrote:
I'm not entirely sure where the board currently stands on discussing the legal side, so I'm rather hesitant in continuing with a question.


I've sought the advice of the admins on this matter. Until such time that a mod or admin makes a post retracting my earlier statement it may be assumed that discussion on the legal aspects is at least temporarily paused.

I have not locked the thread (yet) as there are other aspects to homosexuality that can be discussed. Therefore I see no benefit to locking the thread and halting all discussion. That being said if some people continue to discuss it and attempt to use my earlier statement as a means to further their position without opposition temporarily locking the thread while I wait for admin feedback may be the only option.

(To be clear this is not a warning to you Life).


No problem, mate Smile .
_________________
I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it. These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 9:31 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Darth Skuldren
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 5774
Location: Missouri

I'm going to start here since I haven't been following the thread lately.

Quote:
Society receives no benefit by changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships, in fact it is harmed. Study after study shows that the best outcome for both children and society depends on a stable marriage between a man and a woman, and heterosexuality and homosexuality should never be legally equated.


First off, if homosexual couples were allowed to marry, this would add legitimacy to their lifestyle. It would be a public message that society accepts them and their lifestyle. It would also combat the harassment and discrimination that is aimed against them.

Another benefit is that allowing homosexual couples to marry would help improve the stability of their relationships. Marriage isn't something you lightly enter into, typically. It's a feeling of huge responsibility. Marriage is something that's meant to last. Opening up this avenue of life to them would be to everyone's benefit.

Plus if homosexual couples choose to raise a child, it's rather obvious that if they were allowed to be legally married, this would greatly improve the child's environment. The child would have two parents, who would both be legally recognized by society, and would enjoy an added sense of stability.

Quote:
What would happen to society if everyone lived faithfully in traditional marriage? Our country would thrive with a drastic reduction in numerous social problems liberals claim to want to fix, including illegitimacy, crime, welfare, and abortion. Instead they promote deviant lifestyles that have proven to be highly detrimental to personal health, raise illegitimacy and out of wedlock births, increase poverty and government dependence, among many other negative effects on society.


Do you consider homosexuality a deviant lifestyle? Are you saying that you think homosexuality promotes crime, welfare, abortion, poorer health, and poverty?

Quote:
The homosexual community has a long track record with promiscuity, STD epidemics wholly apart from AIDS, etc. It is a highly destructive lifestyle, especially compared with traditional marriage. However many homosexual activists like to bring out the "born this way" argument, even though there is zero conclusive research on the subject.


Excluding the born argument, I want to address the "destructive lifestyle" portion. Promiscuity and STD's are not unique issues associated with homosexuals. From a personal, opinionated stand point, I find it very difficult to believe that homosexuals have a statistically higher level of promiscuity or STD's at this point in time.

Quote:
Please help me to understand, why do you not like bestiality and pedophilia? Is it their fault they have these feelings? Aren't those people just born that way? By your own rules, shouldn't you consider their sexual desires to be equal to yours so long as they don't physically hurt someone?


Seriously. You're going to argue pedophilia? Are you seriously going to try and equate pedophilia to homosexuality? That since they're "born that way" you either have to accept it or reject it?

Quote:
Yet society seems to understand that these practices are perverted in and of themselves, regardless of whatever "feelings" someone might have. At the same time we glorify homosexuality, which is inherently detrimental to the survival of human race, statistically proven to promote rampant spread of disease, shorten lifespans, hugely increase promiscuity and infidelity, etc. in its community. Kind of weird how that works.


Homosexuality spreads diseases just as easily as heterosexuality. That has nothing to do with sexual orientation, and everything to do with people not going to the doctor before entering into sexual relationships. It's an issue of personal responsibility, one which cannot be laid upon people of specific sexual orientation.

I'm assuming the shortening of lifespans argument is related to the diseases claim, so there's no need to address it.

With the promiscuity and infidelity claim, again, I fail to see how this is a sexual orientation argument. This is a matter of personal responsibility. Irresponsibility is not a sexually oriented trait.

Once again, I'll assume your reasoning for this argument is statistically claims that promiscuity and infidelity are significantly higher among homosexual couples than heterosexual couples.

Okay, let's assume that's right. Does that mean you want to actively suppress homosexuality for the betterment of society? And if so, how would you go about suppressing it?

From a common sense stand point, trying to suppress something like that would generate nothing but negative outcomes, let alone the questioning of the moral grounds for such a standpoint.

Quote:
You also assume that homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are nearly equal in terms of lifestyle choices, drug use, monogamy, etc. Again, studies show this is not the case.


Are you saying that statically homosexuals are more likely to use drugs? Again, how can a sexual orientation cause someone to use more drugs? You know what does cause someone to reach out to drugs? An environment that oppresses you, isolates you and attacks you.

If people are treated normally, they're more likely to live a healthy lifestyle. If people are treated abnormally, they're more likely to live an abnormal lifestyle. This is common sense.
_________________
View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 3:35 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Autobon
Master
Master

Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 751
Location: Seattle, Washington

-

Note: As much as I disagree with the legality rule I wish to respect it. If my post contains arguments about the legality of homosexuality, it is only because I am responding to a moderator (Skuldren) who brought it up first, after the fact.

Darth Skuldren wrote:
First off, if homosexual couples were allowed to marry, this would add legitimacy to their lifestyle. It would be a public message that society accepts them and their lifestyle.


You must first put forth an argument as to why forcing everyone to accept homosexuality as an equal lifestyle is a valid position. You must also prove that men and women are completely interchangeable in society and relationships. Then we can talk about changing the definition of marriage. Not only for homosexuals, but maybe even for groups such as polygamists.

I do applaud you for understanding the issue clearly. Homosexual "marriage" is an attempt to legitimize a minority lifestyle, forcefully through legislation if their arguments fail to convince the majority.

Quote:
Another benefit is that allowing homosexual couples to marry would help improve the stability of their relationships. Marriage isn't something you lightly enter into, typically. It's a feeling of huge responsibility. Marriage is something that's meant to last.


I have already linked to a study from the New York Times in which about 50% of married homosexuals admittedly engage in consensual adultery. There are an incredible amount of other studies that show similar patterns.

In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred to five hundred lifetime sex partners. Life-long monogamy among homosexuals is a rare thing indeed.

So it is a bit interesting to see a group with seemingly little to no respect for monogamy fight so hard for marriage. If you cannot be faithful to begin with, slapping the title "marriage" onto your relationship will not help either.

Quote:
Do you consider homosexuality a deviant lifestyle? Are you saying that you think homosexuality promotes crime, welfare, abortion, poorer health, and poverty?


I used lifestyle in the plural form, clearly meaning more then just homosexuality. This would include no-fault divorce, adultery, etc. Clearly homosexuality is not the only problem facing marriage today, I get that.

You also misunderstood my point. I said that faithful traditional marriage would drastically reduce crime, welfare, abortion, etc. I have pointed out studies that seem to correlate this point, so if you wish to disagree, then by all means prove them wrong.

Quote:
I want to address the "destructive lifestyle" portion. Promiscuity and STD's are not unique issues associated with homosexuals. From a personal, opinionated stand point, I find it very difficult to believe that homosexuals have a statistically higher level of promiscuity or STD's at this point in time.


No they are not unique among homosexuals. However, the fact that the homosexual community has been so disproportionately effected clearly indicates their behavior and lifestyle as a whole, differs greatly from that of heterosexuals. It is more then fair to ask why.

And respectfully, I don't understand how your "personal [and] opinionated" view matters in light of the actual evidence. Just because you don't want to believe statistics, for whatever reason, does not mean that they are any less true. I encourage you to let the facts speak for themselves, and base your stand point on that.

Quote:
Homosexuality spreads diseases just as easily as heterosexuality.


The question is not who can spread a disease. The question is why a disease is so rampant and disproportionate among a group. This point applies to drugs, monogamy, etc.

Quote:
I'll assume your reasoning for this argument is statistically claims that promiscuity and infidelity are significantly higher among homosexual couples than heterosexual couples. Okay, let's assume that's right. Does that mean you want to actively suppress homosexuality for the betterment of society?


I do not have to "assume" my position. I have provided evidence from both liberal and conservative publications. Not even the homosexual community at large denies the statistics put forth, so I am confused as to why you keep pushing this point. It is you who are in a position of assumption, as you seem to have no idea what the statistics surrounding your argument are.

Also, I am not in favor of actively going around and "suppressing" homosexuality. Homosexuals are free to live monogamous relationships, get jobs, etc. They have all the rights I do as a citizen. However, the issue here is the re-definition of marriage itself.


-
View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 11:08 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Corellias Dream
Knight
Knight

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 103
Location: UK

As has been said before, homosexuals do not have the same rights you (a heterosexual, presumably) have in the USA. Even if they live in a state that recognizes same-sex partnerships, they don't have the same range of legal rights that a legal, heterosexual partnership does, and what rights they do have may not be recognized from one state to the next. That part of your argument is easily disproved.

There seems to be a lot of focus on the word 'marriage'. You argue that it's OK for same-sex couples to be in monogamous relationships, so long as no one calls it 'marriage'. The argument generally seems to come from a Christian perspective, from those who draw their inspiration from the Bible.
What about those who do not believe in the Bible ? Sikhs, Shintoists, Bhuddists, Pagans, Agnostics and Atheists all use the word 'marriage' but no one seems to object. even though the Judeo-Christian God is not part of the ceremony. The term 'polygamous marriage' is in use though it doesn't fit with the one man-one woman Biblical ideal. The word 'marriage' is even used in the antiques business to describe a piece of furniture made from two or more other items put together. The word 'marry' is used in cooking, to describe the blending or ingredients or flavours.
The argument that homosexuals are demanding a redefinition of marriage seems a little beside the point when the word has so many uses anyway. What all the meanings have in common is the bringing together of two or more parts. If it can apply to one man-one woman, there's no reason why it can't apply to 2 men or 2 women. The word 'marriage' already has a wider definition beyond the Biblical Christian viewpoint.

As for 'forcing everyone to accept homosexuality as an equal lifesyle' - in other parts of the world this is already a fact. A 2012 poll in the UK showed that 62% believed that homosexual relationships have the same value as heterosexual ones, while 75% believed that same-sex couples should be allowed legal relationships, of which 32% supported civil partnerships and 43% supported gay marriage. As homosexuals are a small percentage of the population, the majority of those polling in favour of homosexual rights must be heterosexuals. I fail to see how the minority of homosexuals 'forced' the heterosexual majority to vote in their favour.
There are 10 countries around the world that currently recognize same-sex marriage, and a further 24 that recognize some version of civil partnerships. Acceptance of homosexuality as an equal lifestyle is happening around the world. It is a minority lifestyle that has already been legitimized and accepted by hundreds of millions of people.

Homosexuals living in the USA - which prides itself on its traditions of freedom, tolerance and justice - want the same rights and freedoms enjoyed by heterosexuals in the USA and by homosexuals in other countries. Are not all men created equal then ?
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 12:25 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Dog-Poop_Walker
Master
Master

Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Posts: 686
Location: Official Med. Grove Troublemaker

I thought that we were awaiting some clarification of the rules and the direction on this thread, while at the same time in the "should the MG stay?" thread it was being debated whether to even continue this thread at all. In light of that I don't understand why this thread is continuing in this way with those things left hanging and it just seems to be a rehashing of what has already been discussed.
View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 1:33 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Autobon
Master
Master

Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 751
Location: Seattle, Washington

Dog-Poop_Walker wrote:
in the "should the MG stay?" thread it was being debated whether to even continue this thread at all. In light of that I don't understand why this thread is continuing in this way with those things left hanging


Fair point, though I figured that since a moderator posted an argument, we were free to respond. I would also like some clarification, but I think its going to be a while before anything happens.

Corellias Dream wrote:
As has been said before, homosexuals do not have the same rights you (a heterosexual, presumably) have in the USA. That part of your argument is easily disproved.


Yes, actually they do. They can marry anyone I am allowed to potentially marry. You mean to say that they can not marry "whoever they please." But clearly, neither can I. I cannot marry my brother's wife if I am attracted to her. I cannot marry my relatives or multiple people at the same time. I hold no rights that others do not.

Quote:
There seems to be a lot of focus on the word 'marriage'. The argument generally seems to come from a Christian perspective, from those who draw their inspiration from the Bible. What about those who do not believe in the Bible ? Sikhs, Shintoists, Bhuddists, Pagans, Agnostics and Atheists ...


I have not made any appeals to the Bible or a religious authority of any type. What is common sense and beneficial for society can be understood and discussed without engaging in specific theological debates.  

Quote:
As for 'forcing everyone to accept homosexuality as an equal lifesyle' - in other parts of the world this is already a fact. I fail to see how the minority of homosexuals 'forced' the heterosexual majority to vote in their favour.


Lets take a look at California for example. The majority of people voted for Prop 8 (marriage between one man and woman) and then a homosexual judge, Walker, ruled against it. It just goes back to my earlier point that homosexual marriage is forced through legislation if arguments fail to convince the majority.

Even so, I will agree that much of the support for homosexual marriage comes from heterosexuals. It is not the majority, but clearly a force to be reckoned with. Having grown up in the Seattle public school system, this does not surprise me. If you have anything negative to say about homosexuality you can easily get into trouble, and even fired if your a teacher. This applies to my workplace as well. Homosexuality is constantly portrayed as equal in every respect, sometimes even better then heterosexuality. If that is the message people are constantly bombarded with, with no alternative viewpoints being tolerated, they tend to conform. I understand that Seattle occupies the liberal side of the scale, but that's what I have experienced.


-
View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 11:33 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Corellias Dream
Knight
Knight

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 103
Location: UK

Quote:
They can marry anyone I am allowed to potentially marry. You mean to say that they can not marry "whoever they please."


So homosexuals are allowed to marry anyone you are potentially allowed to marry ? So that makes it alright that they are not allowed to marry the people they actually want to ? No one's stopping you from marrying anyone you are legally allowed to marry - pretty much anyone who is not a blood relation. But homosexuals are not allowed to marry the people they wish to marry, regardless of consanguinity issues. That's a big difference.

Arguing that a gay man has the same rights as you because he can also marry a woman if he wishes is a silly argument. The gay man does not wish to marry a woman. He wants to be able to marry another man, and for that marriage to have the same rights and responsibilites as a heterosexual marriage. In places where same-sex marriage is legal, you too could marry a man if you chose to. You wouldn't want to though, would you ? You'd be very upset if you were told, "sorry, you can't marry a woman, but look at all the men you could marry. That makes it OK, don't it ?" If you don't want to marry a man, then it's not OK. If you are a man who wants to marry another man, then being told "But you could marry a woman instead" does not make it OK either.


I am aware that you personally have not referred to the Bible or other religious authority in this argument. I was careful to be general when referring to the Christian perspective. I did not wish to start a religious debate unless someone specifically says they are arguing from a religious viewpoint.

However, you have argued against same-sex marriage as you object to the 'traditional definition' of marriage being redefined, and for having those changes 'forced' upon you. My argument was that the word 'marriage' already has many meanings beyond that of one man-one woman partnership. It's in common use in anthropology, cookery and antiques.

In terms of human relations, 'marriage' is used to mean a binding relationship recognized by the society of the individuals concerned. It is used to refer to relationships involving multiple partners eg: polygamous marriage. Therefore it is already used for definitions of marriage beyond the one man-one woman. I have yet to hear a convincing explanation of why 'marriage' cannot also be used to describe same-sex relationships. The argument that marriage must be between members of the opposite sex, because the purpose of marriage is procreation, is flawed. If it is true, then what about heterosexual couples who marry with no intention of having children ? Sure, they could, but they don't want to. If heterosexuals marry with no intention of procreation, then is that really marriage ? If heterosexual marriage without procreation is acceptable, then the argument that homosexual marriage is wrong because they cannot have children is invalid.

Perhaps the word 'marriage' is not the real issue for you ? You use the phrase 'homosexual marriage' but there are other options. Would a form of same-sex partnership, with the same legal status as opposite-sex marriage, be acceptable if another phrase like 'Civil Partnership' was used instead, or would you argue against that as well ?
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 5:49 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Autobon
Master
Master

Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 751
Location: Seattle, Washington

-

The state does not allow me to marry anyone I want, even excluding consanguinity issues. It does not endorse marriage due to people's feelings for one another. It endorses marriage largely because of benefit it brings to children and in turn society, which is why there has been such a narrow allowance. If you wish to debate on that basis, then I think we can come to a better understanding.

Corellias Dream wrote:
My argument was that the word 'marriage' already has many meanings beyond that of one man-one woman partnership. It's in common use in anthropology, cookery and antiques. I have yet to hear a convincing explanation of why 'marriage' cannot also be used to describe same-sex relationships. The argument that marriage must be between members of the opposite sex, because the purpose of marriage is procreation, is flawed.


We are speaking of conjugal marriage, by definition pertaining to the relation of husband and wife. Still, we need to be careful with our terminology. Certain words, for example, can be used to anthropomorphize different objects or animals, however we know not to confuse definitions. It is also important to note that if you wish to describe marriage in relation to cookery and so forth, then you have simply created a situation in which anybody could marry anything they loved, including their favorite box of cereal. It reminds me of those stories from Japan where some men even "marry" their virtual girlfriends. o.O

As for the purpose of marriage, it does indeed seem to be oriented towards procreation. Just one example of this can be seen in the fact that marriage inherently promises exclusivity and permanence, which would serve no real purpose for simply any romantic coupling. Clearly many married homosexuals understand this, which is why consensual adultery is so widespread among them. I linked to this paper earlier, which gives a very detailed and thought out answer to the question, "What is Marriage." If that is too long, some of its points have been brought up here. I highly recommend the full paper of course.

-
View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 12:52 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Corellias Dream
Knight
Knight

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 103
Location: UK

I just looked at marriage requirements for Washington State and the USA. Other than consanguinity, the only restrictions are that the other person is the opposite gender, of age, capable of giving consent and free to marry. You can't marry just anyone, but at least you can marry the gender of your choice. Homosexuals do not have that choice. Therefore you have rights that they don't.

You keep trying to avoid this point. You claim homosexuals have all the same rights as youself - the many differences between the rights of same-sex unions and heterosexual marriage are pointed out - you claim that homosexuals may marry anyone you can, therfore they have the same rights - I pointed out that they don't want to marry the same people that you do and so don't have the right to marry whom they wish - you now try to claim you're in the same position by picking out details to show that you can't marry absolutely any female you wish.

This last argument is irrelevent. You may marry most members of your preferred gender: homosexuals may not marry any member of their preferred gender. The difference is simple. You have choices that homosexuals do not. Trying to argue that law limiting your choices means that you are in the same position as homosexuals is fundamentally flawed.

As for your comment about the law not endorsing marriage due to people's feelings, I've yet to see anything about why 'the state' endorses marriage. No one is asked 'are you getting married because you intend to have children, or because you have feelings for one another ?'. Marriage is about other things than having children, and has rights and responsibilities that are not related to children. If marriage was purely for the benefit of the children, why would the state endorse marriage between heterosexual couples who either cannot have children or who don't want to have children ? People who can't have/don't want children can still get legally married, and do so because of their feelings for one another. Claiming that feelings and wishes are irrelevent to marriage, or the state's view of marriage, is absurd.


Quote:
As for the purpose of marriage, it does indeed seem to be oriented towards procreation. Marriage inherently promises exclusivity and permanence, which would serve no real purpose for simply any romantic coupling.


As I have pointed out, many people get married with no intention of procreating. Exclusivity and permanence are important to them as individuals and as a couple. They care about one another, and wish to share their lives together: they do not need children to add 'purpose' to their relationship. Of two married couples I know without children, one pair have been married for over 10 years and the other are reaching their 30th anniversary soon. Both are romantic couplings that have thrived with exclusivity and permanence, but without children.

Again, your argument seems to be that marriage must be one man-one woman because marriage is about children, not about love, and that only a man and a woman can create children (without the help of a laboratory).

If it is admitted that stable, heterosexual marriages can be based on love, without children, then the argument that procreation is essential to the definition of marriage becomes invalid. If heterosexual childless marriages are acceptable, then why not same-sex marriages ?
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 2:03 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Autobon
Master
Master

Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 751
Location: Seattle, Washington

-

Sorry for the long response, but I wanted to tie up some of my points. Having received more then a few PM's already, I understand that many members of this forum are not happy with me, to say the least, and have no desire whatsoever to continue this discussion. As it is not my goal to simply anger people, I will respect their wishes and stop posting in this thread. If you wish to PM me, I will still respond there.

-

Corellias Dream wrote:
You have rights that they don't. You keep trying to avoid this point. You claim homosexuals have all the same rights as youself - the many differences between the rights of same-sex unions and heterosexual marriage are pointed out - you claim that homosexuals may marry anyone you can, therfore they have the same rights - I pointed out that they don't want to marry the same people that you do and so don't have the right to marry whom they wish


There are two complaints at play here that I think you are trying to argue. First, that homosexuals don't have the same legal liberties heterosexuals have. Second, that homosexual couples don't have the same legal benefits as married couples.

The first complaint is simply untrue. Any homosexual can marry and receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-approved marriage. They just cannot marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and restrictions all citizens share equally. Clearly you find this to be an unsatisfying response, but it is a legitimate one, nonetheless.

Let me borrow my point from Kokle: Smith and Jones both qualify to vote in America where they are citizens. Neither is allowed to vote in France. Jones, however, has no interest in U.S. politics; he’s partial to European concerns. Would Jones have a case if he complained, "Smith gets to vote [in California], but I don’t get to vote [in France]. That’s unequal protection under the law. He has a right I don’t have." No, both have the same rights and the same restrictions. There is no legal inequality, only an inequality of desire, but that is not the state’s concern. The marriage law applies to each equally; everyone is treated exactly alike. Homosexuals want the right to do something that no one, straight or gay, has the right to do: wed someone of the same sex. Denying them that right is not in violation of the equal protection clause.

The second complaint gives you a potentially stronger case I think, but it also fails to make a definite reason. It’s true that homosexual couples do not have the same legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, health care, etc. However, no other non-marital relationships between individuals, such as brothers, college roommates, fraternity or sorority brothers and sisters, etc, share those benefits either. For what reason should they? If homosexual couples face "unequal protection" in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?

The state has a good reason for giving special benefits to marriages and not to others. It’s not because they are involved in loving and committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents. For example, if mom chooses to stay home and take care of her children, she and they are still covered. These circumstances, inherent to families, are not central to other relationships, including homosexual ones. The government has no obligation to give every human coupling the same entitlements simply to "stabilize" the relationship (as has been brought up). The unique benefits granted to marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates or tax relief. It’s meant to build families.

Quote:
Claiming that feelings and wishes are irrelevant to marriage, or the state's view of marriage, is absurd.


They are not irrelevant in the idea that they are not important. No one is making that argument. Certainly there should be love in a marriage. However love itself is not the reason for marriage. If marriage were about love, then the innumerable amounts of people throughout history who thought they were married were not. After-all, most marriages were arranged. If love was what defined marriage, then what use are vows? Vows do not sustain love; they are meant to sustain the union should love wane. A vow keeps a family together for the sake of children. Furthermore, the state does not ask questions about affections when granting a marriage license. No proof of love is required. Clearly, love is not what what defines a marriage.

Quote:
As I have pointed out, many people get married with no intention of procreating. Exclusivity and permanence are important to them as individuals and as a couple. They care about one another, and wish to share their lives together: they do not need children to add 'purpose' to their relationship.


Certainly some heterosexual couples do not have children, either by choice or circumstance. Just because in some individual cases marriage has not been fully actualized, it does not logically follow then that the purpose of marriage has somehow changed. If I were to use my books as doorstops, that does not then change the inherent purpose or nature of a book. Similarly, marriage is still oriented towards children, and while there are exceptions, they do not invalidate the rule.

Homosexuals have the right, in every state, to make a life-long, loving and monogamous commitment to each other. Clearly, as statistics show, almost none of them seem able to do this, but slapping the word "marriage" onto your relationship will not help you do that which you could not already. There is also no reason to think that among all the non-marital relationships, homosexuality somehow stands out as deserving of all marital benefits, simply because sexual acts are involved. To argue as such is to not understand what the purpose of marriage is.


-
EDITS: More spelling and grammar revisions then you can shake a stick at Razz

Last edited by Autobon on Tue May 29, 2012 9:07 pm; edited 17 times in total
View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove

Page 13 of 14 		All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 12, 13, 14  Next

Display posts from previous:

  

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Jedi Knights 2 by Scott Stubblefield