Gay Marriage

[Larv]

larv how can you possibly equate "gay marriage" with incest or bestiality? (and by the way, quite a few people seem to be getting by with polygamy in some states already, in some cases quite obviously forced polygamy and it's not being prosecuted due to religion) Tell us exactly what tit is about "gay marriage" that bothers you. Why does it bother you that homosexuals might marry? How do homosexuals getting married hurt anyone in any way?

If I offended you, Moontanman, I apologize. I certainly do not have anything against two adults of either sex loving each other. And, like you, I’m against an adult abusing a child, or an animal, or a dead person. But they have their value systems, too, no matter how strange or wrong they seem to us. What would be the harm, for instance, if an adult wanted to marry his dead aunt? I only need to know one thing about that, or about gay marriage: whether or not it is constitutional.

 

It's not enough for you to turn the question around on me. We have shown many times that homosexuals do not get he same rights from any other arrangement in most states.

Can’t speak for them, only for the state of Washington, and here we have legalized same-sex domestic partnership, but we don’t call it marriage. However, the benefits are identical.

 

It's great that your [state] confers the same (so you say) rights to gay couples as heterosexual couples but again why does it bother you so much for gays to marry?

As I have argued before, if my state’s supreme court decides that gay “marriage” is constitution then I’m willing change my understanding of term. Are you will to do the same thing? By my reasoning, which relies on legal parameters and supreme-court decisions, anything else would be emotional.

 

If it's not homophobia then tell me what it is.

It’s not about homophobia. It’s about being told to change my traditional understanding of the meaning of marriage by emotional arguments like those of InfiniteNow. If they were not emotional then he would agree that the matter can be settled by a supreme court ruling. He won’t agree to that. I’m willing to make that change when my state’s supreme court decides in favor of its constitutionality. But it (the state of Washington) has decided that domestic partnerships should have all the benefits of a traditionally married couples. But the state also decided that same-sex partnerships do not qualify for the title of “marriage.” It’s purely a titular thing. A supreme court in any state can decide on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. I’m willing to go along with that. But I’m not going to be coerced by arguments that invoke old Jim Crow sentiments in the wrong context.

 

personally I don't care what any consenting adults do in private but something about it bothers you, what is it?

No, I‘m with you. I am in favor of any two consenting adults loving each other. But that’s an entirely different thing from the constitutionality of "gay marriage."

[Larv]

I won’t express outrage...

No need for emotions, only for what is defensible before a state's supreme court.

 

...but I will point out the logical problem here—what you say, Larv, makes no sense at all.

 

You say that Jim Crow is in the heterosexual tradition and fault the comparison of gay marriage with Jim Crow laws because the former is homosexual and the latter is heterosexual. You then say a more appropriate comparison is polygamy, incest, or bestiality. Well, I’ve got news for you Larv: polygamy, incest, and bestiality are in the heterosexual tradition as well. Sex in all three categories is a male/female affair just as much as interracial marriage is. So there’s no logic at all to what you’re saying. The very exact objection you make to InfiniteNow’s comparison can be made to your comparisons.

Clever. I like it.

 

It’s like saying “You can’t compare a tree to a frog because one is a plant and one is an animal. A better comparison is between a tree and a bird”. It’s illogical. The argument itself makes no rational sense.

Well, OK, but what about comparing a bicycle to a tricycle and ignoring the number of wheels? Wouldn't that work just as illogically?

[modest]

Well, OK, but what about comparing a bicycle to a tricycle and ignoring the number of wheels? Wouldn't that work just as illogically?

 

I don't understand the point of the analogy. It seems confused.

 

I guess you're saying that comparing a bicycle to a tricycle is like comparing homosexual marriage to heterosexual marriage and you can't ignore the number of wheels in the first or the genitalia in the second. That's true, but I don't see what it has to do with anything anybody is saying. Clearly a bicycle is not the same thing as a tricycle just as a homosexual marriage is not the same as a heterosexual marriage. There are differences—nobody is saying otherwise.

 

The question is whether or not homosexual marriage is a proper marriage. So the analogy would be whether or not a unicycle constitutes a wheeled vehicle... or if the number of wheels has any bearing on the definition of "wheeled vehicle" at all. The analogy would work best in comparing these two sets of definitions:

Wheeled vehicle:

1. A vehicle with a wheeled means of locomotion
   
   
2. A vehicle of locomotion with at least two wheels

 

Marriage:

1. An intimate union between two people
   
   
2. An intimate union between two people with at least two types of genitalia

I think you can define a proper marriage without the restriction on types of genitalia in the marriage. If you'd like to argue otherwise then it is not enough to just say 'you're ignoring the difference between a man and a woman: there are differences, ya know'. Yes, there are differences. Why that should matter is the question. Why should an intimate union of same sex partners not constitute a proper marriage while the intimate union of opposite sex partners should constitute a proper marriage? It's not enough to say there are differences.

 

~modest

[Zythryn]

Exactness in legislation is not required.

I beg to differ. Our society requires a very high level of exactness in legislation. Have you seen the size of bills that go through congress?

 

The Fundamental, basic, reason for two heteros getting together is a drive to procreate, the drive to extend the species. This is basic, fundamental, biological fact. In the wild two heteros will get together to extend the genes for another generation. All other considerations that follow are derivative or attenuated.

This is true, on an unconscious reason which has been selected for/reinforced through natural selection.

But this does not address my question. I did not ask why men and women have sex, I asked what the reasoning is behind marraige.

And I do not believe the main reason is as you stated above.

 

Homosexuals do not satisfy the fundamental premise. Yet they want to be included on the basis of some attenuated derivative reason.

I propose your premise is faulty.

 

Without hetero bonds there is no civilization. There are no computers, no cars, no blackberries. We are not going to send gays to Mars to colonize. Get life?

 

So are you suggesting allowing homosexuals to legally bond, that hererosexual bonds are eliminated?

 

Those are not antiquated consideration but fundamental truths of life and society. As I said before, the Bill of Rights is not there to remedy nature, but to remedy man-made fundamental wrongs, and the only fundamental wrong here would be gay marriage.

Why is it a fundamental wrong?

Again, the only reason I have seen you mention is that homosexuals can't procreate. That is true, but if that is a reason to not allow homosexuals to marry, why don't you also propose not allowing other infertile couples to marry?

[dannieyankee]

Lawcat, please answer this question:

 

'basic, fundamental, biological fact.'.

 

WHY SHOULD SOCIETY BE SOLELY BASED ON BIOLOGY? Last time I checked, infertile and elderly people contributed nothing to society, yet we spend millions of dollars on them. Since they are not procreating, as your completely faulty pretence states, why don't we just stone them? It makes biological sense. They are taking resources from people who will gain the ability to procreate.

 

By the way, your saying 'It does not have to be precise' and 'It is not necessary to test them for procreation' is the equivelent of saying.

 

'Purple papers cannot be used because black ink does not show too clearly on them. However, green papers can be written on because some inks show up, not necessarily black, and not necessarily all the time. Black ink rarely shows up on brown paper, but because the law does not need to apply to everyone, we can write on them'.

 

Your idea is that 'gays do not deserve fundamental rights, and since the law does not have to apply to them because they are gay, any arguments held towards them will be with the pretence that they are gay and cannot procreate, so there.

 

Your entire argument is based off biology. Please, for god's sake, respond: What does marriage, the legal union between two people who are in love, have to do with reproduction, the biological norm for a man and woman to reproduce and have offspring?

 

And besides, we are overpopulated - what need would reproduction have? Biologically speaking, it makes sense for us to save resources by limiting how many people gain access to them, and in a moral sense, instead of depriving existing peoples of these resources, we can prevent an increase of people who need it at all.

[lawcat]

Necessity gives rise to reasonable expectation. Resonable expectation gives rise to obligation. Obligation gives rise to necessity.

 

Extension of genes (fundamental necessity) gives rise to decisional freedom (reasonable expectation) of child rearing. Decisional freedom (reasonable expectation) gives rise to division of duties and familial structure (obligations). Duties and structure (obligations) give rise to marriage (a civilizational necessity).

 

Licking and sucking is not a necessity, and neither is sodomy, and was banned for many years, but was struck down on grounds of privacy, not necessity. But let's presume that licking and sucking is driven by a desire to procreate, which is driven by attraction (not love), and lets's further consider that this necessity, even though it has nothing to do with extension of genes, is merely motivated by such drive and attraction in heteros and homos alike.

Even if gays were driven by the same necessity, the expectations of extension of genes are not reasonable--they are unreasonable. Unreasonable expectations can not create valid obligations. And invalid obligations cannot create civilizational necessity. The concept of marriage can not rest on something unreasonable.

 

Gay marriage is completely and utterly irrational to the purpose of marriage.

[dannieyankee]

 

Gay marriage is completely and utterly irrational to the purpose of marriage.

 

Purpose of Marriage according to a google search:

 

1. To model God's love

2. To extend a relationship to a legal level

3. To share obligations through love

4. (from a radical website that also advocated AIDS for gay people and various types of extermination) To procreate.

 

Procreation is not a legal necessity - you do not need to marry to procreate. So why should the logical argument be you need to procreate to marry?

 

No matter how many times you say it, procreation remains separate from marriage. Get that through your thick skull, please, or this debate will never continue.

 

Did you know that humans and dolphins have sex for recreational reasons? That means sex is not about procreation, for the most part, but RECREATION. I can assure you I do not have sex thinking about children (and I have had sex with men before; I assure you, that was, too, not part of my thoughts, but rather 'Oh, this is gross, this is gross, this is gross, ew, what is that gu - NO!'). Sex is not merely for procreation. Yet it is a biological function used to procreate. Marriage is not merely for procreation. Yet is is commonly used as an easy way for a couple to immediately have dual custody of a child. This is demonstrated in nature (the sex part, not the marriage part) in dolphins.

 

In the animal kingdom, there is no marriage. So arguing marriage based on biological facts, unto itself, is hypocrisy. I merely bring it up to rationalised your irrational ideals.

[lawcat]

Lawcat, please answer this question:

 

.

 

Go back and read.

[lawcat]

Purpose of Marriage according to a google search:

 

 

lol

 

Amorous fleeting feelings are not essential to marriage; otherwise, you could marry anyone and any number of people, which is not the case. Free love is not the basis for marriage nor essential to marriage. What is essential to marriage is: two people of opposite sex.

[modest]

Licking and sucking is not a necessity, and neither is sodomy, and was banned for many years, but was struck down on grounds of privacy, not necessity. But let's presume that licking and sucking is driven by a desire to procreate, which is driven by attraction (not love), and lets's further consider that this necessity, even though it has nothing to do with extension of genes, is merely motivated by such drive and attraction in heteros and homos alike.

Even if gays were driven by the same necessity, the expectations of extension of genes are not reasonable--they are unreasonable. Unreasonable expectations can not create valid obligations. And invalid obligations cannot create civilizational necessity. The concept of marriage can not rest on something unreasonable.

 

Gay marriage is completely and utterly irrational to the purpose of marriage.

 

Procreation is neither the only purpose of marriage or civilization. Your inability to concede this comes off as bias.

 

The fact is: homosexuality exists. Does it benefit society to allow homosexuals to marry or to force them to live as if alone? Which has the vested interest of society?

 

I stress this in the form of a quote for which you will probably be sympathetic:

 

I observed yet another example of something meaningless under the sun. This is the case of a man who is all alone, without a child or a brother, yet who works hard to gain as much wealth as he can. But then he asks himself, “Who am I working for? Why am I giving up so much pleasure now?” It is all so meaningless and depressing.

 

Two people are better off than one, for they can help each other succeed. If one person falls, the other can reach out and help. But someone who falls alone is in real trouble. Likewise, two people lying close together can keep each other warm. But how can one be warm alone? A person standing alone can be attacked and defeated, but two can stand back-to-back and conquer.

 

Eccl. 4:7-11

 

~modest

[dannieyankee]

lol

 

Amorous fleeting feelings are not essential to marriage; otherwise, you could marry anyone and any number of people, which is not the case. Free love is not the basis for marriage nor essential to marriage. What is essential to marriage is: two people of opposite sex.

 

Marriage is not based on biology. Amorous feelings, not the fleeting kind, are almost equivalent to marriage. Free love is not related to this topic; free love is the idea that you can have as many partners as you love. Marriage is the idea that you will remain with the one person you love for the rest of your life. Marriage is NOT a biological fact, and that is my argument. Your argument is invalid, as it has been proven wrong many times.

[Turtle]

one of the haters said something about if the Supreme court rules gays can marry then it's acceptable to them. but truly, we know from this context and their tone that they still won't like it for whatever little gnawing black bias they harbor. is it just me, or doth some complaineth here a bit too much? :cup: maybe not; sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. :cup:

 

anyways, since we are talking about humans here, i see some misguided implications floating in all this mess in regards to evolution, sex, and procreation. it is only in a relatively 'recent' period of our history, in comparsion to the hundreds of thousands of years or so we peeps have been around, that we put the two occurences of coitus & birth together. given the long human gestation, the special human feature that the females don't have to be in estrus to show an interest in coitus, and humans propensity to multiple partners, the socio-cultural 'norms' pretended to here as 'evolutionary' arguments against gay marriage, have no validity. cart before the horse, or bass akwards as they say.

[Moontanman]

Extension of genes (fundamental necessity) gives rise to decisional freedom (reasonable expectation) of child rearing. Decisional freedom (reasonable expectation) gives rise to division of duties and familial structure (obligations). Duties and structure (obligations) give rise to marriage (a civilizational necessity).

 

No lawcat in no way shape or form can you say that marriage is necessary for civilization, that bold claim is getting old like a fish three days in the sun. It is not necessary in this day and age for everyone to procreate or even the majority to procreate to maintain civilization. Your basic premise is not even wrong, it's plain silly.

 

Licking and sucking is not a necessity, and neither is sodomy,

 

Licking and sucking, sodomy? ROFLMAO, OH STOP PLEASE STOP, YOU MIGHT HAVE A FUTURE AS COMEDIAN AFTER ALL.... In what world view is any of those limited to homosexuals? The laws prohibiting them was not based on necessity or anything else other than stupid religious morality! Just like your problem with gay marriage, everything you say is just another straw man to hide the religious morality behind. Good god, be man enough to stand up and say you don't think gays should be married because it's against your religious morality, I can at least respect your candor for that. Trying hide it behind your weak arguments is really kind of sad, but typical of the religious right and their insidious agenda to maintain religious control in every aspect of society. The religious right is loosing the battle to maintain religious control of the population through guilt and shame, this is just one more nail in the coffin of religious control of the poulation...

 

 

The concept of marriage can not rest on something unreasonable.

 

It already does, it rests on religion.....

 

Gay marriage is completely and utterly irrational to the purpose of marriage.

 

Gay marriage is no more unreasonable than heterosexual marriage, both of them can be both the saving grace of a humans life or a living hell, the genitals of the people involved have no bearing on the rationality of marriage.

[lawcat]

Modest,

 

You raise a common argument: If two people can live together, love, share food, share finances, share joys and sorrows of this limited life on earth that we have, then they should be able to marry. The corollary of that is the biblial passage you posted which can be summarized as: it is a human necessity to go in pairs.

 

Both are incorrect. The first is incorrect because if it is essentially incorrect; if it were true you could marry you mother, your father, two neices, five tribal women, and share joys and sorrows of life; and this is not the case. The second is incorrect, because it is an arbitrary poetic construct; what arbitrary line of reason could possibly make us say that it is in pairs that we are the strongest. Why not in triplets or double pairs, or in dozens? Certainly twelve people are stronger than two.

 

The only essence of marriage is two people of opposite sex who agree to marry. Nothing else is required, and everything else must be excluded.

[InfiniteNow]

The only essence of marriage is two people of opposite sex who agree to marry. Nothing else is required, and everything else must be excluded.

 

Another hollow and vacuous assertion with zero basis in reality.

 

At some point, you guys on the staff are just going to have to close this thread. Either this guy is completely oblivious, or he's trolling the topic, and you shouldn't put up with either.

[Moontanman]

I agree with Inow....

[lawcat]

Amorous feelings, not the fleeting kind, are almost equivalent to marriage . . . Marriage is the idea that you will remain with the one person you love for the rest of your life.

 

That is a religious argument, and religious arguments are a matter of inspiration--not reason. For a very long time, and in many patriarchial societies that influence our religious conscience, women were property, livestock. A man could take a woman for dowry and own her for life or not. The "or not" part came to a screaching halt when western religions, especially christianity, took over. Since child bearing was a matter of god, then the hetero-bond was a matter of god; then the marriage between a man and a woman was a bond in front of god. If god desired it so, than the bond should last here and in eternity. There is nothing fundamental, essential, about marriage lasting for life.