So what happens now? Supreme Court and then either it's upheld or the push begins for a Constitutional Amendment. This is still years from being resolved fully.
Oh crap, now all that bad stuff might happen that would happen if gays were allowed to be married! You know, that stuff. ALL OF IT. Man, we're screwed.
Golden Eyed Scout wrote:I'm surprised the banned it in the first place. What with San Fransico and all....
While San Fran is well known for liberalism there are a lot of conservatives in California, especially in the northern half. That group usually just gets outvoted in presidential elections (Which liberals participate in more than other voting procedures like referendums) so lots of people don't notice.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Oh crap, now all that bad stuff might happen that would happen if gays were allowed to be married! You know, that stuff. ALL OF IT. Man, we're screwed.
Technically it's the box turtles that are getting screwed, but I suppose you could say that the whole "lakes turning to blood" and "rains of fire and fishes" could metaphorically constitute how Canada has been horribly defiled by the imposition of gay marriage.
Golden Eyed Scout wrote:I'm surprised the banned it in the first place. What with San Fransico and all....
While San Fran is well known for liberalism there are a lot of conservatives in California, especially in the northern half. That group usually just gets outvoted in presidential elections (Which liberals participate in more than other voting procedures like referendums) so lots of people don't notice.
If you want to be gay that is your prerogative. Don't expect churches and God fearing institutions to agree with your decision and get upset when they won't marry you.
Fateweaver wrote:Gays should not be allowed to marry. End of.
If you want to be gay that is your prerogative. Don't expect churches and God fearing institutions to agree with your decision and get upset when they won't marry you.
What about the churches that have no problem with the idea of marrying two men or women, Fateweaver?
If their vision of God is more liberal then yours are they not permitted to do what they feel is right in God's eyes? Who are you to speak for God on this issue?
Fateweaver wrote:Gays should not be allowed to marry. End of.
If you want to be gay that is your prerogative. Don't expect churches and God fearing institutions to agree with your decision and get upset when they won't marry you.
Religious views should have absolutely zero influence on politics and law making, you know that whole separation of church and state thing.
If you want to be gay that is your prerogative. Don't expect churches and God fearing institutions to agree with your decision and get upset when they won't marry you.
There are churches willing to marry gay couples, there is in fact an entire branch of christianity that has no problem with it.
Open can of warms. Need to get out the boat, fishing rod and 2 cases of beer. We are going fishin' boys/girls/things.
There was no can of worms, you just said something kinda daft.
This has reamined and should remain a states rights issue. Everywhere this has been voted on, the voters have ruled against Gay Marriage. It's by the activism of judges that this gets overturned. BTW, the judge who ruled on this is a homosexual.
Fateweaver wrote:Gays should not be allowed to marry. End of.
If you want to be gay that is your prerogative. Don't expect churches and God fearing institutions to agree with your decision and get upset when they won't marry you.
Religious views should have absolutely zero influence on politics and law making, you know that whole separation of church and state thing.
Hit the nail on the head before I could even bring out my hammer.
Also: Gay isn't someone's perogative, it's who they are. A gay person can't choose to be gay.
I would've believed that arguement would've been thrown out as the rubbish it is.
Forgive me if my understanding of perogative is mistaken in this context.
Fateweaver wrote:Gays should not be allowed to marry. End of.
If you want to be gay that is your prerogative. Don't expect churches and God fearing institutions to agree with your decision and get upset when they won't marry you.
Religious views should have absolutely zero influence on politics and law making, you know that whole separation of church and state thing.
Hit the nail on the head before I could even bring out my hammer.
Also: Gay isn't someone's perogative, it's who they are. A gay person can't choose to be gay.
I would've believed that arguement would've been thrown out as the rubbish it is.
Forgive me if my understanding of perogative is mistaken in this context.
Close enough for common use.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Kinda suspecting this thread may see some vacation time for some of us.
Fateweaver wrote:Gays should not be allowed to marry. End of.
If you want to be gay that is your prerogative. Don't expect churches and God fearing institutions to agree with your decision and get upset when they won't marry you.
Religious views should have absolutely zero influence on politics and law making, you know that whole separation of church and state thing.
Hit the nail on the head before I could even bring out my hammer.
Also: Gay isn't someone's perogative, it's who they are. A gay person can't choose to be gay.
I would've believed that arguement would've been thrown out as the rubbish it is.
Forgive me if my understanding of perogative is mistaken in this context.
Close enough for common use.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Kinda suspecting this thread may see some vacation time for some of us.
Fateweaver wrote:Gays should not be allowed to marry. End of.
If you want to be gay that is your prerogative. Don't expect churches and God fearing institutions to agree with your decision and get upset when they won't marry you.
Religious views should have absolutely zero influence on politics and law making, you know that whole separation of church and state thing.
Hit the nail on the head before I could even bring out my hammer.
Also: Gay isn't someone's perogative, it's who they are. A gay person can't choose to be gay.
I would've believed that arguement would've been thrown out as the rubbish it is.
Forgive me if my understanding of perogative is mistaken in this context.
Actually its the State itself that should but out. Keep the state out of religion (or non religion). The State can sanction the legal rights of couples, but let couples/religions/cult determine what "married" is.
Fateweaver wrote:Gays should not be allowed to marry. End of.
If you want to be gay that is your prerogative. Don't expect churches and God fearing institutions to agree with your decision and get upset when they won't marry you.
Religious views should have absolutely zero influence on politics and law making, you know that whole separation of church and state thing.
Hit the nail on the head before I could even bring out my hammer.
Also: Gay isn't someone's perogative, it's who they are. A gay person can't choose to be gay.
I would've believed that arguement would've been thrown out as the rubbish it is.
Forgive me if my understanding of perogative is mistaken in this context.
Actually its the State itself that should but out. Keep the state out of religion (or non religion). The State can sanction the legal rights of couples, but let couples/religions/cult determine what "married" is.
That's exactly what seperation of church and state was intended to be. No legislating about someone's God (or lack thereof).
If two individuals wish to enter into a "life contract",have a ceremony committing themselves to one another,express their love for each other in a legally binding way..why is it anyone's business but theirs?
This whole affair should be a non-issue,Homosexuals should enjoy all the same rights and privileges as Heterosexuals...and that includes the right to marry.
FITZZ wrote: Oh FFS,why is it that this is even an issue?
If two individuals wish to enter into a "life contract",have a ceremony committing themselves to one another,express their love for each other in a legally binding way..why is it anyone's business but theirs?
This whole affair should be a non-issue,Homosexuals should enjoy all the same rights and privileges as Heterosexuals...and that includes the right to marry.
Said in a much more eloquent manner then I could ever hope to achieve. Thank you.
Fateweaver wrote:Don't expect churches and God fearing institutions to agree with your decision and get upset when they won't marry you.
Way to not understand the law at ALL, Fateweaver.
The law only states that gays have the LEGAL RIGHT to marry, it says nothing about where they marry and does not force churches/religious organizations to marry them if the church/religious organization does not wish to marry them.
Again, you force your way into a topic with little to no idea what you're talking about.
Some of the people wanting these unions are not even gay. They have just been living with the same person for so long, that they want the same entitlements that married people have. Such as, claiming married filing jointly on taxes. Not all marriages/unions are about love.
Fateweaver wrote:Gays should not be allowed to marry. End of.
If you want to be gay that is your prerogative. Don't expect churches and God fearing institutions to agree with your decision and get upset when they won't marry you.
Religious views should have absolutely zero influence on politics and law making, you know that whole separation of church and state thing.
separation of church and state. Bible should not determine our laws. is marriage covered under the pursuit of happiness? (cue cheesy joke about marriage being horrible by some guy)
Ironhide wrote:Some of the people wanting these unions are not even gay. They have just been living with the same person for so long, that they want the same entitlements that married people have. Such as, claiming married filing jointly on taxes. Not all marriages/unions are about love.
Heck yeah! I hear some of them are about pain and suffering
Is it weird that I'm Christian and honestly don't care XD. I swear I feel like the odd guy out in every ideology I subscribe too
Ironhide wrote:Some of the people wanting these unions are not even gay. They have just been living with the same person for so long, that they want the same entitlements that married people have. Such as, claiming married filing jointly on taxes. Not all marriages/unions are about love.
And how is that different from hetero couples already doing the exact same thing?
Ironhide wrote:Some of the people wanting these unions are not even gay. They have just been living with the same person for so long, that they want the same entitlements that married people have. Such as, claiming married filing jointly on taxes. Not all marriages/unions are about love.
Heck yeah! I hear some of them are about pain and suffering
Is it weird that I'm Christian and honestly don't care XD. I swear I feel like the odd guy out in every ideology I subscribe too
I'm against gay marriage and always will be. End of.
If Paul wants to pork Peter in the ass, fine by me. They shouldn't need to get married though. I mean, what's next? Allowing people to have more than a single wife? Allowing adults to marry kids?
I mean, I love not being stuck with the same woman so by the logic of many here I should be legally allowed to have multiple wives so I need not bury the snake in the same hole every night (not to mention the tax breaks I'd get with 3 or 4 wives).
Fateweaver wrote:Gays should not be allowed to marry. End of.
If you want to be gay that is your prerogative. Don't expect churches and God fearing institutions to agree with your decision and get upset when they won't marry you.
Religious views should have absolutely zero influence on politics and law making, you know that whole separation of church and state thing.
Hit the nail on the head before I could even bring out my hammer.
Also: Gay isn't someone's perogative, it's who they are. A gay person can't choose to be gay.
I would've believed that arguement would've been thrown out as the rubbish it is.
Forgive me if my understanding of perogative is mistaken in this context.
Actually its the State itself that should but out. Keep the state out of religion (or non religion). The State can sanction the legal rights of couples, but let couples/religions/cult determine what "married" is.
Except marriage is a legal financial institution and not a religious one in U.S. law. Which is all anyone cares about since even with the overturn churches still don't have to marry gays.
If Paul wants to pork Peter in the ass, fine by me. They shouldn't need to get married though. I mean, what's next? Allowing people to have more than a single wife? Allowing adults to marry kids?
How exactly would allowing same sex couples to marry lead to polygamy and people marrying children? What is the bizarre, twisted reasoning behind that line of thought?
Fateweaver wrote:I'll step out now and do some fishing.
I'm against gay marriage and always will be. End of.
If Paul wants to pork Peter in the ass, fine by me. They shouldn't need to get married though. I mean, what's next? Allowing people to have more than a single wife? Allowing adults to marry kids?
I mean, I love not being stuck with the same woman so by the logic of many here I should be legally allowed to have multiple wives so I need not bury the snake in the same hole every night (not to mention the tax breaks I'd get with 3 or 4 wives).
How are all of the other situations you present linked to this law? Do you think that legal precedence will really lead to all of those things being legal as well? I am not so convinced that our legal system is as flexible as you suggest.
I don't follow how allowing gay couples to marry equates to allowing people to marry children, horses, or how it links itself automatically to polygamy. Where is the connection, and why do you assume that anyone who supports the right for gay marriage, also supports the slippery slope you have laid out.
1) It's natural (apparently). Okay, I guess at times in nature males copulate with males. Cool.
2) If 2 people are in love it shouldn't matter their sexual preference.
Now, apply that to humans. It's also natural in the animal kingdom for every species to have several mates so why can't human males have more than one wife? If I want 5 mates I should be able to marry all 5 women.
To the second point? Who's to say I don't love all 5 the same and want to be with JUST those 5 for the rest of my life? Shouldn't I be allowed to marry all 5?
See where I'm going with this? A lot of things in nature are "natural" (mates killing their partner after sex) but we can't apply "natural" argument to every reason for marriage in human society or we'd have one fethed up society.
Fateweaver wrote:Okay. 2 excuses I see for allowing SSM.
1) It's natural (apparently). Okay, I guess at times in nature males copulate with males. Cool.
2) If 2 people are in love it shouldn't matter their sexual preference.
Now, apply that to humans. It's also natural in the animal kingdom for every species to have several mates so why can't human males have more than one wife? If I want 5 mates I should be able to marry all 5 women.
To the second point? Who's to say I don't love all 5 the same and want to be with JUST those 5 for the rest of my life? Shouldn't I be allowed to marry all 5?
See where I'm going with this? A lot of things in nature are "natural" (mates killing their partner after sex) but we can't apply "natural" argument to every reason for marriage in human society or we'd have one fethed up society.
Or you could be like Gene Simmons and live with the same woman forever (not married btw), yet have all the sex you want.
Fateweaver wrote:
I mean, I love not being stuck with the same woman so by the logic of many here I should be legally allowed to have multiple wives so I need not bury the snake in the same hole every night (not to mention the tax breaks I'd get with 3 or 4 wives).
No, that's not the same logic. The rationale behind permitting homosexual marriage is that we should not dictate to people who they will marry. Whereas the rationale behind the prohibition against polygamy is that there is a socially compelling reason to prohibit marriages between multiple people; namely the apparent tendency for that sort of relationship to be open to victimization.
That said, outside of the obvious issues involving child custody and asset distribution, I don't see a compelling reason to prevent people from having polygamous unions. After all, we can simply work to directly police the abusive relationships that might arise.
Regardless, the idea that we should prevent homosexuals from marrying because we will eventually have to allow polygamous couples is fallacious. For that argument to hold true, the existence of marriage itself would also have to set up a set of conditions according to which homosexual marriage would be inevitable.
Never said he was. Just saying same sex marriages will be more likely to go to a court house, rather than a church. Which is kinda a win for the state governments as it is more revenue.
Ironhide wrote:Never said he was. Just saying same sex marriages will be more likely to go to a court house, rather than a church. Which is kinda a win for the state governments as it is more revenue.
Fateweaver wrote:
I mean, I love not being stuck with the same woman so by the logic of many here I should be legally allowed to have multiple wives so I need not bury the snake in the same hole every night (not to mention the tax breaks I'd get with 3 or 4 wives).
No, that's not the same logic. The rationale behind permitting homosexual marriage is that we should not dictate to people who they will marry. Whereas the rationale behind the prohibition against polygamy is that there is a socially compelling reason to prohibit marriages between multiple people; namely the apparent tendency for that sort of relationship to be open to victimization.
That said, outside of the obvious issues involving child custody and asset distribution, I don't see a compelling reason to prevent people from having polygamous unions. After all, we can simply work to directly police the abusive relationships that might arise.
Regardless, the idea that we should prevent homosexuals from marrying because we will eventually have to allow polygamous couples is fallacious. For that argument to hold true, the existence of marriage itself would also have to set up a set of conditions according to which homosexual marriage would be inevitable.
But if state gov't can work around child adoption and parenting issues with SSM then surely something could be done for people wanting multiple wives/husbands? Sure it could be a lot messier than 2 men or women marrying but the points still stand. Gay couples want to be married to either show their love or for the same benefits straight married couples get with taxes and whatnot (which is also why are tax system is so fethed up in the first place but that's not for discussion right now). Imagine the tax breaks the IRS would HAVE to give a man/woman with 3-4 wives. Victimization also may not be as prevalent as any other "abusive" relationship would go through. Hell, if the guy is abusive to one wife and they all like one another that guy might not get to victimize the one wife he is for very long. 4 women could probably do things to a man in his sleep that a single woman couldn't. If anything polygamy might help thin the population of the donkey-caves who SHOULD be quartered and hung for beating their wives.
See where I'm going with this? A lot of things in nature are "natural" (mates killing their partner after sex) but we can't apply "natural" argument to every reason for marriage in human society or we'd have one fethed up society.
but im not sure a human would want to eat another human after mating, the other one being all sweaty and all...
A human doesnt eat his partner but has sex with it. A monkey has sex with his partner and doesnt eat it. (or else it would be one strange monkey...) a praying mantis eats his partner, and has sex with it. There is an evolutionary reason for eating the mate. We dont need it.
and since when does having legal same sex marriage have anything in common with pedophiles marrying kids?!
Fateweaver wrote:If you want to be gay that is your prerogative. Don't expect churches and God fearing institutions to agree with your decision and get upset when they won't marry you.
There is nothing requiring a church to marry a gay couple. A church can choose to marry them, or it can choose not to. The couple is free to go to a church that will marry them, or free to keep church out of their marriage entirely.
Your argument above is completely made up. It's absolute drivel.
Stormrider wrote:This has reamined and should remain a states rights issue. Everywhere this has been voted on, the voters have ruled against Gay Marriage. It's by the activism of judges that this gets overturned. BTW, the judge who ruled on this is a homosexual.
Sigh. The judge ruled on the issue based on the Californian constitution. The decision is based entirely within the state.
And it is an absolute pile of nonsense to believe in a constitution while decrying every decision you don't like as judicial activism.
rubiksnoob wrote:How exactly would allowing same sex couples to marry lead to polygamy and people marrying children? What is the bizarre, twisted reasoning behind that line of thought?
Fateweaver has been pretty much actively hostile to logic and reality for a long time now. What matters is loyalty to ideology. He believes what they believe, and he figures out reasons to believe that later.
Fateweaver wrote:To the second point? Who's to say I don't love all 5 the same and want to be with JUST those 5 for the rest of my life? Shouldn't I be allowed to marry all 5?
Because property laws and child custody in the event of divorce or death are already complicated, allowing multiple spouses will just make that incredibly complex. Then there's welfare and taxation, which would become incredibly more difficult and prone to exploitation if people can set up multiple spouse legal constructs.
In other words, bigamy is illegal because bad things will happen if it is made legal. No such argument can be made against homosexual marriage.
Sebster, the judge used the wrong precedent to overturn the decision. I have no problem with a legitimate case of unonstitutional laws being overturned, but there needs to be precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986 basically said there is not a Constitutional right to Homosexual activity. In 1996 Romer v. Evans said sexual preferences are to be treated like a race or creed, it was struck down by the SCOTUS. Lawrence v. Texas 2003 completely reversed the 1986 decison and said there is a right to sodomy, which in turn gave the rights to Homosexuals in a vicarious sort of way (even though most of the laws against sodomy were either gone or out of any kind of enforcement). How could a decison be derived from any of these three as there is no decison concerning the act of homosexual marriage. The "privacy of your bedroom" argument falls flat if your commiting incest or rape doesn't it?
Since there is no judicial precedent on the act of Homosexual marriage, what standing the Judge have?
Your self riteouness is getting really old. Do have some deep seeded guilt inside of you or something?
Fateweaver wrote: They shouldn't need to get married though. I mean, what's next? Allowing people to have more than a single wife? Allowing adults to marry kids?
I mean, I love not being stuck with the same woman so by the logic of many here I should be legally allowed to have multiple wives so I need not bury the snake in the same hole every night (not to mention the tax breaks I'd get with 3 or 4 wives).
slippery slope fallacy and totally illogical. by that rationale, since people have been getting married for thousands of years, there have been lobbies for thousands of years supporting multiple marriage, right? wrong.
who are you to say they can't get married? you just agreed it's none of your business. the constitution of the US provides for the pursuit of happiness. full stop.
Stormrider wrote:Sebster, the judge used the wrong precedent to overturn the decision. I have no problem with a legitimate case of unonstitutional laws being overturned, but there needs to be precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986 basically said there is not a Constitutional right to Homosexual activity. In 1996 Romer v. Evans said sexual preferences are to be treated like a race or creed, it was struck down by the SCOTUS. Lawrence v. Texas 2003 completely reversed the 1986 decison and said there is a right to sodomy, which in turn gave the rights to Homosexuals in a vicarious sort of way (even though most of the laws against sodomy were either gone or out of any kind of enforcement). How could a decison be derived from any of these three as there is no decison concerning the act of homosexual marriage. The "privacy of your bedroom" argument falls flat if your commiting incest or rape doesn't it?
Yes, a lot has changed in court rulings on homosexuality in a few short decades. Because precedent matters, but precedent that doesn't fit with a current understanding of the law needs to be overturned.
Your self riteouness is getting really old. Do have some deep seeded guilt inside of you or something?
I have little patience for nonsense. Sorry if you cop the brunt of that.
I will concede I made an error above, I thought this was based on the equal protection clause in the Californian constitution. My mistake.
I don't see how legal marriage can be classified as a basic right, but then again I have to honestly say I don't see the point anyway.
I say let the gays have the right to marriage, it's just another example of how it is little more than a ceremony of dedication to another person, that any two people can just as easily share in any form other than the signing of official papers under a registered celebrant. You can always just change your last name anyway. That's kind of going out of fashion too. If people feel it 'cheapens' their heterosexual marriage in any way, they've completely missed the point of loving another person.
The point, as far as the state is concerned, is the joint tax return. Religious affairs are outside of the jurisdiction in question.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:I don't see how legal marriage can be classified as a basic right, but then again I have to honestly say I don't see the point anyway.
I say let the gays have the right to marriage, it's just another example of how it is little more than a ceremony of dedication to another person, that any two people can just as easily share in any form other than the signing of official papers under a registered celebrant. You can always just change your last name anyway. That's kind of going out of fashion too. If people feel it 'cheapens' their heterosexual marriage in any way, they've completely missed the point of loving another person.
The point, as far as the state is concerned, is the joint tax return. Religious affairs are outside of the jurisdiction in question.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:I don't see how legal marriage can be classified as a basic right, but then again I have to honestly say I don't see the point anyway.
I say let the gays have the right to marriage, it's just another example of how it is little more than a ceremony of dedication to another person, that any two people can just as easily share in any form other than the signing of official papers under a registered celebrant. You can always just change your last name anyway. That's kind of going out of fashion too. If people feel it 'cheapens' their heterosexual marriage in any way, they've completely missed the point of loving another person.
The point, as far as the state is concerned, is the joint tax return. Religious affairs are outside of the jurisdiction in question.
under UN charter its a basic human right
What jurisdiction does the State of California fall under? Their state Constitution and the US Constitution, not a UN Charter.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:I don't see how legal marriage can be classified as a basic right, but then again I have to honestly say I don't see the point anyway.
I say let the gays have the right to marriage, it's just another example of how it is little more than a ceremony of dedication to another person, that any two people can just as easily share in any form other than the signing of official papers under a registered celebrant. You can always just change your last name anyway. That's kind of going out of fashion too. If people feel it 'cheapens' their heterosexual marriage in any way, they've completely missed the point of loving another person.
The point, as far as the state is concerned, is the joint tax return. Religious affairs are outside of the jurisdiction in question.
under UN charter its a basic human right
What jurisdiction does the State of California fall under? Their state Constitution and the US Constitution, not a UN Charter.
Wrong. ALL UN countries are bound by UN Charter:
"As a charter, it is a constituent treaty, and all members are bound by its articles. Furthermore, the Charter states that obligations to the United Nations prevail over all other treaty obligations."
I disagree with the legal finding, I don't think there are any relevant rights guaranteeing the right to marriage to anybody, gay or otherwise. I don't really care if gay people get married, but I am annoyed when judges decline to be judges and instead decide to be backdoor legislators.
PUN INTENDED! LAWLS!
I think they should take this opportunity to change all legal references to "marriage" to "legal union" or whatever. That way religious institutions can have their own rules, and the government can have its rules, and they don't have to share a name and get people all upset.
Fateweaver wrote:
But if state gov't can work around child adoption and parenting issues with SSM then surely something could be done for people wanting multiple wives/husbands? Sure it could be a lot messier than 2 men or women marrying but the points still stand.
The issues are very different. Insofar as homosexual marriage is concerned, the present conventions of divorce law would apply unchanged; two people are two people regardless of gender. Compare this to polygamous unions in which you have could multiple parties vying for custody, or a share of collected assets.
Fateweaver wrote:
Gay couples want to be married to either show their love or for the same benefits straight married couples get with taxes and whatnot (which is also why are tax system is so fethed up in the first place but that's not for discussion right now). Imagine the tax breaks the IRS would HAVE to give a man/woman with 3-4 wives.
Yes, the taxation issues are another issue with polygamous marriages. Presumably either the entire tax code governing married people would require an overhaul, or separate polygamous category would have to be created.
Fateweaver wrote:
Victimization also may not be as prevalent as any other "abusive" relationship would go through. Hell, if the guy is abusive to one wife and they all like one another that guy might not get to victimize the one wife he is for very long. 4 women could probably do things to a man in his sleep that a single woman couldn't. If anything polygamy might help thin the population of the donkey-caves who SHOULD be quartered and hung for beating their wives.
Historically that hasn't been the case; recall that most societies that permitted polygamy tended to have a low regard for women. That doesn't mean it couldn't be carried out differently in different circumstances, but that precedent is there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:
Since there is no judicial precedent on the act of Homosexual marriage, what standing the Judge have?
There doesn't actually have to be precedent regarding any given judicial ruling. Precedent can strengthen a ruling, but it isn't necessary for a ruling to be made. That said, this ruling is a tenuous one, as you have pointed out.
Phryxis wrote:I disagree with the legal finding, I don't think there are any relevant rights guaranteeing the right to marriage to anybody, gay or otherwise. I don't really care if gay people get married, but I am annoyed when judges decline to be judges and instead decide to be backdoor legislators.
Well, sure, but he found the amendment to be lacking on constitutional grounds. He found the interests claimed by the state were not sufficient to meet the rational basis test.
That's what judges are supposed to do.
I think they should take this opportunity to change all legal references to "marriage" to "legal union" or whatever. That way religious institutions can have their own rules, and the government can have its rules, and they don't have to share a name and get people all upset.
Religious institutions already have their own laws, more or less. A church doesn't want to marry two people, it doesn't have to. Whether that marriage is called a marriage or a legal union doesn't matter.
Ahtman wrote:You seem to only mention the male/male side of homosexuality. Consistently. Strange.
He's also ignoring the idea that we're talking about marriage, while he's talking about sex. It's an odd thing, isn't it, people are talking about the legal right to marry, and fateweaver thinks purely in terms of men having sex with men....
Fateweaver wrote:
I mean, I love not being stuck with the same woman so by the logic of many here I should be legally allowed to have multiple wives so I need not bury the snake in the same hole every night (not to mention the tax breaks I'd get with 3 or 4 wives).
No, that's not the same logic. The rationale behind permitting homosexual marriage is that we should not dictate to people who they will marry. Whereas the rationale behind the prohibition against polygamy is that there is a socially compelling reason to prohibit marriages between multiple people; namely the apparent tendency for that sort of relationship to be open to victimization.
That said, outside of the obvious issues involving child custody and asset distribution, I don't see a compelling reason to prevent people from having polygamous unions. After all, we can simply work to directly police the abusive relationships that might arise.
Regardless, the idea that we should prevent homosexuals from marrying because we will eventually have to allow polygamous couples is fallacious. For that argument to hold true, the existence of marriage itself would also have to set up a set of conditions according to which homosexual marriage would be inevitable.
But if state gov't can work around child adoption and parenting issues with SSM then surely something could be done for people wanting multiple wives/husbands? Sure it could be a lot messier than 2 men or women marrying but the points still stand. Gay couples want to be married to either show their love or for the same benefits straight married couples get with taxes and whatnot (which is also why are tax system is so fethed up in the first place but that's not for discussion right now). Imagine the tax breaks the IRS would HAVE to give a man/woman with 3-4 wives. Victimization also may not be as prevalent as any other "abusive" relationship would go through. Hell, if the guy is abusive to one wife and they all like one another that guy might not get to victimize the one wife he is for very long. 4 women could probably do things to a man in his sleep that a single woman couldn't. If anything polygamy might help thin the population of the donkey-caves who SHOULD be quartered and hung for beating their wives.
Alright buddy, you get one girl first and then we will have a big discussion.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:I don't see how legal marriage can be classified as a basic right
Well, the idea of rights by itself is tenuous. They're a concept, a construct. They're fictitious and only as genuine as their recognizance by a governing body. But under the circumstances (and i know this isn't what you were speaking to directly), the constitution of the US recognizes that "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." the ERA.
It follows that if Peter can marry Mary, but he can't marry Mark. Then the only reason is one of sex, which is unconstitutional under this amendment.
The ERA was a proposed amendment, it never passed. There are a variety of reasons for that, but the most legitimately pressing are the extensive repercussions regarding not only marriage (which may not actually be involved), but also things like Selective Service, and the military.
Didn't marriage stop being a sacred institution when the last nail was put in it's coffin by a variety of really really bad marriage-focused reality TV shows?
I think anyone with an IQ low enough to agree to go on a reality show (especially any sort of "bridezilla", "The bachlor" style feth) should be sterilized and have THEIR right to get married legally revoked...
Besides gay weddings are very stylish and the receptions usually have really great music.
Fateweaver wrote: They shouldn't need to get married though. I mean, what's next? Allowing people to have more than a single wife? Allowing adults to marry kids?
I mean, I love not being stuck with the same woman so by the logic of many here I should be legally allowed to have multiple wives so I need not bury the snake in the same hole every night (not to mention the tax breaks I'd get with 3 or 4 wives).
slippery slope fallacy and totally illogical. by that rationale, since people have been getting married for thousands of years, there have been lobbies for thousands of years supporting multiple marriage, right? wrong.
who are you to say they can't get married? you just agreed it's none of your business. the constitution of the US provides for the pursuit of happiness. full stop.
No its an excellent argument as NAMBLA and the polygamist cults have already come it saying its their turn now.
Having said that they are completely separate. I can have no problem with gay marriage (which I don't other than why? you had a good thing there now you're going to ruin it with marriage... so sad ) while at the same time vowing to open up with a shotgun on any NAMBLA member I come across.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CT GAMER wrote:Didn't marriage stop being a sacred institution when the last nail was put in it's coffin by a variety of really really bad marriage-focused reality TV shows?
I think anyone with an IQ low enough to agree to go on a reality show (especially any sort of "bridezilla", "The bachlor" style feth) should be sterilized and have THEIR right to get married legally revoked...
Besides gay weddings are very stylish and the receptions usually have really great music.
Yea, the concept of marriage has been butchered for some time now. The positive of marriage is that its generally a more stable environment for kids (reality shows excepted of course). Hence gay marriage is more stable for munchkins than "life partners." So its a good thing.
I dont have a problem with gay marriage either way, what I have a problem with is the courts overturning Californias gay marriage ban for the 3rd time..
Frazzled wrote:
No its an excellent argument as NAMBLA and the polygamist cults have already come it saying its their turn now.
that's just opportunism and, like you said, unrelated to the issue. they've been saying it for years, it's not like they just started saying 'hey, what about us?' yesterday.
historically pederasty and polygamy go back at least 3000 years (more, if you take china into account). the kibosh on them is a relatively new idea, and you don't have to go back too many generations before you find you have a great-grandparent who nowadays would be considered a pedophile. food for thought.
Frazzled wrote:
No its an excellent argument as NAMBLA and the polygamist cults have already come it saying its their turn now.
that's just opportunism and, like you said, unrelated to the issue. they've been saying it for years. they didn't just start yesterday.
historically pederasty and polygamy go back at least 3000 years (more, if you take china into account). the kibosh on them is a relatively new idea, and you don't have to go back too many generations before you find you have a great-grandparent who nowadays would be considered a pedophile. food for thought.
No, its not. Its been railed against since Dickens.
There's your slippery slope.
It should all be calleda civil partnership, not a marriage, the reason behind this is because the actual definition of the word marriage is uniting a man and a woman in all that holy stuff. (General studies finally came in use !! UK college students should know what I mean)
There is nothing wrong with SSM, if they want be joined together in the same way as a marriage then let them, I think it's a freedom of choice everyone should be allowed to have, regardless of sexual preference.
And to Mr. Fateweaver, you seem to talk about multiple female companions all the time, maybe you should change your brand of christianity to Mormorism, I hear you get up to 4 wives there. (or 4 men, since you like them so much)
Frazzled wrote:No, its not. Its been railed against since Dickens.
There's your slippery slope.
so we agree that it's been a short time that pederasty has fallen out of vogue? because dickens didn't live that long ago. but appealing to english victorian morality isn't much of an argument. those same people shamelessly photographed and displayed nude children, presumably to show their 'innocence'. you got caught with photos like that now, you'd be chemically castrated and sent to protective custody.
Wolf wrote:It should all be calleda civil partnership, not a marriage, the reason behind this is because the actual definition of the word marriage is uniting a man and a woman in all that holy stuff.
This is also what I believe, in so many words, but at the same time, in the context of modern western society 'marriage' as a fundamentally religious concept has already been so bastardised that it hardly seems to matter who marries who or what these days.
Catyrpelius wrote:I dont have a problem with gay marriage either way, what I have a problem with is the courts overturning Californias gay marriage ban for the 3rd time..
I understand where Fateweaver is coming from because I used to come from that same place. Someone can be opposed to something without being a horrible racist homophobic nazi (commonly called "traditional conservative"). With that out of the way, the only reason I changed my mind was because of feelings I had developed and I decided that my own experiences (both life and spiritual) led me to believe that nothing was wrong with it. The only thing telling me that it was wrong was some text on a page in a book that already seemed off at some points, if not still a good book overall. That's really the key here, as long as FW believes in scriptural RaW, he can't believe otherwise and I can respect that as you take a lot of flack for it. One thing I might say to appeal to him though is that just because something is different or one rule changes it doesn't mean a bunch of other stuff will happen. Just because a burger restaurant also starts serving veggie burgers, does that mean they'll be serving nothing but salad in the next week? Not really. People like the idea of one person being with another person.
And as far as the whole "I was born this way" argument, I think it's a pretty crappy one. Pedophiles, rapists, cheaters, Koreans; anyone can use that as an excuse. I think the much stronger argument is "why not?" If the only answer, like in my experience, is that an old book says not to and that book doesn't write our laws (even if principals within it were their basis), then why does it get to be a factor? Really it comes down to what more people want in the long run. If America/a state isn't ready, the laws won't change for a long time. If they are, we'll see it happen.
Frazzled wrote:No, its not. Its been railed against since Dickens.
There's your slippery slope.
so we agree that it's been a short time that pederasty has fallen out of vogue? because dickens didn't live that long ago. but appealing to english victorian morality isn't much of an argument. those same people shamelessly photographed and displayed nude children, presumably to show their 'innocence'. you got caught with photos like that now, you'd be chemically castrated and sent to protective custody.
No we don't agree and nor would I give a when it went out of favor. Slavery, child prostitution, and stoning homosexuals to death is still much in favor in many parts of the world, and I could care less than nothing for their world view.
As a note Dicken was railing against it at the time (may have been illegal). I am sure others were as well, but as I don't give a fig for English literature after say Shakespeare so I wouldn't know.
Frazzled wrote:
No its an excellent argument as NAMBLA and the polygamist cults have already come it saying its their turn now.
No, its a terrible argument as there is no reason to presume that something that might pass in the future will pass because something else happens now.
To put it another way, if social acceptance of all forms of marriage are equal, then there is no reason to assume that NAMBLA (which no longer exists) will win its cause after the various groups supporting homosexual marriage. In other words, you have to presume that there is some rigid hierarchy of 'deviance' from the social norm in order to presume that there is a wrote order to the process, which itself would invalidate the idea of slippery slope; as that relies on the idea that there is no necessary distinction between homosexual marriage and pedophilia.
And hey, lets not forget that NAMBLA and polygamy advocacy groups rose up in concert with the push to legalize gay marriage. They were both manifestations of the 2nd wave of the sexual liberation movement.
Frazzled wrote:
Having said that they are completely separate.
Yes, that's why the slippery slope argument is nonsense. As I said before, if the slippery slope holds, then marriage between men and women put us on the slipper slope to marriage to between members of the same sex.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
No, its not. Its been railed against since Dickens.
There's your slippery slope.
Pedophilia has been railed against, and supported, since the times of Ancient Greece. Pretending that NAMBLA is either a manifestation of something new, or at all as close to 'mainstream' as the gay marriage debate is self-delusional.
Frazzled wrote:
No we don't agree and nor would I give a when it went out of favor. Slavery, child prostitution, and stoning homosexuals to death is still much in favor in many parts of the world, and I could care less than nothing for their world view.
you're acting as though i'm endorsing it. i'm just saying that pederasty going out of fashion as well as marriage for love are both pretty new conventions.
Its about time, I was in California on that same day.
You know, when on the same day that Americans voted in their first mixed race president, many Black Americans voted to make gays stand up at the back of the bus.
How you can claim to have equality and harp on about the consititution whilst banning people from doing what they want to do is absolutely mind boggling.
If it only affects you and your partner, i dont give a gak what you get up to in your house, and all the homophobic nonsense they were flinging around in the commercials over there before this bill was passed was ridiculous.
Equality for everyone sounds fair in my book. A good decision.
CT GAMER wrote:Comparing Homosexuality to Pedophilia?
Last I checked Homosexual marriage is between two consenting adults. Pedophila is not and thus is child abuse.
So how are they even remotely the same?
Don't answer that, I understand perfectly well why people try to play the "fear card" when they have run out ways to defend an irrational position...
They are both the same in that they are both considered forms of sexual deviance.
It isn't that they're playing the fear card, it's that certain people do believe that as Gay Marriage is considered a social deviance, which was once frowned upon, that in time society will come to view Pederasty (not pedophilia, they are subtely different concepts) as reasonably as we now see gay marriage.
micahaphone wrote:separation of church and state. Bible should not determine our laws. is marriage covered under the pursuit of happiness? (cue cheesy joke about marriage being horrible by some guy)
hemingway wrote:slippery slope fallacy and totally illogical. by that rationale, since people have been getting married for thousands of years, there have been lobbies for thousands of years supporting multiple marriage, right? wrong.
who are you to say they can't get married? you just agreed it's none of your business. the constitution of the US provides for the pursuit of happiness. full stop.
Please stop quoting the Declaration of Independence as if it were the Constitution. Also, just because you have the "right" to go after what you want doesn't always mean you can or will get what you want.
CT GAMER wrote:Comparing Homosexuality to Pedophilia?
Last I checked Homosexual marriage is between two consenting adults. Pedophila is not and thus is child abuse.
So how are they even remotely the same?
Don't answer that, I understand perfectly well why people try to play the "fear card" when they have run out ways to defend an irrational position...
It's not a fear card and they are only the same in that they are both perversions of the norm. Said before but slippery slope, you allow one perversion to be legal and then it's only a matter of time until others follow.
Red9 wrote:Said before but slippery slope, you allow one perversion to be legal and then it's only a matter of time until others follow.
By that reasoning, the Sodomy Laws(which made pretty much anything but good old fashioned heterosexual missionary position illegal to practice) should never have been repealed.
Red9 wrote:Said before but slippery slope, you allow one perversion to be legal and then it's only a matter of time until others follow.
By that reasoning, the Sodomy Laws(which made pretty much anything but good old fashioned heterosexual missionary position illegal to practice) should never have been repealed.
I'm sorry, but your argument is specious at best.
Sodomy is oral, anal or bestiality, all of which are perversions of normal intercourse. Thanks for proving my point though!
Red9 wrote:[
It's not a fear card and they are only the same in that they are both perversions of the norm. Said before but slippery slope, you allow one perversion to be legal and then it's only a matter of time until others follow.
OF course it is a fear card, and the unspoken but heavily implied implication is that "gay men want to have sex with your little boys".
It isn't coincidence that most homophobes rush to mention pedophilia in the context of discussing gay rights and homosexuality any chance they get.
Red9 wrote:Said before but slippery slope, you allow one perversion to be legal and then it's only a matter of time until others follow.
This only follows from an understanding of morality, and the laws set to govern it, which is necessarily linear. Given the large changes that occurred regarding marriage, the aforementioned sodomy laws, the age of majority, and even social standards of propriety in romantic relationships it must follow from any slippery slope that homosexual marriage is inevitable.
Put more simply, if any case in which a former perversion was made legal begins the inevitable descent into decadence, then its either far too late for us to do anything about it, or the argument is false.
Seriously, it boggles my mind how otherwise rational people can act as though the slippery slope is anything other than a logical fallacy. It has some merit as a rhetorical device whereby certain things that one group might not like could come to pass if an opposing group is able to accomplish a goal which demonstrably indicates that it possesses greater power. But in that instance the 'slope' is defined by the beliefs of the latter group, and not by the category of things which the former group does not like. That pretty much leaves us at a point where, in order for the conservative ideas pertaining to a slippery slope to hold water, it must be speculated that not only will liberals gain power in the aftermath of the legalization of gay marriage, but that liberals widely support thing like pederasty. I suppose its a nice talking point for firing up the base, but it really doesn't have any basis in reality.
I don't care if gays get married or not. It deosn't effect me one bit and although I disagree with their lifestyle, I also believe it's not my place to judge them for it. What concerns me though is that some seven million voters were told their voices don't count for squat. If the government can disregard a vote like this one then what other democratic votes can they drop because it doesn't fit their view?
Oh and the judge should have recused himself from the case due to a conflict of interests.
Tyras wrote: What concerns me though is that some seven million voters were told their voices don't count for squat. If the government can disregard a vote like this one then what other democratic votes can they drop because it doesn't fit their view?
So if people voted on a law that said all Warhammer players were to be executed on sight you'd be ok with it just because it was voted on? Just voting for something illegal doesn't not make it legal. They could all vote to ban any type of firearm period and it would be struck down because you would have to repeal the Second Amendment first for it to be legal.
Red9 wrote:Sodomy is oral, anal or bestiality, all of which are perversions of normal intercourse. Thanks for proving my point though!
Sodomy and oral are only perversions if you're using antiquated morality.
Using your reasoning, interracial marriages should never have been allowed, because before those laws were passed, THAT was a sexual perversion.
Dictionary.com wrote:
Perversion
1. the act of perverting.
2. the state of being perverted.
3. a perverted form of something.
4. any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal.
5. Pathology . a change to what is unnatural or abnormal: a perversion of function or structure.
^tell me anywhere in the definition that it refers to morality or that different races of the same species copulating is perverted.
Pedopilia, homosexuality and polygamy are normal if you have no morals.
Interracial marriage is not related to the discussion, nor was it a perversion. It was frowned (or lynched pending locale) upon based on racism and bigotry, it had nothing to do with sexual perversion because it wasn't a perversion.
CT GAMER wrote:
Red9 wrote:[
It's not a fear card and they are only the same in that they are both perversions of the norm. Said before but slippery slope, you allow one perversion to be legal and then it's only a matter of time until others follow.
OF course it is a fear card, and the unspoken but heavily implied implication is that "gay men want to have sex with your little boys".
It isn't coincidence that most homophobes rush to mention pedophilia in the context of discussing gay rights and homosexuality any chance they get.
There is no implication, and making up implied statements just makes you look foolish. Read the bolded part again and think about what that means before you spout off rubbish.
It isn't a coincidence that most supporters of homosexuality call everyone else a homophobe. I don't fear homosexuality, nor am I afraid of homosexuals. Just as you missunderstand what I'm saying, you don't even understand what you are saying.
Red9 wrote:Sodomy is oral, anal or bestiality, all of which are perversions of normal intercourse. Thanks for proving my point though!
Sodomy and oral are only perversions if you're using antiquated morality.
Using your reasoning, interracial marriages should never have been allowed, because before those laws were passed, THAT was a sexual perversion.
Dictionary.com wrote: Perversion 1. the act of perverting. 2. the state of being perverted. 3. a perverted form of something. 4. any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal. 5. Pathology . a change to what is unnatural or abnormal: a perversion of function or structure.
^tell me anywhere in the definition that it refers to morality or that different races of the same species copulating is perverted.
Pedopilia, homosexuality and polygamy are normal if you have no morals.
Interracial marriage is not related to the discussion, nor was it a perversion. It was frowned (or lynched pending locale) upon based on racism and bigotry, it had nothing to do with sexual perversion because it wasn't a perversion.
Whites not wanting to marry whites was a change to what was considered normal. By wanting to marry outside of your own race, you were perverting the perceived natural order of things.
Also, anal and oral sex aren't generally regarded as abnormal in many areas. What is a perversion is based purely around your morality, as your morals determine what you consider normal or abnormal. If you don't believe me, look at Victorian morals vs modern morals: a woman exposing certain body parts, such as an ankle, was considered committing a perverted act. However, by the definition, how is that perverted with out a moral baseline?
As well, other examples exist, such as what's considered a perversion in the West vs the East vs the Middle East.
Again, you're using a specious argument based around your own morals and your ignorance of how a definition truly applies.
Platuan4th wrote:
Whites not wanting to marry whites was a change to what was considered normal. By wanting to marry outside of your own race, you were perverting the perceived natural order of things.
A human marrying a human is no perversion. Race is irrelevent and purely superficial. Stop bringing this up as it does not pertain to the discussion.
I'll explain why since you are a bit thick. This is a perversion of the natural and intended way of operation. It has nothing to do religion or morals or opinions. Man bones woman, makes child, humans go on. Man bones man, no child, humans die out. (same applies to women )
Platuan4th wrote:
Also, anal and oral sex aren't generally regarded as abnormal in many areas. What is a perversion is based purely around your morality, as your morals determine what you consider normal or abnormal. If you don't believe me, look at Victorian morals vs modern morals: a woman exposing certain body parts, such as an ankle, was considered committing a perverted act. However, by the definition, how is that perverted with out a moral baseline?
Social standards and morals has nothing to do with perversion.
Platuan4th wrote:
As well, other examples exist, such as what's considered a perversion in the West vs the East vs the Middle East.
No. What is socially acceptable is not the same as unatural perversion.
Platuan4th wrote:
Again, you're using a specious argument based around your own morals and your ignorance of how a definition truly applies.
Again, you're using a specious argument based around your own [lack of] morals and your ignorance of how a definition truly applies.
Red9 wrote:Sodomy is oral, anal or bestiality, all of which are perversions of normal intercourse. Thanks for proving my point though!
Sodomy and oral are only perversions if you're using antiquated morality.
Using your reasoning, interracial marriages should never have been allowed, because before those laws were passed, THAT was a sexual perversion.
Dictionary.com wrote:
Perversion
1. the act of perverting.
2. the state of being perverted.
3. a perverted form of something.
4. any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal.
5. Pathology . a change to what is unnatural or abnormal: a perversion of function or structure.
^tell me anywhere in the definition that it refers to morality or that different races of the same species copulating is perverted.
Pedopilia, homosexuality and polygamy are normal if you have no morals.
Interracial marriage is not related to the discussion, nor was it a perversion. It was frowned (or lynched pending locale) upon based on racism and bigotry, it had nothing to do with sexual perversion because it wasn't a perversion.
Whites not wanting to marry whites was a change to what was considered normal. By wanting to marry outside of your own race, you were perverting the perceived natural order of things.
Also, anal and oral sex aren't generally regarded as abnormal in many areas. What is a perversion is based purely around your morality, as your morals determine what you consider normal or abnormal. If you don't believe me, look at Victorian morals vs modern morals: a woman exposing certain body parts, such as an ankle, was considered committing a perverted act. However, by the definition, how is that perverted with out a moral baseline?
As well, other examples exist, such as what's considered a perversion in the West vs the East vs the Middle East.
Again, you're using a specious argument based around your own morals and your ignorance of how a definition truly applies.
It makes me said that I know exactly how he is going to reply to this. Internet ennui is settling deeply upon me.
It would be great if people would stop comparing the gays and their marriages to the problems that African-Americans have had in The past, since that community clearly doesn't see it that way if Prop 8 is any indication.
Frazzled wrote:No its an excellent argument as NAMBLA and the polygamist cults have already come it saying its their turn now.
And, as I pointed out to you then (and will likely point out to you the next time we have this debate) the NAMBLA efforts were immediately and completely dismissed, because people can see a difference between consenting adults and children.
Tyras wrote:I don't care if gays get married or not. It deosn't effect me one bit and although I disagree with their lifestyle, I also believe it's not my place to judge them for it. What concerns me though is that some seven million voters were told their voices don't count for squat. If the government can disregard a vote like this one then what other democratic votes can they drop because it doesn't fit their view?
Oh and the judge should have recused himself from the case due to a conflict of interests.
Are you similarly bothered by Loving v Virginia? That case overturned the Virginian law banning interracial marriage. Was that judicial activism?
Monster Rain wrote:It makes me said that I know exactly how he is going to reply to this. Internet ennui is settling deeply upon me.
It would be great if people would stop comparing the gays and their marriages to the problems that African-Americans have had in The past, since that community clearly doesn't see it that way if Prop 8 is any indication.
No group owns its history. If it is relevant to the discussion, then it is fair to raise the point. And marginalised groups will frequently turn around and marginalise others. There is a lot of misogyny in the gay community, does that mean women can't compare their issues to similar incidents in the gay community?
Meanwhile, it blows my mind that that's the comparison that bothers you. People have been comparing homosexual issues to paedophile issues, but it's the comparison to black issues that bothers you?
On an inetresting side note, there was recently a small debate on the matter on Australian morning TV between reps from two minor parties (one right wing one left)
Basically it came down to:
Right: "The marriage act states marriage is between a man and a woman"
Left: "Well we should amend that"
Right: "But theres no reason to! Theres nothing wrong with how it is already"
Left: "Except the fact that many people want it changed"
Right: "Nuh-uh!"
Red9 wrote:
A human marrying a human is no perversion. Race is irrelevent and purely superficial. Stop bringing this up as it does not pertain to the discussion.
I'll explain why since you are a bit thick. This is a perversion of the natural and intended way of operation. It has nothing to do religion or morals or opinions. Man bones woman, makes child, humans go on. Man bones man, no child, humans die out. (same applies to women )
Homosexual behavior is seen throughout the animal kingdom. Bonobos, our closest genetic relative, engage in various acts of homosexual behavior (Such as rubbing genitals together, males 'rump rubbing and smacking', etc). That it does not lead to pregnancy is not an argument against its behavior, else that thought train will end up at a rather illogical conclusion. Anyways, good thread chap;
Monster Rain wrote:It makes me said that I know exactly how he is going to reply to this. Internet ennui is settling deeply upon me.
It would be great if people would stop comparing the gays and their marriages to the problems that African-Americans have had in The past, since that community clearly doesn't see it that way if Prop 8 is any indication.
No group owns its history. If it is relevant to the discussion, then it is fair to raise the point. And marginalised groups will frequently turn around and marginalise others. There is a lot of misogyny in the gay community, does that mean women can't compare their issues to similar incidents in the gay community?
Meanwhile, it blows my mind that that's the comparison that bothers you. People have been comparing homosexual issues to paedophile issues, but it's the comparison to black issues that bothers you?
I may have already addressed the pedophile issue, friend. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the relevance of African-American issues to this.
Platuan4th wrote: Whites not wanting to marry whites was a change to what was considered normal. By wanting to marry outside of your own race, you were perverting the perceived natural order of things.
A human marrying a human is no perversion. Race is irrelevent and purely superficial. Stop bringing this up as it does not pertain to the discussion. I'll explain why since you are a bit thick. This is a perversion of the natural and intended way of operation. It has nothing to do religion or morals or opinions. Man bones woman, makes child, humans go on. Man bones man, no child, humans die out. (same applies to women )
Platuan4th wrote: Also, anal and oral sex aren't generally regarded as abnormal in many areas. What is a perversion is based purely around your morality, as your morals determine what you consider normal or abnormal. If you don't believe me, look at Victorian morals vs modern morals: a woman exposing certain body parts, such as an ankle, was considered committing a perverted act. However, by the definition, how is that perverted with out a moral baseline?
Social standards and morals has nothing to do with perversion.
Platuan4th wrote: As well, other examples exist, such as what's considered a perversion in the West vs the East vs the Middle East.
No. What is socially acceptable is not the same as unatural perversion.
Platuan4th wrote: Again, you're using a specious argument based around your own morals and your ignorance of how a definition truly applies.
Again, you're using a specious argument based around your own [lack of] morals and your ignorance of how a definition truly applies.
Using your definition argument, how do you define what is normal an abnormal:
# conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm; not abnormal; "serve wine at normal room temperature"; "normal diplomatic relations"; "normal working hours"; "normal word order"; "normal curiosity"; "the normal course of events" # in accordance with scientific laws # being approximately average or within certain limits in e.g. intelligence and development; "a perfectly normal child"; "of normal intelligence"; "the most normal person I've ever met" # convention: something regarded as a normative example; "the convention of not naming the main character"; "violence is the rule not the exception"; "his formula for impressing visitors" # forming a right angle
Oh, look, the first one has to do with Social norms. What is a Social norm: Social norms are the behavioral expectations and cues within a society or group.
What determines social norms? The Mores and morals of a society.
And before you incorrectly state once again that Society and morals have nothing to do with this, look at your own posted definition and how is depends on something being abnormal.
Stop being obtuse.
I'm out, because, like all people like you, you're entrenched in your own ignorance.
Ahtman wrote:I'm honestly surprised this thread is still going on when we could all be watching hot lesbian porn instead for free on the internet.
There's lesbian porn on the internet? Well, as long as they're not married.....
I'm glad it was overturned. I don't see how two consenting adults doing something that harms no one (including themselves) can be illegal. Feel free to provide a good example otherwise, but I can't think of any.
AgeOfEgos wrote:Homosexual behavior is seen throughout the animal kingdom.
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior Can't argue that, but consider how much of that is used as establishing dominance or for actuall mating benefits like the flour beetle that gets rid of bad sperm, or the female whiptail lizard that does it to make its eggs more fertile and resistent to outside factors while it incubates? Is it perverse in those contexts? Nope, because that is how nature intended it. Bugs can't jerk off so a little help from the bro's might be necessary ;D
AgeOfEgos wrote:Bonobos, our closest genetic relative, engage in various acts of homosexual behavior (Such as rubbing genitals together, males 'rump rubbing and smacking', etc).
I see homosexual behaviour everyday that doesn't nullify the fact that it is perverse behaviour, so whats your point?
AgeOfEgos wrote:That it does not lead to pregnancy is not an argument against its behavior, else that thought train will end up at a rather illogical conclusion.
That is an argument against it's behaviour, because perverting an act designed to allow reproduction into a recreational behaviour is illogical as well.
What conclusion is that pray tell? Is it the obviousness of "gay sex doesn't make babies?"
Ahtman wrote:I'm honestly surprised this thread is still going on when we could all be watching hot lesbian porn instead for free on the internet.
There's lesbian porn on the internet? Well, as long as they're not married.....
I'm glad it was overturned. I don't see how two consenting adults doing something that harms no one (including themselves) can be illegal. Feel free to provide a good example otherwise, but I can't think of any.
I think smoking pot is probably more healthy than getting pounded in the Ass on a regular basis. Particularly when you factor in the increased risk of HIV infection.
Platuan4th wrote:Using your definition argument, how do you define what is normal an abnormal:
# conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm; not abnormal; "serve wine at normal room temperature"; "normal diplomatic relations"; "normal working hours"; "normal word order"; "normal curiosity"; "the normal course of events"
# in accordance with scientific laws
# being approximately average or within certain limits in e.g. intelligence and development; "a perfectly normal child"; "of normal intelligence"; "the most normal person I've ever met"
# convention: something regarded as a normative example; "the convention of not naming the main character"; "violence is the rule not the exception"; "his formula for impressing visitors"
# forming a right angle
Very good, you're starting to get it.
Platuan4th wrote:
Oh, look, the first one has to do with Social norms. What is a Social norm:
Social norms are the behavioral expectations and cues within a society or group.
Go ahead and finish the definition not just the part that by itself would support your argument.
"Social norms are the behavioral expectations and cues within a society or group. This sociological term has been defined as "the rules that a group uses for appropriate and inappropriate values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. These rules may be explicit or implicit. Failure to follow the rules can result in severe punishments, including exclusion from the group."
Values are relative. Not absolute.
Beliefs are based on religion or lack of religion. Not absolute
Attitudes change with each new experience. Not absolute.
Behaviours change over time. Not absolute
Platuan4th wrote:
What determines social norms? The Mores and morals of a society.
The English word morality comes from the same root, as does the noun moral. However, mores do not, as is commonly supposed, necessarily carry connotations of morality.
No where do I see morals coming from society.
Platuan4th wrote:
And before you incorrectly state once again that Society and morals have nothing to do with this, look at your own posted definition and how is depends on something being abnormal.
Nature has no morals and has no society. Sex is a natural act. Making it an unnatural act makes it perverse.
Platuan4th wrote:
Stop being obtuse.
I'm out, because, like all people like you, you're entrenched in your own ignorance.
Come back again soon! Bring a better argument next time though!
On a more serious note I do support gay marriage on account of kids, because the best parents are the ones that want their kids.
Red9 wrote:Nope, because that is how nature intended it.
Who cares how nature intended it? We're typing messages into small boxes which use coded electrons to send messages to other little boxes to show everyone else our little messages. It's not natural.
But we do it because we enjoy, and society allows it because it does greater society no harm. The same holds for gay marriage, and well, everything.
Monster Rain wrote:I think smoking pot is probably more healthy than getting pounded in the Ass on a regular basis. Particularly when you factor in the increased risk of HIV infection.
Only if it is unprotected and with multiple partners with unknown sexual histories. Which is a bad idea no matter who is involved.
Meanwhile, oral sex really does cause cancer, unprotected or not. Don't tell the ladies.
Red9 wrote:
A human marrying a human is no perversion. Race is irrelevent and purely superficial. Stop bringing this up as it does not pertain to the discussion.
Perversion is a moral judgment by connotation. The definition you provided indicates that, when pertaining to sexuality, perversion is related to norms. Norms, in the relevant sense, are moral constructs associated with variances in probability.
Red9 wrote:
I'll explain why since you are a bit thick. This is a perversion of the natural and intended way of operation. It has nothing to do religion or morals or opinions. Man bones woman, makes child, humans go on. Man bones man, no child, humans die out. (same applies to women )
If you really want to present this as an argument from nature, then you should stop using words like 'intended'.
Still, you have a simplistic understanding of nature if you somehow believe that things like morality are not a part of it. Just to establish the frame of reference: humans exist as a part of nature and therefore all human activity is natural. Approaching the question of whether or not something should be legal from the position of "Is it natural?" smacks of a tendency to obfuscate the real issue at hand; namely the question regarding whether or not the thing in question is useful, detrimental, or neutral.
More specifically, it should be noted that a potential glut in population caused by purely procreative sex can have a significant negative impact on any given animal population; ie. procreation isn't necessarily the only end which sex is meant to accomplish.
Red9 wrote:
Nature has no morals and has no society. Sex is a natural act. Making it an unnatural act makes it perverse.
No action can be made fully unnatural. It simply isn't possible, nature is inescapable.
Red9 wrote:Social standards and morals has nothing to do with perversion.
That's true if you suppose that nature is somehow capable of possessing an intention. I don't believe that to be the case. The elements of nature can interact to determine which elements are more successful given all relevant elements, but that's not something we can approach in any way which is not predicated on a subjective judgment.
Red9 wrote:
The English word morality comes from the same root, as does the noun moral. However, mores do not, as is commonly supposed, necessarily carry connotations of morality.
I've studied ethics for a number of years now, and I've never heard anyone claim that mores were not intrinsically related to morality. I've never even heard that claim from a sociologist, and much of that discipline is based on controlling for morality.
Red9 wrote:
No where do I see morals coming from society.
Behavioral expectations and cues within a given group directly influence the morality of members of that group. Morality as a whole is the necessary result of any interaction, but predominately appears to be the result of social interaction and therefor society.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Who cares how nature intended it? We're typing messages into small boxes which use coded electrons to send messages to other little boxes to show everyone else our little messages. It's not natural.
But we do it because we enjoy, and society allows it because it does greater society no harm. The same holds for gay marriage, and well, everything.
Ultimately, that's the reason that the natural/unnatural dichotomy is useless. Nature is either the whole of all that exists, most probably limited to Earth, or that which is not the result of human action. If we accept the former definition, then whether or not something is natural isn't even a sensible question outside of theology. If we accepted the latter definition, then the question of "Is it natural?" is not relevant to human action as it is necessarily excluded by the definition of the opposing category.
dogma wrote:Ultimately, that's the reason that the natural/unnatural dichotomy is useless. Nature is either the whole of all that exists, most probably limited to Earth, or that which is not the result of human action. If we accept the former definition, then whether or not something is natural isn't even a sensible question outside of theology. If we accepted the latter definition, then the question of "Is it natural?" is not relevant to human action as it is necessarily excluded by the definition of the opposing category.
Yes, very much that. If you take the first idea, everything is natural including gay sex. If you take the latter definition, then almost nothing in our lives is natural, most of it a lot less natural than gay sex.
If everything is natural, then nothing is. My two cents, but not really.
If you have a very solid definition of 'natural', you're probably simplifying an entire statement into one word. I have spent way too much time around artists and hippies.
It certainly isn't any kind of technical term, so whatever. Xerox isn't copy, Google isn't search, and Natural isn't necessarily healthy. Soylent green is made of people.
I'm not sure why everyone is using the argument from nature given that homosexual relationships have been observed in nature. Further,marijuana is natural, but it's (depending where you live) against the law. If we're legislating based on the origin of an act or concept, shouldn't we strive to be consistant?
That said, I may be missing the point. I (hypothetically speaking) certainly didn't decide to stick my penis into the ass of another person without first having some desire to do so. That desire didn't come from nothing. I didn't create it using the power of my intellect. It comes from some baser part of me. Something closer to human nature, perhaps?
Either way, this is a simply ridiculous argument, and I find it difficult to comprehend how people can honestly think that it makes any sense.
mattyrm wrote: If it only affects you and your partner, i dont give a gak what you get up to in your house, and all the homophobic nonsense they were flinging around in the commercials over there before this bill was passed was ridiculous.
There are commercials about it? Geez... someone link pls...
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Soylent Green is made of Soy and Lentils.
I'm not sure why everyone is using the argument from nature given that homosexual relationships have been observed in nature. Further,marijuana is natural, but it's (depending where you live) against the law. If we're legislating based on the origin of an act or concept, shouldn't we strive to be consistant?
That said, I may be missing the point. I (hypothetically speaking) certainly didn't decide to stick my penis into the ass of another person without first having some desire to do so. That desire didn't come from nothing. I didn't create it using the power of my intellect. It comes from some baser part of me. Something closer to human nature, perhaps?
Either way, this is a simply ridiculous argument, and I find it difficult to comprehend how people can honestly think that it makes any sense.
People also suffer from urges to kill, injure, rape, pillage, take dangerous drugs, overeat and listen to dubstep, all of which are difficult to accept as normal 'human nature' and therefore justify simply because they can be observed in nature. The fact is, though, that everything is slightly dangerous. It's just a matter of risk management. Homosexuals, other than perhaps eventual hemmoroids, are at the same risk of the exact same sexually transmitted infections as heterosexuals, but it is well documented at least in Australia that the gay community is more aware of the risks, and take far more precautions than the average swingers.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:People also suffer from urges to kill, injure, rape, pillage, take dangerous drugs, overeat and listen to dubstep, all of which are difficult to accept as normal 'human nature' and therefore justify simply because they can be observed in nature. The fact is, though, that everything is slightly dangerous. It's just a matter of risk management. Homosexuals, other than perhaps eventual hemmoroids, are at the same risk of the exact same sexually transmitted infections as heterosexuals, but it is well documented at least in Australia that the gay community is more aware of the risks, and take far more precautions than the average swingers.
Perhaps we should legislate on the basis of fairness, equality, and minimising/mitigating harm or some other principle that doesn't rely on incredibly tenuous assumptions then? Who knows?
Arctik_Firangi wrote:People also suffer from urges to kill, injure, rape, pillage, take dangerous drugs, overeat and listen to dubstep, all of which are difficult to accept as normal 'human nature' and therefore justify simply because they can be observed in nature.
That's the point. Calling something 'natural' or 'unnatural' is arbitrary and irrelevant. What matters is if it does harm to the greater community, if it doesn't then let people do it if they want.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:People also suffer from urges to kill, injure, rape, pillage, take dangerous drugs, overeat and listen to dubstep, all of which are difficult to accept as normal 'human nature' and therefore justify simply because they can be observed in nature. The fact is, though, that everything is slightly dangerous. It's just a matter of risk management.
Beware the slippery slope, the one right next to the roller coaster.
Homosexuals, other than perhaps eventual hemmoroids, are at the same risk of the exact same sexually transmitted infections as heterosexuals, but it is well documented at least in Australia that the gay community is more aware of the risks, and take far more precautions than the average swingers.
They likely do it because of the AIDS epidemic that faced several gay communities a few decades ago, and was heavily publicized. I think it would be difficult to get accurate information regarding such a small community.
I am not entirely sure how comparable the community in Australia would be to anywhere else. Most of the reasons behind the AIDS epidemic in the U.S. as well as the interaction between the gay community and the whole, can be seen as culturally specific. Anyway, here is an interesting report from the CDC.
"While the heavy toll of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men has been long recognized, this analysis shows just how stark the health disparities are between this and other populations," said Kevin Fenton, M.D., director of CDC's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention. "It is clear that we will not be able to stop the U.S. HIV epidemic until every affected community, along with health officials nationwide, prioritize the needs of gay and bisexual men with HIV prevention efforts."
Arctik_Firangi wrote: Homosexuals, other than perhaps eventual hemmoroids, are at the same risk of the exact same sexually transmitted infections as heterosexuals, but it is well documented at least in Australia that the gay community is more aware of the risks, and take far more precautions than the average swingers.
They likely do it because of the AIDS epidemic that faced several gay communities a few decades ago, and was heavily publicized. I think it would be difficult to get accurate information regarding such a small community.
I am not entirely sure how comparable the community in Australia would be to anywhere else. Most of the reasons behind the AIDS epidemic in the U.S. as well as the interaction between the gay community and the whole, can be seen as culturally specific. Anyway, here is an interesting report from the CDC.
So, you've shown that having sex with people who have AIDS is a good way to get AIDS, and that a reasonable proportion of gay people have AIDS. My point stands. The risk is still exactly the same when precautions are taken, and more homosexuals tend to take those precautions and get screenings. Perhaps if more heterosexuals actually had STI screenings the numbers would be significantly different/.
It's unfortunate that a lot of homosexuals have AIDS. It's unfortunate that 1/12 of young people in the UK have Chylamydia and over 50% of sexually active people the world over have had some form of HPV.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:So, you've shown that having sex with people who have AIDS is a good way to get AIDS, and that a reasonable proportion of gay people have AIDS. My point stands.
Not really, and I am not trying to use this information to rally against marriage or some such nonsense. Keep in mind that I am talking about the U.S., and if you could provide information that reinforces what you say about Australia, that would add something more to the conversation.
A data analysis released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention underscores the disproportionate impact of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men in the United States.
TBH, I am not even entirely sure if you read the summary.
The risk is still exactly the same when precautions are taken, and more homosexuals tend to take those precautions and get screenings. Perhaps if more heterosexuals actually had STI screenings the numbers would be significantly different/.
You appear to be wrong, at least when it comes to the U.S. Wait, condoms work when you use them? Is that what you are saying? What the report indicates is that, basically, gay/bi males IN GENERAL are not using condoms enough. There are suggestions that STDs might be considered normal in some parts of the community, and in others, there is not enough concern about it. There are also reports that talk about how the advent of HIV drugs has given rise to a nonchalance, but I am not entirely sure I think that is the main problem.
Read the report I posted again, it is just a brief summary and it won't take long.
It's unfortunate that a lot of homosexuals have AIDS. It's unfortunate that 1/12 of young people in the UK have Chylamydia and over 50% of sexually active people the world over have had some form of HPV.
You quote percentages for other demographics, but refer to the number for gay/bi males as 'a lot'? Odd. I personally think that there is a great deal of lumping together going on here, and sub-groups are often the ones that take the brunt of that confusion, in pretty much any demographic. The LGBT community is certainly not monolithic, even though I am not sure how culturally significant being within any of those groups actually is. It may be very significant, it could also be much to do with the power of branding as well.
Shades of gray. Or a rainbow flag, whatever.
Break those numbers into demographics, and just take a quick look, I wouldn't be surprised if there were several groups and sub-groups that have a much higher rates of STDs.
Again.
the disproportionate impact of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men in the United States.
This indicates that for gay/bi males in the U.S., you're wrong, and I haven't even seriously doubted what you have said concerning Australia in the same respects. It would be interesting to see something that reinforces your suggestion, as you stated that there was much information that does.
I support gay marriage, and am not entirely sure why it might appear that I don't, if that is indeed what you are suggesting. I also feel that people have a right to whatever opinion they please, but it should not have direct control over how laws are written and enforced, at least most of the time. I don't see how gay marriage could possibly be a detriment to society, at least no more than any other marriage could be.
Red9 wrote:[Please stop quoting the Declaration of Independence as if it were the Constitution. Also, just because you have the "right" to go after what you want doesn't always mean you can or will get what you want.
You know I had to go there now:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyras wrote:I don't care if gays get married or not. It deosn't effect me one bit and although I disagree with their lifestyle, I also believe it's not my place to judge them for it. What concerns me though is that some seven million voters were told their voices don't count for squat. If the government can disregard a vote like this one then what other democratic votes can they drop because it doesn't fit their view?
Oh and the judge should have recused himself from the case due to a conflict of interests.
That is true. The proposal lost by 62% the first time, but only 52% the second time. Third time would have been the charm. The Democratic process works, but now this will be decided by a few old men and women by judicial fiat.
AgeOfEgos wrote:Homosexual behavior is seen throughout the animal kingdom.
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior Can't argue that, but consider how much of that is used as establishing dominance or for actuall mating benefits like the flour beetle that gets rid of bad sperm, or the female whiptail lizard that does it to make its eggs more fertile and resistent to outside factors while it incubates? Is it perverse in those contexts? Nope, because that is how nature intended it. Bugs can't jerk off so a little help from the bro's might be necessary ;D
AgeOfEgos wrote:Bonobos, our closest genetic relative, engage in various acts of homosexual behavior (Such as rubbing genitals together, males 'rump rubbing and smacking', etc).
I see homosexual behaviour everyday that doesn't nullify the fact that it is perverse behaviour, so whats your point?
AgeOfEgos wrote:That it does not lead to pregnancy is not an argument against its behavior, else that thought train will end up at a rather illogical conclusion.
That is an argument against it's behaviour, because perverting an act designed to allow reproduction into a recreational behaviour is illogical as well.
What conclusion is that pray tell? Is it the obviousness of "gay sex doesn't make babies?"
Your reply demonstrates adding intention to a system that is not. I post examples of homosexual behavior, in the example of the Bonobos, for pleasure and you state 'That's how nature intended it so it's not perverse'. I would question;
1. Where are you getting the information from that denotes what nature 'intended'? Is this a sentient power?
The reason for pointing out homosexuality is present in our closest relatives, is to demonstrate that such biological urges are not uncommon and should even be expected. Simply because it happens in other parts of nature does not constitute it being acceptable, regardless if it's a natural biological urge (which sounds like an argument against homosexuality but read on).
You cannot use, however, have it both ways and use nature as grounds for your definition as perverse. If you follow that to it's logical conclusion, as you stated "because perverting an act designed to allow reproduction into a recreational behavior is illogical as well".....then any form of birth control would be perverse. One could even argue then that not having sex with every woman I meet that is ovulating and willing...would be perverse. Fortunately, we are also gifted with a unique sentience that allows us to help sedate our biological urges and judge them on the merits of the action.
So, to sum up;
1. Homosexuality is an observed biological urge in primates.
2. We are a primate.
3. A union between two consenting homosexuals hurts no one
Years from now, people will look back at this ridiculous argument with the same sneer we use regarding miscegenation laws.
Red9 wrote:[
It's not a fear card and they are only the same in that they are both perversions of the norm. Said before but slippery slope, you allow one perversion to be legal and then it's only a matter of time until others follow.
OF course it is a fear card, and the unspoken but heavily implied implication is that "gay men want to have sex with your little boys".
It isn't coincidence that most homophobes rush to mention pedophilia in the context of discussing gay rights and homosexuality any chance they get.
There is no implication, and making up implied statements just makes you look foolish. Read the bolded part again and think about what that means before you spout off rubbish.
It isn't a coincidence that most supporters of homosexuality call everyone else a homophobe. I don't fear homosexuality, nor am I afraid of homosexuals. Just as you missunderstand what I'm saying, you don't even understand what you are saying.
You are wrong. GO read any of the literature by any of the main homophobic/anti-gay hate groups or personalities that regularly write/speak about this topic, or attend any rally about such. What I describe will be discussed, although since they assume most attending support them they will actually come out and say things like "The gays wnt to molest our little boys", etc., etc.
I have heard it and read it many many times.
These are the types of fear mongering homophobes that you are aligning yourself with.
mattyrm wrote:
If gays want to get married and be as eternally fething miserable as straight people then let em!
For all the pontificating earlier, this wins the thread.
Hey I said that first!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CT GAMER wrote:
Red9 wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:
Red9 wrote:[
It's not a fear card and they are only the same in that they are both perversions of the norm. Said before but slippery slope, you allow one perversion to be legal and then it's only a matter of time until others follow.
OF course it is a fear card, and the unspoken but heavily implied implication is that "gay men want to have sex with your little boys".
It isn't coincidence that most homophobes rush to mention pedophilia in the context of discussing gay rights and homosexuality any chance they get.
There is no implication, and making up implied statements just makes you look foolish. Read the bolded part again and think about what that means before you spout off rubbish.
It isn't a coincidence that most supporters of homosexuality call everyone else a homophobe. I don't fear homosexuality, nor am I afraid of homosexuals. Just as you missunderstand what I'm saying, you don't even understand what you are saying.
You are wrong. GO read any of the literature by any of the main homophobic/anti-gay hate groups or personalities that regularly write/speak about this topic, or attend any rally about such. What I describe will be discussed, although since they assume most attending support them they will actually come out and say things like "The gays wnt to molest our little boys", etc., etc.
I have heard it and read it many many times.
These are the types of fear mongering homophobes that you are aligning yourself with.
People that usew fear to hide fact.
Disgusting...
Modquisition on.
Thats trolling. Watch it.
This is public warning to all. Avoid personal attacks or dispersion of this nature or you will be suspended.
Fateweaver wrote:Gays should not be allowed to marry. End of.
If you want to be gay that is your prerogative. Don't expect churches and God fearing institutions to agree with your decision and get upset when they won't marry you.
Religious views should have absolutely zero influence on politics and law making, you know that whole separation of church and state thing.
Hit the nail on the head before I could even bring out my hammer.
Also: Gay isn't someone's perogative, it's who they are. A gay person can't choose to be gay.
I would've believed that arguement would've been thrown out as the rubbish it is.
Forgive me if my understanding of perogative is mistaken in this context.
Ok I was going to read and be silent but come on now not their choice? Umm ok how is it not? It is their preference, which means a choice.
I would also like to say I support gay marriages. Because I don't see how it is any of.my business what other people do if it doesn't effect me. And.I can't se how it would.
Shadowmarine wrote:Ok I was going to read and be silent but come on now not their choice? Umm ok how is it not? It is their preference, which means a choice.
I take it you don't know any people that are homosexual, beyond the characters in Will & Grace. Do you conciously choose to be straight? Have you ever once in your life thought "Maybe today I'll bugger off to a gay bar and meet some rough chap because I think I'll be queer today"?
Wrex, I've been writing reviews for the last three hours and couldn't even begin to be bothered quoting apart what you said in response to my remark.
My point is that members of the gay community are more aware of STIs - this is because there is a problem. I acknowledge that. Australia has plenty of health programs in place that address the education of these matters. If you've ever looked into any LGBT publications or press, once you get past the excessive pushing of services in sexual deviancy and organised rallies, there is plenty of evidence of this being a focus of the community as well. Statistics regarding incidence have nothing to do with this. I do pretty much agree with what you said, and yes, I presumed that you had no problem with gay marriage. In fact, you stated it pretty clearly.
Sorry for not being entirely objective in calling the gay community 'a lot', I didn't think I'd have to re-publish the contents of what you had already linked as reference. The only oversight in what I said is in that I did not address the following... penises are not supposed to go into anuses, and for physical reasons I hardly want to imagine this leads to condoms not being so useful in this situation as they might be for vaginal use. Thanks for inspiring me to bother to think about that.
Fateweaver wrote:Gays should not be allowed to marry. End of.
If you want to be gay that is your prerogative. Don't expect churches and God fearing institutions to agree with your decision and get upset when they won't marry you.
Religious views should have absolutely zero influence on politics and law making, you know that whole separation of church and state thing.
Hit the nail on the head before I could even bring out my hammer.
Also: Gay isn't someone's perogative, it's who they are. A gay person can't choose to be gay. I would've believed that arguement would've been thrown out as the rubbish it is.
Forgive me if my understanding of perogative is mistaken in this context.
Ok I was going to read and be silent but come on now not their choice? Umm ok how is it not? It is their preference, which means a choice.
It's not a choice who someone is attracted to or not. Someone can't jump up and say suddenly 'I want to feth men now!" if they're a straight male. Same goes for all directions.
Well they technically could but it would be kind of a strange thing to do. I mean if you did that in movie theater when I'm watching something really epic cool I think I might have to sock ya.
Frazzled wrote:Well they technically could but it would be kind of a strange thing to do. I mean if you did that in movie theater when I'm watching something really epic cool I think I might have to sock ya.
Frazzled wrote:Well they technically could but it would be kind of a strange thing to do. I mean if you did that in movie theater when I'm watching something really epic cool I think I might have to sock ya.
Red9 wrote:Nope, because that is how nature intended it.
Who cares how nature intended it? We're typing messages into small boxes which use coded electrons to send messages to other little boxes to show everyone else our little messages. It's not natural.
But we do it because we enjoy, and society allows it because it does greater society no harm. The same holds for gay marriage, and well, everything.
Monster Rain wrote:I think smoking pot is probably more healthy than getting pounded in the Ass on a regular basis. Particularly when you factor in the increased risk of HIV infection.
Only if it is unprotected and with multiple partners with unknown sexual histories. Which is a bad idea no matter who is involved.
No, false. Ask a a doctor if repeated penetration of that "area" has any negative impact on one's health.
Hell, don't even do that. Take a gander at Belladonna's chassis.
Nina Hartley might be a better example. Penetration with a finger, penis, or similarly sized sex toy isn't going to do anything if you use appropriate amounts of lube, don't use lube that has numbing agents/poppers/etc, and make sure you have a healthy diet high in fiber (the latter of which you should have anyhow!). The latter will give you a healthy anus to begin with, the middle will help you listen to your body's messages like "ow, back off", and the former isn't going to do anything that eating red meat everyday won't. That's if you're into the whole "anal penetration" thing. You don't have to penetrate, and even for people who're into penetration it's more like a weekly treat than a daily meat and two veg.
I mean you might as well use that mope in California that killed people as being representative of people in porno, or Chris Benoit's brain as being representative of those of people in sports, as using Belladonna's kiester as being representative of the long term health effects of anal sex.
Prejudices are what fools use for reason. - Voltaire
(A very applicable quote in this thread.)
Using negligible health risks as a reason to marginalize groups of consenting adults and prevent them from having equal rights in the state is wrong.
Two guys without a life threatening STI will not give a life threatening STI to each other.
Also, this may be heresy to say in a straight crowd but..... You can be gay and not into butsecks.
Which also removes the notion that your protecting someone's health by preventing them from having state given financial and legal rights.
The health line of reason is further diminished when measured against the legal health risks taken by the status quo.
It's worthwhile to add that anal sex isn't for everyone, much like not all forms of sex are for everyone (everyone here parsed as adults, thank you very much). Much like sex with people of the same gender isn't for everyone, and sex with people of another gender isn't for everyone.
Part of the problem with normative arguments relating to sex is that while the population is largely homogenous in regard to what they have to work with (in other ways, diverse enough to make things really complicated), how they can work with them is highly specific to the individual.
Belphegor wrote:Prejudices are what fools use for reason. - Voltaire
(A very applicable quote in this thread.)
Using negligible health risks as a reason to marginalize groups of consenting adults and prevent them from having equal rights in the state is wrong.
Two guys without a life threatening STI will not give a life threatening STI to each other.
Also, this may be heresy to say in a straight crowd but..... You can be gay and not into butsecks.
Which also removes the notion that your protecting someone's health by preventing them from having state given financial and legal rights.
The health line of reason is further diminished when measured against the legal health risks taken by the status quo.
Calm down, Clarence.
Someone asked what was also illegal that was less unhealthy than sodomy. I said smoking pot. That doesn't make me Jerry Fallwell.
Having things in your Ass beyond a certain threshold is unhealthy, period. No amount of knee jerking or shouting about equality is going to change that.
in regards to Monster Rain's response to my post: All I'm saying is that even having -health risk- as a foot note is a lame deflection against valid points.
As is tossing "knee jerking or shouting about equality", out there.
It was an answer to a question. You're skirting my absolutely factual point that excessive Ass play can ruin one's nether regions. I also don't recall indicating that 99 percent of homosexuals put pineapples in their anuses(anusexen? anii?) every 6 hours.
I never said it had anything to do with it's legalization. If health risks were cause for things to be illegal I don't think we'd have the tobacco industry that we do in this country.
And why not Clarence?
Though if I had to choose between legalizing pot and legalizing gay marriage, I'd go with the former. And hopefully the slippery slope argument holds true after Prop 8 is completely overturned and I can then marry my 6-foot bong.
Monster Rain wrote:It was an answer to a question. You're skirting my absolutely factual point that excessive Ass play can ruin one's nether regions. I also don't recall indicating that 99 percent of homosexuals put pineapples in their anuses(anusexen? anii?) every 6 hours.
Trufax:
Too much water can kill you
Too much oxygen can kill you
Too much food can kill you
Too much running can kill you
Too much skydiving can kill you
My ass is fine, and it's been penetrated repeatedly.
I really don't see the relevance of this to marriage.
Women often suffer greatly from sex and childbirth. It was probably one of the major causes of premature death until the early 20th century and it still is in the third world.
No-one thinks women should be prevented from marrying.
Kilkrazy wrote:I really don't see the relevance of this to marriage.
Women often suffer greatly from sex and childbirth. It was probably one of the major causes of premature death until the early 20th century and it still is in the third world.
No-one thinks women should be prevented from marrying.
You guys are taking the piss now, right?
I never indicated that running the risk of having a Belladonna Ass is grounds for keeping gay marriage illegal.
when it went out of favor. Slavery, child prostitution, and stoning homosexuals to death is still much in favor in many parts of the world, and I could care less than nothing for their world view.
