Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Philosophy (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-philosophy/)
-   -   Homosexuality (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-philosophy/69437-homosexuality.html)

roadkill 09-16-2004 08:28 PM

Homosexuality
 
Philosphoically is Homosexually wrong?

Its their choice to be that way, but they can't reproduce. According to our government its wrong but, they are makeing choices for people who aren't being equally represented. (By our country I mean America; I sadly don't know enough about the world to be speaking on their behalf.)

So is it morally ok to be homosexual?

MageB420666 09-16-2004 09:59 PM

Well, that depends on your moral viewpoint. From my moral standard it is ok to be homosexual, but from others it may not be. Morals change from person to person, there is no standard code of morality.

irateplatypus 09-16-2004 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadkill
Philosphoically is Homosexually wrong?

Its their choice to be that way, but they can't reproduce. According to our government its wrong but, they are makeing choices for people who aren't being equally represented. (By our country I mean America; I sadly don't know enough about the world to be speaking on their behalf.)

So is it morally ok to be homosexual?

i hate to take this into Tilted Politics type stuff... but it must be pointed out that US government makes no judgement whether or not homosexuality is wrong. the state cannot make moral judgements, only determine whether an act is lawful or not. a legal act is "right" within the context of the state... and illegal one is "wrong". homesexuality is not unlawful. thus, the state makes no judgements on the right or wrongness of the act.

MageB420666 09-16-2004 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus
i hate to take this into Tilted Politics type stuff... but it must be pointed out that US government makes no judgement whether or not homosexuality is wrong. the state cannot make moral judgements, only determine whether an act is lawful or not. a legal act is "right" within the context of the state... and illegal one is "wrong". homesexuality is not unlawful. thus, the state makes no judgements on the right or wrongness of the act.

Well, actually many states do have anti-homosexuality laws. many are in the form of stating what positions and orifices are legal and illegal, I know that in Tennessee, or maybe it's just Knox county, it is illegal to have oral sex. I do no that many states have anti-sodomy laws. I don't know what laws are in place for lesbian sex.

So it may not be illegal for you to be a homosexual, but in many states it is illegal for you to practice that homosexuality.

I'm not saying that people abide by these laws, I'm just saying that they are there, and it's not just limited to banning gay marriages

The Phenomenon 09-16-2004 11:09 PM

For me, personally, being homosexual is wrong. But its not for me to say whether its right or wrong for other people, its their responsibility, not mine.

roadkill 09-17-2004 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus
i hate to take this into Tilted Politics type stuff... but it must be pointed out that US government makes no judgement whether or not homosexuality is wrong. the state cannot make moral judgements, only determine whether an act is lawful or not. a legal act is "right" within the context of the state... and illegal one is "wrong". homesexuality is not unlawful. thus, the state makes no judgements on the right or wrongness of the act.

sorry I wasen't clear I ment in the contex of marrage; and I'm trying to keep this out of politics, just hypithitocals.

Journeyman 09-17-2004 12:16 AM

Best as I can tell, when it comes to morals you may have to hit up a religion. You can read the bible word for word and come to the conclusion that homosexuality is detestable in the eyes of the lord, or you can take a figurative approach to the big book and figure homosexuality to be a gift from god to the orphans of the world: People who can't reproduce (naturally) but still couple together and desire to raise children.

Personally I hold dear to the second idea. Strange how the people who want to consitutionally criminalize gay marriage are the same people who want to criminalize abortion (ie marching in a legion of Oliver Twists to the world).

irateplatypus 09-17-2004 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Journeyman
Personally I hold dear to the second idea. Strange how the people who want to consitutionally criminalize gay marriage are the same people who want to criminalize abortion (ie marching in a legion of Oliver Twists to the world).

that's unfair. those people would tell you that they wouldn't want a monster in their closet OR under their bed. instead, they take the third unstated choice, they choose "no monster" (if you catch my meaning). i.e. they choose no homosexual marriage and no orphans... sexuality being intended for the institution of marriage alone.

itch vaccine 09-17-2004 04:48 AM

In a study made by a psychologist, homosexuality is just an immaturity. Homosexuals will eventually become heterosexuals overtime.

But I beg to differ though. Hmm.. I'll look for the site and post it up here.

brianna 09-17-2004 07:31 AM

Frankly i don't see how one can call someone's sexual preference immoral, i think we should be less willing to look down on something that an individual cannot change (and for those of you who are still holding on to the belief that sexuality is a choice i assume that you could easily and willingly choose to enjoy sex with either gender.).

I see no difference between homosexuality and interracial marriage and prohibiting either is nothing short of bigotry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MageB420666
Well, actually many states do have anti-homosexuality laws. many are in the form of stating what positions and orifices are legal and illegal,

Actually all of these laws were effective rendered unconstitutional last year when the Supreme court ruled on the sodomy case in texas.

irateplatypus 09-17-2004 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianna
I see no difference between homosexuality and interracial marriage and prohibiting either is nothing short of bigotry.

you're grossly oversimplifying.

first of all, there are many people who have no qualms with homosexuality but maintain that the institution of marriage is something separate. are these people biggots because they won't change the label of an institution as old as civilization to suit the current political climate?

secondly, the bigot word is thrown around too much these days. just because someone condemns something that you do not does not make them a bigot necessarily.

filtherton 09-17-2004 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus
you're grossly oversimplifying.

first of all, there are many people who have no qualms with homosexuality but maintain that the institution of marriage is something separate. are these people biggots because they won't change the label of an institution as old as civilization to suit the current political climate?

secondly, the bigot word is thrown around too much these days. just because someone condemns something that you do not does not make them a bigot necessarily.


It certainly has been a while since we had one of these gay threads, hasn't it?

I've heard the "marriage as a seperate institution" argument before. What i haven't heard is a logically sound basis for this argument. You can't argue for it from a sense of tradition, because the only traditional aspect of marriage is the fact that every society defines marriage differently depending on what is convenient for them. Marriage has traditionally been a transfer of property. Marriage has traditionally been the only means by which to have righteous sex. Marriage has traditionally been a means of subjugating the rights of women. Marriage in america is, mostly, none of these things. How can it be traditional?

The argument could be made for the seperation of marriage and gay on the basis of biology. Two guys can't have a kid, right? To be consistent though, you would have to advocate a fertility test be included in the prerequisites for getting a marriage licence to make sure only those who could actually bear children are allowed to marry. Which is completely fucking absurd.

brianna 09-17-2004 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus
you're grossly oversimplifying.

first of all, there are many people who have no qualms with homosexuality but maintain that the institution of marriage is something separate. are these people biggots because they won't change the label of an institution as old as civilization to suit the current political climate?

secondly, the bigot word is thrown around too much these days. just because someone condemns something that you do not does not make them a bigot necessarily.

i don't think i am. before the civil rights movement a large majority of americans were against interracial marriage, it was seen as immoral and dangerous and the bible was often used to justify this belief. i fail to see a difference between this and the current resistance to gay marriage. in both cases you have a bunch of people who are afraid of change (And i don't blame them, change is scary) and who are butting into other people's bedrooms in order to stop it. who someone else chooses to love or fuck is none of your business and it does not effect your life.

irateplatypus 09-17-2004 09:44 AM

filtherton,

that is a sophistic twist on the argument of tradition. it's logically inconsistent to say that because marriage isn't exactly the same for all people at all times... therefore it follows that it is perfectly acceptable that it become something it has never been before. ludicrous.

the argument of tradition has relevance. there are many things that marriage is, and many things that it has been. at all times the constant has been a contract between a man and woman. this is the elemental essence of marriage. to change that isn't to add another wrinkle to the equation, it is to change the fundamental foundation of it.

when that happens, you no longer have the thing you start with... you have a brand new institution that the previous idea cannot include.

irateplatypus 09-17-2004 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianna
i don't think i am. before the civil rights movement a large majority of americans were against interracial marriage, it was seen as immoral and dangerous and the bible was often used to justify this belief. i fail to see a difference between this and the current resistance to gay marriage. in both cases you have a bunch of people who are afraid of change (And i don't blame them, change is scary) and who are butting into other people's bedrooms in order to stop it. who someone else chooses to love or fuck is none of your business and it does not effect your life.

this is interesting. i think you're on a slippery slope here. you seem to be saying that we know homosexual marriage to be a normal extension of marriage based on the fact that interracial marriage was once frowned upon and is now widely accepted, is that correct?

if so, then were do we stop? if we take a prior moral change in an institution and base our acceptance of subsequent moral issues on the grounds that the previous one worked... then all moral changes must be changes for the better. the logical conclusion of this reasoning is that all change must be good because a previous change was good. this leads us furthur down the road because it necessarily entails that the ideal is that all things must be acceptable at all times. i do not buy this and i'll wager that you do not either.

i think it's far more practical to take each moral question by itself. just because a previous moral issue was resolved doesn't follow that all subsequent ones are just an open mind away from being right.

asaris 09-17-2004 09:54 AM

Philosophically? No, philosophically, there is nothing wrong with gay marriage. I object to it on religious grounds, but for precisely that reason, I think it's the biggest civil right debacle of our time. On the other hand, I would object if the state required churches to marry homosexual couples. Of course, since no one is suggesting that...

09-17-2004 10:16 AM

You have to first ask what is the philosophical purpose of marriage, and then decide whether same-sex marriage fulfills, supports or otherwise maintains that purpose.

Of course, your answer to the first question depends on your own personal philosophy...What is your own personal philosophy? What in your view is the nature, or purpose of marriage?

brianna 09-17-2004 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus
this is interesting. i think you're on a slippery slope here. you seem to be saying that we know homosexual marriage to be a normal extension of marriage based on the fact that interracial marriage was once frowned upon and is now widely accepted, is that correct?


no that's not what i'm saying. i'm pointing out that the tradition argument that you advocated a few post back is invalid -- the same argument has been used throughout history to oppress people and brings nothing logical to the debate.

I don't see how limiting someone's rights based on a genetic trait be it skin color, gender or sexual preference can be seen as anything other then prejudice. and i've yet to see any arguments against homosexual equality that do not lean heavily on religion or tradition, both of which are moot points when it comes to making a legal argument. more importantly i am at a loss to come up with any viable reason why people are so opposed to equality -- i don't see how allowing homosexuals to visit their partners in the hospital or inherit property or share health benefits effects anyone outside of the couple's private relationship.

irateplatypus 09-17-2004 10:26 AM

gosh, i hate to keep hounding ya, i'm not trying to be mean but...

tradition has everything to do with legal arguments. have you ever seen a judge do something based on precedence? that is good ol' tradition adding legitimacy to the ruling. do you think it's morally right to drive on the right side of the street? nope, it's tradition in one of its most practical applications.

don't flatter yourself into thinking that you're for equality and people who argue against you are not. homosexuals can be granted all the legal benefits and obligations that marriage is (thus legal equality) without calling it "marriage"... something that it clearly isn't. equal doesn't mean identical.

filtherton 09-17-2004 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus
filtherton,

that is a sophistic twist on the argument of tradition. it's logically inconsistent to say that because marriage isn't exactly the same for all people at all times... therefore it follows that it is perfectly acceptable that it become something it has never been before. ludicrous.

the argument of tradition has relevance. there are many things that marriage is, and many things that it has been. at all times the constant has been a contract between a man and woman. this is the elemental essence of marriage. to change that isn't to add another wrinkle to the equation, it is to change the fundamental foundation of it.

when that happens, you no longer have the thing you start with... you have a brand new institution that the previous idea cannot include.

I'm saying that those who claim to love the shit out of homosexuality, but can't get past the traditional definition of marriage have no idea what marriage has traditionally been. I agree that it has always been between a man and a woman, or multiple women. What i don't agree with is the idea that the heterosexual exclusivity of marriage has any roots in any rational reasoning other than, "because that's the way we've always done it". It doesn't take a whole lot of thought to break through that line of reasoning. It doesn't even reach a high enough standard to be sophistical. Why is it that it has always been done that way and are those reasons relevant anymore? Parenting has traditionally been something done by pairs of opposite sexed people. The fact that two parents are male or female has no demonstrable effect on their ability to raise a child. The increased acceptance of gay parents has not created a brand new institution in place of "traditional" parenting. Parenting is the same as it has always been. You could choose to see modern parenting as a pale shell of what it was before homosexuals started doing it, but you'd be deluding yourself.


I guess it depends on what you want to emphasize more in determining the significance of marriage. You could claim, as many seem to want to do, that marriage is significant solely because it is an agreement between people of the opposite sex. That's fine, but doing so i think misses the point why getting married is a meaningful act, especially in the religious sense. The foundation of marriage is commitment, not sex. It's not penis in vagina, it's two people who have so much interest in maintaining a relationship that they want to make a binding legal, and usually spiritual, commitment to eachother for an implied eternity. In the religious sense it's being confident enough in your feelings for another person to the extent that you're willing to go in front of your creator and make an eternal commitment under penalty of damnation(if you believe in hell). If you can't see why that makes marriage significant, moreso than the underwear contents of those involved, than i think you miss the point of marriage altogether.

How does the significance of marriage have any basis in the gender of those involved beyond, "Well, that's how we've always done it"? How much value do you give and opinion when its sole basis seems to be "Because that's how we've always done it." in any context?

One thing i forgot to include in my earlier post: If we are a nation who values the free expression and protection of religious beliefs, why is it that we want to outlaw gay marriage despite the fact that there are at least a few churches who have no problem performing such marriages? So many people oppose this issue on religious grounds without realizing that they are, in effect, limiting someone else's religious freedom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus
gosh, i hate to keep hounding ya, i'm not trying to be mean but...

tradition has everything to do with legal arguments. have you ever seen a judge do something based on precedence? that is good ol' tradition adding legitimacy to the ruling. do you think it's morally right to drive on the right side of the street? nope, it's tradition in one of its most practical applications.

don't flatter yourself into thinking that you're for equality and people who argue against you are not. homosexuals can be granted all the legal benefits and obligations that marriage is (thus legal equality) without calling it "marriage"... something that it clearly isn't. equal doesn't mean identical.

Don't worry about hounding me, you're a civil guy.

Precedence is not tradition. Driving on the right side of the street serves a purpose in that, for our sytem of roads and highways to actually work, we all have to behave in a somewhat predictable manner. Precedence helps make our legal system consistent. Those "traditions" are functional, they attempt to serve a purpose that benefits society as a whole. There is absolutely zero demonstrable functional benefit to society as a whole in keeping marriage hetero.

I don't care about flattering myself. All i have to do is look at my ass in tight pants and i feel nice for days.;) Seperate doesn't mean equal either.

roachboy 09-17-2004 11:11 AM

this is a political question.
because, fortunately, this remains something of a pluralist society, religious or "moral" arguments only hold for partcular communities, none of which are in a position to dictate in those terms to those outside themselves. to reach beyond these particular communities, people have to make arguments for their position.
so it is therefore, and necessarily, a political matter.

for myself, i think questions about the "morality" of being gay to be absurd, and the idea that gay folk should be denied the legal protections of marriage--which like it or not is a secular institution--indefensable. but that too is a political matter.

asaris 09-17-2004 12:07 PM

zen_tom makes a good point; what we think marriage is will, to a large extent, determine whether or not we think society is obligated to extend marriage benefits to same-sex couples. The conservative argument against gay marriage, at least when it's made intelligently, is based on the notion that the purpose of marriage, or at least the primary purpose of marriage, is to produce children, to provide them with a secure environment, and to provide them with role models of both genders. Since the state has a valid interest in seeing that children are reared in the best possible enviroment, it has a valid interest in encouraging specific forms of personal union to the exclusion of others. Most of the previous argument I agree with. But I'm not sure that two women or two men can't do an adequate enough job raising a child. (Note that the issue is not, nor should it be, whether or not a gay couple can raise a child as well as a heterosexual couple. I'm sure that, even if it turns out that, on average, gay couples are worse than hetero couples at raising children, whatever that means, many gay couples will be better at it than many hetero couples. And we don't issue marriage licenses on the basis of how good a couple will be at raising children anyway.)

So what about the procreation issue? Well, I think it's pretty much bunk. Procreation is not the only purpose of marriage; it's not even the primary purpose of marriage. Marriage is primarily, if I can get sentimental a second, about the union of two souls. From a civic standpoint (since I don't see a valid interest for the state to promote the union of souls), it provides a generally more stable structure for society as whole, outside of the whole issue of providing for children. And, of course, minus any specifically religious objections, gay couples can form a stable relationship at least as well as hetero couples.

irateplatypus 09-17-2004 01:13 PM

filtherton,

about the hounding part... i was directing that at brianna since most of my posts had been aimed squarely at responding to her assertions. but it's good to know you're a big boy too, i'm sure we've had more spirited debates in the past anyway :)

this brings us to an interesting crossroads... it appears that "doing things a certain way because that's the way it's always been done" holds little value for you... or at least less value than what i place on it. there are a lot of sociological implications to this. if the old ways have no governance in how we perceive emerging ways... then that certainly changes our social dynamic. lasting civilizations and cultures are undeniably built upon such traditions and shared mores. what do you think are the ramifications of discarding tradition so easily? i fear that if not tempered with caution it could lead to a irreconcilable fracturing of society and lead to a lack of communal belonging. perhaps a second tower of babyl event? without tradition how would we speak to eachother in a shared/meaningful context? of course this would be the extreme conclusion to this line of thought, but i think we're starting to see symptoms of this in our culture already.

filtherton 09-17-2004 01:35 PM

I know that tradition serves a purpose in preservation of culture, but i know that it can also hold us back as a culture. Tradition is fine as long as one group isn't trying to deny another group something for no reason other than tradition. I don't believe tradition should be the sole justification for anything, especially anything as huge as deciding who can get married or who can't. Do you think tradition should be given more sway than functionality? Why does the tradition of heterosexual marriage take precedence over the tradition of protecting religious freedom?

adysav 09-17-2004 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianna
Frankly i don't see how one can call someone's sexual preference immoral, i think we should be less willing to look down on something that an individual cannot change (and for those of you who are still holding on to the belief that sexuality is a choice i assume that you could easily and willingly choose to enjoy sex with either gender.).

Did you not hear about the experiments done with insects?
A slight change in temperature caused the test subjects to change their sexuality.
Not saying that adjusting the thermostat makes you gay, but it does challenge the idea that what appears to be biologically set in stone may well be variable according to the surrounding environment.

Phage 09-17-2004 02:46 PM

Here is my reasoning why the government should not allow homosexual marriage:

Our country (USA, but it can apply anywhere) is based on people. Duh, it seems pretty clear that having a population of reproducing organisms is important. Marriage was created as a specific union between a man and a woman, for the purpose of making a family (e.g. babies).

All of the agreements and oaths taken in marriage can be reproduced through one or more contracts; the sharing of funds, dual custody, etc. The real issue is tax breaks, insurance coverage... Money. Gays want to have the same preferential treatment the government gives to the traditional marriage concept, and that is not right.

Marriage is a clear term which signifies the union of a man and a woman. The government, insurance companies, etc. recognise this union as something that should be supported. Why should the government not support (but also not outlaw) homosexuality? A good way of determining if something should be supported is by imagining what would happen if everyone was doing it. After all, everyone has equal rights, correct?

If everyone was homosexual, besides some artificial insemination cases our population would die out within a generation. Obviously man-woman pairs is to be encouraged.

Marriage already has an established meaning. Even if only out of principle we should avoid changing words that have a perfectly good meaning.

Mantus 09-17-2004 02:48 PM

With regards to gay marriage,

Certainly marriage is not about sex, marriage is about commitment. As long as gay couples are capable of fulfilling the vows of commitment they are not in any way weakening the concept of marriage.

If one is against gay marriage then one obviously has the opinion that gay marriage will somehow damage society, after all, why else would someone want to hold on to a tradition if not because they thought that it held some benefit.

So, what benefit does keeping marriage strictly as a union between man and women serve in our society? None. The only difference is between homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage is that one does not involve a penis and a vagina. So obviously the issue here IS homosexuality itself.

The people who use the tradition argument tell the world that this is “their” tradition. As if marriage was the sole invention of homophobic Christians and they hold the patent. This is emphasized by the simple fact that these groups are against marriage and not against civil union of gay couples. It is the equivalent of putting black at the back of the bus. They cannot get rid of the gays so they want to segregate them from their society.

Yet the fact that this an issue at all obviously comes back to the fact that marriage is seen as allot more then simply a man and a women being together. Just like marriage was determined to be more then a union between a white man and a white woman - despite this being a tradition for centuries. The essence of marriage is the lifelong commitment between partners as long as this reamains true most other issues are cosmetic in nature.

Journeyman 09-17-2004 02:59 PM

Quote:

A good way of determining if something should be supported is by imagining what would happen if everyone was doing it.
You want to base your approach to a segment of the population by hypothetically homogenizing the population in that segment's fashion? Well then, let's get rid of rich people who sit on their ass all fucking day. Furthermore, what's this about "some artificial insemination cases?" Imagine a society of homogenic homosexuality (no pun intended) where artificial insemination is suddenly the booming business. Whilst half the population (gay men) can't reproduce, the other half (lesbians) now can produce twice as much offspring as the tradional couple (man/woman). I *could* be wrong, but I don't think that being homosexual detracts from a desire to raise children.


Quote:

Gays want to have the same preferential treatment the government gives to the traditional marriage concept, and that is not right.
While you're at it, outlaw marriages between two people who don't actually love eachother. I'm pretty sure that loving your partner is a feature of the "traditional marriage concept." Also, what is "not right" about granting health care coverage to the same-sex spouse of a worker who works just as hard as another employee with a opposite-sex spouse?

Quote:

Marriage is a clear term which signifies the union of a man and a woman.
A term's definition is created by it's usage. Apply marriage to the union of man and man, or woman and woman, and Marriage becomes a clear term which signifies the union of two humans.

Halx 09-17-2004 03:00 PM

I'd like to work backwards on this. My own response is that everything is fine, as long as it does not harm me. Homosexuality does not harm me one bit, therefore it is fine.

First, if homosexuality is not fine to you, then what is harmful about it to you? If it is not harmful to you, then is it harmful to anyone at all? If it is not harmful to anyone at all, then why do you think the way you do?

Is it possible to approach this subject without including religion?

filtherton 09-17-2004 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phage
Here is my reasoning why the government should not allow homosexual marriage:

Our country (USA, but it can apply anywhere) is based on people. Duh, it seems pretty clear that having a population of reproducing organisms is important. Marriage was created as a specific union between a man and a woman, for the purpose of making a family (e.g. babies).

All of the agreements and oaths taken in marriage can be reproduced through one or more contracts; the sharing of funds, dual custody, etc. The real issue is tax breaks, insurance coverage... Money. Gays want to have the same preferential treatment the government gives to the traditional marriage concept, and that is not right.

Marriage is a clear term which signifies the union of a man and a woman. The government, insurance companies, etc. recognise this union as something that should be supported. Why should the government not support (but also not outlaw) homosexuality? A good way of determining if something should be supported is by imagining what would happen if everyone was doing it. After all, everyone has equal rights, correct?

If everyone was homosexual, besides some artificial insemination cases our population would die out within a generation. Obviously man-woman pairs is to be encouraged.

Marriage already has an established meaning. Even if only out of principle we should avoid changing words that have a perfectly good meaning.


I already destroyed the marriage as reproductive/biological necessity defense in #12. I don't think we will ever be at a point where homosexuals are in the majority(if that happened this wouldn't be an issue), so the idea that we will somehow "gay" ourselves out of existence is faulty. Man-woman pairs don't need any encouragement, they are the status quo and barring some unforeseen evolutionary curve always will be.

roadkill 09-17-2004 04:12 PM

Halx its amazing that you pointed out that it really doesn't hurt you but because you (you = government or people objectifiying in this case) dislike or aren't a part of it that you desest it to the point to there the parties involved can't do what they want which isn't harming you

irateplatypus 09-17-2004 04:30 PM

birthdays parties aren't about someone being born on a particular day. as long as there are presents and balloons and a pretty cake, it's a birthday party.

wilbjammin 09-17-2004 04:31 PM

This thread indicates to me just how much laws are meant to enforce hierarchies and systems of power. Social reproduction is certainly something that is legislated and gay marriage is a prime example. This is a moral issue along the same lines that it is a moral issue whether we should give up some of our rights to a society at large to have order. One can argue that those who lose out in this relinquishment of power are a minority and it doesn't matter as long as order is maintained. Others go as far as claiming anarchy or a libertarian bent towards government and laws are the way to go. Typically, most people fall somewhere in the middle of these two extremes.

Personally, I don't see gay marriage as being a threat to anything, nor a moral issue beyond questions of equality and privacy rights. If you're demanding that churches condone gay marriages, that is asking a bit much, but for secularly recognized marriages I see little reason to resist. The social reproduction system is not threatened much by allowing gays to get married.

roadkill 09-17-2004 05:00 PM

its hard to have a party of any sort w/o a decor of some kind, its approprite to whats going on ie flowers at a wedding cake at a birthday party stuff like that celebrates whats going on but its also all about my cake so i can eat it

Mantus 09-17-2004 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus
birthdays parties aren't about someone being born on a particular day. as long as there are presents and balloons and a pretty cake, it's a birthday party.

...um...wha?

adysav 09-17-2004 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus
...um...wha?

If you have a party on a day other than your birthday, it's not a birthday party, like marriage without a man and a woman isn't really a marriage. Or that's what I *think* it means.

Someone else said "well once you use the term marriage to describe same sex unions, it means that".
Well spotted there, if you assign a word to something that's what it means, but I could call a dog a giraffe and a giraffe a photocopier, but it would just be fucking stupid.

09-17-2004 05:37 PM

I don't really think that something like this ties in with philosophy, but with morality and religion.
Philosophies are ideas, theories, not necessarily degrating or x-ing out any other ideas or theories. As a moral, issue, many would say homosexuality is wrong- but there's plenty who don't think it's wrong. There IS no real Wrong or Right here, it's a matter of what works for you and what makes you happy.
I'm a straight female, but I totally accept homosexuals and gay marriages. I'm not going to decide what is wrong or right of other people.

filtherton 09-17-2004 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus
birthdays parties aren't about someone being born on a particular day. as long as there are presents and balloons and a pretty cake, it's a birthday party.

Birthday have traditionally been for humans only. Anyone who celebrates their pet's or their country's beginnings has no right to call it a birthday party. Perhaps "beginning ceremony" would be better. We must preserve this definition at all costs.

adysav 09-17-2004 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by :::OshnSoul:::
I'm not going to decide what is wrong or right of other people.

Why not?
Someone has to do it, and for the purposes of this you might as well put yourself in their shoes.

adysav 09-17-2004 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton
Birthday have traditionally been for humans only. Anyone who celebrates their pet's or their country's beginnings has no right to call it a birthday party. Perhaps "beginning ceremony" would be better. We must preserve this definition at all costs.

Last time I checked birthday parties weren't a matter of law or disputed morality.

filtherton 09-17-2004 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
Last time I checked birthday parties weren't a matter of law or disputed morality.

Not yet, my friend. Not yet. :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

09-17-2004 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
Why not?
Someone has to do it, and for the purposes of this you might as well put yourself in their shoes.

a) that's judgement
b) because what I may think is okay, someone else may not
c) vice versa
d) to wrap in b and c, not everyone believe in the same "wrongs" and rights" and those "wrongs" and "rights" always change. for example, gay marriages were never okay until some states recently passed a bill legalizing it

No one HAS to do it- we choose to. I don't judge becuase it's petty, unfair, and I would not wish judgement upon me. It doesn't matter- we all have our own beliefs and morals, we are all different, but underneath I know we are all the same. Look at the big picture.

Jesus Pimp 09-17-2004 07:39 PM

Homosexuality is found in nature, so how can it be philisophically wrong?

Mantus 09-17-2004 09:16 PM

An argument against semantics.

Scenario 1:

- A gay man tells you he got married.
- A straight man tells you he got married.

Is there any difference in the circumstances of each couple? Both have shared vows of commitment, both couples love each other, both will now be viewed as a family. The gay couple holds the same value and concept of marriage as the straight couple. The only difference between the two couples is superficial; both share the essence and meaning of marriage equally.

Scenario 2:

- A man tells you he got married.

Here confusion can occur. He could be married to a man or a woman. And this is where some of you people will be tempted to jump in saying that “marriage” should never be confused for anything other then a union between a man and a woman.

Yet there are other misunderstandings that can occur about the identity of his spouse. The race and age of the spouse is in question. Yet we determined that the factors are not an issue, the exterior shell of a person does not affect their value as a spouse. So the same logic would apply to a gay couple. The fact that the wife may be a man, does not affect his quality as a partner any more then woman’s race would effect her quality as a wife. His role in a relationship is equal to that of spouse in a heterosexual relationship.

So when we are told that some one got married, our impression of the couple should not be effected any more by the couple’s sexual orientation then by the color of their skin. Marriage is marriage.

An argument against tradition.

There have been many traditions in marriage. Couples of different tribes, races and classes have been denied marriage. Women who are infertile, men who are disabled, and people who are mentally handicapped have been denied the right to marry. These traditions were all dispelled for the benefit of brining people together.

A tradition should not be held on to if it is damaging to society. Slavery was a tradition that dated back to the beginning of civilization, yet we put a stop to its practice.

Not giving same-sex couples the right to marry damages the institution of marriage and our society. Marriage is about brining together two people who wish to share a common vow of life long commitment. We decided that race, class, health and age of an individual do not affect their ability to keep that commitment and neither does their sex. Therefore this tradition keeps people who love each other from solidifying their commitment to each other, it keeps them at a disadvantage from the rest of society. Any such tradition does not belong in our society.

adysav 09-18-2004 02:57 AM

Going on further, should I be allowed to marry my dog?
After all the exterior shell does not matter if I love my dog and she loves me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by :::OshnSoul:::
a) that's judgement
b) because what I may think is okay, someone else may not
...
No one HAS to do it- we choose to. I don't judge becuase it's petty, unfair, and I would not wish judgement upon me. It doesn't matter- we all have our own beliefs and morals, we are all different, but underneath I know we are all the same. Look at the big picture.

a) Who decided that judging some else was a bad thing?
b) That is the whole point of this debate.

You do judge people, you're only human. If you have never passed judgement on another person because something they said or did or didn't do then you are in a tiny minority (of 1). I suppose you don't have any friend, because to do so you would have to make judgements about who you do and don't like and why. Maybe you just love everyone unconditionally.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus Pimp
Homosexuality is found in nature, so how can it be philisophically wrong?

So is murder...

Mantus 09-18-2004 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
Going on further, should I be allowed to marry my dog?
After all the exterior shell does not matter if I love my dog and she loves me.

That is wrong from both a legal and a traditional perspective.

A dog is incapable of fulfilling the vows of commitment that are the essence of marriage. A dog is not a person and thus the laws surrounding legal-union do not apply to it. So no, we will not start marrying animals if we allow same-sex marriage...that some one would actually think that is mind-boggling.

FoolThemAll 09-18-2004 11:09 AM

Yeah. Dogs aren't able to consent properly, either. (Nor are children, and the line there is arbitrary yet necessary.)

Joke: How can you tell if an animal consents to an act of bestiality?

It pushes back.

filtherton 09-18-2004 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
Going on further, should I be allowed to marry my dog?
After all the exterior shell does not matter if I love my dog and she loves me.

If your dog is capable of critical thought and communicating complex ideas through language, than by all means. Otherwise that's kind of an irrelevant position to take. I'm hope you're aware of the fundamentally different dynamics involved in interspecies relationships.


I still haven't heard any actual reason why the definition of marriage should be preserved to mean a penis and vagina commitment before god rather than a commitment before god. Haven't heard any reason beyond, "Well, because that is how we've always done it" Haven't heard any reason beyond, "Well, because that is how we've always done it" Haven't heard any reason beyond, "Well, because that is how we've always done it" Haven't heard any reason beyond, "Well, because that is how we've always done it" Haven't heard any reason beyond, "Well, because that is how we've always done it" Haven't heard any reason beyond, "Well, because that is how we've always done it" Haven't heard any reason beyond, "Well, because that is how we've always done it" Haven't heard any reason beyond, "Well, because that is how we've always done it" Haven't heard any reason beyond, "Well, because that is how we've always done it" Over and over and over and over again.

The real mystery is...

Is there a reason at all?

adysav 09-18-2004 01:04 PM

Is an adult who is mentally retarded capable of marrying?

edit:
Would marrying my dog be valid if we could somehow cross the language and general communication barrier to acertain whether my dog wants to be with me as a happy couple?
That seems to be the only real criteria for the marriages suggested, and one which I think is actually feasible to ask of a dog had we the capability.

martinguerre 09-18-2004 03:18 PM

as a queer Christian, i use this as my shortform explanation. God does not have a sex ethic. God does have a love ethic.

In trying to make a slippery slope arguement...people forget that they are trying to compare a truely loving relationship between 2 consenting adults to something that does not have the intimacy, consent, or love. It's really not much of an arguement, IMO.

adysav 09-18-2004 03:43 PM

Just so I'm clear on this, are we primarily talking about marriage in the eyes of the church or in the eyes of the law?
I am just curious as to the main benefit that a couple would incur by marrying.
(cue 'acceptance' posts)

FoolThemAll 09-18-2004 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre
In trying to make a slippery slope arguement...people forget that they are trying to compare a truely loving relationship between 2 consenting adults to something that does not have the intimacy, consent, or love. It's really not much of an arguement, IMO.

I might've missed someone addressing this before...but what about incestual relationships between cosenting adults? Would it not be possible for the intimacy and love to be there? And if so, should marriage be a legal option for them? Why or why not?

adysav 09-18-2004 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
I might've missed someone addressing this before...but what about incestual relationships between cosenting adults?

And indeed marriage between 7 people of various genders/familial ties.

filtherton 09-18-2004 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
Is an adult who is mentally retarded capable of marrying?

edit:
Would marrying my dog be valid if we could somehow cross the language and general communication barrier to acertain whether my dog wants to be with me as a happy couple?
That seems to be the only real criteria for the marriages suggested, and one which I think is actually feasible to ask of a dog had we the capability.

Well, i guess if we wanted to delve in to the magical land of make-believe we should probably be worried about whether it is ethical for species who are biologically asexual to get married. Should fungi be allowed to get married? Is that a state's right's issue or a federal one?


Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
Just so I'm clear on this, are we primarily talking about marriage in the eyes of the church or in the eyes of the law?
I am just curious as to the main benefit that a couple would incur by marrying.
(cue 'acceptance' posts)

Why does that matter to you, you're primarily concerned with defining words for everyone else to use. If you were truly concerned about the ramifications you would acknowledge that allowing gays to marry would have absolutely zero effect on your quality of life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
I might've missed someone addressing this before...but what about incestual relationships between cosenting adults? Would it not be possible for the intimacy and love to be there? And if so, should marriage be a legal option for them? Why or why not?

Well, as long as their heterosexual, right? I mean, that's all you seem to care about when it comes to marriage.

martinguerre 09-18-2004 04:21 PM

"I am just curious as to the main benefit that a couple would incur by marrying.
(cue 'acceptance' posts)"

To me, it will be most important that my marriage (whether to a man or a woman) be in the church. My relationship with God cannot be secondary to the rest of my life...especially something so pivital as a marriage. I'd also like to a full citizen, regardless of who i marry. the civil benifits matter, too. Marriage is not just an agreement...its a sacred pact between two individuals, their community, and their God. So, yeah. That's why i think marriage is important. Acceptance is nice...its crucial that the community support and honor the relationship that they help consecrate (remember how the congregation says stuff during the ceremony? they're part of that marriage, as witnesses and supporters). I'm not sure what you're driving at...but i wanted to give you the sense that the desire for queer marriage isn't just a tool or ploy....its not just about "acceptance" in some vague and meaningless fashion.

"I might've missed someone addressing this before...but what about incestual relationships between cosenting adults? Would it not be possible for the intimacy and love to be there? And if so, should marriage be a legal option for them? Why or why not?"
I'd argue this. When close family members engage such behavior, it is not so much that they are violating the definition of marriage, as they are violating the definition of family. Yes, it is possible that two, consenting and loving adults engage in incenst. But...i believe it is a breach of the love ethic i was speaking of earlier. Being part of a family...living together, sharing meals, growing up alongside one another...these form a promise and compact. To break those boundaries of trust, and to try to form a pair-bond in that situation is a breach of those promises. To be a good brother or sister, etc... is to my understanding, mutually incompatible with engaging in sexual intimacy. Simply put...it is not possible to commit incest without irrevocably altering, and i believe damaging, an existing familial relationship...thus rendering such behavior incompatible with Christian teaching.

"And indeed marriage between 7 people"

This is why i include intimacy in my definition. Multiple partner relationships do not posess the level of intimacy that two person relationships do. Unless every partner is present any time that any partners are together...there is one or more persons not in the loop for some component of the relationship. Western culture has made several attempts at heteronormative multiple marrage...and none have been terribly durable. For instance...Mormon polygamy limited sexual contact to husband to wife, but has fallen out of favor except in a few fringe sects. Multiple partner marriage isn't about queerness. In its practice, it has been a hetero thing...and has failed at producing cohesive family structures.

adysav 09-18-2004 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton
Why does that matter to you, you're primarily concerned with defining words for everyone else to use. If you were truly concerned about the ramifications you would acknowledge that allowing gays to marry would have absolutely zero effect on your quality of life.

Murdering a billion chinese people would have absolutely zero effect on the quality of my life.
I do not have any 'concerns'. You say that like you assume I'm hideously anti-gay and just trying to stamp 'gay = bad' on this thread.
What I am curious about is whether homosexuals are purely concerned with being treated like everyone else within society, or given the same economic benefits as married heterosexuals, or accepted by their religion.

FoolThemAll 09-18-2004 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton
Well, as long as their heterosexual, right? I mean, that's all you seem to care about when it comes to marriage.

Huh? Dude, I'm pro-gay marriage. (edit) As long as they're both from the same race. :D I'm wondering how far others are willing to go and how they attempt to justify their limits.

Martinguerre: so you're against polygamous and incestuous marriages being legal institutions, I take it?

adysav 09-18-2004 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre
Simply put...it is not possible to commit incest without irrevocably altering, and i believe damaging, an existing familial relationship...thus rendering such behavior incompatible with Christian teaching.

Multiple partner marriage isn't about queerness. In its practice, it has been a hetero thing...and has failed at producing cohesive family structures.

One of the main criticisms levelled at homosexual marriage is that it does not promote 'healthy' (for want of a better word) family life.

filtherton 09-18-2004 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
Murdering a billion chinese people would have absolutely zero effect on the quality of my life.
I do not have any 'concerns'. You say that like you assume I'm hideously anti-gay and just trying to stamp 'gay = bad' on this thread.
What I am curious about is whether homosexuals are purely concerned with being treated like everyone else within society, or given the same economic benefits as married heterosexuals, or accepted by their religion.

I don't assume anything, except what you force me to by pretending (hopefully) to not be able to see the difference between homosexuality and bestiality. You should be more concerned about limiting the religious freedom of gays who are accepted and allowed to marry by their religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
Huh? Dude, I'm pro-gay marriage. (edit) As long as they're both from the same race. :D I'm wondering how far others are willing to go and how they attempt to justify their limits.


My fault. I guess i just assumed you were trying to make some kind of half-baked slippery slope argument. To be honest, i could care less it a brother and sister chose to get married, and i can't imagine why anyone would believe it to be their place to tell them they couldn't.

martinguerre 09-18-2004 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
One of the main criticisms levelled at homosexual marriage is that it does not promote 'healthy' (for want of a better word) family life.

Which would concern me...had queer families been found to be less capable at forming stable families. Quite the opposite.

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Sect...entDisplay.cfm


From that source...
Quote:

That is why research studies have consistently shown that children raised by gay and lesbian parents do just as well on all conventional measures of child development, such as academic achievement, psychological well-being and social abilities, as children raised by heterosexual parents.

That is also why the nation’s leading child welfare organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians and others [see box], have issued statements that dismiss assertions that only heterosexual couples can be good parents -- and declare that the focus should now be on providing greater protections for the 1 million to 9 million children being raised by gay and lesbian parents in the United States today.

adysav 09-18-2004 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre
Which would concern me...had queer families been found to be less capable at forming stable families. Quite the opposite.

I take it you have it on equally good authority that incestuous couples are bad parents then.
I'm not going to let this one go because it is 'incompatible with Christian teaching'. According to the Bible homosexuality itself is sinful and women are to be subordinates.

martinguerre 09-18-2004 06:10 PM

well, frankly, i don't think such broad studies are available. in that sense, this is an arguement awaiting the facts.

In the mean time, i think the best arguement is self-evident. While many relationships ultimately end in separation or divorce, there is no such thing as an ex-sibling. In subordinating the familial relation to the romantic one, there is a sharply increased risk of serious trauma to the family. The couple is imposing this risk on the other family members, as well. Would you like to choose between a brother and a sister in a messy divorce? Family members have duties to one other...to take up romantic relationship inevitably involves breach of those duties.

And no, i don't think the Bible condemns homosexual relationships. And no, i certainly don't think it "simply" says that women are to be subordinates. It names them as deacons, apostles, saints, disciples, judges, prophets, and elders. The more authentic we are to the words and teachings of Jesus...the vision we see is remarkably egalitarian.


http://www.whosoever.org/bible/

This link explains the various "slam" passages that are used against queers. Nor does each passage have equal weight, IMO. These isolated incidents conflict with greater message. Many authors and figures in the bible display a remarkable disregard for the sexual politics of their day: the adulteress woman, jesus' linage, tamar's conspiracy, etc... They ALWAYS display a remarkable concern for justice, love and responsiveness to God's continuing revelation.

adysav 09-19-2004 05:05 AM

I don't feel I have a duty to my family, if you do that's fine. If I left the country tomorrow and my duties went unfulfilled that wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
How about breaking up a friendship between unrelated people to start a doomed relationship?
Looking at it from such a negative point of view seems to advocate not starting any relationships at all for fear that they will inevitably sour.
---
Various branches of Christianity treat the issue of homosexuality differently, as with most things. You obviously support a more liberal view of the Bible, there are others who will say that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. I'm not just talking about half-arsed out of context quotes either.
Personally, I couldn't care less what the Bible says, I might as well take my guidance from a copy of The Lord of the Rings (yes i know it has christian undertones :P).

To be brutally honest with you, I don't like homosexuality. I don't care much for heterosexual marriage either. Whatever relationship goes on between people behind closed doors is their own business and I'd much rather not know about any of it.
Why parade around making your sexual leanings a matter of public knowledge, like anyone really cares what you personally do or don't do. You're not doing anything new or revelationary, I would bet that if you brand your partners balls with hot iron there will be someone somewhere who likes to do the same.

Scrap the whole fking lot of it, public declaration of love especially. Noone cares but your friends, so tell them, not us.
If noone knows your marital status, sexual preference or favourite colour then they can't be prejudiced on those grounds. Unless you're clearly a camped up raving bender or a ladyboy with big hands.

adysav 09-19-2004 05:27 AM

oh oh, there was a question I have that is slightly off topic.

Whatever happened to the vengeful and proactive God that we see in the Genesis quote on the page you referenced.

"Unfortunately, Lot's wife looked the wrong way, so God killed her because of her curiosity."

Now a lot of people might consider that a touch harsh, and more than a little unforgiving. He killed a woman because she looked the wrong way. He rained fire and brimstone on a town because they were inhospitable. What the fuck has happened to your god that chilled him out so much?
Look at the world today... rape, murder, fraud, extortion, robbery, torture and that most accursed of sins, inhospitability.. are rife in todays society. As far as I know there are no stories of god having actively engaged the human race for thousands of years. If anyone is deserving of a good smiting it is us, now. Bring on that fucking brimstone. While you're at it, take all those who worship false idols. Why doesn't he just annihilate the sikhs, muslims, buddhists and those irritating bloody wiccans.
He should go back to the good old days when he would drop a man for being a bit mean.

martinguerre 09-19-2004 06:30 AM

Quote:

Whatever happened to the vengeful and proactive God that we see in the Genesis quote on the page you referenced.

This is off topic. So i won't respond here. Feel free to read Whosoever, or ask elsewhere in the forum.

Quote:

I don't feel I have a duty to my family, if you do that's fine.
You had asked why it was wrong from a Christian standpoint, if i'm not mistaken. I answered...

And no, possible break up is not the core of my arguement. Even if you are a good spouse, i don't think that at the same time you can be a good sibiling or cousin or whatever...to a close family member. The roles have starkly different responsibilities...to suceed at one means failure at the other.

Quote:

To be brutally honest with you, I don't like homosexuality. I don't care much for heterosexual marriage either.
Then why show up in a thread about either? Do you hang out in threads about straight marraige and get this involved, too? Do wedding invites come as insults to you?

As i've talked about before...i feel that marriage is not just about closed doors. I'm not going to ask you to get married, or to show up for mine. Fair enough?

adysav 09-19-2004 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre
This is off topic. So i won't respond here. Feel free to read Whosoever, or ask elsewhere in the forum.

Do you seriously believe there is an answer for that on one of these forums?
Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre
And no, possible break up is not the core of my arguement. Even if you are a good spouse, i don't think that at the same time you can be a good sibiling or cousin or whatever...to a close family member. The roles have starkly different responsibilities...to suceed at one means failure at the other.

What responsibilities do brother and sister have to each other exactly? And how do they prevent you from being a good spouse?

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre
Then why show up in a thread about either? Do you hang out in threads about straight marraige and get this involved, too? Do wedding invites come as insults to you?

Having a negative opinion is as good a reason as any. You don't expect everyone to just turn up and start praising gay people and what an atrocity it is that homosexual marriage is not treated equally do you?
I don't think I've ever been invited to a wedding. Like I said, people can keep their business to themselves and that's fine with me.
I've never been invited to the loss of a friends virginity, or the opening of their first bank account either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre
As i've talked about before...i feel that marriage is not just about closed doors.

Why does public knowledge of your arrangements with someone make the slightest bit of difference to other people except those you explicitly want to tell? Why make an outward show of it?

asaris 09-19-2004 10:33 AM

Incestuous relationships are against the interest of the state since they tend to lead to inbred offspring. Marriage should be done in public, because the ability of people to hold you to your vows helps the stability of marriage, and that is in the state's interest.

Anyway, so far I've only been talking about marriage as a civil institution, but Martin Guerre brings up some interesting points about marriage as a Christian institution, as well as an interesting web site. I agree with a lot of what he says, and a lot of what the site says, but I am still of the opinion that homosexual activity, according to scripture, is sinful. Perhaps not especially sinful, but still sinful. I hope he'll forgive my lack of sources, since it's been several years since I researched the issue.

The site he mentions, whosoever.org, makes a number of counter-arguments to the arguments of someone who is against homosexual activity, and most of them are spot on. The only two I have even minor quibbles about is their discussion of the term malakoi arsenokotai. They strongly imply that there's no way this term means homosexuality -- and that is, of course, false. It could mean homosexuality, or masturbation, or something else. We don't know. And in general, on the NT quotes, they are very quick to explain away more explicit quotes, in a way that may or may not be accurate. They're right if all they're saying is that Paul might just be talking about temple prostitution, they're going a bit far if they're saying that this is in fact the case, and I find their insinuations that Paul is only talking about certain sorts of homosexual activity odd, to say the least. What could this mean, that oral sex b/w men is okay but anal sex is bad? I have my doubts.

The difficulty with looking at the scriptural perspective on homosexuality is that it didn't exist back then -- not in the way we think of it today. It seems that, in general, people's sexual preferences are more like on a continuum; very few people are only attracted to one gender or another, though most do tend strongly to be attracted to one gender or another. Our society tend to stick people into boxes based on where they happen to be on this continuum, so we get the socially constructed categories of gay, bi, and straight. In the ancient world, they did not have these categories. So, for example, in the Greek world, plenty of men had what we would now call homosexual relationships with their students without anyone thinking to put them in a box labeled gay.

But none of that means that, at the end of day, scripture isn't clear enough on homosexuality activity. Why is that? Well, scripture teaches that sexual activity ought only take place within marriage. It's also very clear that marriage is instituted by God as a relationship between a man and a woman (cf. Genesis, a position which is reaffirmed in the gospels.) So, scripture teaches that homosexual activity is sinful.

Halx 09-19-2004 11:10 AM

...but for someone who doesn't give a shit about scripture, the point is moot. Nothing is sinful because sin does not exist. All that exists are the ties that humans form between themselves. These ties are affected by two things: hurt and help. Since homosexuality does neither, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

For the last two weeks, I've been hanging out with a group of gay guys, playing poker. If anything, I come out more enriched because they are a group of normal people who are fun to hang out with... they just happen to have a different sexual preference than I. This does me no harm. Hell, they're more nice to me than a group of straight guys would be.

I cannot understand how anyone would construe homosexuality as being wrong without falling back on religion. If religion is the only force telling us that homosexuality is wrong, I would begin to question the merits of said religion. It sounds like a lecherous force to me.

Mantus 09-19-2004 11:24 AM

Adsyv, I got to say, I am having allot of problem trying to figure out just what your argument is. Most of your responses are very short and are in forms of questions. So it forces me to write rather long responses to cover as many angles as possible.

Back in post #36 there was talk about how we should call objects or animals by their proper tittles. I agree with this – a dog should be called by its proper title. Yet if we see an animal that is in every way like a dog, accept one that we have never seen before, it would be easier to call it a “dog” rather then create a new title for it. Later we can calcify it as a new breed.

Let’s say that a person is watching a program on TV where two trained monkeys go though a marriage ceremony. The next day at work the person tells his coworkers about the strange even he saw on TV. He doesn’t need to make up a new word to describe the event. The person will tell his coworkers that he saw two monkeys get “married”. And the people will understand that even though he used the word “married”; the monkeys are not actually legally married, that one will not receive the other’s bananas if it dies and that the government wont take a percentage of those bananas.

What this shows is that “marriage” was never a word that was specifically used to describe the marriage between a man and a woman. It can be used to describe similar events between different species, objects or whatever. Yet depending on the context of it’s use the meaning is altered.

In my post #44 I described how the concept of marriage between a man and a woman is pretty much the same as that of two people of the same sex, the primary difference being the sexual orientation of the couples. People will still clarify this last point, just like people will eventually clarify that a guy’s wife is Chinese or that a woman’s husband is in a wheel chair. But all these couples capture the primary image of marriage.

~//~

As long as some one is willing to perform a ceremony we will call it marriage. Whether it’s two white people, a man and three women, a woman and a dog or a plant and a rock we can have marriage ceremonies for all of them. Yet it is the government that determines whether these ceremonies are legal unions. There are rights and recognition that come with legal marriage.

At the moment, the proposed laws state that same-sex couples do not have the right to legally marry in a church but they have the right to a civil union. Another words, the government says that there is nothing constitutionally wrong with a same-sex couple being legally united. Yet judges that churches do not have the right to practice a legal marriage ceremony with same-sex couples.

If nothing wrong is found with the concept of a same-sex legal union, then there should be absolutely no reason to not allow same-sex legal marriage. It is not the governments place to decide which religion is right and wrong.

~//~

Quote:

One of the main criticisms leveled at homosexual marriage is that it does not promote 'healthy' (for want of a better word) family life.
I assume by this you mean having children. Yet children are not a necessary part of marriage and that legal aspects of this issue can be addressed separately. Such an issue comes up with mentally handicapped people who are allowed to marry yet their ability to raise children is questionable.

In the end, the major hurdle that children of same-sex couples experience is external rather then internal. Same-sex couples have been proven to be equally capable of raising children, yet they cannot control the bigotry that their children have to face in the world.

Thus the problem doesn’t lie with the same-sex couple but with social disabilities of our society. This is problem that we can address separately from same-sex marriage.

~//~

Finally,

Polygamy, people marrying dogs, their siblings or mentally handicapped people being married are NOT part of the same issue. The government must determine the legality of each one a case-by-case basis. Please stop bringing absolutely irrelevant issues to this debate.

There is what these arguments equal too:

Statement: "People of all races have the right to be married"
Argument: "So should rocks and plants be married?"

Doest work.

Halx 09-19-2004 01:33 PM

I wanna add that children of gay parents (adopted, surrogate, insemenated.. whatever) are no more likely to become gay when they grow older than children of straight parents. Statistical fact.

martinguerre 09-19-2004 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
Do you seriously believe there is an answer for that on one of these forums?

??? If you want to start a different line of questioning, start a new thread. It's board policy, if i understand correctly, and common courtesy to boot.

Quote:

What responsibilities do brother and sister have to each other exactly? And how do they prevent you from being a good spouse?
How about being someone who's supposed to have your back without trying to sleep with you? It's a rough definition...but i think it sounds about right.


Quote:

Having a negative opinion is as good a reason as any. You don't expect everyone to just turn up and start praising gay people and what an atrocity it is that homosexual marriage is not treated equally do you?
I don't think I've ever been invited to a wedding. Like I said, people can keep their business to themselves and that's fine with me.
I've never been invited to the loss of a friends virginity, or the opening of their first bank account either.
Which is why i don't get why your posting. A group of people, not you, think its important to have weddings conducted in a community context. A group of people, not you again, are contesting for the meaning of those weddings. A group of people, still...not you, are trying to figure out what marraige means. So. Why are you posting? Not that you don't have something interesting to say. I've never heard anything quite like it. But your logical position seems to point towards a pattern of disengagement, not action. You don't care for marriage, and the public ramifications, and think that it should be private. So...why make a public dispute of it? If you aren't being invited, etc...why is it that you seem to care so much?



Quote:

Why does public knowledge of your arrangements with someone make the slightest bit of difference to other people except those you explicitly want to tell? Why make an outward show of it?
From the very beginning of the church, marriage was considered a sacrament...and instance in which a outward action reflected indwelling of God's grace. While i have no desire to have my wedding on TV or in the nation press...i would like it recognized by the church of which i'm a part. This doesn't strike me as particularly attention getting, or showy. I'd like to know why you seem to think it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by halx
I would begin to question the merits of said religion. It sounds like a lecherous force to me.

This does seem to be a guilt by association arguement. I would also dispute that it is only religion that is fueling homophobia.

filtherton 09-19-2004 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
I don't feel I have a duty to my family, if you do that's fine. If I left the country tomorrow and my duties went unfulfilled that wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
How about breaking up a friendship between unrelated people to start a doomed relationship?
Looking at it from such a negative point of view seems to advocate not starting any relationships at all for fear that they will inevitably sour.
---
Various branches of Christianity treat the issue of homosexuality differently, as with most things. You obviously support a more liberal view of the Bible, there are others who will say that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. I'm not just talking about half-arsed out of context quotes either.
Personally, I couldn't care less what the Bible says, I might as well take my guidance from a copy of The Lord of the Rings (yes i know it has christian undertones :P).

To be brutally honest with you, I don't like homosexuality. I don't care much for heterosexual marriage either. Whatever relationship goes on between people behind closed doors is their own business and I'd much rather not know about any of it.
Why parade around making your sexual leanings a matter of public knowledge, like anyone really cares what you personally do or don't do. You're not doing anything new or revelationary, I would bet that if you brand your partners balls with hot iron there will be someone somewhere who likes to do the same.

Scrap the whole fking lot of it, public declaration of love especially. Noone cares but your friends, so tell them, not us.
If noone knows your marital status, sexual preference or favourite colour then they can't be prejudiced on those grounds. Unless you're clearly a camped up raving bender or a ladyboy with big hands.


So your argument essentially boils down to: It's dumb and i don't care about it so why is anyone making a big deal out of it?

FoolThemAll 09-19-2004 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus
Polygamy, people marrying dogs, their siblings or mentally handicapped people being married are NOT part of the same issue. The government must determine the legality of each one a case-by-case basis. Please stop bringing absolutely irrelevant issues to this debate.

Disagree. Many people in support of gay unions/marriage insist that it should be allowed because marriage is between two people that love each other and wish to make a lifelong commitment. They argue that the sex of the two people in question is irrelevant. It is, then, fair to ask if the species, age, quantity, or previous relation is relevant, because it is a test of their definition of marriage and their reasoning for it.

Species is easy enough: sheep can't properly consent. So is age, and for the very same reason. But what of the other two, polygamy and incest? My tentative answer, although I don't (yet?) hold this position strongly, is that those relationships should be a legal option as well.

What about you?

Quote:

I wanna add that children of gay parents (adopted, surrogate, insemenated.. whatever) are no more likely to become gay when they grow older than children of straight parents. Statistical fact.
Source?

adysav 09-19-2004 02:57 PM

Wow, so many responses, I appreciate the effort of those who reply to my somewhat rambly and seemingly pointless musings, I really do.

FoolThemAll has it spot on in the last post, although I would contend that my dog loves me unconditionally. It's not like I'd ask just any old animal to marry me, that would be silly whether they were an animal or not.
I suppose it's a strange case of Stockholm Syndrome, my dog eventually falling in love with the man who keeps her captive.

I don't actually have a dog, but just to make a point you understand...

I think I should review the last few posts and reaffirm my position on the subject before I reply.

adysav 09-19-2004 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asaris
Incestuous relationships are against the interest of the state since they tend to lead to inbred offspring.

Well yes, because that is the definition of inbred. I think what you're getting at is that inbred children are more likely to bear genetic predisposition to particular types of medical condition than children of conventional couples. If that is the case then it should be illegal for any couple who carry inherited conditions to have children.
I don't think something like that should be enforced, but if I had an inheritable condition which would be passed onto my children I would make a personal sacrifice and not have any children.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus
Adsyv (almost), I got to say, I am having allot of problem trying to figure out just what your argument is.

Me too, sorry about that. I actually had to read up to find out what I was talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus
Yet depending on the context of it’s use the meaning is altered.

If u want 2 abuse it (ho ho :/), and use it in an inappropriate context that does not change it's meaning. As far as I am aware it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. It can also be used as a metaphor to describe two seemingly different things brought together, but that doesn't refer to the legal union we are talking about. So it doesn't count.

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre
??? If you want to start a different line of questioning, start a new thread. It's board policy, if i understand correctly, and common courtesy to boot.

It was a rhetorical question. There is no answer to the question anywhere, nevermind buried somewhere in an online forum.


Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre
How about being someone who's supposed to have your back without trying to sleep with you? It's a rough definition...but i think it sounds about right.

We're talking about mutual consent and a deep love for one another, not some 14 year old kid wanting to get his rocks off while the baby sitter is watching TV.

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre
If you aren't being invited, etc...why is it that you seem to care so much?

This is a forum, I'm just airing my opinion. Generally if I don't have an opinion before I started posting I will formulate one as required in order to get involved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre
This doesn't strike me as particularly attention getting, or showy. I'd like to know why you seem to think it is.

Showy was not what I said. The fact that you have to refer to a couple as Mr and Mrs Blah, or put your marital status on forms is what I meant. It may sound trivial or even stupid.
Most of the people here agree that marriage should be based on the fact that the people involved should love each other. Why should I have to enter into a contract with a person to show that I love them? Doesn't that sound a bit odd... "yes i love you, look our marriage licence is proof".
Many would argue that marriage makes it more difficult for people to separate and that is a good thing. If love is the sole criterion for being together, then trying to make it difficult for people to separate when they no longer love each other sounds ridiculous to me.

I have been part of a romantically involved couple with my girlfriend for 5 years. I know married couples who were together for a matter of months before getting hitched. Why should they receive economic and civil benefits that I do not? My girlfriend and I are independent people, and I would prefer we were seen as two individuals rather than one legal entity. Originally marriage was no business of the state and I don't believe it should be now.

In this situation a gay couple would be able to consider themselves as much 'married' as any other couple and everyone would enjoy the same rights.

Special thanks to filtherton for quoting my whole post then replying with one line that adds exactly nothing to the discussion.

martinguerre 09-19-2004 07:04 PM

Quote:

Why should I have to enter into a contract with a person to show that I love them?
This is where i'll simply leave you be. As long as your distain for marriage is equal opportunity...i can feel confident that closing this discussion is simply a recognition of deep aesthetic differences, and not an intellectual question. To me, marriage isn't a contract, but a covenant...marriages are not private affairs between isolated people, but a reflection of the community that recognizes them. The difference between those things has everything to do with my religious idenity and cultural background, which i can't reasonably expect you to share. So...agree to disagree?

as for the rest...dogs, no matter how loyal, cannot give informed consent. quite frankly, i think we're beyond reason when this arguement gets trotted out.

gondath 09-19-2004 07:38 PM

In an attempt to get the thread back towards the topic, I'll answer yes and no. I rather enjoy the idea of two attractive lesbians together, but that's the extent of it. The rest of them are wrong in my book. I'd like to clarify that I am using my own personal criteria of weighing the benefits and drawbacks towards myself in my assessment. From a larger perspective of community, I think it is wrong all the way with no exceptions. I don't support hedonism in a larger sense and I don't believe in love.

Mantus 09-19-2004 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
Disagree. Many people in support of gay unions/marriage insist that it should be allowed because marriage is between two people that love each other and wish to make a lifelong commitment. They argue that the sex of the two people in question is irrelevant. It is, then, fair to ask if the species, age, quantity, or previous relation is relevant, because it is a test of their definition of marriage and their reasoning for it.

It’s de-railing the argument and distracting from the issue. People marrying animals, their children or multiple partners are separate issues. Even though these issues have a common theme we cannot tackle them at the same time because each one has its own set of circumstance.

As far as the definition argument goes, I really don’t understand the whole point of it in the first place. Definitions are not carved in stone. Definitions differ depending on culture and religion and change all the time.

Changing the legal definition of marriage to accomodate same-sex couples does no damage to society, retains the essence of the word and alleviates alienation of a social group. I see absolutely no reason not to change it.

irateplatypus 09-20-2004 06:20 AM

i agree that separation between the various wrinkles in the issue is necessary, but i don't it has been given in an intellectually honest way.

nearly all of the defense of homosexual marriage arguments base homosexual marriage's legitimacy on the idea that it contains all necessary requirements for marriage (commitment, love, etc.)... but don't recognize that the exact same criteria they use for their argument has equal weight when used by someone who advocates incest or polygamy.

they do not accept incest and polygamy even though they ask others to accept homosexual marriage on the exact same principle. perhaps there are more compelling arguments for homosexual marriage, but i don't think the ones given hold water.

filtherton 09-20-2004 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus
i agree that separation between the various wrinkles in the issue is necessary, but i don't it has been given in an intellectually honest way.

nearly all of the defense of homosexual marriage arguments base homosexual marriage's legitimacy on the idea that it contains all necessary requirements for marriage (commitment, love, etc.)... but don't recognize that the exact same criteria they use for their argument has equal weight when used by someone who advocates incest or polygamy.

they do not accept incest and polygamy even though they ask others to accept homosexual marriage on the exact same principle. perhaps there are more compelling arguments for homosexual marriage, but i don't think the ones given hold water.

Like i said above, it doesn't matter to me, and i have no clue as to why it matters to you.

I have the same problem as you, though, in that i haven't heard an argument against homosexual marriage that holds water. In fact, everytime i play the trump card, the "prohibiting gay marriage limits the religious freedom of those religions that allow gay marriage" it just gets ignored. I think i will start a thread devoted solely to this. Yeah, that' just what i am going to do.

FoolThemAll 09-20-2004 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus
It’s de-railing the argument and distracting from the issue. People marrying animals, their children or multiple partners are separate issues. Even though these issues have a common theme we cannot tackle them at the same time because each one has its own set of circumstance.

It's not a derailment because it's all about questioning what a person considers the "essence" of marriage and if they actually believe in that essence (by investigating if they are being consistent).

If polygamy and incest seem to fit into a given person's criteria for marriage, then it's very much on-topic to ask if they accept the legitimacy of those things. If they do, good, drop them or discuss their legitimacy in a new thread. If they don't, then this has a direct relevance to their particular defense of homosexual marriage and they need to explain the apparent inconsistency.

Mantus 09-20-2004 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus
nearly all of the defense of homosexual marriage arguments base homosexual marriage's legitimacy on the idea that it contains all necessary requirements for marriage (commitment, love, etc.)... but don't recognize that the exact same criteria they use for their argument has equal weight when used by someone who advocates incest or polygamy.

This is not true and shows just how effective the slippery-slope strategy can be. There is no logical argument as to why same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry. To accept most of the arguments one would have to believe that homosexuality is immoral/evil. The “definition” and “tradition” arguments are the best attempts at logical counter arguments that the anti-same-sex marriage groups can muster. The pro groups take the bait and attempt to dispel these arguments, with some success I may add. Yet these arguments are actually rather irrelevant to the issue. Traditions and definitions while important can and will be changed or dispelled, they are not a good enough reason to deny some one a constitutional right.

The main argument for gay marriage is that gays should have equal rights. They are alienated from a social aspect of society that has been proven to be constitutionally applicable to them. Yet the government, despite seeing nothing wrong with civil union, withholds the right of certain churches to practice same-sex marriage.

A hypothetical example,

- The government states that divorce is constitutionally acceptable.
- The Catholic Church states that divorce is impossible.
- The Protestant and other Churches accept divorce.
- The government sides with the Catholic Church and states that no church may accept divorce and thus re-marry a person.
- Once a person a married, they may get a civil separation and are eligible for a civil union but may never marry in any church.

The above, in my eyes, is the equivalent of the government’s currents stance on same-sex marriage.

So once again, if same-sex marriage doesn’t harm society and if the refusal to allow same-sex marriage harms and alienates a social group, why should churches not be allowed to perform the ceremony of legal marriage?

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus
they do not accept incest and polygamy even though they ask others to accept homosexual marriage on the exact same principle. perhaps there are more compelling arguments for homosexual marriage, but i don't think the ones given hold water.

Once again this is a slippery-slope argument. It is possible, to be pro same-sex marriage yet against polygamy and incest. If you validate one, it would not validate the others, they share a common theme but they also have very different circumstances.

It’s like comparing borrowing, swindling and stealing, all involve money coming out of some one’s pocket but that doesn’t mean all actions are on the same level. While each action may seem black and white they are actually rather complex issues that have overlapping nuances.

FoolThemAll 09-20-2004 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus
Once again this is a slippery-slope argument. It is possible, to be pro same-sex marriage yet against polygamy and incest. If you validate one, it would not validate the others, they share a common theme but they also have very different circumstances.

It’s like comparing borrowing, swindling and stealing, all involve money coming out of some one’s pocket but that doesn’t mean all actions are on the same level. While each action may seem black and white they are actually rather complex issues that have overlapping nuances.

And it's completely reasonable, not a sidetrack in the least, to ask what those nuances are and why they are relevant. Especially when one's argument for gay marriage would appear to validate polygamy and incest as well.

adysav 09-20-2004 02:06 PM

I get the idea that some people would just rather not listen.

filtherton 09-20-2004 02:42 PM

I know how you feel.

irateplatypus 09-20-2004 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus
Once again this is a slippery-slope argument. It is possible, to be pro same-sex marriage yet against polygamy and incest. If you validate one, it would not validate the others, they share a common theme but they also have very different circumstances.

It’s like comparing borrowing, swindling and stealing, all involve money coming out of some one’s pocket but that doesn’t mean all actions are on the same level. While each action may seem black and white they are actually rather complex issues that have overlapping nuances.

once again, couldn't agree more. my point is that the arguments in this thread, by virtue of of the logic employed, do not select criteria from hetero marriage that distinguish homosexuality from incest and polygamy. of course the 4 circumstances aren't identical... but you cannot discern that from the criteria being discussed.

OpieCunningham 09-20-2004 03:01 PM

If millions and millions of people wanted to marry their pet dogs - why should they be prohibitted from doing so?

The Gay Marriage = Beastiality/Incest equation is ridiculous. The very reason gay marriage should not be illegal is that millions of people want it and it negatively impacts no one.

If the perception of immorality shared by millions of people is enough to limit the rights of millions of other people, why don't we illegalize pornography?

tecoyah 09-20-2004 03:19 PM

Is Homosexuality Moral? Seems a loaded question, and the answer is relevant only to the one who gives it. Any moral judgement is based on individual perception, and is therefor unlikely to be popular to all.
Perhaps rephrasing the question to:

Is homosexuality socially accepted in the United States?
or
Do you find homosexuality morally exceptable?

No matter what you will get no difinative answer, and will gain little from the answers short of a poll to the openmindedness of our member base.

That said, I see no issue with sexual preference, exexpt maybe interspecies. Then again, I find Christianity as a whole to be immoral.

filtherton 09-20-2004 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus
once again, couldn't agree more. my point is that the arguments in this thread, by virtue of of the logic employed, do not select criteria from hetero marriage that distinguish homosexuality from incest and polygamy. of course the 4 circumstances aren't identical... but you cannot discern that from the criteria being discussed.


In following your logic, would it be appropriate for me to ask you whether you support the notion of inter-racial marriage? Do you think it is okay that black people be treated as humans? Essentially, your rush to adhere to tradition means that to be consistent you would hypothetically support the continuation of slavery and a constitutional amendment banning inter-racial marriage because ending slavery and ending the prohibition on inter-racial marriage we broke with tradition. Am i right? Nope. Why not?

asaris 09-20-2004 04:52 PM

I've heard a lot of people decry platypus's claim that the same criteria used to support homosexual marriage could be used to support incestuous marriages, polygamy, or bestial marriages, but I've heard few marriages. The introduction of interracial marriage is merely a red herring -- irateplatypus is making a valid point. Of course, I disagree with him.

Bestiality is the easy one. We condemn bestiality because it is not a consensual relationship. But homosexual relationships are consensual.

Polygamy is only slightly more difficulty. Part of the main reason the state does and should support marriage as a civil, and not 'merely' a religious, institution, is to promote a stable family life. Stable families help keep society stable. But I doubt that polygamy would tend to produce stable families. I doubt that it ever does; I certainly doubt that it would in our society, with that persistent myth of the ideal mate. And the same argument goes for incestuous relationships. Father/daughter or mother/son (or father/son or mother/daughter) sexual relationships would be inherently exploitative. Brother/sister (or brother/brother or sister/sister) relationships would probably also often be exploititative, though not to the same extent. But even if they're not, it seems that this is a breach of the stable family, that the existence of these relationships would tend, at the very least, to render familial relationships more unstable, and the government hardly has an obligation to support relationships that make society unstable.

But homosexual marriages do not seem to be inherently unstable in the same way; rather, they would seem to fulfill the same stabilizing role as heterosexual marriages.

Mantus 09-20-2004 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
And it's completely reasonable, not a sidetrack in the least, to ask what those nuances are and why they are relevant. Especially when one's argument for gay marriage would appear to validate polygamy and incest as well.

FootThemAll,

- Polygamy has the issue of weak relationship bonds as well as legal complications shrouding inheritance, divorce and custody.

- Incest has the problem of causing genetic disorders in offspring and thus future generation’s health.

Same-sex marriage does not share these complications. The argument that “sex does not matter” does not apply to polygamy or incest because it does not touch the primary arguments against these practices. For example, incest already qualifies for the current definition of marriage (union between a man and a woman), the reason it is considered illegal has nothing to do with this definition and will not be effected if the definition is changed to include same-sex marriage. The argument that “if same-sex marriage is allowed then polygamy and incest must be allowed” is not valid.

Polygamy, incest, underage marriage, mentally handicapped couples, and bestiality should not be questioned based on people opinions (definitions, viewpoints, traditions); they should be questioned because all of them pose actual problems to society, health, child welfare and/or law.

The big question seems to be: if we change the legal definition of marriage, how far will we go? - As far as reasonably possible. This is certainly not the first time or the last time that the legal definition of marriage will change. As long as the change hold benefits for individuals and doest harm society or state then we should move ahead and make the change.


~ That took me forever to write (and re-write) hope it clears up that issue.

FoolThemAll 09-21-2004 06:22 AM

It does clear it up. Thanks.

chickentribs 09-21-2004 08:52 AM

Just want to drop in 2 quick points - I don't believe I am repeating anything already discussed.

First, in regards to family pets, siblings, and old school mormons, because that argument seems to really be the major talking point on tv, radio, etc - please understand that it could be considered quite offensive without bringing much in the way of debate to the table. The issue of marriage is about two people wanting to solidify there love in front of God (sometimes) and man. If someone with a more traditional background told you that they were getting married to a great lady, would you immediately say to him "Hey! I didn't know you were into chicks - I bet you like little girls too, Huh?" Trying to lump a committed, monogomous relationship into something deviant is embarassing.

Second - I haven't seen anyone address the moral obligation (this was about morality) of each of us to protect individual rights given to us per the Constitution. "All men are created equal" and all that. At least as people who have the incredible fortune of personal rights and liberty, don't we owe it to stay on the lookout for someone being discriminated against - if not for them than for ourselves? Today they go after the easy targets, but I promise that in some way shape or form we are all part of a vunerable minority - what is yours?

Thanks for the space - I really enjoy reading your well thought out ideas.

adysav 09-21-2004 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus
- Incest has the problem of causing genetic disorders in offspring and thus future generation’s health.

As I mentioned in a previous post, this is clearly not a valid argument.
Incest does not cause genetic disorders. Members of the same family are likely to share the same predisposition to particular medical conditions.

So for example, Alice and Bob are siblings and both carriers of cystic fibrosis (CF), passed on from a parent. There is a 25% chance of any offspring of this union developing CF and a 50% chance that it would carry the gene but show no symptoms, like Alice and Bob.
If Alice had instead decided that incest was not her thing, and met Chris who is not a CF carrier, their children would have a 0% chance of developing CF and a 50% chance of being a carrier.

It would appear that incest is more likely to result in offspring with genetic disorders. However, if Alice meets Dave who is another CF carrier, the chances are exactly the same as with her brother.
Does that mean that it should be illegal for Alice to have relations with anyone who tests positive for the CF gene?

There is also the issue of contraception, which seems to make this argument against incest a little pointless.

wilbjammin 09-21-2004 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
As I mentioned in a previous post, this is clearly not a valid argument.
Incest does not cause genetic disorders. Members of the same family are likely to share the same predisposition to particular medical conditions.

So for example, Alice and Bob are siblings and both carriers of cystic fibrosis (CF), passed on from a parent. There is a 25% chance of any offspring of this union developing CF and a 50% chance that it would carry the gene but show no symptoms, like Alice and Bob.
If Alice had instead decided that incest was not her thing, and met Chris who is not a CF carrier, their children would have a 0% chance of developing CF and a 50% chance of being a carrier.

Inbred children show an astronomically higher rate of genetic disorders than other children. This includes not only medical disorders, but mental disorders. It was easy to observe throughout history and almost every culture has a stigma around incest. We all know about Oedipus and Electra because their fates are the worst of the tragic fates due to the incestual nature of their relationships.

To say that incest isn't a cause is missing the point that there is a high <b>association</b> between incest and a propensity genetic disorders. Nearly every person has recessive genes that could result in genetic disorders if paired with another who has those same recessive genes, it isn't as though there is just one or two problems that could be caused by incest - there are literally thousands of bad possibilities which greatly increases the probability that incest will result in <i>some</i> disorder.

Personally, I think this is a completely unrelated point to gay marriage, however. Gay parents don't have children without help from others. There is no risk with gay marriage, compared to high risk with incest.

adysav 09-21-2004 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilbjammin
Inbred children show an astronomically higher rate of genetic disorders than other children.

I'm pretty sure that 'astronomical' is a slight exaggeration. If you have any kind of reference material I'd be interested to see it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilbjammin
We all know about Oedipus and Electra because their fates are the worst of the tragic fates due to the incestual nature of their relationships.

Maybe we could stick to real people. Having said that, when I heard how Pinocchio turned into an ass I changed my deviant ways for good.

This argument still ignores two things.
1) Breeding within families preserves desirable traits as well as undesirable ones. Thoroughbred race horses for example.

2) It seems you forgot to comment on the contraception part. You know the bit where the incestuous couple don't have children at all, making this argument null and void.

OpieCunningham 09-21-2004 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
It would appear that incest is more likely to result in offspring with genetic disorders. However, if Alice meets Dave who is another CF carrier, the chances are exactly the same as with her brother.
Does that mean that it should be illegal for Alice to have relations with anyone who tests positive for the CF gene?

There's a relatively new and interesting film about this called Code 46, which partially deals with the near-future where cloning is relatively common and the associated affects of breeding with someone who shares similar degrees of genetic 'defects'.

wilbjammin 09-21-2004 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
I'm pretty sure that 'astronomical' is a slight exaggeration. If you have any kind of reference material I'd be interested to see it.

Ok:

"[T]hree much smaller studies showed serious birth defects in up
to one-fourth of all children that were a product of bloodline incest, an
incidence that is about fifteen times the expected normal frequency."
Mary Meehan. "Facing the Hard Cases." Human Life Review , Summer
1983, pages 19 to 36.

There aren't many large studies out there to prove this, because the documentation of incestually-derived children is very low. People typically aren't proud of their incestuous relationships, and aren't willing to have tests and studies done to see how many defects they've created. Regardless, many antropologists, historians, and other social scientists have noted that the taboo against incest is the only universally recognized taboo across all cultures.

Quote:

Maybe we could stick to real people. Having said that, when I heard how Pinocchio turned into an ass I changed my deviant ways for good.

This argument still ignores two things.
1) Breeding within families preserves desirable traits as well as undesirable ones. Thoroughbred race horses for example.

2) It seems you forgot to comment on the contraception part. You know the bit where the incestuous couple don't have children at all, making this argument null and void.
Issue #1:

The only examples in history that I know of intentionally creating incestuous family lines were bismal failures. Many royal families in Europe, in order to maintain power, continually married within family lines to keep power concentrated within the family. It did not turn out well, and you can do some research if you'd like to see the hideous messes that were left behind. I have yet to see inbreding used effectly and intentionally with humans. Do you have a single example? Also, many inbred dogs have common defects such as blindness, back problems, etc.

Issue #2:

Ok, lets get all incestuous couples to sign an affidavit before getting married that claims that under no circumstances will they have unprotected sex, and in any case that the protected sex yields an accidental pregnancy the state will sponser manditory abortions. Furthermore, the state should simply put manditory sterilization requirements upon incestuous couples and then we have 100% certainty that nothing bad will ensue. I'm sure that human rights advocates will have no problem with that.

Mantus 09-21-2004 07:18 PM

Adysav demonstrates how effective the Slippery Slope argument can be at derailing a debate.

The argument against incest has nothing to do with the argument against same-sex marriage. Still, the new debate is all in good fun.

adysav 09-22-2004 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus
The argument against incest has nothing to do with the argument against same-sex marriage. Still, the new debate is all in good fun.

Arguments were made in defence of homosexuality. These arguments are also valid as a defence of incest, which is also apparently not a 'natural' state of companionship in the eyes of the law. If the argument turns out to be invalid for incest then it should also be invalid for homosexuality.
It determines whether the people who are pro homosexual relationships are actually in favour of greater rights to all consenting couples.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360