Infinite_Loser

Now you're playing semantics. You know very well what was meant by the statement "Marriage has always been considered to be between a man and a woman", even more so because-- Along with that statement-- I happened to ask you to name me some ancient cultures in which homosexuality was a common part of (You turned around and tried to give me current examples). My claim is still correct: For as long as anyone can remember, marriage has always been deemed between a man and a woman. It's only until very recently which people have tried to challenge that claim.

I'm fully aware of the term and what it involves. Explain to me, however, how this exquates to any type of homosexuality and/or transexuality? More than anything else, "berdache" was a form of social structure. Both males and females would take on specific roles in their community. There has been no evidence that any of this had anything to do with one's sexuality.

Try that argument and see how far it gets you. Marriage isn't owed to anyone-- Not me, not you and not anyone else who reads this sentence.

Did I not address that earlier in a previous post of mine? There have been displays of homosexual tendencies in some animal species, but it stops far short of sexual intercourse.

This isn't completely true, either. As far as procreation purposes, we know that homosexuality occurs in animals with whom both have male and female sexual organs. In organisms which lack both male and female organs, we have observed homosexual tendencies as a way of social interaction or to release stress. For example, bonobo males will commonly engage in penis jousting with one another (Think "Chicken fight", only with penises) as a way of social interaction.

I would, but you instantly dismiss all opposing arguments as bigoted.

Plain and simply put, gay marriages aren't legalized because people don't want them to be legalized. For thousands of years, marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman and, not surprisingly enough, people want to keep it that way. For whatever the reason-- Social, political, religious or other-- The common concensus is that homosexuality is seen as unnatural.

Marriage has always been considered sacred. When something which is seen as unnatural starts to encroach on something which is seen as sacred and holy, then of course you're going to get stark opposition.

Frosstbyte

When divorce, annulments and celebrity hilarity are all illegal, you will have an argument that marriage is sacred. Marriage, particularly in this country, is a farce, at best. And it's a farce which has enormous legal consequences.

Which says absolutely nothing for the fact that marriage, as an institution, has nothing to do with love or religion and everything to do with property. Everywhere marriage developed and in every fashion, it was essentially as a device to transfer property between generations. It became "sacred" because of its incredible importance to groups of peole to establish family structures which would produce children and provide them with the resources to survive. Love wasn't an issue; god wasn't an issue; sacred wasn't an issue. Creating and supporting children was the issue. Religions used, adapted and reinforced the importance of that social structure by making it sacred. And then finally in the last several hundred years, we decided that maybe we should let people choose their own mates instead of having families arrange marriage for maximum financial benefit.

Our society no longer focuses all of its efforts on ensuring that children exist and survive, because we've gotten exceptionally good both at producing them and at keeping them alive. It is no longer the primary focus of our societal structures and that's reflected by enormous liberalizations in all aspects of society, both public and private. Marriage is in no way a prerequisite either for the creation of a child nor for ensuring its survival. And it hasn't been for a very long time. You and others may personally believe that a child is best raised in a household with a married mother and father who stay faithful to one another their entire lives, but that is neither the norm nor the trend for the last several hundred years.

Western society doesn't stone you for adultery, nor do we kill or shun bastard children. We allow divorce, we allow annulment, and marriage is not simply a union representing the love between two people. It is an incredibly important economic and legal device with far-reaching implications. Marriage, in practicfal terms, represents far more than a "sacred bond" between two people before the eyes of god. I cannot and will not argue with you that if a religion chose not to marry two people of the same sex for purely religious purposes (i.e. sacred bond before the eyes of god, etc.) I would accept that wholeheartedly. You can believe whatever you want to believe. The problem is that not everyone believes that, and marriage as an institution cannot simply be relegated to "it's sacred, gays would contaminate it so they can't do it." That's no longer a functional definition of marriage and hiding behind it merely demonstrates the lack of an argument based on anything other than the faith that it is wrong because your religion tells you it is wrong. Though you have the right to believe that, I do not believe you have the right to impose that belief on millions of other people who disagree.

However, practically, I agree with you. The United States, nominally, is a democracy, and, as it's mentioned nowhere and doesn't fall under any of Congress's enumerated powers, it would seem that gay marriage is a states' rights issue. Every state should be allowed to vote and decide for itself whether or not it recognizes gay marriage. If it does, so be it. If it doesn't, so be it. I think the results of such a vote would surprise you, though.

filtherton

That will probably all change with my generation; the majority of my demographic supports the right for homosexuals to marry. Our parents, the baby boomers, have so gloriously diluted any kind of notion that marriage is sacred that i honestly can't even imagine why anyone would be bothered if gays could get married. Fuck, i think the notion of marriage is downright quaint. The only reasons i could really see for me to legally marry my girlfriend are the ones pertaining to legal rights.

Even if marriage has always been traditionally defined as being between a man and a woman(or several women), so what? Why is that somehow a sufficient excuse to deprive homosexuals of the right to marry? That's where i get lost, the whole "we've always done things like this and the mere thought of doing something different chaps my ass to no end" line of reasoning. Where were all these strict traditionalists when it came to sodomy laws? Or the internet? Or casual fridays? I guess i just don't see the wisdom in being a social luddite, or at least claiming to be one only when it comes to homosexuality.

The funny thing about the idea that homosexuality and marriage shouldn't mix because homosexuality is unnatural is that homosexuality is actually a great deal more natural than marriage itself. Homosexuality is a rarity in the natural world, so is lifelong monogamy. There certainly aren't any wedding chapels in nature. If we are going to use "nature" as our metric for acceptable behavior, then the vast majority of the activities undertaken by the vast majority of people in the world are just as disgusting and immoral as homosexuality. The fact of the matter is that we don't consider the vast majority of the activities undertaken by the vast majority of people in the world to be immoral and disgusting(at least not because they aren't natural). This being the case, how can the idea that homosexuality is wrong because it isn't natural not be a complete line of bullshit?

I don't think that you can say that marriage has always been considered sacred and take into account modern day divorce rates. Marriage hasn't really been sacred for a long time. The idea of it perhaps, but not the actual practice of it.

There is a strong correlation between age and support for homosexual marriage; the younger you are the more likely you are to support it. Most of my generation thinks it's okay, and i can't imagine there will be very many members of my daughter's generation who think gay marriage is wrong. I look forward to the day when we look back upon the people who were against gay marriage like we look back upon the people who were against the civil rights movement.

One thing i don't look forward to is finding out what my generation's idiotic hangup will be.

Infinite_Loser

I have a question for you, then. Why should the traditional definition of marriage be changed to benefit a few people? You probably will say something along the lines of "To rectify social inequalities", but then it makes me wonder why you aren't bothering to try to correct all social inequalities and not just those you want to change.

'Tis ok. I don't see the point in arguing again just one social inequality while ignoring the rest of the them, simply because they don't interest you. It's a two way street, you know.

Actually, in nature, you're more likely to find two organisms which mate for life than you are to find homosexuality. I just thought I would clarify that.

Whatever immoral and disgusting activities you are speaking of, I can assure you that there is opposition to it. Only because I'm curious, what activities are you speaking of?

Let me correct what I said then: In most non-western countries, the idea of marriage is still sacred. It's ironic-- Yet, of no real surprise-- That the divorce rates in most western countries (Which are considered to be socially progressive) are drastically higher than those in non-western countries. Also of no real surprise, is that most western countries are generally more accepting of gay marriages than non-western countries are. I suppose you could say there is some type of direct correlation there, but I won't get into that.

I already know that for a fact. Younger people are generally more accepting of changes than older people are. That still doesn't mean there won't be opposition to gay marriage. As I stated prior, there are a number of factors which influence people's opposition to gay mariage, stemming anywhere from social, political or religious reasons.

savvypup

To those who are opposed. From the responses I've read here too, most people don't seem to have a problem with allowing same sex marriages to be legalised, as long as that doesn't impede on the church goers.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not religious, nor my husband or anyone in my family down the line. I would think it hypocritical of me to decide to get married in a church because that's the norm. In fact, I'd be quite surprised if the norm in Australia is a church wedding and personally I believe if this is the case, it stems from the older generation.

We opted for a beach wedding with an intimate party of 20 people. When I said my vows that day, there could have been no one else there - it wouldn't have mattered a rats. I was speaking to the person I loved and the people present were privileged to be witness.

I just don't understand why a small minority of people feel that 'commitment', which is what it is, are so against it and feel that they have the right to stop people making this 'COMMITMENT' to another person - not them - but the person they love.

We can all say 'heh, it's just a piece of paper' and so it is, but then let these couples have their piece of paper

__________________

ciao bella!

pig

I have a quick question for people who are opposed to legalization of homosexual marriage: does your position change if all state "marriages" are renamed to "civil unions," and only religious organizations actually grant "marriages?" Now, everyone gets the same civil contract granting all the legal benefits of marriage, and your particular religious organization can grant you whatever title it chooses in its marriage practices. If this is just some harmless semantic battle, and you simply don't want to sully the long standing Merriam-Webster definition of the word; would you feel more comfortable adopting a semantic choice that clearly delineates the civil/state institution from the religious one?

As to why people feel odd about homosexual marriage, I think part of it natural resistance to change; I think this natural resistance to change is reinforced by widespread traditional homophobia. I find it exceptionally difficult to believe that a nation of people who commonly say things such as "so, then, like, I was totally like 'oh my god,' but then she was totally like 'as if,' so then i was totally, like, you know, like, 'oh. ma. god!!!'" and "well fucking shit bo, what the fuck was that shit all about, fuck fuck fuckedy fuck fuck fuck" or "fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on ...well shame, well you can't fool me." really are having such a strong opposition because they don't want the technical definition to be altered.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Charlatan

Red Herring. Who say we aren't and who say you have to. By your thinking we should do nothing but accept the status quo.

All of which, generally speaking, stem from bigotry (whether the person is aware of it or not).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

The_Jazz

I for one advocate for a return to those heart-felt times where marriage involved kidnapping a bride from a neighboring village. Or better yet, knocking her over the head in order to drag her back to the cave. While we're at it, can we get back to burning witches and having multiple wives.

The only reason to oppose gay marriage is to make sure that our gay friends don't have to be as miserable as the rest of us. It's a compassion thing, really.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Charlatan

Perfect. I'm all for compassion...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

flstf

I think you are on to something here. It is easy for people to answer a poll "Should marriage be between a man and a woman" as yes. Most people think that a husband has a wife by definition and a husband does not have a husband in a marriage. The concept of two wives or two husbands being married does not fit the definition of marriage in most people's opinions.

Therefor we either change the definition of marriage (which is hard for many to accept) or call same sex commitment something else like civl unions. I bet if the poll questions were asked in a different way not using the word marriage that more people would be in favor of equal benefits for same sex unions.

Charlatan

For those wondering how it can be worded, here is a summary of the Canadian Civil Marriage Act

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

filtherton

Because those "few people" want it to change, have good arguments as to why it should change and there aren't really any good reasons that it shouldn't.

Who says i'm not for correcting all social inequalities? Why is that relevant? Here's an interesting question, one that is about as meaningful and relevant as your wondering about why i'm not trying to correct all social inequalities: How come you aren't trying to force everyone to revert back to traditional ways of doing things?

You do realize that this thread is specifically about gay marriage, no? If i were to come in here arguing about other social inequalities it would actually be considered to be in bad taste. Your assertion that i, or anyone else in here, is ignoring all other forms of social inequality is ridiculous. What it also is is a great example of what happens when people try to justify opposition to gay rights; they invariably end up flailing around, tossing out irrelevant rhetorical questions and trying unsuccessfully to remove the focus of the conversation from their flawed perspective.


You know what you'll never find in nature? Two animals that are married to eachother.

Well, the habit of equating "unnaturalness" with "immoral and disgusting" necessitates that the vast majority of behavior that humans engage in must necessarily be immoral and disgusting. For instance, telecommunications are wholly unnatural and must therefore be immoral. Driving isn't natural either so it must also be immoral. Abstract thought? Arguably unnatural therefore immoral. I could go on.
Most of the things we do are as natural as homosexuality, yet when it comes to condemning behavior homosexuality is the only one that is abhorrent because it isn't natural. Sounds like bullshit to me.


It's also ironic that the divorce rates in the most socially conservative states in the U.S. are higher than the divorce rates in the most socially liberal states. But i digress. If you concede that marriage isn't sacred in the u.s. then why do you think people pretend that it is when the subject of homosexuality comes up?

You could say that there was some sort of correlation there, but you couldn't really claim any sort of significance or causation. Hetero marriage has been in decline as an institution since long before gay marriage was even a blip on the radar.

FoolThemAll

Gilda and frosstbyte: congrats on missing the point of my post.

You describe an interesting hypothesis. A hypothesis that I don't hesitate to believe is sometimes - or even often - true.

You don't describe the thought process that took you from "this is true for anti-gay marriage opponents I've met" to "this is true for all people who use these arguments". Care to?

But I've got to argue your conclusion for the scenario also. Try this: you grow up in an environment that isn't exactly intellectually diverse, and through the course of growing up, you're given six arguments in defense of a political position that sound like really good arguments to you. One day, you meet someone who thoroughly dismantles reason #1 in front of you. You switch to reason #2.

Preexisting disdain is the only explanation for the switch? Really? It must be hidden reason #7?

Call me crazy, but I suspect that a more cautious appraisal would reveal five other possible explanations: reasons #2-6. If you have multiple reasons for supporting an action, you don't just toss out your support when fault is found with a single reason. "But wait! What about this?" isn't a sign of underlying bigotry, it's a sign of intellectual caution.

People express multiple reasons for a belief does not necessarily signify a master, all-controlling hidden reason.

Oh. Well, if other people make mistakes, then that makes yours okay.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Frosstbyte

Touche salesman.

In a purely theoretical sense, you're correct. Any of those arguments can be made simply in support of a position without any underlying hate or biggotry. I think the responses you're seeing reflect the fact that such a contention is so purely theoretical. If an unbiased person were trying to decide "Is gay marriage a bad thing?" those statements could all be evaluated in trying to make such a decision. And such a purely theoretical person, if he evaluated those claims and found them to be true, could safely make them without being a bigot.

The real world bottom line is anyone arguing for or against gay marriage isn't trying to decide "Is gay marriage a bad thing?" They're for or against gay rights because they either have no problem with gays or they think gays are an aberrant abomination which should be ostracized and prevented from being who they are. The underlying agenda for people who dislike gay marriage is "Gays are bad" not "Gay marriage is objectively harmful to society." The second is a rationalization of the first. And because the first is a subjective, learned dislike, any rationalizations or arguments stemming from it are bigoted.

In theory, you're right. Someone out there could make those arguments without any ulterior motive in support of the theory that gay marriage is harmful to society. De facto, I do not believe anyone is making those arguments who doesn't already have a problem with homosexuality because of a subjective belief that it is wrong and people who are gay should not receive any rights which protect that status.

Infinite_Loser

It seems that the argument for legalizing gay marriages boils down to "Heterosexuals can do it, so why can't I?" I'm pretty sure that there are people who would love to legalize-- Say-- Incest along the same grounds. Why shouldn't we do that? After all, one could argue for incest the same way one is arguing for gay marriage. We shouldn't deny two consenting adults "Basic civil rights", less be deemed as bigots.

You call my perspective flawed because I happen to disagree? Well, I could call your perpespective flawed simply because you're relying on the assumption that everyone should have the same privileges as each other. I know I said this earlier, but on the same grounds as you want to legalize gay marriage, we coul also legalize a host of other less-favorable activities. That doesn't mean we should.

No, but do you know what you will find in nature? Social structures built around "Families", much like you find in humans. Do you know what you'll never find in nature? Two members of the same gender having sex for reasons other than procreation.

...And you accuse me of bringing up irrelevant points. When one says "Unnatural", I believe them to mean a deviance from the original function or purpose.

I do remember that earlier you asserted that homosexuality was a natural and frequent occurance in nature, which you later backed off of. I suppose I should just come right out and say it, but it's my opinion that homosexuality isn't as "Natural" as you would assert.

In nature, homosexuality only occurs in oragnisms which have both reproductive organs. In humans, homosexuality occurs erm... Well, I couldn't really tell you why it occurs, but what I can tell you is that it's not for the same reasons as it occurs in nature. Doesn't a deviance from the original purpose of homosexuality classify as "Unnatural". In my book it does.

(And this is a bit pre-emptive: Before someone states "Sex was only meant for procreation purposes!" I would like to point out that both dolphins and bonobos have sex for reasons other than procreation, hence showing that it does occur in nature.)

Are you meaning that divorce has slowly been on the increase or that less and less people are being married each year?

This is where you're wrong: Personally, I don't have any problems with homosexuality. If that's what you are, then that's what you are. However, I don't believe they should be allowed to marry. Anything else, they can have, but the privilege of marriage should be kept to a man and a woman (And those are my views).

Charlatan

And we come back to... why? What is at the root of your desire to prevent two other citizens from sharing the rights that have been granted to you?

You have given no real reason of your own other than, "Those are my views".

Sorry... that's just not enough of a reason to reduce the rights of a another citizen on this issue.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Frosstbyte

I'm sure Gilda would be more than happy to inform you about the biological basis for homosexuality for both males and females. You can also probably find it yourself without too much looking on this forum in case she doesn't want to post it for the umpteenth time. If homosexuality is unnatural, than albinoism, Down's Syndrome, any biologically based pyschological disorder (schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder), birthmarks and bad teeth are all unnatural, too, along with a slew of other things.

"Unnatural" means "does not occur naturally" which is to say, humans created it. Homosexuality, particularly among males, seems to have an exceedingly firm grounding in biology and not a choice that each gay person makes for him or herself. Yes, it's different. No, it's the condition of most humans. That doesn't make it any less natural than any of the myriad of other biological differences between people.

Infinite_Loser

I've given you plenty of reasons why I oppose gay marriage.

Anyway, let me ask you a question which is very relevant to the issue at hand. Would you be willing to legalize incest along the same guidelines which you are arguing for the legalization of gay marriage? If you're against it, could you give me your reasons as to why you're opposed to it besides "Those are my views"? I'm willing you couldn't, as there is no real reason to not legalize it except for the fact that you would view it as wrong.

Frosstbyte

If you don't have any problems with it, then you shouldn't have any problems with them getting married. If you have problems with them getting married, then you clearly have problems with them. The cognitive dissosance there should be pretty obvious.

And to the incest question, sure. I couldn't care less who people marry or have sex with, as long as there is no coercion. I'm sure I'm an extreme minority on that one, but it really doesn't make much difference to me. I think it's weird and kind of gross, but I also think water sports and foot fetishes are weird and kind of gross. So I will choose not to do it and choose not to be around people who choose to do it in front of me. Life is short; live and let live.

Charlatan

Again with the red herrings. Please stick to the topic at hand.

Incest has nothing to do with either marriage or same-sex marriage. You are grasping at straws.

And... no. You haven't supplied any reason yet. You provided three examples above that you stated were flawed. Are you going to hang your reason on three clearly flawed arguments?

I agree with fossbyte:

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Infinite_Loser

No, you simply assume I have something against homosexuals. I don't. I simply believe that marriage should strictly between a man and a woman. No questions asked. Those are my views.

This is what I was getting at. I'm glad that you acknowledge the fact that you would be in the extreme minority, but the same reason as to why many people would oppose legalizing incest is the exact same reason as to why I oppose legalizing gay marriage.

Incorrect. I'm not sure you know this, but there's a correlation between the two. In the wake of the Lawrence v. Texas decision by the US Supreme Court, striking down laws criminalizing homosexual sodomy as unconstitutional, some have argued that by the same logic laws against consensual adult incest should be unconstitutional.

To be perfectly fair, they're right. By the same reasons one wants to legalize gay marriage, one would legalize incest laws. Anyway, I asked you the question for a specific reason. You have nothing to lose by answering it.

You want to ask me why I don't want gay marriage to be legalized? Well, assuming that you are against incest (I know that some people here are), my reason for being against gay marriage would be similiar to your opposition to incest laws.

If you can't understand that well... I can't tell you anything else.

Charlatan

Sorry but because "some" have made a corelation between homosexulity and incest does not mean there is any realtionship whatsoever.

They are completely seperate issues and I see no reason to compare them.

What's next, you are going to drag pedophilia into this as well? People have suggested there is corelation between homosexuals and peodophilia as well. Again, it just isn't the case.


Your premise is flawed and therefore so is your reasoning.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Frosstbyte

Views have reasons, either rational or faith-based. "No questions asked" the way you used it, I think, means faith-based, by defintion, because it means that we can't question it, which means you don't have any reason other than you believe it to be truth.

I'm not going to try to persuade you out of it, since you're welcome to have that opinion, but it is analytically impossible for you to say, "I have no problems with gays and I'm happy for them to do whatever they want...but they can't get married." No problems means just that, no problems. What you're saying is, "I'm generally ok co-existing with homosexuality, but simply because it is two members of the same sex, they have not earned the priviledge/right to get married and gain the associated benefit." If marriage is a priviledge, then you're saying that two straight people have earned it and have something that two gay people don't or have done something that two gay people haven't done. If marriage is a right, then they are second class citizens who are not entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Either way, by virtue of their status as gays, you've devalued their status, which means you have a problem with it.

Infinite_Loser

I am merely pointing out that the reason in which neither is legalized is exactly the same, and that is because people just don't like them. Both acts can occur between two consenting adults, but that doesn't mean that we instantly have to accept them or even legalize them. I'm fairly sure (By your refusal to answer the question) that you are indeed against incest and would favor to keep a ban on it. One of the reasons you would be against the legalization of incest is because you would deem it "Wrong" (Not a very good reason for banning something, but a reason nonetheless).

That is exactly how I feel about gay marriage. It's wrong and that's all there is to it.

(The key point is that the act occurs between two consenting adults, not an adult and a minor.)

No, the reasons I oppose gay marriage aren't religion based. It mearly means that I've explained my reasons as to why I oppose gay marriage. You don't have to agree with them, but they are reasons nevertheless.

Frosstbyte

Arguing about banning something with someone who admits that his premise is

makes me want to cry. Can I please have all of those keystrokes back?

And I said faith based, as in you have faith in the veracity of your assertion without reasons to back it up. You think it is wrong because you think it is wrong. You have faith in the fact that gay marriage is wrong. Faith=/=religion.

Charlatan

Insest law do not exist simply because people find it icky or are bigoted against families.

Incest laws exist because most incest is between adults and children (i.e. a situation where authority and power are used to create a "consenting" situation), furthermore, the offsping of such a union are more than likely to have grave genetic deformities.

Neither of these reasons have anything to do with same sex marriage.


Again, I suggest that your belief that same sex marriage is "wrong and that's all there is to it" has more to do with your deep seated bigotry than anything else.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Infinite_Loser

Read the whole sentence...

My mistake. By faith I assumed you meant religion.

1.) Did you miss the sentence which said "Between consenting adults"?

2.) You've completely ignored the point I was trying to make. The way you call me bigoted because I don't agree with gay marriage, I could call you bigoted for not agreeing with incest between consenting adults. Remember, following your logic, what two adults want to do is their business.

Again, I know you're wrong. But if you wish to believe that then, by all means, continue.

filtherton

It's axiomatic. There is no process. It's no different than if someone were to try to explain to me why interracial marriage is wrong. I might listen to their argument, but my first assumption would be "this person is a bigot". Whether you think that is justified doesn't matter at all to me.

Intellectual caution is one thing. Throwing out random, flailing, "oh yeah, but what about pedophiles" type arguements is intellectual dishonesty. See most of post #84

True, though in my opinion it most often does in the context of the homosexuality debate. Frankly i don't see why you care so much.

Well, apparently just being "mistaken" is okay even if your mistake comes in the form of support for systematic discrimination.


Actually, that's not what i said.

Yeah, why not? I don't care. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business. Why do you think that it's yours?


I called your perspective flawed because it is. If it wasn't you wouldn't need to try to make this discussion one about correcting all social inequalities as opposed to the specific one mentioned in this thread.

What, things like sodomy or fornication? Okay, so give me a good reason why we shouldn't legalize the other "less-favorable" activities.

Okay, so marriage is out. Good to know.

Demanding consistency on the arguement provided as the basis for the wholesale denigration of homosexuals is not irrelevant.

Even with your newly minted definition of natural, you still presume to know the original function or purpose of things that occur completely through chance. You know what fingers are for? Certainly not for typing on a keyboard. You know what ears are for? Certainly not listening to headphones. Neither headphones nor keyboards existed when fingers and ears evolved. By your definition anything that isn't strictly biologically necessary for survival and reproduction is unnatural in the same sense that homosexuality is unnatural. Which is a completely meaningless distinction on which to base social policy.


I never backed off. Homosexual behavior is natural. The fact that two male chimpanzees don't have anal sex doesn't mean that homosexuality in nature doesn't exist.

In your book dancing is unnatural because it doesn't fall under the umbrella of original intent.

Both.

FoolThemAll

You assert that my analysis is theoretical and that this is how it actually is in the real world - but all I'm seeing is more theory. Theory which my own experience fails to confirm. It's quite possible - scratch that, I've seen your theory come true in real life. But I've also seen behavior consistent with my own alternate theory. And sure, they could just be hiding their bigotry, but the same goes for every human being on the planet.

It's irresponsible to assume bigotry without evidence that rules out the alternatives. People deserve the benefit of the doubt.

I don't see much point in posting an assertion in a discussion board that you aren't interested in discussing.

It's not axiomatic. Your personal experience does not equal the world.

Eh, not everyone took a class in logic. Not everyone realizes that the slippery slope is always a fallacy (whether it's false or irrelevant). What's random and flailing to you could look convincing to someone less experienced in debate.

You don't see why I care so much about unsubstantiated blanket accusations? Must be because you're a liberal. You see, 99.99999999% of liberals don't care about the truth. At least not the ones I've met.

I don't recall making the argument that opposition to gay marriage is okay. Let me clarify: it's wrong.

But it's a strange kind of bigotry, the kind which doesn't actually treat those who differ with any less respect, which doesn't lend itself to any feelings of superiority or preachiness. Which may not even favor any difference in legal rights. (See: civil unions.)

I guess I have less respect for your mistake because it's been my experience that your mistake is more of a roadblock to civility/friendship than their alleged yet invisible bigotry.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

filtherton

I've actually discussed it quite extensively.

Actually, for me it is axiomatic. If someone tells me that gay marriage is wrong then i assume that they are a bigot. If we get to talking and it turns out that they were just using flawed logic, well, they aren't a bigot anymore. That doesn't mean my basic assumption was wrong. It just means that they got talked out of being a bigot.

Then it should all come out in the wash. In my experience it really never does, but i concede that it might happen.

Most of them hate america too.

Give me some credit for giving you some credit; i never seriously thought you did.

Okay, i'll concede this point. People who believe faulty logic, yet don't actually do anything that is implied by their belief in that faulty logic aren't actually bigots. They have the potential to be bigots, but being a bigot requires activity beyond just believing something.

It may not appear so on the tfp, but i'm a pretty civil person when it comes to face to face time if i feel like the civility is reciprocal. Just because i think someone is ridiculously mistaken doesn't mean i treat them like a piece of shit.

Gilda

Marriage is a civil right in the United States. This is a fact, and to deny it is to deny reality.

Loving v. Virginia establishes marriage as a constitutionally protected civil right under the 14th amendment.

Incest, either between a brother and sister, parent and child, or uncle/aunt and neice/nephew increases the chance that offspring produced will have reinforced harmful recessive genes. Long term inbreeding likewise increases the chance of offspring having recessive genetic diseases.

Homosexuality, however, has a zero chance of producing offspring with genetic diseases.

Also, your example isn't really parallel. If you're going to go down that slippery slope, we're already on it. Most incestuous relationships are between a male and a female--it's more closely related to heterosexuality than it is homosexuality.

Strange. You made an absolute statment, which was easy to refute, then react as if you didn't mean it as absolute, then repeat the same absolute statement. You can't have it both ways. The fact that there have been recent changes in Belgium, The Netherlands, Spain, and Canada on gay marriage refutes on its face the claim that it "has always been" between a man and a woman. It also refutes the statement "For as long as anyone can remember". I remember the last couple of years when several countries amended their laws to extend civil marriage to same-sex couples. I'm sure the people in those countries remember that as well.

It isn't necessary for me to name an ancient culture to disprove these statements. You're making an absolute claim, that it has always been this way, and then setting as your criterion for disputing that claim one small part of it. It doesn't work that way.

I understand why you phrase it the way you do. It has more power that way, and if true, carries more weight. It's a dangerous tactic because it makes it easier to disprove, which I have done.

Oh, and your last sentence is misleading. People haven't just "tried to challenge that" it has been successfully challenged and changed.

"A man and a woman" hasn't always been the norm. For much of recorded history, polygyny has been an accepted form of group marriage, both in Western and Eastern cultures.

Finally, in ancient Greece and ancient Rome, to name two, male homosexuality was both commonplace and accepted, especially among the upper classes.

Marriage is a form of social structure.



How can dressing and occupying the social role of the opposite sex even to the point of forming a premanent pair bond with someone of the same physical sex not be related to sexuality?

Well, first, homosexuality isn't the same thing as homosexual sex. I'm gay because I'm attracted to women and not to men. That attraction preexisted any homosexual contact I ever had with a woman. I share a household with, sleep with, have an intimate social and spiritual bond with, and will in the foreseeable future be raising a child with as coparents, another woman.

Many male homosexuals identify as gay and exhibit feminine characterstics from early childhood, four or five, long before becoming sexually active.

Heterosexuals aren't heterosexual solely when having sex. Heterosexual behavior isn't limited solely to intercourse. The same is true of homosexuality and homosexual sex.

You're using the same tactic here, making a broad claim--homosexuality is unnatural--and asking for proof that one specific part of that claim is untrue to refute it. It simply doesn't work that way.

By the way, I've seen a male dog hump another male dog. Male mammals when stimulated will try to fuck just about anything available, including other males of the same or even different species.

Also, what, precisely, is "homosexual intercourse"? I can't think of any sexual activity engaged in by homosexuals that is not also engaged in by heterosexuals. This isn't to say that there aren't I just can't think of any. Is it unnatural only when homosexuals do it, or is also unnatural when heterosexuals do it?

I don't dispute this. Since homosexual sex cannot result in reproduction, "social interaction and to relieve stress", along with "it's a lot of fun" is a pretty good way to describe human homosexual sex. For intimate couples, it can be a form of emotional and spiritual bonding, too, but that's hardly a homosexual characteristic.

Gilda

Infinite_Loser

You can argue this for all you want, but being married is a privilege-- One which isn't given to any persons. This is evidenced by the fact that, in many cases, the Supreme Court has refused to make any direct ruling on the issue and, for the most part, has left it up to the states to decide from themselves whether or not they want to extend those privleges to another group of people.

Even though this is purely hypothetical, assuming that two people incapable of having children wanted to engage in incest, what would your logic behind denying them that "Right" be?

While it is true that incest causes an increase in recessive traits, it has very little to do why most incest is outlawed in most cultures. Incest has been frowned upon and, in many cultures, outlawed for far longer than humans have known about recessive and dominant traits, only for the simple reason that it has alway been considered to be taboo. Taboo, in our culture, equals a gigantic "No no".

Your reasons as to why incest are wrong, just like many other people, are only a facade to cover up the "I think it's wrong and it shouldn't be legalized!" aspect of it. Similiarly, my reason as to opposing gay marriage is "I think it's wrong and shouldn't be legalized!". Therefore, what's the difference between my stance on gay marriage and your stance on incest?

In fact, aren't you guilty of doing the same thing in which people have accused me of? Your refusal to grant another group of the people the same rights in which you are advocating for would make you a bigot (At least, it would be some people's definition of the word).

That isn't the point at all. The point is that both are outlawed mainly because culture, as a whole, has seen both activities are taboo. You could try to make cases on keeping incest outlawed on the basis of bilogical reasons but, then again, I could make an argument to keep gay marriage outlawed on the basis of social structure.

This still isn't the point. Read what I typed out before this.

Apparently, you missed something. Let me go back to the first page in this discussion to quote myself (Pay attention to the part in bold).

That was my original statement. Somewhere along the line you started to play semantics (That is you started to debate the meaning of words instead of the actual post), and took what I said completely out of context, if only to benefit yourself. I'm not exactly sure why everyone else knew I was referencing ancient cultures (Someone even responded as such) while you wanted to throw out recent examples

Read the post in where I quoted myself. That was my original claim. Nowhere did I make an absolute claim. As stated prior, you took what I originally said and started to play semantics, ending up where we are now.

*Points above*

Erm... Once again, you're playing semantics. People have just recently tried to challenge the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman. And while, in some countries, they might have won that right, in others they've taken gigantic hits (That last sentence really wasn't relevant, but since you decided to throw in your $.02, I felt that I would do the same).

Are you not reading any of my posts? I already acknowledged the fact (Somewhere on the first page) that sometimes marriage occurs between multiple spouses. I have no problems with that (My grandfather in Nigeria has two wives, after all), as I deem marriage to be between a man and a woman. I have no problems with heterosexual marriage. Gay marriages, however, I do have a problem with.

Hence my original statement of "I could be wrong".

But I have a question for you: Was homosexuality commonplace, or was gay marriage an accepted practice? Don't mix up the two concepts. In the United States homosexuality is an accepted practice, but we don't legalize gay marriages.

Because it's not. It has nothing to do with sexuality. It's main focus was social structure, in which either men took on the roles of women or women took on the roles of men. Not surprising enough, was the fact that these people played integral parts in the social structure of their native tribes.

I never said it was. Once again, you're taking one of my earlier quotes out of context. The homosexual tendencies which manifest themselves in nature either stem from procreation or social structure (And, even then, it is very limited). In humans, neither of the two is true (Though, I'm sure that you would like to convince yourself that the second is true).

I could sit here and explain to you the institution of marriage and it's social implications, but you would more than likely try to challenge that, as well.

That wasn't exactly my claim. To quote myself, yet again:

I'm not going to get into this too much, but the top two reasons why dogs will try to hump other males or even people usually boils down to one of two things:

1.) Hormonal imbalances and

2.) The exertion of dominance over another organism.

Find me where I stated anything about making a distinction between homosexual or heterosexual intercourse.

Yes, you could say any of that, but then you'd just be grasping for straws. I'm not going to get into antrhopology too much, but even if you would like to think differently, homosexuality plays much different roles in nature than it does with humans.

Frosstbyte

Peolpe don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. People are selfish and stupid and listen to what they're told. They're easily misled and manipulated by people with agendas looking to reinforce their own power and wealth. I concede that perhaps they're not "at fault" for being bigots, since they've just accepted whatever they've been told, but that doesn't exonerate them.

All it means to be a bigot is that you're strongly partial to your own group and intolerant of those who differ. I consider being in favor of depriving people of fundamental rights intolerant. If they're reasonable, and after a discussion have ideas that make sense for why gay marriage is a bad thing-other than because it's "wrong"-then live and let live. That's not a bigot, that's a difference of opinion.

If all you've got for me is, "Gays can't be married because they're gay and that's wrong" then I have no problem labeling you a bigot and giving you no benefit of the doubt. That's not even a reason. It's some sort of aborted circular logic whose fundamental premise is hatred of another person simply for being who they are. Discrimination against gays isn't any different than racism or sexism and should be treated with the same degree of scorn. Stop making excuses for people who can't get beyond such insignificant differences.

Infinite, my only response, which I've already said once, is you'd have a solid argument for the sanctity of marriage being violated by letting gays get married if 1) marriage was still in any way sacred and 2) if marriage had no associated legal consequences. The decline of marriage as a sacred institution (you can get married without going to a church, didn't you know?) and the heaping loads of divorces people get (I've served drinks at a marriage where it was the woman's 5th and the man's 4th) have totally destroyed any concept of the first. And you're blind if you can't see the enormous LEGAL-not spiritual-impact that getting married has on both people. There's a reason divorce lawyers make so much money and that's because it's a shitstorm when people have to extricate themselves from the tangle of legal responsibilities they created when they got married.

Marriage doesn't (and never really did) mean only the union of male and female before god. All you have is your gut telling you that it's "wrong," a premise that you have recongized as a weak position from which to argue. I don't understand why your (and others') belief that it is wrong is reason enough to prevent gay marriage when them getting married has no impact on your life.

Infinite_Loser

Calling anyone who disagrees with gay marriage a bigot, therefore trying to discredit their argument, is nothing more than ad hominem at it's worse. Simply because you don't agree with my reasoning as to why I feel gay marriage is wrong, doesn't mean I'm a bigot nor does it mean that I'm wrong in my assertion nor does it mean that any of my reasonings are false. I find it funny that you accuse others of circular logic, when you're the one using it. It seems as if your stance is that "Anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is a bigot. The fact that Infinite is against gay marriage prooves that he is a bigot." If that's not circular logic, then I don't know what is.

Furthermore, who are you tell me that my reasoning for opposing gay marriage stems from the hatred of another person (A false statement, another logical fallacy)? Did it ever occur to you that maybe I'm arguing from the standpoint of keeping marriage between a male and a female, rather than simply assuming I hate all gays? Or is it simply easier to label us as you choose, making it easier for you to argue your position?

Regarding point number one, whether you agree or not, marriage is still sacred in our society. You say marriage isn't sacred, then I ask you why is there an enormous social structure built around it? While you might not think so, marriages are a big deal. If they weren't, then so much planning wouldn't go into them. To see this as true, the only thing in which you need to do is to look around you. Why would people waste so much time on something which wasn't considered sacred? The fact is, that they wouldn't.

Concerning your second point, the legal benefits of marriage were instituted as a way to encourage people to marry. If you would remember, marriage has been the basis of social structure moreso than anything else. This makes me wonder, though... Are homosexuals trying to be married on the basis on "Love" or on the basis of "Reaping the legal benefits of marriage"? If it's the first option, then marriage shouldn't be an issue. If it's the second option, then that would undercut the entire premise of gay marriage (It seems that many people who favor gay marriage love to use the phrase, "If two people love one another, why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?").

I saw you mention it, so I thought I would address it. The only thing a high divorce rate proves is that the concept of "Love" isn't as strong a reason for marriage as one might think (Ironically enough, arranged marriages have much lower divorce rates than marriages based on love, but that's another topic for another day).

Frosstbyte

My reasoning is as circular as saying 4 is 2+2 because 2+2 is 4. If you really had no problems (as in zero, none at all) with gays, you would have no problems with gay marriage, because they would be no more different than people with brown hair and people with red hair. You do have problems with gay marriage, so I can conclude you have some (even if it is small and very specific) problems with gays. I don't see how that's circular.

I consider the existance of divorce to be dispositive of the sanctity of marriage. I consider the ability to get married by the state and not by a church to be dispositive of the sanctity of marriage. I consider the fact that people cheat on their spouses to be dispositive of the sanctity of marriage. If something is truly sacred, it doesn't have exceptions. Marriage has lots of them. That doesn't mean it's not still a big deal and reason for many people to put lots of effort into getting married, nor does it mean that some couples conduct themselves in a way that upholds the sanctity of marriage. That doesn't change the fact that the institution, as a whole, is no longer sacred.

As I'm sure you're well aware, divorce rates are meaningless. If divorce exists, marriage isn't sacred. Remember the "Til death do us part" section? That "sacred" oath before god is violated every time someone gets a divorce. Funny how that works.

Infinite_Loser

Of course no one can argue with a factual statement (Such as 2 + 2 = 4), as it's easy to prove it's validity. That's not circular logic, as we can prove the statement to be true without it needing to rely on itself to support its central premise. Your statement, however, most certainly does rely on itself to support it's central premise. You have no reason to call me a bigot other than the fact that I don't agree with gay marriage and, in your mind, the fact that I don't agree with gay marriage instantly makes me a bigot. If you don't see what's wrong with your assertion, then it's useless trying to point it out.

I oppose gay marriage, but that doesn't mean I have something against gays. To say as much is nothing more than a baseless generalization of all people who oppose gay marriage.

I thought religion was supposed to be discluded from this subject? Whether people are married in a church or not is irrelevant, as the whole world isn't Christian. Simply because a marriage doesn't occur in a church, doesn't mean that it's not sacred. I hate to burst your bubble, but very few of my ancestors were ever married in a church (As Christianity hadn't yet reached them)-- That doesn't make their marriage ceremony any less sacred than those who were married in a church. Anyway, if marriage weren't a sacred institution, then you wouldn't need a liscense to be able to perform them; You could pick someone off of the street, have them perform a marriage ceremony and then have the marriage be recognized by the government.

Anyway, you state that the existance of divorce proves that marriage is no longer sacred? If that is the stance you take, then marriage would have never been sacred. For as long as marriage has existed, there has always been a way to divorce your spouse and/or annul the marriage (At least, this is the case in the majority of cultures). Simply because all marriages don't work out, doesn't mean marriage isn't sacred. If that were the case, then very few things-- If any-- Would ever be considered sacred. We measure whether something is sacred or not by social attitude, not by the success/fail rate of the act itself.

Anyway, I really would like my question from earlier answered, as I am wondering what the answer is:

Charlatan

Whether or not a marriage is 'sacred' or not is irrelevant.

One of the original purposes of marriage was to join a woman to a man. Her ownership was transfered from the father to the groom. She little more than chattle (often bought and paid for with a dowry).

There is little "sacred" about this.

There are other reasons and traditions but in the end but what does it really matter in this day and age? Sacred is as sacred does? Who are you to judge and say that the committment between one couple (let's call them Grace and Gilda) is more meaningful than another?

If there is anything sacred in a marriage it is that "love and committment".

I don't care if you are married by an Elvis impersonator or in a Cathedral... nothing else matters except that two people are committing to oneanother.

The rest is just window dressing.


Once you have that out of the way, the reason for a marriage in this day and age is (essentially) a contract (see the post way back near the start where there was a tally of benefits granted to a married couple).

If you have no problems with gays in general, you should have no problems with gay marriage. Again, you have yet to provide any reason other than that you think it is "wrong"... and that's just not enough to deny someone's rights.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

pig

A couple of quick things:

1. infinite: i think you are mistaken in your claim of circular logic. I believe that form is a syllogism. It reads to me like: A person who opposes gay marriage is a bigot. Infinite opposes gay marriage. Therefore, Infinite is a bigot." I believe circular would look more like "A person who opposes gay marriage is a bigot. The fact that Infinite opposes gay marriage and is a bigot proves this." You may dispute that a person who opposes gay marriage is automatically a bigot, but that doesn't make the argument circular. You disagree with one of the axioms...I believe it was filterton's?

2. It really doesn't matter what the basis of a person's motivation to get married, when it comes to addressing the legality of the practice. They could be marrying because they both love the idea of slaughtering panda bears with dull scissors. The question is simply whether or not two people of the same sex can enter into a state-sanctioned marriage contract, with all the rights that are implied, in the same way with the same facility that two people of opposite sex can.

I was thinking earlier today that the very issue you seem to be dancing around might be the precise one that the op asked to be addressed. You have said that you oppose gay marriage, and (those are [your] views). You have given some reasons you feel that gay marriage should / could rationally be opposed. It seems to me that many of these have been discredited, but perhaps you do not feel so. Regardless, I think that the issue behind the (these are [your] views) might be more interesting to the op, and the topic. I can promise you that the question of gay marriage has been addressed ad nauseum on these boards. At the very most root, visceral level: why do you oppose gay marriage? Just because you view it as icky and not natural?

I hope I don't sound offensive, I don't really care to argue with you. I just don't clearly understand your reasons for your views.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

filtherton

Different people have different reasons; there isn't one entire premise for gay marriage. Just as there isn't just one reason offered as justification for opposing gay marriage.

Anyway, i was wondering about your definition of unnatural. You said that it meant "a deviance from the original function or purpose." As you must know, humans now do a whole lot of things that we didn't do when our species originally came into existence. By your definition the vast majority of human activity is just as unnatural as homosexuality. If that is indeed the case, how can you use the concept of "unnatural" as a means to justify much of anything? How can you even presume to be able to judge original function or purpose? If you place such a high priority on original function or purpose, whatever that may mean, how can you support any kind of human progress in any sense?

I don't think it's that productive or even reasonable to place a high priority on conformity to "original function or purpose" because in doing so you would necessarily deny the value of most any kind of evolutionary adaptations and adaptation in general.

Da Munk

I can understand people opposing gay marriage because they don't like homosexuality. I don't agree with them, and I don't think their dislike is reason enough to deny a segment of the population equal rights, but I can at least understand it.

I can understand people who oppose it on religious grounds. Their beliefs are not my own, and the government could recognize gay marriages without forcing churches to marry them, but I can at least see where they're coming from.

But to oppose it because of semantics, because you'd have to buy a new dictionary? To have no moral or religious opposition, but to oppose it because you'd have to change the wording in Webster's from "man and woman" to "two persons"? I don't get that at all.