Gay Marriage

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
"The thing is, I have never heard a solid argument against Gay marriage." -- Kibbo

Here is the very best argument.

Sex between the same gender is sin.

The thing is, to many people, that's not a solid argument. The "biblical" argument tends to be a tad weak, imho. If that's the best argument out there, it won't be long before you might be neighbors to the newlyweds, Fred and Arnie.

I'm not saying I'm a fan of "the act" (which is isn't "required"), but I also haven't heard a solid argument against homosexuals marrying. Is it anal sex that is objectionable? If that's the case, what about heterosexuals engaged in such? If that's the case, how is a lesbian couple going to pull that off? By accounts I've seen/heard, many americans think sex between two men is "icky" and have been told it is a sin. So what about the man-man couples that never perform "the act", yet enjoy a loving, caring relationship? If the churches want to define marriage a certain way, fine, so long as the legal rights/protections offered to couples is available for all couples.

If a heterosexual couple doesn't choose to (or can't) have children, what makes them different from a homosexual couple?

I am one of those people who finds it "icky" but what i have realized is that a homosexual relationship has more to do with them being attracted to the same sex for whatever reason than it has to do with sexual behaviour.

And to deny two idiots in love their basic rights to misery isn't fair.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Marriage has been defined as the union of man and woman since the beginning of time, that's a definition beyond court of law or nation, it is a definition of human kind.

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that a marriage is far from being as old as time/history. I'd provide links, but I'm about to head up to Canada for a bachelor party, so I apologize for that. iirc, stuff about the church creating "marriage".

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Off to canada.

 

[Moonbeam]

The feeling tha something is icky is irrational. It is how the people who gave us their word as the word of God stuck it in the Bible and it is what motivates and keeps alive the absurd notion that homosexual sex is sin. Humans have practices homosexuality for millions of years all the way back before the evolution of Home sapien. All of the laws that regulate marriage are secular in nature. One partner and one set of benefits. Old enough to concent according to average maturity rates secularly determined, etc. As soon as we hear that word sin or lower standards etc, we are talking prejudice usually based on religion.

Prove that homosexuality is a sin logically and rationally. Those of you who wish to prevent homosexuals from marrying are trying to preserve yourself from experiencing the constant agitation of seeing what offends you. But the ickiness is within you. He who feels icky is icky. You are what you feel and your feelings are your own. You simply project them out onto others to you don't have to see you are mentally ill. If something disgusts you it is because you are disgusting. This is why humanity is almost completely blind. It's all about ego protection. You are too vain and self important to allow other people different from you to love as you can. And to think you do it in Gods name.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
"The thing is, I have never heard a solid argument against Gay marriage." -- Kibbo

Here is the very best argument.

Sex between the same gender is sin.

No doubt that is the case...
But, the issue is a Legal one not a Religious one.
Does the US Constitution protect 'Gay Marriage' or not. IF not then the States may decided one way or the other. If it does then the States must permit it.
Nothing more nor anything less.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
"And who will judge them?" -- Klixxer


Let the Word of God be the final Judge.

In heaven...
He already told you to let what is Ceasar's be Ceasar's... are you going to disobey this while at the same time pointing to all the splinters in the eyes of everyone else?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer
Off to canada.

Take care and have fun.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The feeling tha something is icky is irrational. It is how the people who gave us their word as the word of God stuck it in the Bible and it is what motivates and keeps alive the absurd notion that homosexual sex is sin. Humans have practices homosexuality for millions of years all the way back before the evolution of Home sapien. All of the laws that regulate marriage are secular in nature. One partner and one set of benefits. Old enough to concent according to average maturity rates secularly determined, etc. As soon as we hear that word sin or lower standards etc, we are talking prejudice usually based on religion.

Prove that homosexuality is a sin logically and rationally. Those of you who wish to prevent homosexuals from marrying are trying to preserve yourself from experiencing the constant agitation of seeing what offends you. But the ickiness is within you. He who feels icky is icky. You are what you feel and your feelings are your own. You simply project them out onto others to you don't have to see you are mentally ill. If something disgusts you it is because you are disgusting. This is why humanity is almost completely blind. It's all about ego protection. You are too vain and self important to allow other people different from you to love as you can. And to think you do it in Gods name.

For me it has more with my upbringing to do than anything, i think., let's not be blind to the fact that upbringing can trigger emotionons in us.

I think it is icky because that is what have been taught to think.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The feeling tha something is icky is irrational. It is how the people who gave us their word as the word of God stuck it in the Bible and it is what motivates and keeps alive the absurd notion that homosexual sex is sin. Humans have practices homosexuality for millions of years all the way back before the evolution of Home sapien. All of the laws that regulate marriage are secular in nature. One partner and one set of benefits. Old enough to concent according to average maturity rates secularly determined, etc. As soon as we hear that word sin or lower standards etc, we are talking prejudice usually based on religion.

Prove that homosexuality is a sin logically and rationally. Those of you who wish to prevent homosexuals from marrying are trying to preserve yourself from experiencing the constant agitation of seeing what offends you. But the ickiness is within you. He who feels icky is icky. You are what you feel and your feelings are your own. You simply project them out onto others to you don't have to see you are mentally ill. If something disgusts you it is because you are disgusting. This is why humanity is almost completely blind. It's all about ego protection. You are too vain and self important to allow other people different from you to love as you can. And to think you do it in Gods name.

For me it has more with my upbringing to do than anything, i think., let's not be blind to the fact that upbringing can trigger emotionons in us.

I think it is icky because that is what have been taught to think.

Hehe, far from forgetting it's what I am talking about. We were programmed before we had sufficient intellect to examine and resist. But there are three kinds of people, those who have relived their programming and eliminated it, those who realize they are running a program and don't let their emotional bias effect or cloud their judgment or try hard not to, and those who go with their programming. These are the true bigots. They want a world as sick as them. They equate a program with truth. People in the first category are very rare. Also I guess some very few are never programmed at least in limited areas. There is also the fact that when a child is taught that he is disgusting in one way or another, he or she can begin to lump behaviors. A whole class of objects can become icky that had nothing to do with the icky incident.

 

[Dimkaumd]

Can I please hear one good arguement why gay marriage should be illegal? All i hear is roundabout arguements that do not attack the contention that gay marriage should be allowed. Gay marriage being a sin is a stupid arguement. First, most ppl would disagree about it being a sin. secondly, by religous standards many things are sins. Eating pork is a sin, not giving to charity is a sin, not obeying the sabbath, or lying to your parents are all sins. Does NOT make it illegal. Learn the difference. And someone please tell me a reason why gay marriage should be illegal, and please do not base it on your religious beliefs, that just proves that you are ignorant.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The feeling tha something is icky is irrational. It is how the people who gave us their word as the word of God stuck it in the Bible and it is what motivates and keeps alive the absurd notion that homosexual sex is sin. Humans have practices homosexuality for millions of years all the way back before the evolution of Home sapien. All of the laws that regulate marriage are secular in nature. One partner and one set of benefits. Old enough to concent according to average maturity rates secularly determined, etc. As soon as we hear that word sin or lower standards etc, we are talking prejudice usually based on religion.

Prove that homosexuality is a sin logically and rationally. Those of you who wish to prevent homosexuals from marrying are trying to preserve yourself from experiencing the constant agitation of seeing what offends you. But the ickiness is within you. He who feels icky is icky. You are what you feel and your feelings are your own. You simply project them out onto others to you don't have to see you are mentally ill. If something disgusts you it is because you are disgusting. This is why humanity is almost completely blind. It's all about ego protection. You are too vain and self important to allow other people different from you to love as you can. And to think you do it in Gods name.

For me it has more with my upbringing to do than anything, i think., let's not be blind to the fact that upbringing can trigger emotionons in us.

I think it is icky because that is what have been taught to think.

Hehe, far from forgetting it's what I am talking about. We were programmed before we had sufficient intellect to examine and resist. But there are three kinds of people, those who have relived their programming and eliminated it, those who realize they are running a program and don't let their emotional bias effect or cloud their judgment or try hard not to, and those who go with their programming. These are the true bigots. They want a world as sick as them. They equate a program with truth. People in the first category are very rare. Also I guess some very few are never programmed at least in limited areas. There is also the fact that when a child is taught that he is disgusting in one way or another, he or she can begin to lump behaviors. A whole class of objects can become icky that had nothing to do with the icky incident.

I'd like to think i am the second kind. Probably too late to deprogram but still knowing that not everyone is (or should be) like me.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
Can I please hear one good arguement why gay marriage should be illegal? All i hear is roundabout arguements that do not attack the contention that gay marriage should be allowed. Gay marriage being a sin is a stupid arguement. First, most ppl would disagree about it being a sin. secondly, by religous standards many things are sins. Eating pork is a sin, not giving to charity is a sin, not obeying the sabbath, or lying to your parents are all sins. Does NOT make it illegal. Learn the difference. And someone please tell me a reason why gay marriage should be illegal, and please do not base it on your religious beliefs, that just proves that you are ignorant.

No you can't because there are only two ways to be against it, one is religious dogmatic nonsense and the other is the slippery slope.

There IS no good argument against it. Believe me i tried to make a good argument for myselft, but i realize that i just couldn't and to this date i haven't met or talked to anyone else that could either.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'd like to think i am the second kind. Probably too late to deprogram but still knowing that not everyone is (or should be) like me. I don't think it's ever too late, but you are certainly not a three.

 

[MrPALCO]

You are free to sin if the State allows it, as in homosexual acts.

However, the wages of sin is death.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Klixxer
1. glad to hear that, a society that treats it's citizens that way is indeed a society to be proud of.

2. Take 100 years ago, one black man and one white woman, do you see a marriage happening there? The society evolved.

3. The same argument can be used against marriage altogether, OR it can be used as an argument to allow whatever, it really has nothing to do with gay marriage, does it? Or let me put it another way, in WHAT way is polygamy connected to gay marriage? It IS the same old tired slipperly slope argument, "if whe are going to allow gay marriage why not marriage between several people" i can't why it is so hard to understand the concept of two concenting adults.

Well, then, maybe i am no homophobe either, or maybe we both are you just have a problem admitting it, doesn't really matter, does it?

2. Umm.. is there still not "discrimination" regarding marriage? Or is it that you agree with the limitations the gov't placed on it so it doesn't matter to you? The point I'm making is that the gov't sets the guidelines for what legally constitutes a marriage. No one's "rights" are being denied here. If you follow the guidelines you will be legally recognized as married. The racial issue excluded people based on skin color - not a lifestyle choice. The gov't today excludes people that aren't a certain age(an age that is higher today then it was before).

3. You don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying. Either you are purposefully doing so or truly don't understand. This isn't about "slippery slope" - this was another point showing that the gov't limits what is legally defined as "marriage".

Maybe you don't understand homophobia, or maybe you are a homophobe - that is of no concern to me. But I know that I am not one because I am neither afraid of them nor do I hate them. I however dislike homosexual acts. Hate the sin - not the sinner

CkG

2. Yes there is still discrimination regarding marriage, as long as two consenting adults of whatever, race, gender or sexual preference cannot be married there is discrimination. When people are being denied benifits because of their sexual preference, should we not call that discrimination, and why not. Is it a right to marry, I believe it is, it has fewer limits than the "right" to bear arms, would you say that that is a right? You can't win this discussion because discriminating because of sexual preference is discrimination.

"3. # of people in a marriage unit and # of units one can be in. The gov't restricts this marriage "right" by limiting how many "marriages" you can be in and also limits the "unit" to two."

This is what you wrote, which is fully correct and has nothing to do with gay marriage at all, could YOU explain this to me?

Let's make a comparison.
Number of people in a marriage unit in a heterosexual relationship : 2
Number of people in a marriage unit in a homosexual relationship : 2

2==2 so that is the same

You also made a statement regarding the number of relationships they can be in at the same time

Do we have to do the numbers for that?

IOW, your third argument wasn't really against homosexuality at all? I misunderstood you completely, i thought you were going for the polygamy bit, i am sorry.

Just out of curiousity, wth was #3 about and in what way does it relate to this discussion?

Nope - you don't seem to understand the fact that the points I made were not arguments "against homosexuality". There were to show that the gov't sets the guidelines and regulates "marriage" so the "rights" angle isn't in play here.

YOU seem to draw the line at two people but why not three? What is your reasoning for discriminating against that "alternative lifestyle" while claiming the gov't not recognizing homosexual marriage is "discrimination"? Why do YOU get to say where the line is drawn? Isn't it the gov't who decides what they recognize as a legal marriage?

No amount of obfuscation on your part changes what I was pointing out with those three things. You don't seem to understand what was being said and only want to look at this in the context of homosexual marriage. The issue is bigger than what the homosexual activists want to claim. They want the gov't to change their regulation of marriage because they don't want to follow the existing rules. That's fine - do like everyone else and get some legislation passed. But again, their claim of "rights" is BS - because it's plainly clear that the gov't "discriminates"(which isn't always a negative term but has been latched onto and made "dirty" by many activist organizations). "Discrimination" in this particular case means that those who do not qualify for marriage do not get legal standing as such. As I've pointed out there are many who don't qualify...and some based on their "sexuality" yet some here think it's only "homosexuals" that are denied. They have just as much "right" to marry as the next person but instead they want to change the rules because they don't like them. So far they've pulled off a few court wins but have failed in attempts to gain legitimate standing via legislation(which is the only way laws are written/changed).

Sorry this all seems to have gone over your head. Next time try following the conversation and what I am talking about instead of assuming I'm making arguments I'm not. If people want the law changed to allow homosexual marriage then fine - go ahead and try via the normal channels- the Judicial system does not write law and never will. This attempt to legislate via the courts is an outright abuse of our system.

CkG

 

[glenn1]

Marriage is a religious concept regarding which the State has no right to legislate. This argument is bettter. But its logic inevitably leads a complete separation of marriage from legal definitions, leaving some kind "civil union" for both straights and gays as the only legal component. It also allows for gay marriage in those churches that recognize them. It's essentially a pro-gay marriage argument in disguise.

In all fairness, this is the Libertarian position, which sometimes gets gang-pressed into service by conservatives since it's the only argument with a sound logical basis they've come across. That it doesn't even support their position (as you point out) is a somewhat secondary consideration, a drowning man will reach for anything he can to try to keep himself afloat and will worry about intellectual consistency later

 

[ectx]

Is there a pll for this issue?

 

[LunarRay]

CAD,
Part of your post.

Nope - you don't seem to understand the fact that the points I made were not arguments "against homosexuality". There were to show that the gov't sets the guidelines and regulates "marriage" so the "rights" angle isn't in play here.
The issue is between the States and the The US Constitution. The "Protected Rights" are those "Rights" the States are prohibited from denying to the individual or the people. The right to peaceful assembly is a "Protected Right" same as the "Right to Counsel" and etc. The people live in States and, as you know, the Executive interprets the Legislative effort (law) to provide, within that law, whatever that law pertains to. Marriage licenses are such considerations.

YOU seem to draw the line at two people but why not three? What is your reasoning for discriminating against that "alternative lifestyle" while claiming the gov't not recognizing homosexual marriage is "discrimination"? Why do YOU get to say where the line is drawn? Isn't it the gov't who decides what they recognize as a legal marriage?
"The Government" is what? Legislative and Executive or just Executive or all three branches as in "The three branches of Government". The 'government' body charged with that responsibility has interpreted the law regarding bigamy as being married to more than one person at the same time. So a threesome is an illegal condition under the law. It is not a 'Right' denied cuz the USSC has either passed on the issue or affirmed the court below in holding the law to be constitutional. We tell the legislator what to enact into law by our vote so it would seem we decide what is legal and permitted but, subordinated to the Protected Rights guaranteed by the US Constitution (and the State's Constitution if it is more protective)

In our little corner of the World Ceasar's will is subordinated to the very document that empowers him. Not once have you, it seems to me, debated successfully against the underlying basis for the demands of the Homosexual Marriage advocates. The US Constitution and what the USSC has interpreted it to mean is that document.
The challenges that have gone to the USSC regarding the UnConstitutional denial by the States of various issues including mulitiple marriage partners and other 'out there' kinda lifestyles have been either not been granted 'Cert' or have been held to be an unprotected right that the various states can deny. It seems to me anyone can claim anything as a Right but, it takes a denial of that claimed right and litigation to the USSC for it to be determined. Homosexual Marriage has yet to meet that test (to my knowledge).
One aspect of this that may cloud the issue is the presumption of an illegal act (sodomy) as it pertains to Male/Male 'marriage' in states where it is held to be illegal... however, Lawrence v Texas has sorta said that even sodomy is a protected right... but, if they didn't then we are faced with Girl/Girl marriage where that condition is (logically) not an issue. For the USSC to say Girl/Girl marriage is protected because it does not license a condition that (logically) also 'licenses' the (where applicable) illegal act of sodomy would in effect discriminate and treat unequally the Male/Male counterpart.
In this case I think the only way to deal with the issue is an Amendment. But, I doubt either house of Congress can muster the super majority needed to pass it on to the States.. and I doubt there are a Super Majority of States even if that did occur to support it.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
You are free to sin if the State allows it, as in homosexual acts.

However, the wages of sin is death.

Dude, the wages of living are death.

 

[piasabird]

Most of the Hate I see is from the Gays. They are upset that the world considers their actions wrong and immoral and to make up for this and to make them feel better they want the world to accept "Gay Marriage".

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

Get over it!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Most of the Hate I see is from the Gays. They are upset that the world considers their actions wrong and immoral and to make up for this and to make them feel better they want the world to accept "Gay Marriage".

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

Get over it!

You need to acquire a bit of psychological sophistication, I should think. You might want to look at the possibility that the hate you see and think is out there isn't really your own reflected back by projection. Your absolute pronouncement, as if it were a fact, is also psychologically immature. 9 our or 10 dentists disagree so clearly you know not of what you speak.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Most of the Hate I see is from the Gays. They are upset that the world considers their actions wrong and immoral and to make up for this and to make them feel better they want the world to accept "Gay Marriage".

Those homosexual bastards! Why do they hate our freedom? Why?

It's just like those damn Negroes in the South in the 1950's, Pisabird! Hating our lunch counters and schools and trying to gain access to them purely because they were upset that the Southern world considered their actions wrong and immoral.

It takes a keen eye such as yours to see past the sane and obvious reasons for equality of access of all kinds for all Americans and get to this heart of the matter.

 

[dmcowen674]

I just read today that the only Issue to be voted on in Lousiana for the upcoming Election will be a State Constitutional Ammendment defining Marriage as only between a Man and a Woman. Also would not recognize any same sex marraiges from other States.

I don't know the figures but there is a large Gay percentage population here especially around the New Orleans City area.

This thing passes, Doctors that do Gender changes are going to be awfully busy. :shocked:

 

[Lazy8s]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: piasabird
Most of the Hate I see is from the Gays. They are upset that the world considers their actions wrong and immoral and to make up for this and to make them feel better they want the world to accept "Gay Marriage".

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

Get over it!

You need to acquire a bit of psychological sophistication, I should think. You might want to look at the possibility that the hate you see and think is out there isn't really your own reflected back by projection. Your absolute pronouncement, as if it were a fact, is also psychologically immature. 9 our or 10 dentists disagree so clearly you know not of what you speak.

Haha :thumbsup: Moonbeam, I bet these are the same people who stopped flossing when they saw the commercial about Lysterine.

 

[Lazy8s]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I just read today that the only Issue to be voted on in Lousiana for the upcoming Election will be a State Constitutional Ammendment defining Marriage as only between a Man and a Woman. Also would not recognize any same sex marraiges from other States.

I don't know the figures but there is a large Gay percentage population here especially around the New Orleans City area.

This thing passes, Doctors that do Gender changes are going to be awfully busy. :shocked:

I doubt it for 3 reasons
1) You have to undergo a psych evaluation, not just anyone can get changed and it's expensive as hell
2) If their mate was attracted to a woman they would date a chick, would you have your g/f get male anatomy if heterosexuality wasn't allowed? I sure as heck wouldn't
3) Most people want their mate "as they are" and not changed, how dehumanizing would it be to people to have a partner change sexuality, I would think most people wouldn't do it because it would be giving in.