The gay marriage thread

[Recidiva]

i'm a chaste dyke

or should that be chased dyke?

Chaste?!

I'm not even sure I understand that word any more other than in an ironic sense. I'll assume you're using it here.

 

[Guest]

Chaste?!

I'm not even sure I understand that word any more other than in an ironic sense. I'll assume you're using it here.

gotta love irony

now please excuse me. this dyke has kids to get to bed, a house to clean, a living to earn and people who claim not to understand homosexuality to piss off.

it has been fun diva.

 

[3113]

Why is that so wrong??

Well, according to Ami, it's wrong because you took away a perfectly good woman from all the men she could have satisfied, forcing those men to turn gay themselves....

If I can make any sense of his nonsense

Really, Matriarch, how could you have been so selfish! We all know how you used your wiles and clever lesbian ways to lure an All-American Girl into the wicked world of...(glances both ways) lesbianism!

 

[Guest]

Well, according to Ami, it's wrong because you took away a perfectly good woman from all the men she could have satisfied, forcing those men to turn gay themselves....

If I can make any sense of his nonsense

Really, Matriarch, how could you have been so selfish! We all know how you used your wiles and clever lesbian ways to lure an All-American Girl into the wicked world of...(glances both ways) lesbianism!

god thats sexy

youre next ......

cum 'ere

 

[matriarch]

Well, according to Ami, it's wrong because you took away a perfectly good woman from all the men she could have satisfied, forcing those men to turn gay themselves....

If I can make any sense of his nonsense

Really, Matriarch, how could you have been so selfish! We all know how you used your wiles and clever lesbian ways to lure an All-American Girl into the wicked world of...(glances both ways) lesbianism!

Believe me........she came (snicker) willingly.

 

[Stella_Omega]

...
This whole argument seems to be focussing on sex.....and ignoring the simple fact of LOVE.

Gay people who want to legalise and formalise their relationships do so for the same simple reason as straight people.

BECAUSE
THEY
ARE
IN
LOVE.

The guy that I referenced had a real discomfort with same-sex LOVE. He chose to talk about sex too, untill I cornered him.

 

[WRJames]

Since I invited the threadstarter WRJames to start his own thread on the subject, I feel somewhat obligated to respond.

"...Let me pose a different set of questions --

1. Do have, in our current society, a signficant number of individuals with a desire for same gender relationships?

2. Do you think that making such relationships more socially acceptable would increase that number? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

3. Is there an ethical or moral rationale for encouraging or discouraging same gender relationships -- don't hide behind "natural" law -- come right out and tell me what your REAL reasons are!

4. Is there any possible social harm (or benefit) to permitting, legalizing, sanctifying, etc. same gender marriages.

Okay ladies and gentlemen -- who's got the guts to answer? I'm not going to post my own opinions right away, but you can probably guess where I stand...."

~~~

1. Yes, there seems to be significant numbers that desire same gender relationships. However the reasons 'why' that is so is worthy of discussion and is also controversial.

2. Yes, making those relationships more 'socially acceptable' would most likely increase the number and it would be a 'bad' thing. The reasons why are also worthy of discussion and controversial.

3. Yes there is both a moral and an ethical rationale for discouraging such same gender formalities. (Not relationships, that is up to the individual, you muddy the waters here.)

4. Yes there is social harm in formalizing gay marriages and promoting homosexual behavior.

What is this, 'don't hide behind natural law...thing?', you set the limits of response to suit your preconceived outcome?

Sodomy is defined as "un natural, anal copulation with a human or an animal, bestiality..."

Defined as unnatural, it became a matter of law in most places. Regardless of the source of that law, religious influence or not, sodomy is illegal or was, just about everywhere.

Thus law, social convention, tradition and a host of societal norms are violated when homosexual activity is tolerated.

Urinating or expectorating in public is illegal just about everywhere but France and they ain't go no class anyway.

In other words there is public expectation concerning public personal displays of affection, again except in France. Some people have a physical revulsion upon witnessing two men or two women being intimate in public, like it or not, justified in your eyes or not, that be a fact, Jack.

I personally and I think most, in general, don't give a damn what two people or even more, do in private behind closed doors.

But then when that behavior is performed on a public stage, as you can see, the population in general becomes rather upset.

The final issue I will address at this time is formal marriage.

Marriage is defined by law as between a man and a woman. It is contained in the law, in the contractual and enforceable edict of the courts. To change that, one would have to change the legislation first and then the law. That may happen, but thus far has been rejected almost out of hand except for aberrations such as Massachusetts and San Francisco.

Those are just some of the valid arguments against homosexuality and gay marriage, there are many more.

You might address those issues as I addressed your questions?

amicus...

Well, I'm not avoiding your responses, I just wanted to see how others would respond first.

First, I agree, obviously that the number of people who would engage in same gender realtionships would increase if they were more socially acceptable. I don't agree that it would be a bad thing, but it certainly would be a consequence. I think we are denying all evidence of how human beings act if we don't realize that is going to happen.

If you care to expand on why same gender marriages would be bad, please do so. My personal opinion is that a reasonable relationship should be allowed to be sanctified -- and two consenting adults would qualify as reasonable to me, whatever their gender.

As for sodomy being "unnatural" -- you, as the confirmed atheist, might be startled at the origins of that distinction. It is in Paul's letter to the Romans 1:26-27

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

This one passage is the source of the theological prohibitions of "crimes against nature" which later became enshrined in secular legislation.

Now -- just as an aside -- why would Paul use this peculiar phrase in this context? There are clear Jewish prohibitions against homosexuality -- it is one of the activities, among so many others, restricted by Jewish law. It is, in a sense, not "Kosher" -- but seriously so, to the point of being a cause for execution. However, Paul is writing to a Gentile audience, and he was one of the main proponents of throwing off most of the restrictions of Jewish law. So he could hardly turn around and cite Leviticus in this one instance. So he is making a uniquely Hellenistic argument -- that the activities defy "natural" law, that they are somehow "against nature." Like so many before and after him, he is trying to justify his own prejudices by claiming that his way is the "natural" way. Don't get me wrong -- there are some, most, passages in Paul's letters that take your breath away with their beauty and wisdom. But there are others that have caused a lot of misery.

 

[3113]

god thats sexy

youre next ......

cum 'ere

No! No! (swoon!) Won't some brave male save me from giving into these unnatural urges?

(Goddamnit, put down the video cameras guys and do something!)

 

[DerelictionOfSanity]

No! No! (swoon!) Won't some brave male save me from giving into these unnatural urges?

(Goddamnit, put down the video cameras guys and do something!)

I'd save you, but I'm too busy trying to find a man to marry, myself. Well, date, actually; marriage only if we fall seriously in love.

Several points:

Unnaturalness (I know, I'm not supposed to discuss this): Most things from our everyday lives are unnatural. Cars, airplanes, clothing, drinking milk as adults, processed sugars, working 9 to 5, having elections, toupees, genetically modified foods, etc. Some are good and others are bad, but the unnaturalness isn't the main argument for or against them. (I suppose that GMOs might be an exception, but the major issue for me is more that they're new and haven't been extensively tested before being put on the market, whereas homosexuality has been tested for centuries...)

1. There are a fairly large number of gay/lesbian couples who want to form long term partnerships with each other. I think many of them would want to get married (in fact, some do where it's legal). I'd like to have a same-sex relationship myself.

2. Making same-gender partnerships more socially acceptable would likely increase the number of partnerships, but probably NOT the number of gay/lesbian individuals. In my experience, straight guys tend to stay straight even when they're perfectly comfortable around gays. For that matter, when experiencing a shortage of women, straight men seem to prefer pornography and their own hand to a gay interlude (Though maybe I'm just not cute enought ). I can't speak for women, as it has never occured to me to flirt with them and my doing so would reveal nothing about female homosexuality.

There might also be a small increase among those who already had same-sex attractions, but were to afraid of social reprisals to act.

3. No, neither for encouraging nor discouraging. Adults should be free to choose and not be pushed one way or the other. While there are various arguments against same-sex partnerships, I find none of them persuasive.

a) Pedophilia is NOT related to homosexuality. Statistically, more abusers are heterosexual than homosexual (among those who are even capable of an adult relationship). What could be further from a child than a nice, big, tall, hairy man?

b) Threat to heterosexuality: How? If you aren't interested in your own gender, how does someone "turn you" gay? There may be a few borderline bisexuals, but other than that, folks tend to be pretty definite about their sexual preferences. (Question to straight guys: How many of you could fall in love with a man? I'm guessing not too many.)

c) Social conventions: These DO discourage same-sex relationships, but they shouldn't. Nothing should be outlawed purely on the basis that it makes some people uncomfortable. Personally, I get squicked out if a woman is breastfeeding in public. I just look away and let her go at it. As for things like public urination, that's actually unsanitary and makes a mess which are much better reasons for outlawing it than because it creeps people out.

4. As far as I'm concerned, no.

A note about the law: Yes, marriage is defined (in the US at least) as being between a man and a woman. I put forward that this definition was made a very long time ago based on very conservative views. Various other laws have been altered when it has been deemed reasonable to do so, and I think that the time may have come for this one. A law should have solid reasons to back it up.

On equal rights: Straight people are allowed to marry adults whom they love. I believe that gay people should be allowed to as well.

Sadly, I don't think that this law actually will change any time soon, as there are still enough people opposed to gay marriage to make it an extremely politically unwise move, even for a politician who might support the change.

Edit: Note, I don't think that it's either a good thing or a bad thing for someone to be gay. It's just a thing, like whether you prefer books or movies, though in that case the choice of "both" is much more common.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Lovely, reasonable, well-measured replies, DOS

 

[matriarch]

.........

a) Pedophilia is NOT related to homosexuality. Statistically, more abusers are heterosexual than homosexual (among those who are even capable of an adult relationship). What could be further from a child than a nice, big, tall, hairy man?

This is a difference a great many people have understanding. 'Liking' sex with boys, especially pre-pubescent ones, does NOT make you gay. And 'liking' sex with pre-pubescent girls does not make you a 'good ol' boy'. It makes you a paedophile as well.

For some it makes it easier to equate male paedophilia with gays...an extra reason to hate them.

I work in a prison where the inmates are predominantly sex-offenders (it's less troublesome to the service and the prisoners themselves, to keep them all together, believe me - in an ordinary prison if some of their crimes, the larger proportion of which are against children - where known, if they weren't kept in solitary, they'd be gang raped and dead very quickly). From my own knowledge - access to the data base, the majority of those who have abused, raped, kidnapped, beaten, children (which is defined legally as under 16 years of age), are married - and to their belief, 'happily', and would be horrified to be thought of as gay. But make the object of their desires a cute little 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 year old boy, or girl, and they'll go for it (and in some cases, even younger).

Some of the things I have to read and type whilst going about my law-abiding job, to earn money to live my law abiding life with my law abiding wife, and pay my taxes and pay my bills, make me feel physically sick. But I do it because I'm an ordinary woman, trying to make a living and live a normal life.

You couldn't insult me, my wife, my lesbian friends, or my gay friends any more if you tried, than to equate us with those low-life, less-than-human, pieces of human detritus.

 

[MrsDeathlynx]

After reading this thread I decided to look up Merrium-Webster's dictionary definition of marriage, the official dictionary of the US, here it is.

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

Yes the first definition does say between a man and a woman but it also states it can be between people of the same sex so saying that it's only between male and female is wrong.

 

[amicus]

Dereliction...

Since this and all such threads are so miserably one sided, I thought to perhaps play 'devils advocate' on this one, if only to provide one single opposite viewpoint.

Unnaturalness (I know, I'm not supposed to discuss this): Most things from our everyday lives are unnatural. Cars, airplanes, clothing, drinking milk as adults, processed sugars, working 9 to 5, having elections, toupees, genetically modified foods, etc. Some are good and others are bad, but the unnaturalness isn't the main argument for or against them. (I suppose that GMOs might be an exception, but the major issue for me is more that they're new and haven't been extensively tested before being put on the market, whereas homosexuality has been tested for centuries...)


That is really not a solid or valid argument at any level. Apples and Oranges at best. As distasteful as the reality may be to you, anal intercourse and bestiality, intercourse with animals, (the definition of Sodomy and thus homosexuality), is not commonly accepted as natural and never, ever, has been.

***

1. There are a fairly large number of gay/lesbian couples who want to form long term partnerships with each other. I think many of them would want to get married (in fact, some do where it's legal). I'd like to have a same-sex relationship myself.

Again, the number may be large, but the percentage of the population is exceedingly small. There are laws against polygamous marriages, currently a court case against a Mormon. There are laws against Polyandrous marriages where a woman has several husbands. The ‘gay’ community is campaigning for something new, a change in the laws, to include same sex marriage in the laws and court system; a very small minority pushing for change that will affect the entire community, the entire nation.

***

2. Making same-gender partnerships more socially acceptable would likely increase the number of partnerships, but probably NOT the number of gay/lesbian individuals….


That is a speculative answer, an opinion; many think otherwise. It is possible that borderline gender doubtful people would take the plunge if it were more socially acceptable. There is the opinion that the feminist movement, the subjugation of men as relatively unnecessary in light of social legislation that minimalizes the masculine imperative as bread winner a head of the family, has upset the balance between the sexes and brought about a deep and widening change in marital and familial relationships.

***

3. No, neither for encouraging nor discouraging. Adults should be free to choose and not be pushed one way or the other. While there are various arguments against same-sex partnerships, I find none of them persuasive.

It is the rare person who is not influenced by social or peer pressure. Going around topless, for females, doesn’t seem like such a bad thing, yet it is not acceptable in the general public. Adults are free to choose, but blatant homosexuality, and approval, or advocacy as an ’alternative’, in elementary schools upwards, can indeed encourage imitative behavior. The same with children adopted into a gay or lesbian relationship, a heterosexual child will most likely be influenced one way or the other by parental behavior.

***


a) Pedophilia is NOT related to homosexuality. Statistically, more abusers are heterosexual than homosexual…

That may be true, but you might provide some of those ’statistics’ to back it up. It would appear to most, that the prevalent catholic priest male homosexual predator would statistically tend to change that assertion. There was a recent case in the Midwest also where a male homosexual kidnapped two young boys and was finally caught. So while you may state that pedophilia is NOT related to homosexuality, the case is unproven.

***

4. As far as I'm concerned, no.

A note about the law: Yes, marriage is defined (in the US at least) as being between a man and a woman. I put forward that this definition was made a very long time ago based on very conservative views. Various other laws have been altered when it has been deemed reasonable to do so, and I think that the time may have come for this one. A law should have solid reasons to back it up.

On equal rights: Straight people are allowed to marry adults whom they love. I believe that gay people should be allowed to as well.

Sadly, I don't think that this law actually will change any time soon, as there are still enough people opposed to gay marriage to make it an extremely politically unwise move, even for a politician who might support the change.

Not a valid argument. Most all of our laws were made a ‘very long time ago’, and not by ‘conservatives’, but by negotiation and compromise between Federalists, Jeffersonian Democrats and those still loyal to England. Many of the laws, altered through time and the alterations have not all been good ones. While a Democracy is ‘of, by and for the people’, it functions within constitutional law. You make think you can vote the nation into a socialist or ‘liberal progressive state, but you cannot, within existing law.

Equal rights and marriage…again, apples and oranges, not comparable. Heterosexual marriage has manifold protections for the woman, the man, the children, the family, the estate, posterity and society in general. The gay movement is perceived by many as a ‘trend’ much like the flapper era of the 20’s and the ‘free love hippies’ of the 60’s, trends come and go.

Edit: Note, I don't think that it's either a good thing or a bad thing for someone to be gay. It's just a thing, like whether you prefer books or movies, though in that case the choice of "both" is much more common.

That is rather a lighthearted approach to a very serious issue and not at all like preferring books or movies, or both.

What are the ‘good’ things that benefit society and mankind in general if an increasing percentage of the population is ‘gay?’

Most people see no benefits at all.


~~~

Once again, knowing that a vast majority of this forum holds one opinion, I offer an alternative one. One day you might learn to appreciate that.

Amicus...

 

[rgraham666]

i'm a chaste dyke

or should that be chased dyke?

I'd certainly chase you if I thought there was likely to be a positive outcome.

I don't see gays as different from anyone else so why would I want to treat them different from anyone else?

The only person here who is really 'different' is 'different' because rather than use the gifts given him to do the wise and good thing, he uses it to rationalize cruelty and bigotry. Which, unfortunately, doesn't make him that different.

 

[DerelictionOfSanity]

Amicus

I'm only going to reply to you this once, as there is no chance that I will convince you and none that you will convince me.

I feel that you may have deliberately misconstrued my arguments in order to dismiss them. Either that, or you have actually misconstrued them, in which case I invite you to reread them a little more carefully. With regard to your supposed Devil's Advocacy: That only applies when you are supplying counterarguments to something which you yourself are in favor of. This doesn't seem to be the case here. I think it would be more accurate to drop that name for it. You are offering an opposing viewpoint because you HAVE an opposing viewpoint. That's nothing to be ashamed of, despite the fact that it'll be a hot day at the North pole before most people here agree with you (I include myself in this number).

Frankly, if I provided you with statistics, would you change your opinion? If you can honestly say yes, I'll go find them (though you might have a glance at matriarch's post on the matter).

As for my lighthearted comments, I've had many discussions with my straight friends and I find that the analogy is suitable, though perhaps a comparison to something which has a slightly larger impact on many lives (such as religion) might work better. Additionally, "life is too important to be taken seriously" -Wilde; that is, if I approached the issue with the seriousness which you feel that I should, I would inevitably become depressed at your viewpoints and the fairly large number of people in the real world who share them. Finally, while this may seem petty, I do take a certain perverse pleasure in the fact that my being flip appears to irritate you.

 

[DerelictionOfSanity]

Thanks, Stella, matriarch. I'm glad you approve.

Glad to hear about the Webster's thing, but I think the contentious issue is actually written in some legal document (unfortunately, I don't know all that much about the actual contents of the US constitution and which pieces are original vs. amendments). If the Webster's definition were the legal one, there would be no way that one could legally ban gay marriage and there wouldn't be much discussion of this issue.

 

[amicus]

Dereliction...

I respond to your comment only to not leave them hanging without an answer.

Your criticism of 'devils advocate' is partially accepted, but I do not apologize. This is the internet, no one knows who anyone is, one can pretend anything. You are relatively new here or you would know that I am a black sheep among this very liberal community.

You are correct; neither of us will change the others opinion.

But this is, in essence, a stage upon which many of us perform. It is not to those who are firm believers in whatever, that I post for, but those who truly desire to know both sides of an issue or an argument.

It is perhaps 10 to 1, those who read and lurk and never express an opinion that I post for, well, other than the entertainment with those proficient in debate.

If you are just a 'believer' then indeed, put me on ignore and do not respond to anything I post. On the other hand, if I challenge your belief's in such areas as the ecology freaks, the global warming freaks, the abortion freaks, the socialist freaks, and all the other 'hot' issues of the left and you want to hear an opposite view, you would do well to follow my posts.

Up to you...open your mind or close it...I won't make a dollar either way.


amicus...

 

[impressive]

It is perhaps 10 to 1, those who read and lurk and never express an opinion that I post for, well, other than the entertainment with those proficient in debate.

And you know the lurkers favor your opinion how?

*poke* G'morning, ami.

 

[angelicminx]

In the Yahoo news headlines the past few days, "Los Angeles Diocese will pay $36.6 million dollars in Priest sexual abuse case..." (paraphrase)

Should gay catholic priests be allowed to marry or just continue abusing little boys without a contract?

Since I will no doubt be the only one in opposition to Gay Marriage and since I know you only want someone to abuse for having a different opinion, (what ever happened to diversity?) I may as well get the big sticks out early on.

Amicus...

I'm reading this thread, not sure if I intend to voice my opinion or not, come to this post and think, "What the fuck?" Ami, what the hell does this man being a pedophile have to do with gay marriage? My inital thought is that you think all gay men want to diddle little boys.

In my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Catholic priests don't marry, period, gay or not. Turning your question away from the gay theme, "Should Catholic priests be allowed to marry or just abuse little girls without a contract?"

The question just doesn't make sense, or a very good argument against gay marriage. Pedophilia has nothing to do with marriage.



On topic, I think gay marriage should be legal. It makes no sense to me whatsoever that it isn't.

 

[angelicminx]

Well, that Amicus' modus operandi, at least. He swoops in, says something obnoxious, gets someone riled up (anyone foolish enough to not have him on ignore--Pure, I think, is the only one who gets a charge out of using Ami's arguments as springboards), and then when, suddenly, rational people start to tear his argument apart, he runs away. Kinda like the Monty Python Holy Grail knights mocking the rabbit until it bares its nasty teeth and kills one of them...and then they scream like little girls and run away

But allow me to take what I *assume* are the counter arguments (given your questions) and present a counter scenario. Counter arguments would seem to be: (1) There's not enough gays to bother making gay marriage legal, (2) gay marriage is not "natural" and would encourage folk to act unnatrually, and (3) this would hurt society.

Okay. So, let's follow that logic.

Small Percentage: There are men who marry women who are *significantly* younger than they are. Like 30 years their junior or more. The percentage of these marriages as compared to marriages between those closer in age, say a 25 years age difference or less, is pretty small (18% of women marry a partner who is six or more years older. So likely the percentage that marry one who is as much as 30 years older is very small indeed. SMALLER than the percentage of gay folk who want to marry).

So. Reason #1: the percentage of gays is small, so if the majority doesn't want them to marry, they shouldn't be allowed to marry. Okay, by that reasoning, if we get a majority to say that old men should not be allowed to marry women who are 25 or more years younger than them, then such marriages could be made illegal--because the majority rules, right?

Unnatural: In nature, old males NEVER get to have sex or partnerships with young females. In nature, only young males get to have such sex. Old males get outsed and have no sex at all with young females--if they're allowed to live, that is.

So, Reason #2: It's unnatural.

It's bad for society: Well, we can see from the Anna Nichole Smith example that a young woman marrying a much older man usually results in terrible lawsuits with his kids and problems over inheritance after his death. So an extreme May-December marriages are not good for society.

So, Reason #3: It's not good for society.

Conclusion: the reasons given for not allowing gay marriage say that we should also forbid May-December marriages between old men and young women. There should be a law making it illegal for men to marry any woman 25 years of younger than they are.

Now I'll bet that if someone DID try to pass such a law Amicus would be the first to say, in outrage, "If the young lady is an adult, and I'm an adult, it's no one business what we decide to do. We can marry if we like! It's just like these do-gooder liberals to try to interfere with my life!" And he would be right. Also, hypocritical, because he would not say the same thing about gay marriages. The partners in a gay relationship are adults, and what they decide--even if it's UNNATURAL and against nature's law (which is hardly going to be proven beyond a doubt by anyone) is no one else's business. I mean, there are folk who get sexual pleasure from women's shoes--that's hardly natural as, in nature, no other animal wears shoes or has sex with them...but we're not going to outlaw that on that basis, are we?

Of course, what it really comes down to is what Amicus and others like him are really saying--hidden behind these bogus arguments that they hold up like fig-leaves believing it hides their nakedness--is that they don't like gays. Gay sex disturbs and bothers them and they don't want gays to think they can get married because then gays might kiss more in public and we can't have that, right?

Alas for all of them, what sane, consenting, adults do behind closed doors that disturbs them should not--if we argue it rationally and reasonably and in reality (not fantasy) be unlawful nor should their legal arrangements (which, once again, is all marriage is, a legal arrangement)--any more than those of us disturbed by Ami having a relationship with a girl 30 years younger than him should allow us to outlaw that relationship...unless, of course, the girl isn't legal. But that's a whole other argument.

That would make my marriage illegal!

Great points!

 

[angelicminx]

amicus= ...


Sodomy is defined as "un natural, anal copulation with a human or an animal, bestiality..."

By whom? No, I'm not saying it's not defined that way, I want to know who defined it. What qualified them to make that definition?

Defined as unnatural, it became a matter of law in most places. Regardless of the source of that law, religious influence or not, sodomy is illegal or was, just about everywhere.

Yes, but that doesn't make it right.

Thus law, social convention, tradition and a host of societal norms are violated when homosexual activity is tolerated.



Urinating or expectorating in public is illegal just about everywhere but France and they ain't go no class anyway.

In other words there is public expectation concerning public personal displays of affection, again except in France. Some people have a physical revulsion upon witnessing two men or two women being intimate in public, like it or not, justified in your eyes or not, that be a fact, Jack.

And some people have a physical revulsion upon witnessing a man and a woman being intimate in public. I've heard this argument before, and I still don't think it's a good one.

I personally and I think most, in general, don't give a damn what two people or even more, do in private behind closed doors.

Aww, Ami you know you want to know what I do behind closed doors.

But then when that behavior is performed on a public stage, as you can see, the population in general becomes rather upset.

The final issue I will address at this time is formal marriage.

Marriage is defined by law as between a man and a woman. It is contained in the law, in the contractual and enforceable edict of the courts. To change that, one would have to change the legislation first and then the law. That may happen, but thus far has been rejected almost out of hand except for aberrations such as Massachusetts and San Francisco.

Being defined by law doesn't make the law right. The law does need to be changed, as do many laws on the books.

Those are just some of the valid arguments against homosexuality and gay marriage, there are many more.

You might address those issues as I addressed your questions?

amicus...

So the valid argument is it's against the law, so it's wrong? It makes some people sick, so it's wrong?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Originally Posted by amicus
It is perhaps 10 to 1, those who read and lurk and never express an opinion that I post for, well, other than the entertainment with those proficient in debate.

And you know the lurkers favor your opinion how?

*poke* G'morning, ami.

He has the math wrong.

 

[mikey2much]

My answers

1. Do have, in our current society, a signficant number of individuals with a desire for same gender relationships?

I think that we know we have a fairly large percentage of gays, somewhere between five and ten percent. But I think there are a lot of people who are not tied down to one gender for sexual partners. I think there are another twenty percent or so who would call themselves Bi.

2. Do you think that making such relationships more socially acceptable would increase that number? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

I really don't know if it is good or bad, but I am always in favor of removing barriers to self expression and freedom of lifestyle.

3. Is there an ethical or moral rationale for encouraging or discouraging same gender relationships -- don't hide behind "natural" law -- come right out and tell me what your REAL reasons are!

If I belived in God, I would have to think that He wanted us all to be 'free moral agents'. Otherwise He could have put an angel to guard the tree of knowledge in the garden. He didn't because he wanted us to make our own decisions about things in our lives. To make laws that restrict people from living their lives as they want would seem to be working against God's plan for mankind. People should always be encouraged to live as they want to.

4. Is there any possible social harm (or benefit) to permitting, legalizing, sanctifying, etc. same gender marriages.

Harm might be a little too strong of a word, change might be truer to the situation. I personaly think that gay relationships are the wave of the future. I think that both men and women are willing to put up with less from their partners today. I think that having no children could become the norm very soon for most couples, without needing to recreate, a gay couple might be closer then a man and woman could ever be.

 

[Pure]

my prediction:

this "one man, one woman" thing is going to be left to the discretion of the local baptist church, or the (dissenting) sect within the objectivist movement*, like the one our friend ami inhabits.

it's a religious teaching to be followed by whomever wants, just the the taking of communion, confirmation, etc.

civil society generally, in the West, with adopt 'civil marriage' or 'civil union', call it what you will. contrary to ami's frothings, there's no good reason for the civil and secular society to get involved with the issue further; there's no demonstrable public good served by following Jerry Falwell's or Learned Amicus's rulings, provided that there remain lots of stable unions where kids are involved. (and the straights haven't proven so good at this, btw.).



*for most have no problem with 'gay marriage.'

 

[WRJames]

this "one man, one woman" thing is going to be left to the discretion of the local baptist church, or the (dissenting) sect within the objectivist movement*, like the one our friend ami inhabits.

it's a religious teaching to be followed by whomever wants, just the the taking of communion, confirmation, etc.

civil society generally, in the West, with adopt 'civil marriage' or 'civil union', call it what you will. contrary to ami's frothings, there's no good reason for the civil and secular society to get involved with the issue further; there's no demonstrable public good served by following Jerry Falwell's or Learned Amicus's rulings, provided that there remain lots of stable unions where kids are involved. (and the straights haven't proven so good at this, btw.).



*for most have no problem with 'gay marriage.'

There are, as I have mentioned, some churches already doing "holy union" ceremonies. Others are quite opposed to the idea -- but that's okay, except, as happened to me, you have a real split within a congregation.

Marriage in general may be a fading civil institution. There are more and single mothers out there, which to my mind is a very bad trend.