The gay marriage thread

[CeriseNoire]

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.

2. The number who have that desire, no. The number who are open about that desire, very likely.

3. Unless either party is not consenting (or equipped to do so), no.

4. Er, a bigger pool of people who could potentially end up divorce?

On a side note, sodomy (in the legal sense) often includes fellatio as well. I can't help but wonder if those wanting to use that argument in their fight against "the unnatural" have been abstaining from engaging in it (as they should in order to maintain moral credibility).

Of course, this only coming from one of us savages of the lower IQs, so feel free to disregard.

 

[3113]

On a side note, sodomy (in the legal sense) often includes fellatio as well.

Strangely enough, that never comes up in these arguments. Which makes anti-gay sentiment pretty simple to analyze (especially as it's usually men with a violent reaction to gay males): guys are scared that gay men will sodomize them (i.e, emasculate them).

I suspect that if gay men only fellated each other, the hetero guys would have less problems with them because every guy wants to get his dick sucked and many don't care what gender the suckee is--it still makes them feel "on top" and manly to have someone on their knees worshiping their cock.

I think I'm getting a little cynical here....

 

[cloudy]

I think I'm getting a little cynical here....

What took you so long?

 

[kbate]

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.

You do not offer an alternative you offer nothing of the sort:


~~When truth fails, redefine, misdirect and accuse.~~

You defined homosexuality as synonymous with sodomy. Even the most radical right wing protester has the sense to know that sodomy is an act, while homosexuality is a state. That sodomy is even mentioned as one of your so-called facts in this thread shows how closed minded and unwilling to reason you truthfully are.


~~It is easier to claim you have the wind than it is to actually hold it.~~

You, like all right wing so-called libertarians, claim that homosexuality, and especially homosexual marriage would cause some sort of grave harm - yet you in half a dozen long winded - rather general posts - have failed to enumerate even one grave harm.

~~With enough smoke, maybe someone will believe in the fire.~~

You brought the priest scandal into the thread. Why? In what way does a Catholic priest, gay or straight, who sexually abuses children - have anything to do with the subject of whether Homosexual marriage is a good or bad thing?

~~Woe is me, the lone voice of opposition.~~

In several of your posts, you have claimed that 'everyone is against you'. Nobody is against you, they disagree with your generalisations and the other misguided drivel you have presented as facts to support your position. Had you provided any actual fact - or even an actual statistic - other than the words of Paul, perhaps at least one person might consider you a learned debater. Repeatedly using the "woe is me" statement weakens your argument, but is a common theme you use on the AH.

~~The Truth Shall Set you Free~~

You could save a lot of words, if you simply stated the source of the religious right's anti-gay message: Homosexuality is wrong because the Bible states clearly in the Old Testament - that if a man lies with a man as with a woman, he has done an abomination before the Lord - both shall be put to death.

I find it sad that your strongest argument, that of the law - is the only one that makes any sense. Homosexual marriage must be bad - because it is against the law - and we all know the law is a reflection of the will of the people.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Oh baloney, I don't want to be the last post on the page. Reposted on next page.

 

[CeriseNoire]

Strangely enough, that never comes up in these arguments. Which makes anti-gay sentiment pretty simple to analyze (especially as it's usually men with a violent reaction to gay males): guys are scared that gay men will sodomize them (i.e, emasculate them).

I suspect that if gay men only fellated each other, the hetero guys would have less problems with them because every guy wants to get his dick sucked and many don't care what gender the suckee is--it still makes them feel "on top" and manly to have someone on their knees worshiping their cock.

I think I'm getting a little cynical here....

Just a little I suppose.

I always did wonder why getting a blowjob makes some men feel so powerful, you'd think it would make them feel vulnerable.

I never get the whole fear that gay men will automatically want to sodomize homophobic men. It makes me want to ask the men in question if their being straight means they'll take any woman whether or not she's willing....

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You, like all right wing so-called libertarians, claim that homosexuality, and especially homosexual marriage would cause some sort of grave harm . . .

Key phrase in this context, "so called." I know many libertarians, and am one myself, but none of them have this view about homosexuality or homosexual marriage.

Ami appears to have combined a culturally conservative view of homosexuality with a misreading of Objectivism, interpreting it as deterministic regarding sexual preference. It is the opposite of deterministic philosophically, so this is really a very odd reading. Ayn Rand was a product of her own traditional upbringing in appearing to retain certain prejudices on the issue, and she made a few ambiguous statements that might be interpreted as unfriendly to gays, but I have no doubt that had she been born a little later and experienced the social enlightenment on the subject that has been underway the last 30 years her views would be in line with Kbate's, not Ami's.

 

[DerelictionOfSanity]

Gosh, is that all they're worried about? Prostate exams must be a nightmare...

I have to say that for myself, someone's disinterest is a turn-off and fear/hatred are even more so. Straight backsides have nothing to fear from me. I like to be invited if I'm going to play...

 

[amicus]

Key phrase in this context, "so called." I know many libertarians, and am one myself, but none of them have this view about homosexuality or homosexual marriage.

Ami appears to have combined a culturally conservative view of homosexuality with a misreading of Objectivism, interpreting it as deterministic regarding sexual preference. It is the opposite of deterministic philosophically, so this is really a very odd reading. Ayn Rand was a product of her own traditional upbringing in appearing to retain certain prejudices on the issue, and she made a few ambiguous statements that might be interpreted as unfriendly to gays, but I have no doubt that had she been born a little later and experienced the social enlightenment on the subject that has been underway the last 30 years her views would be in line with Kbate's, not Ami's.

~~~

Et Tu, Roxanne?

I am not a Libertarian, nor an Objectivist, nor a Determinist.

I do not view a person's 'upbringing' necessitating retention of prejudice, nor do I consider societies views on homosexuality as being 'social enlightenment'

I possess no 'vested interest' in either supporting or opposing homosexuality in general.

Nor do I take a position as a 'troll' or flame instigator, rather it is an objective intellectual approach to a widespread issue that has found its way into the ballot box and the court system.

As I have stated a dozen times and least and repeat yet again, I personally have no interest in how any individual conducts their sexual agenda, with the usual reservations of youth and non consent.

I do have an interest on the effect widespread homosexuality has on society in terms of education and culture.

I am concerned about the movement to change basic laws to accommodate your so called 'social enlightenment'.

I am certainly not the only one, by a long shot, to question the social effects of the feminist movement as the traditional functions of the male are marginalized.

With your acute mind I wonder why you do not explore, objectively, the ramifications of a maternalistic society which we seem to be evolving to.

As I have said before, this forum is not the proper place for an objective discussion on homosexuality for obvious reasons. However, since I participate and enjoy discussions and debate, I find it incumbent on myself to at least present an opposing viewpoint.

amicus...

 

[3113]

I have to say that for myself, someone's disinterest is a turn-off and fear/hatred are even more so. Straight backsides have nothing to fear from me. I like to be invited if I'm going to play...

Well, there goes several "non-con" fantasies guys were having about you

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Et Tu, Roxanne?

I am not a Libertarian, nor an Objectivist, nor a Determinist.

I do not view a person's 'upbringing' necessitating retention of prejudice, nor do I consider societies views on homosexuality as being 'social enlightenment'

I possess no 'vested interest' in either supporting or opposing homosexuality in general.

I do have an interest on the effect widespread homosexuality has on society in terms of education and culture. I am concerned about the movement to change basic laws to accommodate your so called 'social enlightenment'.

You are not an O'ist, Ami? You certainly have propounded O'ist metaphysics and epistemology with great vigor in thousands of posts. (If not with civility - a failing common among O'ists of a certain cast which I view as destructive to the "movement," to the extent Objectivism can be described as such. That same wing of O'ism also denies being libertarians, but by definition they are a genus of the family, just as by definition American "liberals" and conservatives both are part of the Liberal tradition, in the Enlightenment-sense of the word.)

Regarding "no vested interest" and "intellectual approach," that is hard to reconcile with statements you've made in the past expressing a visceral personal distaste for the sight of openly homosexual individuals.

On "concerned about the movement to change basic laws to accommodate your so called 'social enlightenment'," I'm reminded of a recent Reason Online piece by Michael Lynch, "Left, Right, and Wrong: Desperately searching for a libertarian foreign policy," which asks, "Why is it that libertarians, for whom the benchmark of political, economic and social behavior is the individual, find so little to say about the defense of the individual in foreign affairs?" O'ists also "place the individual at the center of social or political action," to use another phrase from Lynch. As with foreign policy, so it should be with social policy: Statements like "the effect widespread homosexuality has on 'society'" reveal a collectivist viewpoint that is antithetical to libertarianism and Objectivism.

I don't mean to be a "Brutus," but I find all your statements on this issue and in this thread to be confusing and contradictory at best.

 

[denalirayne]

am i the only lesbian weighing in on this issue?

i have been with my partner for nearly 8 years, owned a home with her for the past 5, "married" her 4 years ago, and changed my name to hers 2 years ago and yet i still can not claim her for any financial, medical or legal benefit.

Do I care about the emotional and social "status" of a marriage? No.

Do I need a priest to sanction my relationship "in the eyes of God" as dictated by a mortal (ie fallible!) self-proclaimed celibate man? Hell no! According to those hypocrites, I have been forsaken by that same God for this "choice" I made to live as He made me. . . . IN HIS IMAGE (ie perfect).

I know I am already a child of God - - and my God is one of unconditional love and perpetual forgiveness Does that mean that I should have to also forsake the rights of humanity? Never.

Technically, spilling ones seed without the intention of procreating is a sin in the eyes of God. Has ANY 12 year old boy forsaken masturbation because it was a sin in the eyes of God? I doubt it. Therefore, no man can claim superiority over any other being on Earth; he is equally a sinner.

I'm sure there's a scripture about not finding a splinter in your brother's eye when there is a plank in your own, but I'm too lazy (read "heathen") to go look for a bible to look it up.

When my wife began having seizures from a complicated medical situation, I was not granted any rights without expensive legal documentation.

Then I see Brittney Spears who, on a drunken whim that only lasted 56 HOURS, was granted more than 4500 marital rights for fulfilling a ridiculous spontaneous dare.

And you ask why so many of us dykes are pissed off? Go figure!

And don't get me started on trying to have a family as a lesbian! Forget it!!

 

[3113]

Statements like "the effect widespread homosexuality has on 'society'" reveal a collectivist viewpoint that is antithetical to libertarianism and Objectivism.

Oh! Bravo, Roxanne!

http://www.nubar.com/realstock_images/m35873-25.jpg​

That was one of the *best* arguments you've ever made. Concise, dare I say, even pithy, on target, rational, clear and yet, so very civilized and polite. Bravo!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

i have been with my partner for nearly 8 years, owned a home with her for the past 5, "married" her 4 years ago, and changed my name to hers 2 years ago and yet i still can not claim her for any financial, medical or legal benefit.

Do I care about the emotional and social "status" of a marriage? No.

Do I need a priest to sanction my relationship "in the eyes of God" as dictated by a mortal (ie fallible!) self-proclaimed celibate man? Hell no! According to those hypocrites, I have been forsaken by that same God for this "choice" I made to live as He made me. . . . IN HIS IMAGE (ie perfect).

I know I am already a child of God - - and my God is one of unconditional love and perpetual forgiveness Does that mean that I should have to also forsake the rights of humanity? Never.

Technically, spilling ones seed without the intention of procreating is a sin in the eyes of God. Has ANY 12 year old boy forsaken masturbation because it was a sin in the eyes of God? I doubt it. Therefore, no man can claim superiority over any other being on Earth; he is equally a sinner.

I'm sure there's a scripture about not finding a splinter in your brother's eye when there is a plank in your own, but I'm too lazy (read "heathen") to go look for a bible to look it up.

When my wife began having seizures from a complicated medical situation, I was not granted any rights without expensive legal documentation.

Then I see Brittney Spears who, on a drunken whim that only lasted 56 HOURS, was granted more than 4500 marital rights for fulfilling a ridiculous spontaneous dare.

And you ask why so many of us dykes are pissed off? Go figure!

And don't get me started on trying to have a family as a lesbian! Forget it!!

Pardon me, Denali, but I can't resist citing your post to reinforce statements in my previous post: "For libertarians the benchmark of political, economic and social behavior is the individual; they place the individual at the center of social or political action." Denali's post shows why the individual -real people - is the proper focus, rather than the abstract of "society." This is why I am a libertarian.

To Denali:

~~~

To 3113: Thank you -

 

[amicus]

You are not an O'ist, Ami? You certainly have propounded O'ist metaphysics and epistemology with great vigor in thousands of posts. (If not with civility - a failing common among O'ists of a certain cast which I view as destructive to the "movement," to the extent Objectivism can be described as such. That same wing of O'ism also denies being libertarians, but by definition they are a genus of the family, just as by definition American "liberals" and conservatives both are part of the Liberal tradition, in the Enlightenment-sense of the word.)

Regarding "no vested interest" and "intellectual approach," that is hard to reconcile with statements you've made in the past expressing a visceral personal distaste for the sight of openly homosexual individuals.

On "concerned about the movement to change basic laws to accommodate your so called 'social enlightenment'," I'm reminded of a recent Reason Online piece by Michael Lynch, "Left, Right, and Wrong: Desperately searching for a libertarian foreign policy," which asks, "Why is it that libertarians, for whom the benchmark of political, economic and social behavior is the individual, find so little to say about the defense of the individual in foreign affairs?" O'ists also "place the individual at the center of social or political action," to use another phrase from Lynch. As with foreign policy, so it should be with social policy: Statements like "the effect widespread homosexuality has on 'society'" reveal a collectivist viewpoint that is antithetical to libertarianism and Objectivism.

I don't mean to be a "Brutus," but I find all your statements on this issue and in this thread to be confusing and contradictory at best.

~~~

I read the piece you linked as I did one Pure linked on another thread, I think.


I find a similarity that I am not quite sure how to address. It appears to me that the authors of both pieces have a difficult time staying on topic and allow their erudite knowledge to diminish their message into a self serving expose of their vast knowledge of all things.

Both pieces, in my opinion, possess an aura of amelioration and appeasement, almost a plea for understanding from both extremes.

That, again in my opinion, happened long ago to Libertarians following the defeat of Barry Goldwater and the 'Young Republicans', they began to take on aspects of the opposition in order to appeal to a more centrist audience.

The Objectivist's position on abortion and the Libertarian stance on Homosexuality are in my opinion an attempt to include gays and feminists under the umbrella of both.

If I can be called anything, it would be a Radical Extremist advocating maximum intellectual, social and economic freedom. I do not and will not compromise any basic moral premise to satisfy others or to go with the flow or to pander to my own preferences.

I maintain that there should exist extreme opposite opinions and that they should be held passionately and with fervor and vigor. Someone else can occupy the middle ground and work towards a synthesis, but it won't be moi.

Abortion takes an innocent human life; one cannot compromise the concept of the value of life.

Gays and Lesbians in their private affairs threaten no one and should be acknowledged the freedom that all individuals possess.

But when Homosexuals demand an equal stage presence it does change the nature of the issue. My personal opinions towards homosexuality are of no import and they are mine to hold as I choose. But on a societal scale if I perceive changes percolating that will greatly change the social norm, again, I feel compelled to say my piece.

amicus...

 

[denalirayne]

To Denali:

Gasp! awwww:::::::blushing::::::::

thanks.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Ami: "But on a societal scale if I perceive changes percolating that will greatly change the social norm, again, I feel compelled to say my piece."

Ami: "(I advocate) maximum intellectual, social and economic freedom."

Beware the "c" word, Ami: Contradiction is evidence of error.

Freedom for who? The "social norm?" "Society?" As you know well Ami, those aren't real things, just abstractions, and in even worse, "floating abstractions" as you are using them here. Individuals are real, and "maximum freedom" only has meaning as it applies to individuals.

 

[Pure]

ami: Gays and Lesbians in their private affairs threaten no one and should be acknowledged the freedom that all individuals possess.

But when Homosexuals demand an equal stage presence it does change the nature of the issue.

what is "equal stage presence".??


what i think you are saying is that they should do wiittd in the bedroom and shut up about it outside the bedroom, esp. in public; they should not make their preference known publically, nor seek to promote that it's "OK" (tell the public that they don't have a mental disorder), nor have schools teach it is "OK" (and not a mental disorder), even for the sake of the 5% gay students.

i see nothing contradictory here. it's a 1950s attitude; so be it. few under 60 hold it.

HOWEVER:
[I am, says Amicus] a Radical Extremist advocating maximum intellectual, social and economic freedom.

except for those people amicus finds odious, among them gays, lesbians, child molesters and dogfuckers. these better shut the fuck up and stay out of public view since all societies abhor them and their practices. if they break these nature-based laws and rules, and 'go public'or advocate publically, the persons in all these groups deserve to be criminally prosecuted.

have i got it right, ami?

 

[WRJames]

except for those people amicus finds odious, among them gays, lesbians, child molesters and dogfuckers. these better shut the fuck up and stay out of public view since all societies abhor them and their practices. if they break these nature-based laws and rules, and 'go public'or advocate publically, the persons in all these groups deserve to be criminally prosecuted.

Actually, it's not too hard to find societies for all but the dog lovers -- not sure about that one off the top of my head. Certainly the Romans had no qualms about the others.

 

[matriarch]

i have been with my partner for nearly 8 years, owned a home with her for the past 5, "married" her 4 years ago, and changed my name to hers 2 years ago and yet i still can not claim her for any financial, medical or legal benefit.

Do I care about the emotional and social "status" of a marriage? No.

Do I need a priest to sanction my relationship "in the eyes of God" as dictated by a mortal (ie fallible!) self-proclaimed celibate man? Hell no! According to those hypocrites, I have been forsaken by that same God for this "choice" I made to live as He made me. . . . IN HIS IMAGE (ie perfect).

I know I am already a child of God - - and my God is one of unconditional love and perpetual forgiveness Does that mean that I should have to also forsake the rights of humanity? Never.

Technically, spilling ones seed without the intention of procreating is a sin in the eyes of God. Has ANY 12 year old boy forsaken masturbation because it was a sin in the eyes of God? I doubt it. Therefore, no man can claim superiority over any other being on Earth; he is equally a sinner.

I'm sure there's a scripture about not finding a splinter in your brother's eye when there is a plank in your own, but I'm too lazy (read "heathen") to go look for a bible to look it up.

When my wife began having seizures from a complicated medical situation, I was not granted any rights without expensive legal documentation.

Then I see Brittney Spears who, on a drunken whim that only lasted 56 HOURS, was granted more than 4500 marital rights for fulfilling a ridiculous spontaneous dare.

And you ask why so many of us dykes are pissed off? Go figure!

And don't get me started on trying to have a family as a lesbian! Forget it!!

I responded on the previous page. Twice.

You should come to England, and get 'married' (Civil partnership for same sex couples). A strictly civil arrangement, that forbids any mention of God or religion in the ceremony, which suited us admirably. There are Christian priests in England who will perform blessing ceremonies, after the civil one, it's their personal decison.

We automatically have all those rights that are disgracefully denied you and your wife. She also has rights to my pensions after my death, we have drawn up wills and Power of Attorney Statements which are now held by our Solicitor (lawyer).

Our lives are so ordinary as to be unoticeable, but because we are both women, there are those that would deny us the right to live and love together.

And I still have to hear one valid argument why this should be.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I responded on the previous page. Twice.

You should come to England, and get 'married' (Civil partnership for same sex couples). A strictly civil arrangement, that forbids any mention of God or religion in the ceremony, which suited us admirably. There are Christian priests in England who will perform blessing ceremonies, after the civil one, it's their personal decison.

We automatically have all those rights that are disgracefully denied you and your wife. She also has rights to my pensions after my death, we have drawn up wills and Power of Attorney Statements which are now held by our Solicitor (lawyer).

Our lives are so ordinary as to be unoticeable, but because we are both women, there are those that would deny us the right to live and love together.

And I still have to hear one valid argument why this should be.

There are no valid arguments. None.

 

[Vermilion]

I find a similarity that I am not quite sure how to address. It appears to me that the authors of both pieces have a difficult time staying on topic and allow their (erudite?) knowledge to diminish their message into a self serving expose of their vast knowledge of all things.

Gee, this sounds verrrrrry familiar... hey Rox, Pure, what'd'ya think? Do we know anyone who does this...?

x
V

 

[amicus]

Gee, this sounds verrrrrry familiar... hey Rox, Pure, what'd'ya think? Do we know anyone who does this...?

x
V

~~~

Chuckles..Hey kid, it's not me that is the issue...it is the issue; capiche?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Gee, this sounds verrrrrry familiar... hey Rox, Pure, what'd'ya think? Do we know anyone who does this...?

x
V

Yeah - pretty much all of us at one time or another.

 

[cumallday]

Strangely enough, that never comes up in these arguments. Which makes anti-gay sentiment pretty simple to analyze (especially as it's usually men with a violent reaction to gay males): guys are scared that gay men will sodomize them (i.e, emasculate them).

Thanks to strap-on dildos any woman can sodomize a man too. I tend to think it's the challenge homosexuality poses to traditionally defined gender roles, of which heterosexual men have the most to gain from, that causes the biggest fright.