Homosexual Marriage

[lord_carbo]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

You live in a democracy. Popular opinion is -supposed- to determine these things.

The founding fathers didn't trust the people of America to make completely rational decisions and neither do I. Instead, we have people who represent us make the decisions. They represent our general intelligence (many are stupid, most are pretty average, and only a few are intelligent), our general bias towards making decisions. They are otherwise normal people who spend more time on the issues than we do. I mean, Congressmen aren't evil monsters from another dimension because they're corrupt, in fact, their corruptness as a result of so much power shows how ordinary most of them are.

Oh, sorry, a bit of a tirade there. I just wanted to say something like that for the longest of time, and your post was an excuse to do so

[x0kruger0x]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Homosexual Marriage Is good, and i fully approve it, as you said banning heterosexual marriage is no different.

[devonin]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Not in it's entirety, otherwise the judiciary wouldn't have been designed to operate independently of public opinion and representative government would have no place in our system. Anyways, the ways things are doesn't always equal up to the way things ought to be.

Right right, but at the same time, a statement like

But what really gets me mad about banning two people of the same gender to be recognized by the U.S. that they are together forever is that it really is just the opinion of how people feel that prevents this.

seems absurd to me.

In order for the laws to change, there has to be a movement in popular opinion that says it ought to change, so that elected officials, in order to continue to be elected, need to adpot a platform that reflects popular opinion. If a majority (EVen just a majority among those who bother to speak up) are still of the opinion that it is bad and should be prevented, it becomes a strong strategy for politicians to continue to support that idea, and to quash attempts by the minority to change it.

And as for Lord_Carbo's rant. Yes, it is a representative democracy not a pure democracy as much because the population is so large as to make a pure democracy incredibly unwieldly as because the average citizen can't be trusted to make these decisions.

But at the same time, they -are- representative of their constituency. If a constituency makes an election issue out of homosexual marriage, all candidates will need to furnish an opinion on the subject, and for the people who think it is important, it will influence who they vote for and who gets elected, and will increase presence in the house and senate of those who support or don't support the change to the law.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

In order for the laws to change, there has to be a movement in popular opinion that says it ought to change, so that elected officials, in order to continue to be elected, need to adpot a platform that reflects popular opinion. If a majority (EVen just a majority among those who bother to speak up) are still of the opinion that it is bad and should be prevented, it becomes a strong strategy for politicians to continue to support that idea, and to quash attempts by the minority to change it.

Right, well now you're just describing social mechanics. What you fail to realize is that discourse represents a component of social mechanics. So if someone presents the argument "Person A wants thing B, Person or group of people B doesn't want person A to have thing B, Person B shouldn't determine whether or not Person A should have thing B", for you to accept that argument would be part of the social mechanic.

[Professor Raine]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

You live in a democracy. Popular opinion is -supposed- to determine these things.

Unfourtanely, our government is part democracy, part republic. Therefore, the people we vote for to represent us have to be pro gay marriage. Then the president has to verify it (which means for now, we're screwed in a bad way) and the the Justices approve of them and volia! We have a law.

[xlovexitx808]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Its ridiculous that our government AND society rejects people for loving someone of the same gender. If you are attracted to and care about someone, even if they are the same gender as you, you should be allowed to walk to streets and persue your life together with the bondage of being married. A cliche' for you, love goes beyond just skin deep.

[devonin]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

The government is largely (especially in social issues) a reflection of what the people in the constituencies of these officials feel. The simple fact is a very large percentage of Americans are either a) against gay marriage or b) outright against accepting homosexuality at all.

[Frozen Beat]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

I believe that same sex marrige was allowed in Canada, because it was a thing of "freedom."

Yeah right.

[Tokzic]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

I believe that same sex marrige was allowed in Canada, because it was a thing of "freedom."

Yeah right.

letting people do what they want to do is definitely not a freedom

I think both sides of this debate are ridiculous. The religious gay folk apparently want their union to be holy - so why do you need an official priest to do that? Holy is in the mind, so have yourself put some religious meaning into the ceremony and you have yourself a marriage.

The people who are fighting against it are worse. They're trying to keep a definition unchanged. Honestly, what does it matter? We get it, you're homophobes and think that gay relationships are lesser than straight ones, but that's no reason to refuse two people the right to do something anyone straight could do. It doesn't taint your marriage. You have no reason to refuse it.

In essence, both sides are just trying to fight for some extra meaning put into something that's subjective. If you tell yourself your union is holy, then it is. If you tell yourself that gay marriages aren't holy, then they aren't. Problem solved.

[All_That_Chaz]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Ugh, why was this thread revived?

The problem is and always has been that marriage is a part of the private institution of the Christian church but the status of being married has been put into public policies for various things. Because there are public policies that function differently based on marital status, it would be unconstitutional and contrary to people's pursuit of happiness to keep two adults of sound mind from getting married, regardless of gender. However, on the other side, the Christian church is a private institution and can call a marriage whatever they want it to be. Along those same lines, they don't have to perform marriages for people they don't want to marry. If a priest doesn't want to marry a gay couple it isn't the state's place to tell him he has to.

But then, allowing gay marriage and forcing gay marriages really aren't the same thing. I don't see much reason for the abolition of gay marriage. If homophobes don't want to be associated with gay marriage, they can join a particular congregation that opposes it. There will be others that interpret the Bible differently and will perform gay marriages. Those like-minded people will worship the Christian God in their own way.

If a gay couple really wants their union to be holy they just need to find the welcoming congregation. Otherwise if it's just for the benefits enjoyed by married couples, the government really should recognize civil unions and marriage as identical.

[Grandiagod]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

I think both sides of this debate are ridiculous. The religious gay folk apparently want their union to be holy - so why do you need an official priest to do that? Holy is in the mind, so have yourself put some religious meaning into the ceremony and you have yourself a marriage.

NEWSFLASH: Marriage isn't intrinsically religious, and that's not why gay people want marriage.

Honestly, that's one of the most ignorant arguments i've heard an intellegent person use.

Gays want marriage for A) Economic equality B) Social equality.

[A_Godsend]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

devonin writes "There's not a single appeal that can be made against homosexual marriage that can't be easily undone by just showing how that objection reflects upon heterosexual marriage"- This comment reflects a disturbing and contemptuous approach regarding those who may sincerely disagree. If you won't acknowledge the validity of opposing arguments, your opinion is discarded as pure biased conjecture.

devonin asks " Many heterosexual couples don't have children, what about people who are physically unable to have children? Should they be forbidden to get married as well? Further, there's something wrong with creating stable, loving homes in which to raise the thousands upon thousands of children needing to be adopted?- If homosexuals are allowed to marry, it could make it easier for them to adopt. Aside from the molestation issue, what about the poor child who has to grow up without a mother? Do you know how important the bond is between a male child and his mother? I'm sure a few kids could make it through ok, but the majority would be hopelessly emotionally scarred.

devonin says "I really love this one, because probably 99.99% of all gay people were born and raised by straight parents, by this logic, the gays should have all straight kids!"- Wouldn't this contradict all natural and hereditary notions?

devonin then conjectures "The word unnatural means "contrary to nature" and homosexuality has been observed in nature in many species of animal."- This doesn't necessitate a direct genetic causation. In fact, most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, and cognitive factors. Animals also have sex with juvenliles, kill each other, and eat their young. Just because animals do something, doesnt make it right. By the way, there are other effective means of population control already in existence e.g. China's One Child Policy.

devonin then says "Right...a substantial percentage of the population woke up one morning and thought to themselves 'you know what? I'm going to set myself up for years of emotional abuse, mocking, bigoted idiots, risking being fired from my job, disowned by my parents, and beaten up or even killed..."- If homosexuals are simply misunderstood individuals who just want to be accepted, and who would never knowingly choose a path that would result in alienation from family, rejection by friends, disdain from the heterosexual world, why on earth would they choose to have a parade? in which nudity, engaging in sex-acts, either real or simulated, masturbating, taunting, and indecent exposure becomes publically overt? The fact that they prefer alternate sexual preference is beside the point; when they unveil their privacy beyond closed doors they've left themselves susceptible to that kind of scrutiny. People are entitled to their opinion regarding whatever they feel socially infringes; those who choose to identify personally with homosexuals in question have only themselves to blame if generalized critiques offend them. With that said, I don't particularly agree with your suggestion that "the only objection to homosexuality is some misguided appeal to religion". In fact, I find it more than a little disingenuous.

Regarding the marriage issue, I'm afraid I can offer no insight. Personally, I believe I'm obligated to distinguish my personal biases from what should be legally optional. However, attempts to justify it by claiming it's natural attribution are futile.

[AK-14]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

This thread truly irks me.
Honestly, I can say nothing, for I wish not to get in a fight. Yet I shall speak out.

Love is love, and that is all we want.

Who are you to say what is right and what is wrong?

If you throw up the whole Bible arguement, which i cannot begin to describe, or much less understand, you must believe that it says, the earth was "made" or say...came to being and fruition about 5000 years ago.
Yet we have fossils which are undoubtedly much,much older than that, and carbon dating proves this.I am not arguing the scientific approach because that is an entirely other side and story to this. This was off topic.

Homosexuality is not a disease, Homophobia is.
I am not going to blatantly sit here and think that ALL people who might be against us are wrong, because it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong. Not everyone who is against homosexuality has such extreme views. I know that not all of you think the same, and everyone has their own opinion.

I just want to say that, if you were homosexual, would you want to sit in your home, or wherever you may be, and think that because you are supposedly "different" or "not the same" as everyone else, you can't be loved?
You can't say that because everyone wants to be loved.
Would you want to live your life every day, scared that someone might kill you because they do not understand, or are afraid of you?
If your own family hates you, and can't stand to see you, stare you in the face, or even think about you?
A random stranger, as many of you on here(though I do not condone you for it because it happens daily) comes up to you and says, " I hate you."
Does that seem right to you?

If you were homosexual, would you want these things to happen to you?
Of course, you will respond with the usual reply of " I am not a *** or queer so I wouldn't know, and so it won't happen to me"


Everyone needs, has, and searches for love, whether even if you state you do not, because everyone loves something.

Just let us be.
I understand I will get possibly banned for this or something, but if so, FFR then isnt where I should be.


Love is Love, No matter.
~Scotty

[Grandiagod]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

devonin writes "There's not a single appeal that can be made against homosexual marriage that can't be easily undone by just showing how that objection reflects upon heterosexual marriage"- This comment reflects a disturbing and contemptuous approach regarding those who may sincerely disagree. If you won't acknowledge the validity of opposing arguments, your opinion is discarded as pure biased conjecture.

To paraphrase Douglas Adams, some opinions are much more valid and robust than others. If I say the moon is made of rock, and you say the moon is made of cheese, well, your opinion deserves none of my intellectual respect.

evonin asks " Many heterosexual couples don't have children, what about people who are physically unable to have children? Should they be forbidden to get married as well? Further, there's something wrong with creating stable, loving homes in which to raise the thousands upon thousands of children needing to be adopted?- If homosexuals are allowed to marry, it could make it easier for them to adopt. Aside from the molestation issue,

There is no molestation issue. Homosexuality =/= Pedophilia. There is no study that shows a correlation.

what about the poor child who has to grow up without a mother? Do you know how important the bond is between a male child and his mother? I'm sure a few kids could make it through ok, but the majority would be hopelessly emotionally scarred.

I suppose we should take children away from single parents as well. "Daddy died in Iraq, I'm sorry but you have to go to a real family."

devonin says "I really love this one, because probably 99.99% of all gay people were born and raised by straight parents, by this logic, the gays should have all straight kids!"- Wouldn't this contradict all natural and hereditary notions?

No. There are such things as recessive genes.

devonin then conjectures "The word unnatural means "contrary to nature" and homosexuality has been observed in nature in many species of animal."- This doesn't necessitate a direct genetic causation. In fact, most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, and cognitive factors. Animals also have sex with juvenliles, kill each other, and eat their young. Just because animals do something, doesnt make it right. By the way, there are other effective means of population control already in existence e.g. China's One Child Policy.

As far as I know most scientific studies are either inconclusive or show a physical factors that correlate with homosexuality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...l_explanations

Also, homosexuality cannot be compared to sex with juveniles and eating young because it is a mutual consensual act that does not harm anyone. Your comparisons are biased, and insulting.

devonin then says "Right...a substantial percentage of the population woke up one morning and thought to themselves 'you know what? I'm going to set myself up for years of emotional abuse, mocking, bigoted idiots, risking being fired from my job, disowned by my parents, and beaten up or even killed..."- If homosexuals are simply misunderstood individuals who just want to be accepted, and who would never knowingly choose a path that would result in alienation from family, rejection by friends, disdain from the heterosexual world, why on earth would they choose to have a parade? in which nudity, engaging in sex-acts, either real or simulated, masturbating, taunting, and indecent exposure becomes publically overt?

You make two mistakes. First of all you assume that ALL homosexuals are the same. Homosexuals have as many differing opinions, proclivities, views, and ideas of recreation as a heterosexual. Gay parades do not reflect every homosexual, and probably not the majority. Also, all gay parades aren't about sex, and the majority of them contain no public sex, etc but that's a minor point. (although your belief in that does show off your lack of knowledge about anything to do with the gay lifestyle)

Second, you assume that gay people are ashamed of their orientation, while they may be persecuted and shunned, it doesn't mean that their entire goal is to avoid letting people know they are gay. For a lot of people, being out, and proud of your lifestyle is more important than getting harassed for it. It still doesn't make it an easy choice however, and many gay people remain "in the closet" for years before revealing their orientation, and many don't come out at all, unless caught. (I'm thinking of a specific pastor here )

The fact that they prefer alternate sexual preference is beside the point; when they unveil their privacy beyond closed doors they've left themselves susceptible to that kind of scrutiny. People are entitled to their opinion regarding whatever they feel socially infringes; those who choose to identify personally with homosexuals in question have only themselves to blame if generalized critiques offend them. With that said, I don't particularly agree with your suggestion that "the only objection to homosexuality is some misguided appeal to religion". In fact, I find it more than a little disingenuous.

And the KKK has a right to hate black people if they believe black people offend them. That doesn't make it right, or based on any sort of fact, or any less of a misguided ideal. Also, while I may have no concrete proof, I'd say it's common knowledge that the vast majority of people who oppose gay marriage are religious.

[sayuncle990]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

In essence, both sides are just trying to fight for some extra meaning put into something that's subjective. If you tell yourself your union is holy, then it is. If you tell yourself that gay marriages aren't holy, then they aren't. Problem solved.

I think killing people and drinking the blood of newborn infants is holy.