Curious about Gay Marriage

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

Society and the rules within it are based on discrimination. There are good reasons for this, whether they be moral, ethical or health based. I do not see gay marriage as a religeous issue at all. I see it as a societal issue. By allowing gay marriage you effectiveley remove the right of society to discriminate. This then means that other lifestyle choices that you may find abhorrent must be allowed. If someone wishes to engage in incest or polygamy then society would have no right to deny these people that right because they have removed discrimination from law.

It is a decreasing circle of moral ethics.

If you honestly ask yourself the question, "do I discriminate against others?, the answer would be most likely be yes. I do not know any people that would want to see incest, paedophilia and the likes legalised in their society. Therefore, in my mind, you cannot engage in selective discrimination such as allowing gay marriage. To open this pandoras box is an ill that society doesn't need now or in the future.

Are we prepared for the consequences of this action? Have we actually thought it through or are we blinded by our desire to be seen in a politically correct manner?

Gay marriage will install no further benefits onto gay couples. They already have the right to live in a gay lifestyle, they cannot be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, partnership law protects their property and asset rights whilst a legal will allows them to gift their property on death to their partner.

Therefore, one has to ask, why do they require this change in law?"

[m5lange1]

So when we started allowing women to vote that was forced acceptance?

That opened the pandora's box of allowing the blacks to ride in the front of the bus? Or eat in the same restaurants as whites?

You are correct in that they removed discrimination from the law when they did these things. I am really not convinced that those steps were bad.

How is prohibiting someone's rights detrimental to society if there is no victim?
Lets look at your examples that may still be shocking to some...

Incest. Who cares as long as they are consenting adults? Worried about the possible genetic effects on children? Worried enough to try to pass legislation that people with mental retardation or Downs or some other defect should also be denied the right to marry?

Poligamy. Who cares as long as they are consenting adults? Who gets harmed besides someone who is shocked and pisses and moans about it at the dinner table some evening?

Pedaphilia and beastiality are a separate matter because minors and animals are not consenting adults. (and actually I would leave the beastialtiy stuff to the animal rights activists to sort out).

Whether youi or I or anyone else finds a behavior abhorrent should not be a criteria for allowing it or not by law as long as their is no victim. That is what so many people who praise the "freedom" in the USA seem to forget.
Freedom means OTHER people get to be free too.


Now if someone forces that behavior on you... that is forced acceptance. If you do not want someone else to do something just because it offends you, THAT is intolerance.

So discrimination for the sake of discrimination is BAD. It sould never be law. Hopefully, as we grow as a society, the discrimination against harmless groups will seem as archaic to us as not letting a black person drink out of the white drinking fountain.
THAT was abhorrent to many people at one time.

Thank you for clarifyng for me though. I thought I had misunderstood.

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

So based upon what I read above m5lange, you are saying that if it does'nt affect you then you are not bothered by it.

Unfortunately, society doesn't comprise just you. Although you may find certain ethical excesses acceptable, others do not. Therefore, although your reasoning is sound, do you not think that the values and rights of others are just as important as those of minorities?

[Ken Carman]

Marriage is such a big deal for Gays and Lesbians for the same reasons it's a big deal for the rest of us. If roles were reversed, wouldn't you yearn for the right?

I have no problems with Gays and Lesbians being married. It will encourage monogamy. Marriage will deepen commitment. It may cut down on the incidence of AIDS in those communities. If it weren't legal for heteros to marry I'd recommend it for the very same reasons. I think we would be a weaker society without marriage. Unfortunately heteros have had years of experience coming up with excuses to circumvent that commitment.

The arguments I've read here so far are basically classic slippery slope arguments. Who said the slope is slippery? Answer: most often those who wish to frighten others into either shutting up or not supporting what they fear or dislike. If we legalize that type of marriage there's connection between that and adults having sex with kids. People won't start having sex with their pets. The world won't explode. People who are offended by such don't have to marry the same sex. Generally, there is no right not to be offended, and there shouldn't be in my opinion.

In a free society what some consider "ethical excess" others do not. While all excess should never be legal, the less government involves itself in regulating such things the more free the society. The more they regulate the less free the more a theocracy and, ironically, the more like the old USSR or Nazi Germany they become. Rather than vote for a more Taliban like state, I vote to be more free.

I've been married almost 30 years to the same lady.

[Somalia04]

In a free society what some consider "ethical excess" others do not. While all excess should never be legal, the less government involves itself in regulating such things the more free the society. The more they regulate the less free the more a theocracy and, ironically, the more like the old USSR or Nazi Germany they become. Rather than vote for a more Taliban like state, I vote to be more free

The less the government involves itself in regulating "such things", the sooner society goes down the tube. you seem to be softening what was said earlier about allowing people to do whatever currently taboo thing that they wanted. If the government stops regulating, what we'll have is not an excess in in ethics, but an excess in chaos. Someone said they're were too many laws. I think there are too few. Yeah, laws don't let us do exactly what we what to, but they are designed to protect us. believe it or not, I think that the current marriage laws are to the benefit of us all.

[Ken Carman]

Originally posted by Somalia04,


The less the government involves itself in regulating "such things", the sooner society goes down the tube. you seem to be softening what was said earlier about allowing people to do whatever currently taboo thing that they wanted. If the government stops regulating, what we'll have is not an excess in in ethics, but an excess in chaos. Someone said they're were too many laws. I think there are too few. Yeah, laws don't let us do exactly what we what to, but they are designed to protect us. believe it or not, I think that the current marriage laws are to the benefit of us all.

"goes down the tube"

Yes, so the Taliban, the Soviet masters, the Khmar Rouge and Hitler all ran societies where excesses were tolerated? NO. Those are the type of societies that crack down "excesses" the most. It's exactly the opposite of what you suggest.

"allowing people to do whatever currently taboo thing that they wanted"

I never said people should do any taboo thing they want. Don't stick your own words into my computer and claim they are mine.

"If the government stops regulating..."

I believe in regulating almost everything, it's always a matter of how much and in what ways. No right or priviledge is absolute. We regulate marriage, age-wise, licensing-wise and in many ways. Once again you're sticking words into my computer and claiming to everyone I said them. Is this some cheap trick or just a bad habit of assuming you have read what you haven't?


Are there too many laws? Yes, I believe there are, and we don't enforce the ones we have. If we did the second thing we'd need less laws. More laws solve nothing. We could have an infinite number of laws and, especially if we don't enforce them, they would solve nothing. And generally the more laws we have the more confusion and abuse in enforcement because they are so often written in such a vague manner. How, when and in what way we enforce the ones we have is so much more important. I believe police and sheriffs... etc... could use less and clearly written laws so they could focus in on those who really endanger society.

NOW, as to my phrase I just typed: "those who really endanger society."

THAT is a topic I'm sure we could agree to disagree on...

[m5lange1]

Seeker_Of_Sins Posted on 09-20-2004 08:23 PM
So based upon what I read above m5lange, you are saying that if it does'nt affect you then you are not bothered by it.

Wow....
Not at all. What I said was...

m5lange1 Posted on 09-20-2004 07:36 PM
Whether you or I or anyone else finds a behavior abhorrent should not be a criteria for allowing it or not by law as long as their is no victim.

That is a long ways from my saying what you interpreted above.

]Seeker_Of_Sins Posted on 09-20-2004 08:23 PM
Unfortunately, society doesn't comprise just you.

What an odd thing to say. Could you possibly quote me directly on something I may have said to give you the impression I thought society comprised just me... or is that just there for sarcasm?

Seeker_Of_Sins Posted on 09-20-2004 08:23 PM
Although you may find certain ethical excesses acceptable, others do not.

Yes that is pretty much true of everyone.
But I am not the one who is trying to deny others rights that I enjoy.
You may find some like black people, others do not.
You may find it acceptable to live among Jews, others do not.
You may find it an ethical excess for someone to discriminate, others do not.
I guess I do not see your point here. As long as there are "others do not" we should allow those "others" who do not to deny rights to ..... whoever?

Seeker_Of_Sins Posted on 09-20-2004 08:23 PM
Therefore, although your reasoning is sound, do you not think that the values and rights of others are just as important as those of minorities?

ABSOLUTELY. You have said something I FULLY agree with.
The values and rights of OTHERS, WHOEVER THEY ARE are just as important as those of minorities.
Therefore if gays ever try to say that you, as a Christian, or as a heterosexual, or as a whatever you may be, should not be allowed to marry I will be there arguing for your rights!!!!!
But that is not the case is it? It is you who are saying what they can or cannot do.
THAT, my friend, is the infringement on freedom.
You have the same rights, and the same limitations. And your values have the same right to consideration. No more... no less.

How can you ask.....

do you not think that the values and rights of others are just as important as those of minorities?

.....when it is you who are trying to deny the rights? Does that not feel strange and hypocritical when it comes off your tongue?

Do you not understand what freedom is?
It is not freedom from being offended when others act like they are free too. That, sir, is a COST of living in a free country. "Freedom to think like me" has been present in every dictatorship in history.

Ken Carman Posted on 09-20-2004 08:44 PM
Marriage is such a big deal for Gays and Lesbians for the same reasons it's a big deal for the rest of us. If roles were reversed, wouldn't you yearn for the right?

Exactly Ken! Kudos!!!!

The black man could still get where he was going if he rode in the back of the bus, but THAT is not what america is about!!! This is way more relevant than just whether gays should be allowed tol marry. It is a test of American freedom.
Do we really mean "Equality for all" or not?
What other harmless but "offensive to some" practices or race or belief shall we deny rights for?
Who will be next?

[m5lange1]

Oh and one I forgot to mention.
Some find prayer in schools an "ethical excess" others do not.

I oppose the ban on prayer and religious reference in schools on the same principles as I oppose a ban on gay marraige. It is a vicimless behavior that is outlawed just because it offends some sensibilities and gets some people's panties in a bunch.

Insufficient reason for limiting freedom and passing discriminatory laws!!!!!

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

m5lange1, since my post was investigating the removal of discrimination from laws thereby leading to the postulation that the promotion of gay marriage would open the door to other social excesses, I find my comments hugely relevant.

You have stated that removal of discrimination by law is the only way to allow rights to those who you perceive to have none currently. You then went on to say that as long as it doesnt affect you, you are comfortable with it. Personally, I see that there is a victim if you remove the ability to include discrimination in laws. That victim is society and the moral fabric of it.

This issue is not about allowing gay marriage, it is about removing the need to have discriminating laws for the good of society as a whole. If we let discrimination be removed, we then must accept that certain moral and ethical excesses must be expected in the future. The precedent will have been set.

By trying to relate it to emotional issues such as blacks, womans rights, etc, you have missed the point entirely. This is about a major social change that will effect you, your kids, their grandkids, impetuity, for all time. Are we prepared for the results of our actions today?

[m5lange1]

All quotes by Seeker_Of_Sins posted on 09-26-2004 06:39 PM unless otherwise noted.

m5lange1, since my post was investigating the removal of discrimination from laws thereby leading to the postulation that the promotion of gay marriage would open the door to other social excesses, I find my comments hugely relevant.

Yea, OK. I do not recall suggesting they were irrelevant. (relevant as in related to topic right?). Yea they were relevant.

You have stated that removal of discrimination by law is the only way to allow rights to those who you perceive to have none currently.

I really wish you would use a cut and paste to quote me, since you certainly manage to misrepresent what I say when you paraphrase like that.

I did not say anything was the ONLY way to allow anything nor did I say (nor do I believe) that there are ANY groups I perceive to have NONE when referring to rights.
To quote myself what I said was

So discrimination for the sake of discrimination is BAD.

And it is.

You then went on to say that as long as it doesnt affect you, you are comfortable with it.

So? I was respopnding to Comp's statements regarding forced accpetance vs. tollerance. I was stating my personal view on it. I was not addressing a question of legality. My (or your) comfort level is a lot less of a priority when it comes to passing laws telling others how to live.

I see that there is a victim if you remove the ability to include discrimination in laws. That victim is society and the moral fabric of it.

So you see society as a victim if YOU cannot tell someone else what they can or cannot do because of YOUR moral sensitivity?
You do not see THEM as a victim when the are told how to make life changing decisions by others but society is a victim if they are not discriminated against.
You actually think your right not to be offended outweighs their (who ever "they" happen to be) rights in making their own decisions.
Are you sure you are a freedom lover?
If muslums someday are the majority in this country and they decide christianity can no longer be practiced because it victimizes the moral fabric of their society you will be ok with that?
Or if they decide you, for some reason, should not be allowed to marry. As long as they are a majority then it is their rights that matter and you will understand?
hmmmm.

This issue is not about allowing gay marriage, it is about removing the need to have discriminating laws for the good of society as a whole.

We fully agree on this. I believe the very foundation of our freedom is what we are talking about here.

If we let discrimination be removed, we then must accept that certain moral and ethical excesses must be expected in the future. The precedent will have been set.

What exactly are you so afraid will happen that you are willing to reject the concepts that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalieanable rights such as life, liberty and the persuit of happiness? Denying those freedoms to certain groups is not good for our society as a whole in the view of most Americans.
Seriously, you do not think the precedent has already been set to eliminate discrimination? And precedent to what great evil are you referring?

By trying to relate it to emotional issues such as blacks, womans rights, etc, you have missed the point entirely.

Emotional issues? Are these emotional issues to you? They seem naturally related to me. We are talking about discriminatory laws, right?
We are talking about setting precedents by eliminating discriminatory laws, right?
The discriminatory laws regarding blacks and women were repealed right?
That set a precedent already.
You really believe that I am missing the point by referring to discriminatory laws that have already been beaten down?
Sir, with all due respect, it is not I who am missing the point.

This is about a major social change that will effect you, your kids, their grandkids, impetuity, for all time. Are we prepared for the results of our actions today?

Yes it is and I think you should consider that carefully. I cannot believe you are not aware that similar statements were made in defense of discrimination against women, blacks, and other groups in the past.

I am prepared for my children and all their decendants to live in a free country.

Are YOU prepared for your decendants to live in a counry where the rights of some outweigh the rights of others? And don't try to tell me your right to tell other people how to live should outweigh their rights to decide how to live for themselves.

If your answer to that is "yes" please consider that someday your decendants may no longer be in the majority. They may be on the receiving end of those who say

"Live my way to keep my ideal of our society pure"

That scares me a hell of a lot more than someone "offending" me by their behavior.

To be honest with you I am highly offended by people who think their personal morals are more important than other's rights.

More than just offending me, They do affect me. They do bother me. They threaten the freedom I love in this country.

BUT I do not think they should be silenced or discriminated against because of a concept I cannot seem to get through to you.....

Freedom means they get to be free too.
The "they" above can be whoever you want.

Think on this please......
You should not be so much more free than someone else that you are free to tell them how to live their lives.
Reverse it....... Are they that free? Can they tell you who to marry?
Could they (whoever they are that you are not) if they became the majority?

That is the point!!!! That is what we should be concerned about for our children, and our children;s children and so on.

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

m5lange1,

I am pretty sure we are talking about the same thing but you sure as shiet wouldn't know it if you read our last 4 posts. Anyway, this article might help you understand what I am attempting,(unsuccessfully), to say.

The Civil Union Bill is be-ing promoted as reasonable legislation, to rectify civil rules and regulations that allegedly discriminate against homosexuals and lesbians.
They would be probably unaware that overseas, particularly in Australia and America, certain gay activists and academics are telling gay communities that the real object is a social revolution to destroy the traditional family.

New social structures of marriage will enable sexual expression based on individuals, couples and groups. The latter is called "polyamory".

How things change. Not too long ago, the idea of same-sex marriage seemed ridiculous. Now its proponents are on a roll across the western world, and it’s their adversaries, the "homophobic" defenders of traditional marriage, who are struggling to hold back the tide.

In retrospect, human rights legislation provided the essential platform for all that was to come. An end run can be taken around the mass of public disapproval, centuries of history and world-wide practice, through a successful appeal on the grounds of discrimination.

Especially when human rights legislation is amended by Parliament to ban discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.

There is a long and detailed article here: www.investigatemagazine.com, well worth a read. Just click enter shop, browse story archives, civil union bill 2004

I look forward to your thoughts.

[Ken Carman]

Originally posted by Seeker_Of_Sins,
m5lange1,

They would be probably unaware that overseas, particularly in Australia and America, certain gay activists and academics are telling gay communities that the real object is a social revolution to destroy the traditional family.

Certain Gay activists around the world say all kinds of weird things. When I went to college I can't count the professors who said whacked out things that had little to do with the actual truth behind any given topic/movement/bill/issue.

Besides them saying such things neither proves such a bill or makes such a bill destructive.

"New social structures of marriage will enable sexual expression based on individuals, couples and groups. The latter is called "polyamory"."

Not sure the point here. What would you base it on? ...unless you mean basing it on church/synagogue. I would resist that idea. I don't mind if any given theocratic insistute approves or refuses to approve a marriage, as long as that is within their congregations and not enforced by the state. This is not a theocracy. I like it that way.

Based on groups? Are you saying Gay/Lesbian marriage will lead to bigamy? Is this the slippery slope argument again? If not that, don't we have it based on groups in certain churches like Moon's? Or are you saying group sex? We already have that too. (Not me, damn, double damn... WAIT, my wife is looking over my shoulder! SSSHHHHHHH&#33

"How things change. Not too long ago, the idea of same-sex marriage seemed ridiculous."

Not that long ago, on the time scale, the idea that people might rule themselves, democracy, representative government, was considered absurd. Seems this may be the natural flow, some might argue that this suggests a creator, others would say people see things when they're ready to, and only a few visionaries before.

"homophobic' defenders of traditional marriage"

Some most likely "yes," some, "no." It's so hard to actually see inside the "heart" (brain) of another, although there are some sects; including certain "born agains," who think they have been given the vision to do so. I think those who claim these things do so more for that ego factor they so claim to loath rather than certain passages in the bible.

Some "defenders" are "homophopic." Some are misguided and believe shallow rhetoric. Some follow. Some have deeper understanding than the other side gives them credit for. Such it is with every issue we face as a species.

"An end run can be taken around the mass of public disapproval, centuries of history and world-wide practice, through a successful appeal on the grounds of discrimination."

Doing an "end run around" some public disapproval is sometimes a good thing. There is such a thing as tyranny of the majority. I'm guessing that most of the public could care less unless it actually would "destroy the family, the sanctity of marriage," make cats eat dogs and pigs fly while doing the nasty. I suspect that may be the real reasons those who are higher than us on the rhetorical food chain use these tactics. They like to use fear to convince us of things so they can have more power; sometimes they may not even care, although that does go to motive. Can't see inside another's head, but it is interesting to speculate.