Homosexual Marriage

[Starboy]

tinybear, bob and weave all you like. You have bupkis.

Starboy

[tinybear]

Who are bob and weave? Are they Volconvo members? I haven't noticed them posting any messages (well, not since I joined about a week ago).

[Starboy]

Quote by: Waychel I'm not even black and I'm somewhat offended by how many comparisons are being made here between the issue of homosexual marriage and the civil rights movement. Anyone who knows their history (or even their law) knows this to be a gross comparison of events. Homosexuals are hardly being denied their "rights" as citizens IMO. Homosexuals are able to open up joint bank accounts; both individuals simply need to walk into the bank together. If anything, a business account can be setup that both "spouses" draw from. Homosexuals can also form a living trust with their spouses relating to all issues of property, assets and healthcare management in the event of one another's incapacitation or death. Infact, homosexuals that are with living trusts are better off in the event of their death than married heterosexuals without. All that homosexuals are being denied in the end are tax and social security benefits. These are not "rights" of marriage, but priveledges. If homosexual, polygamist and similar marriages were to become federally recognized, then these priveledges would likely dissapear altogether, making the point moot in the first place. Personally, I find all of this humorous considering that most marriage law was created in consideration to gender exclusively. To give one example, the issue of alimony came about because of the conventional role most women played as a dependant in marriage. I don't know how many times I must repeat this, but marriage as recognized by law essentially comes down to being about law; the considerations of which are impacted by issues of circumstance as much as gender.

Have you ever spoken with homosexuals regarding their so-called equal treatment? Do you think they would be asking for equal treatment if they were already getting it? Yours is just another lame argument for keeping the status quo because you are not a homosexual and you could give a shit. Well, sleep well on that.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto As I have said before, the purpose (the intention; the end or object to be accomplished) of marriage is to establish responsibility for newly created human beings. A marriage is not just a government recognition of a family because--and you know this--a family is more than just a husband and wife. Nor is it a method of establishing legal responsibility for adopted children because--and you know this--an adoption is a legal process in and of itself that covers an entirely different set of circumstances.

perfecto, you are full of it. The history of marriage is a very interesting one and has just about nothing to do with having children. In case you haven't noticed, people do not appear to have any problems with having children no matter what official status of their relationship.

But this is not about marriage. This is about family. The government does recognize and grant the status of family to people who have no children and have no intention of ever having children. They do this through the mechanism of marriage. That is the law. Homos have families right now. They have life long commitments to each other and co-habitat and share everything that a childless family shares. It is their right to have the same treatment under the law as this childless couple. Now if you want to make a case that that in order to get married the couple must have already produced a child, then that is fine. I have no problem with that. Then since a homo couple could not do that then they would not be allowed such a marriage. But the childless hetero couple would also not be allowed such a marriage. But that is not what is on the books and nobody is talking about such a thing. So not allowing homos to marry is unequal treatment.

The reason homosexual marriage isn't getting anywhere is that the advocates of such unions haven't been able to offer an alternative purpose that marriage exists to fulfill. Leftist--essentially, a psychopath with an extreme hatred of the society he was born in. Such people typically deny the existence of any permanent moral standards for guiding human behavior, condemn tradition, and propose the establishment of a future society based on an ideology that denies human nature.

Then you must be a leftist, since you appear to have an extreme hatred of my traditions. It is even funnier that my traditions are American traditions. You know, freedom, equality, human rights. mr. perfecto, you appear to be a perfect idiot.

Starboy

[fogus]

people who voted the following: - "Morally wrong, because homosexuality is morally wrong" Clearly have no understanding of the nature of morals. To insist that people must conform to your morals is fascism at its worst. Morality and ethical thought are totally subjective view points, just because some ancient dusty tomb makes some asinine and obsolite moral messages is no reason to discriminate against a whole group of people. If I had my way the only place the bible would be viewable is a museum. However I believe in freedom (something the religious right can never hope to understand), and personal choise, and while people choose to religion I will defend that right.

The only way anyone can call something morally right or wrong is to appeal to a supernatural being. We ourselves are not capable of making objective rules (the reason being that we disagree a lot, and there is no consensus as to who is right and who is wrong). Without some code of ethic to work with NO ONE is able to denounce anything. We would all just end up with our own truth. The problem with having our own truth is that everyone believes that there is some standard, some code of ethic, that everyone must adhere to. Don’t tell me that guy took your seat you were just fine with it. You thought he wasn’t being fair, didn’t you? Well, what's wrong with being unfair? What's wrong with being mean? What's wrong with murder? What's wrong with the effects of murder?

You can't say that there is anything wrong with anything unless you have a moral code, given by a supernatural being! Life is unlivable without a moral law giver. Just follow the thought through to its conclusion. No objective law means nothing is really wrong. If nothing is really wrong then nothing can be punished or condemned. If there were no punishment our western world would be pure anarchy. And you couldn't say that there was anything wrong with it.

Christians believe that there has been a standard set forth in the Bible which gives us our understanding and basis of law. Homosexuality goes against that law. If you don’t like it then you had better find another supernatural moral law giver, rather than denying that there is a moral law. You cannot live you life with out being two faced when you say that there is no absolute moral law. You can't live that, it will only take someone to sit you down and ask you for a good reason why child abuse/murder/incest/rape/lying or cheating is wrong.

[Starboy]

Quote by: fogus Christians believe that there has been a standard set forth in the Bible which gives us our understanding and basis of law. Homosexuality goes against that law. If you don’t like it then you had better find another supernatural moral law giver, rather than denying that there is a moral law. You cannot live you life with out being two faced when you say that there is no absolute moral law. You can't live that, it will only take someone to sit you down and ask you for a good reason why child abuse/murder/incest/rape/lying or cheating is wrong.

Make up your mind. Either only the supernatural being can determine what is right or wrong or people are capable of doing this without checking with god. People can see that abuse/murder/incest/rape/lying or cheating are wrong without resorting to the bible. That is because they can see the harm it does to others. Now if you want to contend that two people of the same sex making a life long commitment to each other and living as a family causes harm then make that case. Otherwise resorting to your bible as an argument is no better than me finding some other holy document that says that it is a-okay. No one is saying that anyone must marry the same sex. The funny thing about this is that gays already have families. Nobody appears to be bothered by this. What bothers people is that they want the same treatment under the law as anyone else. Now perhaps this might help you. They are not asking for the same treatment under biblical law. They are asking for the same treatment under federal law. Now perhaps you are confused and think that federal law is biblical law. Well let me straiten you out. The constitution doesn’t mention the bible one time. In fact the only mention it makes of religion is to say that religion should have no say in government and government should have no say in religion. So if you are concerned about gays getting equal treatment under biblical law then you should be talking to your fellow church members about this and make sure that your rabbi, priest, witchdoctor, imam, monk, pastor, shaman, priestess, minister or whatever doesn’t marry gays in your church. Other than that, if they are not trying to stop you from marrying who you want and they are not hurting anyone then it is none of your god damned business.

Starboy

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: fogus The only way anyone can call something morally right or wrong is to appeal to a supernatural being. We ourselves are not capable of making objective rules (the reason being that we disagree a lot, and there is no consensus as to who is right and who is wrong)...<snip>

Good luck trying to explain this to him, I've tried and was unsuccessful.

Quote by: Starboy perfecto, you are full of it. The history of marriage is a very interesting one and has just about nothing to do with having children. In case you haven't noticed, people do not appear to have any problems with having children no matter what official status of their relationship. But this is not about marriage. This is about family. The government does recognize and grant the status of family to people who have no children and have no intention of ever having children. They do this through the mechanism of marriage. That is the law. Homos have families right now. They have life long commitments to each other and co-habitat and share everything that a childless family shares. It is their right to have the same treatment under the law as this childless couple. Now if you want to make a case that that in order to get married the couple must have already produced a child, then that is fine. I have no problem with that. Then since a homo couple could not do that then they would not be allowed such a marriage. But the childless hetero couple would also not be allowed such a marriage. But that is not what is on the books and nobody is talking about such a thing. So not allowing homos to marry is unequal treatment. Then you must be a leftist, since you appear to have an extreme hatred of my traditions. It is even funnier that my traditions are American traditions. You know, freedom, equality, human rights. mr. perfecto, you appear to be a perfect idiot. Starboy

Note the italics.

This is entirely about marriage. A homosexual couple does not share every thing a childless heterosexual couple does because a homsexual relationship has no possibility of creating new human beings. And please note that a heterosexual couple is supposed to be married before they start working on children.
I don't hate American traditions, but I suspect I have a more thorough knowledge of what those traditions are and why they exist.

[Starboy]

Quote by: fogus The only way anyone can call something morally right or wrong is to appeal to a supernatural being. We ourselves are not capable of making objective rules (the reason being that we disagree a lot, and there is no consensus as to who is right and who is wrong)...<snip>

Quote by: mr.perfecto Good luck trying to explain this to him, I've tried and was unsuccessful.

Which supernatural being? Your supernatural being? Hey bud, I got a supernatural being in my pocket that says it can whip you supernatural being's ass. So what? This is about federal law, not biblical law. This is not a battle of the supernatural beings. It is about human beings and their human government on earth and the constitution that is not based on any religion. This is something I have tried to explain to you numb skulls but you just don't get it. If you want to enforce church law you do it in your church. There is freedom of religion in the US so nobodies supernatural being gets to tell anybody else what the law is. However if like minded people want to get together in their church they can pass all the church laws they like, as long as they do not go against the federal laws. You see here on earth the federal law whips all supernatural being's asses.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto This is entirely about marriage. A homosexual couple does not share every thing a childless heterosexual couple does because a homsexual relationship has no possibility of creating new human beings. And please note that a heterosexual couple is supposed to be married before they start working on children. I don't hate American traditions, but I suspect I have a more thorough knowledge of what those traditions are and why they exist.

You say it is about marriage and then conflate it with children. Sounds like a family to me. What you are doing is constraining a family to a pair of people with biological children. That is fine if you want to do that, but currently that is not what a family is restricted to. And a marriage license is by no means a children license. Many people manage to have plenty of children without getting married and lots of people get married with the intention of having no children. Your argument is flat because you argue a concept of marriage that just doesn't exist. You can do it all you like but it is what is known as a "straw man". If you want to insist that your concept of marriage is how it ought to be then that is fine but I expect it will cause a bigger ruckus than gays getting married.

Starboy

[Waychel]

Quote by: Starboy Have you ever spoken with homosexuals regarding their so-called equal treatment? Do you think they would be asking for equal treatment if they were already getting it? Yours is just another lame argument for keeping the status quo because you are not a homosexual and you could give a shit. Well, sleep well on that.

Actually, my argument is a legitimate one and the fact that you can only counter my points with ad hominem attacks only reinforces it.

Also, to answer your question, I have spoken with homosexuals because I have done living trusts for homosexual couples in the past. I should also mention that the district attorney of my county is homosexual and doesn't support the federal recognition of homosexual marriage either. I suppose that a better question posed towards yourself would be, "have you ever spoken with any homosexuals who are actually EDUCATED in regards to the rights and priveledges that they already have."

[Starboy]

Yes I have. And what you say sounds all very well in theory but the practical side of it is that many companies, and institutions will not recognize such instruments without a fight. And in some cases, such as emergency medical procedures it is just too dang late. And many of these people do not want to make a fracas so they just live with it. The don't make any waves because gays have in the past disappeared or have been fired for unknown causes or kicked out of their buildings and on and on. Your argument is no different than complaining that there are too many Jim Crow laws so therefore it should not be done. Sorry, that is a bullshit argument. That is not an ad hominem. It is a fact. You see if I only responded with observations about your character then you would be right, that is not an argument, valid or otherwise. But what I have done is responded with arguments that also illuminate what kind of character a person would have to have in order to make such an argument. That is not ad hominem. That is just an observation. If you don’t like it then stop making such awful arguments. You see you can reason and argue like a bigot in the nicest way and you are still a bigot. Being nice doesn’t make you right and being frank doesn’t make me wrong.

Starboy

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Starboy You say it is about marriage and then conflate it with children. Sounds like a family to me. What you are doing is constraining a family to a pair of people with biological children. That is fine if you want to do that, but currently that is not what a family is restricted to. And a marriage license is by no means a children license. Many people manage to have plenty of children without getting married and lots of people get married with the intention of having no children. Your argument is flat because you argue a concept of marriage that just doesn't exist. You can do it all you like but it is what is known as a "straw man". If you want to insist that your concept of marriage is how it ought to be then that is fine but I expect it will cause a bigger ruckus than gays getting married. Starboy

I'm arguing the only concept of marriage that has ever existed in the United States. It has been understood since before the Constitution even existed that
Man x Woman x Sexual Intercourse = Children = WRONG!
while
Man x Woman x Sexual Intercourse x Marriage = Children = RIGHT!

I believe that your increasingly hostile and personal attacks are the result of your own realization that your position is indefensible. To sum the matter up clearly:

You have said that marriage is the state's recognition of a family.
I responded that a family is more than just a husband and wife. And that, if marriage is turned into a recognition of a family, then any definition of marriage would have to be considered valid.

You have said that a homosexual couple and a childless heterosexual couple should be identical as far as marriage is concerned.
I responded that anytime a heterosexual couple has sex there is a chance of producing children and that a heterosexual couple is supposed to marry before they engage in sexual intercourse (i.e. have babies.) Sex between a man and woman is not just a fun thing to do that has no biological, legal, or moral consequences.

You have said that adoption and natural child birth are the same thing.
I responded that adoption is a legal process in and of itself.

You have said that homosexual couples are being denied equal rights under the law.
I responded that any man and any woman may get married if they meet the basic requirements and that sexual preference does not enter into it (And, even if it did, "discrimination" based on sexual preference is not unconstitutional.)

I have stated clearly the purpose of marriage while you have not offered a viable alternative purpose that fits the history of marriage. If marriage is simply a recognition of a family, why is it that sex between some family members is acceptable and between others unacceptable? If marriage is simply about property, why is it that responsible women were expected to marry before sex even when they could not own property? If marriage is about family and property, with no requard to sexual intercourse, why is the majority of divorce law based on assumptions about the role of men and women in the biological process of creating children?

[Starboy]

So what.

Black man + slavery = right.

Black man + slavery = wrong.

You argument is about tradition. Nobody is arguing that people who want to observe your concept of a marriage will no longer be allowed to. You do not have to squeeze everything into a binary universe. Tradition doesn't require that my tradition is right therefore your tradition is wrong. Tradition can allow for both traditions to be right. You are using an artificial constraint as if it were an argument.

Man x Woman x Sexual Intercourse = Children = RIGHT!
and
Man x Woman x Sexual Intercourse x Marriage = Children = RIGHT!
and
Man + Man = family = RIGHT!
and
Women + Women = family = RIGHT!

The earth will not careen off its axis if gays are allowed to get government marriage licenses. You seem to have this very narrow and formulaic view of how people must be. That is fine; you are free to live by it. But for some reason you are not content to be able to do this. You demand that everyone live by it whether they want to or not.

You have said that a homosexual couple and a childless heterosexual couple should be identical as far as marriage is concerned. I responded that anytime a heterosexual couple has sex there is a chance of producing children and that a heterosexual couple is supposed to marry before they engage in sexual intercourse (i.e. have babies.) Sex between a man and woman is not just a fun thing to do that has no biological, legal, or moral consequences.

I know you have said this. I never said you didn't. But so what? There are also hetero couples that get married and are sterilized and have no children and have no intention of having children. Yet they are married. There are even couples that were sterilized before they were married. Yet they have the marriage license. They have state recognition of their family. You may think that this is immoral. Good for you. But it is not illegal and by the morals of other people and other religions it is perfectly moral. You see you are still trying to squeeze everybody into your tradition. Yet no one is stopping you from practicing your own. How would you like it if the shoe were on the other foot? You see in a society that values freedom and equality you are free to practice your traditions as you see fit and others are allowed to do the same. Somehow this has escaped you.

You have said that adoption and natural child birth are the same thing. I responded that adoption is a legal process in and of itself.

When did I say this?

You have said that homosexual couples are being denied equal rights under the law. I responded that any man and any woman may get married if they meet the basic requirements and that sexual preference does not enter into it (And, even if it did, "discrimination" based on sexual preference is not unconstitutional.) I have stated clearly the purpose of marriage while you have not offered a viable alternative purpose that fits the history of marriage. If marriage is simply a recognition of a family, why is it that sex between some family members is acceptable and between others unacceptable?

Incest is discouraged because of social taboo. You see marriage has nothing to do with those taboos. They are taboo with or without marriage. They are based on people observing that human inbreeding is not good for the stock.

If marriage is simply about property, why is it that responsible women were expected to marry before sex even when they could not own property?

Expected by whom? Perhaps by you but not by most people. That was then, this is now. Most people are having sex before marriage these days. You may not like it but it appears to have nothing to do with marriage. You would have a point if the clerk down at city hall would not issue a license if there was premarital sex but they do not. You see it is not against the law. Maybe biblical law but this is not about biblical law.

If marriage is about family and property, with no requard to sexual intercourse, why is the majority of divorce law based on assumptions about the role of men and women in the biological process of creating children?

What are you talking about? If you don't have any children then there is no divorce law regarding children that applies. There are laws regarding children because there are people who get divorced that have children. But there are also plenty of people who get divorced that do not have children. I gotta tell you perfect, these are very stupid arguments.

All I see you doing is constraining marriage to what you think it ought to be not to what it actually is. There are millions of people getting married and divorced in this country. They have many different reasons for doing both and a great many of them do not conform to your idea of what a marriage ought to be. If they can get married then gays should be able to get married. That is what it means to have equal treatment under the law. Unless you propose to change the marriage laws to conform to your restricted view of what a marriage must be you do not have an argument. All you have is a "straw man" because what you constrict a marriage to be is not the only kind of marriage that is currently being allowed.

I must say mr.perfect, you are becoming perfectly tedious.

Starboy

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Starboy So what. Black man + slavery = right. Black man + slavery = wrong. You argument is about tradition. Nobody is arguing that people who want to observe your concept of a marriage will no longer be allowed to. You do not have to squeeze everything into a binary universe. Tradition doesn't require that my tradition is right therefore your tradition is wrong. Tradition can allow for both traditions to be right. You are using an artificial constraint as if it were an argument. Man x Woman x Sexual Intercourse = Children = RIGHT! and Man x Woman x Sexual Intercourse x Marriage = Children = RIGHT! and Man + Man = family = RIGHT! and Women + Women = family = RIGHT!

The tradition in China is that the common people do not vote, the tradition in the US is that they do. The two traditions are mutually exclusive. Each tradition has benefits and costs/risks associated with it. The same with the rule of law, equal protection of the laws, private property, etc.
Now, you may just have to take this as an article of faith, but human nature does not change. You can measure how stable and peaceful a society are by the traditions and values it holds. A tradition of innocent until proven guilty and of lynch mobs administering "justice" can not eternally coexist, one will have to go. Perhaps violently.
My traditions vs. your traditions, which are the best? The ones with the best results. Who decides what traditions give the best result? God. Who decides which results have the best benefits as opposed to risks? The society in question does to a certain extent, however the freedom to pick which of a certain number of paths to take does not grant the freedom to decide the end result of taking that path or even to choose which paths are available.

Quote by: Starboy The earth will not careen off its axis if gays are allowed to get government marriage licenses. You seem to have this very narrow and formulaic view of how people must be. That is fine; you are free to live by it. But for some reason you are not content to be able to do this. You demand that everyone live by it whether they want to or not.

The earth won't careen off its axis if we recognize murder as an alternative anger management style. I miss the point entirely.
I don't demand that everyone live by my rules any more than you do. I demand that everyone who lives in my city or county or state or nation follows the rules of that particular place.

Quote by: Starboy I know you have said this. I never said you didn't. But so what? There are also hetero couples that get married and are sterilized and have no children and have no intention of having children. Yet they are married. There are even couples that were sterilized before they were married. Yet they have the marriage license. They have state recognition of their family. You may think that this is immoral. Good for you. But it is not illegal and by the morals of other people and other religions it is perfectly moral. You see you are still trying to squeeze everybody into your tradition. Yet no one is stopping you from practicing your own. How would you like it if the shoe were on the other foot? You see in a society that values freedom and equality you are free to practice your traditions as you see fit and others are allowed to do the same. Somehow this has escaped you.

This may surprise you, but when a man and women have sexual intercourse, the decision about when a baby is concieved is not entirely up to them. There are factors involved that neither party has full control over, and if they did have full control over the process there would be no reason for marriage to exist at all.

Quote by: Starboy When did I say this?

Your statements about the Y chromosome disappearing. You can't separate sex, natural child birth, and marriage without changing the purpose of marriage. You can't convince people the definition should be changed without attacking all three parts of marriage.

Quote by: Starboy Incest is discouraged because of social taboo. You see marriage has nothing to do with those taboos. They are taboo with or without marriage. They are based on people observing that human inbreeding is not good for the stock.

Marriage has as much to do with the taboo concerning deviant sexual practices as laws requiring title registration for vehicles do concerning theft.

Quote by: Starboy Expected by whom? Perhaps by you but not by most people. That was then, this is now. Most people are having sex before marriage these days. You may not like it but it appears to have nothing to do with marriage. You would have a point if the clerk down at city hall would not issue a license if there was premarital sex but they do not. You see it is not against the law. Maybe biblical law but this is not about biblical law.

I have a point anyway. The clerk asks the questions he is supposed to ask, no more no less.

Quote by: Starboy What are you talking about? If you don't have any children then there is no divorce law regarding children that applies. There are laws regarding children because there are people who get divorced that have children. But there are also plenty of people who get divorced that do not have children. I gotta tell you perfect, these are very stupid arguments.

Your point? There are plenty of people who get driver's licenses who never operate an automobile after they pass the test. Doesn't change anything. The rules of marriage and divorce are crafted around the purpose of marriage and not whether you use all the options available to you.

Quote by: Starboy All I see you doing is constraining marriage to what you think it ought to be not to what it actually is. There are millions of people getting married and divorced in this country. They have many different reasons for doing both and a great many of them do not conform to your idea of what a marriage ought to be. If they can get married then gays should be able to get married. That is what it means to have equal treatment under the law. Unless you propose to change the marriage laws to conform to your restricted view of what a marriage must be you do not have an argument. All you have is a "straw man" because what you constrict a marriage to be is not the only kind of marriage that is currently being allowed.

So, I'm saying "leave marriage alone" (which is not changing it) and your calling for the very definition of what marriage is to be changed, but I need to change the marriage laws to conform to my views? How does that work?

Quote by: Starboy I must say mr.perfect, you are becoming perfectly tedious. Starboy

I do apologize, it certainly isn't for lack of trying to be otherwise.

[castille]

Wasn't there a movie where 2 straight guys pretended to be gay to get a tax break?

[FIFI]

No, and thats a stupid thing to say. If you fake your sexuality for a "tax break" not only are you a shallow, and ignorent person to exploit someones sexuality for your own means (and that goes both ways, not just to heterosexuals) but you need to evaluate yourself.
I believe that this debate will never truly be settled, just like the abortion and gun issues.
But think of it this way...
I dont like you because I dont agree with your life views, so guess what? I am the majority, and I say I am going to take away your right to marry and make families.

How fare is that?

[G. Adams]

It'll be settled when the young are too independant to listen to there reactionary elders, and the elders finally die off. it's happening in Europe, should happen in the states eventually.

[FIFI]

Ahhh. But not all youth are independent minds. I know many, including my own brother, that do not explore and test the world and his beliefes, but spews forth whatever was passed to him by others older and "wiser". Yes, younger generations should respect and learn ( with a open and clear mind) what those born before us have to teach...
but becareful, not all traditions are golden.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: FIFI Ahhh. But not all youth are independent minds. I know many, including my own brother, that do not explore and test the world and his beliefes, but spews forth whatever was passed to him by others older and "wiser". Yes, younger generations should respect and learn ( with a open and clear mind) what those born before us have to teach... but becareful, not all traditions are golden.

To quote a genius of the 20th century, "Retain what is useful, reject what is not". few people have the ability, or at least willingness, to constantly re-evaluate their views, to see if they still apply or not.

[Waychel]

I find it amusing how the supposedly liberal and free-thinking refer to those with an opposing mindset as themselves as, "not independent minds." Doesn't that make you a conserved and limited thinker by your own definitions?

I also am curious as to why so many moral objections and mention of "god bots" is drug into this topic when the subject of theology has not been raised for a good 10 pages or so.