Homosexual Marriage

[Elminister]

Quote by: Isherwood If you acknowledge the difference between persuasion and expression, then I don't see how you can say that sexual preference is a choice. I can agree that to express your preference or not is a choice. But I don't believe, from personal experience, that the underlying preference is a choice.

I acknowledge that persuasion does not dictate,in explicit, expression. Persuasion is weighed,in relation to action in many,many other situations and scenarios why is it not so in this one? Essentially ,as I see it, the stance held by homosexuals herein is to say that the persuasion in question cannot be questioned. Mind you I'm not saying one way or the other how this persuasion should,or if at all,be weighed but will say the responsibility lay with the individual.

If you say that a move can be made regardless of consequence then know this; you cannot get a marriage license and cannot sew a biological seed with the person you love.

[Jack]

you cannot get a marriage license and cannot sew a biological seed with the person you love.

Gays are not alone in that respect, yet are the only group that people want to amend the Constitution to prevent from marrying. I find that inconsistent.

[Dirty Name]

Gays are not alone in that respect, yet are the only group that people want to amend the Constitution to prevent from marrying. I find that inconsistent.

The reason there is a movement to amend the Constitution is because it used to be quite obvious that the institution of marriage was specifically designed for a man and a woman. It was assumed to be a given that men do not marry other men, but as such, laws were written that failed to spell out the gender composition requirement. Now gays are trying to exploit the inadequacies of the legal language, and the response to prevent this nonsense from progressing any further is to simply use a blanket amendment that will fix the problem.

[Dirty Name]

Why do you insist on dredging this lie up again? There is no need to 'determine non-procreative and infertile couples' nor any 'invasion of privacy' in excess of what we do today. Once a couple -- of any sexual orietation -- acquires a child, they identify its existence as an additional dependent on their tax form. And until the couple does so, they simply shoudln't be entitled to any extra benefits related to marriage. Period. End of story.

Congratulations, you've just described a benefit that gays are already entitled to, it's called the Child Tax Credit and Dependent Tax Credit.

Oh, but while you're at it, you've managed to eliminate the incentive for a young heterosexual couple to make a long term commitment BEFORE they have children.

I've already explained at length why that is a bad idea.

Now run along, it's obvious after hundreds of pages of this that you're too stubborn to pay attention.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name The reason there is a movement to amend the Constitution is because it used to be quite obvious that the institution of marriage was specifically designed for a man and a woman.

Quite obvious to whom? This would the first time the Constitution has been amended to specifically make bigotry the supreme law of the land.

Fortunately the religous zealots will fail. It might take awhile, but Americans will land on the side of fairness.

[Dirty Name]

Why do you insist on dredging this lie up again? There is no need to 'determine non-procreative and infertile couples' nor any 'invasion of privacy' in excess of what we do today. Once a couple -- of any sexual orietation -- acquires a child, they identify its existence as an additional dependent on their tax form. And until the couple does so, they simply shoudln't be entitled to any extra benefits related to marriage. Period. End of story.

Congratulations, you've just described a benefit that gay couples are already entitled to - it's called the Child Tax Credit and Dependent Tax Credit.

But to solidify your position as even more blatantly ignorant of reality, you then go on to advocate the elimination of the financial and legal incentives for a young, heterosexual couple to make a long term commitment BEFORE they get pregnant and have a child.

I've already explained on the hundreds of preceding pages why that's a bad idea, and why same-sex couples don't have the same need for those incentives.

[Dirty Name]

Quite obvious to whom? This would the first time the Constitution has been amended to specifically make bigotry the supreme law of the land. Fortunately the religous zealots will fail. It might take awhile, but Americans will land on the side of fairness.

Zzzzz. Please spare us all the drama. You're constant tripe about bigotry and religious zealotry is the product of one who has no logical argument to offer. You are better than that - I've seen it. The crap you wrote above is the stuff you write when you get lazy.

[RickSp]

Then why do you insist on repeating the same old bigoted claptrap over and over as if you really had something to say? It really is tedious. Fillibustering is not debate.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Now run along, it's obvious after hundreds of pages of this that you're too stubborn to pay attention.

Actually, it is you that deserves that odious distinction.

It has become clear in your many defective assumptions about the "purpose" of marriage throughout this thread that you care not one whit about individual liberty.

I suspect you've made no effort to represent the positive aspects of same sex marriage to the conservative political wonks you work for. That would be typical of your ilk not to tell the whole story.

Luckily, the nation is slowly coming to its collective senses and are rejecting your liberty-stifling rhetoric.

[Dirty Name]

Ah, yes. Both of you ignore the substance and attack the style. Typical.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Elminister Homosexual Marriage Post number: 3590 No, you have not used the word voyeurism,specifically. You instead put forth an example that you have claimed is some kind of proof of an erotical thought process being demonstrated by Pandas/animals.

I wasn’t making a claim, I was speaking hypothetically. You made the claim and I offered up a contradictory hypothesis for you to refute (something you should have had no trouble doing if your claim was correct).

Quote by: Elminister Quote by: Elminister Do you think erotica or any other concept of the such exists in a dogs' mind or the mind of any other animal? I don't. Homosexual Marriage Post 3545, second paragraph. Is that what you are referring to when you're saying that I said I have absolute proof?

No, this is the claim of absolute proof I was referring to:

It is absolute proof that the concept of erotica has not been manifest by animals.

Quote by: Elminister I guess,then, the proof needed would be to show how such concepts have not proven themself or be displayed.

No, that would not be absolute proof; it would be strong evidence. I agree that from this, it is very safe to assume that the concept of erotica is not acted upon in the non-human animal kingdom; I’m just saying that your claim of absolute proof was wrong. It doesn’t have any bearing on the actual issue, so don’t worry; it was just a pleasant little inconsequentiality.

Quote by: Elminister I think that has got to be the most inane thing I have ever read. I am compelled to ask you for an example herein. Here.... manifest - Definitions from Dictionary.com ....may the force be with you, Luke.

readily perceived by the eye or the understanding; evident; obvious; apparent; plain:

The concept of erotica is not manifest, since it is not perceived by the eye; evident, obvious, apparent or plain to us. This does not negate the possibility that it exists in the panda’s mind.

An example? Alright. Elminister, I’m deeply, madly, head over hells in love with you. Was that evident, obvious, apparent or plain to you? No. Does that mean that I’m not secretly harbouring an undying love for you? No.

Quote by: Elminister My assertion is supported and yours has none,none at all.

My assertion is simply that your assertion cannot be proven to be correct. I believe that fact that you have not proven your assertion to be correct supports my assertion implicitly.

Quote by: Elminister Your opinion and yes it does relate to this, as expressed elsewhere about animals thoughts in regards to pain and pleasure.... If the only cognative thoughts animals can have,as you stated above, are thoughts as of what's immedeatly around them then how in the Hell can an animal have an erotical and even maybe supressed as your trying to say, conceptual thought process?Can animals compare scenarios strictly in a mental fashion or not? You need to make up your mind.

Eh…no. I think you misunderstood my post in the vegetarianism thread. My point was simply that suffering is relative to experience; not that it can’t exist. The animals raised for meat do not suffer because they have never experienced anything better than their current states and therefore don’t have the same frame of reference for suffering that humans or wild animals do.

This does not relate to the panda conditioning because the panda in question does have experience of the pleasure of erotic imagery in its mind and would therefore form the concept from this.

Quote by: Elminister What positive reinforcement? The Pandas screwing each other? So how is this supposed to show a concept as being thought of but not implemented as now your argument has turned into.

The positive reinforcement is the arousal experienced upon looking at the images of panda copulation. Looking at images of panda copulation would therefore be associated with sexual arousal, hence causing the idea of panda copulation being arousing to exist in the pandas’ minds.

Quote by: Elminister .....Dude, you were born in 1986,or so you say, just how long is a good number of years when one is only 20?

Four years. Four being a good number, years being years: A good number of years.

Quote by: Elminister They are both interwoven. Pleasure of the body and pleasure of the mind; a mind that is supported and stimulated by the body. What a concept.

Can you even remember what we were talking about? You claimed that, because female dogs mount for dominance, the males do likewise. This is not a claim you can logically make, since in the case of male mounting, another factor, the factor of physical sexual pleasure, exists. Consequently, there are two possible pleasures to be had by the male dog, and no evidence to suggest which one is the motivating factor.
___________________________________________________________

Ok, your link to the vegetarianism thread has made me realise how little any of the above actually has to do with the thread. Perhaps we should return to the issue of gay marriage.

Quote by: Elminister No, but ones sexual lifestyle is. Did you have some kind of point here by comparing a choice to a specific human race?

Gays are born into a biological minority, as are blacks. You are unwilling to disadvantage blacks as a result of their minority status, yet you support it in the case of gays.

Quote by: Elminister Who the hell is "we"? I have been asking you to show precedence since you first proped this notion of because something has been done the the black race that it should also be done for homosexuals too. Here is a newsflash for you; homosexual is not a specific human race nor is it an identifier for minority status in society, either. It's a choice.

Being attracted to members of the same sex is not a choice, as I’m sure you know. Of course acting upon this attraction is a choice, but then so is a black man acting upon his attraction to a black woman. Blacks are an ethnic minority; gays are a minority in terms of their sexual attraction. Neither of these are choices.

Quote by: Elminister Esentially I'm saying that I'm am willing to take the risk,as you proposed, for my support of black empowerment,or whatever you want to call it. What I'm also saying is that I am not willing to do so for the gay community, in support of them getting a marriage license. Are you saying this stance is not justifiable? Are you saying the gay community should get "equal shakes" as per what the black community has?

That’s exactly what I’m saying. I don’t see the difference between being born into a disadvantaged race and being born with a disadvantaged sexual preference.

Quote by: Elminister One of the requirements needed,currently, to be fullfilled for the privilege of obtaining a marriage license are indeed met by an heterosexual infertile couple. The base requirement is being that of a man or woman in opposing relation to the other party in lieu of applying for the marriage license. This is a requirement not met by homosexuals. The actual marriage license is,is the only, item the homosexual community can go after in regards to it being denied to them.

The requirement I was referring to was the ability to have children, which was the basis of your argument against gay marriage. Of course infertile couples can get married currently; that’s the problem with your argument.

Quote by: Elminister I'm going to go out on a limb and say,without doing the formal research, that there are no sanctions that can be levied against a homosexual couple should they go thru with any kind of symbolic wedding procedure and symbolically address each other as their 'spouse' and wear the wedding bands and all that rot.

Indeed, and the same goes for infertile couples and couples choosing not to have children. Why are these people allowed to enjoy the legal status of marriage, while others in the same position cannot?

Quote by: Elminister The infertile couples are not infertile by choice. You are the one sending arguments in circles,not I.

And the gay couples are not attracted to members of the same sex by choice. Neither of them are going to be having children, so why give benefits which you claim are intended for the raising of children to one couple but not the other?

And what about the fact that gays can adopt or use a surrogate to have children? Doesn’t denying gay marriage on the grounds of inability to have children fail on this level also?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name Ah, yes. Both of you ignore the substance and attack the style. Typical.

Substance? That is a sick joke. Beyond your bigotted assertions I haven't seen a single cogent argument. If you have an argument make one. Simply asserting that gays are not worthy of marriage is not argument.

[pahl]

Would someone recap the arguments for not letting homosexuals marry for me? Maybe its just me, but i could care less if they where to be able to marry. But i have to agree with those who say that it is important because if they where allowed to marry just as anyone else it would be a sign that they where execpted just as anyone else in society. And i will not support any kind of "apartheid" of any group of people.

We can, so why should they not be able to? "Im too lazy to do the paperwork"? "Its always been that way before"? Or "sorry, im just a mean guy like that"? What are the reasons?

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: RickSp The procon site claims to represent both sides of every argument, thus its name. Your claim that sexual orientation is not innate is no more supportable than the claim that it is. I think observation and common sense argues against your position as thus far so does most scientific evidence..

I get what you're saying, I think. It doesn't matter, so accept it for what it is. Don't make a deal out of nothing.

That does make sense.

[Dirty Name]

Once again, The Secular Case Against Same-Sex Marriage:


Homosexual couples should not be recognized as the legal equivalent of heterosexual couples because the two entities are not literally equal in terms of both benefits to society and in terms of hardships faced by each.

Consider: Same sex couples do not experience the challenges of pregnancy and childbirth on equal terms with opposite sex couples, and they do not contribute well-adjusted children to society on equal terms.

Our government / society, recognizing that same-sex couples can still be parents and face similar parenting hardships, attempts to mitigate those hardships via Child Tax Credits, Dependent Child Credits, Adoption Tax Credits, etc. All of which are EQUALLY available to gay and straight alike, and regardless of marital status.

Thus, this argument is NOT about encouraging procreation and parenthood among straight couples only. Rather, the argument focuses primarily on the distinct differences between an opposite-sex couple and a same-sex couple - namely, the potential for pregnancy and childbirth, and the relationship between the couple and society once that happens.

It is important to remember that gays are not arguing for the freedom to marry (which they already have), but are actually arguing that their marriages be valued and recognized in the exact same way that heterosexual marriages are valued and recognized.

Regardless of the religious origins of marriage, our society now has no religious requirement for marriage - it is completely secular in that regard, and so, the legal recognition of marriage is not for religious reasons anymore.

Thus, the legal recognition of marriage by our modern society is primarily to encourage potentially procreative couples to form a long-term relationship.

Long-term relationships among potentially procreative couples are the basis for:

1) A stable, healthy child-rearing environment

2) Stable, long term financial and medical support (think: retirement age) for females who sacrifice their careers and health to raise well-adjusted children.

Same-sex relationships are not potentially procreative, they do not have equal legal, financial and health needs as opposite sex couples, and thus, should not be treated on an equal basis as opposite-sex relationships.

[Dirty Name]

Recognizing that someone will inevitably try to point out that not all opposite sex couples are fertile (because that's always the direction this goes):

How then, do you propose to identify infertile couples? The answer is that you must either rely on the couple to be honest, test them, or otherwise invade their medical privacy.

But even that ignores the second issue in my previous post - what if a fertile couple doesn't get pregnant, even if the woman sacrifices a potentially lucrative career in order to prepare a good home for child rearing? Is there nothing to be said for that?

[RickSp]

It should be no one's business whether a man or a woman has children or not. We do not need the government snooping in bedrooms, encouraging or discouraging fertility. The best recent examples of each are the Nazi government's programs to encourage Aryan fertility and the Chinese government's recent efforts to limit fertility. The implications and outcomes of each are equally repugnant, as is using the argument to justify denying basic fairness to gay people.

Of course the fertility argument could also be applied to lesbian couples who choose to be inseminated. Somehow I doubt that those who oppose gay marriage would be pleased with allowing lesbians to get married if and when they get pregnant and raise children.

The fertility argument is a silly smokescreen, a justification built after the conclusion has already been reached.

[Jack]

How then, do you propose to identify infertile couples?

As was suggested earlier, you don't need to. Just no marriage license until children are born. Everything else is a civil union.

[Dirty Name]

The fertility argument is a silly smokescreen, a justification built after the conclusion has already been reached.

What? It's the opposition that raises the issue of fertility, not me. It's irrelevant in my argument. Thanks for agreeing with me.

[Dirty Name]

As was suggested earlier, you don't need to. Just no marriage license until children are born. Everything else is a civil union.

One of you says fertility is irrelevant, the other says it's required to be married. When you guys get your argument(s) straight, let me know.