Homosexual Marriage

[italiangm]

Quote by: Elminister Homosexual Marriage I thought I would grab ahold of this first and explain why your veiw as expressed here is opportunistically biased and really nothing more. You say that because people enjoy anal penetration sex then that must be proof positive that it is natural and what the systems in discussion are supposed to or even an implicated purpose in relation to use of.

No. My point is that you assign a single purpose to the colon, rectum and parts located therein, yet there is irrefutable evidence that the prostate, for example, provides an immense amount of pleasure to males when rubbed. Hetero sex simply will not offer that pleasure unless one of the partners inserts a digit or other stimulating device into the rectum. Period. End of story. Just because folks defecate from these body parts does not support your 'single purpose' assertion. The only 'point blank' is the shot that blows your assertion all to bits. It is merely your opinion, not fact.

Quote by: Elminister Homosexuality is a biological dead end. Let's get hypothetical for a moment. Let's say we have fifty homosexual couples <men/women> in their mid-twenties and could somehow isolate them from the rest of society but still have all the needed suplies to support life for say one-hundred years. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that when after the time stated has passed there would be nothing left in this hypothetical scenario but 100 skeletal corpses....=dead end. This does not support homosexuality existing as a biologic.

Your thought experiment proves nothing, since that's not the way real life operates. You fail to understand that homosexual behavior also serves non-conceptive functions that aid in resource competition and in cooperative defense. Thus, homosexual behavior is considered a positive selection. Homosexual behavior is a SURVIVAL strategy, NOT a reproductive strategy.

The same survival-based homosexual behavior pattern is observed throughout the animal kingdom, including primates, our closest relatives.

Quote by: Elminister Your saying that, evolutionary speaking which directly conflicts with "individual selection", homosexuality existing throughout time and homosexuality existing throughout time is a give and take conscious/unconscious decision made by homosexuals to help continue the species? I understand you have said "if" so I'm going to entertain this for what it is, a theory. This does not support homosexuality existing as a biologic.

In case you missed it, read the section above. If you don't get it, I can only suggest you discuss the matter with those who observe the same patterns in the animal kingdom.

Quote by: Elminister First off you are talking about homosexual behaviour as a societal operand happening AT LEAST eleven thousand years ago and or more. I have to ask for both proof of and proof of recognition of homosexuality by society, as it was, as being something that was going to help "them" continue on.

Well, it's quite evident your so-called 'biological dead-end' philosophy falls flat on its face based on the fact that homosexuality has persisted all that time.

Quote by: Elminister Hetero behavior can serve non-concepting functions in a specific demograph but this function is neither the common or at all explicit. Your whole stance here is based on the discounting of friendship or any sort comradery existing beyond homo/hetero relationships within a species. Essentially your saying homosexuality does/has only served the individual(s) and I agree. Defense and or resource management does not neccessitate an absolute need for any kind of pairing bond.

There is no "can" about it. Observation tells you it *does* all these things I assert.

Your job, if you think you can manage it, is to prove that my assertion is faulty. I know you can't, because you'll find no data to support such a thesis. It's all just merely your opinion.

Quote by: Elminister Two things here; your saying that homo males are more creative than hetero males. I don't think thats true and also essentialy your saying "they"<the meek> are inheriting thier place due to the design of a scenario. "The meek shall inherit the Earth"....and people try to call me some kind of preacher, at any rate.How is the explicit help of homosexuality as it exists in human society helping said society and what sacrifices have you made in behest of your choice in lifestyle. We all know your not happy with the sacrifice in relation to your lifestyle choice in lieu of a marriage license.

I have no idea what orifice you pulled your "meek inheritance" nonsense from.

Quote by: Elminister This sounds like a degenerative problem to me. This proposal of yours would have also existed eleven thousand years ago as well and we all know that mortality rates among humans were much higher then and even only two hundred years ago. Essentially death would prompt the breeding of increasing numbers of homosexuals and you say that this is some sort of biological assurance of survival?

Several recent studies of homosexual males show that they often think/sense in a manner similar to females. These nurturing qualities were developed in response to population degeneration. I'd go as far as to say the combination of male and female qualities represents a significant part of the 'engine' that helped drive human survival.

Quote by: Elminister Actually and I'm not implying that homosexuality is such, a shift in hormones is what causes a great many types of birth/developmental defects in children. Your essentially picking and choosing and reconstituting process and speific diagnosis to suit your choice in lifestyle and argument, as it is here.

No more than you picking and choosing what functions you think organs located in the rectum serve. Besides, the hormone shift isn't a defect. You only assume it's a defect because it satisfies your vision of what homosexuality represents. I say the hormone shift is part of a set of biologic instructions that were evolutionarily developed for survival.

Quote by: Elminister This here really only refers to the effeminate homo males and not all homo human males are. This is not conclusive and does not support homosexuality as an evolutionary biologic.

For you to link 'nurturing' with 'effeminate' says a lot about your lack of understanding of human behavior. But I must say that reading what you think that link means was worth the chuckle. :)

[Mozart1220]

What amazes me is the depth homophobes go to to rationalize their blatent bigotry. Like back ing the slavery days, whites had all kinds of reasons why the Negro couldn't exist or survive unless white people "took care" of them, or that Blacks were animals and therefore not worthy of "human" rights".

We know better now don't we?

[Dirty Name]

Straw man. I didn't say anything about homosexual lifestyle, I said homosexual marriage.

Puh-lease. Lifestyle encompasses marriage, dude. Further, legal recognition of "marriage" doesn't cause the problems you listed and you know it. It's the LIFESTYLE - regardless of marital status - that enables the issues you brought up. So don't hide behind tiny differences in words - you don't get points in this debate for that - focus on the substance of the argument.

What other "non traditional" marraige tuypes are you suggesting?

Please read this carefully. Homosexuality is legal. Homosexuality will be legal whether gays get the right to marry or not.

Polygamy is legal, too. But claiming benefits for two spouses is not. Having sex with your sibling, and even your own child (as long as they are adults) is legal in many states. In light of Lawrence v. Texas (a pretty popular citation by my opponents here on Volconvo), I would argue that virtually any sexual activity between consenting adults is legal.

So tell me again how you differentiate homosexuality from polygamy and incest?

[Dirty Name]

What amazes me is the depth homophobes go to to rationalize their blatent bigotry. Like back ing the slavery days, whites had all kinds of reasons why the Negro couldn't exist or survive unless white people "took care" of them, or that Blacks were animals and therefore not worthy of "human" rights".

What amazes me is the level of ignorance displayed toward the opposition argument, and the propensity for liberals to continually demonize those arguments while acting as though they have used logic.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Dirty Name Puh-lease. Lifestyle encompasses marriage, dude. Further, legal recognition of "marriage" doesn't cause the problems you listed and you know it. It's the LIFESTYLE - regardless of marital status - that enables the issues you brought up. So don't hide behind tiny differences in words - you don't get points in this debate for that - focus on the substance of the argument.

My point is simply that the homosexual lifestyle will be around whether gay marriage is legal or not. So permitting marriage wouldn't produce any harm to society that's not already there.

Quote by: Dirty Polygamy is legal, too. But claiming benefits for two spouses is not. Having sex with your sibling, and even your own child (as long as they are adults) is legal in many states. In light of Lawrence v. Texas (a pretty popular citation by my opponents here on Volconvo), I would argue that virtually any sexual activity between consenting adults is legal. So tell me again how you differentiate homosexuality from polygamy and incest?

Interesting argument. I only wish you had a source to back it up. I looked up Lawrence vs. Texas but didn't see any cases where it was used as a precedent to permit legally binding marriage. I also see that there are some loopholes in some state incest laws that the majority of our society would consider in need of closing:

The double standards are not always unintended, however. Last year a California Supreme Court case (People v. Wutzke, SO92179) caused controversy over a 1981 law that expressly allows probation in child sexual abuse cases if the perpetrator is a family member. The Recorder, a California legal newspaper, editorialized during the trial that the law "should rank high in a legal Hall of Shame."

Homosexuality is not technically legal according to theoretic practical law or loopholes. It's fully legal and accepted by an overwhelming majority. Polygamy and incest aren't.

[fushigi]

(This is a side note - just to show you I have an open mind to your argument and I'm not just blindly arguing out of some personal agenda.)

I will admit that you are certainly correct on one point, Dirty. Note that even in this Volconvo poll over 40% of users voted that gay marriage is "a civil rights issue. Anyone should be able to marry anyone." (emphasis added) I wonder how many users were quick enough to pick up the logical fallacy - supporting gay marriage does not mean supporting "anyone marrying anyone" - that truly would permit incest and polygamy.

So you're right. If gay marriage laws were allowed, they'd have to be very specific in order to prevent P&I.

[Dirty Name]

Homosexuality is not technically legal according to theoretic practical law or loopholes. It's fully legal and accepted by an overwhelming majority. Polygamy and incest aren't.

This argument holds no water...it's been shot full of holes repeatedly. How many times do I have to say this: Look at recent history on this subject. Every time you bring up a point relating to the history and/or legality of homosexuality, it does NOTHING except shine a spotlight on the the next two obvious candidates (polygamy and then incest) that will logically follow in the legal trail blazed by the gay rights movement.

So you're right. If gay marriage laws were allowed, they'd have to be very specific in order to prevent P&I.

This is where you're going to start catching flak from your own side. Many gay rights people simply say anyone should be allowed to marry anyone.

That is the real quandary of the gay marriage movement. If you say anyone can marry anyone, it dilutes the institution of marriage, and makes the benefits pointless. In fact, adults would be absolutely stupid not to be married under such a system.

On the flip side, if you say you will discriminate against polygamy and/or incest, you must construct an argument against these two types of unions without infringing or invoking any similarity to gay marriage.

It's a tough line to walk.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Dirty Every time you bring up a point relating to the history and/or legality of homosexuality, it does NOTHING except shine a spotlight on the the next two obvious candidates (polygamy and then incest) that will logically follow in the legal trail blazed by the gay rights movement.

But can you really prove that one will lead to the other? Can you show me opinion polls that prove everyone who supports gay marriage also supports P&I? Or that there's even a strong correlation? If not, you really have no cause to continue putting forth this argument.

Quote by: Dirty Many gay rights people simply say anyone should be allowed to marry anyone.

You know this is a fallacious argument. They're not talking about giving people the right to practice polygamy and incest.

[jsevilla]

Homosexual marriage is not wrong because if two people are in love, then why shouldnt they be married?. That is their private life and they may do as they wish and everyone who is against that should just leave them alone because they mean no harm. They are just regular people.

[Dirty Name]

Can you show me opinion polls that prove everyone who supports gay marriage also supports P&I?

Two points here. First, you already know I can use your exact same argument for gay marriage to support polygamy and incest. Where you suggest public opinion doesn't support the latter, while it does support the former, I simply point out that a few decades back, nobody supported gay marriage either.

Second, do public opinion polls really matter in a hypothetical debate about whether or not it's good for society to legally recognize various forms of marriage?

I think we can agree that public opinion changes over time, and that as a result, it's not an effective argument against polygamy and incest. At best, you're hiding behind public opinion rather than any real logical reasoning.

You know this is a fallacious argument. They're not talking about giving people the right to practice polygamy and incest.

Um, yes, they are:

Quote by: Prometheus Wait - I'm in support of gay marriage. Also plural and incestuous marriage. Families need les and less legal recognition. With so many divorces and pre-marital pregnancies, parenthood is no longer defined by marital bonds. It is defined by a DNA test. Parenthood has superceeded marriage for years.

Or here's the link to his original post: Homosexual Marriage

There are plenty of others who have made similar arguments in this thread, I just don't want to go hunting for them right now.

[Jack]

On the flip side, if you say you will discriminate against polygamy and/or incest, you must construct an argument against these two types of unions without infringing or invoking any similarity to gay marriage.

You mean like, two adult people who love each other and want to spend their lives together, who want to be considered by society as a recognized couple with the rights and obligations other couples enjoy?

The only argument most gays have with the commonly accepted concept of marriage is the restriction on the sex of the partners. Most still consider it the union of two people.

[Dirty Name]

Homosexual marriage is not wrong because if two people are in love, then why shouldnt they be married?

Because, among other things, that opens the door for a variety of other types of unions that I'm not so sure you'd be willing to accept.

[Dirty Name]

You mean like, two adult people who love each other and want to spend their lives together, who want to be considered by society as a recognized couple with the rights and obligations other couples enjoy?

How does that argument restrict polygamy and incest? Sorry, you lost me.

[Jack]

Two...the key was the word two. There's no logical or medical reason to prevent two related adults from marrying. Our incest laws are partly enacted to prevent reproduction from related partners due to medical concerns and partly due to the influence of religion in our legal system. For medical reasons incest may have to be controlled as it relates to reproduction, but if two related people were as non-reproductive as a gay couple, what other objection could there be to their marrying except the religious one?

[kenarigirl]

I feel that homosexuals should be allowed to get married. They're human being just like heterosexual people. Everyone brings up the issue that homosexual marriage is immoral, but there is a seperation between church and state. The government of the United States is dead wrong, they should not have a say over gay marriage.

[Dirty Name]

Welcome aboard, Kenarigirl. Using your logic, any two human beings should be allowed to get married, right?

[Jack]

Since marriage does not necessitate reproduction, why not? I haven't seen a reasonable argument for the denial of benefits, so if any two people (consenting adults) want to be considered a married couple, with all the attendant rights and responsibilities, it should be allowed. The argument over childbearing is a separate issue. Marriage is about the couple getting married.

[Dirty Name]

Two...the key was the word two.

Using your logic, two seems like a pretty arbitrary number. Why set the limit there?

For medical reasons incest may have to be controlled as it relates to reproduction, but if two related people were as non-reproductive as a gay couple, what other objection could there be to their marrying except the religious one?

I love it.

The answer goes back to my original argument - our government has no reason to regulate / incentivize relationships that don't have the potential for procreation.

Since you've stated that incest should be legal as long as reproduction is controlled, I must ask you why you think a brother and sister should also be allowed to marry and collect benefits. What is the point? Why does our government care if they claim they are in love?

My point: their relationship is irrelevant in the eyes of society since, as you've already said, they don't have the potential for procreation. Thus, if they want to boink each other, and live together for the rest of their lives, they can (though I personally believe they should be prevented from doing so and would be happy to discuss my reasons). But they surely don't deserve marital benefits and I seriously doubt you could make the case that they do.

[RULE 1]

Please Tell Me Where Did You Hear That Homosexuality Is Wrong....because You Need A Reality Check

[Dirty Name]

Since marriage does not necessitate reproduction, why not? I haven't seen a reasonable argument for the denial of benefits, so if any two people (consenting adults) want to be considered a married couple, with all the attendant rights and responsibilities, it should be allowed. The argument over childbearing is a separate issue. Marriage is about the couple getting married.

So there we have it. Fushigi says NO to "any two people," while Isherwood says YES.

The beautiful thing about my argument is that it stands up to scrutiny no matter which convoluted form of reasoning the opposition attempts to use.

The ultimate question I am posing to the people on this forum is this:

What compelling interest does the government have in recognizing any two people who claim they are in love?

If any two people can declare themselves "married" then what are we offering incentives for? It's like offering free money to people. Everyone would be "married" all the time. Divorce your wife? OK. But make sure your best friend agrees to "marry" you so you don't lose your benefits! It's absurd, and that's exactly where we would be heading under the "any two people" argument.