Homosexual Marriage

[leegao]

For the original topic of what our views on it are, I think it's subjectively wrong and socially unacceptable but still unconstitutional to be enforced through positive law.

[Tycoon]

For the original topic of what our views on it are, I think it's subjectively wrong and socially unacceptable but still unconstitutional to be enforced through positive law.

Okay, first of all... something cannot be subjectively wrong or subjectively right. If you take an issue like homosexual marriage then to me it is subjectively right but to you it is subjectively wrong, and thus it really is neither and both.

So are you saying that your opinion is that it is wrong? And if so why?

Second of all, why would you think it should be socially unacceptable? The myth that people will turn homosexual just from contact with open homosexuality is just that, a myth, spread through ignorance. Thus, the best thing to happen would be for homosexuality to be socially accepted and tolerated.

A recent statistic showed that about 26% of gay teenagers who come out to their parents are kicked out of their house and disowned. Do you think that should be socially acceptable?

Last of all... I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you trying to say it is unconstitutional to deny gay marriage, or are you trying to say it would be unconstitutional to recognize it?

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Tycoon Okay, first of all... something cannot be subjectively wrong or subjectively right. If you take an issue like homosexual marriage then to me it is subjectively right but to you it is subjectively wrong, and thus it really is neither and both. So are you saying that your opinion is that it is wrong? And if so why? Second of all, why would you think it should be socially unacceptable? The myth that people will turn homosexual just from contact with open homosexuality is just that, a myth, spread through ignorance. Thus, the best thing to happen would be for homosexuality to be socially accepted and tolerated. A recent statistic showed that about 26% of gay teenagers who come out to their parents are kicked out of their house and disowned. Do you think that should be socially acceptable? Last of all... I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you trying to say it is unconstitutional to deny gay marriage, or are you trying to say it would be unconstitutional to recognize it?

Seems like parents who kick out "teenagers" might have "other" reasons for kicking them out, and the gay issue might just be one of them. Were these teenagers 18 yrs of age as a rule? That's legal age, and some may have gone off to college or wanted to move out anyway. Gays may be more independant. I'm not sure I can totally believe the 26% thing. That's a lot of parents, and parents generally love their kids no matter what. They might be disappointed, but they'll get over it.

[leegao]

Quote by: Tycoon Okay, first of all... something cannot be subjectively wrong or subjectively right. If you take an issue like homosexual marriage then to me it is subjectively right but to you it is subjectively wrong, and thus it really is neither and both.

Isn't subjectivity an individualist notion? If something is subjective it's relative, and thus can not be mutually excluded. (So yes it could be both, but not neither)

So are you saying that your opinion is that it is wrong? And if so why?

Ok, first of all I'm going to lay down this premise.
This is my opinion which is of course subjective. If you disagree then it's fine, but don't turn up facts proving how other people feel about this issue... (Original topic did ask us for our thoughts)

Anyways, I just feel weird when I see gay couples hold hands and stuff... Which then extends to why I don't exactly think a gay marriage would be the party to go to for me.

Second of all, why would you think it should be socially unacceptable? The myth that people will turn homosexual just from contact with open homosexuality is just that, a myth, spread through ignorance. Thus, the best thing to happen would be for homosexuality to be socially accepted and tolerated.

This however isn't stated in a subjective manner. I don't believe people SHOULD be unaccepting of homosexual couples (thus the criteria to go to their wedding) which also includes me (Sorry for the bit of hypocrisy here) but like I said before, generally people feels sort of weird out when they see homosexual couples holding hands and what-not.

Also, yes I know that the majority of homosexual couples are more intimate in their display of emotions, people would converse with them as if nothing's wrong until when they get the hint that the people they are talking to are gay.

A recent statistic showed that about 26% of gay teenagers who come out to their parents are kicked out of their house and disowned. Do you think that should be socially acceptable?

Sorry for the confusion in my original post, I won't rebut this since I know it was mostly my fault.

Last of all... I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you trying to say it is unconstitutional to deny gay marriage, or are you trying to say it would be unconstitutional to recognize it?

The brightline you're giving me here is a bit too narrow. What I'm saying transcends both denial and recognition.

Basically I don't think the government should be involved in this issue at all. It's not exactly an issue that have potential harm for the society. (If you are going to say that children who are raised up by homosexual couples are more anti-social, there's a better fix for that then disallowing homosexual marriages) and it would also raise many speculations which may not be true, as well as the fact that it's more of an individual problem rather than a societal problem (Homosexuality as a whole is societal, homosexual marriages are not) and I'm guessing would therefore spark a few rather heated protests.

[Tycoon]

Seems like parents who kick out "teenagers" might have "other" reasons for kicking them out, and the gay issue might just be one of them. Were these teenagers 18 yrs of age as a rule? That's legal age, and some may have gone off to college or wanted to move out anyway. Gays may be more independant. I'm not sure I can totally believe the 26% thing. That's a lot of parents, and parents generally love their kids no matter what. They might be disappointed, but they'll get over it.

I meant 26% of teenagers were kicked out when they came out. You might simply not have heard the statistic before, but it is the truth. A speaker came to my school once to talk about how he was kicked out when he was our age and then spent four years of his life living out of cardboard boxes and getting beaten up by gangs.

[Tycoon]

Isn't subjectivity an individualist notion? If something is subjective it's relative, and thus can not be mutually excluded. (So yes it could be both, but not neither)

When you look at something subjectively you can come up with two answers, but in truth they can't both be correct. For example I might think Dr.Pepper is the best soda and you might like Sprite the most. But the truth is that whatever soda sells the most is the best soda as it is best fulfilling its purpose.

Anyways, I just feel weird when I see gay couples hold hands and stuff... Which then extends to why I don't exactly think a gay marriage would be the party to go to for me.

Then your opinion is quite simply based on squeamishness. If you avoid gays just because you can't understand what it is to be gay or at least accept that we are who we are then I doubt you would be invited to a gay marriage in the first place.

This however isn't stated in a subjective manner. I don't believe people SHOULD be unaccepting of homosexual couples (thus the criteria to go to their wedding) which also includes me (Sorry for the bit of hypocrisy here) but like I said before, generally people feels sort of weird out when they see homosexual couples holding hands and what-not.

So you are saying that we should try to make something taboo just because other people feel it is wierd? Do you honestly think that we care if what we do makes you feel wierd? It's not our fault if you can't be open-minded. Even if you don't understand what it is then you should at least accept it as it is fairly obvious that we are perfectly happy being who we are.

Also, yes I know that the majority of homosexual couples are more intimate in their display of emotions, people would converse with them as if nothing's wrong until when they get the hint that the people they are talking to are gay.

I see, so the punch-line of your position is that we should promote intolerance over tolerance and ignorance over acceptance.

Basically I don't think the government should be involved in this issue at all. It's not exactly an issue that have potential harm for the society. (If you are going to say that children who are raised up by homosexual couples are more anti-social, there's a better fix for that then disallowing homosexual marriages) and it would also raise many speculations which may not be true, as well as the fact that it's more of an individual problem rather than a societal problem (Homosexuality as a whole is societal, homosexual marriages are not) and I'm guessing would therefore spark a few rather heated protests.

For the government not to be involved at all would be the same thing as allowing it. If everybody else is allowed to marry then the default position is to allow gay marriage.

Homosexuality has never been a problem, the real problem is the individuals who cannot accept it. It is that which needs to be dealt with - something that is obvious when any parent would throw out their child simply because of something entirely beyond the child's control.

[ShadowFox]

YouTube - Garden Wedding - Let California Ring (For Gay Human Rights)

A commercial being run here in CA.

[leegao]

Going only for the points which makes impact.

Quote by: Tycoon Then your opinion is quite simply based on squeamishness. If you avoid gays just because you can't understand what it is to be gay or at least accept that we are who we are then I doubt you would be invited to a gay marriage in the first place.

Which would then work out wonderfully since there is reciprocating avoidance of both sides.

Of course this overview would also apply universally to most of the rest of the population. I doubt taken from reactions from the past that Americans are not very accepting of Gay marriages unless they are their personal friends (Yes, I do know a Gay couple and I have absolutely nothing against them)

So you are saying that we should try to make something taboo just because other people feel it is wierd? Do you honestly think that we care if what we do makes you feel wierd? It's not our fault if you can't be open-minded. Even if you don't understand what it is then you should at least accept it as it is fairly obvious that we are perfectly happy being who we are.

Totally irrelevant, you are voluntarily disregarding what I'm saying. Never did I say a society should do something. The use of subjunctive tense in your response pretty much undermines the whole debate.

No, America should never make Homosexual marriages taboo based on individual or collective feelings towards it.

No, America doesn't make Homosexual marriages taboo (As much as it used to).

Yes, America does still have biased views against Homosexuals.

If you refuse to accept this observation then it's voluntary ignorance and there's nothing I can contend upon.

For the government not to be involved at all would be the same thing as allowing it. If everybody else is allowed to marry then the default position is to allow gay marriage.

There's a subtle difference between action-through-inaction and action itself. While the ends might be the same, the means are entirely different. See Categorical Imperatives.

Homosexuality has never been a problem, the real problem is the individuals who cannot accept it. It is that which needs to be dealt with - something that is obvious when any parent would throw out their child simply because of something entirely beyond the child's control.

I'll need a definition of Accept for this.

I think we might have a misconception here, I'll give you an example to clear it up.

1. I do feel weird-out when I see gay couples kissing
2. I do have a girl who is a lesbian for a really really good friend
3. I am still weird out when she kisses her gf.
4. I don't mind if I'm talking with another gay guy
5. I do mind if someone just grabs my hand and try to hold it... (happened before)

Which is why I wanted a definition of what you mean by accept to see where we each are.

[Tycoon]

Leegao, I just don't understand what point you're trying to make here. I'm just finding it hard to put my thoughts into words.

The point I'm trying to make is that a friend is a friend, regardless of orientation. A colleague is a colleague, regardless of orientation. You can hold the opinion that a different orientation is wierd, but you should still understand that it isn't to other people. Orientation should not change society's view of a person in regards to law and acceptance. It should also not change an individuals view of a person in regards to law and acceptance. If you think it's wierd, fine. It's their business, not yours.

[leegao]

Let me rephrase my views.

I don't believe it is fair for society as a whole to treat homosexual couples discriminately, but that doesn't mean I myself don't find homosexuality a bit... weird. This doesn't mean I will go out there and hold a sign that says "God Hates Gays" or anything like that, it's something that I feel but won't act towards, and many of my friends share my feelings as well.

PS: I do know some gay people including one couple and they are great people, that still doesn't qualm the weird-ness I feel when they start kissing and stuff.

I know what I've just said may sound a bit hypocritical, and I'll admit it, it probably is, but I won't lie about it because it's just the way I am, and many of my friends as well, and while we don't exactly like to discriminate this way, it's sort of an unconscious act.

Regarding the positive law however, I really don't believe that this would even fall under their jurisdiction at all.

[Tycoon]

I don't believe it is fair for society as a whole to treat homosexual couples discriminately, but that doesn't mean I myself don't find homosexuality a bit... weird. This doesn't mean I will go out there and hold a sign that says "God Hates Gays" or anything like that, it's something that I feel but won't act towards, and many of my friends share my feelings as well.

Okay, and obviously that's normal. To feel that homosexuality is strange is just a natural response in your brain that occurs because you yourself are heterosexual.

I know what I've just said may sound a bit hypocritical, and I'll admit it, it probably is, but I won't lie about it because it's just the way I am, and many of my friends as well, and while we don't exactly like to discriminate this way, it's sort of an unconscious act.

What some people might consider to be an unconscious act may not really be so. While you might look at a homosexual couple kissing as strange, you could easily change your perspective to see two people happily in love.

Regarding the positive law however, I really don't believe that this would even fall under their jurisdiction at all.

I think what you're trying to say is that the government should take no position whatsoever on homosexual marriage. That, in and of itself, is taking a position. If the government is to take that position then it must take the same position for heterosexual marriage in order to avoid discrimination.

[leegao]

What some people might consider to be an unconscious act may not really be so. While you might look at a homosexual couple kissing as strange, you could easily change your perspective to see two people happily in love.

I actually do see both sides, but the squeamish side of me is still always there nagging at me

I think what you're trying to say is that the government should take no position whatsoever on homosexual marriage. That, in and of itself, is taking a position. If the government is to take that position then it must take the same position for heterosexual marriage in order to avoid discrimination.

The means of taking the action is irrelevant of the end therefore it's not true amnesty. While inaction itself is not amnesty, it doesn't feel as hypocritical as otherwise.

[Tycoon]

I actually do see both sides, but the squeamish side of me is still always there nagging at me

Well I think you could easily abolish it with a little bit of self-control.

The means of taking the action is irrelevant of the end therefore it's not true amnesty. While inaction itself is not amnesty, it doesn't feel as hypocritical as otherwise.

What does it matter whether or not it feels hypocritical? It still is. It's still wrong. It's still discriminatory.

[leegao]

I'm under the assumption that the ends of inaction and the ends of taking affirmative action towards homosexual marriages were the same

[Tycoon]

I'm under the assumption that the ends of inaction and the ends of taking affirmative action towards homosexual marriages were the same

Where do you get that idea? To allow homosexual marriage would require that the government provide the same benefits and recognitions that a heterosexual marriage is granted, and that requires action.

If the government were to completely ignore homosexual marriage then it would exist only by name, and would not be recognized or granted the same benefits as a heterosexual marriage.

That would be discrimination, so action needs to be taken one way, or the other. The government needs to either regonize homosexual marriages (action) or stop recognizing heterosexual marriages (action).

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Tyke That would be discrimination, so action needs to be taken one way, or the other. The government needs to either regonize homosexual marriages (action) or stop recognizing heterosexual marriages (action).

Can you think of any justification for the government to do the former rather than the latter?

[Tycoon]

Can you think of any justification for the government to do the former rather than the latter?

There are, no doubt, reasons why the government provides benefits for married couples, but that is a different topic and I suggest you make a different thread if you want to discuss their validity.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Tyke There are, no doubt, reasons why the government provides benefits for married couples, but that is a different topic and I suggest you make a different thread if you want to discuss their validity.

I don't see why the issue of marriage itself doesn't fit into a gay marriage thread. In deciding whether gay marriage should be recognised, you must address both the gay aspect (whether gay relationships are equal to hetero) and the marriage aspect (whether marriage of any sort should be recognised). Only when both these points have been answered in the affirmative can you conclude that gay marriage should be recognised by the government.

I don't see any reason whatsoever for the government to provide benefits for married couples. If you're going to argue for gay marriage, you must defend both gays and marriage and therefore must address this objection.

[Tycoon]

I don't see why the issue of marriage itself doesn't fit into a gay marriage thread. In deciding whether gay marriage should be recognised, you must address both the gay aspect (whether gay relationships are equal to hetero) and the marriage aspect (whether marriage of any sort should be recognised). Only when both these points have been answered in the affirmative can you conclude that gay marriage should be recognised by the government. I don't see any reason whatsoever for the government to provide benefits for married couples. If you're going to argue for gay marriage, you must defend both gays and marriage and therefore must address this objection.

You want to discuss marriage in general. Whether or not marriage as a whole is recognized by the government is irrelevant to this discussion, what is relevant is whether or not homosexual marriage should be treated the same as heterosexual marriage.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Tyke You want to discuss marriage in general. Whether or not marriage as a whole is recognized by the government is irrelevant to this discussion

The thread is called Homosexual Marriage. Gay marriage is a subdivision of marriage. If marriage is not justified, it follows that gay marriage is not justified.

Quote by: Tyke what is relevant is whether or not homosexual marriage should be treated the same as heterosexual marriage.

Again, the thread is about gay marriage; not gay relationships vs. hetero relationships. It's been proved over and over again in this thread that a homosexual relationship is equal to a heterosexual relationship. However, the argument against gays is only half the debate. If it were the only thing you needed to address, the thread would be called "Homoesexuals"; not "Homosexual Marriage".

So, again, why should gay relationships be recognised by the government?