Homosexual Marriage

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto It is my arguement that it is not custom that assumes a sexual relationship, but the law itself that does.

As the law stands lack of paternity is not even grounds for getting out of child support. And people can get a no-fault divorce for pretty much no reason at all so there is not much of anything assumed by the government in marriage other than that both parties want to be married. Sexual relationships have nothing to do with marriage as it currently is dealt with by the law. It is hard to get a fault divorce because in most states all you have to do to claim a no-fault divorce is show irreconcilable differences so all it takes is one party asking for divorce even if the other party doesn't want it to qualify. In fact in the State of Florida the only grounds for a fault divorce are insanity for at least three years or "Entering into the marriage as a result of fraud, force or duress." Adultery, mental or physical cruelty, desertion, alcoholism, impotence, nonsupport, bigamy, felony, conviction/imprisonment, drug addiction ARE NOT grounds for a divorce. The law doesn't care about sexual relationships, only you Mr. Perfecto. My guess is that you are not get'n any and so you are making a big deal out of sexual relationships. Get laid. I am sure it will clear your head up.

Grounds for divorce - Florida

Starboy

[Rainbow]

Quote by: SVMc Just to note that your entire argument had been about procreation. Obviously you can no longer defend the procreation argument so you decide rather than uphold the level of the debate you will resort to insults. And, then you switch to the moral majority argument: I'm endorsing equal treatment of homosexual couples under the law. If you feel that homosexuality is a perversion you are free to think so, but that doesn't mean you are free to uphold discriminatory legislation against people.

#1
You can not blame me for your own capablity of reading and analyzing the information. The way you perceive the data, (it) is your business and only.
Insults ? :-)))
Facts stand for themselves, regardless of an approach a person may or may not take them in.
#2
Discrimination ? :-)))
That attempt as a parallel can not withstand facts, either. If "yes", then sue me.
Every Distric Attorney would take that case in.

The (simple) factor that I disagree on - among of many others :
- money
That is exactly, paying taxes for married and singles.
You have "zero" arguments to defend your position, in that matter.
Since homosexualists pay taxes as singles (now), they would be eligible and entitled to pay their taxes as couple (later).
That (most likely) would cause damages to a state's financial system, and additionally open a new gate for all others who will seek a tax relief, as well.
Example :
Soone or later, people will marry their room-mates, in order to get a tax relief and avoid paying taxes.
Who is going to pay taxes for all those people ? You ?
Go ahead. You have my all support in that matter.

Yet another issue : military services and homosexualists.
How many more issues are out there ?

The whole case does not concern homosexualists, only, but the Homo Sappiens, generally, since they are part of that species. Then, you can not separate homosexualists-made marriage as one on its own, unique, ect.

Are you aware that homosexualists-made marriage is not about "civil rights" , only ?
You and some others who support homosexualists-made marriage are either being manipulated by homosexualists society (or so), or deliberately try to portray that issue as if it concerns civili rights, only, while using the Constitution and the Law for that purpose.
That is why U.S. government wants to annex an additional amendment to the Constitution and the Law that would stop that spiral nonesense for good and prevent some other "smarties" - who wait in that line as well, in search for legalizing their yet another own "ideas", ect.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Starboy So hetero couples do not engage in anal sex? Is that your argument? Hetero couples can be even more perverted than homo couples because they have more to work with. Bigamy is another issue. Homosexuals are asking for what is already granted to hetero couples. If you want to legislate what goes on in the bedroom that is an entirely different issue than homosexual marriage. Starboy

#1
No, that is not my argument.
#2
That is an assumption.
#3
It is the Morality and Ethics issue, and it concerns all of us who belong to Homo Sappiens.
#4
That is correct, but homosexualists are not "hetero".
#5
What goes in my home, (it) is my business, as long as informations remain within my home. However, leaving that home I must obey the rules we all carry on our shoulders.
Otherwise, chaos rules.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Rainbow Quote by: Starboy So hetero couples do not engage in anal sex? Is that your argument? #1 No, that is not my argument.

It looks like your argument because you appear to be saying that hetero sex is wholesome just because a hetro couple is doing it but homo sex as unwholesome just because a same sex couple is doing it and yet there is nothing stopping a hetero couple from doing the same kind of sex as a homo couple.

Quote by: Rainbow Quote by: Starboy Hetero couples can be even more perverted than homo couples because they have more to work with. #2 That is an assumption.

This explains a lot. You must not have much experience of the world. A hetero couple has more possibilities for different kinds of sex because they have more to work with. So hetero couples can be even more perverted than homo couples because they have more to work with.

Quote by: Rainbow Quote by: Starboy Bigamy is another issue. #3 It is the Morality and Ethics issue, and it concerns all of us who belong to Homo Sappiens.

I agree. It is just that I also see the rights of people to practice their own traditions as being one of those moral and ethical issues. I see people who demand that everyone conform to their tradition when they are already free to practice their traditions as being immoral and unethical.

Quote by: Rainbow Quote by: Starboy Homosexuals are asking for what is already granted to hetero couples. That is correct, but homosexualists are not "hetero".

So? The issue is not black and white, male or female, Hindu or atheist. The government should not see those as differences. It is none of the governments business. Homos or heteros are both Americans, it is the same government for both and it must not discriminate between the two. If a hetero couple can get a marriage license then a homo couple can get one. Otherwise you are advocating different treatment from the government based on sexual preference. You are requiring that the government make a distinction and provide different treatment to people based on their sexual preference. If you want to make that precedent then we now put ourselves in the position where the government cares about the sexual activities of not just homos but heteros because heteros can be just a "perverted" if not more so than homos.

Quote by: Rainbow Quote by: Starboy If you want to legislate what goes on in the bedroom that is an entirely different issue than homosexual marriage. #5 What goes in my home, (it) is my business, as long as informations remain within my home. However, leaving that home I must obey the rules we all carry on our shoulders. Otherwise, chaos rules.

Then why in the world to you want to make the relations between people in their own homes the governments business at all. Don't you realize that having the government discriminate based on sexual preference that is exactly what you are doing?

Starboy

[MotherJones]

While I don't believe that "anybody" should be able to marry "anybody", I do believe that homosexuals should be able to marry other homosexuals.

After all, homosexuals are marrying heterosexuals every day, just as heterosexuals are marrying other heterosexuals everyday, and I would imagine quite a few asexuals get married too.

The point is, the laws of marriage give certain benefits that just living together doesn't. And, a marriage is after all a "celebration" of love. If the fundies get their backs up over the word marriage, I really don't care.....it's a flippin' word, it doesn't belong to only the Christian right.
...If my doxies wanted to marry, I wouldn't care.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Starboy you are advocating different treatment from the government based on sexual preference.

No, based on gender and the definition of marriage.

[Starboy]

Quote by: PatrickHenry No, based on gender and the definition of marriage.

Since when is the government supposed to discriminate based on gender? Especially for a license that is issued to both sexes? Why does the government need to match people up like salt and pepper shakers? And why would you want the government to be involved in sexual issues? What purpose does is serve other than to uphold the traditions of a particular group? Since when is it the governments job to favor the traditions of one group over another?

Congratulations, as far as I can tell you have started the largest thread on Volconvo.

Starboy

[PatrickHenry]

Like I said previously, Starboy, I don't favor the gov granting licenses for marriage. I don't think people should be favored or disfavored by reason of their marital status. In fact, I would allow that people can call themselves married WITHOUT a license. And I am relatively certain that some homosexual couples do call their union a marriage. It doesn't make it so, to traditionalists like me who resist the redefinition of a traditional concept by a minority. But as a general rule, I resist government authority in most areas of social life, where it is unnecessary and IMO, counterproductive. If I meet a homo couple who tells me they are married, I smile and greet them warmly, but my soul is saying, "Not in the way I think of marriage." But I wish them no harm and would like the government to treat all citizens alike, regardless of marital status, whether a hetero marriage, a homosexual one or the unmarried. I am not a bigot.

the largest thread on Volconvo

Heh. Amazing ain't it, that we windbags have so much to say? I just wanted a look at how the folks here think on a relatively minor issue. And look what they went and said...

[Starboy]

Patrick, if things were as you wish there would not be an issue and I do not expect you would have started the largest thread on Volconvo, at least as this thread. The issue as it stands is the country is moving to make it the governments business and for the government to be in the business of matching people up like salt and pepper shakers.

Starboy

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Starboy It looks like your argument because you appear to be saying that hetero sex is wholesome just because a hetro couple is doing it but homo sex as unwholesome just because a same sex couple is doing it and yet there is nothing stopping a hetero couple from doing the same kind of sex as a homo couple. This explains a lot. You must not have much experience of the world. A hetero couple has more possibilities for different kinds of sex because they have more to work with. So hetero couples can be even more perverted than homo couples because they have more to work with. The government should not see those as differences. It is none of the governments business. Then why in the world to you want to make the relations between people in their own homes the governments business at all. Don't you realize that having the government discriminate based on sexual preference that is exactly what you are doing? Starboy

Off Topic
#1, #2
Nobel for you :-)))

On Topic
#3
The point is, that people have elected that government, and that government rules.
#4
People do whatever they have a desire for. However, they need to obey rules and regulations, as we have to comply with while being present on the "Volcanvo" forum.

I do not care what people do, unless it does concern my family.
What a government does - with a reference to homosexualists ?
A governement does not want to legalize homosexualists-made marriage, and as a matter of fact a government wants to set strict rules to acceptable forms of marriages.

"Sexual preference" ? Is not that called : sexual pervertion ? since we mean a sexual intercourse between the same gender ?
That is a significant and fundamental difference, that separates "hetero" from others, regardless of their sex activity.

There are appx. 5% people born with DNA failure. There are real homosexualists among them. The rest of homosexualists try to use that fact as a base for their sexual activity, while real homosexualists experience problems on their own.
The reasons ?
Variety of reasons, from "A" to "Z", while real homosexualists have not much of a choice, when it comes to sexual activity. That is yet another issue within this topic.
I hope you have an access to medical reports and/or records that concern homosexualists. That would give you an additional glipme that would change your way of thinking with a reference to homosexulaists and their activities.
Most cases concern the fundamental issue :
- parents and/or guardian key role while upbringing a child.

Drop your previous "developements" - with concern to points #1, #2 - since it looks you may experience problems with the information I have submitted, please.
Here, it is a simple data (and I hope you would get it, this time) :
- I do not care what others-than "hetero couples" do, but : no marriage licence for them.

Why ?
Because they are not "hetero", since this world is all about "hetero". Otherwise, this world does not exist, and you could be included into it.

Is not your fundamental credo - and many others on "Volcanvo" forum, at least, and around the globe, that "majority" rules (regardless whether that "majority" is correct) ?
So, I apply that "democractic rule", and state that "hetero couples" rule, since they are majority.

(Hint - with concern to my post :
- I provide variety of informations that homosexualists-made marriage is not the civil rights issue, only.
We can expand this topic to the next 100 pages, if we want to cover basic issues with concern to homosexualists-made marriage and/or a licence for them).

P.S.
Why should I explain to you basics for this world's existance ?

Quote by: PatrickHenry In fact, I would allow that people can call themselves married WITHOUT a license.

I agree on that issue.

[Logjam]

The homosexual marriage question is not about marriage. It is, rather an attempt for homosexuals to gain acceptability. They want their sexuality to be perceived and accepted as normal, healthy and simply an alternative to heterosexuality.

The problem is that it is not. Homosexuality is neither "normal" or healthy. It is an aberation, and should be considered as such. We must accept homosexuality, because we are a free society, but we do not have to encourage or condone it. Accepting homosexuality marriage will do both.

[Matt W]

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Have you read any of this thread, Logjam? Or are you just recycling what's been before?

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Logjam The homosexual marriage question is not about marriage. It is, rather an attempt for homosexuals to gain acceptability. They want their sexuality to be perceived and accepted as normal, healthy and simply an alternative to heterosexuality. The problem is that it is not. Homosexuality is neither "normal" or healthy. It is an aberation, and should be considered as such. We must accept homosexuality, because we are a free society, but we do not have to encourage or condone it. Accepting homosexuality marriage will do both.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't work. Old men marry very young women. Is that "accepted" by society? Not really. Faiths intermingle. Perfectly legal. Accepted? Not really. Society, collectively and individually, decides what is "normal, healthy." What is considered an "aberation" is decided the same way. Does making something legal condone it? Only if you wish to make the connection yourself. There is no natural connection, unless of course if we lived in a theocracy. That's a different story.

[SVMc]

Mr. Perfecto -

Attempting a quick summary. Your position = marriage as a legal institution is primarily about the legislations of a sexual relationship.

Is that correct? If no ignore the rest of my post.

If yes,

Even if the law does recognize the sexual relationship implicit in marriage, it also recognizes the other factors (kinship, spousal privledge etc...). In which case I still can't see a reason why the law has or should have the ability to distinguish between types of sexual relationship as long as they do not violate criminal laws and have no harm involved and are consentual.

[SVMc]

Rainbow - the word is "homosexual" there is no such word as "homosexualist"

Moving on,

Simply because you see homosexual sex as a perversion doesn't mean that it needs to be illegal or restricted by marraige laws. Your view of homosexual sex is a personal opinion, just like mine that I see nothing wrong with it is a personal opinion. The fact is neither of our personal opinions matter. Homosexual sex is not causing harm, and it is consentual. There is no reason that a civil government should be able to legislate against it.

Logjam - It's not a matter of acceptance, legislation does not turn on and off public opinion. It is public opinion that needs to change for homosexuality to be accepted. The reason for the homosexual marriage debate is the spousal access to rights that is granted with marriage. See other posts in the thread.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: SVMc Mr. Perfecto - Attempting a quick summary. Your position = marriage as a legal institution is primarily about the legislations of a sexual relationship. Is that correct? If no ignore the rest of my post. If yes, Even if the law does recognize the sexual relationship implicit in marriage, it also recognizes the other factors (kinship, spousal privledge etc...). In which case I still can't see a reason why the law has or should have the ability to distinguish between types of sexual relationship as long as they do not violate criminal laws and have no harm involved and are consentual. <emphasis added>

You have described my position accurately. With an imprecise understanding of marriage, you would have to be confused about why the rules are the way they are. The short answer is that there is no reason to address the other possible forms of marriage.

So let us continue to explore that point. To reach that end, I'm afraid I'm really going to have to press you on this point.

Quote by: mr.perfecto Quote by: SVMc Just to be clear it's the "primarily" part of your argument that is the difficulty. There are several components to marriage most of which I would have difficulty finding one that is the "primary" one. The one that could not be removed without rendering the remainder unintelligible. Without the sexual component, could you explain why a person can not marry their close relatives?

[SVMc]

Quote by: mr. perfecto With an imprecise understanding of marriage, you would have to be confused about why the rules are the way they are.

Well here is where we reach an impass, it's not that I have an "imprecise" understanding of marriage it's that I don't agree with your understanding of marriage.

You can push the sexual component of marriage as far as you like and my answer will still be the same. While there is the presence of sexual relationships in marriage they are not legislated. If sex and marriage were directly co-related then we would have legislation about sex when single, and affairs. We don't.

Now please note that when I say that there is not a direct co-relation between sex and marriage I am in no way saying that there is no relation, there is most definately a relation. But simply because there is sex in marriage and marriages involve sex does not mean that marriage is defined by sex. That is our impass. You are defining marriage by one type of sex, this is the same as the procreation argument. And just like the procreation argument we do not require married couples to have sex, furthermore we do not legislate what kind of sex married couples must have. In that light there is no reason sex or no sex why two homosexual people can not choose to marry each other.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: SVMc Well here is where we reach an impass, it's not that I have an "imprecise" understanding of marriage it's that I don't agree with your understanding of marriage.

We know what the rules of marriage are (in the US,) and, through the use of logic, we can analyze any particular "understanding" of marriage and see if it fits those rules. By doing so, we can determine whether the understanding is valid. So, that is what I am attempting to do. By answering this question we can determine whether the sexual relationship is an integral part of marriage or whether it can be discarded.

I think your failure to give a straight answer to my question speaks for itself. It really is a simple question. Can you explain why the restriction on marrying close relatives exists without assuming the existence of a sexual relationship?

You can push the sexual component of marriage as far as you like and my answer will still be the same. While there is the presence of sexual relationships in marriage they are not legislated. If sex and marriage were directly co-related then we would have legislation about sex when single, and affairs. We don't.

We have legislation about sex between people who are not married--at least we do in the US! Heh, even in Amsterdam they have some formal, legal rules on the subject.

Now please note that when I say that there is not a direct co-relation between sex and marriage I am in no way saying that there is no relation, there is most definately a relation. But simply because there is sex in marriage and marriages involve sex does not mean that marriage is defined by sex. That is our impass.

We haven't even reached this point yet. :)

What I am addressing at this particular point is whether marriage can be understood without the sexual component. Your ambivalence about what the purpose of marriage is forces us to reach farther back and come to an understanding of its function indirectly.

You are defining marriage by one type of sex, this is the same as the procreation argument.

Well, the "procreation argument" is correct. :)

But no, I'm not defining marriage as a particular type of sex. What I am saying is that marriage exists because of what results from a particular type of sex. They aren't quite the same thing.

And just like the procreation argument we do not require married couples to have sex, furthermore we do not legislate what kind of sex married couples must have.

I've never claimed that marriage is a contract between a couple and the government so I'm not sure how this statement is relevant. Could you explain it to me?

In that light there is no reason sex or no sex why two homosexual people can not choose to marry each other.

Well, I agree with you--as long as the two homosexuals are of opposite sexes.

[SVMc]

Quote by: mr. perfecto Well, the "procreation argument" is correct.

Well that pretty much sums up the impass, you believe it's about procreation I don't.

Quote by: mr. prefecto I think your failure to give a straight answer to my question speaks for itself. It really is a simple question. Can you explain why the restriction on marrying close relatives exists without assuming the existence of a sexual relationship?

Again you are failing to distinguish between me giving you an answer that is a straigt answer but happens to be one you disagree with and me not giving you an answer. I think if you look back through the 20 odd pages that we have been in discussion that I have answered this questions and your other ones, I just haven't answered them with the answers you were hoping for.

The restriction on marrying close relatives exists because of the close / high (no note direct) realationship between harm and lack of consent in incestuous relationships (married or unmarried). Yes it does assume a sexual relationship, but again I have said many times that marriage assumes a sexual relationship.... I just don't agree that the sexual nature of the marriage is the only or primary component to legal civil marriage.

Quote by: mr. perfecto We know what the rules of marriage are (in the US,) and, through the use of logic, we can analyze any particular "understanding" of marriage and see if it fits those rules.

That's ridiculous! It's a perfect circle.

We have rules of marriage that give us an understanding of marriage.
If there is an understanding of marriage it must match the rules of marriage.

Where is rainbow to point out the syllogism in this logical fallacy.

Yes the US has rules of marriage that prohibit two homosexual people of the same sex from marrying each other.

There are two (at least) understandings of marriage, one understands marriage as based on the rules that only people of opposite genders can marry each other, the other understanding thinks the rules of marriage as they stand are discriminatory because they don't allow same sex people to marry people of the same sex.

Two understandings = two viewpoints = debate over what the rules of marriage should be.

Quote by: mr. perfecto We have legislation about sex between people who are not married--at least we do in the US! Heh, even in Amsterdam they have some formal, legal rules on the subject.

I think you'll find that those laws don't deal with married people being legislated to have sex, or single people not being able to have sex, but they are in fact more specific and deal in instances of where one individual may hurt another sexually and act to prohibit such cases. Nothing to do with marriage there, people regardless of marital status can be sexually assulted .

Quote by: mr. perfecto What I am saying is that marriage exists because of what results from a particular type of sex.

Procreation argument, please if marriage were needed to produce children we wouldn't have a huge problem with teen pregnancy rates, and divorce laws wouldn't apply to parents.

Quote by: mr. perfecto I've never claimed that marriage is a contract between a couple and the government so I'm not sure how this statement is relevant. Could you explain it to me?

No, I've claimed that marriage is a contract between a couple and the government. The explanation the marriage license... which is the legal issue at hand.

Quote by: mr. perfecto Well, I agree with you--as long as the two homosexuals are of opposite sexes.

Haha yah, that'll solve everything, every homosexual person will suddenly be straight. Better yet lets just assume that every straight person will be gay by midnight tonight.... doesn't work for you?

Lets try to keep this debate moderately respectable, we both know that this issue would not even be an issue if homosexual people wanted to marry a person of the opposite gender.

[ansil]

Quote by: SVMc Two points. First, if all of these marriages received different types of marriage licences, or if there was no government issued marriage license I would see no argument to extend any particular one type of marriage licence to homosexual marriages, and would be content to accept a form of civil union for homosexual marriages since there would be a system of multiple types of government recognized marriages in place.

You have to admit, out of all the different "types" of marriage. This is the first kind of marriage where it is biologically abnormal. Thats why I said theres no problem getting a different type of marriage license, because out of all those examples they are the only one that doesnt fit into the norm of the others.

Quote by: STARBOY Because they don't need a marriage license to have homosexual sex? They do not need a marriage license to have children. The do not need a marriage license to make life long commitments to each other. To live as a family. But because they already have families and live as a family day to day with all the trials and tribulations that a family has, such as deaths, illness, incapacitation, windfalls, divorce and so on, they have the need for the same recognition and protections that any other family has. And since they are as American as any other American the government should not be discriminating against their families. They understand that when the government issues a marriage license what it is doing is granting government recognition of a new family. So they understand very much that it is about family. Because everything else that people confuse with a marriage license they already enjoy without the need of government recognition.

Quote by: SVMc This isnt the actual qoute, I couldnt find it, but it was something on the lines about "homosexual sex is more wholesome than hetrosexual sex

Im not saying that each one of your arguments are all biased, but many times Ive read that you guys are looking at homosexual marriage has better than hetrosexual marriage for many reasons and I think thats a bunch of crap. If you are going to say that, then you are doing exactly what you are claiming we are doing.

I have lots more to post, but I am just now getting back from vacation, so I will post later