Political Crossfire Forums

[BigBraveDave]

I posted this on my blog a view minutes ago, I wanted to put it up here in case any of you don't know my myspace URL, which is in my sig btw. Enjoy...


Gay Marriage: The Final Argument

I have spent the last two years debating the issue of homosexual marriage. I am tired of it. The sheer fact that I have to “debate” the topic just shows how decadent our society has become. There used to be a day when Americans cared about issues that really meant something, issues such as civil rights and universal suffrage.

Not anymore…

Now we have to argue about whether or not humans should be given the ability to clone, whether or not a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy six to nine months after conception, whether or not Santa Claus is a good image for our children to grow up with.

Whether or not two members of the same sex should be able to affirm their relationship through institutionalization…

Here are my final thoughts on the subject. As a society, void of government, there are certain rules and guidelines, better known as norms to those sociology majors. While some rules can be bent, others broken, there are some things that cannot be changed. I would include the structure of family in this grouping. Now understand, by cannot I mean should not, the accepted family structure should not be changed.

We can see examples of why this structure shouldn’t be changed in our society right now. Most criminals come from broken homes, meaning either one mother or one father. This is also a problem in our inner cities. There is no social cohesion, creating a lack of community and a lack of structure. Some have speculated that this is why some young teenagers have joined gangs, to find a sense of family.

Now, I think it is impossible to find a solution for divorce; it has already been sewn into our societal fabric, and probably not for the better. So the question is, are we willing to further complicate and blur the meaning family? Are we willing to risk the possibility of further societal decay?

Before I get some nasty hate mail for that last comment, let me say that I don’t consider homosexuality to be “moral decay” personally. However, currently that is how the aggregate feels, and since it is society, not God like many would lead you to believe, that dictates morals, homosexuality is thus given that stigma.

There are obviously questions of liberty on this issue. Should homosexuals be given the liberty to pursue what they consider happiness? Of course not! However, I should thus be given the liberty to not be forced to accept the relationship as being on par with any other. That is what this is really about. To make gay marriage an institution is to force the society to accept its existence and its legitimacy. This is where I get off the reservation.

There is no comparison to the civil rights movement and gay marriage. The civil rights movement was an effort to get rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and technically, to expunge the ruling made by the Supreme Court in the case Plessy vs. Ferguson. Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality. Anyone that tries to argue that is truly missing the point. There are societal benefits that heterosexual marriage entails. Homosexual marriage doesn’t. The fact that there are distinct differences in what each institution offers the society is solid proof that the two lifestyles are not equal. To the libertarians reading this; what do you consider creating equality where there is none? I call it socialism.

So that’s it, I have laid my cards out on the table. Notice that I did not argue this on a religious basis. I say that because those of you that know me know that I am atheist, so my moral judgment isn’t ruled by a book. I look forward to hearing your comments…

[RealRepublicanArmy]

Give them civil unions, but preserve the tradition of marriage as Man and Woman.

[mport1]

Marriage is a contract between two people. The government should have no say in marriage whatsoever. I am free to choose who I want to spend the rest of my life with.

[The_Burd]

It's always been my belief that just because a child is raised by a mother and a father doesn't mean that they will turn out okay. It has to do with having a loving and caring parent, no matter what sex they are or how many of them there are.

Your main argument is that it would damaging to future children of the couple. You cited examples of how broken homes have led to the decline of our society, but you offer absolutely nothing to connect same sex marriage to being a broken family.

Also, would you still feel the same about same sex marriage if the couple was prohibited from raising a child.

[mwm1331]

mport1 wrote: Marriage is a contract between two people. The government should have no say in marriage whatsoever. I am free to choose who I want to spend the rest of my life with.

And how does not creating a new form of marriage deny you this freedom?

[ieatfood]

mport1 wrote: Marriage is a contract between two people. The government should have no say in marriage whatsoever. I am free to choose who I want to spend the rest of my life with.

if marriage is a contract between two people, then the government certainly has a role in regulating contracts.

it's called contract law

the govt regulates contracts all the time--in fact, without government regulation, contracts would never function

[Joad]

Quote: if marriage is a contract between two people, then the government certainly has a role in regulating contracts.

it's called contract law

the govt regulates contracts all the time--in fact, without government regulation, contracts would never function

There is nothing in contract law that forbids gay marriage. In fact, contract law is one of the best arguments for gay marriage. The government is infringing on their right to contract with whoever they choose.

[F'losrix]

BigBraveDave wrote: The sheer fact that I have to “debate” the topic just shows how decadent our society has become.
Illogical.

1) No one has a gun to your head, forcing you to debate this topic.

2) Your statement implies that homosexual marriage is decadent. It is an unsupported assertion and being such, we're free to ignore it.

Quote: There used to be a day when Americans cared about issues that really meant something, issues such as civil rights and universal suffrage.
Implies that marriage isn't a civil rights issue. I beg to differ.

Quote: As a society, void of government, there are certain rules and guidelines, better known as norms to those sociology majors.
We aren't a society void of government, though. Your argument fails on its face.

Quote: While some rules can be bent, others broken, there are some things that cannot be changed. I would include the structure of family in this grouping. Now understand, by cannot I mean should not, the accepted family structure should not be changed.
'Cannot' and 'should not' are not synonymous, so it makes no sense for you to substitute the meaning of one for the other.

Quote: We can see examples of why this structure shouldn’t be changed in our society right now. Most criminals come from broken homes, meaning either one mother or one father. This is also a problem in our inner cities. There is no social cohesion, creating a lack of community and a lack of structure. Some have speculated that this is why some young teenagers have joined gangs, to find a sense of family.
None of which has much, if anything, to do with marriage between persons of the same sex.

Quote: Now, I think it is impossible to find a solution for divorce; it has already been sewn into our societal fabric, and probably not for the better. So the question is, are we willing to further complicate and blur the meaning family?
I disagree with your assumption that this is the question. How does allowing gay marriage complicate the meaning of 'family'?

You're basically giving us an argument that depends on terms like 'marriage' and 'family' having only one meaning, or assuming that only one arrangement is valid under that meaning. Such an argument is circular by nature.

Quote: Are we willing to risk the possibility of further societal decay? Before I get some nasty hate mail for that last comment, let me say that I don’t consider homosexuality to be “moral decay” personally. However, currently that is how the aggregate feels, and since it is society, not God like many would lead you to believe, that dictates morals, homosexuality is thus given that stigma.
Assumes that only majority opinions on issues of morality matter; that persecution of a minority isn't immoral if the majority doesn't view it as such.

Quote: There are obviously questions of liberty on this issue. Should homosexuals be given the liberty to pursue what they consider happiness? Of course not!
Why not? Because you say not? I don't consider that a reason.

Quote: However, I should thus be given the liberty to not be forced to accept the relationship as being on par with any other.
You're certainly welcome to your belief on the matter. But should your belief be the law? I don't see you giving us any credible reasons why it should.

Quote: There is no comparison to the civil rights movement and gay marriage. The civil rights movement was an effort to get rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and technically, to expunge the ruling made by the Supreme Court in the case Plessy vs. Ferguson.
There is room for comparison. Drawing such comparisons doesn't equate to saying the struggles are equivalent; to suggest that they are is something that I would agree is ludicrous. But parallels do exist; not so much in the status of each group, but in the methods used to fight against them. Moreover, arguments in support of some liberty most always draw upon similar ideas. So to assert that there is no connection between the two is absurd. The struggle for marriage equality is very much a part of the neverending battle to preserve civil rights for everyone, not just one group.

Quote: Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality. Anyone that tries to argue that is truly missing the point.
Common argument, and not terribly informative. We aren't saying they're equal; we're saying they're equivalent, and that there is room enough in the concept of marriage to encompass both types of unions.

Quote: There are societal benefits that heterosexual marriage entails. Homosexual marriage doesn’t.
Unsupported argument. The salient point is that there are benefits to society from marriage, period. The genders of the persons engaging in that marriage are only minimally relevant, if at all.

Quote: The fact that there are distinct differences in what each institution offers the society is solid proof that the two lifestyles are not equal.
Well, you don't spell out what those differences are, so we have no way to evaluate your statement unless we start making suppositions on our own. I'm not willing to do so. Futhermore, heterosexuality and homosexuality do not by themselves meet the definition of a 'lifestyle': Lifestyle is a way of living based on identifiable patterns of behaviour based on an individual’s choice, influenced by the individual’s personal characteristics, their social interactions, and socioeconomic and environmental factors.

One's sexual behavior certainly can be a factor in creating a lifestyle, but does not stand as a lifestyle by itself.

-----

To sum up: I don't see anything new presented here. Just the usual vague arguments amounting to 'we shouldn't change the parameters of legal recognition granted to marital contracts simply because we don't like the idea of changing it.' One big circular argument.

If homosexuals are to be denied marriage recognition, then I feel the onus is upon its opponents to show how gay marriages differ significantly from heterosexual marriages, and provide solid arguments for why those differences support continuing the denial.

So far I've not seen any such thing put forth.

[00timh]

Here's my final argument, stop arguing about it. In the entire time I've been a member here this argument has gone on in more threads than I can count and it hasn't gotten anywhere. Does any straight person actually think they are going to go into a gay forum and expect gay people to agree with them? It has about as much of a chance as an environmentalist going to a nascar race and convincing them to switch to hybrids :roll:

the discussion is a valid one but the ridiculous re wording of the argument over and over is a collosal waist of time. Straight people who do not believe in homosexual marriage are never going to get gay people to aggree with them and gay people are never going to get straight religous people to accept it.

[F'losrix]

I'll stop advocating for the legal recognition of gay marriage when one of the following happens:

1) Gay marriages are extended legal recognition in all 50 states.

2) Legal recognition of marriage is abolished completely.

3) The unlikely event that I encounter a solid, convincing argument for why heterosexual marriages should be legally recognized while homosexual marriages should not.

4) I permanently lose the ability or means to express myself.

5) I reach the end of my life.

You may rest assured that a great many gay people and their allies feel much the same way. It would seem then that the arguing is likely to continue for a very long time.

[Infinite911911]

1 Man + 1 Women=Marriage

N'uff Said.


I think the more important question should be what drives a person to be attracted to a person of the same sex? It's clearly not natural because if it was the Human population wouldn't exist. So we must study how Homosexual people were brought up, were they raped as children, sexual/mentally abused? Or is it that they just have to much of a certain chromosome? The sooner we understand this the better for all mankind.

[mport1]

ieatfood wrote: mport1 wrote: Marriage is a contract between two people. The government should have no say in marriage whatsoever. I am free to choose who I want to spend the rest of my life with.

if marriage is a contract between two people, then the government certainly has a role in regulating contracts.

it's called contract law

the govt regulates contracts all the time--in fact, without government regulation, contracts would never function

Exactly where do they get the permission to infringe on my right to decide who to spend the rest of my life with? Any kind of interference in marriage by the government (gay or straight) is absurd.

You do realize we created the government, and we are above them, not the other way around. You are willing to let them tell you who you can marry?

[mport1]

Infinite911911 wrote: 1 Man + 1 Women=Marriage

N'uff Said.

Says who?


Quote: I think the more important question should be what drives a person to be attracted to a person of the same sex? It's clearly not natural because if it was the Human population wouldn't exist. So we must study how Homosexual people were brought up, were they raped as children, sexual/mentally abused? Or is it that they just have to much of a certain chromosome? The sooner we understand this the better for all mankind.

That is not important at all. Why should it matter if it is natural or not?

[00timh]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: I'll stop advocating for the legal recognition of gay marriage when one of the following happens:

1) Gay marriages are extended legal recognition in all 50 states.

2) Legal recognition of marriage is abolished completely.

3) The unlikely event that I encounter a solid, convincing argument for why heterosexual marriages should be legally recognized while homosexual marriages should not.

4) I permanently lose the ability or means to express myself.

5) I reach the end of my life.

You may rest assured that a great many gay people and their allies feel much the same way. It would seem then that the arguing is likely to continue for a very long time. advocate away, I have nothing against that. I didn't single you out. I'm talking about the arguing going on in here from people who are never going to see things the other way. Remember I said the discussion is valid.

I run into the same problem with the drug issue and I have to remind myself not to get into it. I'm not actually trying to persuade other people to aggree to my views although sometimes I guess it appears as though I do. I end up responding to baiting questions such as is there anyone who has ever smoked pot that doesn't advocate for the legalization of it? then I get dragged into the argument that I should have stayed out of in the first place.

[StrangerWitCandy]

Infinite911911 wrote: 1 Man + 1 Women=Marriage

N'uff Said.


I think the more important question should be what drives a person to be attracted to a person of the same sex? It's clearly not natural because if it was the Human population wouldn't exist. So we must study how Homosexual people were brought up, were they raped as children, sexual/mentally abused? Or is it that they just have to much of a certain chromosome? The sooner we understand this the better for all mankind.

why do people always say homosexuality is not natural? its all over nature. of course its natural. it may not be normal, but it is by definition natural. and people always assume so much about nature anyways. anybody ever look up parthenogenesis? some species don't even have males in them.

Quote: Parthenogenesis
Parthenogenesis is a particular form of asexual reproduction in which females produce eggs that develop without fertilization. Parthenogenesis is seen in aphids, rotifers, and some other invertebrates, as well as in some plants. Among vertebrates, there are several genera of fish, amphibians, and reptiles that exhibit differing form of asexual reproduction, including true parthenogenesis, gynogenesis, and hybridogenesis, an incomplete form of parthenogenesis.

The asexual whiptail species Cnemidophorus neomexicanus (center) with the sexual species that hybridized to form it, C. inornatus (left) and C. tigris (right). (c) A. J. CullumAmong the reptiles, about fifteen species of whiptail lizard (genus Cnemidophorus) reproduce exclusively by parthenogenesis. These lizards live in the dry and sometimes harsh climate of the southwestern United States and northern Mexico. All these asexual species appear to have arisen through the hybridization of two or three of the sexual species in the genus leading to polyploid individuals. The mechanism by which the mixing of chromosomes from two or three species can lead to parthenogenetic reproduction is unknown. Because multiple hybridization events can occur, individual parthenogenetic whiptail species can consist of multiple, independent asexual lineages. Within lineages, there is very little genetic diversity, but different lineages may have quite different genotypes. An interesting aspect to reproduction in these asexual whiptail lizards is that mating behaviors are still seen even though the populations are entirely female. One female plays the role of a male lizard and mounts the female that is about to produce eggs. The reason the animals act this way is due to their hormonal cycles, which cause some to act as males when levels of estrogen are low, and others to take the role of female when estrogen levels are high. Lizards that act out the courtship ritual have greater fecundity than those kept in isolation due to the increase in hormones that accompanies the fake sex. So, even though asexual whiptail lizards populations lack males, they still require sexual stimuli for maximum reproductive success.

An example of non-viable parthenogenesis is among common honeybees. The queen bee is the only fertile female in the hive; should she die without the possibility for a viable replacement queen, it is not uncommon for the worker bees to lay eggs. However, ironically, the unfertilized eggs that the worker bees -- females that are unable to mate -- lay, produce only drones (males). Thus, in a relatively short period, all the worker bees die off; the new drones, essentially useless except for mating with the queen, follow shortly thereafter. Presumably, at some point in the honeybee's past, the worker bees were less specialized, and would have been able to mate with the drones and revive the colony, though this is speculation.

[ieatfood]

Joad wrote: Quote: if marriage is a contract between two people, then the government certainly has a role in regulating contracts.

it's called contract law

the govt regulates contracts all the time--in fact, without government regulation, contracts would never function

There is nothing in contract law that forbids gay marriage. In fact, contract law is one of the best arguments for gay marriage. The government is infringing on their right to contract with whoever they choose.

but you don't have the right to contract with whomever you choose
the government forbids two willing parties from making legally binding contracts all the time

for example, prenuptual agreements are often struck down in court

[Infinite911911]

mport1 wrote:
That is not important at all. Why should it matter if it is natural or not?

Unnatural behavior lead to unnatural circumstances…


More than 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981

[ieatfood]

Infinite911911 wrote: mport1 wrote:
That is not important at all. Why should it matter if it is natural or not?

Unnatural behavior lead to unnatural circumstances…


More than 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981

it is unnatural to shove a catheter up your femoral vein, and into your heart to save your from a heart attack

i guess that leads to the unnatural consequence of living past 30 years old.

25 million may have died from AIDS but how many have been saved by unnatural means of modern medicine?

moral of the story, natural=bad, unnatural=good

[Infinite911911]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: anybody ever look up parthenogenesis? some species don't even have males in them.


What does that have to do with two human males having anal sex together producing nothing but disease?

[StrangerWitCandy]

Infinite911911 wrote: mport1 wrote:
That is not important at all. Why should it matter if it is natural or not?

Unnatural behavior lead to unnatural circumstances…


More than 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981

so AIDS is unnatural? that's simply untrue.