Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

Infinite911911 wrote: 1 Man + 1 Women=Marriage

N'uff Said.
We're already more than well enough acquainted with the opposition's apparent need to oversimplify everything.

Quote: I think the more important question should be what drives a person to be attracted to a person of the same sex?
Why does that matter to you at all?

Quote: It's clearly not natural because if it was the Human population wouldn't exist.
False statement. Whether or not homosexuality is natural has nothing to do with whether heterosexuals reproduce.

Quote: So we must study how Homosexual people were brought up, were they raped as children, sexual/mentally abused?
No doubt some were. As were some heterosexual people. There is no cause/effect relationship, here.

Quote: Or is it that they just have to much of a certain chromosome?
Uh, no.

Quote: The sooner we understand this the better for all mankind.
I have doubts about whether or not understanding will have any benefit to mankind.

[Sataere]

Personally, I think it should be legalized, because I think that basically, the only major thing that inhibits gay marriage is the belief that a god or higher power regards it as a sin. This is a reason that should have never come about, because the United States today should have the Church separate from the State (Different debate, though). Religious people trying to abolish the political union of gay marriage have no right to do so. I think that even though some people may think that gay marriage is immoral, they should at least tolerate it, because no one's asking them to get gay married, and no harm can come from other people making up their minds on their type of lifestyle. Some people agree with this but want gay marriages to be called Civil Unions. I think that the term 'Civil Union', in regards to gay marriage is disrespectful to those who want to get gay married, because that is putting them at an inferior status to all heterosexual married couples. I think that they should have the same rights and status as all other married people, with no inhibitons on their lifestyles.

And finally, marriage is a POLITCAL union. Couples were being married way back in 1800 BC in Mesopotamia, far long before Christianity, so the marriage of today is NOT a 'holy' sacrament.

[F'losrix]

BigBraveDave wrote: Quote: 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.

Decadence-Marked by or providing unrestrained gratification; self-indulgent.

In New Orleans, once a year they have what is called the "Decadence Festival." It is a weekend of festivities for homosexuals. That is where I draw my arguement from
It's a poor source. Doesn't even begin to represent how most homosexuals live.

Quote: The act alone might not be decadence, but it certainly leads to it.
Which 'acts' are we talking about, here? People partying or people having sex?

Quote: However, I don't want to make it sound like there isn't such a thing as heterosexual decadence, I just think that it is less common when looked at in ratio....
And I think you don't have a clue what you're talking about with this. 'In ratio' my ass. You can't even begin to prove such a thing.

Quote: I was using certerus parabus (sp?) meaing all things remain constant and do not effect the issue, economists use that frame of mind all the time...
Unless you can construct a better argument, I'd have to say that it doesn't apply.

Quote: Quote: None of which has much, if anything, to do with marriage between persons of the same sex.

It has everything to do with it, they are examples of family structures different from a man and a woman together, since there are no societal bonds between same sex currently, I cannot derive any specific examples, I can only draw comparisons...
Well, you aren't drawing very good ones. If anything you're relying on an oversimplification. Just because you have a man and a woman as the head of a family structure, that doesn't guarantee that it's a functional family. And just because two men or two women are at the head of another family's structure, that doesn't automatically mean that it's a disfunctional family.

Quote: You right, the meaning of family and marriage are the undertone of the entire arguement. I am arguing that there is only one correct structure, other family structures have generally proven weaker...
And I'm arguing that there isn't just one correct structure. In fact, the heterosexual structure fails more than half the time when you consider the divorce rate. Hardly a position of strength from which to cast aspersions upon other family structures.

Quote: It is this majority that defines morals.
I beg to differ. It is individuals that define what is moral for themselves. To the extent that individuals agree, they may form a majority opinion on what is moral, but majority opinion is not synonymous with the rule of law, which to some extent protects minorities from undue persecution.

Quote: Therefore whether you like it or not, the act is immoral. For example, I have had pre-marital sex, I don't consider myself immoral for it, but it is immoral because that is what society deems it.
You allow 'society' to dictate your morals? I hate to have to say it, but that's a sign of a weak mind. Are you incapable of reasoning for yourself what is or isn't moral? Can you not think of any other basis for something to be moral/immoral apart from society's opinion?

Quote: my arguement is that by not allowing marriage we are not infringing on any "God given" rights. Keep in mind, I say God because I am relating the arguement to the declaration of independence, not religion.
As the framework upon which all subsequent law is based, the Constitution is what matters here, not the Declaration of Independence.

Quote: Should it be law that I am forced to accept something that I deem inccorrect?
The law doesn't force you to accept anything, so I have to deem your question to be rhetorical.

Quote: Where that arguement falters is that Civil Rights are given to people, each individual was granted rights. The Civil Rights movement had nothing to do with granting liberties to a group of people acting as one instatutionalized partnership. There is a very distinct difference there.
If I were to accept your argument, then I'd have to say that crossing racial lines to marry also is not a civil rights issue.

Of course, I don't accept your argument. This isn't about allowing gay people to marry as a group. It's about allowing individuals to choose marriage partners appropriate to their sexual orientation AND equal protection under the law.

If a person of female gender wishes to marry another woman, their union is denied recognition. But if a person of male gender wishes to marry that same woman, that union would be recognized. The first person of female gender is being denied equal protection as an individual; she is being unfairly disadvantaged on the basis of her gender.

Quote: But by making both "marriage" you are making them equal. Whether or not their equivalent.
Hardly. Are you seriously going to argue that all heterosexual marriages are equal to each other? 'Cuz I can tell, you there's a lot of variation from marriage to marriage, no two function exactly alike. They are rough equivalents, all meeting the core definition of marriage as an agreement between mutually consenting adults to formally unite in the formation of a family unit. Gay couples meet that same core definition. Their relationships are equivalent to heterosexual marriages.

Quote: But the fact is that they are relevant, again showing a distinct difference. You cannot sit here and tell me that a children raised in different structures don't come out with different perceptions.
I can tell you that since no two marriages are exactly alike and the structure varies from family to family (number of children if there are any, divison of labor within the family, a host of other family dynamics) that children are going to have different perceptions, period.

Quote: Perhaps "life-choice" would be a better word. That is what I was really trying to get across. Frankly, I feel silly having to tell you the difference between the two unions. The obvious, is procreation. In fact, that is arguably one of the most distinct functions of marriage.
Procreation isn't a function of marriage. Procreation doesn't require marriage, and marriage doesn't require procreation.

Quote: Whether or not that function is a really important part of marriage today (because it certainly isn't in some cases) is up for speculation.
Actually, I think it's pretty clear in our regulation of marriage that it isn't of primary importance. We don't require couples to take fertility tests or to affirm their intent to reproduce before granting them a marriage license. If it were so central to the concept of marriage, we'd be doing a lot more to enforce it.

Quote: Quote: 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.

Honestly that is very hard to do.
The difficulty of it doesn't grant you an exemption.

Quote: This is because there aren't clear examples in the US of homosexual marriages.
That's not the reason at all. You should be able to come up with arguments whether any homosexual marriages exist or not, based on simple logic and reasoning.

Quote: So to attempt a black and white, these are the facts argument, is very difficult. Also since the homosexuality is till a taboo (in sociology terms) then it should be up to the minority to prove why it should be made a norm.
I don't see why it being a taboo forces the burden onto the minority.

And, we aren't seeking to make homosexual marriage the norm. I have every expectation that the normal family structure will remain heterosexual in nature.

Quote: It is gays that are trying to change what is already in existence.
What is it that is already in existance? What are you talking about?

[Enoch]

Personally, I would like to see a complete end to the legal recognition of marriages performed by a religious body.

Legally, each person should have the right to enter in to a civil union with any other consenting adult of their choice. This would allow any couple to enjoy the legal protections offered without interfering in any religion's stance on the issue.

Each religious body, therefore, would be free to perform marriage ceremonies as they see fit. The state would have no say in who the church/temple/mosque/etc decides to marry or not to marry.

A couple could then have the religious service they desire. The union would not be legally recognized, however, until that couple files the appropriate paperwork with the state.

A couple could decide to be legally "married" without any religious implications, or be religiously "married" without any legal implications, or have both "marriages."

[mport1]

mport1 wrote: I will quote Michael Badnarik's book, Good to Be King, because I believe it has an excellent analysis of the issue:

Quote: Any time the government allows us the privilege of doing something, it usually documents the fact by giving us a permit or a license. Examine these definitions from Black's Law Dictionary.

permit: To suffer, allow, consent, let; to give leave or license; to acquiesce, by failure to prevent or to expressly assent or agree to the doing of an act.

Notice that a permit allows you to do something that you could not do without permission.

license: A personal privilege to do some particular act or series of acts on land without possessing any estate or interest therein, and is ordinarily revocable at the will of the licensor and is not assignable.

Let's examine an issue that most people take for granted. If you have a marriage license, what do you have permission to do now that you did not have permission to do before? More important, who gave you that permission, and where did that person or agency get the authority to give you permission in the first place? Did George Washington have a marriage license? (No.) Did Thomas Jefferson have a marriage license? (No.) Did they simply ask the woman they loved to settle down with them and perhaps raise a family? Remarkably-yes. This is one of the advantages of having an unlimited right to contract. What may be even more surprising to some is the fact that this is still being done today. Have you ever heard of a common-law marriage? Occasionally a couple will start living together without the formality of a ceremony. Generally the local busybodies will be all a-twitter because the pair is "living in sin," as if somehow the relationship is any of their business. So if the eleventh and thirteenth presidents of the United States (depending on where you start counting) didn't have a marriage license, then when (and why) was the very first marriage license issued?

Let's examine the status of blacks and whites during the middle 1800s. Can two white people decide to live together and make babies? Of course! White people have rights and can exercise their unlimited right to contract. Can two black people decide to live together and make babies? They certainly didn't have control over where they lived, so the fact that they had reproduced was viewed much like animal husbandry. If you owned the parents then your property inventory had simply increased by one. What if a black person and white person decided to live together and make babies? (Gasp!) Heaven forbid! The government certainly couldn't allow a mixing of the races, now could it? Here are some revealing definitions, again from Black's Law Dictionary:

marriage license: A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry...

intermarriage: see miscegenation

miscegenation: Mixture of races. Term formerly applied to marriage between persons of different races. Statues prohibiting marriage between persons of different races have been held to be invalid as contrary to [the] equal protection clause of [the] Constitution. Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 1.Ed.2d 1010.

Notice that statutes prohibiting interracial marriages are considered invalid, but that wasn’t always the case. Keep in mind that white people had rights, whereas black people were only granted privileges. The white person could do just about anything they wanted; however, the black person had to get "permission" in the form of a "marriage license" in order to form a union with a white person. I'm guessing that a black person's chances of obtaining that permission were directly related to which white person they wanted to marry.

Just for the record, the "equal protection clause of [the] Constitution" can be found in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal protection means that blacks and whites must now be treated the same. Did we grant blacks more freedom by eliminating the requirement to get "permission granted by public authority," or did we take away the rights of white people by requiring them to get a marriage license, too? "Equal protection under the law" apparently means that you can enslave blacks as long as whites are equally enslaved.

I hope it is now obvious that you do not require government permission in order to be married. Common law marriages are valid in all fifty states, not because the government is benevolent and generous, but because common law is the highest law jurisdiction in America. The government has no authority to tell me whom I can or cannot share a bed with, and I will adamantly ignore any statues or laws that pretend otherwise. This is not a significant issue for me because I am heterosexual, however there are millions of homosexuals who are directly affected by the government's arrogant insistence that it will determine the definition of what constitutes a legal marriage. As far as I'm concerned, if you love someone and they love you back, you can exercise your unlimited right to contract with whomever you wish.

No response to this? I typed it all out for nothing, lol?

[lululauren]

My problem with this entire situation is that I do not understand why this is even something that people are arguing over. The fact that someone can sit there and say "I am not interested in a homosexual relationship - therefore I feel that *I* have the right to fight to make sure that no one else is allowed to have one" deeply nauseates me. There are only two logical explanations for this particular attitude and they are as follows.

One: You're (and I use this in a broad sense of the word... meaning anyone who disagrees with gay marriage) very concerned about your own homosexual tendencies that you feel the only way you can "save yourself" would be to make sure that no one else can be happy with what you're afraid of. It makes sense to me that people who oppose homosexual couples being happy are opposing their lifestyle because they are not happy with their own.

Two: You're so incredibly self-centered and ignorant that you feel that you actually are allowed to decide how someone else lives their life. The fact that anyone who opposes this could actually think that they are allowed to tell someone else how they are allowed to live is so beyond distasteful and arrogant that is literally churns the very core of what is resting in my stomach right now.

I can only assume then that the reason that ANYONE would say that this is "god's way" is falling behind that mask because they themselves can see how utterly useless, pointless and mindless their arguments are. It's pitiful to see people hiding behind the bible (that by the way is not ACTUALLY PROVEN to be factual in any way... it's merely a piece of literature that amazingly enough has become enormous in it's ability to control people's lives) because they're afraid to admit that they clearly are either horrible individuals or that they themselves are homosexual. Now yes, I do understand that the person who posted this doesn't follow the biblical sense of why "being gay is a sin" - but the fact that he could have said that the main reason why most of the people in this world are criminals is because they come from a broken home is incredibly stupid. I don't care what statistics you've been reading... but to blame the crime in this country on divorced or never married families is so unbelievably close-minded it's amazing. It's just about as stupid as when I read a piece from another message board I used to frequent that claimed that the "majority of gun crimes are commited by african americans who have stolen the gun from someone who bought it legally".

When a man loves a man or a woman loves a woman there is NOTHING wrong with them wanting to share their lives with each other in a marriage-based lifestyle. There is no statistical proof that a gay couple raising children would make them be gay (I know first hand) - my brother was adopted by my aunt (who is a lesbian) and was raised by two women who loved one another and he is a fabulous man today. Open-minded as well I might add.

So in response to your "well thought out and carefully worded debate" - I'd say that you might want to stop and think about who you're really trying to make become a "better" person... the horrible gay people out there that want to live life together like married men and women do - or yourself?

[mport1]

Great post! :clap:

[lululauren]

Thanks. :wink:

[George W Bush]

Infinite911911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote:

btw, whats your opinion on lesbians? do they get a free pass for not having anal sex?

No lesbian sex is as stupid and unnatural has male gay sex.

nature doesnt constitute
in other words, quit depending so much on nature to moralise you.

[George W Bush]

lululauren wrote: Thanks. :wink:
good points.
you hit the nail on the head.
its all about the centeredness that the objection feels within themselves.
its all boils down to: look, man, just mind your damn business and quit trying to inflict your moral observances on everyone else.Live and let live.

[lululauren]

George W Bush wrote: lululauren wrote: Thanks. :wink:
good points.
you hit the nail on the head.
its all about the centeredness that the objection feels within themselves.
its all boils down to: look, man, just mind your damn business and quit trying to inflict your moral observances on everyone else.Live and let live.

Thank you. I'm just tired and saddened by this particular topic.

[Gryff1nd0r]

Sataere wrote: they should at least tolerate it, because no one's asking them to get gay married

The way you worded that made me laugh out loud. :lol:

God, I am so tired of hearing about this. People who are against gay marraige are irrational and impossible to reason with. The only person in this whole thread who has been making well-thought intelligent posts is Skeptical Mystic, but you can't argue with people who have incredibly strong beliefs based on nothing concrete. It is like trying to convince an Islamic terrorist that it is wrong to hope for the destruction of Israel. He isn't going to listen to you no matter what you say.

I think that marriage should not be recognized by the governemnt in any form, and "marriage" should be a religious affair. Civil unions of any couple should be recognized in all states, and they should have the current benefits of marriage. Same-sex couples have combined incomes, live under the same roof, and can raise children. What reason is there for the government not to recognize that partnership and provide them with equal benefits of their straight-couple counterparts? There is no reason. It is sexist for the government to keep those rights from same-sex couples.

[Gdawg007]

BigBraveDave wrote: 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…

Your post would have more merit to it if it could show that kids from homes with gay parents have the same problems as homes like those who live in the inner city. But most of those parents who live in the inner city are straight, so you can't compare them to a homosexual couple. It's apples to oranges. Your claim that homosexuality isn't equal to heterosexuality is bogus. YOu have no reliable information to support that, nor does any exist that isn't from a rabid anti-homosexual. I'm not going to sit here and say gay marriage is what we must do, but I will say it's wrong to not extend legal rights to same sex couples or let them enter into legal unions. It's wrong to force, by law, one particular lifestyle choice over another. If someone chooses to be gay, then someone chooses to be straight. If your sexual orientation is a choice, then we are all living by our own lifestyle choices and one cannot be better than the other. The notion that only heterosexual marriage benefits society is also erroneous. How does another married couple impact me? Having a mother and a father is no guarantee of raising healthy or "normal" children. I've seen plenty of messed up kids from non-broken homes. I've seen some very together kids come from broken homes. The individual is what makes the difference, not who they choose to have sex with when it comes to benefiting society.

[Demonic Spoon]

Firstly, homosexuality is not natural. Biologically, sex is for reproduction.

That said, the State should have NO control over marriage. Marriage is a private contract.

[StrangerWitCandy]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Firstly, homosexuality is not natural. Biologically, sex is for reproduction.

That said, the State should have NO control over marriage. Marriage is a private contract.

I disagree. From dictionary.com:

Quote: nat·u·ral ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.

1. Present in or produced by nature.

Homosexuality is clearly present in nature, therefore it is natural. It isn't normal and it clearly isn't the biologically intended purpose of the sexes, but it is a natural occurance.

As far as marriage goes regarding private contracts, I would say I agree except for the fact that a marriage involves benefits given out by the government. Therefore I think its important that only two people per marriage are awarded those benefits to ensure that marriage doesn't become an easy way to milk the system. I think if you want to get married to 12 people, you should be able to on your own. But no one should expect the government to endlessly hand out benefits to them and anyone else they choose to add on with their seemingly unlimited marriage capabilities. In such a case I think a lot of people would have polygamous marriages not for pleasure, but simply for government benefits. For example, an entire group of immigrants could just find someone willing to marry all of them and instantly become US citizens, but really the marriage itself means nothing as it was just a means to an end. In short, I think people should be able to enter into any kind of marriage contract they wish, but the government should never be obligated to provide marriage benefits to any more than 2 people per marriage. Seems fair to me.

[mport1]

I think most of the people against gay marriage forget these very important points that I had previously posted:

Quote: If you have a marriage license, what do you have permission to do now that you did not have permission to do before? More important, who gave you that permission, and where did that person or agency get the authority to give you permission in the first place?

Where is the government getting this authority and why should they have this authority over our lives?

[EugenicHegemony]

Yes, I see no reason why anyone thinks they can tell another how they can live their lives and who they can marry. It's absurd, to think anyone has such say.

[Enoch]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Firstly, homosexuality is not natural. Biologically, sex is for reproduction.

That said, the State should have NO control over marriage. Marriage is a private contract.

If sex were purely for reproduction, why does it feel so good?

I am not being flippant, I am serious. Humans are capable of, and do, have sex regardless of whether or not they are able to concieve at that given moment. Should, as you suggest, sex be purely for reproduction, it would not make sense that humans are able to A) have sex when not able to concieve and B) recieve pleasure from sex.

[mport1]

UrielsFyre wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Firstly, homosexuality is not natural. Biologically, sex is for reproduction.

That said, the State should have NO control over marriage. Marriage is a private contract.

If sex were purely for reproduction, why does it feel so good?

I am not being flippant, I am serious. Humans are capable of, and do, have sex regardless of whether or not they are able to concieve at that given moment. Should, as you suggest, sex be purely for reproduction, it would not make sense that humans are able to A) have sex when not able to concieve and B) recieve pleasure from sex.

I would think the reason why we recieve please is so that we will procreate, like a built in measure to ensure that the race flourishes.

That being said, I could care less what sex is "actually" for. IT IS NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS!

[SavannahMan]

Shim Eun-Ha wrote: Whatever brings pleasure is plenty natural.

The NAMBLA mantra.