For those against gay marriage would you ban divorce?

[fskimospy]

Show me any document saying "marriage" is a right and not a term defined as a union between a man and a woman by the society through out human history. And please don't give me that new definition BS, that's what I have been saying you don't just go around calling black people white, after all "African American" and "caucasian" are just term and definition right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

From the decision:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival

 

[0marTheZealot]

Wow, you certainly do live out your schizophrenic delusions!

Being a regular denizen of the music, fashion and dance scenes in places like NYC, Paris, Bangkok and Rio, I likely know tons more people living alternative lifestyles than you or most anyone on this board. Most of whom, like you, are likely pimply adolescents with their highest aspiration being someone commenting on their avatar at 4chan.

Philosophically, economically and by personal artistic aspiration I am likely much more open to letting people be themselves than you. But, when you advocate societal change you should be man/gay/tranny enough to back up your silly statements with something just a tenny weeny bit substantive.

Doncha think?

LOL, are you kidding me? Based on what you post, you are nothing more than a sad old man who lives vicarously through fictional stories. You don't do any of that shit, and every one knows it. You don't live in the world community because you have no idea of how it works, you don't have any gay friends nor do you accept their lifestyle because you constantly rail against homosexuals and backpedal to absurd positions. You're a fucking joke, a partisan hack, a homophobe and nothing you can say nor do changes those things because of the content of your posts.


[PJABBER mode] Well guys, I'd love to stay and conversate, but, I have a 3 week hike through the Andes! Maybe I'll find an internet cafe and check up on this thread! [PJABBER mode]

 

[Atreus21]

The line on polygamy is less clear, but there is still a credible case for the situation leading to significant spousal abuse. This might be a chicken/egg thing, but a credible case can be made. (I happen to have no problem with polygamy so long as everyone consents, but I can understand the argument.)

So please, can we drop these now? It's been covered. I am unaware of a single solitary identifiable harm to society that gay marriage can or would concievably cause. Until people can find one they really don't have a leg to stand on.

I'm sorry but I don't agree. Hetero and homo marriages have led to significant spousal abuses before, and we've no right to project this stereotype on polygamous couples. If there is consent to marry, what right have we to withhold it? Why do we hold them to an expectation that we don't of other types of marriages?

From consenting adults, what is necessary to marry other than consent?

 

[fskimospy]

How come none of you gay marriage advocates has come up with any statistically valid studies showing a societal benefit stemming from "alternative lifestyle" marriages? I'll take U.S. AND international studies so long as you provide a link to both abstract and the full study.

Civics 101. The right to marry is already a fundamental right recognized in the US Constitution by the Supreme Court. In order for the government to restrict this right they have to show a compelling reason to restrict it, the person exercising that right does not need to show a single shred of evidence for any societal benefit.

How can you be this old, claim to be a strict interpreter of the Constitution, and not even know how the Constitution works? Maybe this is why you're having so much trouble with this thread and others, you never learned the basics of how the US government functions?

 

[Atreus21]

Civics 101. The right to marry is already a fundamental right recognized in the US Constitution by the Supreme Court. In order for the government to restrict this right they have to show a compelling reason to restrict it, the person exercising that right does not need to show a single shred of evidence for any societal benefit.

How can you be this old, claim to be a strict interpreter of the Constitution, and not even know how the Constitution works? Maybe this is why you're having so much trouble with this thread and others, you never learned the basics of how the US government functions?

I don't expect any to agree, but I think a biological incapacity to produce offspring is a compelling reason.

A focus on child-bearing as a fundamental component of marriage, and necessity to society, is what I think has been left out of its definition in the modern day. And that is to our detriment.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm sorry but I don't agree. Hetero and homo marriages have led to significant spousal abuses before, and we've no right to project this stereotype on polygamous couples. If there is consent to marry, what right have we to withhold it? Why do we hold them to an expectation that we don't of other types of marriages?

From consenting adults, what is necessary to marry other than consent?

Like I said, overall I don't have a problem with polygamy. What I was referring to in terms of 'abuse' was the large percentage of polygamous marriages that are conducted with... hrmm... less than willing brides. It can be reasonably argued I think that such quasi-consentual relationships are endemic to polygamy due to the severe imbalance of power in such relationships and I think that it is a reasonable argument.

I don't think it's enough, but at least it's an argument. The beastiality, etc. arguments don't even register that minimal level of logic.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

add I suport Gay Marriage to the poll

 

[fskimospy]

I don't expect any to agree, but I think a biological incapacity to produce offspring is a compelling reason.

A focus on child-bearing as a fundamental component of marriage, and necessity to society, is what I think has been left out of its definition in the modern day. And that is to our detriment.

Well I think society has conclusively spoken on that one and the answer is 'no it's not'.

Attempting to ban marriage for people who are sterile, have gone through menopause, etc. just isn't going to happen.

 

[ebaycj]

For those pro gay marriage people, would you support getting rid of rule on underage drinking, any drug use? What about running around naked, fvcking your brains out in the public? We should be free to do what the heck we want regardless of any "moral" values placed on us?

Underage, no, because they are not legal adults, and therefore do not have the same rights as adults have.

Running around naked and fornicating in public? OK by me.

 

[Atreus21]

Well I think society has conclusively spoken on that one and the answer is 'no it's not'.

Attempting to ban marriage for people who are sterile, have gone through menopause, etc. just isn't going to happen.

Well, but there's a difference. The vast majority of hetero marriages in general produce children. Society doesn't find it cost-effective to ensure that every marriage is capable of producing children. Whereas it can be sure, at no expense, that every gay marriage is incapable of this within the marriage.

This, I believe, is where we will never agree.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, but there's a difference. The vast majority of hetero marriages in general produce children. Society doesn't find it cost-effective to ensure that every marriage is capable of producing children. Whereas it can be sure that every gay may marriage is incapable of this within the marriage.

This, I believe, is where we will never agree.

Are you arguing that the reason not to ban marriage for sterile people or women over 55 (or so) is that it's difficult to prove they are sterile?

Are you against artificial insemination?

 

[Atreus21]

Are you arguing that the reason not to ban marriage for sterile people or women over 55 (or so) is that it's difficult to prove they are sterile?

Are you against artificial insemination?

It's difficult to universally enforce such a standard, yes.

I'm not against artificial insemination.

 

[Robor]

Wow, you certainly do live out your schizophrenic delusions!

Being a regular denizen of the music, fashion and dance scenes in places like NYC, Paris, Bangkok and Rio, I likely know tons more people living alternative lifestyles than you or most anyone on this board. Most of whom, like you, are likely pimply adolescents with their highest aspiration being someone commenting on their avatar at 4chan.

Philosophically, economically and by personal artistic aspiration I am likely much more open to letting people be themselves than you. But, when you advocate societal change you should be man/gay/tranny enough to back up your silly statements with something just a tenny weeny bit substantive.

Doncha think?

Could you be more of a condescending tool? 🙄

 

[fskimospy]

It's difficult to universally enforce such a standard, yes.

I'm not against artificial insemination.

I'm not asking if it is difficult to enforce such a standard, I'm asking if the difficulty in enforcing it is the reason you do not want to ban sterile straight couples from marrying. You stated before that the inability to have children is reason to ban gay marriage. If that's the case it should be enough to ban some straight marriages that can't make kids. So my question is: Would you be willing to pass a ban on straight marriages that cannot produce children if we can find a cost effective way to test for sterility?

About artificial insemination: I think most people can agree that the benefit of a family raising a child is not based very much on the child being the actual biological offspring of the parents. Since lesbian couples could have children through insemination (hell, they could have twice as many!), would you allow lesbian marriage?

 

[fskimospy]

Could you be more of a condescending tool? 🙄

I love it when homophobes try to tell everyone else how many gay people they know as if it somehow excuses their own bad behavior.

 

[Robor]

Well, but there's a difference. The vast majority of hetero marriages in general produce children. Society doesn't find it cost-effective to ensure that every marriage is capable of producing children. Whereas it can be sure, at no expense, that every gay marriage is incapable of this within the marriage.

This, I believe, is where we will never agree.

Who cares? Gay people will not produce children whether they are married or not. Denying them the ability to marry does not mean more or less children.

 

[Atreus21]

I'm not asking if it is difficult to enforce such a standard, I'm asking if the difficulty in enforcing it is the reason you do not want to ban sterile straight couples from marrying. You stated before that the inability to have children is reason to ban gay marriage. If that's the case it should be enough to ban some straight marriages that can't make kids. So my question is: Would you be willing to pass a ban on straight marriages that cannot produce children if we can find a cost effective way to test for sterility?

If gays were banned from marriage on these grounds, I would expect straights to be held to the same standard, so yes. I can't yet source this allegation, but I think this has been done before.

About artificial insemination: I think most people can agree that the benefit of a family raising a child is not based very much on the child being the actual biological offspring of the parents. Since lesbian couples could have children through insemination (hell, they could have twice as many!), would you allow lesbian marriage?

I disagree. I think there's enormous emotional weight on parents with regard to their own biological offspring. I'll be a father in May, and I can say I don't think I'd look at this pregnancy the same way if it weren't my child. But that's anecdotal.

I don't think I would allow lesbian marriage either, because of this assumption. I think there's a difference between biological children and adopted children, with respect to their relationship with their parents.

 

[Mursilis]

Well, but there's a difference. The vast majority of hetero marriages in general produce children. Society doesn't find it cost-effective to ensure that every marriage is capable of producing children. Whereas it can be sure, at no expense, that every gay marriage is incapable of this within the marriage.

This, I believe, is where we will never agree.

I understand what you're saying, but you seem to be suggesting, along with PJABBER, a 'societal benefit' standard before gay marriage can be legalized. To me, that's the wrong standard. Gays need not demonstrate a societal benefit (other than to themselves) to have the legal right to marry - rather, society must demonstrate an actual societal harm by allowing the same. I think I have the right to do anything I want, as long as I harm no one else (at least, not without their consent, which is why boxing is not assault), and if society wishes to prevent me from engaging in a victimless activity, the burden is on society to demonstrate a harm, not on me to demonstrate a benefit. The 'benefit' is the preservation of the basic freedom of all.

 

[soulcougher73]

How come none of you gay marriage advocates has come up with any statistically valid studies showing a societal benefit stemming from "alternative lifestyle" marriages? I'll take U.S. AND international studies so long as you provide a link to both abstract and the full study.

Their doesnt need to be a benefit. It just needs to be equal.

 

[fskimospy]

If gays were banned from marriage on these grounds, I would expect straights to be held to the same standard, so yes. I can't yet source this allegation, but I think this has been done before.

Well we're not really getting at what I'm asking. I don't really care as to what would be equal in this case, I want to know what YOU believe. Do you personally believe that gays should be barred from marriage due to their inability to produce offspring? If you do then it seems like you support applying the same standards to straight couples. With this in mind, in states where gay marriage is banned, would you support a new law being passed to ban sterile straight couples from being married if we can find a suitable way to test for it?

I disagree. I think there's enormous emotional weight on parents with regard to their own biological offspring. I'll be a father in May, and I can say I don't think I'd look at this pregnancy the same way if it weren't my child. But that's anecdotal.

I don't think I would allow lesbian marriage either, because of this assumption. I think there's a difference between biological children and adopted children, with respect to their relationship with their parents.

I don't think this argument makes sense. You said that you are not against artificial insemination, but you would not allow lesbian couples to marry because they would need to be inseminated. Since we are talking about the restriction of a fundamental right, you have to be able to prove considerable harm to society in order to restrict it. How are you proving harm to society by having couples engage in a practice you support?

 

[surfsatwerk]

This conversation is absurd. This isn't about society, offspring, or any of that other bullshit you clowns keep coming up with. The whole "purpose of marriage" discussion is moot because we already have a standard for marriage in this country, and allowing it to apply to gay people is not going to be the downfall of humanity. This is about two people who want their relationship recognized by the government so they can share their lives.

Yeah sure they don't need a civil union or "marriage" to do this but why in the hell do we need to make their lives more complicated by denying it to them? If they adopt kids they aren't going to turn them gay by giving them a loving home to grow up in. They aren't going to do anything other than be normal productive members of society who are simply afforded the same privileges as a heterosexual couple.

You have to be a real shitbag to get all pissy about this. It's a simple case of, "I don't like you, so I want your life to be as difficult as possible." It is a small and mean way to act toward other human beings.

 

[soulcougher73]

I don't expect any to agree, but I think a biological incapacity to produce offspring is a compelling reason.

A focus on child-bearing as a fundamental component of marriage, and necessity to society, is what I think has been left out of its definition in the modern day. And that is to our detriment.

But homosexual couples wether married or not have no impact on your "biological incapacity to produce offspring" either way. So why not afford them the same legal rights as a hetro couple? You guys really dont bring any real logical arguements to the table. You should just give up.

 

[soulcougher73]

Well, but there's a difference. The vast majority of hetero marriages in general produce children. Society doesn't find it cost-effective to ensure that every marriage is capable of producing children. Whereas it can be sure, at no expense, that every gay marriage is incapable of this within the marriage.

This, I believe, is where we will never agree.

So i am married and plan on having no kids. What are you going to do with me? What about all the children born into this world outside of marriage? Surely your arguement isnt marriage is required to have kids?

 

[soulcougher73]

I love it when homophobes try to tell everyone else how many gay people they know as if it somehow excuses their own bad behavior.

But i have a black friend..im not racist..

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Show me any document saying "marriage" is a right and not a term defined as a union between a man and a woman by the society through out human history.

I'm sorry, are you contesting the fact that at least some people have the right to marry? Really? Is it your contention that nobody has a right to marry?

You do realize that unless things are expressly prohibited by law, a person's rights are inviolate. That is to say, laws do not enumerate people's rights, they only enumerate limitations to people's rights. In dubio pro libertate.

And please don't give me that new definition BS, that's what I have been saying you don't just go around calling black people white, after all "African American" and "caucasian" are just term and definition right?

Yes it is. You seem to think that you've laid some kind of challenge against that fact by the sheer expression of your incredulity.