• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gay Marriage

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Originally posted by: CombatChuk
The only "ammo" people have against gay marraige is based on Religion. And if I recall correctly the constitution clearly stated a seperation of church and state...

i'm sorry did you miss this post that dosn't use any biblical basis?
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain


But t?ll we can reach this utopian state we have a vested interest in not putting a government stamp of approval on sex between people of the same sex, for the same reasons we don?t put a government stamp of approval on drinking or overeating.

I agree with your final goal fo a true separation of Church and State. Please tell me how homosexuality is akin to two habits that will kill you. If anything, the encouragement of monogamous relationships will make it safer. This is true for straights and gays.

Drinking won?t kill you unless you drink to much, but ?normal? amounts of homosexual sex leads to much higher levels of cancer, not to mention a plethora of other problems, here is a post I made some time ago:
thread
that has an interesting poll which reveals that 1/3rd of us in this forum are for traditional marriage, 1/3rd are for anyone marrying anyone else no matter, and 1/3rds some ware in-between.

People arguing ?it?ll help gays? should recognize that this is an overall attempt to change the moral norms of society so that none of us make any moral-judgments about anti-social behavior.
as for a more detaled account of what makes homosexual sex ethicly bankrupt, thus not something that should have a government stamp-of-aproval on it:
1.) male/male penetration causes increased likelihood of anal infections w/ a reduced immune system.
2.)The act of any homosexual sexual activity is destructive to emotional well-being.
3.)female/female sexual activity increases likelihood of many forms of cancer.
4.)disregarding basic sexual morality increases pre-marital sex rates.
5.)the average lesbian life style causes a higher substance abuse problem than average
6.)the average homosexual life style causes more std problems than the heterosexual counter-part.
7.)the average homosexual lifestyle leads to a much-decreased ability to fight aids.

you can disagree with these thigns being negative, but you'd better have an ethical basis for that view, otherwise your just ignorantly spouting off like so many others who's only reason for disagreeing is that they like to disagree.
?
Some questions about that point of view wher brought up, and links to evidence for the facts
It is questionable as to why this is true, but suicide rates among gays is much

higher.


1
2

Some disagree: 3

but then some say it's not because of anti-gay bias:

4

both of those are highly bias views though; the best is to look at actual surveys:

5

not to mention other emotional trauma that being actively sexual in the homosexual community brings.
Same could be said of people who eat Mexican food or White Castles all the time!

And, what about the great # of heterosexuals who practice anal sex?
I was referring to anal sex, and the rupture is because the penile tears the soft-tissue of the colon, particularly the likelyhood of spreading desease.

6
my one-stop shop for all the info i need on this:
Surgeon General
Actually, many don't think so. STDs and pregnancy are caused by lack of knowledge or lack of preparedness to have safe sex. Besides, teen pregnancies are declining.

you wouldn't have problems with STDs or out-of-marriage children if extra-marital sex wasn't a problem.

your welcome to propose more libertine 'solutions' to the problem, but even condoms are properly used 5% couples will have children within a year; When used as normally by humans 15%;

This shows that the only 'safe' sex is monogamous sex.

Planed Parenthood
Most would think it's lack of education and lack of personal resolve that encourages poverty.
this is OT, but if you are never encouraged to have personal resolve then you're going to lack it.
homosexuals are rampant in third world countries?
that has nothing at all to do with what I said. because the fact is still that:
7.)the average homosexual lifestyle leads to a much-decreased ability to fight aids.


journal of nature
now I'll submit that it?s socially preferable to have people in monogamous relationships, but the idea that most gay marriage will be more monogamous is show to be less likely by both the statement of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance ?the archaic institution of monogamy is destructive to society and should be next to be eliminated? and the much increased likely hood of existing homosexuals to be part of the causal sex and random orgy seen.

Now moonie makes a good point that people on both sides of this should keep in mind:
It is important in any discussion of homosexuality to remember from time to time that we shouldn't hate the sinner only the sin.
then he, of course, spewed his bigoted view of what bigotry is.

As for Christ and Christians, no none of us should treat anyone worse for his sins, we should do what we can to express love for all, despite our personal disgust with all sin.

The only "ammo" people have against [adultery] is based on Religion.
so we should out-right condone adultery, right?

wrong.

I'm against adultery since it's affects and humiliates a person and may destroy their life, not because it's a sin. The first reason makes more sense since it explains the effect, not just that it just violates a rule. People can't seem to come up with any ill effects on gay marriage. Just that it violates a rule that the government shouldn't even concern itself with (Religion)...
 
no kidding talk about weak. adultery = breach of contract + non consentual for the spouse. talk about desperate arguements. but thats how it is when your side is based on the worst aspects of man..fear, bigortry, hatred, righteous sadism, arrogance.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
so we should out-right condone adultery, right?

wrong.
==============
Absolutly wrong.....We should stone them.

I've spilled my entire cup of coffee all over myself with that one, Moonster. 😀

:beer:
 
Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Kibbo
The potential biological nature of homosexuality is irrelevent.

What is relevent is that it is viewed by them as a fundamental part of their identity. Much like heterosexuality. Much like Religion. Much like being a nerd. It's part of who they are, regardless of whether it came from environmental factors or genetic ones.

And right now, they are denied access to a funtion of the state because of it.

You're proving my point, thanks. Homosexuality IS the same as religeon, being a nerd, or being goth...it's a lifestyle choice. Heterosexuals don't identify themselves by their heterosexuality...it's a function of being human...like having two lungs...something they take for granted and don't even think about.

I, personally, identify myself a the supreme commander of the world and think laws should be passed to accomodate my identify whereby I am given control over all decisions...anything less is oppressing my identity!!!111!!111!1!!

Sorry, LOL, but that's just a weak weak weak weak argument.

Hahahahahah this argument by the fundies is always funny. It's like they can't understand sexuality.

Tommorow I think I will choose to be sexually attracted to house plants.

Zephyr

Well... boy plants or girl plants?
 
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Bigamy is illegal as far as I'm aware in all 50 states and codified in US Code I do believe. Homosexuality is not illegal to my knowledge.
one man and two women having simultaneous relations, or consecutive relations, isn?t illegal either. Bigamy is a law in regards to the legality of a marriage just as laws against homosexual marriage are. Saying that bigamy is unacceptable because it?s illegal would mean you?d have to submit that homosexual marriage in Texas is unacceptable because it?s illegal.
IF it is illegal then it is illegal. No license to marry may issue if the resulting act is illegal. As far as I'm aware it is not illegal to be homosexual. When the first test case reaches the USSC we will see how they interpret the 14th. I rather suspect that given the major body of legal opinion is that homosexual marriage is protected under the Constitution it will become the accepted law of the land.

You presume there is a change. I argue the right has always existed.
These aren?t two contradictory views. To change the laws of the land to allow for homosexual marriage can still allow your view that it?s a ?right?. All state issued licenses are privileges granted by the state, the state has a right to discriminate in regards to who gets said privilege based on any reason our representatives choose. It?s certainly a change to start issuing homosexuals marriage licenses, and it?d be a change to issue illegal residents car licenses, both of which would be functionally dangerous to our nation.
Not quite. To deny a license to an individual when it has been determined by a higher authority to be a right for that individual to obtain one violates the 'Due process' 'Equal protection' and a few other clauses, I'd think.

One can read into that statement of Moonie's that you confuse and intermingle the religious dogma with the law of the land... You may hate the sin but, that sin is not in violation of society's laws.
Just because allowing people the freedom to drink, smoke, get tattoos, or whatever your particular dogma may disagree with is useful in a free society, still insisting that government approval not be given to those actions that the majority know to be harmful is equally important.
Minority rights protects us minorities from you all thoughtful majorities. That which is legal is legal
it don't much matter what the majority has to say about it. If me an Zephyr wish to have sexual relations with our Begonias then so long as it don't destroy your Acacia bush it is legal and permissible.


Should homosexual sex be illegal? Only if all extra-marital sex should be illegal. Should we give a government and thus societal stamp of approval to homosexual sex? Not while the majority still believes homosexual sex to be something society should not approve of.
In many places Adultery is a violation of law. Not sure to what extent the laws regarding adultery have been repealed. But, if reincarnation is a reality I want to come back as one of them real fast Thoroughbred horses.. and have lots of wives... or girl friends..
The statement regarding what the majority thinks can be sorted out nicely by an Amendment to the Constitution. Failing that occurring we are left with what is. Now, until it has been decided, you could argue that the Supreme Court will agree with your position but, that is not what most legal scholars believe will be the case. The premise of your argument is that most of society believe as you do. That does not actually seem to be the case. The House and Senate don't think they can get even a majority let alone a super majority to put forth an Amendment regarding this marriage issue. Now, why do you suppose Bush and friends want an Amendment? I think it is because they too realize that homosexual marriage is a protected right under the Constitution. And, so far there are State Supreme Courts that have agreed with this notion. So.... get ready to welcome your new neighbors, Mr and Mr Bob and John Smith, the newly weds.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: DonVito
I have a hard time seeing any persuasive, non-religious reason why they should be illegal.

One argument I've heard that you haven't mentioned (and a specious one IMO) is that allowing homosexual marriage will excessively increase costs to health-insurance providers and employers, and encourage a profusion of sham gay marriages to "steal" benefits currently afforded only to spouses.

It seems to me this argument can just as easily be applied to heterosexual marriages, however.
But that is the most valid of all arguments from an economic perspective. If same-sex marriage is allowed, I guarantee that a major court case will occur in the first couple of years in which a same-sex but non-homosexual couple will sue for their right to marry. <edit>And they WILL win.</edit>
As I said in another thread, you don't have to be gay to act gay.
What's illegal about getting married to someone you don't love or aren't attracted to? Sure, it's odd, but it's not illegal, and heterosexual people marry without love sometimes, too. So this is another argument against marriage in general that mustn't be applied to homosexual marriage without also being applied to heterosexual marriage.

IMO, what this demostrates is the need to get government out of the marriage business, while all current agendas for same-sex marriage seek to greatly increase government involvement in marriage. Hence, my opposition, not to same-sex marriage, but to the current agendas.
I totally agree that the gov't needs to stop pretending to be a church by exerting authority over marriage. Gov't can reward people based on certain things... are they the legal parents/guardians over a child? Good, give them a tax break, etc. Have they signed a form agreeing to letting the other make medical decisions for them? Good, let em visit the emeregency room. Do they have a contract statnig how much of the house each person gets if theybreak up? Good, that's binding. I don't care if they're the same sex or not, or if they love each other or not, or what their Church calls them (married, unioned, joined, partners, whatever).
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Of course only conservative gays will marry. The liberal ones will shun marriage and continue to boink all comers.

Hah, okay a funny from Moonbeam. I couldn't help myself that was great.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Of course only conservative gays will marry. The liberal ones will shun marriage and continue to boink all comers.


Well, It would figure cuz of the tax benefits and all that stuff.. inheritance and the like.. the Liberals don't have much to leave and don't work so there really ain't no benefit to them... besides, the liberal gay is really a trans-sexual who wants to marry her now own sexed partner. Some people will stop at nothing just to dink the system.

I wonder if a once upon a time guy now plumbed as a girl would have a problem marrying a girl... or a guy... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
 
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Of course only conservative gays will marry. The liberal ones will shun marriage and continue to boink all comers.


Well, It would figure cuz of the tax benefits and all that stuff.. inheritance and the like.. the Liberals don't have much to leave and don't work so there really ain't no benefit to them... besides, the liberal gay is really a trans-sexual who wants to marry her now own sexed partner. Some people will stop at nothing just to dink the system.

I wonder if a once upon a time guy now plumbed as a girl would have a problem marrying a girl... or a guy... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

There are some internet sites where you might find an answer. There are some games where you can roll play a woman and parade around tempting real men, or so I've heard.
 
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Kibbo
The potential biological nature of homosexuality is irrelevent.

What is relevent is that it is viewed by them as a fundamental part of their identity. Much like heterosexuality. Much like Religion. Much like being a nerd. It's part of who they are, regardless of whether it came from environmental factors or genetic ones.

And right now, they are denied access to a funtion of the state because of it.

You're proving my point, thanks. Homosexuality IS the same as religeon, being a nerd, or being goth...it's a lifestyle choice. Heterosexuals don't identify themselves by their heterosexuality...it's a function of being human...like having two lungs...something they take for granted and don't even think about.

I, personally, identify myself a the supreme commander of the world and think laws should be passed to accomodate my identify whereby I am given control over all decisions...anything less is oppressing my identity!!!111!!111!1!!

Sorry, LOL, but that's just a weak weak weak weak argument.

Hahahahahah this argument by the fundies is always funny. It's like they can't understand sexuality.

Tommorow I think I will choose to be sexually attracted to house plants.

Zephyr[/quote]

Well... boy plants or girl plants?[/quote]

If you think that Heterosexuality is mandated by our bodies, then why do most animals show bi-sexual tendencies. Personally, I think that that is the natural order of things, with a general bias towards heterosexuality. However, I think that for the majority of people being 100% Hetero is socially conditioned, rather than "just natural." Unless you have evidence or argument that contradicts this, self-identifying as Hetero is just the same as self-identifying as Homosexual. My argument is that any factor that is a result of early conditioning can be effectively "hard-wired" into your brain, and your identity. Your argument that not recognizing your self-image as ruler is oppression is not exactly the issue. Only if you were discriminated against because of your identity would that be a factor. You would have the same right to run for President as anyone else. And if you were deprived of that right because of your self-identity, then I would advocate for you.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Of course only conservative gays will marry. The liberal ones will shun marriage and continue to boink all comers.


Well, It would figure cuz of the tax benefits and all that stuff.. inheritance and the like.. the Liberals don't have much to leave and don't work so there really ain't no benefit to them... besides, the liberal gay is really a trans-sexual who wants to marry her now own sexed partner. Some people will stop at nothing just to dink the system.

I wonder if a once upon a time guy now plumbed as a girl would have a problem marrying a girl... or a guy... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

There are some internet sites where you might find an answer. There are some games where you can roll play a woman and parade around tempting real men, or so I've heard.

So... That was you... hehe .. I knew it was.. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Kibbo
The potential biological nature of homosexuality is irrelevent.

What is relevent is that it is viewed by them as a fundamental part of their identity. Much like heterosexuality. Much like Religion. Much like being a nerd. It's part of who they are, regardless of whether it came from environmental factors or genetic ones.

And right now, they are denied access to a funtion of the state because of it.

You're proving my point, thanks. Homosexuality IS the same as religeon, being a nerd, or being goth...it's a lifestyle choice. Heterosexuals don't identify themselves by their heterosexuality...it's a function of being human...like having two lungs...something they take for granted and don't even think about.

I, personally, identify myself a the supreme commander of the world and think laws should be passed to accomodate my identify whereby I am given control over all decisions...anything less is oppressing my identity!!!111!!111!1!!

Sorry, LOL, but that's just a weak weak weak weak argument.

Hahahahahah this argument by the fundies is always funny. It's like they can't understand sexuality.

Tommorow I think I will choose to be sexually attracted to house plants.

Zephyr

Well... boy plants or girl plants?[/quote]

If you think that Heterosexuality is mandated by our bodies, then why do most animals show bi-sexual tendencies. Personally, I think that that is the natural order of things, with a general bias towards heterosexuality. However, I think that for the majority of people being 100% Hetero is socially conditioned, rather than "just natural." Unless you have evidence or argument that contradicts this, self-identifying as Hetero is just the same as self-identifying as Homosexual. My argument is that any factor that is a result of early conditioning can be effectively "hard-wired" into your brain, and your identity. Your argument that not recognizing your self-image as ruler is oppression is not exactly the issue. Only if you were discriminated against because of your identity would that be a factor. You would have the same right to run for President as anyone else. And if you were deprived of that right because of your self-identity, then I would advocate for you.[/quote]

I figure the only real thing guys and girls enjoy about the opposite sex is sex.... Don't want a foursome in front of me and god forbid a girl be in mine.. wouldn't want to have my firstbase person be a girl either... me being a shortstop trying to roll the ball to her.. or 'Let's go grab a coffee'.. not with a girl... Shopping.. forget it.. Discussion on anything .. forget it..
When God took Adam's rib and created Eve... I figure he should have used a Gnu or something.
Actually, if you're a good listener, as I am, some girls can be intersting and informative. I've had many lengthy listens over the years... but, not discussions.
So it stands to reason that we all should be homohabitators and meet once in awhile to make babies and have dinner. Like the lions and tigers do.
Maybe. 🙂
 
K: If you think that Heterosexuality is mandated by our bodies, then why do most animals show bi-sexual tendencies. Personally, I think that that is the natural order of things, with a general bias toward heterosexuality.

M: I think that better than animal references generally is the evidence form our closest relative the bonobo chimp, a very queer monkey indeed.

K: However, I think that for the majority of people being 100% Hetero is socially conditioned, rather than "just natural." Unless you have evidence or argument that contradicts this, self-identifying as Hetero is just the same as self-identifying as Homosexual.

M: Yup, hero, just as one never self identifies as white in an all white culture, super majorities rarely self identify. A fish never notices water.

V: My argument is that any factor that is a result of early conditioning can be effectively "hard-wired" into your brain, and your identity.

M: While I might want to agree and probably do, I am rather sensitive to arguments that purport knowledge that real experiential memory might contradict. All arguments about human nature that I read are generally supposition. I want to hear from the man who knows himself, somebody who remembers the traumatic content of his life and has transcended it thereby. Only such a person can tell what is nature and what is nurture. The amount of unconsciousness in ordinary people, in my opinion, is huge. Just a caution that we, on this side, don't get too wedded to what seems to make good sense. I believe there are very few humans that can really know the truth of this.

V: Your argument that not recognizing your self-image as ruler is oppression is not exactly the issue. Only if you were discriminated against because of your identity would that be a factor. You would have the same right to run for President as anyone else. And if you were deprived of that right because of your self-identity, then I would advocate for you.

M: Well he does have to be 35 and born a US citizen. 😀 Some standards are also secular. 😀
 
I see not the point in letting the state and church into your relationship in the first place. Tradition is like admitting you are guilty of the sins of the father. But if they want to, let em, I see no way shape or form that this would change a damn thing.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
so we should out-right condone adultery, right?

wrong.
==============
Absolutely wrong.....We should stone them.

no one is calling for killing anyone for their social destructive deviance.

I'm against adultery since it's affects and humiliates a person and may destroy their life, not because it's a sin.
I?m against it because it's destructive to society, not because it's a 'sin'.

People can't seem to come up with any ill effects on gay marriage.
once again, i listed many ill side-effects of homosexual sex, with supporting links.

illegal. No license to marry may issue if the resulting act is illegal
The resulting act of having sex with multiple women isn't illegal, nor is the resulting act of having homosexual sex illegal. The only question is what legality is around the license we are arguing over, as such the idea that a marriage license for homosexuals is a 'right' that law can not supercede while a marriage license for 3 people isn't simply doesn't hold water.

You have to be consistent in your application of a principle that crates a right, and if you are consistent then you must admit that multiple partners have just as much right to be married as every other human who has right to marry who they love.

The right to say to someone ?I commit to spend my life with you? does not create a requirement for the state to recognize said commitment.

If me an Zephyr wish to have sexual relations with our Begonias then so long as it don't destroy your Acacia bush it is legal and permissible.
sure, but you don't have a right to be licensed by the state to do that.

In many places Adultery is a violation of law.
marriage is a license, or is it a contract? or was it a right to commit?
your arguments are based on constant changing of your definitions so that they fit the argument against you. The argument for gay marriage is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.

I see not the point in letting the state and church into your relationship in the first place.
I agree, there is an inherent human right to believe in whatever religion you want, to hold whatever moral values you want and to act consistently with them. The state has no business in any of that, less the harm of others.

But trying to force the state to give a government stamp-of-approval to destructive acts through judicial activism is a horse of a totally different color.
 
"But trying to force the state to give a government stamp-of-approval to destructive acts through judicial activism is a horse of a totally different color."

Yeah except there is no force, there is no stamp of approval, no destructive acts and no judicial activism. All their is is a bigot trying to pretend his bigotry is really a serious concerned that gay marriage will give some people cancer. Worry about all the good Christian women who will die in childbirth and ban Christian marriage. Charity begins at home.
 
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Originally posted by: Todd33
Religious people are bigots. They always fight civil rights. God wanted women to be barefoot and pregnant, God wanted blacks to be slaves, God loves the white man, God hates Muslems, now God hates gays. They love to use God to hate. Times change and religious type always fight it. We'll all look back in twenty years and laugh at them.

They do the same thing to science.

Actually, any person of religion that I personally know, who uses their religion as a reason to be against gay marriage, does not hate gays. They just disagree with the life style and seek to teach them the wrong of their ways. A true Christian wouldn't hate you for sinning but would instead seek to lead you to redemption and salvation.



The wrong of their ways? Please. I think homosexuality is disgusting, however, I don't think its wrong or immoral. They aren't hurting anybody else. So therefore , there is nothing wrong with it. I thought the entire reason for this countries existance was so that people would have "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

If 2 homos want to get married in their pursuit eoy happiness, then more power to them.


Some things have a right and wrong, some do not. IMO, Things which cause no harm to anybody else cannot be wrong. How are you doing something wrong if you aren't wronging anybody?

I will agree that the whole idea of homosexuality sounds extremely unnatural, and I do not understand how any male can find any other male attractive. However, at the same time, I think 2 nekked hot women in an X rated movie performing sexual acts upon one another is a beautiful, beautiful thing.

I say let them get married. It wont hurt anybody, and if it makes them happy, great.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"But trying to force the state to give a government stamp-of-approval to destructive acts through judicial activism is a horse of a totally different color."

Yeah except there is no force, there is no stamp of approval, no destructive acts and no judicial activism.
:laugh:
 
Cogman wrote:
"As far as Im conserned, If gays are allowed to marry, then I should be allowed to marry my dog. No matter how many times I have heard it, Being Gay is not right, And if the government alows gay marrage it is like they are saying it is right."

my response:
Marriage should be between two consenting adults regardless of their sex. A dog cannot consent to get married hence the example is stupid. I am a conservative republican, but gay marriage shouldnt be an issue. It is not my business who someone else married despite my personal objection. Its like me telling a buddy that he cant marry a fat chick because im not into the whole obesity thing. However, since gay marriage is not a top priority for me and does not affect me as much as the economy and national security I will continue to vote republican. But yeah... being gay is a right just like being straight. You have not made a single solid contention on why being gay isnt a right or is somehow immoral.
 
Back
Top