Gay Marriage...

[Tab]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma

Originally posted by: classy
And I'll go on record right now and say homosexual marriage will never ever be accepted. Even those who aren't religous find it disgusting and abnormal. It is rejected by every religion that I know of. You might as well forget it.

I think there are some churches where it will not happen, but as a legal, civil contract, I think it's just a matter of time and effort.

Every state that had a vote on an amendment to ban gay marriage in their state constitutions passed. And quite convincingly as well. The states that allow it had judges rule in favor gays, those states haven't heard from the people in those states yet. When they have a vote like the other states it will be shot down.

Wait, its not accepted? Maybe in the United States, but goto Canada or most of europe. Its widely accepted.

I don't like gay marraige or gay sex, I personally find really disgusting including lesbians.

The thing is, it doesn't really hurt me and its not like it making me perform gay sex. Why should I care?

 

[Schneider879]

Originally posted by: classy
And I'll go on record right now and say homosexual marriage will never ever be accepted. Even those who aren't religous find it disgusting and abnormal. It is rejected by every religion that I know of. You might as well forget it.

I accept gay marriage. So, therefore, your theory is wrong.

 

[CycloWizard]

Trying to draw a parallel between homosexual and interracial marriage is ridiculous and demonstrative of a lack of understanding of sexuality, to say the least. I wish those with a liberal social agenda could, just for one second, recognize that there are logical, not merely moral, objections to what they propose.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Trying to draw a parallel between homosexual and interracial marriage is ridiculous and demonstrative of a lack of understanding of sexuality, to say the least. I wish those with a liberal social agenda could, just for one second, recognize that there are logical, not merely moral, objections to what they propose.

No, there are many reasons why a drawing a parallel between same-sex marriages and interracial marriages can be very instructive.

For example, the widespread acceptance of interracial marriage today indicates that social prejudices can and do decline. There is every reason to expect that opposition to same-sex marriage also will decline over time.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Trying to draw a parallel between homosexual and interracial marriage is ridiculous and demonstrative of a lack of understanding of sexuality, to say the least. I wish those with a liberal social agenda could, just for one second, recognize that there are logical, not merely moral, objections to what they propose.

No, there are many reasons why a drawing a parallel between same-sex marriages and interracial marriages can be very instructive.

For example, the widespread acceptance of interracial marriage today indicates that social prejudices can and do decline. There is every reason to expect that opposition to same-sex marriage also will decline over time.

Excuse me... There is no logical parallel between the two. You can have as many social parallels as you please.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Trying to draw a parallel between homosexual and interracial marriage is ridiculous and demonstrative of a lack of understanding of sexuality, to say the least. I wish those with a liberal social agenda could, just for one second, recognize that there are logical, not merely moral, objections to what they propose.

No, there are many reasons why a drawing a parallel between same-sex marriages and interracial marriages can be very instructive.

For example, the widespread acceptance of interracial marriage today indicates that social prejudices can and do decline. There is every reason to expect that opposition to same-sex marriage also will decline over time.

Excuse me... There is no logical parallel between the two. You can have as many social parallels as you please.

Is someone here actually arguing from analogy, or are they providing an example of e.g., how society can change? You're too concrete minded to understand the difference, I'd guess.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Is someone here actually arguing from analogy, or are they providing an example of e.g., how society can change? You're too concrete minded to understand the difference, I'd guess.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize I was talking to the wall again. Never mind.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Trying to draw a parallel between homosexual and interracial marriage is ridiculous and demonstrative of a lack of understanding of sexuality, to say the least. I wish those with a liberal social agenda could, just for one second, recognize that there are logical, not merely moral, objections to what they propose.

No, there are many reasons why a drawing a parallel between same-sex marriages and interracial marriages can be very instructive.

For example, the widespread acceptance of interracial marriage today indicates that social prejudices can and do decline. There is every reason to expect that opposition to same-sex marriage also will decline over time.

Excuse me... There is no logical parallel between the two. You can have as many social parallels as you please.

It's easy to draw logical parallels between the two. For example IMO a parallel is that in both cases you have a couple prevented from marrying due to an irrational prejudice codified in law. However the strength of the argument depends on the validity of the comparison (similarities or differences between the two scenarios, and also the relevance of the similarities or differences).

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Is someone here actually arguing from analogy, or are they providing an example of e.g., how society can change? You're too concrete minded to understand the difference, I'd guess.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize I was talking to the wall again. Never mind.

Oh, I'm talking to the guy with an exceedingly poor grasp of logic again? So every analogy is an argument? Lol. More often than not, we use analogies simply to explain what we mean.

 

[wylecoyote]

Originally posted by Cyclowizard...

"Trying to draw a parallel between homosexual and interracial marriage is ridiculous and demonstrative of a lack of understanding of sexuality, to say the least. I wish those with a liberal social agenda could, just for one second, recognize that there are logical, not merely moral, objections to what they propose. "

Cyclowizard, since I have "no understanding of sexuality" as you state, would you care to enlighten us as to what "logical" objections your conservative social agenda presents? You make accusatory and pissy remarks, then don't back up a damn thing you say with examples or elaboration.

And I believe there is indeed a very good parallel between the two. Did you read the first post of the thread? It says it best... "Ridiculous" and "Demonstrative"? I disagree entirely.

And how, praytell, is my parallel a lack of understanding concerning sexuality?


Addendum -- Looks like your president in the white house decided to drop the issue.

 

[CycloWizard]

The problem is that the author selected interracial marriage to draw a false parallel (or, at the very least, infer one that is not necessary to discuss the issue he purports to address), not merely to present an analogy. Interracial marriage is not used because of the possible similiarities between the process used to allow interracial marriage and homosexual marriage. If this were the intended result, any of a million examples could be used. Instead, interracial marriage was selected because the author tries to dupe the audience into thinking there is equal injustice between disallowing interracial and homosexual marriage.

 

[wylecoyote]

First of all, I appreciate you reading the article. I know alot of people don't.

Secondly, I accept your point, I just think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. I think the connection between interracial marriage and homosexual marriage is valid. The rhetoric of those opposed to interracial marriage back then sound very similiar to what the opponents of gay marriage are saying today. BUT, that aside, you are free to feel however you like... it looks as though I certaintly won't be able to convince you of this.

The next argument I would propose is that look at other countries around the globe where gay marriage is legal.

In alphabetical order...

Beligium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal all have legal same-sex marriages. They are doing absolutely fine. They aren't in moral shambles.

The UK is in the process of passing (or perhaps not) the legalization of same-sex marriage.

The way I see it, it isn't a question of morality. It's a question of rights. "Equal rights for all" is not read "Equal rights for all except homosexuals". I understand that this threatens many religious people... But here in the US, we have a separation of church and state. (Indeed, nowhere, except in religious texts, is the morality of homosexuality called into question. )

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: wylecoyote
First of all, I appreciate you reading the article. I know alot of people don't.

Secondly, I accept your point, I just think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. I think the connection between interracial marriage and homosexual marriage is valid. The rhetoric of those opposed to interracial marriage back then sound very similiar to what the opponents of gay marriage are saying today. BUT, that aside, you are free to feel however you like... it looks as though I certaintly won't be able to convince you of this.

The next argument I would propose is that look at other countries around the globe where gay marriage is legal.

In alphabetical order...

Beligium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal all have legal same-sex marriages.

The UK is in the process of passing (or perhaps not) the legalization of same-sex marriage.

The way I see it, it isn't a question of morality. It's a question of rights. "Equal rights for all" is not read "Equal rights for all except homosexuals". I understand that this threatens many religious people... But here in the US, we have a separation of church and state. (Indeed, nowhere, except in religious texts, is the morality of homosexuality called into question. )

Nothing I stated has anything to do with which side is "right or wrong" on the issue, only that the article is a POS because of its shady presentation - it's merely an attempt to dupe the audience into perceiving something that the author doesn't claim to discuss. If you want to discuss the merits or pitfalls of homosexual marriage relative to interracial marriage, I suggest finding an article that discusses this explicitly rather than trying this silly backdoor attempt to bamboozle the audience.

 

[wylecoyote]

Once again, I totally, utterly, completely, whole-heartedly disagree. As I stated earlier.

Remember...

I don't think the article is a POS.

I don't think it attempts to "dupe" anyone.

I don't think the article is trying to be silly or bamboozle people through the backdoor.

I think it's a brilliant article that reveals how anachronistic and backwards the arguments of many gay marriage opponents are.

Kapeesh?

Now, as this thread is entitled Gay Marriage and not Article on Gay Marriage, and as we're certainly not going to get anywhere arguing over our taste in articles, how about we talk about the "right or wrong", yes?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: wylecoyote
Once again, I totally, utterly, completely, whole-heartedly disagree. As I stated earlier.

Remember...

I don't think the article is a POS.

I don't think it attempts to "dupe" anyone.

I don't think the article is trying to be silly or bamboozle people through the backdoor.

I think it's a brilliant article that reveals how anachronistic and backwards the arguments of many gay marriage opponents are.

Kapeesh?

Now, as this thread is entitled Gay Marriage and not Article on Gay Marriage, and as we're certainly not going to get anywhere arguing over our taste in articles, how about we talk about the "right or wrong", yes?

The article never discusses the relative merits or pitfalls of either. This is not my opinion. If you disagree with it, then you're simply wrong and I'm sorry.

If you're really interested in discussing why I think there is a clear and relevant difference between interracial and homosexual marriages, then I can do so, but it will have to wait until tomorrow.

 

[wylecoyote]

-sigh-

Cyclo, it's an op-ed piece. You're right, it doesn't discuss the merits or pitfalls...But it's not about the merits or pitfalls, it's about how one guy feels about the subject. He presents an analogy that I think fits very well, and which you think is backdoor bamboozlement.
Frankly, I think the article is straightforward, and isn't confusing at all... once again, it's an op-ed piece not a scientific study.

And for the last time, I'm not interested in why you think there is a difference between the issue of interracial marriage in 1912 (important detail) and same-sex marriage today. I think the article rocks, you think it's bunk. Great. I can deal with that. I hope you can too.

Now can we discuss and argue our positions on same-sex marriage and not on the article? Jeeeez.

Off to bed you go. Talk to you tomorrow, Love.