Gays in society (split from Boy Scouts thread)

[Retro Rob]

No, they can't. It is about consent more than anything else. How can you extrapolate that legalizing gay marriage can make the laws easier for humans to have sex with animals?

Well, I think "between two consenting adults" leaves a loophole big enough to drive a mac truck through -- nothing is really defined with this definition.

Two consenting adults could mean two relatives of the same or opposite sex, a parent and their grown child, at least two people (leaving the door wide open to polygamists) or more of the same or opposite sex, two brothers and/or two sisters in a polygamist-type marriage as well.

Not that these are likely to happen, but we can't leave the definition of marriage this wide open to, in reality, satisfy a minority group of people.

At the very least the one man, one woman definition doesn't allow for more than two people of the opposite sex, it doesn't allow same-sex partners, nor doesn't it open it up for polygamy. It doesn't address incest or relative marriages, though, but it closes most loopholes that could be exploited.

This is not by pitch to keep marriage open only to non-related, heterosexual couples -- it just address why I think its short-sighted to leave it at "two consenting adults".

 

[nehalem256]

No, they can't. It is about consent more than anything else. How can you extrapolate that legalizing gay marriage can make the laws easier for humans to have sex with animals?

Well, no, it's not, because Christianity is relatively new in the grand scheme of human history. My point is that "traditional marriage" is a myth, because it has evolved over thousands of years with or without the gay marriage aspect.

Marriage is whatever society says it is.

That would easily seem to leave the door open for humans and animals to get married.

 

[schmuckley]

That would easily seem to leave the door open for humans and animals to get married.

Indeed.

 

[busydude]

That would easily seem to leave the door open for humans and animals to get married.

Many traditions allow for people to get married to animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human–animal_marriage

But all of them ignore the "consent" part.

 

[nehalem256]

Many traditions allow for people to get married to animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human–animal_marriage

But all of them ignore the "consent" part.

Human–animal marriage is not recognized in law by any country

They ignore the "consent" part, because the concept of consent does not make sense when we are talking about animals. Humans freely do things to animals all the time without their consent.

 

[Craig234]

People marrying animals has no more to do with gay marriage than heterosexual marriage; it's just an insult to gay people and spouting irrationality. More bigotry.

The topic has no place in a rational discussion of the gay marriage issue - it's like letting the KKK call others animals in discussing civil rights.

 

[nehalem256]

People marrying animals has no more to do with gay marriage than heterosexual marriage; it's just an insult to gay people and spouting irrationality. More bigotry.

50 years ago people would have been saying the same thing about discussing homo-sexual marriage.

The topic has no place in a rational discussion of the gay marriage issue - it's like letting the KKK call others animals in discussing civil rights.

50 years ago people would have said talking about 2 men marrying had no place in a rational discussion of marriage.

 

[busydude]

50 years ago people would have been saying the same thing about discussing homo-sexual marriage.



50 years ago people would have said talking about 2 men marrying had no place in a rational discussion of marriage.

We are not living in the 60s. I don't understand why so many folks like to deflect the issue at hand by going on extreme hyperbole to make sure any discussion doesn't take place.

 

[Pulsar]

This is factually false. Marriage predates Christianity. And is practiced in societies across the world in a manner more or less consistent with Christian principles in non-Christian countries such as Japan and China.

No kidding.

In that case Christians REALLY need to get over it. It's not even their convention. Fascinating.

 

[Pulsar]

1. Two consenting adults could mean two relatives of the same or opposite sex
And why does it matter? Hint: It doesn't.

Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989.
Ohio only targets parental figures.
New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 years of age or older.

The Taboo came about because of the physical deformities that could be created by inbreeding, and because of the religious views (which may have been written into the bible because of experience with inbreeding). I know, it might still be a little to progressive for many.... but two consenting adults are two consenting adults. As long as there is ZERO chance of reproduction.... explain why it should be illegal.

There are still many states that DO have laws:
Life imprisonment in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee.

(Humorous considering many of those are the 'deep south' where inbreeding has historically been practiced).

2. a parent and their grown child
See #1

3. at least two people (leaving the door wide open to polygamists) or more of the same or opposite sex
And?

4. two brothers and/or two sisters in a polygamist-type marriage as well.
And?

I know, after your views on gays, that I probably just made your head explode. But there is no LOGICAL reason that consenting adults cannot, among themselves, do whatever they want if they're enjoying it.

I know several people whom live in a two-women one-man household, and have for over 20 years, and absolutely enjoy it and are in love with each other.

 

[Retro Rob]

1. Two consenting adults could mean two relatives of the same or opposite sex
And why does it matter? Hint: It doesn't.

Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989.
Ohio only targets parental figures.
New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 years of age or older.

The Taboo came about because of the physical deformities that could be created by inbreeding, and because of the religious views (which may have been written into the bible because of experience with inbreeding). I know, it might still be a little to progressive for many.... but two consenting adults are two consenting adults. As long as there is ZERO chance of reproduction.... explain why it should be illegal.

There are still many states that DO have laws:
Life imprisonment in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee.

(Humorous considering many of those are the 'deep south' where inbreeding has historically been practiced).

2. a parent and their grown child
See #1

3. at least two people (leaving the door wide open to polygamists) or more of the same or opposite sex
And?

4. two brothers and/or two sisters in a polygamist-type marriage as well.
And?

I know, after your views on gays, that I probably just made your head explode. But there is no LOGICAL reason that consenting adults cannot, among themselves, do whatever they want if they're enjoying it.

I know several people whom live in a two-women one-man household, and have for over 20 years, and absolutely enjoy it and are in love with each other.

Actually, your lack of reading made my head explode -- read my last paragraph. This isn't a pitch to restrict marriage laws to only hetero couples -- the post was only made to address possible loopholes.

I don't see how you possibly missed that.

And since gay couples want to change the law, they have to show why, I don't have to show why it shouldn't be changed. But if "why" and "and" is your leading defense vs my post, you have no reason.

 

[Retro Rob]

And if you know people who live in a two women, one man household that are in love and have been over 20 years, well.. that's not a reason to change marriage laws, is it?

They're perfectly fine without having to overhaul the tax system for them.

Secondly, marriage isn't about love. Many hetero couples divorce and still love each other due to lack of commitment and/or compatibility.

Thirdly, you're only in the marriage business, as a polygamists, for the benefits. Marriage won't mean anything more than an ATM machine if we allow liberals free-reign on it by constantly modyfing it indefinitely to include anyone who whines about being discriminated against. Hey, you want it -- you'll get it and probably won't like the results.

Your polygamy argument isn't only without substance, its without reason or legitimacy. All you want if for them to get married ONLY BECAUSE everyone else can.

We're not in grade school anymore.

 

[nehalem256]

We are not living in the 60s. I don't understand why so many folks like to deflect the issue at hand by going on extreme hyperbole to make sure any discussion doesn't take place.

You reject human-animal marriage, because it is your definition of marriage.

I reject same-sex marriage, because it isn't my definition of marriage.

Its really pretty simple. And I think it is more the same-sex marriage supporters who don't want any discussion taking place because saying that those who oppose it are "bigots" or engaging in "hate-speech".

 

[Retro Rob]

Hey man, your arguments, while I think don't make sense, have some substance because marriage isn't going to be sacred much longer. I don't care if gays marry, but everyone from polygamists to sister lovers are preparing their arguments for their case against "discrimination".

Marriage will lose its meaning, and only because its open to infinite modification.

Shortsighted liberal minded people have opened Pandora's box.

 

[Craig234]

Hey man, your arguments, while I think don't make sense, have some substance because marriage isn't going to be sacred much longer. I don't care if gays marry, but everyone from polygamists to sister lovers are preparing their arguments for their case against "discrimination".

Marriage will lose its meaning, and only because its open to infinite modification.

Shortsighted liberal minded people have opened Pandora's box.

You've convinced me.

No more inter-racial marriage. Allow that and anything can happen.

 

[Retro Rob]

You've convinced me.

No more inter-racial marriage. Allow that and anything can happen.

This is an idiotic thing to say. Interracial marriages still included only 2 people of the opposite sex, just like white marriages. No meaning lost.

However, incestual marriage and infinite partner marriage are only propose because "everyone else is doing it" which cheapens the arrangement.

How special would your wife be to you if everyone can have sex with her?

 

[Vaux]

Vaux, you continue to ignore arguments that suggest that homosexuality is a natural byproduct of other evolutionary forces that influence sexuality.

I don't know if I am ignoring it. I don't think that it's been established that homosexuality is caused by that or anything else. If it is a natural byproduct and genes are puposely making people gay, then that would amount to a self destruct mechanism for our species. Unless it only means for some people to change, which I don't understand either. That is something I should educate myself more on.

Plus, it's not like you weren't ignoring any of my points, either. Mainly where you were proven wrong about birth defects.

The point about the human race ceasing to exist if everyone was born gay is a red herring -- the human race would also cease to exist if all sorts of other things happened 100% of the time that do not.

I still think it is valid as a measuring stick. It is irrelevant if everyone is doing it or not. Anything you do that if you do it would lead to the eradication of the species (or yourself) is not a good or right thing to do. I am unsure of why you are so quick to dismiss this. Maybe because it something you don't want to hear?

Natural" is inherently a subjective value judgment, as is "normal". It was once considered "natural" to have multiple wives, to beat your children and to own slaves.

That's off track. As far as wives go, it was never natural to have a wife or multiple wives. Natural is not a good word for that. Having multiple wives is a society custom, as is owning slaves. That was never natural, you aren't born with a wife and slave. Owning slaves was never right, even when people thought it was. Telling a gay man he can't be with another gay man isn't right either.People should not be controlled like that. But allowing them to marry and pretend like it's a great thing? Sorry, that's just for men and women.

Life is not just about procreation.

You're right, its not. But that is a very vital part of it seeing how you wouldn't exist without it.

And since you seem to like to compare gays to babies with birth defects, it might be worth pointing out that we don't try to make children with anomalies feel less human or less deserving of equal rights than others.

This isn't about hurting peoples feelings. It's sad. Some people are not born right and there is nothing I can do about that.

 

[Craig234]

This is an idiotic thing to say.

The sound of someone who doesn't understand the point.

The analogy is lost on you, but that's not the analogy's fault.

'You're dehumanzing and degrading black people to say they can't marry whites'.

'That's totally difference than dehumanizing and degrading gay people denying marriage'.

Interracial marriages still included only 2 people of the opposite sex, just like white marriages. No meaning lost.

Hm, let's try this.

Gay marriage still included only 2 people, just like heterosexual marriage. No meaning lost.

Oh, wait, you're claiming it 'loses meaning' for gay people not to be discriminated against.

Exactly the same as people argued it 'loses meaning' for blacks to be allowed.

Totally different.

However, incestual marriage and infinite partner marriage are only propose because "everyone else is doing it" which cheapens the arrangement.

How special would your wife be to you if everyone can have sex with her?

None of which has anything to do with gay marriage, but last I checked, swinging couples are still allowed to marry.

 

[busydude]

You reject human-animal marriage, because it is your definition of marriage.

Don't try to put words in my mouth. I don't consider marriage to be something special.. to me marriage is just a way for the government to know that my SO and I are in a binding relationship.

 

[Retro Rob]

'You're dehumanzing and degrading black people to say they can't marry whites'.

'That's totally difference than dehumanizing and degrading gay people denying marriage'.

It's really angering me how you cannot or will not use your evolved reading skills to read my last post:

Where did I say gays can't or shouldn't be allowed to marry? Please, quote me, do something... but stop, PLEASE, stop making these false insinuations.

Hm, let's try this.

Gay marriage still included only 2 people, just like heterosexual marriage. No meaning lost.

Oh, wait, you're claiming it 'loses meaning' for gay people not to be discriminated against.

Exactly the same as people argued it 'loses meaning' for blacks to be allowed.

Totally different

Again, did I say anything about gay marriage hurting the meaning of marriage?

NO!

Please, Craig... stop this crap and read what I am saying...

Please, you're starting to piss me off.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Craig234]

I don't know if I am ignoring it. I don't think that it's been established that homosexuality is caused by that or anything else. If it is a natural byproduct and genes are puposely making people gay, then that would amount to a self destruct mechanism for our species. Unless it only means for some people to change, which I don't understand either. That is something I should educate myself more on.

The scientific details are not known, but they don't matter - the issue of choice/non-choice is generally answered, that it's not choice.

It's not a self-destruct mechanism for the species. It's remained quite consistent as a small percent of people for all of history we can check.

And you're right, it's good to check the science on that. It's harmless as it is. And in the emergency North Korea drops a global gay bomb, gays CAN reproduce in a pinch.

birth defects.

As I said, the whole birth defect versus more neutral minority trait is an issue, but there is a scientific issue worth noting.

Biologists will explain to you that there is a threshhold whereby a trait that prevents reproduction is bred out of the species above a certain amount through natural selection.

Homosexuality is far more common than that level, and so it does not fit the description of 'birth defect'. If it did it'd have been bred out long ago. More is going on.

I still think it is valid as a measuring stick. It is irrelevant if everyone is doing it or not. Anything you do that if you do it would lead to the eradication of the species (or yourself) is not a good or right thing to do.

I ask you again, are Catholic priests doing something that is "not a good or right thing to do"? Are people born with reproduction difficulties immoral people?

If you are born with a birth defect that makes you infertile, should you be told you can't marry because you are doing something not right or good?

That's off track. As far as wives go, it was never natural to have a wife or multiple wives. Natural is not a good word for that. Having multiple wives is a society custom, as is owning slaves. That was never natural, you aren't born with a wife and slave. Owning slaves was never right, even when people thought it was.

It's crazy that you can't say "Discriminating against gays was never right, even when people thought it was."

Back to this 'natural' thing. Suddenly everyone looking for an excuse to discriminate is a junior Charles Darwin morally dedicated to not doing anything unnatural.

You know some other unnatural things? Driving a car. Talking to someone you can watch on video around the world. Manufactured medicine.

Something 'natural' is male promiscuity. It's a common trait that men like to sleep around - even if they agree to an artifical custom of monogamy for societal benefits.

Hell, the desire to rape and commit violence can be natural too. We have artifical restrictions on those things, too. Know what is natural? Homosexuality and heterosexuality.

So it's not really about 'natural'. That's looking for an argument to support a position you're predisposed to want to hold and defend.

Telling a gay man he can't be with another gay man isn't right either.People should not be controlled like that. But allowing them to marry and pretend like it's a great thing? Sorry, that's just for men and women.

Same argument that has been used for people of the right race or right religion or right behavior. If it were up to Catholics, you basically could not divorce or re-marry.

That's the point that you are saying 'sorry' for no valid reason except prejudice. You have no other basis for denying rights.

Do you? If you do, say them now or forever hold your peace and stop harming people.

This isn't about hurting peoples feelings. It's sad. Some people are not born right and there is nothing I can do about that.

No one is asking you to 'cure the gay'. Just to not spit in their face, put them in jail, deny them equal rights.

 

[Craig234]

Where did I say gays can't or shouldn't be allowed to marry? Please, quote me, do something...

In spite of a lack of manners, that doesn't change my desire to get your position correct.

First, if you're saying you're in favor of equal rights, what are we arguing about? My reading of your posts has been you oppose gay marriage -that you judge it badly, I haven't seen you say anywhere that you would vote for equal rights. If that's the case, good to hear, and no need to argue why you should support equality.

Here's the implication you made in your post you DO have a problem with gay marriage:

Interracial marriages still included only 2 people of the opposite sex, just like white marriages. No meaning lost.

By including the phrase 'of the opposite sex', there's an implication that's a requirement - so same sex WOULD be lost meaning for marriage.

No different than if you had included 'of the same race'.

So, you're saying you support equality for gay marriage? You're welcome to say if you will support it legally with your vote but have another issue with it, but answer that question.

 

[Retro Rob]

I haven't seen you say anywhere that you would vote for equal rights. If that's the case, good to hear, and no need to argue why you should support equality.

Here's the implication you made in your post you DO have a problem with gay marriage:



By including the phrase 'of the opposite sex', there's an implication that's a requirement - so same sex WOULD be lost meaning for marriage.

No different than if you had included 'of the same race'.

So, you're saying you support equality for gay marriage? You're welcome to say if you will support it legally with your vote but have another issue with it, but answer that question.

Forget "implications", just go back and read directly what I said on gay marriage... oh... here it is:

However, I can't fight it either -- since it doesn't involve me getting into a gay marriage or lending direct support to it, I support the right for people to marry who they want as the law affords it... not my place nor job to try to stop it.

Here's another, a couple posts atop you:

Hey man, your arguments, while I think don't make sense, have some substance because marriage isn't going to be sacred much longer. I don't care if gays marry, but everyone from polygamists to sister lovers are preparing their arguments for their case against "discrimination".

Marriage will lose its meaning, and only because its open to infinite modification.

Shortsighted liberal minded people have opened Pandora's box.

I was addressing Pulsar is his wide-range definition of marriage, and you just jumped in without noting why I was speaking about polygamy/incest.

Please, just read and understand what I said.

 

[Vaux]

So you have just undermined your own rationale about why a couple should be allowed to marry as related to reproduction.

Reproduction is not the only issue here. The main reason I stated is because homosexuals are not made to come together as one. It's a round peg in a square hole. The human male body was designed or produced to mate with females. Even if this does not result in children, it is still what our instincts tell us to do. It's normal behavior for males and females. Two males attempting to copulate is abnormal behavior. You can argue if you think it's abnormal or not, but it is not what the species is made to do and that type of behavior does not benefit the species.

I think you should put yourself in their shoes and ask what's right and wrong. I notice you dodge questions as well - for example, when you talk about how wrong it is for gays not to reproduce, you did not answer if say Catholic priests are also doing wrong by not reproducing - except that's a choice.

You seem to be ignoring a lot of my points that I haven't called you out on but whatever, the Catholic priest. I feel it should be a goal of all humans to reproduce. Now, having said that, if this priest or any other person decides not to have children, that is their perogative. Like gays that want to be together, if that is what they want, you can't and shouldnt stop them.

 

[Pulsar]

Forget "implications", just go back and read directly what I said on gay marriage... oh... here it is:

Here's another, a couple posts atop you:

I was addressing Pulsar is his wide-range definition of marriage, and you just jumped in without noting why I was speaking about polygamy/incest.

Please, just read and understand what I said.

Editted just now (not trying to ninja anyone, I just found a better way to say what I meant):

I have a real problem with a couple of things you said.

1. Marriage is sacred.
2. People are doing it (trying to get married) just because they see others do it.

I'm telling you that:

1. Marriage is not sacred. Marriage implies many aspects of a LEGAL relationship in the eyes of the government, not the least of which includes sharing of health plans at places of business, joint tax returns, and many other perks. Please explain why you think this LEGAL relationship should be denied to others who want to get married?

You don't get the play the sacred card, because a man and woman not even living together can get married. In fact, a man and woman can get married the day they meet. Go to Las Vegas.

So your religious viewpoint that marriage is sacred is a non-starter. Religious viewpoints are absolutely no reason to bar people from obtaining equal legal footing. Love is not required for marriage either.

2. See above for various legal reasons that people would want to be considered married, other than your obvious cop-out of 'because they see other people doing it'.

Sorry Rob, but it's clear that your religion is biasing everything you say and is coloring your view of the world in a very negative way. You're throwing up barriers where none should exist, and are attempt to deny people equal rights because you don't agree with their sexual preferences. Or at least, that's the way it appears.

Actually, your lack of reading made my head explode -- read my last paragraph. This isn't a pitch to restrict marriage laws to only hetero couples -- the post was only made to address possible loopholes.

Actually, that's the point. You're trying to narrow the definition of the word 'Marriage' to your religiously filtered view. That's not possible anymore, because the word Marriage includes a host of legal ramifications as well that you should not be able to deny others just due to your religious views.