Have I sufficiently addressed reasons against gay marriages?

[LordMagnusKain]

Um, no. That's totally non-sequitur. The "one man, one woman" definition of marriage says nothing about the relation of those two people.

What differentiates homosexual behavior from any other non-traditional behavior, and makes it special in it's "right" to have the law expressing the covenant of marriage extended to encompass it.

The fact that the behaviour is allowed within our society already means that it is morally acceptable.

like alcoholism, allowed, thus morally acceptable?

 

[Moonbeam]

M: The law doesn't give two sh!ts about your value judgments.

LMK: it does when people who agree with my value judgments are the ones making the law. Or have bigots like me just been in charge sense the foundation of this country and we are just now finding judges that realize how bigoted and mentally ill all of us that hold true to our values are?

M: You make your law and the courts will tell you if they are constitutional. You cannot legalize bigotry theoretically under the present Constitution. More about that in a sec:
-------
M: They want to same right to love as anybody else

LMK: in no way does not changing the definition of marriage to encompass homosexual relationships deny them the ?right to love?

M: Pleas don't play stupid. I said the "same rights" to love as "others" which means love as married individuals. It is not love but legal expressions of sanctified love that they are seeking and which you hope to deny.

LMK: ?the institution of monogamy is one of the most psychologicly detrimental parts of our society, after we gain the right to be married, monogamy is the next thing that has to go?- Leader of the Gay and Lesbian alliance, SanFrancisco rally, 2003.

M: Who cares what one individual thinks. Let him or her try to win a case.

LMK: again, i thank people like you and conjur, your lack of reasonability and insults directed towards those of us with faith are so unreasonable that those that might be willing to meet you half way are turned to my side by them.

M: I think you have no faith. If you had faith you would have no fear. You would understand that gays are identical to you in every way except in whom they are sexually attracted. They are as moral, as faithful, as religious, and as deserving of equality as anybody else. Do not cry to me about your feelings of persecution when it is you who seeks to persecute. You have to understand that the form of your mental illness makes everything appear upside down. You think you are the victim when you victimize. Gays are no threat to you.

LMK: a mental illness is a psychological condition that leads you to be incapable of having friends and holding a job.

M: Hehe, sure it is.

LMK: Interestingly enough, many who are truly psychologically ill are cured of there problems simply by having faith in God.

M: Then I suggest you get some and stop pretending that it is actually you who is God. Faith is not belief in a book.

 

[luv2chill]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
What differentiates homosexual behavior from any other non-traditional behavior, and makes it special in it's "right" to have the law expressing the covenant of marriage extended to encompass it.

The point is (and the reason that slippery slope is a fallacy) is that each of these so-called "non-traditional behaviors" must be taken individually, as each presents a completely different set of circumstances, parties involved, and effects (societal & personal). A reasonsable person must be able to set aside emotional knee-jerk reactions when comparing things like homosexuality, incest, bestiality, and other sexual "deviations". Legitimizing one does not automatically legitimize the others, no matter how many times you try to assert that it does.

I can't tell you how many times (just on this BBS alone) I've seen people say "well next you'll see people marrying their dogs". That is just so utterly ludicrous. Marriage is a social contract. Even our closest relatives, the primates, do not have the legal ability to consent and enter into contracts. If they could, or evolve to the point where they can give consent, then we should definitely revisit that issue. Until then, case closed.

Incest I have already addressed. Natural law dictates that a species is harmed by incestual reproduction. The nature of genetics is such that the genome is strengthened by variation. It has been observed and proven time and time again. As human beings, we have an in-built mechanism for incest avoidance because it is in the best interest of the continued propagation of homosapiens. It doesn't stem from a book or faith in a diety. It's self-evident. And possibly as a result of that biological mechanism, demonstrable emotional harm is frequently seen in cases of incest (heterosexual or homosexual). In the mind of a reasonable person, this shoud form a pretty solid case against the legalization of incestual marriages.

Homosexuality, a phenomenon that has been observed in human beings and other species throughout time (as well as other "deviants" such as intersexuality/hermaphroditism, gender dysphoria, asexuality, etc.) is still poorly understood by scientists. There are theories and observable patterns, but no iron-clad proofs as of yet as to its genesis. However, you would have to have some pretty large blinders on to ignore the evidence pointing to a biological basis for the trait. To believe that all gay people choose to be attracted to their same gender is akin to the belief that the holocaust didn't happen (that is just my opinion). But in ascertaining whether or not to grant marriage rights to persons of a homosexual proclivity we have to set aside everything else BUT homosexuality and try it on its own merits. First and foremost is that you need to examine it in relation to the harm principle. Are either of the two consenting adults harmed by marrying one another? I won't bother to list out all the arguments of either side, but I think it would really be reaching to come up with even a few likely scenarios in which harm could be demonstrated to the parties involved in the contract.

I am sure the case for/against homosexual marriage would have many such aspects to consider, but my main point is that it is non-sequitur to argue that legitimizing homosexuality automatically legitimizes bestiality, incest, polygamy or any other non-traditional sexual behavior. I am not saying that any of those other behaviors won't be legalized at some point in time (but it is highly unlikely given the emotional/physical harm that occurs more often than not). However, the fear of them becoming legal is not a valid reason to stand in the way of giving homosexual marriage its fair trial.

l2c

 

[LordMagnusKain]

but legal expressions of sanctified love

yep, and they have no right to require that the state ?sanctify? there ?love?. That?s a personal issue, not something you demand the state, in it?s capacity as the expressed will of the people, should be forced in to accepting. Tolerating those we disagree with does not require accepting them.

LMK: ?the institution of monogamy is one of the most psychologicly detrimental parts of our society, after we gain the right to be married, monogamy is the next thing that has to go?- Leader of the Gay and Lesbian alliance, SanFrancisco rally, 2003.

M: Who cares what one individual thinks. Let him or her try to win a case.

You indicated that there was no attempt or intent to bring down the foundations of society and called me paranoid for thinking so, the fact is that there is.

They are as moral, as faithful, as religious, and as deserving of equality as anybody else.

I agree, I just disagree with your assessment that having the state sanctify non-traditional sexual relations falls under the sub-heading of ?equality? and you?ve yet to make any argument, shy of demanding that it?s a ?right? and calling all who disagree with you bigots, in your favor.

Honestly, if you want to create a change in society you?re going to have to argue the benefits of the change, otherwise we?re going to side with tradition.

You think you are the victim when you victimize.

no, just when thought-police and tyrants try to control the laws instead of allowing the people to.

 

[sothsegger]

Address this issue!

If the gay/lesbian lifestyle is fully accepted in society, then more people will "come out," which will make it harder for straight people like me to find sex. An it's already too hard.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

If the gay/lesbian lifestyle is fully accepted in society, then more people will "come out," which will make it harder for straight people like me to find sex. An it's already too hard.

only good argument for homosexual marriage in the whole thread.

 

[Moonbeam]

LMK, can we sum it up like this:

yep, and black people have no right to require that the state ?sanctify? there ?love?. That?s a personal issue, not something you demand the state, in it?s capacity as the expressed will of the people, should be forced in to accepting. Tolerating those we disagree with does not require accepting them.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

yep, and black people have no right to require that the state ?sanctify? there ?love?.

except for those pesky 13th 14th and 15th amendments, and the US Equal Rights act intended to end discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin;

so, after 3 amendments and the CRAct of 1964 it's illegal for people who believe in changing the definition of marriage to exclude marriage between blacks to do so.

So what gives the judiciary the right to change the definition of marriage in a way that denies the basic values on which the covenant was brought into law?

I've got good legal reasons that show the difference, have you any? Some bloke in the UN saying so, maybe?

 

[Moonbeam]

Everyone is equal under the law. You want people who are same sex oriented not to have equality under the law to marry a person they love. You are a bigot that believes that his bigotry should not be challenged and that it is more important than other peoples happiness. You are a selfish, sick person in my opinion and your morality is false and skin deep. All people are equal under the law. There is nothing to prove but that gays don't deserve that protection. That is not possible because there is no reason at all that they should not be equal. You are as unjust as a majority who tried to make constitutional a law that said only gays can marry. That is who and how you are in reflection.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

yep, and black people have no right to require that the state ?sanctify? there ?love?.

except for those pesky 13th 14th and 15th amendments, and the US Equal Rights act intended to end discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin;

so, after 3 amendments and the CRAct of 1964 it's illegal for people who believe in changing the definition of marriage to exclude marriage between blacks to do so.

So what gives the judiciary the right to change the definition of marriage in a way that denies the basic values on which the covenant was brought into law?

I've got good legal reasons that show the difference, have you any? Some bloke in the UN saying so, maybe?

You forgot gender, remember....

 

[LordMagnusKain]

You are as unjust as a majority who tried to make constitutional a law that said only gays can marry. That is who and how you are in reflection.

all else being equal: If, for thousands of years, society had been based on only homosexuals marrying, then i would completely understand why the fundamental definition of marriage wouldn't be changed in a way that would deny the basic values on which the covenant of marriage was formed.

You want people who are same sex oriented not to have equality under the law to marry a person they love

i want people who's sexual activity doesn't fit into the traditional definition of marriage not to change the definition of marriage through judicial activism.

What's the essential difference between homosexual's "love" and any other non-traditional "love", and why doesn't any other non-traditional sexual activity have a "right" to be added to the definition of marriage?

You've either got a problem with hypocrisy or a problem telling the truth about what you want.

Like I said, you believe all of us who have traditional values are mentally ill bigots, from the founding fathers to john Kerry, every last one of us.

And that?s fine, your right, but you can know that you?re crazy not when you think your crazy, but when you look around and you think everyone else is crazy and you?re the only sane one.

 

[Moonbeam]

You can repeat your judicial activism mantra till you are blue in the face. The Supreme court is the Supreme court and if they rule that laws that ban gay marriage are unconstitutional you will have to move to Iran or legalize your bigotry via constitutional amendment. But there is nothing judicially active about the courts ruling on the constitutionality of law. It is the founding fathers that gave them that function, the function you apparently abhor. But of course they did it to protect minorities from nuts like you who think that a majority should make the law. You are wrong. You will need a super-majority to change the constitution to institute your bigoted thinking. Good luck getting it. You are a fringe loon because you can't even comprehend what king of government you live under. There is constitutional protection for minorities because there is the threat of the tyranny of the majority. Go to Iran where bigots run the show if you want to live under religious law. We have a secular state here where the absurd notions people imagine they see in a book aren't granted special favor. Nobody is forcing you to marry gay and nothing gives you the right to stop others. You have your filthy morality hanging out of your face and laying out in the public road and scream every time somebody walks by and steps on it. Get your filthy morality out of the road and let others pass as they will anyway. You are suffering from nothing but self inflicted wounds.

LMK: 'And that?s fine, your right, but you can know that you?re crazy not when you think your crazy, but when you look around and you think everyone else is crazy and you?re the only sane one.

Wonderful, I know I must be sane because I know I am not. Hehe, the stuff you say is just amazing.

 

[LunarRay]

LMK: Interestingly enough, many who are truly psychologically ill are cured of there problems simply by having faith in God.

The key to your statement is 'belief'. Faith is nothing more than belief in something of a religious nature. (As I see it).

IF you believed that a falling apple caught before it hit the ground would cure some ill or another then you'd be on the way to a cure. Your own defenses would be mustered to the effort and/or you'd be open to help from an external source.

The part of that opinion that is sad is that for some who do believe no cure comes... the beliefs of a polio victim in agony continue as does the pain... that would mean that God lets this one suffer and cures another. God don't do a thing.... it is the person that does all the doing... nothing more nor anything less.

This is especially true when using God in context with behavior. God is only interested in the Soul of the person and allows all that is to be as it is. God knew the beginning and the end and the present and always will. To expect or encourage divine intervention presupposes that God lives in the same time line and had to wait till it occurred to remedy it.. I really doubt that. And I really doubt anything religious ought to be the basis for any law placed on another's behavior. Even though the society may be religious based it must be oblivious to it when making law.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
yep, and they have no right to require that the state ?sanctify? there ?love?. That?s a personal issue, not something you demand the state, in it?s capacity as the expressed will of the people, should be forced in to accepting. Tolerating those we disagree with does not require accepting them.

So then you are for removing all marriage benefits so that none of us are forced to accept each others loves, since it is a personal issue. Correct?

Also LordMagnusKain, do you accept homosexuality? If you do not then obviously the system isn't currently forcing you to accept it even though it exists and isn't banned. What makes you think you would be forced to accept their marriages any more than their already existant lifestyles?

 

[skace]

By the way, Dullard, if you are still reading this at all. What has to happen for a mass civil union rule to be put into affect the way we discussed? Is there any way to check whether it has even come up or any site that is currently trying to get it brought into the fold?

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Of all these ideas, I still like Dullard's the best.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Civil union is fine for gays that want a civil union but marriage should be allowed for gays seeking marriage as long as the church they wish to marry and commit before God is is willing to marry them. A law preserving a religious entitlement to one group and denying it to another is a violation of freedom of religion. It is a case of religious bigots trying to legalizee their brand of religion.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

So then you are for removing all marriage benefits so that none of us are forced to accept each others loves, since it is a personal issue. Correct?

yep.

Also LordMagnusKain, do you accept homosexuality?

I tolerate the life-choices of homosexuals, adulterers, people who engage in orgies, people who have sex with of-age family members, and people who have sex outside of the covenant of marriage.

I don?t believe they have a right to use judicial activism to have there non-traditional sexual relations deny the basic values on which the covenant of marriage was brought into law.

 

[Moonbeam]

I tolerate the life-choices of homosexuals, adulterers, people who engage in orgies, people who have sex with of-age family members, people who have sex outside of the covenant of marriage, and traitors who slander the founding fathers by implying that Constitutional government is judicial activism so as to lend some fictitious pretense of importance and cover for what in fact is nothing but raw bigotry.

 

[shrumpage]

can any restrictions or limits be placed on marriage?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I tolerate the life-choices of homosexuals, adulterers, people who engage in orgies, people who have sex with of-age family members, people who have sex outside of the covenant of marriage, and traitors who slander the founding fathers by implying that Constitutional government is judicial activism so as to lend some fictitious pretense of importance and cover for what in fact is nothing but raw bigotry.

Agreed. Also, I wonder if allowing mixed-race couples to marry back in the 60s was "constitutional activism" -- OR, if in fact, it was the court system ensuring that legislature doesn't OVERSTEP ITS BOUNDS in making or maintaining laws that are INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CONSTITUTION because they violate individuals' rights to equality before the law or due process.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I tolerate the life-choices of homosexuals, adulterers, people who engage in orgies, people who have sex with of-age family members, people who have sex outside of the covenant of marriage, and traitors who slander the founding fathers by implying that Constitutional government is judicial activism so as to lend some fictitious pretense of importance and cover for what in fact is nothing but raw bigotry.

Agreed. Also, I wonder if allowing mixed-race couples to marry back in the 60s was "constitutional activism" -- OR, if in fact, it was the court system ensuring that legislature doesn't OVERSTEP ITS BOUNDS in making or maintaining laws that are INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CONSTITUTION*** or violate an individual's right to equality before the law or due process.

Great point.

Any restrictions placed on marriage need to be non discriminatory and pass a legislature vote and not get shot down as in violation of some other aspect of the Constitution I guess. You can legislate the age of marriage and the number of mates, etc.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

can any restrictions or limits be placed on marriage?

apparently if you can have sex with another human you deserve the right to marry that human, and anyone that opposes that "love" is a bigot.

oh, wait.. that's not true at all.

Also, I wonder if allowing mixed-race couples to marry back in the 60s was "constitutional activism"

again, and I?ll say it slowly:

we have 3 amendments and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly revoking the right of the people to make laws that have any regard to race, creed or color.

Your logic is less applicable to the right of a man to marry a black woman, and much more applicable to the right of people who love each other to marry, without regard to commonly healed sexual morality, a case that?s been defeated time and again in regards to polygamy, homosexuality, and of-age incestuous relationships.

The questions on this are not the ?right to love? each other, which all of those groups have, but weather or not the definition of marriage is changed in a way that denies the basic values on which it was brought into law.

now, Moonie, if you have right to tell people in any single way who they can marry, then you've got right to tell them in all ways, and even tell them who they must marry, unless the constitution directly demands otherwise.

Your argument is that we can?t take the majority?s view in regards to sexual morality into account when it comes the definition of marriage, if that?s the case then you can?t take any into account, if you can take any into account you can take all into account.

Now start arguing for what you really want, a change of perception in regards to what is sexual moral, stop arguing that your dog didn't bight me because he was tied up, in another country and has no teeth, and just get to your real point, you don't have a dog.

and you don't have the perspective that homosexual sex is an immoral choice, and along as that's your point of view you can argue all you want on other sides of the issue, but you wouldn?t be if you held the idea that it was a moral choice.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
apparently if you can [legally] have sex with another human you deserve the right to marry that human

I agree 100% as long as legally is placed in there. And also as long as by right to marry we understand that they arn't promised a religious ceremony of any type, as that is up to the church if they decide to pursue it.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

can any restrictions or limits be placed on marriage?

apparently if you can have sex with another human you deserve the right to marry that human, and anyone that opposes that "love" is a bigot.

oh, wait.. that's not true at all.

It's not a "right to marriage", it is a right to equal treatment before the law.

If you are able to articulate a non-bogus reason why gay couples should not be treated the same as heterosexual couples with respect to marriage law -- a reason that is SO CONVINCING that we should over-ride fundamental legal considerations such as "equality before the law" and "due process" -- then by all means do so. 🙂

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Also, I wonder if allowing mixed-race couples to marry back in the 60s was "constitutional activism"

again, and I?ll say it slowly:

we have 3 amendments and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly revoking the right of the people to make laws that have any regard to race, creed or color.

Your logic is less applicable to the right of a man to marry a black woman, and much more applicable to the right of people who love each other to marry, without regard to commonly healed sexual morality, a case that?s been defeated time and again in regards to polygamy, homosexuality, and of-age incestuous relationships.

What are you talkng about?

I was addressing the habit of social conservatives to dismiss and demean Supreme Court decisions in favor of so-called minorities as "judicial activism"...

For example, the Massachucetts Supreme Court found that it was SIMPLY UNFAIR to not allow gay people to marry; they found that the marriage ban violated constitutional considerations of "due process" and
"equality before the law"... that Supreme Court decision has been repeatedly demeaned as mere "judicial activism"... IN FACT, the Court took a look at the legislation on marriage, and found it was not compatible with the Massachucetts constitution... in other words, the legislature had over-stepped it's bounds, and had passed rules (denying gay people access to marriage) that were simply not constitutionally valid. The fact that many social conservatives disagree with gay marriage and would like to use the law to implement their reactionary social agenda does not make the Massachucetts decision any less valid or legitimate.

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
The questions on this are not the ?right to love? each other, which all of those groups have, but weather or not the definition of marriage is changed in a way that denies the basic values on which it was brought into law.

Incorrect. The question is whether gay people are entitled to the same treatment as heterosexuals before the law.

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
now, Moonie, if you have right to tell people in any single way who they can marry, then you've got right to tell them in all ways, and even tell them who they must marry, unless the constitution directly demands otherwise.

Your argument is that we can?t take the majority?s view in regards to sexual morality into account when it comes the definition of marriage, if that?s the case then you can?t take any into account, if you can take any into account you can take all into account.

There is a fair amount of leeway for the legislature to express the beliefs and morality of the "majority" in the laws that are passed. HOWEVER in a constitutional democracy, there are LIMITS to expressing that will of the majority through law. In particular, laws cannot (legitimately) be passed which violate an indivual's constitutional right to equal treatment before the law, without a very good reason. The fact that many folx find that gay marriage makes them feel uncomfortable, or the fact that many folx oppose gay marriage for reasons of (pseudo-)morality or tradition isn't a good enough reason to prevent an entire class of individuals fromm accessing civil marriage. Constitutional considerations of fairness (equality before the law) trump the wishes of the majority, in my opinion. And at least 2/3 of the US population think gays should at least have access to civil unions, so that they get basic legal protections like visiting partners in hospital, being able to leave their property to their partner if one partner dies intestate (without a will), being able to make medical decisions for their partner if their partner is incapacitated, etc.

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Now start arguing for what you really want, a change of perception in regards to what is sexual moral, stop arguing that your dog didn't bight me because he was tied up, in another country and has no teeth, and just get to your real point, you don't have a dog.

and you don't have the perspective that homosexual sex is an immoral choice, and along as that's your point of view you can argue all you want on other sides of the issue, but you wouldn?t be if you held the idea that it was a moral choice.

A change in perception would be nice. I'm sure all lesbian + gay people would appreciate being welcomed back into the fold of the community, instead of being shunned and pushed to the outskirts... but frankly, I think most gay people would be willing to "make do" with just being treated (from a legal perspective) the same as everyone else.