Research on sexual orientation and homophobia

[WelshBloke]

See, now you are changing your argument. Either a marriage is private or not. If you are asking society to recognize your marriage it is not private.

I have never said anything about it affecting me personally. It affects the institution of marriage which affect society.

I'm married, in what way does two guys getting married change my marriage?

Presumably you think marriage is a good thing for straight people, why does it because a bad thing for gay people?

 

[nehalem256]

I'm married, in what way does two guys getting married change my marriage?

Presumably you think marriage is a good thing for straight people, why does it because a bad thing for gay people?

gay marriage serves no societal purpose. Who said anything about it being bad for gay people?

Why do you think straight marriage should exist?

 

[WelshBloke]

gay marriage serves no societal purpose. Who said anything about it being bad for gay people?

Why do you think straight marriage should exist?

Because straight people want to get married.

 

[nehalem256]

Because straight people want to get married.

So in your view the only reason society has marriage is to satisfy individuals personal narcissism? It has no other purpose for existing?

 

[cybrsage]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What massive and sudden changes?

Follow along. He mentioned removing marriage altogether, including civil unions. It makes much more sense when you follow along with the flow of the conversation.

And when I said in a previous post , don't be an ahole and a sadist, I was talking about you cybrsage and your ilk. You are rude, crude, socially unacceptable, small minded, and you offer no solutions.

You make as much sense as selling ice to an eskimo.

 

[cybrsage]

Why do people get so worked up about a private ceremony that two blokes might have?

In the US, the religious institution predates the legal institution. The legal institution was created to give force of law behind the legal institution. This should have never been allowed, due to the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which is to prevent the government from getting involved in religious institutions.

Now that the government is trying to redefine the term marriage, which means it is trying to redefine the religious institution it put the force of law behind. This also violated the Constitution.

The only real way out is to remove the government from marriage altogether and have a true seperation of church and state on this issue. The government can still grant civil unions, and of any type they like. Everyone but the bigots on both sides win.

 

[WelshBloke]

So in your view the only reason society has marriage is to satisfy individuals personal narcissism? It has no other purpose for existing?

No, you asked why I thought it should exist. Given that it doesn't harm anyone there's no reason for it not to be allowed if someone wants to enter into it.

 

[cybrsage]

It also does not harm anyone to allow people to have sex with their dogs...or with dead people...yet we do not allow it.

EDIT: Not saying they are the same, just saying "not harm anyone" is not a good argument to allow something.

 

[alzan]

There is nothing wrong with wanting equal rights, gay people should have equal rights but what I do have a problem with is with liberals who use gay people to further there agenda

As for this accusation that I am some other poster that is completely not true, you really need to use some common sense before you make these accusations and I have already been contacted by a mod who is looking into this claim that I am someone elses account

1) Again with the Agenda: why do you need to view equal treatment under the law as an agenda? People from all parts of the political spectrum fought for the voting rights of women, for the civil rights of African-Americans, as well as equal rights for homosexuals. It's not just a "liberal" thing; well maybe it is for you.

Like I said previously, it was an opinion. That you choose to view it as an accusation speaks volumes; isn't victimhood wonderful? Good for you that a mod is looking into an opinion that you are someone else's account. If found to be false, and the mod contacts me or others that share this opinion, I will abide by the mods decision and/or rule, if any.

alzan

 

[WelshBloke]

It also does not harm anyone to allow people to have sex with their dogs...or with dead people...yet we do not allow it.

EDIT: Not saying they are the same, just saying "not harm anyone" is not a good argument to allow something.

Bestiality and necrophillia are both illegal.

Also the gay marriage thing isn't about sex, unless you believe there's a bunch of frustrated gay guy's taking copious cold showers and practicing abstinence until marriage night.

 

[nehalem256]

No, you asked why I thought it should exist. Given that it doesn't harm anyone there's no reason for it not to be allowed if someone wants to enter into it.

But why should the government go to all the trouble to say that certain relationships are special and grant special rights for those relationships?

 

[nehalem256]

Bestiality and necrophillia are both illegal.

So is gay marriage in the vast majority of states.

 

[alzan]

Alice's Restaurant ... all 18 minutes of it is my favorite song of all time... I actually sat there on Whitehall Street back in '63... I still see those people. Arlo was not foreign to me mainly because of Woody... He was born in Coney Island, Brooklyn but moved to Massachusetts in around '60ish... and that story he wrote really did happen... in '65 I think it was .. heheheh Thanksgiving Day.

I wonder how many know he is or at least was a republican who just loves Paul....

Mods and others; forgive the temporary Off Topic.

Never met him or his father; but I feel I know a little of them through their music. I'm forever indebted to my mother for making sure we had a good grounding in folk music and the contemporary bards of our formative years.

I never doubted that it did happen; what saddens me is that it could still very likely happen fifty years hence.

alzan

 

[alzan]

This is honestly the most sensible thing I've read on this forum in a long time.



I'm not even sure number 3 stands on sufficient grounds on its own. You can totally outlaw bestiality sure, but why can't a guy marry his favorite chair? Or his farm?

Inanimate objects cannot give Informed Consent

 

[cybrsage]

Bestiality and necrophillia are both illegal.

As is homosexual marriage.

Also the gay marriage thing isn't about sex, unless you believe there's a bunch of frustrated gay guy's taking copious cold showers and practicing abstinence until marriage night.

Never claimed it was. I was just easily showing that using the "does not hurt anyone" line of reasoning is a faulty line of reasoning to use.

 

[alzan]

gay marriage serves no societal purpose. Who said anything about it being bad for gay people?

Why do you think straight marriage should exist?

Stable, monogamous relationships do in fact benefit society.

 

[nehalem256]

Stable, monogamous relationships do in fact benefit society.

So I assume you would join me in opposing no-fault divorce and enforcing criminal penalties for cases of adultery?

 

[cybrsage]

The divorce part is a difficult one, as not allowing no fault divorce would mean they stay married until it turns ugly and then divorce...which defeats the stable relationship part.

I support civil penalties for adultery. It is a violation of a civil contract.

 

[alzan]

As is homosexual marriage.



Never claimed it was. I was just easily showing that using the "does not hurt anyone" line of reasoning is a faulty line of reasoning to use.

1) For now; in the future; who knows.

2) True, it's a faulty line of reasoning. Of course you do have to consider the fact that some of those who are against same-sex marriage are doing from the stance that "it's harming their opposite sex marriage. Seems like faulty lines of reasoning are being employed by both sides of the debate.

 

[cybrsage]

1) For now; in the future; who knows.

2) True, it's a faulty line of reasoning. Of course you do have to consider the fact that some of those who are against same-sex marriage are doing from the stance that "it's harming their opposite sex marriage. Seems like faulty lines of reasoning are being employed by both sides of the debate.

Agreed, both sides are using the same faulty reasoning. I still say everyone wins if the gov just gets out of marriage and only does civil unions (the only ones who lose are the full on bigots on both extreme sides of the issue).

 

[WelshBloke]

So is gay marriage in the vast majority of states.

But the act of gay sex isn't, that's the difference.

 

[nehalem256]

Agreed, both sides are using the same faulty reasoning. I still say everyone wins if the gov just gets out of marriage and only does civil unions (the only ones who lose are the full on bigots on both extreme sides of the issue).

But why should it even grant civil unions?

It seems that most of the rights are things that are easily handled without a special contract (power of attorney esque stuff).

Or were rights that were only really intended to protect stay-at-home-mothers, ie SS and health benefits from work. And therefore really no apply much anymore.

 

[WelshBloke]

But why should the government go to all the trouble to say that certain relationships are special and grant special rights for those relationships?

Are you arguing that no one should be allowed to marry or that it's somehow more work for the government to allow gay marriage compared to straight?

 

[cybrsage]

But why should it even grant civil unions?

It seems that most of the rights are things that are easily handled without a special contract (power of attorney esque stuff).

Or were rights that were only really intended to protect stay-at-home-mothers, ie SS and health benefits from work. And therefore really no apply much anymore.

We already covered this. Society is designed around the union of two people into a single legal unit, with full rights and powers granted to the two members for the other member. To just remove it suddenly would be detrimental to society. Society accepts small, slow changes, not sudden huge ones.

One small step at a time. This is how humans work. You cannot ignore the human portion of human society.

 

[alzan]

So I assume you would join me in opposing no-fault divorce and enforcing criminal penalties for cases of adultery?

1a) I'm not learned enough in legal considerations in general and divorce considerations specifically; so that'd be a No on that part.

1b) Enforcing criminal penalties for cases of adultery? I don't think I could support that either. It would involve a lot more government intrusion to verify it; it would tie up our legal system even more than it is; not to mention all the prison space that would be needed; unless you are proposing putting adulterers in stocks on the public square; scarlet letters; or some of the more horrific penalties of the Inquisition (that no one was expecting 😉).

Not to mention the fact that it wouldn't stop adultery.

So in this case at least you assumed incorrectly.

alzan