• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Why should Homosexuals be allowed to be married?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Now what is all this NONSENSE about two CONSENTING ADULTS behaving in a specific kind of sexual behavior being called "immoral" all about? This argument sounds like this:

"What? I don't like that sort of thing! It must be WRONG, therefore we'll pass a law to make it illegal so that other people can't do it!"

This perspective has NO BASIS in Reason, nor in Law that is aimed at protecting the RIGHTS of Rational Individuals. There is NOTHING immoral about two gay men or two gay women engaging in sex of any kind so long as both are Consenting ADULTS.

I'm not gay, and I have no comprehension of why a man would wnat to have another man shove his "equipment" into his "back door." Nevertheless, some people do, and there is nothing unnatural or immoral about it. You find homosexual behavior in ALL mammal species. Is it the MOST common behavior? No, of course not; most members of a species are subject to powerful genetically defined desires to REPRODUCE and continue the survival of their GENES. This is LIFE, people, but the beauty of being a HUMAN BEING is that you have the power and capacity of CHOICE. You can choose what will make you HAPPY in life. That's what America's founding father's believed in above all else: The right to Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. If it makes some people happy to munch carpet or bang the bunghole, I have NO RIGHT to stop them from doing so in a lawful way (Which means, with other CONSENTING ADULTS.)

With regard to the "It's against God's Plan" crap, that is a great justification for your CHURCH to refuse to recognize gay marriage, and I am happy to support your right to do that. However, that argument does NOT hold up for whether the GOVERNMENT should recognize the rights of gays to be married. In spite of what you Conservatives like to tell each other,

AMERICA IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION!

I refer you to Article 11 of the Treaty of Peace and Frienship with Tripoli, enacted into Law June 10th, 1797 by President JOHN ADAMS, arguably the MOST CHRISTIAN of the Founding Fathers:


Further, President John Adams signed the treaty into law on this date and issued the following proclamation:

Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all others citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfil the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.

The full treaty and the proclamation (above) was printed in at least two Philadelphia newspapers of the day and at least one New York Newspaper of the day.

ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

For more info on this issue, I refer you thus: History of the Treaty with Tripoli

Now truly, aren't there more important matters to discuss than whether one ought to use the force of contract (law) to impose one's will upon another? It's been 150 years since the Civil War, surely we've moved beyond the idea that one man has a right to proscribe to another how to live his life and further, to use force to make it so?

Jason
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
First, when did I say that the U.S. was a Christian country? If you remember correctly, I said:

"Our country was established with freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Therefore, we are not a secular nation, as many here have mentioned. We are a nation of diverse religions. That means you can choose to be religious as well as un-religious, and it is prefectly legal."

The fact is, the majority of Americans practice a religion:

"According to the Gallup Poll, 96 percent of Americans believe in God. 71 percent say they belong to a church or synagogue, 45 percent say they actually worship regularly. The traditional faiths still dominate. 56 percent of Americans identify themselves as Protestants, 27 percent as Catholics, 2 percent as Jews." - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/religion_12-25.html

"Overall, the center's survey of surveys confirms that America truly is one nation, under God?or at least Americans say it is. In survey after survey, overwhelming majorities say they believe in God. More than nine in 10 Americans?95 percent?told ABC News polltakers that they believe in God. A Gallup Organization survey for CNN and USA Today last December found much the same thing: Nearly nine in 10?86 percent?said they believed in God, while another 8 percent said they believe in some form of "Universal spirit or higher power." - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/wat/archive/wat042400.htm

Does that me that everyone should practice a religion? No. But most people do. We are not a secular nation, just a nation with a growing secular group.

Now, let's take a look at Article 11 as stated by John Adams in which he states that the U.S. was not founded on the Christian religion. Assuming that this is true, here is his conclusion:

"...it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

So, where does he state that religion should not play a factor in with the United States? He doesn't. John Adams states that religion should not affect our relation with other nations. If the majority of Americans decide to accept Christian values (which, I think they do), then we can be a Christian country. If the majority of Americans decide to accept Islamic values, then we can be an Islamic country. See the pattern? Majority rules, welcome to the U.S.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,979
1
0
daniel1113

What a BS argument! If the majority decided slavery was the way to go would that be OK? How about if women are deemed to have "asked for it", rape is OK? Speaking of women, what if the majority decide they are just airheads anyway and shouldn't be allowed to vote? I could go on and on, but I think you see what a foolish point you make.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
daniel1113

What a BS argument! If the majority decided slavery was the way to go would that be OK? How about if women are deemed to have "asked for it", rape is OK? Speaking of women, what if the majority decide they are just airheads any and shouldn't be allowed to vote? I could go on and on, but I think you see what a foolish point you make.

Funny though it seems but another poster used that same argument about slavery to say that gay marriages should not be allowed. Come to think about when people start shifting around their arguments that's when you know that the position they defend is shaky and weak at best.
 

cain

Banned
Aug 1, 2003
2,512
0
0
wow, this is gonna be bad. with all the political correctness thing going on. but man, this is quite an issue. personally, i think they should just do whatever they want. or have one state legalize it so they can all flock to that state. on te second thought... nevermind
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
I'm afraid the "Majority Rules" theory is *precisely* what the founding fathers were trying to AVOID when they wrote the Constitution. The US government was NEVER founded on a Majority Rules, it was founded on the notion of "Liberty and Justice for All." And yes, "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," DOES mean that the Christian Religion's views and precepts SHOULD NOT have sway over decisions of the Federal Government. America is not a Christian Nation, it is a nation that specifically ignores religion from a Governmental perspective so that the people, EACH and EVERY ONE, may choose his or her spiritual beliefs as he or she sees fit.

Nice to know that you think that so long as you get a big enough group together they can be *justified* in forcing others to their viewpoint, though. Perhaps you'd like a shiny-new Confederate Flag for Christmas?

Jason
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,725
3,544
126
Yup, the majority can't make rules that are unconstitutional without first packing they own the three branches with the Senate at 60%. This is exactly what the Republicans dream of. They are almost there. Step one, a constitutional amendment to insure a religious view of marriage. Don't forget that when evil takes over the government, you'll know cause they'll call themselves good, the only remedy will be revolution.
 

mooncancook

Platinum Member
May 28, 2003
2,846
23
81
unlimited freedom = anarchy

where's the freedom in this country? why the heck do I get arrested for walking down the street in my most natural form - naked? why do I have to show my ID for buying beers? how come I'm not allowed to rent a X-rated movie when I was in high school? speaking of freedom of speech, why the heck was I asked the question whether I'm a Communist when I'm interviewed for naturalization? what if I answered 'yes'? a SWAP team gonna break in and shoot me if I make any movement?

p.s. for those calling others 'bigot', you never win an argument by calling the other side 'bigot'
 

IJustAte

Member
Nov 28, 2002
40
0
0
I read about half of this thread, then got bored... but here's my thoughts, and I apologize if I'm repeating something that someone already said:

I think by the time my life is over, (most) people will look back at these times with embarrassment, just like (most) people do now when they think of segregation, slavery, and not allowing women equal rights. Humans have been on this earth for thousands of years, and we're just now starting to realize that not everyone is a white heterosexual male. Are we really even a civilized species? And who knows how long it will be before everyone realizes that murder, theft, and general hatred are wrong? When people talk about world peace, it's nothing but a pipe dream. Why is it so outrageous to think that someday everyone might be able to love each other regardless of their differences? Perhaps it wouldn't be so outrageous if people would realize that "that's the way it's always been" is not a valid reason for anything. Nobody in this world is perfect, and nobody should be treated differently because of their personal wrong-doings. But I don't believe homosexuality to be wrong. Not at all. In fact (and this may be a little too radical for some of you), I think homosexuality should be encouraged. I don't mean that heterosexuals should try to "become" homosexual, but I think people should be encouraged to be open about their sexuality and they should be encouraged to enter homosexual marriages if they feel inclined to do so. Why? Because it's one very obvious benefit to the overpopulation problem. Many of the Christians are arguing that homosexuality is wrong because it causes reproduction to slow down, as if that were a bad thing. Why would anyone think we need more people in this world? Are they completely insane? Think of how nice it would be if homosexuals could marry each other and adopt children whose heterosexual parents didn't want them. But instead, these homosexuals are treated like perverts and criminals, when all they want is to be able to live their lives without being hated by half the population.

But my beliefs aren't limited to homosexuals. I believe (and this is where y'all will start thinking I'm a nut) that all living things should have the same rights as any white heterosexual male. I think it is just as bad to kill a pig or a cow as it is to kill a human. But people think I'm nuts when I say that, because everyone's so stuck in the "that's the way it's always been" attitude. If someone were born and raised in a completely isolated environment, where they were never taught that killing animals is ok and homosexuality is wrong, they wouldn't just develop those ideas on their own. They are beliefs that are passed down to us by our parents and our peers. But the fact is, nobody has one single logical reason why it is wrong to be homosexual and why it is ok to kill animals. If you look at it from a logical standpoint rather than a traditional or religious one, you will find no justification. And this is an example of how religion has actually created the very hatred it claims to detest. People learn from their religion that homosexuality is a sin, and that develops into hatred. But Christianity (and other religions) are supposed to be about love. Loving your neighbors, regardless of your differences.

I work at a catholic nursing home, and am surrounded by people (mostly old ladies) who are completely obsessed with their religion. You'd think that these people would be the kindest, most caring people alive, since their religion urges them to love one another and teaches that "He without sin among you, cast the first stone." But most of them are just the opposite. So many of these people are openly racist, sexist, and homophobic. Many of the other people I work with are african americans, and many of these "Catholics" will call them awesome people when they try to take care of them. And then they'll sit there and pray the rosary and read the bible. It is not uncommon for my supervisor to tell me that I need to go and help a lady because the lady wont let a black person take care of her. Why are people like this? Why is it so hard to treat everybody equally? I'll never understand that.

Sorry if I went a little off-topic, but for the record, I am a Catholic-raised white heterosexual male that doesn't believe in using religion to justify blatent hatred. And using religion to create laws for people of other religions is even more ridiculous. It's kinda funny that the same people who feel that homosexual marriage should be illegal and Christian prayer in public schools should be encouraged are the same people who think it's crazy when I suggest a law that forbids eating beef and pork because it offends jews and hindus. I think it's about time people try to understand the concept of a melting pot.

Wait, isn't this board supposed to be about computers?
 

IJustAte

Member
Nov 28, 2002
40
0
0
I'm actually surprised that the majority (or so it seems) of the people who have posted are in favor of homosexual marriage. All the polls I see say that the majority oppose it, but from my personal debates, I find that the majority are in favor of it. And I live in one of the most conservative cities in the country (Cincinnati).
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,408
2
0
The audiance here is above average intelligence combined with being younger in general you will see more liberal social views... Generally though they are more selfish IMO.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYSo I draw a line. And that makes me a bigot?
Your mind is closed as to my position. You seem to think that by me not endorsing "marriage" for homosexuals that I've closed my mind to it. While my OPINION based on my morals is they should not - it doesn't mean that I am not willing to hear the argument for it. There are some issues involved that I could maybe agree with if they were presented the right way but that is up to you and/or the gay activists to bring up if you want to push for special rights.
Cad, you're so ridiculous sometimes
The scenario is this: a certain segment of the population wants the same rights as everyone else, not "special" rights. The possible answers are: 1.) Yes, let them have the same rights, or 2.) No, do not let them have the same rights. You're the one proposing that we block their rights and not allow them to do what the rest of society can do. At what point do you think I'm the one trying to restrict someone's rights. Geeze Cad, at least get the story straight...
 

mooncancook

Platinum Member
May 28, 2003
2,846
23
81
Young people like to do what they want, they don't want to be restricted by moral codes. they might change views when they get older and have kids.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYSo I draw a line. And that makes me a bigot?
Your mind is closed as to my position. You seem to think that by me not endorsing "marriage" for homosexuals that I've closed my mind to it. While my OPINION based on my morals is they should not - it doesn't mean that I am not willing to hear the argument for it. There are some issues involved that I could maybe agree with if they were presented the right way but that is up to you and/or the gay activists to bring up if you want to push for special rights.
Cad, you're so ridiculous sometimes
The scenario is this: a certain segment of the population wants the same rights as everyone else, not "special" rights. The possible answers are: 1.) Yes, let them have the same rights, or 2.) No, do not let them have the same rights. You're the one proposing that we block their rights and not allow them to do what the rest of society can do. At what point do you think I'm the one trying to restrict someone's rights. Geeze Cad, at least get the story straight...
Ask the question right. You are trying to redefine marriage. Marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman - PERIOD. So it would be a "special" right. If your relationship doesn't qualify to be considered for marriage(ie man and woman) then that is your choice. What you are asking is to redefine what marriage is and always has been. You call it ridiculous - I call it morallity. EVERYONE has the same RIGHT to marry a person of the opposite sex if they choose - so they have just as many rights as I do in the marriage department.

CkG
 

IJustAte

Member
Nov 28, 2002
40
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
You are trying to redefine marriage. Marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman - PERIOD. So it would be a "special" right. If your relationship doesn't qualify to be considered for marriage(ie man and woman) then that is your choice. What you are asking is to redefine what marriage is and always has been. You call it ridiculous - I call it morallity. EVERYONE has the same RIGHT to marry a person of the opposite sex if they choose - so they have just as many rights as I do in the marriage department.

CkG
Originally posted by: IJustAte
Perhaps it wouldn't be so outrageous if people would realize that "that's the way it's always been" is not a valid reason for anything.
Again, give one logical reason (not a biblical one) why marriage should only be allowed between a man and a woman, besides "that's the way it's always been though." Betcha can't do it. By your logic, slavery should have never been abolished. Because at the time, that's the way it had always been.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,492
0
0
Heterosexual marriage is not even a right. You have to get a license. It is regulated by law, which represents the general morals of the community.

So either it gets passed into law, or amended to the constitution.

Personally, I don't care. I'd probably vote against it, if it came to the ballot in my community. But I'm not going to get up-in-arms about it if another community decides to pass it.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Ask the question right. You are trying to redefine marriage. Marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman - PERIOD. So it would be a "special" right. If your relationship doesn't qualify to be considered for marriage(ie man and woman) then that is your choice. What you are asking is to redefine what marriage is and always has been. You call it ridiculous - I call it morallity. EVERYONE has the same RIGHT to marry a person of the opposite sex if they choose - so they have just as many rights as I do in the marriage department.

CkG
Face it Cad, you're discriminating against a segment of the population based on your moralistic and religious views. Discrimination under the law is unconstitutional. It's only a matter of time until all persons have equal rights and protections under the law. If we only did things the same way we've always done them, we'd never grow and prosper as a society. It's exactly this kind of closed-minded thinking that prevented women from voting and blacks from having equal rights. I suppose you'd like to knock society back a good 50 or so years? Gimme a break.
 

mooncancook

Platinum Member
May 28, 2003
2,846
23
81
Marriage is about husband and wife, not husband and husband nor wife and wife, not father and daughter nor mother and son, not a man with his dog nor with his blow-up doll.
 

IJustAte

Member
Nov 28, 2002
40
0
0
Originally posted by: mooncancook
Marriage is about husband and wife, not husband and husband nor wife and wife, not father and daughter nor mother and son, not a man with his dog nor with his blow-up doll.
People keep saying that, but nobody gives a reason WHY. Give me one logical reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry each other. Not a biblical one, and not "because that's the way it's always been." I'm repeating myself. But can you think of one reason?

 

mooncancook

Platinum Member
May 28, 2003
2,846
23
81
People keep saying that, but nobody gives a reason WHY. Give me one logical reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry each other. Not a biblical one, and not "because that's the way it's always been." I'm repeating myself. But can you think of one reason?
in my opinion, it is as unnatural as father marrying daughter. but you may think otherwise.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
I would argue that Marriage is a right in that it falls under the right to Enter into Contracts. A Marriage is a contract between two people, hopefully who love each other (but even that is a relatively new development in the history of Marriage!), to share their lives and responsibilities.

There is NO rational reason and NO moral reason why gays should not be allowed to be married. What's IMMORAL is you people who think you have the RIGHT to force others to conform to your standards. The trouble with Christianity is that it has not yet DISCOVERED morality. It's based on this primitive bent notion that morality stems from following a specific list of rules without deviation. Not only is this ridiculous and AMMORAL, it's against what Jesus himself stood for! Jesus taught a number of PRINCIPLES that are meant to be considered and applied to life situations AS THEY ARISE. Unlike the old testament's 10 Commandments crap, Jesus actually taught that there are moral premises that can guide one's choices in a world of constant change. Too bad Paul's influence on the New Testament corrupted Jesus' teachings and buried them beneath a mountain of Platonisms.

Frankly, I think that if Jesus WERE to come back, he would be greatly ASHAMED of those who call themselves Christians.

Again, if your CHURCH doesn't want to recognize gay marriage, FINE, more power to them! However, the GOVERNMENT has no justification for doing so.

Jason
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,115
3,157
126
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I would argue that Marriage is a right in that it falls under the right to Enter into Contracts. A Marriage is a contract between two people, hopefully who love each other (but even that is a relatively new development in the history of Marriage!), to share their lives and responsibilities.

There is NO rational reason and NO moral reason why gays should not be allowed to be married. What's IMMORAL is you people who think you have the RIGHT to force others to conform to your standards. The trouble with Christianity is that it has not yet DISCOVERED morality. It's based on this primitive bent notion that morality stems from following a specific list of rules without deviation. Not only is this ridiculous and AMMORAL, it's against what Jesus himself stood for! Jesus taught a number of PRINCIPLES that are meant to be considered and applied to life situations AS THEY ARISE. Unlike the old testament's 10 Commandments crap, Jesus actually taught that there are moral premises that can guide one's choices in a world of constant change. Too bad Paul's influence on the New Testament corrupted Jesus' teachings and buried them beneath a mountain of Platonisms.

Frankly, I think that if Jesus WERE to come back, he would be greatly ASHAMED of those who call themselves Christians.

Again, if your CHURCH doesn't want to recognize gay marriage, FINE, more power to them! However, the GOVERNMENT has no justification for doing so.

Jason
I agree, totally. Christians seem to lie somewhere between Mosians and Paulians(made those up), somehow what Jesus taught got lost in the clutter.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wow, you'd think CkG would want to have the last word on this thread. No? ;)
Some of us WORK for a living. Now I'll tend to your inane drivel one I finish here at work and can go home and relax.

CkG
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY