Same sex marriages. Your opinon? Volume two.

[Cloudbringer]

This is a continuation of THIS THREAD which was started by Sir Kenyth.

[Timber Loftis]

Moved to conform to Cloudmeister's request:

Originally posted by Yorick: Then again, why do you not have a problem with incest and paedophilia, and other morals based on religious (Judeo-Christian and Islamic) ethics? Why are you picking and choosing only the morals you hold? It seems to me you're unable to remove your own morality from the equation as it is colouring your view on a societies right to determine it's laws and values.

Well, I'm not. Incest is fine by me, so long as they are consenting adults -- long live the reign of the Targaryens!! Paedophilia is immoral because the young person has not the ability to choose -- it is one of those "harm to another" instances -- they simply are too young to consent, despite the BS espoused by NAMBLA.

So, unless you are questioning the "don't harm others" and "freedom" moralities, I am perfectly capable of removing my own morality from the equation.

As an aside, however, some moralities are general to all humans, and some are specific to religions. The "incest taboo" and paedophilia taboo, for instance are moralities that exist among nearly all human cultures. I think you'll find a decent discussion of this phenomenon in anthropological works by Ruth Benedict and Margaret Meade -- specifically referencing the Tobroro Indian culture.

A homosexuality taboo, however, is more specific to certain religions, and has not always existed among humans. For the ancient greeks, for instance, the notion of "homosexuality" did not exist, though sexual expressions of love amongst men were common -- as an upcoming movie chronicalling Alexander the Great's life (starring Colin Ferrel) may demonstrate.

Finally, regarding the way sexual tension bars the development of real platonic relationships amongst men and women, that may be true -- but I argue that such tension would be there absent social pressures. It is a tension caused by chemicals, pheromes, and base desires, whether or not society tells us it should or should not be there -- IMO.

Furthermore, I argue that notions of Platonic relationships being limited is very counterproductive to some nice raucous sex. Some of the best casual sex I've had has been with so-called "friends with privileges." I think some of you guys (not pointing fingers at anyone specifically) need to visit a few swingers clubs and see that perfectly loving committed married couples can truly overcome the possessive notions of sex and trade partners for the better sexual enjoyment by all.

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: Sure I can! For one, homosexuals are not sterile! How's that? That's a non-sequiter, that's how that is. As rebuttal, I offer evidence that ice cream trucks go slower than other automobiles. Connect the dots as to how your statement relates.

You started off comparing homosexual relationships to those with vasectomies or who were otherwise sterile. I was just making the point that homosexuals are generally not sterile any more than the regular populus. [/QUOTE]I hate to get sidetracked, but I still don't think you've added anything to your argument. You said (paraphrased) "marriage is based on procreation, and gays by definition won't procreate." I retorted "neither will sterile people, so based on your logic they can't get married." A direct rebuttal. You replied "gays arent' sterile." Well, that may be true, but it does not refute or support anything stated so far. So, homosexuals usually aren't sterile (any more than anyone else) -- how does that support your argument or defeat mine?? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] I *get* the truth of your statement -- "connect the dots" means follow through on the analysis/applicability portion of it. [/QUOT


Well, if a sterile relationship and a homosexual relationship equate, then by all means get a vasectomy and have a heterosexual relationship instead of being homosexual and the problem is solved, right? Your paraphrasing equals oversimplification in this case. Which I've just done also.

You're equating a sterile person with a homosexual. That's not the point. Sterile or not, they're following the natural way things are meant to be. If they weren't sterile, they could produce offspring. They are built to do it, even if they are malfunctioning. Even if a homosexual is not sterile, they STILL can't produce offspring in their relationship. That makes it unnatural and different. Sterile people who marry are still aspiring to the way things are supposed to be. The point is that homosexual couples are not. I use the point of the ability to procreate as proof of it being the way things are supposed to be.

[ 08-08-2003, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Sir Kenyth ]

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by Yorick:Besides which, what is your point by that exactly? The opinions of Germans went faster and faster into proNazism too. It's irrelevent to the discussion.

uh ho, someone equated the other side with Nazism. Looks like the conversation is over [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Back on point though, you still have not answered by question.
How does allowing same-sex marriages harm anyone?

If your only arguement against same-sex marriage is that a book told you it is wrong then I really feel your case is too weak to take seriously. [/QUOTE]Look I was right! A soon as I posted this Cloudy closed the topic [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Godwin's law strikes again!

[Cloudbringer]

But not before she opened the new one.

Rant/debate/carry on! LOL Just keep it civil!

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: As for this whole debate. I say let 'marriage' be a religeous thing. Remove all legal ties to it though. The big things that the gay communtity seems to be fighting for are things that families enjoy that many take for granted. Most of them are financial or social in nature and there is no need for laws to govern them (rights of succession/inheritance, visitation ... and so on). Let people live their own lives and tell their support systems (read gov and Ins COs) how to support them, not the other way around.

That was my question to the anti side earlier today that has gone unanswered. They seem to be more interested in picking part comments then answering this or chewies list of questions.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: Well, if a sterile relationship and a homosexual relationship equate, then by all means get a vasectomy and have a heterosexual relationship instead of being homosexual and the problem is solved, right? Your paraphrasing equals oversimplification in this case. Which I've just done also. You're equating a sterile person with a homosexual. That's not the point. Sterile or not, they're following the natural way things are meant to be. If they weren't sterile, they could produce offspring. They are built to do it, even if they are malfunctioning. Even if a homosexual is not sterile, they STILL can't produce offspring in their relationship. That makes it unnatural and different. Sterile people who marry are still aspiring to the way things are supposed to be. The point is that homosexual couples are not. I use the point of the ability to procreate as proof of it being the way things are supposed to be.

So, here we come to the nugget of it. It is not that "procreation" matters -- it doesn't in the end. It is "the way it is supposed to be" the "natural law" or whatever. You have come round to what I've been trying to get you round to -- that your belief is founded not on logic but rather on YOUR notion of what "ought to be." But, we live in a FREE country -- where it is our duty to (1) live our lives as we feel they "ought to be" and (2) let others do the same as they think "ought to be." You are simply imposing your view of right, and now we see it bared open. I hope you see it, too. It's not a slam, I just want to show it to you. You are enforcing your morality, and unless that enforcement prevents a real, tangible harm from occurring, it has NO PLACE in a true FREE society.

Live by your morality -- but don't make others do the same. Lest you may subject yourself to have their morality enforced on you when, and if, those "others" ever come into power.

[ 08-08-2003, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by Night Stalker: As for this whole debate. I say let 'marriage' be a religeous thing. Remove all legal ties to it though. The big things that the gay communtity seems to be fighting for are things that families enjoy that many take for granted. Most of them are financial or social in nature and there is no need for laws to govern them (rights of succession/inheritance, visitation ... and so on). Let people live their own lives and tell their support systems (read gov and Ins COs) how to support them, not the other way around.

That was my question to the anti side earlier today that has gone unanswered. They seem to be more interested in picking part comments then answering this or chewies list of questions. [/QUOTE]We went over this circa page 3-5. See my post beginning with "When discussing this with my secretary..." and others following it.

{edit} Clicky for Linky.

[ 08-08-2003, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Chewbacca]

By Cloudbringer: Chewbaca, that's not true. I have some friends who are NOT religious who disapprove of same sex marriages and homosexual relationships. So how is their belief a religious one? I don't think it's fair to categorize it as ONLY a religious belief, that seems a bit simplified to me. I realize it's easy to pick one group to blame for any idea one dislikes and make them the whipping boy or scapegoat as it were and I'm not saying religious people aren't in the 'against it' category, just that if you want to 'blame' someone, don't just pick them as the only targets!

I didnt say it was only a religous one, although I would love to hear a non-religous/moral-based argument against gay marriage and against gays in general.

The one I have heard one that had something to do with the prevailing notion of marriage as being male/female in society, but I have offered expert testimony that debunks the idea.

I have heard others call it unnatural, but behavior in nature debunks this as well.

I have heard others say it threatens the family unit, but experts again disagree.

So tell me what are these non-religious veiwpoints that dictates that gays shouldn't have marriage, or even be allowed to behave sexually as they seem fit as long as it harms no one, that haven't been de-bunked?

Besides, I was actually was arguing that this shouldn't neccessarily be solely a religous/moral based issue. That we should see it in the light of our governing system.

I argue we should let reason and the idea of equal civil rights take center stage. We should let fairness prevail. We should accept our diverse society and let freedom ring. No arguement against gay marriage or being gay can at the same time uphold any of these ideas with-out being duplicitous.

*Sigh* I still lack answers to my questions? Are they not valid questions or is it the truth that gays being married doesn't *really* effect anyone else's personal beliefs about marriage?

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: Well, if a sterile relationship and a homosexual relationship equate, then by all means get a vasectomy and have a heterosexual relationship instead of being homosexual and the problem is solved, right? Your paraphrasing equals oversimplification in this case. Which I've just done also. You're equating a sterile person with a homosexual. That's not the point. Sterile or not, they're following the natural way things are meant to be. If they weren't sterile, they could produce offspring. They are built to do it, even if they are malfunctioning. Even if a homosexual is not sterile, they STILL can't produce offspring in their relationship. That makes it unnatural and different. Sterile people who marry are still aspiring to the way things are supposed to be. The point is that homosexual couples are not. I use the point of the ability to procreate as proof of it being the way things are supposed to be.

So, here we come to the nugget of it. It is not that "procreation" matters -- it doesn't in the end. It is "the way it is supposed to be" the "natural law" or whatever. You have come round to what I've been trying to get you round to -- that your belief is founded not on logic but rather on YOUR notion of what "ought to be." But, we live in a FREE country -- where it is our duty to (1) live our lives as we feel they "ought to be" and (2) let others do the same as they think "ought to be." You are simply imposing your view of right, and now we see it bared open. I hope you see it, too. It's not a slam, I just want to show it to you. You are enforcing your morality, and unless that enforcement prevents a real, tangible harm from occurring, it has NO PLACE in a true FREE society.

Live by your morality -- but don't make others do the same. Lest you may subject yourself to have their morality enforced on you when, and if, those "others" ever come into power. [/QUOTE]Sorry bud, that don't cut it! I can prove scientifically that heterosexuality is the way it's supposed to be by the fact that it's the only way you can procreate. You got the two things backwards. On purpose I think.