Gay marriage

[bradleybadly]

I'm still here... and I still agree with Nap and Brad...

How about you then answer these two questions:

Why can't gays marry? How will it hurt you? How will it change anything for you?

Your hearts in the right place Illy, but your counting leaves much to be desired.

He must have consulted MeDeFe on that one

[detlef]

OK, is hot lesbian sex paraphillic? Just checking. I mean, if they let you watch, of course.

Allegedly Scarlett Johansen and Penelope Cruz go at it in an upcoming movie. Should we enact an amendment against that?

Seriously! I want to know! Is this hot or an abomination?! Ooh, can it be both? I'd actually rather prefer it be both if that's OK with everyone.

[Neoteny]

OK, is hot lesbian sex paraphillic? Just checking. I mean, if they let you watch, of course.

Allegedly Scarlett Johansen and Penelope Cruz go at it in an upcoming movie. Should we enact an amendment against that?

Seriously! I want to know! Is this hot or an abomination?! Ooh, can it be both? I'd actually rather prefer it be both if that's OK with everyone.

Hawt. Easily.

[bradleybadly]

Who cares whether we're arguing for one or all consensual actitvities being legalised? It's completely beside the point.

Because you guys keep making the point that as long as it's consensual then the law should be changed. Don't tell me you guys haven't been making the point on that basis.

It would be everyone's right to marry any consenting person without restriction of gender.

And bradley: yes you do change laws based on consent or desire. Times have changed and homosexuality is quite accepted

... Polygamy should also be legal. To deny one the right to marry multiple partners in many instances infringes on religious freedom. And who is hurt by it, so long as all involved are consensual? ...

Sure, our marriage wouldn't be typical, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Two consenting adults wanting to join their lives together... what business is it of yours what we do or do not do in the bedroom??

[bradleybadly]

how could love possibly be corrosive to any culture?

well according to liberals, if the majority of people continuously show they love the traditional definition of marriage, then that is corrosive.

[detlef]

Who cares whether we're arguing for one or all consensual actitvities being legalised? It's completely beside the point.

Because you guys keep making the point that as long as it's consensual then the law should be changed. Don't tell me you guys haven't been making the point on that basis.

It would be everyone's right to marry any consenting person without restriction of gender.

And bradley: yes you do change laws based on consent or desire. Times have changed and homosexuality is quite accepted

... Polygamy should also be legal. To deny one the right to marry multiple partners in many instances infringes on religious freedom. And who is hurt by it, so long as all involved are consensual? ...

Sure, our marriage wouldn't be typical, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Two consenting adults wanting to join their lives together... what business is it of yours what we do or do not do in the bedroom??

Great, now go find some country where enough people are stupid enough to ignore any subtlety and can only comprehend blatant black and white situations where "you're either with us or against us" and leave us alone! Oh shit, it seems you've already found one. Never mind.

[bbqpenguin]

how could love possibly be corrosive to any culture?

well according to liberals, if the majority of people continuously show they love the traditional definition of marriage, then that is corrosive.

well since you're a liberal expert expert and know the opinion of every liberal person ever, i'll take your word for it. i've always considered myself a conservative so wouldn't know. anyways if this is what your "liberals" truly believe, then they, also, are wrong. there is nothing wrong with loving a traditional definition of marriage. if that's what you like, then you should abide and live with it. however, your love of a tradition marriage should not obstruct the dreams, desires, and rights of other people to love the defenition of a "nontradional marriage"

[Snorri1234]

Who cares whether we're arguing for one or all consensual actitvities being legalised? It's completely beside the point.

Because you guys keep making the point that as long as it's consensual then the law should be changed. Don't tell me you guys haven't been making the point on that basis.

It would be everyone's right to marry any consenting person without restriction of gender.

And bradley: yes you do change laws based on consent or desire. Times have changed and homosexuality is quite accepted

... Polygamy should also be legal. To deny one the right to marry multiple partners in many instances infringes on religious freedom. And who is hurt by it, so long as all involved are consensual? ...

Sure, our marriage wouldn't be typical, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Two consenting adults wanting to join their lives together... what business is it of yours what we do or do not do in the bedroom??

You hear that?


That was the point flying over your head.

[Dancing Mustard]

The point that just flew over you Brad, was this:

In all of those examples you've quoted, the poster was saying that as there was no harm, then consent was all that was required before the activity was justified. Nobody was saying 'consent = whatever is consented to is fine every time".

Why are you so keen to keep hammering away at a line of argument which is so clearly fruitless for you? Why not stop trying to play semantic games and actually explain in honest english, and without vague rhetoric, why it is that gay marriage is harmful to anyone.

If you keep dodging that question, then we're going to have to assume you don't have an answer.

[Napoleon Ier]

The point that just flew over you Brad, was this:

In all of those examples you've quoted, the poster was saying that as there was no harm, then consent was all that was required before the activity was justified. Nobody was saying 'consent = whatever is consented to is fine every time".

Why are you so keen to keep hammering away at a line of argument which is so clearly fruitless for you? Why not stop trying to play semantic games and actually explain in honest english, and without vague rhetoric, why it is that gay marriage is harmful to anyone.

If you keep dodging that question, then we're going to have to assume you don't have an answer.

It doesn't have to be. You need to justify applying "marriage" to gays. Unfortunately, it's a simple logical impossibility. "Civil Union" or "Conract" or "Compact" or whatever the f*ck you feel like you may or may not want to call it, fine, marriage implies a family union, which you simply cannot have. It's exactly like not allowing syblings to marry: you can't base a family union on deviant sexual relationships.

[Snorri1234]

It doesn't have to be. You need to justify applying "marriage" to gays. Unfortunately, it's a simple logical impossibility.

Why?

marriage implies a family union, which you simply cannot have.

How so?

It's exactly like not allowing syblings to marry: you can't base a family union on deviant sexual relationships.

Oh I see. In your opinion it's a deviant sexual practice so therefore it is?

[Dancing Mustard]

You need to justify applying "marriage" to gays.

Crazy talk.

If you agree with treating people equally, then you need to justify not giving marriage to homosexuals. Anything else is just discrimination.
Even if I did have to justify it to get it permitted, then it's easily doable on simple libertarian grounds. It causes no harm, it costs no money, there's no damage or cost to it whatsoever. To deny citizens the right to indulge in such activity is an arbitrary (and therefore unwarranted) restriction of their freedom... something which I think you'll agree that governments have no business doing.

marriage implies a family union, which you simply cannot have. It's exactly like not allowing syblings to marry: you can't base a family union on deviant sexual relationships.

Utter rubbish.
There's not a word of that which you didn't just make up in your own head. Marriage implies nor requires any such thing. It's why we let infertile people marry, or people who have no interest in sex to marry, or people who are just in it for the money or visa priveleges. The idea that marriage has to somehow be a 'family thing' is just a concept you've made up off the top of your head because you aren't willing to engage on the real issues here.

Also, drop the incest thing. It's just comparing apples to tennis-balls and it's really completely irrelevant. Homosexuality is not a 'deviant sexual relationship', no matter how comfortable with the concept you do or do not feel. (Furthermore, even if I were to humour you in going down that particular road, I presume you'd also be arguing that BDSM enthusiasts can't marry either?)

[Napoleon Ier]

It doesn't have to be. You need to justify applying "marriage" to gays. Unfortunately, it's a simple logical impossibility.

Why?

marriage implies a family union, which you simply cannot have.

How so?

It's exactly like not allowing syblings to marry: you can't base a family union on deviant sexual relationships.

Oh I see. In your opinion it's a deviant sexual practice so therefore it is?

No, it isn't taking place between man and woman, and therefore is. You cannot give sexual deviants the title of "married" (even if, I grant, in some cases, it may be the case that there are some gays with admirable relationships as a couple), for the same reasons you wouldn't let (we'll say infertile to eliminate the gene-pool negative externality issue) syblings marry. You need to prove that Gays deserve marriage because it is a thing which would be given by society, not one which is being passively prohibited.

[william18]

Gays don't deserve gay marriage, what makes them so special?

1. Most of them choose to be gay and they can help it. A few hundred years ago we didn't have problems with men wanting to marry eachother so I doubt it's majorly gnetic.

2. If you give a normal couple a small house and make them try to start a community, and you make a gay couple do the same, who will do better. The normal couple since they can reproduce, and are less liable to contract sexual viruses.


This is just my two cents.

[Dancing Mustard]

1. Most of them choose to be gay and they can help it. A few hundred years ago we didn't have problems with men wanting to marry eachother so I doubt it's majorly gnetic.

Bullshit

2. If you give a normal couple a small house and make them try to start a community, and you make a gay couple do the same, who will do better. The normal couple since they can reproduce, and are less liable to contract sexual viruses.

Bollocks.


Go read the fucking thread. We've already dealt with both of those (somewhat retarded) points already.
Seriously, if you don't have time to read, then you don't have time to debate.

Now skidaddle.

[Snorri1234]

Gays don't deserve gay marriage, what makes them so special?

1. Most of them choose to be gay and they can help it. A few hundred years ago we didn't have problems with men wanting to marry eachother so I doubt it's majorly gnetic.

There were still gay people having gay sex though, they were just persecuted.

Do you also believe Iran doesn't have any gay people?

[Napoleon Ier]

You need to justify applying "marriage" to gays.

Crazy talk.

If you agree with treating people equally, then you need to justify not giving marriage to homosexuals. Anything else is just discrimination.
Even if I did have to justify it to get it permitted, then it's easily doable on simple libertarian grounds. It causes no harm, it costs no money, there's no damage or cost to it whatsoever. To deny citizens the right to indulge in such activity is an arbitrary (and therefore unwarranted) restriction of their freedom... something which I think you'll agree that governments have no business doing.

marriage implies a family union, which you simply cannot have. It's exactly like not allowing syblings to marry: you can't base a family union on deviant sexual relationships.

Utter rubbish.
There's not a word of that which you didn't just make up in your own head. Marriage implies nor requires any such thing. It's why we let infertile people marry, or people who have no interest in sex to marry, or people who are just in it for the money or visa priveleges. The idea that marriage has to somehow be a 'family thing' is just a concept you've made up off the top of your head because you aren't willing to engage on the real issues here.

Also, drop the incest thing. It's just comparing apples to tennis-balls and it's really completely irrelevant. Homosexuality is not a 'deviant sexual relationship', no matter how comfortable with the concept you do or do not feel. (Furthermore, even if I were to humour you in going down that particular road, I presume you'd also be arguing that BDSM enthusiasts can't marry either?)

We've been through this. It isn't discrimination because gays can marry, just not people of the same sex (which no-one can, and as MeDeFe conceded, discrimination, by virtue of the meaning of the term,can't apply to "everyone").
Marriage does imply a family union (or should do), because there is no other reason to give a marriage rather than a Civil Union or a similiar compact (which I'm all for gays being allowed to take out) other than to grant an extra layer of meaningfulness to the relationship.
Visibly, marriage is something which has a tangible effect, because if it was just a meaningless piece of paper, then no-one would be getting so het up about it. As you no doubt know, there are usually many benefits attatched to marriage. Of course, you could say we should remove them, but then, what you have (unless the parties are complete cynics) is a very much meaningful piece of paper. Which denotes society's acceptance of gays as capable of founding a family. Since homosexuality is a paraphilia (not between man and woman), it clearly cannot have a family based on it. The incest analogy, is, in this conext, very relevant. I am drawing a comaprison between two paraphilias, both between consenting adults. So unless you prove incest is somehow completely different in a very deep way from homosexuality, then you have a problem.
As for the BDSM question (if it wasn't facetious), you should note that it is necessary to draw a distinction between sexual interactions between a couple and the nature of that couple: i.e, BDSM isn't what I'd describe as paraphilic.

As an aside: You say marriage doesn't denote any founding of a family unit. If you can prove this using the laws etc.. of the country your proposing to introduce this "marriage" for gays into, I'd support the gay "marriage", cimply because semantically, the meaning of marriage has morphed into a basic Civil Union. So by all means: a "marriage" which only gives them rights to easier inheritance etc, pourquoi pas? But I believe only a fundamentally insecure and unhealthy society grants such meaningless marriages(i.e marriage as a civil institution in that country is so worthless and debased, giving it's recognition to gays is not an issue).

[william18]

Gays don't deserve gay marriage, what makes them so special?

1. Most of them choose to be gay and they can help it. A few hundred years ago we didn't have problems with men wanting to marry eachother so I doubt it's majorly gnetic.

There were still gay people having gay sex though, they were just persecuted.

Do you also believe Iran doesn't have any gay people?

I bet they did but now their probably all dead.

[Snorri1234]

i.e, BDSM isn't what I'd describe as paraphilic.

Word. You probably have a different dictionary than everybody else though...

[Snorri1234]

Gays don't deserve gay marriage, what makes them so special?

1. Most of them choose to be gay and they can help it. A few hundred years ago we didn't have problems with men wanting to marry eachother so I doubt it's majorly gnetic.

There were still gay people having gay sex though, they were just persecuted.

Do you also believe Iran doesn't have any gay people?

I bet they did but now their probably all dead.

Nope, still a number of them try to get into Europe every year.

[Napoleon Ier]

i.e, BDSM isn't what I'd describe as paraphilic.

Word. You probably have a different dictionary than everybody else though...

OK, again, we're entering unhelpful semantics here. The intent of my use of "paraphilic" and it's traditional extent are incronguent, I grant. Nonetheless, I believe I've satisfactorily explained the essential dichotomy I recognise between sexual fetish within a traditional man-woman relationship of which BDSM is only a small part confined to the bedroom, and the relationship-defining category (i.e heterosexual, homosexual, paedophilic, incestuous, etc...).

[Iliad]

Gays don't deserve gay marriage, what makes them so special?

1. Most of them choose to be gay and they can help it. A few hundred years ago we didn't have problems with men wanting to marry eachother so I doubt it's majorly gnetic.

2. If you give a normal couple a small house and make them try to start a community, and you make a gay couple do the same, who will do better. The normal couple since they can reproduce, and are less liable to contract sexual viruses.


This is just my two cents.

That's because our population has skyrocketed after the advances of science. Also people lived in small villages which made the chance of 2 gays living in a small village, rather small. Even if they did they probably didn't know about each toher.

Nappy, bradley, etc, etc, Stop trying to avoid the question and answer: How will gay marriages be detrimental to society?

About being helpful it would improve the link between the two people and establish a link in the community

Now please explain why it would be detrimental to society

[Dancing Mustard]

We've been through this. It isn't discrimination because gays can marry, just not people of the same sex (which no-one can, and as MeDeFe conceded, discrimination, by virtue of the meaning of the term,can't apply to "everyone").

We have indeed... and you were wrong then to.
Perhaps you should go back and read what was actually said, and what Medefe actually said to you. Then you'll realise that it is discrimination, because the options available, while applying to everyone identically, produce an unfair curtailment of opportunity for a minority group.
You're right that discrimination can't be against 'everyone', but just because everyone is subject to the same system, which produces unfair results for some, doesn't somehow magically make it non-discriminative.

Example: If there was a law saying that only white-colour foundation could be sold by makeup retailers, then it'd apply to everyone equally white or black, but it'd be unfair on black people because it would deny them of a product they wished to purchase.
Would you regard that as non-discriminatory legislation Nappy? After all, it applies to everyone equally doesn't it?

Marriage does imply a family union (or should do), because there is no other reason to give a marriage rather than a Civil Union or a similiar compact (which I'm all for gays being allowed to take out) other than to grant an extra layer of meaningfulness to the relationship.

Not really... no.
The only reason not to grant a marriage is because you wish to deny a relationship of some symbolic value. It's just the last-ditch attempt of people who aren't comfortable with homosexuality to try to shut the door on it.
This whole 'family union' thing is just something you're making up to try to halt the inevitable tide of logical discourse, and I see no reason to entertain such flimsy notions any further.

Visibly, marriage is something which has a tangible effect, because if it was just a meaningless piece of paper, then no-one would be getting so het up about it. As you no doubt know, there are usually many benefits attatched to marriage. Of course, you could say we should remove them, but then, what you have (unless the parties are complete cynics) is a very much meaningful piece of paper. Which denotes society's acceptance of gays as capable of founding a family. Since homosexuality is a paraphilia (not between man and woman), it clearly cannot have a family based on it. The incest analogy, is, in this conext, very relevant. I am drawing a comaprison between two paraphilias, both between consenting adults. So unless you prove incest is somehow completely different in a very deep way from homosexuality, then you have a problem.

Do you know... I'm having great difficulty seeing precisely what argument you're making with this somewhat rambling block of text.
Perhaps you could seperate out the multiple notions you're driving at here and present them a little more clearly. It's somewhat hard to debate sensibly with you when faced with that kind of structureless waffle.

As an aside: You say marriage doesn't denote any founding of a family unit. If you can prove this using the laws etc.. of the country your proposing to introduce this "marriage" for gays into, I'd support the gay "marriage", cimply because semantically, the meaning of marriage has morphed into a basic Civil Union. So by all means: a "marriage" which only gives them rights to easier inheritance etc, pourquoi pas? But I believe only a fundamentally insecure and unhealthy society grants such meaningless marriages(i.e marriage as a civil institution in that country is so worthless and debased, giving it's recognition to gays is not an issue).

Oh, that 'law' word again eh?

Tell you what, why don't you go find us some legal evidence that marriage is somehow essentially a family thing (and that therefore you don't have to support it because its an empty semantic institution). Given that you've brought the whole issue up, then I think it's only fair you find some proof to support your proposition, no?

[Snorri1234]

As an aside: You say marriage doesn't denote any founding of a family unit. If you can prove this using the laws etc.. of the country your proposing to introduce this "marriage" for gays into, I'd support the gay "marriage", cimply because semantically, the meaning of marriage has morphed into a basic Civil Union. So by all means: a "marriage" which only gives them rights to easier inheritance etc, pourquoi pas? But I believe only a fundamentally insecure and unhealthy society grants such meaningless marriages(i.e marriage as a civil institution in that country is so worthless and debased, giving it's recognition to gays is not an issue).

Oh you mean like western society?

I don't get it: You keep arguing against giving gay couples the right to marriage in the basic civil union sense that I would get when I married a girl, but then say you're not against it?

[Napoleon Ier]

As an aside: You say marriage doesn't denote any founding of a family unit. If you can prove this using the laws etc.. of the country your proposing to introduce this "marriage" for gays into, I'd support the gay "marriage", cimply because semantically, the meaning of marriage has morphed into a basic Civil Union. So by all means: a "marriage" which only gives them rights to easier inheritance etc, pourquoi pas? But I believe only a fundamentally insecure and unhealthy society grants such meaningless marriages(i.e marriage as a civil institution in that country is so worthless and debased, giving it's recognition to gays is not an issue).

Oh you mean like western society?

I don't get it: You keep arguing against giving gay couples the right to marriage in the basic civil union sense that I would get when I married a girl, but then say you're not against it?

No, I have no prblems with civil unions, it's only the implications of society giving gays "marriage" I object to.