Oh No! The United Kingdom

[ScreamingEagle]

Screaming, you're right. I should not have generalized. But, in my defense, I have stated numerous times in numerous threads that the people who wish to rationally express their opinions are often drowned out by the people who are unable to listen to opposing viewpoints without resulting to nastiness. You know that you are not one of these people, therefore you know that I obviously place you in the category of person who could address issues rationally but are often lost in the din of others.

I have never criticized people for disapproving of homosexuality or gay marriage for any reason. I have only criticized people here for resorting to insults too soon and stopping the possibility of rational discussion.

I apologize again for generalizing...but I think that my previous posts demonstrate clearly what my issue is...and that I was not referring to anyone and everyone who is against homosexual marriage.

Hey thanks Gem, you're allright. I see where your coming from. I guess perhaps we all can sometimes resort to personal insult because of frustration and the discussion then loses its way. Yet I still think most here believe in condemning the sin, not the sinner, despite many perceived personal attacks...and some real ones as well. I guess it's sometimes difficult to separate the two.

Getting back to the topic, one can lust after another man's wife or lust after another man. Such desires are not really a person's fault per se, but acting upon them is. Most religious teachings are against adultery and homosexual behavior for good reasons. They have negative results in society and others are hurt. Most gays don't believe their actions have a negative result on others and society and it's hard to convince them otherwise since there is typically no immediate result one can quickly point to as with adultery.

My questions to Matts were attempting to address the logical and negative societal results of his postition, but it seems he's avoiding them.

I don't believe in the Libertarian approach that says everybody should have the freedom to do anything they want to do. I believe there should be limits upon negative behaviors because they can ultimately destroy a society. It is societal suicide to allow them.

 

[Gem]

ScreamingEagle,

I think you have done a wonderful job expressing your issues regarding this matter. I too am interested in Matts response.

 

[mattskramer]

Matt Wrote:


Matt, it seems that you are coming at it from a very libertarian perspective. Simply put, we should respect the freedom of others, even if what they do with that freedom drives us crazy or, to some here, makes us sick.

You are right, I am quite often, right in line with you on that one. I would rather have too much freedom than not enough. I would rather spend most of my time shaking my head at the asinine things people think of to do with themselves rather than shaking my head as I remember the freedoms we used to have but gave up.

Here's where I run into trouble though....

Our society, our country...is based on things...ideals, values, morals, things that we as a whole hold dear. Now one of those, is freedom...and it is the biggest one. Thats why you'll find me on certain days willing to agree with you that we should let civil unions between as many people as want them to be recognized...let the businesses and hospitals and schools and courts and banks and everything else that would be drastically effected by such an idea figure it out as they go along....

But the more conservative part of me says that we have, at many times in our society, made decisions for that very reason, that have drastically changed, and often harmed our society. Changing it irrevocably, often for the worst.

When we say, "Sure, things have been done THIS way in our country since its inception...but now we're going to do it this way and see how it turns out..." we might have nothing but the best intentions at heart...but our best intentions do not always pan out to be what is best for our nation in the long run.

It is a lovely idea to say that freedom is complete and total and all-encompasing...but I have to wonder how close total freedom is to total anarchy.

No, I'm not saying civil unions=anarchy.

But I am saying that in an organized society that works and survives not everyone gets to get what they want all the time. I wonder and worry what would happen to our society if we began the precident of saying, "Oh...you feel you are being treated unfairly? Well quick, lets change the way the United States has been run since its creation in order to appease you."

My questions and concerns really have very little to do with a like or dislike, approval or disapproval of the gay lifestyle...and everything to do with what I feel is a very healthy skepticism of making decisions based upon social pressures without fully discussing the potential consequences.

Look at this board. No one can discuss the issue without it coming down to, "gays are evil" or "you're really a closet fag."

To be honest, I respect the right of both sides of this debate to hold those opinions and to say whatever they want...but neither are a serious discussion about how a decision like recognizing civil unions for same sex couples (or groups of people!) would change our nation.

Neither are compelling reasons why we should or should not...

This doesn't mean that I am against civil unions - or for them for that matter, only that I would like to hear people discuss the potential positives and negatives...and I am always reading and looking for opinions on this from both sides of the spectrum.

Things have changed in America – legally and socially - some for the better and some for the worse. For a long time, women were not allowed to vote and blacks were slaves and later treated as second-class citizens. People “understood" that people were not to marry outside their race and religion. We have Affirmative Action legislation. We have many “share the wealth” policies. We have generational families seemingly trapped in welfare cycles. Some changes result in an overall good and some changes result in an over-all bad.

Anyway, I like your civil comment. Yes. I have limits too and think of what would be best for America. Taking the individual AND the society into consideration I try to strike a balance in my socio-political philosophy.

I think that civil unions & recognized polygamy would fairly benefit those interested and not harm society at large. I guess that this is all I have to say in reply to your message.

 

[mattskramer]

Excuse me Gem but that's rather insulting on your part. I've never said "gays are evil" or "you're really a closet fag" and I'm sure others here haven't either. Many here also know the difference between a person and a sin. Plus I'm sure many here have given good, rational reasons for not wanting gay marriage in our culture.

Still waiting for Matt to answer my questions...

I thought that I answered your questions. Oh. As for how to resolve the issue: I think that America has a good representative democratic system of government. We have a legislature to create laws, a judiciary to interpret the laws and an executive branch to execute the laws.

I’m sorry that I don’t have more time to devote to this board but I have more activities that are often of more importance to me.

 

[mattskramer]

Matt - Your a fag!

What pleasure you could possibly derive from fondling a man's genetalia is absolutely beyond me! Why two women would want to engage in queer sex is just as strange to a square like me.

HOWEVER............................... I am a Liberatarian. I honestly believe in my heart that to properly endorse the benefit of a free society you must be allowed to do whatever you like. Having said that I do not want to pay your civil partner or whatever you would call one another's social security. Your lifestyle is dangerous and places you in a category many times more likely to contract a deadly disease that would expedite your demise therefore making it necessary to bury you sooner than normal. That would be an infringement on MY civil liberty meaning my pocketbook. I did not choose the risky lifestyle fdor you, YOUI DID!

If everyone in the world were queer then the problem would take care of itself. Being queer is NOT normal. All the debate in the world will not change my opinion.

It would be hard to think that in the grand scheme of things the creator intended for the same sex to indulge in sexual behavior.

It isn't up to the people of the US or UK or anywhere on earth to ALLOW this behavior. Frankly, no one can stop it. All I'm saying is that I simply don't want my children to grow up thinking it is OK because a small group of Americans (all Liberals) think it should be. I have the right to that! Another words, go back in the closet where that activity belongs and keep it there where you can do whatever you want to. No one will be to judge. THAT would be fair. Forcing us to accept your behavior is wrong! We assure you if you did, we won't mention it!

I am not a fag. My having said that, you make an interesting point. It is a good reason why we should privatize social security and leave participation as an option – not a requirement. I don’t like the fact that I subsidize smokers and those who participate in other risky & unhealthy behavior.

It would be hard to think that in the grand scheme of things the creator intended for people to fly in airplanes or he would have given them wings. Did he intend for people to wear glasses on the bride of their noses, eat fattening and greasy food, or smoke cigarettes – cancer sticks? Besides, you don’t have to believe in God to be an American citizen.

If you don’t want YOUR children to grow up thinking it is OK because a small group of Americans (all Liberals) think it should be, then educate your children as you see fit. Personally, I don’t decide that things are okay because a small group – or large group – thinks that it is okay. I think for myself. I think that smoking is wrong though many people tell me that it is okay.

Uh. I’m not FORCING you to accept anything to any greater extent than you are forcing me to accept things. We each have our opinions, the freedom to communicate our opinions, and the freedom to vote.

 

[dilloduck]

I am not a fag. My having said that, you make an interesting point. It is a good reason why we should privatize social security and leave participation as an option – not a requirement. I don’t like the fact that I subsidize smokers and those who participate in other risky & unhealthy behavior.

It would be hard to think that in the grand scheme of things the creator intended for people to fly in airplanes or he would have given them wings. Did he intend for people to wear glasses on the bride of their noses, eat fattening and greasy food, or smoke cigarettes – cancer sticks? Besides, you don’t have to believe in God to be an American citizen.

If you don’t want YOUR children to grow up thinking it is OK because a small group of Americans (all Liberals) think it should be, then educate your children as you see fit. Personally, I don’t decide that things are okay because a small group – or large group – thinks that it is okay. I think for myself. I think that smoking is wrong though many people tell me that it is okay.

Uh. I’m not FORCING you to accept anything to any greater extent than you are forcing me to accept things. We each have our opinions, the freedom to communicate our opinions, and the freedom to vote.

How much do smokers pay in taxes to engage in destructive behavior ?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I am simply saying that if the government is going to recognize heterosexual marriages, it should treat homosexual unions likewise. If you think that the result would be a society’s encouragement of homosexuality, so be it. Just because something is legal does not mean that members of a society will like it. I don’t “recognize” people holding cigarettes the same as I recognize people holding health drinks.

Bogus. But having cigs legal allows more people to convince themselves its ok.

"If the govt is gonna.... it should..."
Baloney. The govt's recognition of heterosexual marriages is to strengthen families. What good does it do to society if we have same sex marriage?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

There is a big difference here. I know dolphins are intelligent but I don't see how one could consent to marriage. In a marriage ceremony, both partners have to say I do in speech or sign language or something. This crazy lady obviously just trained the dolphin to nod and squeak at the right time during the ceremony. This hardly counts as the same thing. It's a funny story, although I do feel sorry for the dolphin.

Dolphins most certainly can communicate. And so can monkeys.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Matts Wrote:


I agree that people have differing socio-political philosophies. However, what determines which socio-political philosophy gets to make up the rules in your society?

At the moment...if I am reading you correctly, you think your socio-political philosophy should determine what this country does because you believe in your opinion the most.

Why does your opinion matter more than another persons? Why does your opinion matter more than the majority of peoples opinions? Especially when determining things that are going to have an effect on the nation as a whole and will change our society.

Please note I am not condoning the tyranny of the majority...I'm only asking why, in your opinion, your socio-political philosophy should be followed but the opinion of anyone who disagrees with you shouldn't be?

Additionally, you state that you condone polygamy to some extent. Does this mean that you condone people living together or you condone civil unions for polygamist relationships?

Since you are interested in stating that a civil union is the legal union of two consenting adults...will you be willing to grant civil union rights to the polygamist groups? If so, do you think there could be any negative consequences to such a decision...If you don't think we should/would recognize the civil unions of a threesome can you explain to me your premise for refusing them?

Democracy is majority rule. In the LONG RUN, its always that way. If the majority want something, they can change the Constitution. If enough people want something to be law, and its important enough to them, no minority, no judge, no politician can stop it.

This does not automatically mean its majority tyranny.

majority tyranny would mostly apply to short term knee jerk reactions. The opposistion to homosexual marriage is contrary to the moral viewpoint of a vast majority of Americans, and has been held in that esteem from the founding of the country. It would not be a majority tyrannical rule situation.

Fact is, Americans dont want it, what you say about why MATTSK opinion should over rule the majorities opinion is right on the money.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Screaming Eagle Wrote:


Screaming, you're right. I should not have generalized. But, in my defense, I have stated numerous times in numerous threads that the people who wish to rationally express their opinions are often drowned out by the people who are unable to listen to opposing viewpoints without resulting to nastiness. You know that you are not one of these people, therefore you know that I obviously place you in the category of person who could address issues rationally but are often lost in the din of others.

I have never criticized people for disapproving of homosexuality or gay marriage for any reason. I have only criticized people here for resorting to insults too soon and stopping the possibility of rational discussion.

I apologize again for generalizing...but I think that my previous posts demonstrate clearly what my issue is...and that I was not referring to anyone and everyone who is against homosexual marriage.

I think it would have been better had you stated "most people"
instead of "nobody can discuss this without resorting to.."

I was taken aback by your statement also. I was thinking the same thing as Eagle BEFORE I read his post.

Marriage laws are different than most laws. Most laws condemn behaviors. Marriage laws ENDORSE behavior. Since the govt REPRESENTS THE MAJORITY of persons in our country, then if it passes laws that endorse behavior, it has to be behavior that a majority of people endorse. Its that simple.

Americans by and large DO NOT WANT TO ENDORSE same sex marriage. Period. End of issue.

 

[mattskramer]

How much do smokers pay in taxes to engage in destructive behavior ?

Is there a hidden implication that if we allow civil unions the result will be an increase in destructive behavior? I doubt that this would be the case. On the contrary, civil unions and the benefits that would result may encourage homosexuals to remain committed to each other and reduce promiscuity. I remember what is of often “preached” in the heterosexual community: Be abstinent until marriage and remain monogamous in marriage. Anyway, if you don’t mean to imply this, please disregard.

I don’t understand the point of your question so I will take your question literally as it stands. I don’t know the answer. How much do sodomites, gay or straight, pay in taxes to engage in destructive behavior? People, in general, pay taxes no matter what behavior they do – from performing in porn movies to performing surgery – so I think that I don’t understand what point – if any – you are trying to make.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Marriage is a PRO ACTIVE law instituted for the betterment of society NOT INDIVIDUALS.

The govt SHOULD NOT BE in the business of making peoples lives better, but only giving them opportunities. In the few times it does do something proactive, such as marriage laws, it is intended to make society better, not for individuals. Individuals can go on their merry way with or without marriage.

As for creating some monogamy, isnt it the liberals who are always claiming, "its only a piece of paper anyways"?

and fact is, men are notorioiusly non monogamous. Without a woman in the mix, they will not remain monogamous because of a marriage certificate.
And it will only jam up family law courts more, where there is already precious little time for judges to make decisions, which often leads to bad decisions putting kids in very bad, sometimes life threatening situations. With gay couples clogging up the courts with battles over who keeps the poodle, even more kids will be harmed by this. ONE KID suffers, I SAY NO SAME SEX MARRIAGE. !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[mattskramer]

Bogus. But having cigs legal allows more people to convince themselves its ok.

"If the govt is gonna.... it should..."
Baloney. The govt's recognition of heterosexual marriages is to strengthen families. What good does it do to society if we have same sex marriage?

Slavery used to be legal thought many people thought that it was wrong. Segregation was legal but wrong. What do you think about recent executive decisions about “eminent domain”? Just because government thinks that certain things are okay does not necessarily mean that many people will agree. Often, nearly half of the population will continue to disagree. Shucks, just look at the continuous and divisive abortion debate. I give more credit to individual citizens to think for themselves outside of government declarations. Just because government recognizes certain things does not necessarily mean that such things are right and good or that people will agree with such decisions.

Arguing that strong marriages and families benefit society, the government, to some extent, has a responsibility to strengthen families. Putting the issue of gay marriage aside, the government is doing a poor job at strengthening heterosexual families. Look at promiscuity, adultery, and divorces by representatives of the government. Look that the “marriage penalty” in our tax policy. Look at the lazy way that government goes after domestic violence and deadbeat dads. Moving from government to the heterosexual citizen community, look at the cereal marriages and abandonment that takes place on a regular basis – the 50% divorce rate.

The personal examples given by government officials themselves, the punitive tax policy and the inattention given failing marriages, and the terrible examples given by the heterosexual community at large do vastly great harm to the strength of marriage and family. Yet, without the institution of marriage, society could have become worse. I simply disagree that that civil unions for gays (who supposedly make up 1-3 percent of the population) could do any significant degree more harm than already exists. To the contrary, it would benefit society.

Strong marriages and families do benefit society so government should do things to strengthen families AND recognize civil unions for they will benefit family and society as well. Government’s recognition of gay unions would encourage monogamous relationships. It would increase social stability and reduce the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. This is often called the "domestication effect”. Married people statistically have better health & greater financial stability, which results in less dependence on government assistance. All these same societal benefits and taxpayer savings would also come from legal gay unions. In fact, because gay couples have been denied marriage, these couples will likely take gay unions more seriously if and when government recognizes gay unions. Perhaps they would out-perform heterosexual marriages.

As a final note: Gay unions would not harm heterosexual marriage. If my wife and I found a gay couple next door, it would not result in our getting a divorce. Why would a comfortably heterosexual married couple divorce and opt for gay marriage?

 

[dilloduck]

Is there a hidden implication that if we allow civil unions the result will be an increase in destructive behavior? I doubt that this would be the case. On the contrary, civil unions and the benefits that would result may encourage homosexuals to remain committed to each other and reduce promiscuity. I remember what is of often “preached” in the heterosexual community: Be abstinent until marriage and remain monogamous in marriage. Anyway, if you don’t mean to imply this, please disregard.

I don’t understand the point of your question so I will take your question literally as it stands. I don’t know the answer. How much do sodomites, gay or straight, pay in taxes to engage in destructive behavior? People, in general, pay taxes no matter what behavior they do – from performing in porn movies to performing surgery – so I think that I don’t understand what point – if any – you are trying to make.

Never mind--comparing cigarette smokers to gay marriage is just insane

 

[mattskramer]

Democracy is majority rule. In the LONG RUN, its always that way. If the majority want something, they can change the Constitution. If enough people want something to be law, and its important enough to them, no minority, no judge, no politician can stop it.

This does not automatically mean its majority tyranny.

majority tyranny would mostly apply to short term knee jerk reactions. The opposistion to homosexual marriage is contrary to the moral viewpoint of a vast majority of Americans, and has been held in that esteem from the founding of the country. It would not be a majority tyrannical rule situation.

Fact is, Americans dont want it, what you say about why MATTSK opinion should over rule the majorities opinion is right on the money.

As for what constitutes a knee jerk reaction versus carefully thought-out views is very subjective. You can split the hair wherever you like. For me, majority rule is majority rule and majority tyranny is majority tyranny. Still, I prefer the US system of government to any other system that I have seen. I do not rule. We live in a representative democracy – not a dictatorship. Yet, I have an opinion. That opinion might be, to some, a knee jerk reaction or a carefully thought-out view. Ultimately, I am free to voice my opinion and to vote. The same applies to you.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Slavery used to be legal thought many people thought that it was wrong. Segregation was legal but wrong. What do you think about recent executive decisions about “eminent domain”? Just because government thinks that certain things are okay does not necessarily mean that many people will agree. Often, nearly half of the population will continue to disagree. Shucks, just look at the continuous and divisive abortion debate. I give more credit to individual citizens to think for themselves outside of government declarations. Just because government recognizes certain things does not necessarily mean that such things are right and good or that people will agree with such decisions.

Arguing that strong marriages and families benefit society, the government, to some extent, has a responsibility to strengthen families. Putting the issue of gay marriage aside, the government is doing a poor job at strengthening heterosexual families. Look at promiscuity, adultery, and divorces by representatives of the government. Look that the “marriage penalty” in our tax policy. Look at the lazy way that government goes after domestic violence and deadbeat dads. Moving from government to the heterosexual citizen community, look at the cereal marriages and abandonment that takes place on a regular basis – the 50% divorce rate.

The personal examples given by government officials themselves, the punitive tax policy and the inattention given failing marriages, and the terrible examples given by the heterosexual community at large do vastly great harm to the strength of marriage and family. Yet, without the institution of marriage, society could have become worse. I simply disagree that that civil unions for gays (who supposedly make up 1-3 percent of the population) could do any significant degree more harm than already exists. To the contrary, it would benefit society.

Strong marriages and families do benefit society so government should do things to strengthen families AND recognize civil unions for they will benefit family and society as well. Government’s recognition of gay unions would encourage monogamous relationships. It would increase social stability and reduce the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. This is often called the "domestication effect”. Married people statistically have better health & greater financial stability, which results in less dependence on government assistance. All these same societal benefits and taxpayer savings would also come from legal gay unions. In fact, because gay couples have been denied marriage, these couples will likely take gay unions more seriously if and when government recognizes gay unions. Perhaps they would out-perform heterosexual marriages.

As a final note: Gay unions would not harm heterosexual marriage. If my wife and I found a gay couple next door, it would not result in our getting a divorce. Why would a comfortably heterosexual married couple divorce and opt for gay marriage?

Well, the fact that marriage is weaker (as you pointed out) now that govt has liberalized marriage laws, just proves that they shouldnt liberalize them even further.

Govt sanctioning of a sick behavior is not a good idea.

AS for your negative description of marriage in its current status, yes, govt should tighten things up. No fault divorce should become extinct. A middle ground needs to be gained, without no fault divorce, people wouldnt be so easily engaged into marriage.

Using slavery and segregation is disengenuous. They are not comparable, and virtually every black person I have talked to resents the comparision. Homosexuality is a behavior, not a state of being.

I wholeheartedly disagree with emminent domain, but again, you are proving my point. It was done by judicial fiat, just as how the liberals are attempting to institute same sex marriage.

Conservatives are trying to eliminate taxation that penalizes marriages. As for going after dead beat dads, trust me, the govt is overly zealous on that one.

The divorce rate isnt as high as 50% any more than the old figure of 10% being homos.

Same sex marriage will not strengthen families. It cant by definition. Same sex couples cannot bear children, nor do I think they should be allowed to adopt. Your statements that it will benefit society is speculation at best. I do not care to experiment with our social setup for the sake of a very small minority that arent persecuted anyways.

And still, the majority speaks. They may be wrong sometimes, but its more wrong to deny democracy.

 

[mattskramer]

Well, the fact that marriage is weaker (as you pointed out) now that govt has liberalized marriage laws, just proves that they shouldnt liberalize them even further.

Don’t put words in my mouth. I said that marriage is weak. I did not say that this was due to liberalized marriage laws. If you say that marriage has become weaker due to liberalized marriage laws, what are the liberalized marriage laws that did this? Was it the outlawing of polygamy?

Govt sanctioning of a sick behavior is not a good idea.

What sick behavior is government sanctioning by recognizing homosexual unions – sodomy? Do you think that sodomy should be illegal even between married heterosexual couples? Smoking is a sick behavior. Perhaps we should outlaw smoking.

Using slavery and segregation is disengenuous. They are not comparable, and virtually every black person I have talked to resents the comparision. Homosexuality is a behavior, not a state of being.

Read my statement and paragraph in context. I was not arguing that homosexuality was a state of being. I can easily argue that government should recognize gay unions even assuming that homosexuality is a choice.

I brought up slavery to illustrate that some things can be legal even if they are disliked. Just because government thought that certain things are okay does not necessarily mean that many people agreed.

The divorce rate isnt as high as 50% any more than the old figure of 10% being homos.

Okay. I stand corrected. “The last-reported U.S. divorce rate for a calendar year, available as of May, 2005, is 0.38% divorces per capita per year". I do disagree with the old statistic that 10% of the population is homosexual.

Check out: http://www.divorcereform.org/results.html

Same sex marriage will not strengthen families. It cant by definition. Same sex couples cannot bear children, nor do I think they should be allowed to adopt. Your statements that it will benefit society is speculation at best. I do not care to experiment with our social setup for the sake of a very small minority that arent persecuted anyways.

Same sex marriage may very well strengthen marriage. I already gave reasonable examples of how it could. The issue of bearing children is irrelevant. Some heterosexual couples choose not to have children. Some heterosexual couples are incapable of having children. There are sperm banks and surrogate mothers and adoption centers for those who may want to raise children. You don’t have to be married in order to have children and you don’t have to have children in order to be married.

You do not want to “experiment with our social setup”. We do so on a regular basis. After consideration we think that certain things should or should not be allowed. So, through government, we make changes to our laws to reflect that. We tried it with alcohol prohibition (clearly an individual choice), restrictions on smoking, etc.

And still, the majority speaks. They may be wrong sometimes, but its more wrong to deny democracy.

Wow! That was a quick change of subject. Uh. I am not at all opposed to our system of government.