Gay marriage

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Ok, let me know when peanut butter and potato chips are up for discussion in congress and I'll be happy to debate it with you. Otherwise, I won't engage in nonsensical analogies with you.

Good day.

In and of itself, it is not a nonsensical analogy. My point is that just because people think that homosexual behavior or homosexual marriage is disgusting is no legitimate reason to outlaw. Let's outlaw oral sex. It doesn't result in procreation. People find the activity disgusting.

Good day

 

[jimnyc]

Have a great day, matt!

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by mattskramer
In and of itself, it is not a nonsensical analogy. My point is that just because people think that homosexual behavior or homosexual marriage is disgusting is no legitimate reason to outlaw. Let's outlaw oral sex. It doesn't result in procreation. People find the activity disgusting.

Good day

But is it right or wrong? We judge all day long in this country on whether stuff is right or wrong, we say that speeding is wrong although I like to speed. No different than homosexuality which is beyond a shadow of a doubt wrong, so yes we can legislate against it.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Mattskramer is simply attempting to point out through analogy that there is no necessary logical connection between an act being disgusting and that same act needing to be criminalized.

We must not forget we are a country with majority rule limited by minority rights. We are not a pure democracy. Simply because most in this country are against it doesn't mean it can or should be denied as a right.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by MJDuncan1982
Mattskramer is simply attempting to point out through analogy that there is no necessary logical connection between an act being disgusting and that same act needing to be criminalized.

We must not forget we are a country with majority rule limited by minority rights. We are not a pure democracy. Simply because most in this country are against it doesn't mean it can or should be denied as a right.

Fact is they are not being denied any rights, they have every right to marry someone of the opposite sex for the benefits and then bang their buddy in the ass on the side. America should not legitimize a wrong behavior by handing out "special rights".

Homosexuals are not a minority, Blacks, Hispanics now those are minorities because they were born that way, homosexuals chose their lot in life.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

They are in fact being denied the right to marry the person that they love. That right is acknowledged for heterosexual people. The state cannot tell me which woman I can or cannot marry.

I'm not so sure that homosexuals choose their way of life. I can't imagine why anyone would intentionally want to go through all that it entails. Many heterosexuals will tell you that they can't choose who they love either - many women fall for assholes and can't help it.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by OCA
But is it right or wrong? We judge all day long in this country on whether stuff is right or wrong, we say that speeding is wrong although I like to speed. No different than homosexuality which is beyond a shadow of a doubt wrong, so yes we can legislate against it.

In general, people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others. People should be free to do as they please, make their own personal decisions, and accept the consequences for the choices that they make. Government should do little more than punish fraud and violence.

(I don't know how relevant is the following comment but it serves as one of the many many examples of unnecessarily intrusive government) I find it sadly ironic that the government subsidizes tobacco farmers and fines cigarette manufacturers.

I don't say that speeding is wrong. Speed limit laws have been established to reduce the likelihood of automobile accidents being relatively serious. I think that roads should be privatized and that rules should be set by private owners. Aside from that, I think that speed limits should be greatly increased if not removed. I think that there is a road in Germany with no speed limit. I don't know the statistical information as it relates to auto accidents relative to speed-limited roads.

As for homosexual marriage, perhaps government should remove itself from the marriage issue completely. It should not be in a position to formally recognize any marriage. It should not provide special benefits or incentives for "married" people. Yet, if government is going continue to be involved in marriage policy, it should allow for homosexual marriage.

 

[mattskramer]

Fact is they are not being denied any rights, they have every right to marry someone of the opposite sex for the benefits and then bang their buddy in the ass on the side. America should not legitimize a wrong behavior by handing out "special rights".

If a heterosexual couple is in love and wants to get married, the couple is allowed to get married. If a homosexual couple is in love and wants to get married, it is forbidden for them to do so. Therefore, homosexuals do not have the same rights as do heterosexuals.

Homosexuals are not a minority, Blacks, Hispanics now those are minorities because they were born that way, homosexuals chose their lot in life.

I do not know if homosexuality is a choice or a genetic condition. I don't know if there is a genetic predisposition/influence or if it is purely based on environmental influence. Were you born a heterosexual or was your sexual orientation a choice? I don't think that the debate over nature/nurture is relevant. People who chose one religion over another were (and still are to a degree) discriminated against (informally if not formally). At one time it was understood that people were not to get married to people of other religious persuasions. Homosexuals choose their lot in life? Okay. Heterosexuals choose their lot in life. Christians choose their lot in life. Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Atheists and Agnostics choose their lot in life. Left-handed people choose their lot in life. Redheaded people choose their lot in life. Whatever. The point is that it does not matter that heterosexuality....ooops...I mean nomosexuality....is a choice or not.

 

[NewGuy]

Mat.

This always comes back to the same thing with you:

People should be able to choose to do whatever they want.

-EVEN IN PUBLIC.

So, I propose taking you back to the pablum of the situation.

As I have discussed with a person already who favors moral relativity, the law is built on a foundation of ethical standards.

Those standards are REQUIRED to keep order and ethical behavior.

If you have any point to prove and you claim choice is the order of the day, get off of your but and make your case now:

1. Where did law begin in the us.

2. Why do these laws exist?

3. Why is it necessary to not flaunt immoral behavior?

In answering these questions lets start at the basics:

1. Tell me why moral relativity is necessary over a legal standard of morals decided upon by the masses of ethical people.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I am not positive but I'm pretty sure that Mat believes that you should have the right to do whatever you want as long as any action does not infringe on the rights of another - as seems to be the case with homosexual marriage

 

[mattskramer]

People should be able to choose to do whatever they want. -EVEN IN PUBLIC.

No. Some things should not be allowed in public as they may provide an influence, on a child, unwelcome by the child's parents. What should be displayed in public is open for debate. I think that sexual intercourse should not be permitted in public. I am undecided on the issue of French kissing. If it is to be allowed in public for heterosexuals then it should be allowed in public for homosexuals. The issue is consistency.


As I have discussed with a person already who favors moral relativity, the law is built on a foundation of ethical standards.

This is not true in every case. Some laws are built in order to satisfy a special interest group or a group of wealthy contributors. Some laws are built on the standards of the majority. It does not mean that the standards of the group in power are ethical.

Those standards are REQUIRED to keep order and ethical behavior.

I think that certain standard are required in order to keep order and ethical behavior but not necessarily moral behavior. Morality is subjective. My standards, for the most part, are based on the notion that people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others. Consistent with this, first degree murder would be wrong sodomy would be okay. I think that your standards are based on the Bible. One's (or a group's) standards my be different from another person's (or group's) standards.

1. Where did law begin in the us.

I think that they began in Philadelphia Pennsylvania.

2. Why do these laws exist?

To maintain order.

3. Why is it necessary to not flaunt immoral behavior?

Necessity has nothing to do with the issue or moral behavior. A behavior's [morality] is subjective. Laws are necessary to maintain ethical behavior.

In answering these questions lets start at the basics:
1. Tell me why moral relativity is necessary over a legal standard of morals decided upon by the masses of ethical people.

Your questions include assumptions. Moral relativity is no more necessary than are moral absolutes decided upon by presumably ethical people. I believe that laws should, for the most part, be based on individual freedom and personal responsibility.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by MJDuncan1982
I am not positive but I'm pretty sure that Mat believes that you should have the right to do whatever you want as long as any action does not infringe on the rights of another - as seems to be the case with homosexual marriage

It infringes on one of the basic tenements of civil society since the beginning of time, that marriage is between a man and a woman only, same as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

Matts is a fence sitter, he's afraid of the repercussions if god forbid he ever passed judgement on a situation.

The fact remains and no one can prove otherwise, and yes gentlemen the ball is in the queer's court to prove otherwise not vice versa, that people are not born homosexual. We are an animal albeit with reasoning and critical thinking seperating us from other animals so therefore we from birth are born with a natural attraction and urge to mate with the opposite sex. Its as simple as that. Homosexuality is a perversion same as bestiality and pedophilia.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

What are you referring to as a basic tenement of civilized society? It is not that homosexuals exist because that is well documented in the Classical world. The Spartans even had a section of their army composed solely of homosexual men.

Perhaps you mean marriage amongst the group in which case I agree that it is probably not something that has occurred in many societies throughout history.

However, slavery was also a "basic tenement" of most civilized societies up until several hundred years ago. I don't think we should be held to the standards of those that lived thousands of years ago.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by MJDuncan1982
What are you referring to as a basic tenement of civilized society? It is not that homosexuals exist because that is well documented in the Classical world. The Spartans even had a section of their army composed solely of homosexual men.

Perhaps you mean marriage amongst the group in which case I agree that it is probably not something that has occurred in many societies throughout history.

However, slavery was also a "basic tenement" of most civilized societies up until several hundred years ago. I don't think we should be held to the standards of those that lived thousands of years ago.

Should we not hold ourselves up to what are unclouded standards of right and wrong? Especially the homosexual problem?

Slavery and homosexuality: two things which are CLEARLY wrong.

 

[mattskramer]

It infringes on one of the basic tenements of civil society since the beginning of time, that marriage is between a man and a woman only, same as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

Understandings progress. Things change. Many years ago it was thought that the sun revolved around the earth. People thought that the earth was flat. Slavery was condoned for a long time. For many years, women were not allowed to vote. Just because something has been limited in a certain way for a long time does not make the limitation justified.

Matts is a fence sitter, he's afraid of the repercussions if god forbid he ever passed judgement on a situation.

I am no more a fence sitter than is OCA. We each use different sociopolitical philosophies and reasons for the views we hold. I am not afraid of the repercussions if I ever passed judgment on a situation. I have passed judgment on many situations. First degree murder is wrong. Homosexual marriage should be legalized.

The fact remains and no one can prove otherwise, and yes gentlemen the ball is in the queer's court to prove otherwise not vice versa, that people are not born homosexual. We are an animal albeit with reasoning and critical thinking seperating us from other animals so therefore we from birth are born with a natural attraction and urge to mate with the opposite sex. Its as simple as that. Homosexuality is a perversion same as bestiality and pedophilia.

It is no more people's responsibility to prove that homosexual marriage should be allowed than it is for people to prove that it should not be allowed. It does not matter whether or not people are born homosexual or choose to be homosexual. You may have been born with a natural attraction and urge to mate with the opposite sex. Some people may have been born with the natural attraction and urge to engage in sexual behavior with people of the same sex.

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by mattskramer
. You may have been born with a natural attraction and urge to mate with the opposite sex. Some people may have been born with the natural attraction and urge to engage in sexual behavior with people of the same sex. [/B]

Notice how you couldn't use the verb, "mate", on both ends of that sentence? Doesn't that - all by itself - tell you something?

As for the government removing itself from the marriage issue completely, I don't think proponents of homosexual marriage would want that. That would mean that the government would have to remove itself from the business of circumventing the will of the people. If the will of the people were the determining factor, this bullshit would have been dispensed with a long time ago.

 

[mattskramer]

Upon reading the word "mate" the definition that came first to my mind was "To be paired for reproducing; breed." This definition would not apply to homosexuals since two men or two women, in and of themselves can't reproduce.

Therefore, I did not use it on the other end of the sentence. A view is not correct merely because it is held by a majority of people.

 

[007]

Originally posted by mattskramer

It is a mental illness according to your bigotry and that of some others. Even the APA removed its definition as an illness from their manuals. It is no more an illness than is liking peanut butter and potato chip sandwiches or doing hand stands. Marriage as a holy union is based upon the value and definition that each couple applies to their marriage. Did you know that there are some atheists that are married?

Well matty... lets once again deal with your liberal handbook name calling and ignorance.

Read it and weep fence boy...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Homosexuality and Mental Health Issues

Quick Review: Consider some recent studies evaluating the mental health of homosexuals and bisexuals below.

Summary: During the 1960s and early-1970s, homosexuals and homophiles argued that homosexuals were as mentally healthy as heterosexuals. However, confronted by considerable evidence from the late-1990s onward that homosexuals and bisexuals are at least two- to three-fold more likely to manifest mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and substance use disorders compared to heterosexuals, homosexuals and homophiles have promptly started blaming stigma, prejudice, and victimization for elevated psychiatric morbidity among nonheterosexuals. Preliminary considerations suggest that elevated psychiatric morbidity among nonheterosexuals is not readily explicable in terms of stigma, prejudice, and victimization.

Paper: During the 1960s and early-1970s, when homosexuals and homophiles were attempting to persuade psychiatrists that homosexuality is not a mental illness, they portrayed homosexuals as mentally on par with heterosexuals. Nowadays, they blame so-called homophobia for heightened psychiatric problems among homosexuals. What happened? Let us address some recent studies evaluating the mental health of homosexuals and bisexuals:

I encourage you to read the full article. That is of course if you're man enough to admit you're wrong...

http://www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com/mental_health_review.htm

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Upon reading the word "mate" the definition that came first to my mind was "To be paired for reproducing; breed." This definition would not apply to homosexuals since two men or two women, in and of themselves can't reproduce.

Therefore, I did not use it on the other end of the sentence. A view is not correct merely because it is held by a majority of people.

But, again - doesn' that tell you something?

And, in a representative government, shouldn't the will of the majority count for SOMETHING?

 

[musicman]

For what it's worth, in my personal experience, I have never known a homosexual whom I would consider happy or well-adjusted. They are raging alcoholics, insanely jealous, neurotically manipulative, relentlessly self-absorbed, and suicidal (one lesbian acquaintence of mine recently took that route). All I've seen are miserable people and ruined lives.