Homosexual marriage

[xotoxi]

Homosexuals are sick and unnatural individuals. I want to see them have the right to marry so that they will no longer stalk our children. Homosexuals are born, God makes them that way to test us normal Christian people. God has given the world the AIDS virus and it is God's will that the homosexuals get AIDS and die. He will judge them and He will not judge them kindly for they will be cast out and there will be weeping and knashing of teeth in the eternal firey pits of hell.

PRAISE JESUS !!!!

So wait according to you God makes homosexuals so that he could then give them AIDS, kill them and send them to hell?

Your God is really sadistic and should probably seek help.

He's just lucky to be heterosexual so he is exempt from being infected with HIV.

Then again, maybe he's homosexual and the above derogatory post is just self-loathing.

 

[xotoxi]

And I hope that the weirdos that are afraid of sex ed in school don't think that there is a lab portion of the class...because there ain't!

Dude that would make a great SNL sketch although as it stands it's only part of a Monty Python sketch.

Now that you mention it, i do remember seeing that.

 

[Father Time]

And I hope that the weirdos that are afraid of sex ed in school don't think that there is a lab portion of the class...because there ain't!

Dude that would make a great SNL sketch although as it stands it's only part of a Monty Python sketch.

Now that you mention it, i do remember seeing that.

I forgot to put up a link to the vid.

Now here is a test, if you don't find this at all amusing you don't have a good sense of humor.

[youtube]mTMlZSKEu-Y[/youtube]

 

[KittenKoder]

I love Monty Python.

 

[xotoxi]

I forgot to put up a link to the vid.

Now here is a test, if you don't find this at all amusing you don't have a good sense of humor.

That's some good shit...

Too bad it ended...I wanted to see the rugby match.

 

[Father Time]

I forgot to put up a link to the vid.

Now here is a test, if you don't find this at all amusing you don't have a good sense of humor.

That's some good shit...

Too bad it ended...I wanted to see the rugby match.

I personally liked the one that happened right before it

[youtube]eBqe5xvYnNc[/youtube]

But if you insist

[youtube]dzeeaEsIFLs[/youtube]

 

[xotoxi]

Now I'm going to have to rent it.

Thanks.

 

[manu1959]

Actually, if my kids were to turn out to be gay, I wouldn't be as concerned about them catching anything. Because you can catch anything no matter what hole you stick it in. The key is to use condoms.

I'd be more concerned that they would be depressed or want to kill themselves because they would be convinced by everyone around them that being gay is evil, sinful, and that gays are worthless sub-humans. I wouldn't want my child to feel that way about themselves.

Therefore, I think that it is important that tolerance is taught in schools. Tolerance for others choices and cultures.

You are correct ... and oddly the transmissions of STDs among the gay communities are and the decline in many areas, while those in the straight or bi communities are on the rise. I just needed a feel for where Mani was coming from is all.

Yeah...sorry to jump into a conversation. I just saw the mention of sex ed and gays, so I thought I'd chime in.

In other conversations that I have had in the past regarding gays and sex ed in school, there is a segment of the population that thinks that gay sex is taught, and actually encouraged. in school. I really find it hard to believe that anyone would actually think this.

All that is taught and should be taught are (1) facts (such as unprotected anal sex has a higher rate of transmission of certain STDs than vaginal sex), (2) personal preferences (i.e. some people are hetero, some are gay, some are bi-), (3) and abstinence should be encouraged, but also use of condoms for all sexual practices should be emphasized.

Anything less than what I outlined above, would make sex ed classes an absolute waste of time.

And I hope that the weirdos that are afraid of sex ed in school don't think that there is a lab portion of the class...because there ain't!

unless you go to school here........Lafayette Morehouse Inc.

 

[N4mddissent]

Hi Yukon:



Bullony! A true homosexual male or female HAS NEVER BEEN BORN (my thread = ttp://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5491687 = add the ‘h’). Everyone here is the product of exactly one heterosexual male and one heterosexual female, which makes them either a heterosexual male or a heterosexual female. Everybody has the same right to marry a person of the ‘opposite sex,’ so nobody has any ‘rights’ violated at all.



Bullony! Homosexuality is an abomination to God (Romans 1:21-32), so obviously you will have problems selling your nonsense to God-fearing Christians for whom Christ died!



You are pretending that depraved people involved with ‘indecent acts’ (Romans 1:27) represent some ‘minority class’ like women and blacks fighting for the right to vote; which is nonsense. Those calling themselves ‘homosexuals’ have the same exact rights as everybody else, except that they want ‘extra rights’ to marry people of the same sex. Then roommates can enter into marriages to obtain the benefits of real married couples working every day to raise the next generation of Americans. Place 100 heterosexual couples on an island and return 100 years later and you will find life, but place 100 homosexual couples (male or female) on the same island and return 100 years later to find no human life at all. Do the fricking math . . .



. . . One nation . . . under God . . . Just keep your homosexuality behind closed doors and nobody need be concerned with ‘indecent acts’ done in private. Push this nonsense in our faces and in the faces of my children and grandchildren and expect to have problems . . .



Those calling themselves homosexuals have the same right to marry anybody of legal age from the opposite sex, just like everybody else. The heterosexuals also have the right to shack up and have consensual sex with most anybody they wish, just like the people calling themselves homosexuals. However, the sanctity of ‘marriage’ is reserved for those people seeking to take on the responsibility of bringing the next generation of our posterity into existence, which has nothing to do with those calling themselves homosexuals only thinking about themselves and their own selfish desires "receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." Romans 1:27.



The homosexuals I knew growing up all died from Aids, which seems about right considering everything written in Romans 1 of God’s Living Word. If men want to lay down with men (sick) and play house like Dick and Jane, then perhaps they can find some way of making themselves all happy inside ‘and’ without all the ‘in-your-face’ nonsense and stupidity. Where can you go to find a civilization dominated by homosexuality? No such thing exists, because homosexuals simply do not reproduce naturally to replace themselves ‘and’ that means new recruits must come from among our children and grandchildren!

In that case, I would much rather your grand kids be turned over to a ‘depraved mind’ (Romans 1:28) than mine . . .

GL,

Terral

Don't make your argument on the back of the writings of quasi-literate, pre-enlightenment desert dwellers who didn't even understand that germs cause disease. That's not a good source for your biological assertions.

Actually, they did understand grems and disease.

The Old Testament has guidelines for sanitation and health.

For instance to wash with water and then isolate your self from the community for a certain number of days after you had touched a dead body or diseased animal.

To dig a hole away from town for defacation and then to cover the hole when finished.

Or to wash your hands before eating.

In fact there is a complete section devoted to hygenic practices.

Show me the quote that mentions micro-organisms or germs and I'll be sold. The romans had baths and sanitation that was very impressive. They still had no clue about germs. They were as likely to think that certain habits or materials produced disease because they contained unclean spirits. A child can pick up on a simple cause and effect pattern. Dog trainers use those techniques everyday. It doesn't equal understanding.

 

[N4mddissent]

I love Monty Python.

No matter how bad things get, I can pause, close my eyes, and hear Eric Idle sing, "always look on the bright side of life" while crucified and it will bring a smile to my face.

 

[KittenKoder]

Don't make your argument on the back of the writings of quasi-literate, pre-enlightenment desert dwellers who didn't even understand that germs cause disease. That's not a good source for your biological assertions.

Actually, they did understand grems and disease.

The Old Testament has guidelines for sanitation and health.

For instance to wash with water and then isolate your self from the community for a certain number of days after you had touched a dead body or diseased animal.

To dig a hole away from town for defacation and then to cover the hole when finished.

Or to wash your hands before eating.

In fact there is a complete section devoted to hygenic practices.

Show me the quote that mentions micro-organisms or germs and I'll be sold. The romans had baths and sanitation that was very impressive. They still had no clue about germs. They were as likely to think that certain habits or materials produced disease because they contained unclean spirits. A child can pick up on a simple cause and effect pattern. Dog trainers use those techniques everyday. It doesn't equal understanding.

The Roman baths were more of a social gathering to relax than to get clean, though many did have sexual encounters in the bath houses. Also ... how can someone who has such knowledge of germs even have a "vomitorium" like they did. Ancient Egyptians knew more about germs than the Romans did, but then that's because of Imhotep and his experiments, but they still didn't understand them really.

 

[N4mddissent]

Actually, they did understand grems and disease.

The Old Testament has guidelines for sanitation and health.

For instance to wash with water and then isolate your self from the community for a certain number of days after you had touched a dead body or diseased animal.

To dig a hole away from town for defacation and then to cover the hole when finished.

Or to wash your hands before eating.

In fact there is a complete section devoted to hygenic practices.

Show me the quote that mentions micro-organisms or germs and I'll be sold. The romans had baths and sanitation that was very impressive. They still had no clue about germs. They were as likely to think that certain habits or materials produced disease because they contained unclean spirits. A child can pick up on a simple cause and effect pattern. Dog trainers use those techniques everyday. It doesn't equal understanding.

The Roman baths were more of a social gathering to relax than to get clean, though many did have sexual encounters in the bath houses. Also ... how can someone who has such knowledge of germs even have a "vomitorium" like they did. Ancient Egyptians knew more about germs than the Romans did, but then that's because of Imhotep and his experiments, but they still didn't understand them really.

They did at least separate water based on perceived quality- high quality for drinking, less for bathing, lowest for sewage. Btw, my point was that the Romans did not have knowledge of germs. Their sanitation with sewers and attempts at getting clean drinking water were more intuition and experience. Just like the "sanitary" practices outlined in hebrew mythology. It was others who were arguing this indicated knowledge of germs.

P.S. The idea of the bath as a social gathering is intriguing. I'm curious how the dynamics of debate here on usmb would change if we were all in a warm bath- oh and naked. Ack...I'll never get that mental image out- the horror...

 

[Yukon]

Kitty,

Now you're an expert on ancient Egypt ?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let me borrow from Thomas Sowell on the subject of homosexual "marriage", since I could not possibly improve on his words.

"The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.

Actions and not people. Um, both interracial marriage and homosexual marriage are obviously actions, i.e. the act of making a contract. Yet SCOTUS struck down anti-miscegenation laws, a tradition that went back 300 years, and cited the 14th amendment in doing so. So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with your source, which you didn't cite, on the nature of the 14th amendment.

Okay, now you're just being deliberately obtuse and obfuscatory, as witness the fact that you cherrypicked your quotes and left the entire second half of what I said out of your response so that you could pretend I was referring to an different action than I was. When you display the courage to actually respond to the WHOLE point I made, you will deserve to have your response addressed.

Gotta love the bicycle analogy. Now that's a bogus analogy. The reason bicycles are not on the freeway is because that would create an unsafe situation. Does gay marriage create an unsafe situation for others?

Once again, you try to impose your own personal standard of motivations onto the discussion in order to deflect. It doesn't matter WHY society chooses to discriminate against the action. The point is that it is discriminating against the action, not the person.

Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.

Why does anybody care about preserving traditional definitions?

It's not about "preserving traditional definitions". It's about the fact that there IS a definition. The word "marriage" does mean something. It does refer to a specific concept, and it is the CONCEPT that's at issue here.

And once again, this is an attempt to sidestep the actual point I made.

He must have been basing his actions versus people idea on the contention that while race is not chosen, sexuality is. First off, whether sexual preference is a choice or not is not a debate that is settled. Most likely there's a combination of factors. It seems it's more of a choice for some than others. I can neither choose to be attracted to men nor be attracted to most other ethnicities.

No, he's basing his contention on the fact that a black man and white woman getting married are doing the exact same thing a white man and white woman are doing when they get married: marrying a man and a woman to each other. A homosexual man and another homosexual man getting married are NOT doing the same thing. It wouldn't matter if someone DID prove that a tendency toward homosexuality was genetic, because it STILL wouldn't meet the definition of a marriage. The race of the people involved is in no way a requirement of the concept of marriage. The sex of the people involved is. Homosexual behavior is an action. Being black (or white, or Asian, or whatever) is not, at least not in this context.

Secondly, this is not a valid distinction between gay and interracial marriage. What is outlawed in both cases is not whether a certain kind of person can get married at all, but rather who they can choose from. Anti-miscegenation laws were upheld for a century after the civil war on the premise that, "Well, they can marry their own race too so it's not violating equal protection." But if sexuality is a choice, then they could just choose to like somebody of their own race, right? Similarly, today people say, "Gays can choose somebody of the opposite sex just like straights." Even if I conceded that everything about sexuality is a choice (I don't), the question remains: Why should they have to be restricted like that? Who is harmed?

Okay, a number of problems here. It IS a valid distinction, because as both Dr. Sowell and I have pointed out, race is in no way a requirement of the definition of marriage, but sex is. Bans of interracial marriage require the law to impose additional restrictions on the institution which are not inherent in it. But refusing to sanction homosexual "marriage" requires no change whatsoever in it.

Second of all, no one is restricting anyone's choice of who to like or who to marry, and I'm getting a bit tired of having to repeat this because of the stubborn refusal of everyone on your side of the argument to so much as acknowledge that I've said it, let alone stop being dishonest about it. We are NOT talking about preventing anyone from making whatever relationship connections they want. We are talking about the government officially recognizing those relationships, and people's feelings and motivations for making those connections is not relevant to that topic.

Third, you are still arbitrarily imposing your standard on everyone else. "You can't exercise your rights because I don't perceive any harm, and that's the only allowable standard." But it isn't. There is nothing in any law anywhere stating that the people can only pass laws when there is harm involved, much less that said harm must be defined by you.

A high divorce rate is better than people sticking to a marriage they're miserable in.

I disagree, on numerous bases, but that's not the point.

It's based upon harm to non-consenting parties. People should be allowed to do what they want if and only if nobody is harmed against their consent. Do you have a better standard?

Sorry, but this is a misdirect. You ARE making the same argument that you reject in others. You don't think the desires of the majority are reason enough to maintain existing law, but you DO think the desires of a minority are reason enough to massively change it. You insist that that's because "they're being harmed", but reject that same argument from your opposition, simply because YOU don't perceive any harm. Guess what? I don't perceive any harm to homosexuals from leaving the law as it is. And before you start outlining why you DO perceive it, don't bother. Been there, heard it, don't agree. And the point is, you're using the same argument you're rejecting from the opposition. It's hypocritical.

Also, once again, no one is talking about anyone not being allowed to do what they want. Homosexuals can already marry whomever they choose, and no one's stopping them. We're talking about the law sanctioning those marriages.

Democratic proceses are checked by minority rights because the mob does not always care if they're oppressing a minority. The actions of any group of people, minority or majority, should be outlawed only when people are getting harmed against their consent.

Democratic processes are checked by minority rights ONLY WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHTS THAT ACTUALLY EXIST. The right to have the law sanction whatever relationship you choose to form is not a right that exists now, or ever has existed.

One more time. No one is "outlawing" any actions here. Homosexuals are not being dragged out of their wedding ceremonies and thrown in the pokey for being gay. They can take any action they want. They just can't force the rest of us to give it the official governmental stamp of approval.

LOL. It's not perfect, for reasons explained in the bottom of the source in my last post. But it's A LOT better than the bicycle one.

No, it's irrelevant and inaccurate, and about to become utterly ignored.

I say it's a luxury because it's true that not all women have that choice. Female doctors, lawyers, and pharmacists, for example, do have that choice. They can marry a starving artist or another doctor and will be fine, financially, either way.

Not what I meant. Notice I said, ". . . convinced that they don't need men or marriage". I was referring specifically to the idea that women are, overall, financially independent enough to live their lives and have children without depending on marriage to do it. Statistically, women who have children without benefit of marriage live in poverty, as do women who get divorced, particularly if they have children.

And no, even doctors, lawyers, etc. cannot frivolously marry someone simply because he makes their toes curl without serious financial consequences. No matter how romantic your motivations are, legal marriage is primarily a business contract. You are making yourself one legal and financial entity with another person, and becoming responsible for their actions. That female doctor who marries a hunky starving artist is extremely likely to find herself losing half of what she owns in the divorce settlement, plus paying him alimony.

So in that regard, people have always had the "luxury" of making stupid decisions that ruin their lives. Can't say that having it happen more commonly than before was a good thing.

What society sanctions should be based upon giving people maximal freedom so long as they do not harm others.

No, societal sanctions are not based on "giving anyone freedom". First, because government doesn't "give" anyone their freedom, at least not in this country. Second, legal sanction of marriage is about limitations, not expansions, of boundaries. Once again, we turn to Dr. Sowell.

"Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have."

If what you're looking for is maximum freedom, the best way to get it is to keep the government OUT of what you're doing.

They say what boils down to my "snarky" comments. And obviously I have to address the children argument even though I consider it irrelevant because that's what many people base their opposition to gay marriage upon. Somehow they don't realize that even though their marriage may be mostly about providing an environment for their children, not all marriages need to be about children at all.

In other words, "I don't have to provide actual quotes, let alone argue against them. I believe that's what they think, therefore I can simply ignore their actual words and argue against the voices in my own head." If that's what you want to do, then you could save time and just go sit in front of the mirror and talk to yourself. But if you think I'm going to waste my time responding to arguments against something no real person has ever actually said, you're deluded.

Seriously, would you let me get away with saying, "What liberals really think is that gay sex is just really cool, and we should all stand around and applaud while they do it. No, I can't show any quotes where any actual liberal said that, but their arguments basically boil down to that. Now, here's why gay sex ISN'T cool"? No, of course you wouldn't, and you sure as hell wouldn't bother trying to refute whatever I said after that point, nor should you.

So stick to actual arguments, not your own biased, opinionated paraphrases of what you THINK people think.

By the way, the point about children isn't whether or not the individual marriage was formed for the purpose of having children. The point is that marriage as an institution is sanctioned primarily because of children. Please try to comprehend that none of this is, now or ever, about the individual motivations of individual people.

My objection is that they're opposing a behavior that harms nobody.

They're opposing a behavior that you perceive as harming nobody. Are you really incapable of comprehending that your perception is not necessarily reality, and DEFINITELY isn't the perception of every person in the country? Also, you are once again operating from the assumption that your arbitrary standard of "harm" is actually the basis being applied here. It doesn't matter if you think people and the law should only care about harm or no harm. That's your opinion, and that doesn't mean that actually IS the basis being applied.

The majority is perfectly capable of being irrational and that's why ad populum is a fallacy.

Sorry, but no one ever said, or even implied, that the majority is always rational (although in this case, you're defining rational as "behaving the way I think it should", and I still haven't figured out who gave you the right to set that standard). And no one has suggested that because the majority think that sanctioning homosexual "marriage" is a bad idea, that means it actually IS a bad idea. All anyone has suggested that the majority has the legal right to codify its belief into law.

As far as I can tell, I am basing my opinion on reason and they are not.

Yeah, and THAT is an opinion, too. You should consider for a moment, that WE think WE are basing our opinions on reason and YOU are not. All you've really said is that this is what you believe, and you believe your beliefs to be correct. I already assumed you did.

If I had argued against anti-miscegenation laws back in the 1950s, or slavery in the 1700s, it would have been the same scenario. My only option is to try to persuade a few people to my side so that people won't continue to be oppressed arbitrarily.

Or to try to oppress others arbitrarily by sidestepping the democratic process and stripping them of their legal rights. I've noticed that leftists are extremely good at bullying people by way of proclaiming themselves to be bullied.

Obviously that's not the issue for most. The issue is to be treated equally and have equal access to the legal ramifications of a marriage as a contract.

Actually, that stamp of approval IS the issue, because it IS what we're actually talking about. They, and you, just don't want to admit it, so you keep hiding behind disingenuous arguments about "being allowed to marry whomever they want", as though anyone's stopping them. They don't really want the legal ramifications of a regular marriage, because as I said, legal marriage is really a restriction, rather than an expansion, of boundaries and freedoms. If that was really their goal, they could already accomplish that merely by signing a legal contract between them. The courts would enforce that just as they do any legal contract. But what they want is to get the government to officially approve their relationship and say that it's just like a heterosexual marriage, so that they can turn around and force other people to say it. And no one has a right to someone else's approval.

A marriage is not a government endorsement or public business any more than any other contract. I also have no idea why you find it necessary to take such an abrasive approach to people who disagree with you. Why do you feel so threatened by homosexual marriage?

A marriage isn't a government endorsement, but a government endorsement is. I know you love pretending the line between the two doesn't exist so that you can continue to make warm, fuzzy, heartstring-tugging arguments, but it ain't gonna happen. We are not talking about marriage, the relationship between two people, here. Homosexuals can already form any relationship they care to, and call it whatever they like. We are specifically talking about the government officially recognizing that relationship as a marriage for legal purposes, which would be a sanctioning or endorsement of it.

I am so abrasive to people who disagree with me because they are abrasive to me. Yes, I know that you think you're being the soul of niceness and cool, dispassionate reason, but like all of your opinions, that is not one that is universally held.

I don't feel threatened by homosexual "marriage". I feel threatened by homosexual "marriage" advocates. If you and the others would stop shoving it in my face, I would quite happily ignore the entire topic of homosexual couples and what they do in their private lives. Despite what you apparently think, I genuinely don't give enough of a damn about people I don't know - and even quite a few that I do - to give any thought to them or their relationships, let alone expend the energy to form an opinion about them. It seems very silly and childish to me to drag your personal relationships into the public arena, demand that everyone approve of them and you, and then pitch a tantrum when some of them don't and tell them it's none of their business. They made it our business; we didn't.

Arguing that pedophiles, the incestuous, and the polyamorous will use homosexual "marriage" as a path-breaker to legalizing their own behaviors has a lot more ground to stand on than comparing homosexual "marriage" to interracial marriage. You can look at advocates of pedophilia, incest, and polyamory right now and see them pointing to homosexual "marriage" advocates and legal decisions as their forebears.

Silly slippery slope. That's like saying that unveiling women in the middle east would be a pathbreaker to adultery and so they should keep women veiled.

No, it's not like that at all. What it's like is saying that a court decision concerning contraceptive use between married couples would lead to a court decision concerning contraceptive use by non-married people, which would then be used as a springboard to a decision about limited legalized abortion, which would then be used to champion and create a right to unlimited legalized abortion, which is how we actually got to where we are. It would take a damned fool to look at our nation's legal history and the way that special interest groups take one court decision, related or unrelated to their cause (it doesn't seem to really matter which it is), and use it to justify what they want, and not conclude that it will happen again. Particularly since you can look at advocates of pedophilia, incest, and polyamory and their arguments and see that they're already doing it.

I see no problem with polyamorous marriage so long as they don't end up with any special tax breaks (if that's possible) and all involved are consenting adults.

And if this were about what you personally do or don't see a problem with, that might matter.

The problem with incest is that it would cause deformed babies to be born and thus cause suffering.

No, that would be YOUR problem with it. Would it surprise you to know that there are other people who have other problems with it? In the end, the REAL problem with incest being legalized is simply that the majority of voters, for a variety of reasons, don't want it to be.

Pedophilia does not involve consenting adults.

It would if we lowered the legal age of consent, which is what their advocates want. And really, what's the difference between changing the definition of "consenting adult" and changing the definition of "marriage"? They're just words, right?

The step from interracial to homosexual marriage is a lot smaller because both harm nobody and grant no special rights (as polygamy potentially would).

No, it would harm nobody IN YOUR OPINION and grant no special rights IN YOUR OPINION. And how does polygamy grant more special rights than homosexual "marriage" would?

On the other hand, race and homosexuality are not even remotely comparable.

As explained above, wanting interracial marriage is not based upon who you are racially, but who you're attracted to. It wasn't that Whites had a right Blacks didn't. Whites couldn't marry somebody of another race either. Rather, it was people with a sexual preference for another race that were not granted equal rights. Sound familiar? Some people claim to only be attracted to those of another "race," though I'm not familiar with the label for it. Are people born with a preference for another ethnicity? The parallels are quite close.

No, you're still defining all of this by individual motivations and desires, and that is not, and never has been, the issue. Marriage is not legally sanctioned for the purpose of benefitting the individuals involved. It is legally sanctioned for the purpose of benefitting society as a whole.

Also, it's a fallacy to say that marriage is about attraction or sexual preferences. Are you suggesting that only marriages formed for the sake of sexual desire should be valid under the law? That the government should go around trying to ascertain whether or not couples have the hots for each other before granting them a marriage license?

Marriage (in a legal sense) is "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife". It is not "the state of being united to a person of the same race", nor is it "the state of being united to a person you're attracted to or have a sexual preference for". Therefore, comparisons to interracial marriage are invalid because they qualify as such, and homosexual relationships do not.

 

[Cecilie1200]

On the other hand, race and homosexuality are not even remotely comparable.

As a matter of fact, one thing that sexuality and race have in common - and it is quite an important one IMO - is that you don't get to choose them before or after you're born.

I think that is the point previous posters were trying to make in using the example of inter-racial marriage being illegal some time ago:

Well, thank you SO MUCH for jumping in to clarify for me something I already knew quite well, and had already addressed in order to get to the point of saying that it was irrelevant. While you're at it, why don't you helpfully inform me that the sky is blue, just in case I wasn't aware of it?

And then perhaps you could go back and read the part where other people said the exact same thing you just did, and I then - with perfect comprehension of what they had said - addressed it? Consider the possibility that I'm not disagreeing with you because I just don't get your brilliant point. Maybe I disagree with you because I got your point perfectly, and still thought you were wrong.

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents: I am for equality of all and every one.

Next time you want to throw in your two cents, try to make a different two cents than the one someone else ALREADY threw in, and we then spent six pages hashing over.

I believe that any couple that wants to get married and enjoy legal benefits connected to that, should be able to.

Bully for you. So does every other homosexual "marriage" advocate on this board, which would explain why they've all said the exact same thing already. Your personal opinion and belief on the subject doesn't convince me any more than theirs did.

Every couple should be able to enter such fiscally advantageous contract.

Anyone who thinks marriage is a big fiscal advantage in life has clearly never known anyone who got divorced.

As long as they are consenting adults, I see no reason why it shouldn't be that way.

That would be because you clearly haven't bothered to read the damned thread before barging into it and parroting statements that have already been made and answered ad nauseam.

When it comes to polygamy, I am not too sure how to approach this issue.

Here's an idea. How about they just go about their lives and relationships privately, without asking anyone else to get involved and have opinions, and the rest of us oblige by not getting involved or caring.

I guess if they were all consenting adults entering the contract = relationship willingly, then why not.

Yeah, well, they already do that, so I guess that's taken care of. Now how about the homosexuals follow suit, and stop bothering everyone?

Whether I am asked the normative question of 'do you think it is right' then I'd answer - it is not right for me, but that doesn't mean it is not right for others.

No one asked. That's the point. We would all like to stop being asked if we think it's right, and then hearing hissy fits when we dare to give an answer other than the desired one.

I know we're not discussing polygamy here, but it's been addressed during the discussion.

Yes, because if you let one special interest group get away with redefining things and twisting society to suit them, others are going to come along and use that as a springboard to do the same thing for themselves.

Also, Cecillie addressed pedophiles - obviously, since there is the lack of the other 'consenting adult', there's no way such a relationship can be viewed as normal or even right by the society or the state. 'Consenting adults' is the defining term here.

Yeah, and with the homosexuals, the defining term is "marriage". They want to change the definition of that term, and pedophiles want to change the definition of "consenting adult". If you accede to the first, on what grounds are you planning to deny the second?

I guess all the arguments have been beaten to death and beyond by now...

But you just had to waste time and space pointlessly stating them again, didn't you?

 

[Neser Boha]

On the other hand, race and homosexuality are not even remotely comparable.

As a matter of fact, one thing that sexuality and race have in common - and it is quite an important one IMO - is that you don't get to choose them before or after you're born.

I think that is the point previous posters were trying to make in using the example of inter-racial marriage being illegal some time ago:

Well, thank you SO MUCH for jumping in to clarify for me something I already knew quite well, and had already addressed in order to get to the point of saying that it was irrelevant. While you're at it, why don't you helpfully inform me that the sky is blue, just in case I wasn't aware of it?

And then perhaps you could go back and read the part where other people said the exact same thing you just did, and I then - with perfect comprehension of what they had said - addressed it? Consider the possibility that I'm not disagreeing with you because I just don't get your brilliant point. Maybe I disagree with you because I got your point perfectly, and still thought you were wrong.



Next time you want to throw in your two cents, try to make a different two cents than the one someone else ALREADY threw in, and we then spent six pages hashing over.



Bully for you. So does every other homosexual "marriage" advocate on this board, which would explain why they've all said the exact same thing already. Your personal opinion and belief on the subject doesn't convince me any more than theirs did.



Anyone who thinks marriage is a big fiscal advantage in life has clearly never known anyone who got divorced.



That would be because you clearly haven't bothered to read the damned thread before barging into it and parroting statements that have already been made and answered ad nauseam.



Here's an idea. How about they just go about their lives and relationships privately, without asking anyone else to get involved and have opinions, and the rest of us oblige by not getting involved or caring.



Yeah, well, they already do that, so I guess that's taken care of. Now how about the homosexuals follow suit, and stop bothering everyone?



No one asked. That's the point. We would all like to stop being asked if we think it's right, and then hearing hissy fits when we dare to give an answer other than the desired one.



Yes, because if you let one special interest group get away with redefining things and twisting society to suit them, others are going to come along and use that as a springboard to do the same thing for themselves.

Also, Cecillie addressed pedophiles - obviously, since there is the lack of the other 'consenting adult', there's no way such a relationship can be viewed as normal or even right by the society or the state. 'Consenting adults' is the defining term here.

Yeah, and with the homosexuals, the defining term is "marriage". They want to change the definition of that term, and pedophiles want to change the definition of "consenting adult". If you accede to the first, on what grounds are you planning to deny the second?

I guess all the arguments have been beaten to death and beyond by now...

But you just had to waste time and space pointlessly stating them again, didn't you?

You know, sweetie, you soooo didn't have to either read or respond to what I wrote. I will write my opinion WHETHER OR NOT it's been said before IF I feel like it and YOU, babyface, can't do anything about it. So why don't you just take some Motrin and get yourself something to chew on...

 

[KittenKoder]

Here's a funny consideration ...

Many who believe in love and that some are "destined" for each other ... how can they even consider that they have control over the gender of who they are "destined" for?

 

[manifold]

Here's a funny consideration ...

Many who believe in love and that some are "destined" for each other ... how can they even consider that they have control over the gender of who they are "destined" for?

Perhaps they're just relying on a few hundred millenia of evolution to do right by them.

 

[KittenKoder]

Here's a funny consideration ...

Many who believe in love and that some are "destined" for each other ... how can they even consider that they have control over the gender of who they are "destined" for?

Perhaps they're just relying on a few hundred millenia of evolution to do right by them.

However ... by the laws of evolution it is possible for it to be more natural than most want to admit. When a species population exceeds the limit of the natural resources there are evolutionary triggers that will work to stop them from breeding successfully.

 

[manifold]

Here's a funny consideration ...

Many who believe in love and that some are "destined" for each other ... how can they even consider that they have control over the gender of who they are "destined" for?

Perhaps they're just relying on a few hundred millenia of evolution to do right by them.

However ... by the laws of evolution it is possible for it to be more natural than most want to admit. When a species population exceeds the limit of the natural resources there are evolutionary triggers that will work to stop them from breeding successfully.

An interesting idea that I offer as well from time to time. But hardly a proven fact or even a mildly supported theory or hypothesis. Cancer, mother nature and competition for resources have been doing a pretty bang-up job in that department and probably don't need any help.