Jump to content

Gay Marriages...legal or not?


Recommended Posts

quote:

San Francisco Logic!!!

A scene at City Hall in San Francisco

"Next."

"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."

"Names?"

"Tim and Jim Jones."

"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."

"Yes, we're brothers."

"Brothers? You can't get married."

"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"

"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"

"Incest?" No, we are not gay."

"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"

"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."

"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you an get married to a woman."

"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."

"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"

"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married."

"Names?"

"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."

"Who wants to marry whom?"

"We all want to marry each other."

"But there are four of you!"

"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."

"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."

"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"

"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."

"Since when are you standing on tradition?"

"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."

"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"

"All right, all right. Next."

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."

"In what names?"

"David Deets."

"And the other man?"

"That's all. I want to marry myself."

"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"

"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."

"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"


Making a mockery of marriage? Pretty much... where does it stop?

Activist judges have created this disaster, and activist judges have done other things to create laws etc, that never existed.

Judges are there to apply the law equally. Thier job is to uphold the law, NOT make it.

A judge is not there to dispense Justice, his law is to enforce the laws that Congress, or the legislative branch creates. That's it, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Agreed Jaguar... from a Social POV without religion involved, marriage is society's way of healthily perpetuating our species - guaranteeing the likelihood of offspring conceived and raised in a healthy family unit.

No other grouping meets that criteria, and the real problem here is steering our society back onto that line of thinking.

From a religious standpoint well... you know the drill. And since the Bible is full of common sense advice for everyday living that most can't disagree with - I can't see how it ought to be wrong on this one issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I feel that marriage is a sacrement of the church between a man and a woman. However I am not against civil unions that allow parners who have pledged themselves to eachother to be legally recognized with the benefits that entails. However I am toally against a contitutional ammendment and can only guess as to what the motivation for such an action would be.

With all that is going on in this world does our President really need to be talking about gay marriage and steroid abuse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The motivations for such an action would be to spell out common sense for activist judges who feel like they can break the law by loose interpretation.

It's important because Marriage is society's way of ensuring survival of our species in a man-woman coupling with hopefully a healthy upbringing for the child. Read the article's I've posted to.

Recognizing homosexual unions publicly is flawed as well - because it is simply normalizing something that is not normal.

Homosexuality is really no different than an attraction to animals, children, etc. except for the fact that it is occuring between two consenting adults. People are attracted to different things - there are reasons why it should be kept in the closet - just like pedophiles and bestiality. Cold honest truth. All that being said - whatever happens between two consenting adults in private is really none of my concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still not buying it. Yes I too think it is unnatural, but if you really dont care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of thier own home why get your panties in a bunch? How is a civil union eroding the sacrement of marriage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should we give benefits that are society's way of encouraging the coupling of males and females in the production and raising of offspring to people who are not contributing new taxpayers to make up for the benefits they receive?

I also work at a title company - can you think of the nightmare this would mean in researching real estate deeds and transactions? It's bad enough as it is.

And as I said - why normalize something that isn't normal? Tell my children while they are in school - "Oh yes this sexual deviation is fine but this one isn't until we find a special interest that has enough voting sway to make it"

Marriage is not a stamp of sexuality - it's society's way of encouraging the development of heatlhy family units that are producing and raising offspring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

It's important because Marriage is society's way of ensuring survival of our species in a man-woman coupling with hopefully a healthy upbringing for the child. Read the article's I've posted to.

Marriage is a word. People can successfully procreate and perpetuate our species without marriage. If you don't want the word Marriage sullied that's fine, but don't presume that without it the human race would die out.

quote:

Recognizing homosexual unions publicly is flawed as well - because it is simply normalizing something that is not normal.


There was a time when blacks were not considered "normal" either.

quote:

Homosexuality is really no different than an attraction to animals, children, etc. except for the fact that it is occuring between two consenting adults. People are attracted to different things - there are reasons why it should be kept in the closet - just like pedophiles and bestiality.


If you can't draw a distinction between pedophilia, beastiality and homosexuality then you really shouldn't be commenting on the topic.

Did it ever occur to you that homosexual couples can raise children? They have several options open to them including adoption and surrogacy. So by your definition of marriage, if a homosexual couple raises healthy happy children, they would qualify for benefits. Or is it that your definition requires the child be born of a sexual realtionship between the two?

All of the gay people I know are born that way. God made them gay, if you choose to believe otherwise then it's your problem.

You see sexuality is NOT cut and dried. Nature consists of asexuals, heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals etc... Yes, hetero is the "norm", but all other aspects exist.

Here's a brain twister for ya, how do we handle marriage between two hermaphrodites (those few that God saw fit to make "abnormal").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Marriage is a word. People can successfully procreate and perpetuate our species without marriage. If you don't want the word Marriage sullied that's fine, but don't presume that without it the human race would die out.


Society has something to say about ensuring not just procreation but also healthy development in a stable family. Regardless of whether or not the term is sullied is irrelevant - because prior to the 'sexual revolution' which created 90% of the problems you say proves marriage isn't needed marriage did what it's definition was. Leadership is a word too, and you have good leaders and bad leaders - that doesn't automatically mean anyone can be a leader.

quote:

There was a time when blacks were not considered "normal" either.

Ummmm wot? Trying to equate not accepting homosexual behavior is normal with not accepting that blacks exist? Or do you mean interracial marriage? Either way - sex is meant for the production of offspring - not for physical gratification so your argument doesn't make sense.

quote:

If you can't draw a distinction between pedophilia, beastiality and homosexuality then you really shouldn't be commenting on the topic.

I did - it occurs between consenting adults... just like S&M, diaper fetishes and everything else that isn't between children and animals. Doesn't make it normal.

quote:

Did it ever occur to you that homosexual couples can raise children? They have several options open to them including adoption and surrogacy. So by your definition of marriage, if a homosexual couple raises healthy happy children, they would qualify for benefits. Or is it that your definition requires the child be born of a sexual realtionship between the two?

So we should give benifits to a couple because they are capable of raising children? Anyone is capable - but it requires man-woman to create a likelihood of it. If you recognized homosexual marriage - how many of those homosexuals are going to be putting the benefits of raising children as opposed to spending the extra dollars on something else?

quote:

All of the gay people I know are born that way. God made them gay, if you choose to believe otherwise then it's your problem.


So by your argument God made pedophiles attracted to children. They were born that way. So thus we should accept and hold them up as fine beacons of morality. Ditto for bestial couplings. People can be born with a physical attraction to a cow - that doesn't mean society should recognize the union as normal.

quote:

You see sexuality is NOT cut and dried. Nature consists of asexuals, heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals etc... Yes, hetero is the "norm", but all other aspects exist.


I never said that everyone is going to be physically attracted to the same thing - but society shouldn't have to recognize something if society doesn't benefit.

It is in the best interests of society for core families to procreate and raise their children in a loving mother/father environment. It's capable for a bear to raise a kid if you watched the Jungle Book - but it doesn't mean society should enact the Mowgli ammendment

quote:

Here's a brain twister for ya, how do we handle marriage between two hermaphrodites (those few that God saw fit to make "abnormal").


If they enter into a union with the capability to produce children and they marry each other or a member of the (opposite ? ) sex that is capable of procreating I don't see a problem with it. But they don't need a special law considering they can probably already marry considering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rtoolooze

I'm sorry, but saying God made them that way just does not float. If that were the case, then anyone could use that excuse. Even a murderer could say, "God made me that way, I can't help it."

Also, do you really believe God sits up there and "designs" everyone that is born? To be sure, God created humans, perfect humans with the ability to produce children. However, because we are now all imperfect, things happen like birth defects, retardation and so on. I mean, it would sure be a mean God if he designed children to come out with serious defects.

No, God did not make them that way. If you want to know Gods views on the matter, look in the Bible, its very cut and dry.

Leviticus 18:22

Romans 1:26,27

1 corinthians 6:9

1 Timothy 1:10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the fact that homosexuals are a minority group asking to be treated equally before the law, I'd say it's pretty close to other struggles minorities have faced in this country.

No it's not equal to them, I wouldn't equate any one of them to another. But this is NOT a question of the magnitude or severity of suffering being used as a qualifier to validate the issue. It's a question of legal discrimination. Pure and simple.

People can continue to throw out religious, social, economic and moral reasons why this is a bad idea, but in the end it will be decided purely on a legal basis. I think we can all take a good guess how it'll turn out too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So on a legal basis why should homosexuality be recognized as opposed to other deviant special interests?

If I get a million pedophiles to openly picket for the right to 'make love' to children should their minority rights be championed?

Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. But asking for the right to get recognized by society as a legitimate and normal lifestyle is an uphill battle. It belongs in the closet just like people who are hard up on ball gags and whips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

So on a legal basis why should homosexuality be recognized as opposed to other deviant special interests?

Let's not forget the Adulterers, and the ones interested in Beastiality, don't they deserve special treatment for their fetishes too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly... the argument that "people are born that way" doesn't explain why we should recognize it, because by that logic people are born as pedophiles, bestialitists, etc. and should be given a pass because it's 'normal'.

Society shouldn't have to recognize anything that isn't beneficial to the whole. Marriage doesn't stamp people as 'good heterosexuals' it is society's way of encouraging a coupling likely to result in the creation of offspring AND the unit necessary for a healthy upbringing.

Note that I didn't dispute that on occasions some other units can raise children - but it isn't likely, mainstream, or normal by society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its hard for me to understand the comparison between homosexuality and pedophile/beastiality. There is one dramatic difference: Homosexuals are consentual...meaning that both parties agree with sharing intimacy. Unlike a child, who has no idea what intimacy is...pedophiles are predators. Does a donkey agree to getting it from a human? I just don't agree with that comparison...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Sorren:

Its hard for me to understand the comparison between homosexuality and pedophile/beastiality. There is one dramatic difference: Homosexuals are consentual...

OK, then here's another one for you, I've seen on some of those Jerry Springer shows where Mom & Son get together, Dad & Daughter, Brother & Sister, those are consenting adults, why not give them "special" Status too?

I can see it now, Incest lovers unite, we shall overcome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incest had to be the "norm" back in the day when there was only Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel...and?...

You took my words out of context leaving out the part where pedephiles are predatorial people, that prey on the innocence of others...how does that compare (logicaly) to homosexuality and incest? Besides it being a non-heterosexual reality? Pedephiles are more comparitable to rapists as far as I can tell.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a homosexual advocate--nor am I a condemner, I just think that denying harmless people equal rights isn't a good idea. That may be outside of the "normal" opinion, but that's what's great about this country...I can have any opinion I want! hehe

Anyway, thx for your reply as this is a touchy topic, and both sides have valid arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a homosexual advocate--nor am I a condemner, I just think that denying harmless people equal rights isn't a good idea. That may be outside of the "normal" opinion, but that's what's great about this country...I can have any opinion I want! hehe

Anyway, thx for your reply as this is a touchy topic, and both sides have valid arguments.


I'm not comparing homosexuality, incest, etc. on a legal basis. But the argument that people are 'born' homosexual validates the argument that people are 'born' pedophiles, etc. and shouldn't be punished because it is 'natural'.

Not trying to equate them in any sense, but to place in perspective the argument that people are 'born' with these sexual deviant traits. You can't have the cake and eat it too.

And no equal rights are being trampled - as I said marriage is not a rubber stamp of sexuality - it's a device whereby a relationship in which it is likely for offspring and creating a healthy environment for them is to occur.

Homosexuals are being denied nothing except the validation of society of their deviant lifestyle. It's no more normal than pedophelia, bestiality, etc. because it is nothing more than a sexual attraction which just happens to occur between two consenting parties. Marital benefits are created to prod along the natural order of things. Benefits go towards ensuring creation of offspring and healthy raising of said children.

And once again all that being said - what two/three/four adults do in the privacy of their own home is none of my concern, but whether it's beastiality, homosexuality, or ball-gag feather fetishes we shouldn't base marriage on what gets them off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Sorren:

Incest had to be the "norm" back in the day when there was only Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel...and?...

You took my words out of context leaving out the part where pedephiles are predatorial people, that prey on the innocence of others...how does that compare (logicaly) to homosexuality and incest? Besides it being a non-heterosexual reality? Pedephiles are more comparitable to rapists as far as I can tell.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a homosexual advocate--nor am I a condemner, I just think that denying harmless people equal rights isn't a good idea. That may be outside of the "normal" opinion, but that's what's great about this country...I can have any opinion I want! hehe

Anyway, thx for your reply as this is a touchy topic, and both sides have valid arguments.

How is taking this out of context? Here's a case where a 30yr old woman and her 53 yr. old father got married. They were arrested, but hey, they're "consenting" adults, according to your logic, that should be OK. I mean who are they hurting right?

Problem is, these days no one wants to admit that something is simply wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we stop with the straw man arguments about pedophilia and incest etc...? Last I heard those things were illegal, and being a homosexual is NOT.

When one of you can come up with a sound legal argument as to why two consenting adults in a long term, committed relationship shouldn't benefit in the same ways other members of society do then have at it.

Since I have no personal stake in the issue it really doesn't matter how it turns out. I just think it's sad that so many are comfortable relegating a group of individuals to second class citizen status simply because they fear what they don't understand.

As I said in my first post, it's inevitable and the sooner we all get used to the idea the smoother it will go.

I've pretty much said all I care to say on the matter. You guys can continue on and have fun with all your negative "what-if" scenarios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why does no one acknowledge the fact that marriage benefits are an incentive to form a family unit for the creation and raising of offspring and NOT a rubber stamp of a relationship of sexuality?

And my 'comparison' of homosexuality to pedophiles and beastiality is to illustrate the argument that homosexuals claim to be born that way.

When people get married they aren't saying "Recognize my 'right' to commit sodomy with my wife/husband" They are saying that they wish to enter into a contract that facilitates the creation and raising of offspring. Why else have property rights, etc.?

These are real valid points that you choose to ignore by taking my posts out of context from the points that were made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when I got married, it was my declaration to God and man that the woman I loved and I were promising to spend the rest of our lives together. Had nothing to do with kids or property...only a promise. Marriage, to me, is a symbol of two souls declaring their unity-their oneness; and pleging their lives together based on that unity. Kids are a perk!

Silk, how do you know that these people weren't born that way? You seem convinced otherwise!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Silk-upon further thought, I'd like to ammend my question how do you know that these people weren't made that way...blah, blah, blah...

It seems to me that that is an impossible question to answer; as I am a believer that we were made with free will, and are co-creators of this reality (including ourselves). We all (including God) made ourselves this way...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

when I got married, it was my declaration to God and man that the woman I loved and I were promising to spend the rest of our lives together. Had nothing to do with kids or property...only a promise. Marriage, to me, is a symbol of two souls declaring their unity-their oneness; and pleging their lives together based on that unity. Kids are a perk!


Why would society gain from rewarding marital benefits to people being together? I know what marriage is religiously and in your vows, but marital benefits are society's way of encouraging healthy procreation.

quote:

Silk-upon further thought, I'd like to ammend my question how do you know that these people weren't made that way...blah, blah, blah...

My point is this - you can't have your cake and eat it too. If homosexuals are born that way, so are pedophiles, beastialists, etc. and it will only require popularism and a signifigant movement and we should have to recognize the behavior as normal.

Society does not benefit from 'two people loving each other'. That's the argument put forth by these people, while ignoring society's purpose for marriage.

People keep responding with half-arguments ignoring half the points made that invalidate their argument.

Whatever you think of your own marriage is irrelevant, it's imporant to look at why man-woman relationships are recognized by society as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...