Same Sex Marriage

[Cha0t1c1]

I have something to say about guardianship of gay couples.

Anybody who delivers a little child's soul to the hands of gay people to be raised is a criminal and should be treated that way by others and by God of course.

If democracy thinks it can overcome this by vote, and loose the blame, then Democracy will be abolished of the face of the earth.
England, where these things start to take effect, and Holland also, will be the first to go with the imminent earth's magnetic poles shift.
Any human society in its right mind should never allow these things to take place.
Hopefully Americans are not stupid enough to do this in the name of openmindness.

presenting a smart argument is required, you lack such thing.

Prove its troubles then start yelling, because imagine if your brother or your sister were homosexuals, will you deny them happiness just because God said they're blasphemers, even God is merciful.

[Wonder]

presenting a smart argument is required, you lack such thing.

Prove its troubles then start yelling, because imagine if your brother or your sister were homosexuals, will you deny them happiness just because God said they're blasphemers, even God is merciful.

I presented my argument in the previous post saying that morality supercedes mortal life and it must be incorporated into LAW, human law that is.
In the event that this doesn't happen it will be the end of us all, and not only the homosexuals.

I don't want to be Lot's wife (and be turned to salt) is what I am saying but maybe it seems cruel to you, i am sorry.
Nevertheless you understand I am not going to play my head heads or tails.
The pursuit of hapiness is an American thing.
i am not American, I am Greek, so I don't really believe in this "moto" certainly not philosophically speaking.

[whitetrshsoldier]

presenting a smart argument is required, you lack such thing.

Prove its troubles then start yelling, because imagine if your brother or your sister were homosexuals, will you deny them happiness just because God said they're blasphemers, even God is merciful.

I presented my argument in the previous post saying that morality supercedes mortal life and it must be incorporated into LAW, human law that is.
In the event that this doesn't happen it will be the end of us all, and not only the homosexuals.

I don't want to be Lot's wife (and be turned to salt) is what I am saying but maybe it seems cruel to you, i am sorry.

And I don't quite think that I want some grown man who still believes in the bed-time fairy-tales that he was read as a child to be making rules dictating how I live my life.

Just my opinion, though, I guess ... I just can't seem to recall any "walls of fire" coming down and swallowing any gay people that I know of ....

[Jackowens]

Dear whitetrshsoldier,

In reply to your post of 5/20/10 (#28):

"I'm simply stating that a State-sanctioned recognition of the private and personal relationship between two individuals need not exist."

And I'm trying to make a distinction between a) the politicians, bureaucrats and the judiciary, on the one hand, and b) the voters/community on the other, a distinction you seem to be intentionally trying to either blur or erase.

Before we can continue I need to know whether you're willing to admit that it is possible for the politicians, bureaucrats and judiciary, as a quasi-oligarchy, to have purposes and goals that are in opposition to those of the citizenry/voters. If you are, we can then talk about marriage as being the cultural institution that it is, embodying fundamental, shared community values, the state aside.

Can we get together?

Regards,

Jack

[whitetrshsoldier]

"WHY does the State feel that it may sanction a non-business [commerce] relationship between two private entities?"

First of all, if you're talking about two private entities, in contrast to two members of a community sharing common values, those entities can arrange their private marriage. As I understand it that occurs all the time.

The state that you mention can be more specifically denoted by apeaking of the politicians, bureaucrats and judiciary involved in this controversy.

What is really at issue here --and correct me if I'm wrong-- is whether those politicians and bureaucrats and that judiciary are going to take the matter out of the hands of the voting citizenry and, in effect, force that citizenry to approve of a sexual perversion as a basis for the cultural institution of marriage by fiat.

Any flaws in that?

Regards,

Jack

Jack,

I'll re-state my original point, to be more direct.

You may be correct in saying that politicians/beuracrats/etc. have a goal in directing public morality.

Regardless, I say they have NO AUTHORITY to determine the "legal" status of an intimate and personal relationship.

Homosexuality isn't contagious. Most of the damn world is filled with fantasy, religion, and liberalism, but not everybody comes out brainwashed. Nobody "dictates" social morality, other than the basic principle of the sanctity of personal liberties of each man to do as he wish without violating another ...

[Jackowens]

Dear whitetrshsoldier,

In reply to your post of 5/21/10 (#36):

"Regardless, I say they have NO AUTHORITY to determine the 'legal' status of an intimate and personal relationship."

Who does? Anyone?

"Nobody 'dictates' social morality, other than the basic principle of the sanctity of personal liberties of each man to do as he wish without violating another ..."

But as I pointed out, in the case of marriage, if what you say simply means going through a ceremony and winding up with some sort of certificate, anyone can do it; but if the procedure doesn't meet certain conditions stemming from community values, the community has a right to reject it as forming a part of the cultural institution. For instance, the woman who married a dolphin, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 23,00.html. If she wants to consider herself married, I suppose that she has that right, but she does not have the right to community approval.

On the other hand, and if I take you at your word, you approve of that marriage. Her marriage doesn't harm your or my marriage. Right?

Regards,

Jack

[pjkeeley]

I don't see how a dolphin could possibly agree to a marriage. It can't, therefore, be considered a useful analogy. You are talking about something that is irrelevant to the topic.

[whitetrshsoldier]

Dear whitetrshsoldier,

In reply to your post of 5/21/10 (#36):

"Regardless, I say they have NO AUTHORITY to determine the 'legal' status of an intimate and personal relationship."

Who does? Anyone?

"Nobody 'dictates' social morality, other than the basic principle of the sanctity of personal liberties of each man to do as he wish without violating another ..."

But as I pointed out, in the case of marriage, if what you say simply means going through a ceremony and winding up with some sort of certificate, anyone can do it; but if the procedure doesn't meet certain conditions stemming from community values, the community has a right to reject it as forming a part of the cultural institution. For instance, the woman who married a dolphin, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 23,00.html. If she wants to consider herself married, I suppose that she has that right, but she does not have the right to community approval.

On the other hand, and if I take you at your word, you approve of that marriage. Her marriage doesn't harm your or my marriage. Right?

Regards,

Jack

Jack,

Who cares if the "community" accepts anything?

A personal, in the confines of his own home, may do whatever he pleases.

So yeah, let the crazy lady do what she wants. Why should I care, and why should you? Who are you to dictate how she lives her life?

If she derives no legal benefit from the arrangement, what's the problem?

[Jackowens]

Dear pjkeeley,

In reply to your post of 5/22/10 (#38):

"I don't see how a dolphin could possibly agree to a marriage."

I don't either, but our objection in that regard is based on our values as to what the necessary conditions for a valid marriage are. To the woman involved, the agreement of the dolphin is not a necessary condition, and our objection is an attempt to override her value with ours.

Your objection is similar to my saying that, knowing the nature of Homo sapiens' reproductive system, I don't see how two members of the same sex can possibly mate; therefore they are unsuitable for marriage.

"You are talking about something that is irrelevant to the topic."

With the above explanation, I don't believe so. I mean what is my error? Are you claiming that I'm involved in a contradiction or fallacy (named and application explained)?

(By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer to my post #62 on the "Homosexual lifestyle immoral" thread.)

To whitetrshsoldier,

In reply to your post of 5/22/10 (#39):

"Who cares if the 'community' accepts anything?"

That's a strange question.

I mean, what do you think the goal of the Gay Liberation movement, with talk about rights, was about prior to (and after, for that matter) the vote on Proposition 8?

"A personal, in the confines of his own home, may do whatever he pleases."

Am I supposed to be in disagreement with that?

"Who are you to dictate how she lives her life?"

I'm not trying to dictate how she lives her life. If she considers herself married to the dolphin that's her affair. What I object to is being required, as an ethical imperative, to approve (Proposition 8) of a marriage based on a sexual perversion. Maybe we should get into the business of sexual perversions: do you believe that there are such things?

If the woman in question finds her marriage a part of the good life and a contribution to her happiness, do you have any reason to withhold your approval of her marriage?

Regards,

Jack

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

What I object to is being required, as an ethical imperative, to approve...

Again, you are not being required to approve of gay marriage anymore than a racist is required to approve of interracial marriage. As I tried to explain to you earlier, you are falsely equating general approval with legalization. There are many examples of things of which many people disapprove or many people think is immoral or perverse and have often been legally prohibited that a person can support legalizing while still disapproving of the activity or thinking it is perverse or immoral; consider gambling prohibition, prostituition prohibition, immigration prohibition, alcohol prohibition, marijuana prohibition, and low wage prohibition. Consider the quote often attributed to Voltaire (but that was really coined by Evelyn Beatrice Hall as a summary of Voltaire's general philosophy on the matter), "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." This is yet another common example of the way in which people can disapprove of an activity while still not wanting to criminalize that activity.

Jack Owens, what would you say to a racist who says that legalizing interracial marriage infringes on his right to disapprove of interracial marriage? What if the racist, believing interracial marriage is a sexual perversion, said, "What I object to is being required, as an ethical imperative, to approve of a marriage based on a sexual perversion."

If your argument is merely against the use of the term marriage to refer to a non-religious economic contract on the grounds that the term marriage has religious/moral/ethical implications and thus would be a religious/moral/ethical declaration by the government that may contradict your or someone else's religious beliefs or moral philosophy, then I would agree. I would support a law that changes the terminology from marriage to a more secular term such as civil union regardless of the gender, race, age, eye color, etc. of the people entering the voluntary legal contract. I think this would have the benefit of clearing up the common confusion between religious/ceremonial marriage and civil/contractual marriage.

[pjkeeley]

I don't either, but our objection in that regard is based on our values as to what the necessary conditions for a valid marriage are.

Your objection is similar to my saying that, knowing the nature of Homo sapiens' reproductive system, I don't see how two members of the same sex can possibly mate; therefore they are unsuitable for marriage.

There's a difference between values which are reasonable and those which are arbitrary. It is reasonable, surely you agree, to expect that a marriage need necessarily be consensual? Would you want someone to be able to marry you against your will? Would you want to wake up married to an opportunistic stranger? Of course not. It simply doesn't fit the social contract upon which we model our society. On the other hand, the ability to reproduce is not a reasonable requirement of marriage because there is no obvious reason why this requirement is necessary, and there is no expectation or requirement to reproduce if married. This is why it is legal, and perfectly acceptable in our society, for infertile couples to marry. Or for a gay man to marry a straight woman. Of for married couples to use contraception. A couple might marry and decide never to have children, and it is simply none of our business.

You are (insensitively, in my opinion) confounding the issue when you raise absurdities such as people marrying animals. The obvious reason why we do not allow it is because animals cannot consent to sex or any other mutual undertaking such as marriage. That some people think they should be able to marry animals regardless is beside the point. They are advancing an unreasonable opinion. By insisting that the ability to reproduce be a necessary requirement of marriage, you too are advancing an unreasonable opinion, because there is no reason why this should be the case. It certainly isn't the case as the law stands, because, as I said, married couples do not and cannot always reproduce. If it's none of our business whether infertile couples marry, how is it any of our business if gay couples marry?

I simply can't see why it bothers you that gay people should marry. Regardless, I think history will leave you far behind. In a few decades those who stood in the way of gay marriage will be rightfully regarded as having been as unreasonable as those who stood in the way of women's rights decades ago.

[whitetrshsoldier]

To whitetrshsoldier,

In reply to your post of 5/22/10 (#39):

"Who cares if the 'community' accepts anything?"

That's a strange question.

I mean, what do you think the goal of the Gay Liberation movement, with talk about rights, was about prior to (and after, for that matter) the vote on Proposition 8?

Jack,

To echo Scott's sentiments, the goal of that movement was for LEGAL rights that heterosexual married couples enjoy. That's it. I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, but I've got a feeling that many people in this world don't care what others [including you and I] think of them, their preferences, or their choices.

Since this is really the root of the issue, I am arguing that we abolish the legal concept of "marriage". You can have a "partnership", just as any financial entity does, but that's all. If you want your little ceremony, go have it. But I don't care what the nature of your relationship is beyond the economic type of entity that the State must see you as.

[Wonder]

Why should "legal rights" be granted to gay couples?
They can't produce offspring so who is going to inherit them?.........they are planning to adopt children, its obvious.
One thing brings the other, and one liberty brings the next, and absolute freedom means absolute sin also.

It's degeneration of human existence in its most blatant and appalling manifestation to allow homosexuals to adopt little children!!

In my opinion AIDS was just a warning from above about these things.

[whitetrshsoldier]

Why should "legal rights" be granted to gay couples?
They can't produce offspring so who is going to inherit them?.........they are planning to adopt children, its obvious.
One thing brings the other, and one liberty brings the next, and absolute freedom means absolute sin also.

It's degeneration of human existence in its most blatant and appalling manifestation to allow homosexuals to adopt little children!!

In my opinion AIDS was just a warning from above about these things.

I do agree that parental rights should not be granted to Homosexual couples; if they cannot procreate BY NATURE'S LAW, then how would it follow that they are necessarily supposed to have children?

If they want a kid, they should suck their gayness up for a night and just sleep with a surrogate mother ....

As for the other legal rights, no real benefits [aside from financial ties] SHOULD be granted a couple solely because they considered themselves married, in my opinion, so I don't see a conflict with abolishing the "legal" concept of marriage as a whole.

[Jackowens]

Dear Scott,

In reply to your post #65 on the "Homosexual lifestyle immoral" thread wherein you say that you replied, on the "Same Sex Marriage", to my contention that your accusation of my being involved in a false dilemma fallacy was erroneous, in which of your posts is that reply? I looked for it but couldn't find it.

Regards,

Jack