Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly, Interracial Marriage

[Okisites]

Thank you for all your comments dear LuckyR, Greta and Lagayscienza.

LuckyR, I actually didn’t understood your first question, but would like to say that I mean marriage should retain its meaning what it is perceived to be, consciously or sub-consciously and I think marriage is perceived sub-consciously as a different thing which only suits to straight couples. When we say about something similar to marriage about gay/lesbian couples, it will mean something different. I think from educated and rational people the thing which is different should be named differently.

Second question. I mean “Threats towards society”.

Greta, you said I am devoutly religious, so let me confirm you, “devoutly” is too far from me, I am not even religious. I am a theist who believes God exists one way or the other. My idea is like God don’t care whether you believe in religion and follow it's instructions or not, but only cares whether you believe he exists and know the basic concept about him. That’s the only thing he cares and he had nothing to do with religious beliefs and teachings, AND HE DON’T CARE WHETHER YOU FOLLOW PARTICULAR RELIGION OR NOT. And also let me tell you, I am in some ways right now involved in destroying religions, every religion, but not God, or prayer towards God in any form. It is not that I am very religious, it is you who is so much inclined to support the gay/lesbian cause that you do not get any argument against gay/lesbian. So I request you get over your huge inclination towards gay/lesbian causes and try to understand the argument without any prejudices against me.

Lagayscienza I don’t think one need to start from moral absolute to understand the right and wrong in gay/lesbian marriage. We do lot of right-wrong stuff in our courts, without even talking about moral absolutes. The thread is about legalizing gay/lesbian marriages, so it has to do with the court of law, judiciary. So I think we can analyze the matter through general reasoning , rationalizing, and using our common sense towards society’s good.

One thing I would like to tell you all, we are not talking here in this thread, we are discussing, it’s quite different. The thread is very specific about what it asks. I think you people are involving yourselves in general talking, but not discussing the topic. I would like if you discuss the topic very specifically, as the topic is very specific in nature. In this topic, it is asserted that interracial/elderly marriage has similar arguments to support as of gay/lesbian marriage. There are options to chose from and provide arguments and reason to support the option you chosen. The thread is basically about the option 3 which I belongs to. It is asked why not to legalize gay/lesbian marriage if interracial/elderly is legalized. It is asked to tell the difference between legalizing interracial/elderly marriage and gay/lesbian marriage. So this is quite specific and I did the same. I chosen the option, which is option 3, and provided my arguments and reasoning why I support option 3. I provided the difference between interracial/elderly marriage and gay/lesbian marriage. I would like if you people read my post properly and comment, ask questions, or argue very specifically about the points I have given.

The basic questions I raised are:

Do gay/lesbian have some solid grounds to say that their conditions are just another kind of sexuality, or it is just a words of mouth or a belief?

Is it possible that it could be psychological disorder, or something else that should be treated according instead of encouraging them?

is it extending the scope of sexual identity? Is it normal or serious to do that without any clearly identifiable traits?

Is marriage is about sexual preferences and sex?

Is it adding and validating some new kind of sexual activity? Is it possible that it might confuse children about their own sexuality?

I think you will better understand it reading my previous post. So please read the post and comment, question, argue specifically as it is very specific topic.

[Sy Borg]

Okisites, my "huge inclination towards gay/lesbian causes" is no doubt influenced by a long term gay friend who I've played in bands with and we've worked together on web and graphic design. Hardworking, highly intelligent, always creative, hilarious, done much charity work, caring and generally a quality human being. He's paid first class taxes on his life yet he is effectively a second class citizen with fewer rights and freedoms than heterosexual low lives.

Gay marriage will one day be looked upon like many other former human rights abuses that we have grown beyond - slavery, apartheid, women's suffrage, equal pay, indigenous people's right and vote, and so forth. Conservatives protested against these movements against irrational discrimination, as they continue to do today and no doubt always will. History suggests that the laws will change; it's a matter of if, not when.

The biggest danger I can see in this issues is that humanity will create calamities for itself and threaten its existence because we are so focused on minutiae that we forget to pay sufficient attention to our environment.

[Belinda]

Okisites, do you think that marriage is an institution for legitimating sexual relations, or for preserving the modern small family until the children are independent and the dependent elders are dead, or for stopping people enjoying more than one sexual partner, or for ensuring that population growth is maintained?

Do you think that marriage between same sex multiples should or should not also be child rearing institutions?

Did God know about over -population ?

Did God like polyandry? If not, why not?

[Supine]

Okisites, my "huge inclination towards gay/lesbian causes" is no doubt influenced by a long term gay friend who I've played in bands with and we've worked together on web and graphic design. Hardworking, highly intelligent, always creative, hilarious, done much charity work, caring and generally a quality human being. He's paid first class taxes on his life yet he is effectively a second class citizen with fewer rights and freedoms than heterosexual low lives.

Gay marriage will one day be looked upon like many other former human rights abuses that we have grown beyond - slavery, apartheid, women's suffrage, equal pay, indigenous people's right and vote, and so forth. Conservatives protested against these movements against irrational discrimination, as they continue to do today and no doubt always will. History suggests that the laws will change; it's a matter of if, not when.

The biggest danger I can see in this issues is that humanity will create calamities for itself and threaten its existence because we are so focused on minutiae that we forget to pay sufficient attention to our environment.

I don't view gay marriage as a human rights issue. Technically, gay men and lesbian women have always married. So have men that have been attracted to prepubescent children.

Humans often have trouble reconciling good people doing less than perfect things. Or reconciling complex personalities that seem to have quirks or contradictions. So, people reason that if Tom is a good guy and Tom is homosexual then homosexuality must be a good thing.

American media often does this with the historical figures of Mohammad and Martin Luther. They edit out all their contradictions and characteristics that would offend latter 20th century and early 21st century Western liberal sensibilities. But the real figures were more complex and less saintly.

Tom can be homosexual and overall be a pretty great guy. But I don't think it necessarily (logically) follows that it therefore means his trait of active homosexuality is good.

I think prostitution is a vice. At least as a profession. But I also think it should be legal. But that does not mean I think prostitution is a virtue. I think cocaine and heroin for consumption should be at minimum decriminalized if not fully legalized for sale and consumption. That does not mean I advocate that injecting heroin in your arm is a virtue. It's a vice. And being so sexually attracted to males (and there is not great sexual dimorphism among humans relates to the Great Apes--or in other words men are not that much different from women in looks, and it might be why men can become good looking transsexual females) that you discriminate against women as mates, if you are a man, is as much a vice as discriminating against full figured women for slim women or discriminating against brunettes for blonds or dark skinned black women with wide noses for light hued black women with slender noses.

Being sexually attracted to blonds or light hued black women or even sexually attracted to prepubescent children is not a choice. Once a person has developed a sexual attraction for X then those attraction-arousals become automatic.

Homosexual men don't like all men anyways. Like heterosexual men they like certain "types." Some of that is nonphysical personality traits. But for the physical traits it's all relatively "superficial."

If women are in truth equal to men, and women are human, and "looks don't matter," and a person just wants someone to "love," then it logically follows a man with a penis and testicles meant for sexual reproduction with females, can find a woman to fall romantically in love with. Perhaps a so-called "ugly" looking woman. A woman that is more androgynous looking.

But that is to honest.

Adults--as with their fetishes for euphemisms like "collateral damages"--like to play more deceptively, and as one gay Catholic priest who became Episcopalian due to his homosexuality has said, "I just want someone to love."

As if "someone" can't include all varying degrees of looking women.

That game could be played between a 45 year-old man sexually attracted to prepubescent girls. "I just want someone to love."

That's not being entirely honest as you have a narrow range of physical traits you are looking for in another human you desire to be sexual with.

Heterosexual men are as justified in discriminating against most women in favor of the minority of the best looking women. All to fulfill their (the men) sexual desires. As homosexual men are in discriminating against 100% of women. Bisexual men perhaps do the least discrimination. Of course, perhaps they discriminate against "ugly looking" women in favor of extremely handsome men? Possible.

-- Updated March 4th, 2015, 6:00 pm to add the following --

Thanks for the confirmation of what I suspected.

Many threads pit the "religious" (as a catchall for those who also include deists) vs the atheists. Round and round they go, ho hum...

What I want to see is strict deists (who don't believe in religion) vs the religious folk. That would be more interesting.

For example, one could imagine the religious folk parroting back the teachings of their church elders about this social ill and that attack on the family, just like the post I referenced, for example. Whereas a deist would have no such trappings to necessarily protect, they could be free to answer based on a god, yet not on a religious teaching.

Anyone?

I'm hazarding a guess you don't include yourself in the group you think ill of.

It is very rare I encounter men or women that put themselves down. It does happen I come across them but on rare occasions. The vast majority of people tend to think highly of whatever group they regard themselves as belonging to--and by consequence they think highly of themselves (the exception being drug addicts). That group could be feminists, liberals, mafia, outlaw bikers, gang members, KKK, Boko Haram, the Islamic State, socialists, communists, capitalists, conservatives, deists, atheists, homosexuals, heterosexuals and so on. And what I find interesting is that everyone one of these individuals thinks they're right.

Eastern Orthodox Christians--and Oriental Orthodox Christians--would claim their answers about marriage are based on a God, that God being specifically the Holy Trinity, and not based upon an arbitrary religious teaching.

The first attack on marriage in the USA--I would argue--came from the deists and Christians that broke up black families through the interstate slave trade.

[Okisites]

Conservatives protested against these movements against irrational discrimination, as they continue to do today and no doubt always will. History suggests that the laws will change; it's a matter of if, not when.

The biggest danger I can see in this issues is that humanity will create calamities for itself and threaten its existence because we are so focused on minutiae that we forget to pay sufficient attention to our environment.

Greta you are continuously giving baseless assertions without any example, any explanation. Why don’t you also give some examples, some idea why you think so, and why can’t you be specific. I have given some points, would you please care to look upon those points and present your argument/objection specifically, so that it can be helpful to reach the conclusion.

The topic is not about whether gay/lesbian marriage is right or wrong, it is about legalizing gay/lesbian marriage.

Don’t think about who is conservative, religious and all, just hear the arguments and present your arguments/opposition.

Okisites, do you think that marriage is an institution for legitimating sexual relations, or for preserving the modern small family until the children are independent and the dependent elders are dead, or for stopping people enjoying more than one sexual partner, or for ensuring that population growth is maintained?

I think as per the origin of Marriage in an ancient world, that it is made for having controlled sexual relationship and to overcome the tendency of sexual emotions being enormous and then became manipulative, exploitative, disruptive to the society and its units(individual, especially females). For example: Gay/lesbian, pedophilia, incest respectively for each. Then it might be gradually developed into contractual arrangement of mutual ownership and support between couples, out of love, child breeding and many more reason for sure. But it is certainly had been a gradual process and the most basic of it is controlling sexual emotion and it’s side effects if remained uncontrolled. Of course it is an hypothesis, but there are reasons why I think so, most of which comes from the questions like “If there had been no marriage like thing” and some other important factors regarding human behavior. So it is well grounded.

Now specifically, for “Legitimating sexual relationship”, I think it might have came much afterwards when people developed the desire for rearing only and only their own children which came from only two partner’s sexual relationship. For “preserving the modern small family”, there cannot be preservation unless there is a small family in place, which in turn cannot be unless marriage is already in place. The only family I can think of is Women and her children, like a tigress. For “Stopping people enjoying more sexual partners”, I think it is much critical than that. It is about controlling enormous sexual emotion of men as it can easily ruin the life of women, and without marriage men can go in any direction. After all we are human, not a tiger. Therefore I think the condition of “sexual relation with one of limited partners” had been laid, but certainly it had been a gradual process and second to controlling sexual emotion. For “ensuring population growth is maintained”, I don’t think it had ever been a matter of concern, as there had been no way of contraception and sex will certainly result in pregnancy and child. So it might be a population control then population growth, but I don’t think it ever been a matter with marriages.

Do you think that marriage between same sex multiples should or should not also be child rearing institutions?

Did God know about over -population ?

Did God like polyandry? If not, why not?

Well Mam, I will answer these questions and ready to argue about it, but please do care to argue my points too, as those are very specific and according to the topic.

As for your first question, of course same sex couples/multiples should be child rearing institution, but it should not come under the name “Marriage” as it is quite opposite thing conceptually than that of cohabition contract between same sex couples. But in my case it is much more critical, because I find no proper reason to even believe someone to be gay/lesbian genetically or include gay/lesbian as valid sexuality. Scientists who recognize gay/lesbian do it after the declaration of gay/lesbian themselves, and not before, which sums up as just a word of mouth, or a belief, not a scientifically proven fact. As per my knowledge, scientists do not have any idea or technology to identify newborn babies to be gay/lesbian without their own declaration as an adult, in which case it is just a support of scientists towards gay/lesbian cause, which maybe otherwise could be a psychological disorder, social construct or individual’s psychological construct. So it is quite difficult for me to say gay/lesbian marriage being child rearing institution, though it should be.

Second question, of course he is all knowing. I think, that is why he sent some deadly diseases without which we might have been much more than what we are today. But I don’t think it is good idea to think over-population in relation with these thing, which can be psychological disorder or something else, which can even proliferate and make society ill. I don’t think just because God is sending down some deadly disease to reduce over-population, we should also promote such disease to control over-population. Just a little joke, I am sorry.

I don’t know whether God like polyandry or not, but I think, just like polygamy it is not right because it might result in individuals not getting fair share from the society, but I would like to ask why are you asking these questions.

Thank you. Okisites.

[Sy Borg]

Okisites, history will judge this issue. Will societies continue to discriminate against and persecute gays far into the future the way we discriminated against and persecuted other groups on race, nationality, class, gender and birth status?

My final "baseless assertion" is that I expect humanity to continue to improve its considerable moral improvement in the long term based on reason rather than dogma. Singling out of groups based on unsound reasoning will diminish and eventually disappear. When the first society to stop sacrificing virgins to the gods the conservatives (there is no better word for it) of the time would have warned of dire consequences if their society stopped the sacrifices. There are always be dire warnings from dogma adherents when societies become more reasonable and understanding towards out-group persecution targets. Every step of the women's right movements have been met with resistance, threats and dire warnings. There were more dire warnings when Australian Aboriginals were granted the vote in 1967.

The warnings never come to pass. Those against these human rights measures have failed to cognitively keep pace with their society's changing culture. You cannot set a culture (or a person) in stone. We do, and must, evolve.

Bye bye. I'll leave you to wrestle with humanity's trivial and self-obsessed hangups (with non trivial consequences for the targets of discrimination) as I'm more interested phenomenology than humanity's narcissism.

[Okisites]

Greta, let me tell you, you say “improvement based on reason rather than dogma” but you are not reasoning anyway. I am giving you a reason, though I am suspected to be following a dogma, and you are not arguing my points, but simply claiming my argument to be based on dogma.

I have reasons to oppose gay/lesbian that you do not seem to have for your support. Instead you are behaving like you are following a dogma, though not written religious dogma, but a influenced social stupidity dogma. You need to pay attention to my points, if you or anybody else is honest. It is a thread about legalizing gay/lesbian marriage. Gay/lesbian sexuality is just seems to be a words of mouth i.e. it is just a claim, not a scientifically proven fact, in which case it is not suitable for judiciary to legalize gay/lesbian marriage. This topic is about legalizing. You cannot legalize anything on the basis of a claim and its supports from others. Judiciary requires proof. You do not pay attention what exactly I am saying. Please read my previous posts again.

What are you talking Greta, Sacrificing virgins, conservatives, warnings and all that. It is not needed. It is very specific topic. If you go with the specifics, you can very well prove your points. Just follow the specifics and argue the points. That’s what is needed. If you can argue my points, and prove me wrong, non-sense, stupid, uninformed than you can easily throw me out of this discussion, and make me run away. But as you can see OP himself had ran away from here, to whom I regard as very logical(though overly logical), and up-to-the-point person. Do you know, why? I think, he might have understood what exactly I am talking about, and he has no way out.

I am talking about legalizing gay/lesbian marriage, and said it is not right as it is based on just a claim, not a scientifically proven fact, which can also be a psychological disorder. And the reason is, scientist identify gay/lesbian only after their own declaration that they are gay/lesbian.

Well, let me ask you again, do you think gay/lesbian sexuality is scientifically proven fact?

I may be wrong due to lack of information or something, but you people need to tell me where I am wrong, how I am wrong, otherwise I will not accept myself to be wrong. Though I am feeling that people are trying not to let me any chance to prove themselves wrong, so that they can always be right. Though it is good tactics to always remain correct in front of people, but it leads to simple mass murdering quite naturally. I will again say, people must try to argue the points.

Thank you, Okisites.

[Obvious Leo]

Well, let me ask you again, do you think gay/lesbian sexuality is scientifically proven fact?

As a man of science I need to point out that this is not how science works. No scientific hypothesis can ever be proven true, even in principle. However a false hypothesis can always be falsified provided it is empirically tested by asking the right question of it.

It is accepted by science as a universal fact that same-sex attraction is a real phenomenon. It has existed in every human culture throughout human history and it is widespread in most mammalian species, especially primates. If you wish to claim that this statement is false then the burden of falsifying it lies with you.

Regards Leo

[Sy Borg]

Okisites, every time I read your posts I am reminded of the famous Georgia University experiment of 1996, along with Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Jimmy Swaggart and other self-hating bisexuals.

Same sex interactions and bonds are a common minority variant that appears throughout the animal kingdom, including human animals. All living things are unique and differ in every conceivable way. Viva la difference.

[Steve3007]

Agree with Leo and Greta on this, although I'm not sure if it's fair to put the blame for intolerance of sexual diversity entirely on the religious.

Anyway, I'd just like to add that when Okisites says this:

do you think gay/lesbian sexuality is scientifically proven fact?

in addition to Leo's point about the non-existence of any such creature as a "scientifically proven fact", it's not even clear what Okisites is asking here. Is he proposing that when a gay man (for example) claims that he fancies other men and doesn't much fancy women, he's lying? What possible motive would there be for such a lie?

[Sy Borg]

Is he proposing that when a gay man (for example) claims that he fancies other men and doesn't much fancy women, he's lying? What possible motive would there be for such a lie?

They usually say that same sex attraction being a distortion, damage and then they start of ministries that claim to cure the queer, and they cause enormous amounts of damage and have caused a great deal of needless psychological harm. Then there's those who believe that same sex attraction is the result of demonic possession.

Like our ape ancestors, we humanoid apes find it hard to mind our own bloody business! We simply can't just let others be. even if they are hurting no one. We are always pushing for conformity, trying to remake others in our own image. Even today groups continue to form whose aim is to eliminate "impurities", to jettison minorities and achieve greater homogenisation in some way.

[Newme]

Marriage is defined primarily as between a man and a woman. The primary legal reason for government involvement in such an intimate relationship is because all humanity springs from it.

Of course not all couples have children and marriage doesn't require reproduction, yet all children are produced by a man's sperm and a female's egg. So this man/woman union is the basis of all society and future society. So lawmakers saw this union as worthy of being legally supported and encouraged.

Homosexuals do not contribute this, and it is not a civil right to unify people who share the same sexual substitutes. It could be argued that it is against marital law to legally deny children a mother or father.

Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay ‘Marriage’ in Federal Court m.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-bro ... eral-court

If lawmakers are supposed to create laws for the well-being of society, considering USCDC stats of STDs, AIDs and mental illness among those practicing homosexuality, by changing laws to favor homosexuality, they'd be acting against their well-being.


Btw, Supine - thank you for defending me. My reasons for rejecting homosexual "marriage" are not religious. They are based on physical, mental and social health concerns.

[Lambert]

Marriage is defined primarily as between a man and a woman. The primary legal reason for government involvement in such an intimate relationship is because all humanity springs from it.

Of course not all couples have children and marriage doesn't require reproduction, yet all children are produced by a man's sperm and a female's egg. So this man/woman union is the basis of all society and future society. So lawmakers saw this union as worthy of being legally supported and encouraged.

Homosexuals do not contribute this, and it is not a civil right to unify people who share the same sexual substitutes. It could be argued that it is against marital law to legally deny children a mother or father.

Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay ‘Marriage’ in Federal Court m.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-bro ... eral-court

If lawmakers are supposed to create laws for the well-being of society, considering USCDC stats of STDs, AIDs and mental illness among those practicing homosexuality, by changing laws to favor homosexuality, they'd be acting against their well-being.


Btw, Supine - thank you for defending me. My reasons for rejecting homosexual "marriage" are not religious. They are based on physical, mental and social health concerns.

That may all be true but if marriage provides tax benefits and healthcare benefits as a social contract benefits homosexuals and other such marriages cannot be excluded from those benefits.

In fact, I will take this one step further and call them victims of our own society and we owe them special care as abnormal and socially handicapped. Bottom line, in the same way that we as heterosexual did not create our self neither did they and therefore they need special care.

And just because we can produce examples of it being undesired does not mean that we should discriminate.

It is a societal dis-ease that is culture driven in the same way as the old "opposite sex" society was designed to keep orientation problems to a minimum. The obvious here is that there are many more cross identity problems these days and that already proves that we collectively are responsible for them (and also all kind of other social problem including those that you suggest).

[Newme]

Lambert,

You're suggesting homosexuals' mental illness is why all of society should cater to them in redefining the foundation of society (marriage)?

One is not born wanting sex with anyone, let alone sexual deviations. At birth, our brains are only 25% developed so we can adapt to environmental influences. Homosexuality is learned, not innate. It is a deviation or disorder, but that doesn't imply the right to legally force all of society to cater to their preferences.

It never ceases to amaze me how some otherwise intelligent people can be so deceived as to even ignore basic human anatomy and reproduction - maybe for fear of being called homophobe or bigot. Some people, especially those who've had their rights trampled on by homosexual fanatics, are beginning to see the danger of legally encouraging disorder, is heading.

Even many who have homosexual preferences don't want homosexual "marriage." I believe this is at least partially political desire to limit population growth - even if it means encouraging STDs, AIDs, etc.

[Sy Borg]

Newme, I already know that you and Supine are religious from many prior conversations. Are you pretending that we've just met? Or have you recently lost your religion?

You ask questions but have not answered any of mine. That's help progress things, eh? Have you ever been friends with a gay person and heard their life stories?

Nature is diverse. That's all there is to it. Don't pick on people who are different unless they cause trouble. To do otherwise is simply prejudice belonging to earlier, less enlightened, ages.