|
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Same Sex Marriage (Read 32726 times)
|
Captain_Falkenhayn
Zebranky food
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 19
dark horse disney
|
God at one point says that eating shellfish is wrong, but I feel that morally there is no flaw in it. I like to think killing is wrong without even being told. In fact, by this definition, because many people never read the bible or otherwise "receive" the word of God, they never know what is right or wrong. Conclusion: The Augustinian definition of right and wrong only holds up if you're already religious.
Here's one for you: Is marriage about love, procreation, or something else?
Because if it is about procreation, I don't think sterile couples, old people, people who have had operations, people who use condoms, people who are adopting, or people who are likely to miscarry should be allowed to marry.
If it is about love, then should homosexual and heterosexual love be viewed as the same in the eyes of the law? Why or why not?
Is it about something else entirely? I cannot think of anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Chrispy
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 917
Vlik Dweller
|
I think marriage could be about what ever reason you make it.
The most comon reason I would like to think of is love, and then since heterosexuals have never been homosexuals, they cannot know if homosexuals feel love. We have to assume that they do.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zeep-Eeep
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 917
Good Grief
|
I think that marriage, at its root, is more about social structure than
anything else. To avoid a society in which might makes right, you
need rules about who is going to live, screw and work with whom.
So civilization needed a way to merge people together in a
household. Bingo, marriage.
People have been getting married for thousands of years for many
reasons other than love. Property, convience, unexpected babies....
So I think love is out of the picture, really. It's a nice addition, but obviosuly
isn't the main reason....or wasn't.
I think that marriage helps pervent the spread of STDs (ideally), gives children a structed home (in a perfect world lol) and sets up guidelines for who is included in a home.
Following this idea, letting homosexual marriage would do more for socity than preventing it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What sound does a penguin make?
|
|
|
Captain_Falkenhayn
Zebranky food
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 19
dark horse disney
|
That talk is mighty reasonable. We don't take kindly to that type of thing here. You sure you ain't scientists?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chrispy
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 917
Vlik Dweller
|
That was exactly what I was getting at. You cant assume how any one of any different or same sexuality thinks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
The point was, if marriage can be said to be about love, and homosexuals love, then homosexuals should be able to marry. It's not a sidetrack at all.
Now, as for these assumptions -- yes, you CAN make them. But using those assumptions as the basis for law without justification is wildly invalid.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Chrispy
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 917
Vlik Dweller
|
By can't I meant shouldn't.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 09, 2004, 08:01:45 am by Chrispy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bigfoot256
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 67
So, which one of you is the Fot?
|
Well, by that logic, we can oppress, genocide, enslave, etc. any minority if the majority is for it. Democracy is (or should be) a system to give ALL people equal rights. If we are taking away the right to marriage, we are going against democracy itself. So, in my opinion, any true democracy should allow homosexuals to marry.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
So, Hunam, how would you like to threaten me today?
|
|
|
0xDEC0DE
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 175
|
Yes, when a democracy is abused, all sorts of things are possible.
Have you ever heard of a "bill of attainder"? It's a wonderful artifact from British history, how it would work is that the Parliament would pass a law stating that a person was guilty of a crime, and would also levy punishment upon them. Since your guilt (and punishment) was at that point a matter of law, it was 100% legal, and technically in accordance with the will of the majority, as it had to be voted into law.
The problem with bills of attainder, naturally, is that there is absolutely no judcial process involved in them. If a majority of lawmakers believed that someone was guilty, even if that person had overwhelming evidence of their innocence, they were guilty. Before being banned, bills of attainder were widely used as a means of attacking political opponents (and you thought it was bad when your favourite political party fell out of majority status NOW) and they are explicitly banned in the articles of the U.S. Constitution as part of the separation of government powers.
My point is simply this: it does not matter what the mechanism is for redressing grievances with your government (democracy, republic, monarchy, theocracy), as all forms of representation have their inherent flaws and shortcomings. What matters is having institutions in place that can effectively prevent any group or groups of people from accquiring too much power over others.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I’m not a robot like you. I don’t like having disks crammed into me… unless they’re Oreos, and then only in the mouth." --Fry
|
|
|
Jeysie
Guest
|
Hello from a long-time lurker. 
Being an MA resident, this topic stirs a few brain cells in me.
For one... the whole "economic" argument makes no sense at all to me. The majority of straight couples I know have both the man and the woman working... nowadays, even if women didn't choose to work on their own accord, most of them would have to just to be able to pay the bills. So, any straight couple with both members working is also going to "make more" than a couple with just one person working.
While women still get paid less than men in some instances, I don't think the difference is enough from the average two men in a couple working to cause a supposed divide. Not to mention that men can get crap-paying jobs and women can get well-paying jobs. Gender has nothing to do with it.
Finally, you're forgetting that gay couples can consist of two *women* as well.
For two, the procreation issue. If you ban marriage for gays on that factor, you have to ban all straight marriages that can't produce children. Now, if you're willing to go far enough to say that all marriages that won't produce children should be banned, I'll still disagree with you, but at least you'll be consistent and logical.
For three, the religious issue. It's irrelevant. If churches choose to not recognize gay marriages, that's their choice, and they are welcome to make it. Has nothing to do with legal marriage. Legality should be based on what causes harm to society. Seeing as how many gays who will marry have already been living together for years, and many of them have also gone through numerous legal hoops and troubles to gain rights like visitation rights, inheritance, shared insurance benefits, etc., I fail to see how letting those couples officially recognize their commitment and gain the legal rights of choosing to accept responsibility for each other in a much easier fashion is going to cause damage.
For four, the idea of children being raised by gays. I know several people raised by gay parents. AFAIK, all of them are straight, and no worse off than my friends raised by straight parents. Granted, it's a small sample, but... either you're gay, you're bi, or you're straight. No matter how appealing or accepting the gay "lifestyle" might ever be to me, it's not going to change the fact that I'm not attracted to my own gender. And most of the gay people I know knew from a young age that they were attracted to their own gender, even before they knew that "being gay" even existed as an option.
Yeah, some people are going to "dabble" in being gay because it's "cool". It's no different mindset than a kid trying anything that's supposedly "trendy". If the kid is really gay, they'll settle into that, if the kid isn't really gay then they'll grow up, stop being a poser, and find how they really feel sexually.
The kids being picked on issue. Kids mean enough to want to pick on someone will latch on any reason at hand. If you have poor parents, if you're from a different race, religion, or country, if you have a physical defect, if your parents are divorced, if you are adopted (even by straight parents), etc. Granted, having gay parents might provide an easier reason for tormenting a kid, but it's a weak argument on its own.
I have yet to hear a non-religious argument against gay marriage that is actually sound. I'd be willing to be surprised.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8
|
|
|
|
|
