Gay rights

[CthulhuKefka]

I admit I'm wrong on the polygamy thing.

I guess all I'm really trying to say is that same-sex marriage will not destroy the country. It will not end the world, heterosexuals will still get married, get divorced and lead regular lives just like they do now. It's just that homosexuals will do the same. Just Let these people live their lives how they want to live it.

[The Jade Knight]

Miyabi, I'm not talking about the practice of homosexuality:  Yes, homosexuality (primarily in the form of pederasty) was somewhat common in Greece.  However, it was condemned by many (Plato in particular was outspoken against it), and I have never read an account of any Greek even considering legalizing homosexual marriage.  Yes, poets would talk about the joyful pleasures shared between a young boy and a mature man (pederasty), but, as far as I've read, marriage was for children in ancient Greece, and homosexuality was with children, not for them, so to speak.

[Miyabi]

That may be true to an extent but there was quite a bit that didn't involve a minor as well.  Also pederasty continued to be common practice in places like England well into the 17th and 18th century.

[The Jade Knight]

Well into today, Miyabi.  Homosexuality and pedaphelia appear to have been universally (in the sense of all societies) practiced and universally condemned.

The Roman Empire fell for a great number of reasons, but it seems that decadance and welfare were primary reasons among them.  A reduction of the number of children born by Roman citizens had actually been posited by contemporaries as one of those reasons.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I admit I'm wrong on the polygamy thing.

I guess all I'm really trying to say is that same-sex marriage will not destroy the country. It will not end the world, heterosexuals will still get married, get divorced and lead regular lives just like they do now. It's just that homosexuals will do the same. Just Let these people live their lives how they want to live it.

It's not that simple. Did you skip over the posts in this thread talking about how religious rights are being infringed in the name of gay rights? Apparently, litigious homosexuals think the only way for them to live their life the way they want to live it is to sue everyone whose religious beliefs are against homosexuality. And if religious people try to live their lives the way they want and raise their children the way they want, the homosexual-friendly courts say sorry, they can't.

For religious people who are against homosexuality, their religious rights being infringed is another step toward the end of the world.

[Miyabi]

Just because I hate the fact that they seem to always be mentioned together I want to point out that pedophilia within homosexuality is proportionally the same as it is in heterosexuality.  It just gets more attention on one end of the spectrum and is not a situationally exclusive occurrence.

[CthulhuKefka]

I admit I'm wrong on the polygamy thing.

I guess all I'm really trying to say is that same-sex marriage will not destroy the country. It will not end the world, heterosexuals will still get married, get divorced and lead regular lives just like they do now. It's just that homosexuals will do the same. Just Let these people live their lives how they want to live it.

It's not that simple. Did you skip over the posts in this thread talking about how religious rights are being infringed in the name of gay rights? Apparently, litigious homosexuals think the only way for them to live their life the way they want to live it is to sue everyone whose religious beliefs are against homosexuality. And if religious people try to live their lives the way they want and raise their children the way they want, the homosexual-friendly courts say sorry, they can't.

For religious people who are against homosexuality, their religious rights being infringed is another step toward the end of the world.

I didn't skip over those parts. I just wish that nobody's rights would be infringed. People always use examples of radical homosexuals to prove their points, but fail to mention radical religious people as well. There are "litigious"  people on both sides, so it is not just homosexuals that are suing everyone. People tend to take the radicals and pin the entire homosexual group with their crimes. What if I did the same for religious people? What if I started thinking every Christian I met was as bad as the people in the Westboro Baptist Church?

[Loud_G]

What if I did the same for religious people? What if I started thinking every Christian I met was as bad as the people in the Westboro Baptist Church?

Actually, most of the debates I've read HAVE taken the radicals stance over the majority in regard to Christianity.



There is no legislation here that is attempting to remove homosexuality or make it illegal. It is not about hate. I do not hate homosexuals. I have several friends that fall into that category. Good friends. We don't need legislation to legitimize a practice that would go on regardless of legistlation.

The legislation of complete equality no matter the gender of the couples is flawed however. In no way are the two equal. The simple fact of shared love does not equate to the important function of the heterosexual couple in society. Socially and financially a heterosexual union has much more potential than a homosexual union.

All people should be treated equal, this is true. There should be no hate, no on the job discrimination, etc. We are moving to the point where this is becoming less and less of a problem. However, the gay marriage legistlation attempts to make equal two things that are not equal, just as women are not men and men are not women. Homosexual couples are not heterosexual couples. It is not about unfair discrimination.


Yes, there should be a way to confer hospital visitation rights, rights of attorney and all that. But Marriage does not make sense.
This does not mean homosexuals cannot legally love/be loved, partner up, etc. They are free to do what they want, as we all are.


(The examples used about the Roman Empire are very good representation of the purposes for marraige.)

[The Jade Knight]

Just because I hate the fact that they seem to always be mentioned together I want to point out that pedophilia within homosexuality is proportionally the same as it is in heterosexuality.  It just gets more attention on one end of the spectrum and is not a situationally exclusive occurrence.

While this is quite possibly true in modern times (I have seen no evidence one way or the other), this is definitely not true of ancient Greece.  To talk about homosexuality in ancient Greece is to talk about pederasty, for the most part.  So if you're trying to argue that homosexuals don't have more sex with children than non-homosexuals, don't use Greece as an example of a good, homosexually-tolerant country.   

[CthulhuKefka]

Socially and financially a heterosexual union has much more potential than a homosexual union.

This part of your post really stuck out. So your saying that just because a homosexual union has less potential than a heterosexual one, that's a good reason why it shouldn't happen? If so, then I must say that is ridiculous. Let's just say for a minute that it's true. Why should it make it any less legal? Because there is not enough "potential?" You'd deny PEOPLE happiness because their union doesn't have enough "potential?"

[Chaos]

I'm not going to step in the debate here, but I would like to say that some of the Google ads that it "thinks" we want are just hilarious. I'm looking at two ads here, one that says "Gay and Lesbian Magazines" and the other that says "Meet Hot Gay Men".

Sometimes, it's just good comedy to look at the ads.

[Loud_G]

This part of your post really stuck out. So your saying that just because a homosexual union has less potential than a heterosexual one, that's a good reason why it shouldn't happen? If so, then I must say that is ridiculous. Let's just say for a minute that it's true. Why should it make it any less legal? Because there is not enough "potential?" You'd deny PEOPLE happiness because their union doesn't have enough "potential?"

I was more giving examples of how the unions are different (because people try to equate them) than giving actual reasons for denying 'rights'.

I am a stickler for nits and picking them. It is inherently flawed to argue that a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple are the same. That is all I am saying. Love is not enough for the two types to be equal. There are real physiological, social, and finantial differences between the two unions. Those aren't necessarily reasons, but they should be looked at in a debate on what the government is willing to spend its money on. It basically comes down to money. The government encourages marriage finantially because the family is the core fundamental (social and finantial) unit of society. Not because two people love eachother. This is why potential comes into the equation. Not because the govenment is regulating morality.

[Miyabi]

Socially and financially a heterosexual union has much more potential than a homosexual union.

This part of your post really stuck out. So your saying that just because a homosexual union has less potential than a heterosexual one, that's a good reason why it shouldn't happen? If so, then I must say that is ridiculous. Let's just say for a minute that it's true. Why should it make it any less legal? Because there is not enough "potential?" You'd deny PEOPLE happiness because their union doesn't have enough "potential?"

This whole concept of 'potential' . . . . Uhm, socially it depends on where you live and who you associate with, so that argument a simple demographical argument that is easily avoided if someone has half a brain.  Financially better?  When was the last time you say a single gay man or lesbian woman with five kids and a minimum wage job?  Also, gay "marriages" and relationships are empirically proven to last longer than those of average heterosexual ones.

[Loud_G]

This whole concept of 'potential' . . . . Uhm, socially it depends on where you live and who you associate with, so that argument a simple demographical argument that is easily avoided if someone has half a brain.  Financially better?  When was the last time you say a single gay man or lesbian woman with five kids and a minimum wage job?  Also, gay "marriages" and relationships are empirically proven to last longer than those of average heterosexual ones.

Ahh... the old "crap-there-isn't-a-cogent-come-back-so-I'll-generalize-the-entire-thing-based-on-the-absolute-worst-case-scenario" argument. excellent...

[CthulhuKefka]

Exactly.


Loud_G: You're absolutely right, it's not the same literally. But answer me this. Shouldn't that standard apply to everyone? Literally,  a woman who is infertile and a man who is infertile cannot produce a child yet they can get married. What about elder marriages? Old people are really less likely, if at not at all, to bear children. Just because they can't, but they can still get married.

If homosexual marriage was so evil and corrupt, Massachusetts would have been destroyed already. Guess what, it hasn't. I know, I live there.

I do agree however that all the bad stuff that has happened to the churches shouldn't happen. Don't get me wrong, I am against anyone who uses violence/intimidation to get their point across. If homosexuals can get married in a specific place not of the church and are able to receive the same financial tax breaks that regular heterosexual couples can, why not?

Can Baptists determine if the Catholic church can make women priests? Then why do Baptists get to determine if Unitarians marry gay and lesbian parishioners?