Gay Marriage

I have no issue with people being homosexual and I believe they are entitled to have the same benefits that a married couple has. My only issue is with the government trying to force religions to accept homosexuals and to force them to peform marriages.

That's it. It really has nothing to even do with homosexuals at all other than they are the force behind trying to get the government moving on this.

0 Replies

Interesting perspective. I think the government has no business preventing people from making lifelong commitments to each other.

Probably some middle ground, but I think this has been discussed right here already...

edit: you have to choose your words carefully with this, don't you? Because the government does have business keeping a father from marrying his daughter...

So, more like, I think the government has no business preventing committed non-related couples who are of legal age and where no coercion is involved to marry each other, no matter what their sexual orientation. I think that covers it. :-?

0 Replies

Many of them use a surrogate mother in order to have a child. Duh.

0 Replies

I am happy to see that Mr. Blatham and Ms. Lola are attacking the absurdities of the far right with regards to gay marriage.

It is clear that the far right should stay out of the bedroom.

I call myself a clear libertarian in matters sexual.

I see no reason why anyone should object if I have strong feelings of love for my sister.

Why should anyone object if I was rich enough( I am) to support three or four wives simultaneously?

The masterful play- Who is Sylvia?- about a man's pure and sincere love for a goat, made me cry.

His anguish at the end of the play would make anyone cry out--"What business is it of yours if he wants to have sexual relations with his love- Sylvia the goat.

America is a puritanical country obsessed with other people's private sexual affairs!

The right wing should leave people alone and just let them love.

There's nothing wrong with love.

0 Replies

What about joe the morgue guy that gets off on screwing dead people? Or Jeremy the grade school janitor that like little girls? Or Father Owens who likes his alter boys? Or Jose, the leader of NAMBLA? What about Geraldine the teacher who like young boys?

Should the government also just leave these people alone?

0 Replies

So, bodcaver, what does Posner have to say about it?

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

So, bodcaver, what does Posner have to say about it?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Genetic diversity = good.

Should we forbid other marriages for genetic reasons? How about forbidding a Jewish couple to marry if both carry the gene for Tay-Sachs or another couple if both are carriers for CF?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

...Consider that IF it were found, via rigorous and proper studies, that incest led to no significant degree of malformation in offspring, I doubt there would be brothers and sisters rushing to the alter because brothers and sisters inherently tend to find the prospect about as interesting as eating chalk covered in slug slime. Not because we have been socialized to think this way, but because we are born this way.

Ah, I get you now. Okay, but let's assume one brother-sister pair doesn't fit your mold and wants to marry. Do we permit it?

<<reading>>

Ah... upon reading down further I see that you would permit it. Though it strikes a nerve in the deepest part of the "what's right" center of my brain, I am inclined to agree that government would need to permit such marriages too. I guess once we go down this road we sort of open up a "Pantera's Box", as Mister Furious said in "Mystery Men". Cool

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

All this crap about propagation of the species and how it will affect society is complete bullshit. It all boils down to intolerance, plain and simple.

Actually, within this discussion it has largely been courteous, interesting and intelligent discussion of a knotty issue. Your comments are so out of step with the rest of the discussion that I suspect you have not read much in detail and have failed to comprehend the positions of several engaged in the discussion.

0 Replies

Mystery Men? Good Lord, what a reference.

(Genetic problems with incest to tend to show up over a number of generations, and are likely to show up in one generation if there is an allele for an autosomal-recessive disorder in the family. And if you're thinking of the study I remember seeing a little while back, I think it mainly addressed the couplings of first cousins, which is legal in a number of states, including California.)

0 Replies

Scrat: I just thought I'd cut to the chase. I have read all (well, most) of the posts on this thread. My point was that most of what you are debating has nothing to do with gay marriage. There are no "knots". It is about intolerance, plain and simple. Thank you for your courteous and intelligent response though. I appreciate it.

0 Replies

Well, which way are we going to go?

Let's not be mealy mouthed about this.

As has already been mentioned, under the rubric that one's sexual preferences are nobody's business, we certainly must not discriminate against:

INCEST

NAMBLA

NECROPHILIA

BESTIALITY

AND

CONSENSUAL PEDERASTY( 12 year olds have rights too- don't forget).

However, after the smoke clears, it must be understood that

a. Legislators will enact laws demanded by their constiutents

b. At this time, a defense of Marriage act( which has been approve in many states) and or a constitutional amendment, may be in the cards.

c. The only hope for sexual libertarians like me is that the courts will strike down the defense of Marriage Act.

I wouldn't bet on it!!!!!

In the meantime, it makes for great political fodder.

0 Replies

blatham, Ramses II had over 200 wives and concubines, some were relatives. He sired over 100 children. He lived to be over 93 years old at a time when the life expectancy of Egyptians was 40. I think the secret to longivity is to have many wives and children. Wink

0 Replies

Mr. Scrat quotes Mr. Blatham as saying that we would not want to marry our sisters because we were born this way.

I assume that Mr. Blatham does not know of the numerous cases involving fathers coercing their daughters into sexual activity.

How were the fathers born?

And just what would be wrong with a union between two people who love each other- a forty year old father and his fourteen year old daughter.

Nothing, except in the minds of the puritanical Bible thumpers.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Quote:

If two adults who happen to be brother and sister wish to marry and have no intention of having children, doesn't it infringe on their "civil rights" every bit as much as when we tell two men they cannot marry?

I think we have to approach this question in the same way we approach any other question of what should be allowed. The question has to do with function, does it cause harm? You mention the problem with genetic defects. But there are other reasons that marriages between brother and sister are harmful. There is an emotional function being served by these boundaries between brother and sister, parents and children. The violation of these boundaries creates emotional disorganization and conflict. So for this reason, I think the answer to your question above is no. No, it doesn't infringe on their "civil rights" as much as when we tell same sex partners they can't marry. People do not have the right to infringe on the safety of others, neither physical nor emotional.

0 Replies

Lola writes that people do not have the right to infringe on the safety of others.

I would assume that would include:

A. Homosexuals with active AIDS cases

B. Pederasts attempting to lure young children

C. Homsexuals making unwanted passes(sexual harrassment- you know)

D. Polygamists

E. sexually abusive fathers and step fathers.

Why, Lola is correct. Society sets up laws to proscribe behavior which society views as deleterious to a well ordered society. It also takes away status( the Scout Master would be pederast is replaced and the sexually abusive father might be jailed.

It will be up to the people of the various states to decide whether they wish to have homsexuals rewarded with a status they previously have not had-e.g. recognition as married people.

Since the Defense of MArriage Act has been adopted by so many states, it would appear that if the homosexual lobby feels the Act is unconstitutional, they would go to court.

I would assume that i f the courts were to reject their plea, they would accept the fact that they could not assume the title and benefits that come with the designation of marriage.

0 Replies

Anyone else getting an Italgato deja vu?

0 Replies

brand...may well be

bocdaver

This has been a careful discussion. Your objections indicate you have either not read or have not followed the arguments advanced. Each of your objections are red herrings. If you wish to engage the contributors here, you'll have to set to the listening/reading task with a bit more integrity.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

The question has to do with function, does it cause harm? You mention the problem with genetic defects. But there are other reasons that marriages between brother and sister are harmful. There is an emotional function being served by these boundaries between brother and sister, parents and children. The violation of these boundaries creates emotional disorganization and conflict. So for this reason, I think the answer to your question above is no. No, it doesn't infringe on their "civil rights" as much as when we tell same sex partners they can't marry. People do not have the right to infringe on the safety of others, both physical and emotional.

Just playing devils advocate here but this looks like a bit of double-speak. Some would argue that there is an equeal emotional function in boundries of same sex relationships.

You are getting into semantics here. It doesn't infringe "as much"?
Isn't that really the bottom line on the whole issue? You say "draw the line here!". I say "No, draw the line over there!". Everyone has their own preferred place for drawing the line.

But any line is an infringement on someone's rights so no matter where the line is drawn the arguments for putting it there are completely arbitrary.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know