Should The State Legally Sanction Gay Marriage? An Argument.

When you can't make a decent argument you insult me.

That's ok. You are the one who sounds ignorant.

Your statement is comparing apples to oranges. You are saying that a gay person marrying another gay person is like a man marrying a cow. I think that you meant that as some sort of derogatory insult toward the way you feel about gays.

As for appropriateness... How about people marrying at 16? Don't you think that's inappropriate marriage? I don't see you lobbying against that.

Really?
The gallup poll shows differently. As well, most the people I associate myself with are pro gay marriage, if for no other reason than because religion has no business in our government.

If marriage were purely a religious ceremony, with no civic rights or benefits associated with it, then I'd have no objection to a man marrying a cow, just as I have no objection to a woman marrying a snake. Chacun a son gout.

HA! Shows what the Hell I Know does it!
This is taken from a web page called THE PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNISM, at this address: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

It goes as such:
What will be the influence of communist society on the family?
It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene.
TAKE THAT WOLF! I laugh vigorously at your inability to think before you speak. One for RD, Zero for Wolf.

If you say so!

Damn straight, what man cares for chicks who will never fancy him?


I beg your F#$%ING PARDON! You turn round and tell me I am not welcome in my homeland. Who the hell do you actually think you are, huh? How much power do you actually think you have, huh? Why doesn't the world accept gays as equal yet, Wolf? Coz your WORDS HAVE NO WEIGHT.
NOT BRITTISH, huh? I recall from another thread that you are asian. I have brittish blood in my vains, and you are a guest in our house, WOLF. Like I care what you welcome, and like the whole of BRITAIN CARES WHAT YOU WELCOME.

Whats a "gallup poll"? And whats religon got to do with anything? Gay marriage wasnt banned here coz of religous reasons.

So, Mr. RaceDriver, by your bizarre definition, the Libertarians are Communists? True Republicans, whom seek to have little government that does not interfere with private lives, are Communists? You speak complete bull. Communism has principles that overlap with many other political and belief systems.

Even if you have proved that that particular point is a part of Communism, that does not mean because something shares that principle it is Communist.

Besides, what real Communist state has fully obeyed all the rules set out by Marx? Practical Communism isn't like the theoretical Communism Marx set out.



The high sales of pornography featuring lesbians proves that quite a lot do, actually.

Oh and thank you for showing us you're the bigot we all thought you were.

I really don't know what in gods name your talking about. I don't even know what a libertarian is. I just happened to remember that point about marriage and communism, maybe you shouldn't read to much into it.

How predicatable, I said PRINCIPLES of communism. RD two, Wolf Zero.


Lol, like I care, im pretty sure you'd all made up your mind anyway. I looked up the definition of bigot too. I do indeed listen to other peoples beliefs, but I am clever enough to decide when they are wrong, there is a difference. Even if I am a bigot, my preference is to that than to weak-mindedness.

At that I am done with this thread.

Why don't you post the gallup poll you are talking about? The polls I've seen have the majority opposed to gay marriage.

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

As you can readily see. comparing Libertarianism with Communism is like comparing apples with oranges.

The poll Bella Dea linked to earlier in this thread showed a 47/50 split. I don't think anyone can call that a majority (margin of error and all that good stuff from statistics 101).

the Governmen controlling your life.
I do not believe Homosexuality is a result completely of genetics, it is mostly a choice someone makes.

I do not think it is natural or right and I can't help but think it is a LITTLE gross.


HOWEVER,

Just b/c I(or the Government) thinks it's wrong or gross does not mean that I have a right to tell two people they can't get married.

If some action does not directly hurt someone else then there should be no laws against it.

Nobody including the Government has the right to tell someone how to live, especailly if that lifestyle doesn't hurt someone else.
There should not even be rules or laws that discourage behavior like rewarding heterosexual behavior by giving benefits, while not giving the same benefits to Homosexual couples.

Iamb a christian and I still think christianity or any religion has a place in this debate. The united States Government is not a Christian govt. It is supposed to be a government based entirely on reason.

The idea that homosexuality will hurt society is absurd.
I mean there already is homosexuality.
there are couples who live together as though they are married already and it doesn't hurt civilization at all then there is the historical evidence that is the subject of my next post.

historical homosexual acceptance and persecution.
First off I think that rights for homosexuals is a civil rights issue, but it's going a little far to compare it to the Black civil rights movement. Overall Blacks have suffered much worse treatment.

Homosexuals have no always had it easy though.

point one. Oscar Wilde.

It doesn't matter if ol' Oscar was gay or not he was still senteced to imprisonment and hard labor for two years for "gross indecency" and much of his literature was banned. All this merely on the accusation of homosexuality.

Point two. Walt Whitman

Towards the end of his life he was shunned by everyone and died poor. Much of this had to with the reputation that he was a homosexual.

Point three. religous persecution
During the spanish inquistion and many "witch hunts" early in united states history homosexuals were rounded up and executed along with gypsies and other what was considered unwanted elements. This was also a regular practice in the middle ages.


Part two: The Acceptance of homosexuality

In anceint Greece and Rome homosexuality was socially acceptable.

Many older men in Rome would practice homosexualtity with younger men in bath houses and in private.

In Sparta (one of the toughest and most succesful military states in all of history) children were turned over to the stae at a young age. Many adolescent boys were put in charge of younger boys and many youn and teenage men were in charge of those yonger than them. In a culture where men didn't get married until at earliest thier mid-twenties, it was common for teenagers and young men to demand sexual favors of the boys they were in charge of. once again look how strong sparta was.

Rome in Greece in thier own times were two of the most powerful, developed, reasonable, logical, and succesful civilizations to ever exist.
Homoseuality did not lead to thier downfall or tear them apart.
why would it with us?

One of the things about the whole argument that discrimination against gays is comparable to discrimination against blacks is that a lot of gays cannot be identified by appearance, and would not suffer discrimination in all cases unless they self-identified - hence an intrinsic difficulty in discriminating between them and anyone else. Blacks have never had the option of anonymity.

That's true up to a point. Certainly, there are a variety of characteristics that are commonly associated with homosexuals in this society, whether it is the stereotypical lisping speech and mincing walk of the male homosexual or the butch demeanor of the lesbian. These characteristics, to be sure, are not shared by all homosexuals, nor are they exclusive to homosexuals, but bigots rarely bother to request the bona fides of the targets of their bigotry, and these characteristics are more than sufficient for those who prefer to discriminate based solely on appearances and who are not overly concerned by the occasional false-positive result.

Likewise, there are some blacks who cannot readily be identified as black. I'm not sure if most people would necessarily identify Derek Jeter or Halle Berry, for instance, as black. It should be remembered that Homer Plessy, the plaintiff in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, was only one-eighth black (an octoroon, in the quaint terminology of institutionalized racism), and normally "passed" as white.

But then the question remains: why does this matter? Although the authors of the original article seemed to think that there was some kind of substantive distinction between the movements for gay and black civil rights, I fail to see it. Just because gays are not as easily identified as blacks does not obviate the fact that gays, in this society, are the subjects of discrimination. Do they need to distinguish themselves somehow -- say, by wearing a pink triangle -- just to make it easier for people to discriminate against them on sight?

That's a good idea Joe. I would write in about that.

What does "discriminate" mean though.

At first glance, I can't really see a difference between civil rights for gays and civil rights for blacks. Black people had to fight for so many rights because white people viewed them as sub-humans. For some reason, we thought the pigment of their skin made them less of a human. But of course, for gay people, regardless of what someone says his/her reason is, I think it is safe to say that is has roots, even if indirectly, in religion. Regardless of the reason we discriminate against gay people or black or whoever else, they are not sub-human and should not be treated as a different class of citizen. You may not like that they are gay and you may not like black people. You may not like blondes or Mormons or people with HIV or herpes. You can hate anyone for whatever reason you want. Your hate for someone still does not make him/her less of a person and should not have a bearing on his rights. We bar gay rights because we think that homosexuality is "wrong" or "immoral." But then a large part of the nation also think religions other than Christianity are wrong. So why should they have the rights that gay people are denied?

The state should not legally sanction same sex marriage, for the same reasons the state should not sanction heterosexual marriage. Marrriage, is a strictly private and religious institution and it should not be the business of the state to declare who can or cannot marry, or much less give it the privelage and monopoly of granting licenses.

This is a position I have held and still hold, regardless of my own disagreements with the homosexual movement.