Gay marriage

[btownmeggy]

Tzor, that was really beautiful.

[detlef]

f*ck this, I'm back from my ban, I've been watching you argue with Tom for afar... and you're starting to annoy me.

The point you're missing (deliberately or otherwise) is that nobody here is arguing for all consensual activity to be legalised.

No, just the activities that YOU desire to be changed. If you are going to change the law for one group of people based on consent then you are a bigot to not do it for other groups. This is the type of language that your side uses against others so it's fair to use it against you.

The point, Bradleybadly
Bradleybadly, the point.

Sorry for doing introductions there, but it doesn't look like you two have actually met.

Who cares whether we're arguing for one or all consensual actitvities being legalised? It's completely beside the point. If you want to legalise fistfighting, then set up a thread and lets debate it. You'll be wrong there too... but you're well within your rights. We're not bigots simply for not trying to right all of the wrongs of the world at the same time.

The point (which you seem determined to miss) is that we're not arguing for a general legalisation of anything consensual, we're just arguing for legalisation of one particular harmless consensual activity.
Yes, perhaps there are other activities that ought to be legalised. Perhaps they too are harmless. But it's not really relevant to the topic at hand, as they will inevitably come with their own raft of arguments and counter-arguments. So for the time being, we have to be pragmatic, and stick to correcting one problem at once.

In short: If anybody here was arguing for a general legislative policy of legalising all consensual activity, then you'd have a vague point... but they're not, so you don't.
Gay Marriage and Fistfighting are two very different things, and have two very different sets of arguments surrounding them; that's why it's not bigoted to argue for legalising one and not the other.

Your 'public fighting', 'blood drinking', and 'drug dealing' examples are all things that could be harmful to the individuals involved or to society at large, and as such are undesirable to permit. The former for example would cause a great deal of public disorder, fear to bystanders, and potentially property damage to objects in the vincinity of the activity; furthermore the injuries inevitably sustained during such conduct would be a burden on other members of society who would have to shoulder the cost (through tax or insurance premiums, depending on the jurisdiction) for treating the injured.

Bullshit! If 2 people want to beat the crap out of each other with their fists, who are you to judge them and tell them they can't do it? A sane human who isn't clutching at outlandish straws to prop up a failing argument... that's who They're not hurting you. Public disorder is only a byproduct of bigotry towards people who wish to fight each other consensually. The bystanders' fear is really only hatred and prejudice against those people who find happiness is hitting each other. Yeah... that and the genuine fear of having their private property damaged by brawling parties, and genuine fear of being caught up in the brawl themselves, or accidentally caught by the blows/missiles of fighting parties. Also, we already let people do consensual fighting in safe spaces where all of the genuine societal harm is contained, it's called boxing. That alone denys your argument most of its force You just wish to deny them of this basic right by trying to put a price tag on this activity with insurance premiums and treatment. Erm... I'm talking about taxes used treating this people by National Health Services, and increased Health Insurance Premiums you have pay for treating the cost of consensualy injured people. If people would just wear ribbons and go on Fight Club walks and raise more money eventually awareness would be raised to a level where not even your bigotry would deny them of this basic civil right. Sure, if they could come up with some logical arguments for why their activity was socially harmless... then maybe. But I'm guessing they can't. Besides, people who want to consensually fight each other were born that way. Maybe, maybe not. But it doesn't really matter, because predisposed or not, people can't just be allowed to run around causing damage to bystanders, private property, and the economy simply because they feel like it

Sorry Brad... valiant try there. But what Tom's saying makes complete sense, and no amount of semantic tricks or rhetorical wriggling is going to change that fact. Nor is arguing for clearly bizzare propositions (or accusing people doing the same) going to bolster your credibility in this discussion.

Now come on, let's try to discuss this like adults, instead of resorting to the usual 'Liberals are evil and all they do is call me names, which is only allowed when I'm doing it to others' howling eh?

He shoots, he scores.

[Neoteny]

The more I read of your various postings, the more convinced I am that you lot are really a bunch of liberals doing your best to show how false the far right truly is ....

Really, I think we usually can gang up on the conservatives enough to make them get fed up and leave. Then it's boring for a little while and then they all come back and we bump the old threads and start over again...

[detlef]

The more I read of your various postings, the more convinced I am that you lot are really a bunch of liberals doing your best to show how false the far right truly is ....

Really, I think we usually can gang up on the conservatives enough to make them get fed up and leave. Then it's boring for a little while and then they all come back and we bump the old threads and start over again...

Well, for what it's worth, it doesn't appear based on the vote tally above that they're being "ganged up on" by us.

That, of course, has no bearing on whether they're right.

[Dancing Mustard]

I'm still here... and I still agree with Nap and Brad...

Who cares?

[Frigidus]

The more I read of your various postings, the more convinced I am that you lot are really a bunch of liberals doing your best to show how false the far right truly is ....

Now, now, don't worry, only the far right. I'm probably more right than left just because I live in America. I can at least understand someone against abortion. That's an example of a debate with good arguments from both sides. Gay marriage is an entirely different matter. The government can deal with anything and everything it wants, with a few exceptions. One of these is anything religious. It is not the governments job to decide what marriage is, and using the Christian definition for the country as a whole is completely unconstitutional. If a church is willing to marry homosexuals then the government must recognize it, period. I personally feel the same way about polygamy. That does not mean I feel the same way about pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and any other sick shit that someone tries to link to gay marriage. Tangent tiem.

While bradley seems to be an exception, this kind of crap is why I'm not just skeptical of religion, but dislike it altogether. It has convinced half the world that it is the root of morality, to the point that some friends of I've talked to (athiests included) don't think the world would have been able to become civilized without it. Looking at the sweeping immoralities perpetuated by religions, I find that difficult to believe. The moment that you see anything as completely good, it can become corrupt without anyone particularly caring. This is true for countries (the "quiet" US empire), ideologies (Communism), and even religion (the various inquisitions). Completely unrelated, but I felt like saying it.

[PLAYER57832]

The more I read of your various postings, the more convinced I am that you lot are really a bunch of liberals doing your best to show how false the far right truly is ....

Now, now, don't worry, only the far right. I'm probably more right than left just because I live in America. I can at least understand someone against abortion. That's an example of a debate with good arguments from both sides. Gay marriage is an entirely different matter. The government can deal with anything and everything it wants, with a few exceptions. One of these is anything religious. It is not the governments job to decide what marriage is, and using the Christian definition for the country as a whole is completely unconstitutional. If a church is willing to marry homosexuals then the government must recognize it, period. I personally feel the same way about polygamy. That does not mean I feel the same way about pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and any other sick shit that someone tries to link to gay marriage. Tangent tiem.

While bradley seems to be an exception, this kind of crap is why I'm not just skeptical of religion, but dislike it altogether. It has convinced half the world that it is the root of morality, to the point that some friends of I've talked to (athiests included) don't think the world would have been able to become civilized without it. Looking at the sweeping immoralities perpetuated by religions, I find that difficult to believe. The moment that you see anything as completely good, it can become corrupt without anyone particularly caring. This is true for countries (the "quiet" US empire), ideologies (Communism), and even religion (the various inquisitions). Completely unrelated, but I felt like saying it.

Definitely an interesting debate, but probably belongs in another thread....

I will say, though, that I find it ironic that most of the TRULY religious, church going folks, with the exception of some of the more "hard-pounding" fundamentalists churches are actually pretty tolerant of homosexuals in practice. That is, they don't agree it is correct, may not particularly want them sitting beside them in church proclaiming their activities are "OK", but see no gain from hatred.

There are also large numbers (myself included) who used to think they disliked homosexuals, that they represented some kind of all around strange lifestyle (that is, outside of their bedrooms) ... until they realized that people they know/have known are homosexual.

In my case, it was both that and then finding myself falsely branded with that label for a while. (story above) that opened my eyes.

[Neoteny]

The more I read of your various postings, the more convinced I am that you lot are really a bunch of liberals doing your best to show how false the far right truly is ....

Really, I think we usually can gang up on the conservatives enough to make them get fed up and leave. Then it's boring for a little while and then they all come back and we bump the old threads and start over again...

Well, for what it's worth, it doesn't appear based on the vote tally above that they're being "ganged up on" by us.

That, of course, has no bearing on whether they're right.

I think all the poll proves is that the liberals on this site are much more vocal than the conservatives. I like to think that it's because the conservative side is kinda embarrassing on this issue...

[detlef]

The more I read of your various postings, the more convinced I am that you lot are really a bunch of liberals doing your best to show how false the far right truly is ....

Now, now, don't worry, only the far right. I'm probably more right than left

That is the irony. Most of my issues with modern "right wing" agenda stem from the fact that my beliefs are rather conservative. I believe in being fiscally responsible so I abhor the modern GOP because they seem to have lost all sense of that. I believe in a small government so I abhor the modern GOP for stretching it's reach further and further into the lives of the citizens.

They love to point to oppressive PC liberal elite for preaching about global warming, and making fun of the accepted ethnic labels du jour. Then they turn around and try and cram their personal ideology into the very constitution itself. A document who's intention is to preserve our rights, not limit them.

That's the part that amazes me. These flag waving neo-cons basically swallow policy that 20+ years ago we pinned on the USSR.

[PLAYER57832]

I think all the poll proves is that the liberals on this site are much more vocal than the conservatives. I like to think that it's because the conservative side is kinda embarrassing on this issue...

Wait a second ... are you saying you think the anti-marriage folks are the liberals?

Although political conservatism is often linked with less government, on this issue, allowing homosexual marriage is generally considered a liberal position. But yes, I would say that there is not much clear and intelligent argument against homosexual marriages here. (name calling is not generally considered "intelligent argument")

About the only exception is Mcdefe's argument that NO marriage should be legally recognized. I disagree, but it is an intelligent point.

And yet, the majority of folks are still against it......

[Napoleon Ier]

I really don't think the leftists grasp my point: homosexuality is so clearly a paraphilia of the same variety as incest, yet we know that the latter is wrong and can't be given a marrital recognition.

What arrogant pseudo-intellectuals like Dapper Tom need to learn is that marriage is an active, dative recognition, not a passive "will we allow them to do it or not". No one is preventing gays from doing anything they couldn't otherwise do, they're not giving them something which we don't give to any paraphilic couples: the recognition of the institution of marriage. It isn't a "why does it cause harm?" case but a "why is it beneficial to society?" one.

[Neoteny]

I really don't think the leftists grasp my point: homosexuality is so clearly a paraphilia of the same variety as incest, yet we know that the latter is wrong and can't be given a marrital recognition.

What arrogant pseudo-intellectuals like Dapper Tom need to learn is that marriage is an active, dative recognition, not a passive "will we allow them to do it or not". No one is preventing gays from doing anything they couldn't otherwise do, they're not giving them something which we don't give to any paraphilic couples: the recognition of the institution of marriage. It isn't a "why does it cause harm?" case but a "why is it beneficial to society?" one.

The beneficial to society question begs the question of "If we aren't allowing something just because it doesn't benefit society, are we infringing on some basic level of freedom?"

[PLAYER57832]

I really don't think the leftists grasp my point: homosexuality is so clearly a paraphilia of the same variety as incest, yet we know that the latter is wrong and can't be given a marrital recognition.

What arrogant pseudo-intellectuals like Dapper Tom need to learn is that marriage is an active, dative recognition, not a passive "will we allow them to do it or not". No one is preventing gays from doing anything they couldn't otherwise do, they're not giving them something which we don't give to any paraphilic couples: the recognition of the institution of marriage. It isn't a "why does it cause harm?" case but a "why is it beneficial to society?" one.

We understand all right, but we disagree.... and have yet to find anything real and compelling in your arguments. Name call all you like, you won't change minds that way. As far as the "no, its up to you to prove its right, not me to prove its bad" argument ... we have been over that a few times already.

[Snorri1234]

f*ck this, I'm back from my ban, I've been watching you argue with Tom for afar... and you're starting to annoy me.

The point you're missing (deliberately or otherwise) is that nobody here is arguing for all consensual activity to be legalised.

No, just the activities that YOU desire to be changed. If you are going to change the law for one group of people based on consent then you are a bigot to not do it for other groups. This is the type of language that your side uses against others so it's fair to use it against you.

The point, Bradleybadly
Bradleybadly, the point.

Sorry for doing introductions there, but it doesn't look like you two have actually met.

Who cares whether we're arguing for one or all consensual actitvities being legalised? It's completely beside the point. If you want to legalise fistfighting, then set up a thread and lets debate it. You'll be wrong there too... but you're well within your rights. We're not bigots simply for not trying to right all of the wrongs of the world at the same time.

The point (which you seem determined to miss) is that we're not arguing for a general legalisation of anything consensual, we're just arguing for legalisation of one particular harmless consensual activity.
Yes, perhaps there are other activities that ought to be legalised. Perhaps they too are harmless. But it's not really relevant to the topic at hand, as they will inevitably come with their own raft of arguments and counter-arguments. So for the time being, we have to be pragmatic, and stick to correcting one problem at once.

In short: If anybody here was arguing for a general legislative policy of legalising all consensual activity, then you'd have a vague point... but they're not, so you don't.
Gay Marriage and Fistfighting are two very different things, and have two very different sets of arguments surrounding them; that's why it's not bigoted to argue for legalising one and not the other.

Your 'public fighting', 'blood drinking', and 'drug dealing' examples are all things that could be harmful to the individuals involved or to society at large, and as such are undesirable to permit. The former for example would cause a great deal of public disorder, fear to bystanders, and potentially property damage to objects in the vincinity of the activity; furthermore the injuries inevitably sustained during such conduct would be a burden on other members of society who would have to shoulder the cost (through tax or insurance premiums, depending on the jurisdiction) for treating the injured.

Bullshit! If 2 people want to beat the crap out of each other with their fists, who are you to judge them and tell them they can't do it? A sane human who isn't clutching at outlandish straws to prop up a failing argument... that's who They're not hurting you. Public disorder is only a byproduct of bigotry towards people who wish to fight each other consensually. The bystanders' fear is really only hatred and prejudice against those people who find happiness is hitting each other. Yeah... that and the genuine fear of having their private property damaged by brawling parties, and genuine fear of being caught up in the brawl themselves, or accidentally caught by the blows/missiles of fighting parties. Also, we already let people do consensual fighting in safe spaces where all of the genuine societal harm is contained, it's called boxing. That alone denys your argument most of its force You just wish to deny them of this basic right by trying to put a price tag on this activity with insurance premiums and treatment. Erm... I'm talking about taxes used treating this people by National Health Services, and increased Health Insurance Premiums you have pay for treating the cost of consensualy injured people. If people would just wear ribbons and go on Fight Club walks and raise more money eventually awareness would be raised to a level where not even your bigotry would deny them of this basic civil right. Sure, if they could come up with some logical arguments for why their activity was socially harmless... then maybe. But I'm guessing they can't. Besides, people who want to consensually fight each other were born that way. Maybe, maybe not. But it doesn't really matter, because predisposed or not, people can't just be allowed to run around causing damage to bystanders, private property, and the economy simply because they feel like it

Sorry Brad... valiant try there. But what Tom's saying makes complete sense, and no amount of semantic tricks or rhetorical wriggling is going to change that fact. Nor is arguing for clearly bizzare propositions (or accusing people doing the same) going to bolster your credibility in this discussion.

Now come on, let's try to discuss this like adults, instead of resorting to the usual 'Liberals are evil and all they do is call me names, which is only allowed when I'm doing it to others' howling eh?

I was gonna ask which society he lives in that doesn't allow boxing.

[Napoleon Ier]

I really don't think the leftists grasp my point: homosexuality is so clearly a paraphilia of the same variety as incest, yet we know that the latter is wrong and can't be given a marrital recognition.

What arrogant pseudo-intellectuals like Dapper Tom need to learn is that marriage is an active, dative recognition, not a passive "will we allow them to do it or not". No one is preventing gays from doing anything they couldn't otherwise do, they're not giving them something which we don't give to any paraphilic couples: the recognition of the institution of marriage. It isn't a "why does it cause harm?" case but a "why is it beneficial to society?" one.

We understand all right, but we disagree.... and have yet to find anything real and compelling in your arguments. Name call all you like, you won't change minds that way. As far as the "no, its up to you to prove its right, not me to prove its bad" argument ... we have been over that a few times already.

No, we really haven't. You just start kicking your feet around in a petty tantrum and say (for some bizarre reason) that I hate America because I don't believe in gay marriage.

[Snorri1234]

I really don't think the leftists grasp my point: homosexuality is so clearly a paraphilia of the same variety as incest,

That's right! We must be blind that we don't see incest and homosexuality as alike!


However, for those unable to see it, could you point out that clarity?

[Napoleon Ier]

I really don't think the leftists grasp my point: homosexuality is so clearly a paraphilia of the same variety as incest,

That's right! We must be blind that we don't see incest and homosexuality as alike!


However, for those unable to see it, could you point out that clarity?

They are both paraphilias which serve no useful purpose.

[Neoteny]

Wouldn't many sexual fetishes be seen as paraphilic? Are you going to prevent masochists from getting married? Hell, you are depriving them the very thing they enjoy! Pain!

[Snorri1234]

I really don't think the leftists grasp my point: homosexuality is so clearly a paraphilia of the same variety as incest,

That's right! We must be blind that we don't see incest and homosexuality as alike!


However, for those unable to see it, could you point out that clarity?

They are both paraphilias which serve no useful purpose.

So your explanation as for why homosexuality is a paraphillia like incest is saying it is?


Sounds pretty damn convincing...

[Napoleon Ier]

Wouldn't many sexual fetishes be seen as paraphilic? Are you going to prevent masochists from getting married? Hell, you are depriving them the very thing they enjoy! Pain!

Not really, iff it's between a man and a woman.

[Neoteny]

Wouldn't many sexual fetishes be seen as paraphilic? Are you going to prevent masochists from getting married? Hell, you are depriving them the very thing they enjoy! Pain!

Not really, iff it's between a man and a woman.

You're changing the definition of paraphilia. Also, incest can be between a male and female.

[tzor]

I really don't think the leftists grasp my point: homosexuality is so clearly a paraphilia of the same variety as incest, yet we know that the latter is wrong and can't be given a marrital recognition.

I strongly disagree. In fact the traditional argument against incest actually clears homosexuality in an ironic way. Incest is generally prohibited in law because of the general fear of genetic problems of potential offspring. Barring wierd science homosexual couples cannot produce offspring and even then they will not have problems of similiar genes as is the case with incest. These problems were known long before DNA was discovered.

Thus because the incest problem is more than just a moral issue, it cannot be compared to homosexuality in terms of prohibition of marriage.

By the way, for reference ... Laws Regarding Incest (WIKI)

In the United States, every state and the District of Columbia have some form of codified incest prohibition.[17] However, individual statutes vary widely. Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989[17], Ohio only targets parental figures[17], and New Jersey does not apply any penalties to anyone over the age of 18.[17] Yet Massachusetts issues a penalty of up to 20 years imprisonment for those engaging in "sexual activities" with relatives closer than first cousins[17] and Hawaii up to 5 years in jail for "sexual penetration" with certain blood relatives and even in-laws.[17]

In all states, close blood-relatives that fall under the incest statutes include father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, and in some states, first cousins. Many states also apply incest laws to non-blood relations including step-parents, step-siblings, and in-laws.[18]

[PLAYER57832]

I really don't think the leftists grasp my point: homosexuality is so clearly a paraphilia of the same variety as incest, yet we know that the latter is wrong and can't be given a marrital recognition.

What arrogant pseudo-intellectuals like Dapper Tom need to learn is that marriage is an active, dative recognition, not a passive "will we allow them to do it or not". No one is preventing gays from doing anything they couldn't otherwise do, they're not giving them something which we don't give to any paraphilic couples: the recognition of the institution of marriage. It isn't a "why does it cause harm?" case but a "why is it beneficial to society?" one.

We understand all right, but we disagree.... and have yet to find anything real and compelling in your arguments. Name call all you like, you won't change minds that way. As far as the "no, its up to you to prove its right, not me to prove its bad" argument ... we have been over that a few times already.

No, we really haven't. You just start kicking your feet around in a petty tantrum and say (for some bizarre reason) that I hate America because I don't believe in gay marriage.

Was going to try to post the links here, but is taking too long, so here is a summary:

Laws are for two reasons 1. to prohibit activity that will HARM us. 2. to establish or protect things that benefit or are required by the country as a whole, such as taxes, speed laws and marriage.

Why is marriage in the state's interest? 1. protection of families, particularly (but not solely) children. Custody, inheritance, medical care and just plain care. All are much easier within a stable family unit of ANY kind.

2. to allow for smooth inheritances

3. Eliminate ambiguity over medical care. If you have a spouse, your spouse decides, not whichever sibling or great uncle is first contacted.

4. General stability -- couples, both homosexual and heterosexual are still far more likely to be home owners and to feel a true "part" of a community in many other ways than singles. Singles, particularly single males, are more likely to just generally "act up" in all kinds of ways -- that's not prejudice, this is statistically accurate information. This is, if anything, a bit more true in homosexual couples. Most of those pictures you showed,for example are not the guys wanting to settle down and have families ... for the most part (I well know there are exceptions to everything!).

5. Elder care. As single adult who has nnot provided for their own retirement is thrust upon the welfare roles. A married adult is much more likely to have MADE some sort of provision.


And no, I never said you "hate America" ... though since you are a British, and not American, you are free to do so ... in thought and words anyway.

[Frigidus]

I strongly disagree. In fact the traditional argument against incest actually clears homosexuality in an ironic way. Incest is generally prohibited in law because of the general fear of genetic problems of potential offspring. Barring wierd science homosexual couples cannot produce offspring and even then they will not have problems of similiar genes as is the case with incest. These problems were known long before DNA was discovered.

Thus because the incest problem is more than just a moral issue, it cannot be compared to homosexuality in terms of prohibition of marriage.

By the way, for reference ... Laws Regarding Incest (WIKI)

In the United States, every state and the District of Columbia have some form of codified incest prohibition.[17] However, individual statutes vary widely. Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989[17], Ohio only targets parental figures[17], and New Jersey does not apply any penalties to anyone over the age of 18.[17] Yet Massachusetts issues a penalty of up to 20 years imprisonment for those engaging in "sexual activities" with relatives closer than first cousins[17] and Hawaii up to 5 years in jail for "sexual penetration" with certain blood relatives and even in-laws.[17]

In all states, close blood-relatives that fall under the incest statutes include father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, and in some states, first cousins. Many states also apply incest laws to non-blood relations including step-parents, step-siblings, and in-laws.[18]

And there's my point. If we really thought that incest and homosexuality were the same, they would both be illegal. I suppose someone can try to pass legislation banning homosexuality outright, but I doubt they'd be in office for long. They can not, on the other hand, (at least in theory they can't, nowadays the ground rules our government completely ignores the most basic rules of our country) legislate anything involving marriage.

[detlef]

OK, is hot lesbian sex paraphillic? Just checking. I mean, if they let you watch, of course.

Allegedly Scarlett Johansen and Penelope Cruz go at it in an upcoming movie. Should we enact an amendment against that?