Gay Marriage

[Rapscallion]

But okay...Lets go onto the argument... If we allow gay people to marry, when will it end, Pedophile marriages? Animal Marriages? Necrophiliac Marriages?!

Till death do us part would be a touch redundant in that last one. In fact, quite a few bits would be.

"Please put the ring on the bride's finger... Oh, the other finger then."

Rapscallion

[AFPheonix]

Yeah, not always the case though. Remember Mary Kay Letourneau? There have been ALOT of reports on the news lately of female teachers, ones usually in their 20's, who have sex with their male students.

She did not discount that female on male abuse doesn't happen. She said that a MAJORITY of abuse is older male on younger female. Majority != entirety.

As for the rest of your post, others have already picked it apart fairly well, except none of them have mentioned that the kissing cousins argument is invalid because if a homosexual couple does have children, it typically is because they adopted said child, or in the case of some lesbian couples, they did the IF route from a sperm bank. They preserved hybrid vigor. Also, as to passing on STDs, the only ones at risk would be the IF babies from lesbians, a group that doesn't have a significantly higher rate of HIV than the rest of the population.

[Will-Mun]

You'll bring up the fact that they produce children with birth defects, well gay people have a higher spread rate of HIV, AIDS, than intravenous drug users.

Which is completely and utterly FALSE. Homosexual sex does NOT spread AIDS or HIV any faster that straight sex does. The reason, and I don't wanna get into the dirty details, is that the anal tract is much more easily torn than the vaginal tract... But it is JUST as easy for a straight couple to get AIDs and HIV, and JUST as easy for homosexuals to PREVENT it with the use of safe sex.

You are again just sliding the argument sideways, and now you're doing what I mentioned in my last post, lumping homosexuality with something that is universally accepted as immoral and wrong.

Sex between a Brother and a Sister, Father Daughter, Son Mother, and spawning off to about the third cousin will have a HIGH chance of mental or physical defects in ant children because it is the SAME family DNA being used to create the child. This is dangerous for the child, and therefor it is illegal in most states.

Even WITH your argument, that is false, the choice to have the dangers of STDs is the PERSON'S to make. The reason incestuous relationships are frowned upon is because the child that will be defected did not choose to risk defect. Any time ANYONE sticks a part of their body into another's? They're willingly making a choice to risk it...

*EDIT* Er whoops, well, still false. Sharing a Needle is probably one of the more easier ways to get HIV and AIDS.

For the record, I do not condone incestual relations, there is probably not a word in the left wing vocabulary that can be politically correct and describe how morally wrong it is to most of us. And I am not saying I totally oppose gay marriage.....but where should freedom end and intervention begin?

When it doesn't stomp on civil liberties for RELIGIOUS reasons. When intervention PROTECTS the people not simply panders to a CERTAIN people. Thats when.

[Boozy]

Perhaps the government should not have 'moral intervention' into gay marriage. Not to draw comparisons, but I worry that passing gay marriage might open up a can of worms regarding other more....unsavory types of marriage. Like cousins, brothers, sisters, whatever.

The slippery slope argument does not apply here. There are currently laws against incestuous marriage that would need to be individually repealed in order for that to happen.

I also fail to see the comparison between marrying your same-sex partner and marrying your sister or an animal. Its frankly degrading to homosexuals to imply that there is even a comparison to be made.

[squall]

And yes, if I can remember to, I use 'she'. They almost always call me on it, and I 'remind' them that the majority of pedophilia is between adult males and child females.

But then, I can be a sneaky bitch.

Yeah, not always the case though. Remember Mary Kay Letourneau? There have been ALOT of reports on the news lately of female teachers, ones usually in their 20's, who have sex with their male students. There was one in my state where the husband of the teacher killed the 18 year old student. Sometimes these teachers are separated in age from their students as little as 4-6 years, but it is not always the case. Remember the beauty queen who molested a 12 year-old? Why are these teachers always pretty?

Perhaps the government should not have 'moral intervention' into gay marriage. Not to draw comparisons, but I worry that passing gay marriage might open up a can of worms regarding other more....unsavory types of marriage. Like cousins, brothers, sisters, whatever. It is neither more nor less natural to have sex with your sister. So who says law should limit incestual marriage, between consenting adults no less? Well assume you pass gay marriage into law, what's stopping the government from passing other types of marriages previously deemed 'immoral' or 'icky'? You'll bring up the fact that they produce children with birth defects, well gay people have a higher spread rate of HIV, AIDS, than intravenous drug users. If the government no longer can intervene in gay marriage, then just what can they intervene in? Maybe the government should just stay out of lives completely......when pigs fly right? The government will always be making or forcing you to do something against your will, whether it's jury duty or 'interfering' with your fun when you want to smoke a doobie.

For the record, I do not condone incestual relations, there is probably not a word in the left wing vocabulary that can be politically correct and describe how morally wrong it is to most of us. And I am not saying I totally oppose gay marriage.....but where should freedom end and intervention begin?

[Seshat]

Noooo. What they're doing is trying to imply there's a link between Homosexuality and Pedophilia...
<snip>
Which is like a contract, and to sign a contract you have to be a Legal Consenting Adult.

That's when I stop them, and say 'I'm talking about actions that involve informed consent. A child can't give informed consent - she can't understand.'

And yes, if I can remember to, I use 'she'. They almost always call me on it, and I 'remind' them that the majority of pedophilia is between adult males and child females.

But then, I can be a sneaky bitch.

[Will-Mun]

Then you always have the people, desperate to win the argument, that cry out...."what about overage men/women who want to marry an underage boy/girl, ya know, pedephilia. If we allow gay marriage, we can't shut the door to that, and where does it end?" This is usually where I slap my forehead and tell them i'm done talking to them as now they're just grasping at staws to win the debate.

Noooo. What they're doing is trying to imply there's a link between Homosexuality and Pedophilia... Which is just so disgustingly WRONG. When people say there's a link between Homosexuality and Pedophilia, thats when I want to start punching people.

You wanna feel icky about man man love? Whatever, you don't understand that kind of attraction, thats you're right. You're religion say it's a sin on the level of Murder... Ignorance is bliss? Whatever, I can't touch you on that, thats your faith...

But when you slander an entire people to try and get US open minded folks to try and be disgusted by the act, well thats just deplorable...

But okay...Lets go onto the argument... If we allow gay people to marry, when will it end, Pedophile marriages? Animal Marriages? Necrophiliac Marriages?!

Let me ask a question... Are ANY of those partners a legal adult authorized to sign a Marriage license? NO!

My god, when you get married you sign a marriage license... Which is like a contract, and to sign a contract you have to be a Legal Consenting Adult.

[CancelMyService]

It's kind of sad, my mom is that kind of person. She's very open minded for someone in her age group (mid 60s), she's all for civil unions or whatever you want to call a partnership but she's dead set against calling it a marriage. When pressed for a reason why, it pretty much boils down to her finding gay sex to be icky.

I mean, that's all well and good (it's not everyone's cup of tea) but you can't hand out rights based on your comfort level.

[Nightwolf]

I've been in many debates over the issue. I for one am not against it, and share most of the ideas spoken, especially the one Mad Mike pointed out. I've known many homosexual/lesbian couples and am not the least bit frazzled when around them. I know who I am, and which sex I prefer, as do they. So we can have fun and goof off, pat each other on the back, hug, whatever, and there is no akwardness. I say if they want to get married, more power to them.

What drives me nuts is when people have a problem with homosexuality as a whole because it, the sexual acts between two men disgusts them (but of course, they have no issues with two women, that they consider hot ), and they use that to drive their point. They don't care about two human beings that have a love for one another. They only see the sexual acts that they themselves wouldn't do, therefor in their mind, it HAS to be wrong and not allowed.

Then you always have the people, desperate to win the argument, that cry out...."what about overage men/women who want to marry an underage boy/girl, ya know, pedephilia. If we allow gay marriage, we can't shut the door to that, and where does it end?" This is usually where I slap my forehead and tell them i'm done talking to them as now they're just grasping at staws to win the debate.

Like I said, I'm fine with the whole thing, but i've been amazed at the amount of people i've met that are against it just because they are put off by the homosexual acts.

[CancelMyService]

Anyone else really bothered by the whole "lets put it to a vote" idea that gets put forth mainly in states they know it won't pass in? It just seems like rights aren't something that should be voted on.

Lets face it, if civil rights were put to the states to decide in the 60s it would have never happened. As long as you have states willing to pass laws blatantly discriminating against a group of people and no one is willing to call it unconstitutional, you have to set laws on a federal level. Of course that has no chance of happening until 2008 (I hope).

[rahmota]

Squall: Like I told ya before I'm glad to have your POV here. It would get rather boring if everyone was just sitting around monolouging at each other and patting us on the back for being so cool.

Although I do agree with Wil-Mun. Is a rose by any other name not still a rose? If you dont call between two homosexual marriage then that still seperates and can be used to demean people. Oh you've just got a civil union (words dripping with scorn) while we have a real marriage! (Said snobbily) So thats one reason right there why we need to use one title or name. Seperate but equal was found a long time ago to be very seperate and definately not equal. So either legally define everythig as a marriage or a civil union. But none of this you have a marriage you have a civil union you have a domestic partnership etc... stuff. And besides its not what you call it or what the piece of paper says but what the people involved in the relationship do and feel that makes it special or not.

You know there are a lot of traditions that fall by the way because they no longer serve a purpose, society has shifted away from the need or desire for those traditions or because people see how limiting and restrictive those traditions are. To keep doign somethign merely because it is tradition in the face of any reasonable reasoning (which by your own hand you admit) is rather interesting.

I mean in appalchia its traditional to fire off your firearms on new years eve. It used to sound like downtown baghdad every year growing up. Over the years with more people moving in and people discovering just how bad an idea shooting large amounts of lead into the air is (what goes up doth come down) that tradition stopped.

One of my beefs about this is so what if your beliefs are not such that you would allow two homosexuals to have a marriage. What gives a person the right to interfere or deny someone else the free action and pursuit of their life? Two homosexuals getting married does nothign to or against two heterosexuals getting married. Basically if a person levaes them alone and they leave others alone why bother them?

[Will-Mun]

Yes, very welcome...Without opposing views there's nothing really to debate, and then it's just us loony liberals telling each other how right we all are...

But I do have to question why you hold Marriage as between a man and a woman. You say you're an atheist (or pretty much one as you said) but still want to keep gays from saying their married.

Christians say that want Marriage between a man and a woman because homosexuality is a slight against their god, and marriage is a ceremony binding two people before god, therefor they cannot accept that type of marriage...

We've also discussed why thats besides the point all together as religion has no place is American politics and law.

But you don't want to allow homosexual couples to be married out of sheer routine? Simply because it's traditional? It was tradition for a wife to come with a dowry only a couple hundred years ago...

I don't wanna be condescending, but it seems to me you're clinging onto baseless beliefs...

[Boozy]

It's just the way I feel, I can't really think of a good reason for justifying my belief....it just seems right to me, and it may date back to a time when I was being instilled with Christian beliefs from grandparents and such....I know I probably sound hypocritical, but my beliefs are just hard-wired into me.

You don't sound hypocritical...just unquestioning.

Why should your beliefs be hard-wired? You said yourself that you can't think of a good reason for justifying your beliefs. Is it because you haven't given this particular issue much thought? Why believe what your parents or grandparents have told you? You have a mind of your own!

(PS - Please know that your views are VERY welcome here. How boring this forum would be if we all agreed on everything! )

[Rapscallion]

As a conservative, I know my beliefs aren't all that popular on fratching sometimes.

You still have views. As long as they don't break the UK's laws on hate speech, you're welcome to voice them.

I do find part of what you say disturbing, though. One system for us, one system for them - same but equal, right? That was used as a battlecry during the apartheid regime that finally fell when Rosa Parks declined to sit in the back of the bus.

What interests me is that you say marriage should be between man and woman only. Please, define marriage, but not just in those terms.

Raspcallion

[squall]

As a conservative, I know my beliefs aren't all that popular on fratching sometimes. The previous poster basically summed up my beliefs on the gay marriage issue. I agree with gay "civil unions". By the way, I am not a Chrisitian, so there is no way I can be a fundie. I'm pretty much atheist, but at the same time conservative....I cling to values from an earlier time (even though I'm 25). Marriage to me is between man and woman only. If they change the definition of a same sex union to a "union" or some other word, then I am totally in agreement...but I know people will disagree with me because they don't see it as equal. It's just the way I feel, I can't really think of a good reason for justifying my belief....it just seems right to me, and it may date back to a time when I was being instilled with Christian beliefs from grandparents and such. And I don't believe gay people suffer eternal damnation or any such thing. I know I probably sound hypocritical, but my beliefs are just hard-wired into me.