Miss California?

[Rubystars]

I think it was taken off the list of paraphilias because of political pressure and not necessarily sound scientific reasoning. We do see some similiarites between different types of paraphilias, such as the fact that both homosexuals and pedophiles are basically "incurable" as far as their sexual desires go, although behavior can be reigned in. Paraphilias are very hard to change. If you're not attracted to people of the appropriate age and gender, you're just not attracted to them, and it's going to be difficult to change that in most cases. I have read many stories to the contrary, but I am a bit skeptical of them.

Of course homosexuality in itself isn't as apalling as pedophilia. It does involve consenting adults, and so yes, in that sense it is less dangerous and less harmful. It doesn't involve rape, so that in itself is a huge difference. I don't hate homosexuals but I would hate someone who had harmed a child.

However I think they are still both sexual deviancies and neither should be considered to be normal. I'm trying to think of something else ridiculous to compare homosexual marriage to so that you'll understand how silly the idea seems to me. When I said it doesn't make any more sense than someone marrying their car, someone accused me of "dehumanizing" homosexuals. When I say it doesn't make any more sense than letting an old man marry a little girl, then I'm accused of saying that homosexuals are evil like pedophiles.

What I'm really trying to say is that it just doesn't make any more sense than either of these scenarios. It's not a marriage. The whole idea doesn't make sense at all because a marriage is between an adult man and an adult woman.

[Nyoibo]

It's not a marriage. The whole idea doesn't make sense at all because a marriage is between an adult man and an adult woman.

Ok, I've posted a couple of times that that's only one interpretation of what a marriage is, you seem to have ignored that, so I'm going to ask you this.

Who says marriage is between a man and a woman?


As to something being a sexual deviance, I may consider people who have sex for any reason other than to have a child are deviants, that doesn't make it true.

I think it was taken off the list of paraphilias because of political pressure and not necessarily sound scientific reasoning.

And I think same-sex marriage was made illegal because of religeous pressure and not necessarily sound scientific reasoning.

[Slytovhand]

Well, let me first say... Rubystar, I'm glad you're on here debating the way you are You see, there's been a lot of discussion about gay marriage, but I don't recall a lot of 'nay' on here... certainly not 'lots' at any rate (maybe 'a bit'), so it's good (IMNHO) to have it out in the open... so to speak!

That being said, your arguments are full of holes - as has been pointed out. Nyoibo just did again the obvious one - where are you getting your definition of 'marriage' from.

Flyn - I'm trying to come up with some 'non-religious' reasons... just for the sake of argument


Nyoibo - no, same-sex marriage (well, male homosexuality) was made illegal because Queen Victoria decided to make it so, and back then, her word was law! (female homosexuality wasn't made illegal, because she didn't think any 2 women would do that sort of thing! Apparently, strange but true!)

Shouldn't we have a seperate thread for the actual pro/con of this marriage debate?? Oh, there is.....

[Rubystars]

It's true that different people define marriage in different ways, but Western culture, which the United States was founded on, and Judeo-Christian values, which the United States' moral framework was originally based around, even if not all Americans were actually Jews or Christians, defines marriage as between a man and a woman. I don't see any compelling reason to change that now.

[Nyoibo]

Not all of western cultures or judeo-christian beliefs do, and as there is a separation of church and state in the US the 1st amendment kinda makes it a moot point that it's based on a religeous belief.

[Rubystars]

Nyoibo what about what's been going on in California? The voters said they didn't want gay marriage to be legal, but gay marriage advocates are trying to circumvent this by going through the court system. Why would they be trying to circumvent the will of the majority of the people?

Here's what I'm talking about:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/26/cal....sex.marriage/

The people of California said that they didn't agree with gay marriage being legal. The black voters in particular didn't like their struggle for fair treatment being compared to the so-called civil rights struggle for gays. Yet the gay activists kept trying to circumvent the will of the people and demand that they be given what they want regardless.

The court ruled in favor of the people.

[Slytovhand]

It's true that different people define marriage in different ways, but Western culture, which the United States was founded on, and Judeo-Christian values, which the United States' moral framework was originally based around, even if not all Americans were actually Jews or Christians, defines marriage as between a man and a woman. I don't see any compelling reason to change that now.

Ok, a couple of immediate things jump out..

Firstly, 'Western Culture' is based on the Roman, and before that, the Greek. Both civilisations had a fair degree of homosexuality (Wiki on Rome, Wiki on Greece, that was publicly accepted, if not endorsed (Socrates, Plato, Herodotus, amongst many).

As Nyoibo said, seperation of church and state should automatically mean the whole 'Judeo-Christian values' should be ignored for the betterment of society (doesn't mean that there can't be a coinciding between the two, where appropriate).

No compelling reason to change? Well, what about the fact that 2 human beings, who are sane, and of consenting age, are not allowed to have the same basic human rights as any other human being? Their basic rights are being infringed upon by the society. Apparently, what they do in the bedroom is no-one else's business but their own, but outside of that bedroom, it is everyone's business... that doesn't make sense to me (which is why I'm arguing this line... at the moment (and just to see if I can come up with one, I'll try - just for Flyn ), I can't see any logical reason whatsoever to not allow same-sex marriages (or 'civil unions', if you will). There is, basically, no sane and rational reason to deny it... like Flyn, looking for one...


As for your last post... well, that's easy to counter. The Human Rights Commission has said that various things would be an infringement on a human beings basic rights, and no government should have the 'right' to walk over them - no matter what. The activists declare that their basic human rights are being ignored/walked over by the government of California... so I'd say they have good reason to demand their legitimate legal rights back - regardless of the majority will... might does not make right. The majority may have said "we don't want it to be legal", that doesn't mean it's 'right'... (going back to the 'rights' thread )


In general, and for whatever time period in the future you want to pick, just because something was made in year dot, does that mean that it must never change... 5000 years from now, will we still have the same laws and rights in place? (no, not a rhetorical question... a relevant one).

[Nyoibo]

For a long time those "Moral values" you are talking about also allowed slaver, refused women the right to vote and a multitude of other things, and it was the will of the majority of the people that these things be upheld, it was only because people tried to "circumvent" that will that slaver doesn't exist interracial marriages exist and women can vote, hell, that women are even allowed to work and earn money.

But sure, lets go back to traditional values, I'll have my house slave do the cleaning, the yard slave do the gardening and beat my wife when she doesn't want to have sex with me and there be no repurcusions, but it's ok, because it's the will of the majority or the people, well, the white males who can vote that is.

[Rubystars]

No compelling reason to change? Well, what about the fact that 2 human beings, who are sane, and of consenting age, are not allowed to have the same basic human rights as any other human being?

They do have the same basic rights as any other human being. They can get married if they want to, to someone of the opposite gender, just like straight people can. What they want is to have an extra special right created just for them to have the government recognize and legitimize their deviant behavior as if it were something normal.

I wouldn't have much of a problem with homosexuals if they would keep it as a private matter. The main problem I have is when they drag this issue into the public arena and demand attention and play the victim.

Their basic rights are being infringed upon by the society. Apparently, what they do in the bedroom is no-one else's business but their own, but outside of that bedroom, it is everyone's business... that doesn't make sense to me (which is why I'm arguing this line... at the moment (and just to see if I can come up with one, I'll try - just for Flyn ), I can't see any logical reason whatsoever to not allow same-sex marriages (or 'civil unions', if you will). There is, basically, no sane and rational reason to deny it... like Flyn, looking for one...

I don't see why it's the public's obligation to give them protected status which is what they're really asking for.

[Rubystars]

Another thing I'd like to add. Many "Human rights" organizations have really gone off the left wing loony bin. Some of what they say I would probably agree with, but a lot of it is total BS. They don't think Israel has the right to defend itself from terrorists, they don't think the US has the right to interrogate terrorist prisoners, yet they think access to abortion on demand (the murder of innocent babies) is a human right. The human rights groups also completely oppose any form of the death penalty, which I think needs to be applied in some cases. A lot of these human rights groups seem to be more critical of the USA and Israel than they do of Saudi Arabia or China. It's just ridiculous and backwards.

[AFPheonix]

Israel, abortion, and treatment of prisoners are topics for another thread, unfortunately. Let's just say that none of those are particularly black and white situations. Especially the Israeli one.


So, you recommend that gays marry straight people. Let's examine several of the reasons why this is not a good thing.

For starters, let's put ourselves in a gay person's shoes for a moment. Let's say that hetero marriage is not currently legal, while homosexual marriage is. Would you be ok with someone saying that you had the right to marry if you wished, but it was only to another woman? Would you want to take part in that if you absolutely weren't attracted in any way to the group of people you were eligible to marry? Especially if you were very attracted to the group that you weren't allowed to marry? Let's up the ante a bit and say that you have found the man of your dreams. You aren't allowed to marry him because the majority decided to pass laws making it illegal.
How do you think you'd feel?

Now, lets get back to reality for a moment. The option you've proposed as a "reasonable" solution, ie gays marrying people of the opposite gender, does happen in real life, usually by people who are still closeted and take wives or husbands because that is what society expects them to do, even if they're not attracted to their mate.
Heck, many times children come of these unions.
Guess what, something usually results that is far more dangerous to the institution of marriage in these cases: divorce. Sometimes suicide. Usually some extremely embarrassing situations that absolutely betray the unsuspecting mate and their kids occur.
Why on earth would you want to put people through that? It's seems quite cruel to me.

And to reiterate, laws on the books until DOMA and state laws got passed did NOT indicate gender of the people engaging in the marriage contract.
It was not until the gay marriage bans started getting passed that marriage became officially between a man and a woman. We changed the definition of marriage once, why not change it back to what it was?

[Rubystars]

I dont think they should get married at all if they're not attracted to someone of the opposite sex. My point was that they have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that everyone else has so they're not being denied a right that other people have.

Let's up the ante a bit and say that you have found the man of your dreams. You aren't allowed to marry him because the majority decided to pass laws making it illegal.
How do you think you'd feel?

I guess I'd feel pretty confused as to why the society got the ban backwards. But then I guess I could go on with my life and get a religious marriage to the "man of my dreams", even if it wasn't a legally recognized marriage. Many gay people have ceremonies even if they aren't legally recognized. There would be no call for demanding that the government recognize my relationship and demanding that I get special rights.

And to reiterate, laws on the books until DOMA and state laws got passed did NOT indicate gender of the people engaging in the marriage contract.
It was not until the gay marriage bans started getting passed that marriage became officially between a man and a woman. We changed the definition of marriage once, why not change it back to what it was?

They didn't need to indicate the gender because it was obvious who was getting married, a man and a woman. It's only when the deviants started agitating that it needed to be stated more plainly.

[AFPheonix]

What special rights are those? You mean the ones that have been detailed for you several times in this thread alone? Those are not special rights, they are pretty basic ones for people entering into a contract with another person.

So you'd have a piece of paper from your church with your special guy. How nice.
Now your special guy gets hit by a car and goes to the ER and the staff won't let you go in to see him because you're not immediate family. Your religious paper does not grant you those basic rights we were just talking about that married people get to have.
Sucks, don't it?

And you're calling homosexuals deviants. That's pretty classy. As has been said REPEATEDLY, homosexuality is pretty natural, the causes are well known, the percentage in the population is very stable, and there is an evolutionary reason for them to exist. Normal, not deviant.

The law was what it was. It was not illegal previously to marry the same sex. It is now. All people want is for the law to go back to what it was, a contract between two consenting people who are of age.

[Rubystars]

What special rights are those? You mean the ones that have been detailed for you several times in this thread alone? Those are not special rights, they are pretty basic ones for people entering into a contract with another person.

Marriage isn't a contract between any two people. It's a contract between a man and a woman.

So you'd have a piece of paper from your church with your special guy. How nice.
Now your special guy gets hit by a car and goes to the ER and the staff won't let you go in to see him because you're not immediate family. Your religious paper does not grant you those basic rights we were just talking about that married people get to have.
Sucks, don't it?

They have to go after someone for the medical bills, and I think they would be talking to someone who owns joint property with him. If they want to get paid, they allow visitation.

And you're calling homosexuals deviants. That's pretty classy. As has been said REPEATEDLY, homosexuality is pretty natural, the causes are well known, the percentage in the population is very stable, and there is an evolutionary reason for them to exist. Normal, not deviant.

There will always be a certain percentage of the human population that does all kinds of strange things. There will always be a certain percentage of the population that suffers from schizophrenia, and schizophrenia is pretty natural, the causes are well-known, and there is an evolutionary reason why it exists (usually appears after someone has reached reproductive age, so it doesn't really harm evolutionary fitness, therefore it wasn't selected out).

The law was what it was. It was not illegal previously to marry the same sex. It is now. All people want is for the law to go back to what it was, a contract between two consenting people who are of age.

So you're trying to give me this line that before the Defense of Marriage Act came about, that homosexuals would have been able to be legally married? I would have liked to see them try that in the 50s. As I said before, it wasn't specified because people knew what marriage meant and it sure wasn't two men.

[AFPheonix]

Marriage isn't a contract between any two people. It's a contract between a man and a woman.

Not in quite a few states such as Vermont and Illinois. See previous statement on how the law had been worded and got changed to reflect some people's religious beliefs.

They have to go after someone for the medical bills, and I think they would be talking to someone who owns joint property with him. If they want to get paid, they allow visitation.

Tell that to gay couples who have been denied visitation for the very reason I stated. Besides, they'll go after the patient for payment.

There will always be a certain percentage of the human population that does all kinds of strange things. There will always be a certain percentage of the population that suffers from schizophrenia, and schizophrenia is pretty natural, the causes are well-known, and there is an evolutionary reason why it exists (usually appears after someone has reached reproductive age, so it doesn't really harm evolutionary fitness, therefore it wasn't selected out).

You just compared homosexuality to a debilitating mental disease. Good job. What's next? comparing some races to other apes?

So you're trying to give me this line that before the Defense of Marriage Act came about, that homosexuals would have been able to be legally married? I would have liked to see them try that in the 50s. As I said before, it wasn't specified because people knew what marriage meant and it sure wasn't two men.

Theoretically, they could have, and indeed that was what happened in California before Prop 8. Prop 8 had to be made explicitly because gay couples made use of the wording of the law, and the Supreme court initially upheld those marriages because according to the law, they were not technically illegal.
The only thing that the Supreme Court of CA ruled on was that Prop 8 itself was instituted constitutionally. They have not ruled on the constitutionality of Prop 8 itself. (It's not as it goes against the fairness clause)
As for the 50's, gays were being lynched or blacklisted for being gay. Do you honestly think that they'd put themselves in danger for marriage? They had to get public opinion to a point that they weren't circus freaks for simply existing first.