Gay Marriage

[Sir_Die_alot]

Many homosexuals want kids too; maybe even for biological reasons. Unfortunately, they're not attracted to the other sex.

This is a perfect example that something is not normal with them. Their bodies tell them to procreate but they also tell them to be attracted to the same sex.

They're just different.

A synonym to "different" is "abnormal". Are you sure we are disagreement? An amputee does not walk "normally", deaf people do not hear "normally"; so why would you think someone who practices a method of sex that doesn't even accomplish its primary function is performing "normally?

The problem here is people keep equating a "normal" trait as moral, and an "abnormal" trait as amoral. That is clouding the subject because every time I say "abnormal" it comes across as saying "wrong". If that's what you think then there is another discussion in itself, so let's open a new topic on "Is being different amoral?". As for the morality on homosexuals I touched on that here already. If you want to debate on the morality of it being right or wrong reply to what you disagree with there. If you want to disagree with homosexuality being against someone's biology then we can keep going. Just be sure you aren't arguing a points I didn't even try to make and probably agree with you on. :P

[Munkay]

So why would you think someone who practices a method of sex that doesn't even accomplish its primary function is performing "normally?

This raises another question in my mind. I apologize if this is inappropriate, and I give mods full rights to edit this as they seem fit. Biologically I won't argue the primary function of sex is to procreate. Though in practice sexual acts are generally preformed more for pleasure than for procreation. Condoms are used for vaginal sex by herterosexual couples. Though it is not too uncommon for other forms of pleasure to be performed in a relationship. For many people sex is pleasure, until they chose to have children. (It appears that) There are many couples who marry with no intention of having children. Even many married couples who share an eventual want for children, have sex for pleasure, long before the consideration of children is brought into the equation.

Is it so abnormal that same sex intercourse occurs for pleasure? If anything this seems almost more normal to me. If some one does not enjoy intercourse with the opposite sex, why is it abnormal to pursue a means that is more enjoyable. I know many people my age who are both hetero and homosexual, that prefer to engage in *other* sexual acts than vaginal sex.

I know that is a bit off topic, seeing that this is about marriage. But I feel marriage means different things to different people, and I am suggesting that marriage and intercourse without the production of children, isn't all too societally 'abnormal.'

The problem here is people keep equating a "normal" trait as moral, and an "abnormal" trait as amoral. That is clouding the subject because every time I say "abnormal" it comes across as saying "wrong".

I appreciate that clearification and it will (hopefully) make these debates much clearer :)

Cheers,

Munk

Edit: Fixed a quote.

[Chaerophon]

What if I said that it is normal for there to be homosexuals?...

The problem here is people keep equating a "normal" trait as moral, and an "abnormal" trait as amoral. That is clouding the subject because every time I say "abnormal" it comes across as saying "wrong".

A question for you: why do you think that people generally regard homosexuality as immoral, or 'wrong'?

My opinion is that it is because of their identification of homosexuals as the minority "other" to their majority "normalcy". If one is "abnormal" in the sexual sense, then one is considered biologically backwards and so the acts/behaviours can be construed as 'immoral'. Conceptions of "normalcy" and morality are often intimately tied together. If we accept that some people are just born that way, and that homosexuals, then, while different are not abnormal in the sense that they are not biologically "incorrect", but part of a larger trend in humanity, we can accept them for what they are and not stigmatize them in a moral sense. In one sense, you're right: calling them abnormal is just the same as saying that "they are not one of the majority". It is the application of "right way" and "wrong way" to your conceptions of "normalcy" and "abnormalcy" that is troubling. While there is certainly "the usual way" and "the (relatively) unusual way", the application of a concept of flawed purpose to homosexuals inherently implies that they are defective rather than simply different. In calling them "defective" you are arguing that their abnormalcy in some sense makes them "wrong". Only because you operate from the position of the majority can you make this judgment. For homosexuals, the urge to engage in relationships with the other sex 'feels' right. While they may be in the numerical minority, and they may be different in that sense, their life is as "normal" to them as yours is to you and their existence as homosexuals is a historical norm rather than an exception.

[Guest]

Its not harming me to have my neighbors run a crack house/brothel/child abuse center....I should let them do what they want.

Homosexuality... legal. Child abuse, whoring, drugs, illegal.

You shouldn't let them do what they want; aside from breaking the law, its lowering property value if you have a drughouse nextdoor.

[TurkeyBeans]

erm...isn't one of the major points of this topic whether or not homosexuality SHOULD be legal? And property values.........you're going off on a tangent here.

[Guest]

erm...isn't one of the major points of this topic whether or not homosexuality SHOULD be legal? And property values.........you're going off on a tangent here.

The topic is about marriage. I don't think anybody can deny that homosexuality in general should be legal. Property values isn't going on a 'tangent'; it's relavent. Crackhouses lower property value and is illegal. Homosexuality shouldn't bother anybody.

[Tal]

Ah but you didn't say you were taking it from a legal vs illegal standpoint. As it stands right now in many states, marriages between homosexuals is not recognized, while it isn't technically "illegal" it is still prohibited from being a valid marriage by law. But technically should we even be talking about the law when I was responding to what you said?

Here's a (hopefully) infaliable arguments to anti-gay marriage people... It's not affecting you; let them do what they want.

So I really should have said:

Its not affecting [sic] me to have my neighbors run a crack house/brothel/child abuse center....I should let them do what they want.

Say what you want about Crackhouses bringing down property values, if I'm not selling the house right now then the affect [sic] it has on me is rather minimal wouldn't you say?

Granted I'm grandstanding in my approach to this question but my purpose was to show that your argument was far from infallible. Especially since those who oppose gay marriages, like Dubya, feel that allowing gay marriages is effecting them by attacking the core of their values in the sanctity of marriage. Thats at the core of the issue. They feel it is effecting them and society as a whole, the other side naturally feels different. ;)

[Chaerophon]

They feel it is effecting them and society as a whole, the other side naturally feels different.

Added note: or that the change is for the better....

[Guest]

Yes it was funny, but it was right too.

Imagine if you could marry your computer. It would be relatively harmless. But it would be unwise for society to make such a provision.

Its best to allow people to spend all the time they want playing with a computer - but that doesnt mean it should be promoted.


Of course the analogy holds only if you accept my original tenents, which as I stated are opinion.

[Chaerophon]

Huh...?

Warlocke sums it up best:

[Guest]

I like how you put that in quotes implying that I did.

If you read my second note in this thread I said "I consider marrige important mainly because promotes the nurture of children."

I think marrige is a covention of society. I never stated that because I think its an obvious fact.

It does work rather well in encouraging father to support their offspring. In many(not all) societies where the marrige structure breaks down you often end up with children raised in poverty and with out a father figure - both of these issues are linked to developmental problems.


Anyway - nice try on a dirty cheap trick of rhetoric.

[Guest]

Look at ancient Sparta.

Nearly an entire population LEARNED to be gay(at least the males).

[Nantuko_Primus]

Or maybe hetrosexuality is the devil and Spartans learned to be angelic.
Just saying, I don't really belive it.


Opposing gay marriage implies some degree of fear of homosexuals, and I just don't see where that's coming from. Technically, gay marriage is constitutional in my view since all people have the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness according to the United State's of America's constitution. If the pursuit of happiness involves getting married to someone of your sex, then you should be able to do it. I realize I'll get retorts of "If the pursuit of happiness is stealing, then you should be able to do it," and I need to clarify that to the pursuit of happiness without physical detriment to someone or someone's possesions. How does gay marriage affect me or my property? It doesn't! If you are going to argue that gay's shouldn't get married, give us TANGIBLE, physical resons, not the emotional crap.

Summary: I used tags, It's the pursuit of happiness, which is in the first sentence of the constitution.

EDIT: In response to ghostiger's "marry computer" talk, promoting it would be offering discounts on the marriage liscence :lol: and as long as it doesn't affect me, I don't really care.

[LemmingofGlory]

Side note - if you think sexuallity is inborn....

Or we could get a less biased and more complete explanation from Wikipedia (scroll down to "Theories on homosexuality and homosexual behavior") rather than your "I'll prove you wrong with two sentences" approach.

Look at ancient Sparta. Nearly an entire population LEARNED to be gay(at least the males).

Do you have convenient links for us, or shall we take your word for it? (Any lurking ancient historians?)

And do be careful of how you use "gay" with respect to past cultures. Today we most often see "elegantarian homosexuality," i.e. equal partners. However, other sorts of homosexual relationships did exist, and the ancient Greece in particular are associated with pederasty. Homosexual activity may also take the form of situational sexual behavior or the very broad category same-sex sexual activity.

So, please do define the sort of homosexuality you're talking about. The sort of homosexuality we're talking about with same-sex marriage is, by and large, elegantarian homosexuality, so I'd appreciate it if you kept to that topic.

-Lemmy

[Dozer]

[Guest]

Your arguement attacked me and misrepresented what I have said.



1 You say that my stand implies fear.

It shows a real lack af character to say people who disagree with you do it out of fear. Seriously I think thats really lame.


2 You said "It doesn't! If you are going to argue that gay's shouldn't get married, give us TANGIBLE, physical resons, not the emotional crap."

Nothing I said was "emotional". Some of my positions were definetly opinion, but I think I showed the the counter arguements were also matters of opinion.





I dont expect you to agree with me, but be honest when you disagree. Notice this is the first time I have become "emotional" and its not because of the gay marrige issue, its because you essentially lied abou t ME.

[LemmingofGlory]

OK youre the first idiot that responded to me.

Would this be implying that I am the second idiot, and that all who respond to you are idiots? That's one possible interpretation.

Choose your next words more carefully. And, as you have a habit of not addressing my questions, I need you to answer the above question for me or otherwise explain why you felt necessary to attack a poster (and possibly other posters) with your post title. Fail to do this and Bad Things™ will happen.

-Lemmy

[Guest]

Lots of people have responded to me on this thread. Almost everyone made a good faith arguement.
I was making the point that it was lame that everyone else could deal with subject and he alone resorted to ad-hominem(spelling) attacks.


Andif your honest youll admit you know that. It was obvious if you read the post.

[Guest]

Yes, pedestry was the form. But that goes back to my point about learned sexuality. Pedestry in Sparta was institutionalised and the relationships continued into adulthood.

It was real problem getting men to sleep with their wives when they came of age to marry.

On a more spculative note, I suspect this was the reason that Spartas standing army decreased in size so much in the later years.

[LemmingofGlory]

Ummm did you read the post/look at the time?

Hmm Posted: Aug 16 2004, 09:10 PM by LemmingofGlory
OK youre the first idiot that responded to me. Posted: Aug 16 2004, 09:16 PM by Ghostiger

Given your post contained approximately 6 lines of new material, I didn't discount the possibility that you could have posted within 6 minutes of reading my post.

I was making the point that it was lame that everyone else could deal with subject and he alone resorted to ad-hominem(spelling) attacks.

I take issue only with your post title, not your post content.

Andif your honest youll admit you know that. It was obvious if you read the post.

Ad Hominem in reverse: "I'm sure you, as an eminently sensible person, can see the virtues of this idea."

What's obvious to me is you felt necessary to begin your otherwise fine retort by calling him an idiot in your post title.

-Lem