Gay Marriage

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Silat
The argument that being gay is "Unnatural" is a religious argument. Otherwise you would quote valid scientific data to prove the point.

no "science" is needed just common sense.

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
There is no civil rights being denied here.

You still didn't answer the bit about them not having any special rights if this is made legal.  I'm sure it was an oversight.

Originally posted by Gunslinger
no "science" is needed just common sense.

I appreciate the laugh, thanks.  I'm sure this files nicely next to other common sense assumptions like 'the world is flat', 'the sun revolves around the earth', and 'prohibition will lower crime'.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Chairboy
You still didn't answer the bit about them not having any special rights if this is made legal.  I'm sure it was an oversight.
 I appreciate the laugh, thanks.  I'm sure this files nicely next to other common sense assumptions like 'the world is flat', 'the sun revolves around the earth', and 'prohibition will lower crime'.

what i've said through out this entire thread is to allow civil unions between two "people"  It could be girl girl, guy guy, or guy girl.  

They'd enjoy all the benifits of being married.  It wouldn't be just for gays but all encompasing.  viola....no special rights created no pandering to special groups.


On the second one.  Answer me this.  If you have 6 guys that were locked up in a room with no contact with the opposite sex......would they ever have children?  Did it take a scientific study to figure that out?

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
no "science" is needed just common sense.

Common sense told us that the Sun revolved around the Earth, science proved otherwise.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Ok, I'll bite.  They have the right to get married to their true love/soul mate/fiance.

That's really the crux of the matter, isn't it?

If you're arguing that giving homosexuals the right to marry each other is a 'special right', you're mistaken.  Because, by definition, that would give heterosexuals the right to marry members of the same sex as well, though I imagine you'd have to be pretty 'special' indeed to do that.  

End result, everyone has the same rights.

Right now, homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals. They can marry a person of the opposite sex if they choose, just like heterosexuals.

Everyone has the same right. Also, everyone is denied the ability to marry someone of the same sex.....across the board, black or white.

Nobody is being descriminated against unfairly just becaue it's against the law to marry a same sex partner. It's simialr to polygamy, incestual marriage and a number of other illegal choices to marry your "true love".

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
On the second one.  Answer me this.  If you have 6 guys that were locked up in a room with no contact with the opposite sex......would they ever have children?  Did it take a scientific study to figure that out?

I've asked, and you haven't answered, whether sterile/barren male/female couples should be allowed to marry.

They will also not produce children.  

Additionally, there are plenty of people who marry and never (or even intend to) have children.

To extend your point as tortuously as is needed to get somewhere, since reproduction is the determining factor of whether marriage should be allowed, it sounds as if you're making a rather punitive judgement on a significant portion of married couples.

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by NUKE
Everyone has the same right. Also, everyone is denied the ability to marry someone of the same sex.....across the board, black or white.

Was it Napoleon or Snowball who first suggested that 'everybody is equal, but some people are more equal then others'?  That seems to be the going concept here.

Sure, homosexuals and heterosexuals are limited by the _exact same laws_, but oddly enough, it appears that heterosexuals somehow come out ahead!  Goodness, if I didn't know you better, I'd assume that you and GS were operating from a position of bad faith, and that you know exactly what the conflict is yet are deliberately playing lawyer to further an agenda that becomes less and less supportable as time passes.

But, like I said, I know the two of you better, so I'm sure it's just a misunderstanding.

[NUKE]

Chairboy, I am saying what I believe.

It's illegal to marry a same sex partner, plain and simple. It's the same as other illegal marriage options.....it's just illegal and the majority of our society has decided that.

Homosexuals do not come out behind in any way that I can see.

If you argue that they are denied the ability to marry their true love, well, same goes for polygamists, pedofiles, and a bunch of other people that ours laws and culture have decided to be deviant behavior.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by NUKE
Chairboy, I am saying what I believe.

It's illegal to marry a same sex partner, plain and simple.

In some states.  Is there a federal law I don't know about that makes it a crime?

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Common sense told us that the Sun revolved around the Earth, science proved otherwise.

same question for you too

Answer me this. If you have 6 guys that were locked up in a room with no contact with the opposite sex......would they ever have children? Did it take a scientific study to figure that out?


I guess you guys think that every thing we all should know HAS to be backed up by scientific data and written down some were huh.....common sense should be an uncommon virtue?

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Chairboy
I've asked, and you haven't answered, whether sterile/barren male/female couples should be allowed to marry.

They will also not produce children.  

Additionally, there are plenty of people who marry and never (or even intend to) have children.

To extend your point as tortuously as is needed to get somewhere, since reproduction is the determining factor of whether marriage should be allowed, it sounds as if you're making a rather punitive judgement on a significant portion of married couples.

THE WHOLE ARGUMENT ABOUT NATURE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MARRIAGE SUBJECT.... THEY ARE COMPLETLY SEPERATE

On page three Gunslinger posted

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Chairboy
Ok, then do y'all agree that restricting sterile couples from getting married is ok? Since the conversation has steered to marriage having some special relationship with reproduction. Still no response on the 'black only' restrooms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



no one here would agree on the steril couples. The entire tangent has very little to do with the marriage issue but centers around my comments that "being gay goes against nature" Manadew they proceded to tell me that homos are the new evolved man and that trans gender people make up a good portion of the population AND that there really is no genders at all.


PS I answered your question on page 2  



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gunslinger
you make a good point (even about the analogy  )

The difference as I see it is this. Black white brown asian (any color) right now enjoy the SAME rights and treatment as any other color (except for whites they enjoy less rights than minorities in some cases but that is a whole nother thread topic)

where was I...oh yea. Creating gay marriage in your analogy would be like creating "black marriage" we don't write laws for special minorities we write them for everyone. Now you could, as Nash said, say this is a matter of symantics but it is wholey imporating to nearly 70% of the population. This is not another Majority is wrong the world is actual round debates this is one of deep rotted emotions and yes religion too (Disclaimor: I am trying to make my case by leaving religion out of this as not everyone is religious)


When the civil rights movements claimed victory we did not create special rights just for minorities and I don't think we should creat especial rights just for Gays now. No one is conforming Gays to have seperate but equal rights, they enjoy the same rights as eveyone else. Like I said before, if they want special rights than it should apply to everyone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



__________________

[Chairboy]

The reason I equate the two (hey, no shouting needed) is because your rationale for denying marriage rights seems to be predicated on the 'it's unnatural' argument.  

Since your definition of un-natural seems to be 'they wouldn't produce children', then logically, a sterile heterosexual couple is also an un-natural union.

If that's established, then I suppose we have a little bit of a complication, since unless you're arguing that the sterile couples should also be denied marriage, then you're being hypocritical.  

....but I know what an upstanding member you are, so I'm sure the mistake must lay somewhere on my side and I look forward to your clarification with much anticipation.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Chairboy

....but I know what an upstanding member you are, so I'm sure the mistake must lay somewhere on my side and I look forward to your clarification with much anticipation.

Now that's what I call tact.  

I'm not sure how to answer this becaue you make a good point.  I was orriginally going to say that gayness/straitness is a choice were sterility/fertility isn't but then again people (myself included) choose to sterilize themselves so to speak when they choose not to have any more children (in my case a vasectamy...I allready have kids but that point is moot)

I would have to say that sterility is a natural as is disease and disfigurment.  It happens among humans through no part of their own.  Some would argue that gayness does as well but as a matter of opinion I would have to disagree.  I don't see that somone is attracted to the anatamy but the heart.  

Either way I stand by my contention that gayness is unatural.  

when all else fails use a toadism:

As to "natural/unnatural", I kinda agree with ya. After all, the front peg looks designed to match up with the front hole.....

Using a screwdriver as a hammer works after a fashion in limited instances but in the long run it really doesn't work to build things.

However, you want to beat on nails with your screwdriver.... it's your screwdriver......

EDIT:  In addition while taking a crap I had a further thaught.  Infertility is a disease or a sickness.  Denying marraige based on that is no different than discriminating based on color.

Again I don't consider this a civil rights issue.  A gay person who's sterile would have the same rights as a strait person who's steril to MARRY anyone they want of the opposite sex.  That's what a marriage is.

[AVRO1]

Originally posted by Mini D BTW... there's alot of "technically" running around in this thread. The predominant use of that word is exactly what brings out the use of the words "erode" and "undermine". Quit trying to reason away gut feelings.

Feelings are not a valid argument so saying others are making bad is a bit silly. Your feelings cannot be proven more right then someone elses so which feelings should we use ?

Tradition is also not a valid argument since the fact that it's been done for a long time as no relation to the right or wrong of it.
Inquisition did not become morally right because we did it for centuries for example.

As for the term marriage that's just playing semantics.
A rose by another name would smell just as sweet.
Making a marriage for gays and calling it something else would not change the fact that it's a marriage.

The reason why he's using logic is because that's the only way to argue without using invalid arguments.

[Seagoon]

Hi Lew,

Originally posted by Silat
And I have a religious question as the whole Gays are against nature statement is religious in scope.

Adam and Eve had kids. Those kids must have done the dead to expand the population. Incest would have been neccessary. So we are all the product of incest?
Now how does this sit with all who believe the bible is the law?
Dont be to contradictory in your answer:)

Elfie is right in that there was no express prohibition against incest until the giving of the law. The biblical prohibitions against incest are found in the Old Testament in three main groups of texts: Leviticus 18:6–18; 20:11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21; Deuteronomy 27:20–23. Incest is also condemned and prohibited in the New Testament in 1 Cor. 5 in a passage in which Paul notes that incest is even deplored amongst pagans.

However, it should be noted that many theologians believe that incest was never right, and since the marriages of Adams children occurred after the fall, that this original incest was also sinful. I'm not going to get into speculation on that point, this is hardly the forum for it when so many basic presuppositions required to argue it are denied, what is clear is that both the Old Testament and the New Testament both condemn the practice.

Regardless Lew, there is no ambiguity in the Bible when it comes to homosexual practices, especially when one considers it was one of the major causes given in the text for God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. If one believes the bible's own claim that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,  that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:16) then one must conclude that God regards homosexual sex as no less a sin than adultery, rape, or theft.

- SEAGOON