Author Topic: Gay Marriage (Read 11751 times)

Gunslinger · « **Reply #90 on:** June 25, 2005, 06:02:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Oh, I get what you're saying.

Gays have the right to marry women. Lesbians have the right to marry men.

And it's not a right to marry eachother, because no law was made to give them that right.... therefore they should be fine with that, because they aren't being denied the rights given to everyone.

While that's a valid argument, in a semantics kind of way, it's kind of obvious, no? Because everyone knows that. It's what they're challenging. It isn't about being happy within the rights given, but expanding them to include other people.

Because unless you want to see a family explode, it's generally not a good idea for gays to marry women. Same goes for lesbians marrying men.

So they will never get all of those other rights given to married couples. Seems like that's what they're really asking for.

I'm all for happieness. I just don't feel "special rights" are correct. Instead of going and changing the definition of marriage to suit a "special" group I would be more than happy if they wrote new laws that said two people could co-habitate in a "civil union" that said basically they had all the same rights as a married man and woman.

It wouldnt have to mention gay strait lesbian trans-gender or any "special group" it would just entail two people. No special rights, no infringment of civil rights.

Nash · « **Reply #91 on:** June 25, 2005, 06:08:45 PM »

Okay, lets assume that a law like that got passed. That they were granted a new right (the passing of which you now seem not to obeject to). And they now have all the same rights as a "married" couple exactly as you have described.

What's the difference between "civil union" and "marriage" other than they are spelled differently?

Chairboy · « **Reply #92 on:** June 25, 2005, 06:10:09 PM »

GS, can you demonstrate how that line of logic is different from installing seperate bathrooms for 'colored people'? The same rationale was used there.

"Nobody is saying the negroes can't use the bathroom, all we're asking is that they use a seperate bathroom. Why should we give them special access to our bathrooms? Why should we re-define what a bathroom is just to placate this minority group?"

BTW, if you disagree with the analogy, I've got a couple of friends who are quite comfortable equating marriage with a toilet.

Please note, I'm not saying anybody is racist, I'm just making an analogy to see how internally consistent the logic is.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #93 on:** June 25, 2005, 06:11:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Okay, lets assume that a law like that got passed. That they were granted a new right (the passing of which you now seem not to obeject to). And they now have all the same rights as a "married" couple exactly as you have described.

What's the difference between "civil union" and "marriage" other than they are spelled differently?

that's were you are wrong. There is no "they"

The law would not say gay strait lesbian transgender none of that.

It would say TWO PEOPLE could co-habitate. Strait people could enjoy this too.

The difference is you are not redefining something that is allready there and has been for many moons to fit the desires of a "special group"

Nash · « **Reply #94 on:** June 25, 2005, 06:13:46 PM »

In essense, you want to be able to say:

"Civil union? tsk tsk.... I'm married."

Gunslinger · « **Reply #95 on:** June 25, 2005, 06:19:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
GS, can you demonstrate how that line of logic is different from installing seperate bathrooms for 'colored people'? The same rationale was used there.

"Nobody is saying the negroes can't use the bathroom, all we're asking is that they use a seperate bathroom. Why should we give them special access to our bathrooms? Why should we re-define what a bathroom is just to placate this minority group?"

BTW, if you disagree with the analogy, I've got a couple of friends who are quite comfortable equating marriage with a toilet.

Please note, I'm not saying anybody is racist, I'm just making an analogy to see how internally consistent the logic is.

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.

thrila · « **Reply #96 on:** June 25, 2005, 06:26:38 PM »

gunslinger following your logic if all animals were male there would be no reproduction, there for it is unatural for animals to be male.

Why don't you buy it that many animals exhibit homosexual behaviour? Perhaps my wording may have been better if i said a significant proportion. Even some fleas have been found to exhibit homosexual behaviour.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #97 on:** June 25, 2005, 06:41:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by thrila
gunslinger following your logic if all animals were male there would be no reproduction, there for it is unatural for animals to be male.

yea that's about it. If ALL animals were one sex and none of them reproduced asexualy we'd have a short existance.

Quote

Why don't you buy it that many animals exhibit homosexual behaviour? Perhaps my wording may have been better if i said a significant proportion. Even some fleas have been found to exhibit homosexual behaviour.

what I don't buy is the MANY part. I also don't buy into because not very many animals have sex for pleasure like humans do. Maybe this whole comparison to animals and nature is of itself flawed.

If we confine nature to just humans that I would still say homosexuality is unatural and an anomily within nature iself.

I honestly don't beleive people that are gay can help it and they very well may be born that way. If we were ALL born that way from the very begining we'd have a hard time getting to were we are now don't ya think?

Manedew · « **Reply #98 on:** June 25, 2005, 07:07:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
what world are you living in? Boys have a noodle Girls have a vigina! that's basic birds and bees. Science clearly defines male and female of the species. It is not hard to do.

HUMANs born with both parts are an anomoly NOT a normality.

If all animals in nature were homosexual they'd have a hard time reproducing. Even so they'd probably survive by some other means but it wouldn't represent 90% oF ALL NATURAL REPRODUCTION! There's that word again, nature.

EDIT: Show me ONE right that a gay persond doesnt have???????

I guess you never heard of Darwin? You know Evolution....

Science can only define a portion, a percentage.... they just throw out the standard deviation in hopes of makeing sense.... Evolution is based around that standard deviation really. Whats more succsessful? That's what becomes the mean, the average into the future.

Pleanty of a-sexal creatures on the planet ... like the common earth worm for one. There is a lizard that the 'male' will act and look 'female' to avoid a larger dominant male and then successfully mate with the nearby female-without a fight. There are monkey's that are bi-sexal with some of the largest testies of any primates. Maybe due to their sexaul vigor? They have sex constantly, with male or female monkies, and are remarkably potent.

general thinking is central to being human .... it doesn't make it correct however.

generalizations are useful...... don't let them rule you. Why do you think it took sooo long for Evolution to be understood by humans? .... it's contrary to our general thinking.

Would you prefer human's don't evolve? if you want us too .. your going to have to accept the deviations for what they are.

well that's my POV

Gunslinger · « **Reply #99 on:** June 25, 2005, 07:14:47 PM »

Quote

Pleanty of a-sexal creatures on the planet ...

are Humans "naturally" in that catagory?

Quote

They have sex constantly, with male or female monkies, and are remarkably potent.

they wouldn't be homosexual now if they are having sex with both genders now would they.

Quote

Would you prefer human's don't evolve? if you want us too .. your going to have to accept the deviations for what they are.

I respect that this is your POV but are you saying that becoming gay is the way humans are to evolv?

to me that would mean that you are saying the entire family structure that we've enjoyed for the past, oh I don't know, lets just say 2000 years are now the ways of the caveman.

I don't feel I am making a generalization when I say homosexuality goes against nature. Nature has it in the cards for us humans to reproduce sexually. To me when a couple wants to conceive a child any other way it is "un-natural" (not to say that's a bad thing cause it's not) but it doesnt go along with the natural order of things.

I'm sure nature would evolve and survive if every man on earth turned into elton John but compared to humans of today it would be unatural.

Manedew · « **Reply #100 on:** June 25, 2005, 07:29:41 PM »

No i'm saying it's diversity... it's nature tryign new paths

Quote

they wouldn't be homosexual now if they are having sex with both genders now would they.

You ignore Love, which is central to marriage and possibly an emotion unique to Humans.

What if a bi-sexual person falls in love with a person of the 'same sex'

Proably not a problem with monkies

Quote

I respect that this is your POV but are you saying that becoming gay is the way humans are to evolv?

Maybe evolution is makeing sure that we don't need to be asexual, or whatever.

You assume a whooooole lot to make your points IMHO

My point is basicly ... don't assume.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #101 on:** June 25, 2005, 07:33:33 PM »

Manedew,

I just go back on the basics of survival I guess. Homosexuals have no place in a species trying to survive and propagate. I veiw it as a vanity (anomaly) that shows up when humans are at their peak and don't have to worry about being fed or reproducing.

I don't think I'm assuming much in the above statement but hey that's just me.

Manedew · « **Reply #102 on:** June 25, 2005, 08:00:52 PM »

I point out how bi-sexuality can make a speicies actually reproduce better.

Tho's monkies have big testicals, likely from thier bi-sexuality

......
Then you turn around and ignore the problem of Love that humans have.

........

ethier your not reading my stuff .... or your logic fails me.

SOB · « **Reply #103 on:** June 25, 2005, 08:11:55 PM »

Actually, GS, your analogy to "black only" marriages doesn't fit. This wouldn't be a special right just for homosexuals. Just as you say the current definition of marriage gives the same rights to hetero and homosexuals, allowing two men or two women to marry would give that same right to hetero or homosexuals. It'd still be marriage, and you'd be just as free to marry a man as a homosexual man would be.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #104 on:** June 25, 2005, 08:32:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SOB
Actually, GS, your analogy to "black only" marriages doesn't fit. This wouldn't be a special right just for homosexuals. Just as you say the current definition of marriage gives the same rights to hetero and homosexuals, allowing two men or two women to marry would give that same right to hetero or homosexuals. It'd still be marriage, and you'd be just as free to marry a man as a homosexual man would be.

but as you are saying we'd be changing/redefining current law to include a special group. we'd be creating laws just for gays.

If we created civil unions for EVERYONE i'd be fine with that. It doesnt redefine Marriage and it doesnt give special rights to minority groups

PS

why do people reply to me as GS. It reminds me of GSscholz. I'd prefer guns if it's all the same but oh well.