S.F. Gives finger to Feds, Ok's same sex marriages...

[train]

won't take what personally chocobo?... (really wondering...)

and just a note - I used ot be catholic, and am no longer blinded by the oppression found within it's grasp...

now - is there any non-organized religion?...

 

[chocobo_cid]

Has anyone pointed out that most religions are oppressive?...

great example - Catholicism...

from the lord through pope and on down to the priests - it's all about how high you are on the chain...

The Church is recieving significant flak from all sides for everything, from the consistent view on abortion to the priests that betrayed the trust of parishoners. Just because it is consistent with the positions on the issues, the Church is labeled as opressive. Remaining adamant despite adversity, in my opinion, should be considered a virtue.

It is an interesting point that, while many figures in fiction that are potrayed as praised heroes and protaganists have these traits, when people try to live up to this ideal, they are decried as unchanging, stubborn, and "not keeping up with the times."

Or Opressive.

 

[train]

I wasn't talking about any of those current issues within the church - or the bashing it's taking for them...

I'm talking about the hierarchy it's psotions hold above the parish members...

"G-O-S-P-E-L O-F S-T. T-H-O-M-A-S"

 

[chocobo_cid]

Originally posted by train
I wasn't talking about any of those current issues within the church - or the bashing it's taking for them...

I realize that. I was only trying to explain my reasoning.

 

[mythosx]

Originally posted by Istanbul
*snicker* Uh, mythosx? I'm afraid that argument doesn't exactly help your case. Falls under the same category as "everyone's equal, as long as they're white" or "every man was created equal, sorry ladies".

Marriage itself is neither just or unjust. It simply IS. What's unjust is telling people that because they're not like you, they can't have the same rights and protections that the government gives you.

Yes it does, not voting for blacks and women isn't the same thing. Because people werent allowed to do the same things others were. This case they are allowed to do the same thing as everyone else but they want to do something different.

The most free thinking society of all time also had the most rampant and publicly accepted acts of homosexuality were the Greeks. Even they did not challenge the institution of marriage. As gay as socrates, plato, and aristotle were, they didnt try to marry men, but still had wives. Anyways, we are debating the wrong issue here. The bottom line of the arguement is decided by whether or not homosexuality is a genetic trait. I haven't seen any solid evidence for either side of the arguement. All research is biased. This isn't skirting the issue. If you can't understand that there isn't a reason why you should be posting here. Marriage is a choice and as a choice people can make the wrong choices. We limit other groups from this choice, i.e. minors, animal philes, cousin/sibling/and other incestious messes. And unless you fight for cousin lovin, you are just randomly drawing your line at homosexuality. There is no point in debating issues with situational ethics and relative morality because in a few days, months or years, your positions might change.

 

[Istanbul]

Originally posted by mythosx
Yes it does, not voting for blacks and women isn't the same thing. Because people werent allowed to do the same things others were. This case they are allowed to do the same thing as everyone else but they want to do something different.

The most free thinking society of all time also had the most rampant and publicly accepted acts of homosexuality were the Greeks. Even they did not challenge the institution of marriage. As gay as socrates, plato, and aristotle were, they didnt try to marry men, but still had wives. Anyways, we are debating the wrong issue here. The bottom line of the arguement is decided by whether or not homosexuality is a genetic trait. I haven't seen any solid evidence for either side of the arguement. All research is biased. This isn't skirting the issue. If you can't understand that there isn't a reason why you should be posting here. Marriage is a choice and as a choice people can make the wrong choices. We limit other groups from this choice, i.e. minors, animal philes, cousin/sibling/and other incestious messes. And unless you fight for cousin lovin, you are just randomly drawing your line at homosexuality. There is no point in debating issues with situational ethics and relative morality because in a few days, months or years, your positions might change.

So, let me get this straight.
If some people aren't allowed to do things that others are, that's wrong, correct?
I'm glad you've finally come over to my side of thinking and come out in support of homosexual marriage. Because some people (homosexuals) aren't being allowed to do things that others (heterosexuals) are.

Minors and animals are not capable of giving consent. Homosexuals are. Therefore, that point is invalid. It was invalid the first time you made it, and it's invalid this time too. Try a new avenue.

 

[mythosx]

Respond to the cousin poking argument. And how can you deny a person the right to make consent? A child is still a person. Isn't that by your definition of wrong? Homosexuals can get married, I never said they can't only they can get married to a person of the opposite sex, just like me.

 

[Istanbul]

Ah, I see. So it's only okay to get married the way YOU say is okay. Because of how YOU do things, other people should have their rights limited. Because offering homosexuals the right to marry people of the opposite sex is a farce and an insult, and I *really* hope you know that.

What's more, I really hope you actually understand why a child can't be considered to be able to give consent in a legal context. If not, better keep you away from the elementary schools.

 

[mythosx]

Originally posted by Istanbul
Ah, I see. So it's only okay to get married the way YOU say is okay. Because of how YOU do things, other people should have their rights limited. Because offering homosexuals the right to marry people of the opposite sex is a farce and an insult, and I *really* hope you know that.

What's more, I really hope you actually understand why a child can't be considered to be able to give consent in a legal context. If not, better keep you away from the elementary schools.

sigh, anyways, I do understand. But the creed against oppression is this...you can not discriminate against age, race, or sex. What you are arguing for violates non of these but what you do care about is something that you arent supposed to oppress. Anyways you still havent responded to the cousin loving thing so I am going to assume that you have yielded.

Let me guess your profile istanbul, anywhere from 16-22, high-school education and/or some college. Havent taken a debate class, ethics class, or philosophy class.

You are actually doing your side more harm by missing the issue completely. It goes much deeper than a lousy marriage certificate. I suggest you do some more research.

 

[Notepad]

Geez man, you seem really hung up on the whole cousin thing. Do you have a lot of hot relatives or something?

Besides, in many countries it actually is legal to poke/marry/whatever relatives as close as first cousins. Funny enough, an episode of Jerry Springer really hit the nail on the ethics of why this nation doesn't condone cousin-boinking. It is for the good of families, so that they don't have to live with wondering about who in their own households is eyeing them when they bend over or whatnot. Imagine the whole "can I use the restroom!?! I just need to pee *REAL BAD* and you're in the shower!" scenario if you have to wonder if the relative is actually casing you. *shudder* And if you don't want to accept the view of one of the most crass philosphers of the modern age, there is always the whole genetics case where cousins can and do pass on faulty genes like extra toes and whatnot.

As for the child/consent thing, it's scary that was even brought up. Istanbul was right on about the consent thing. The cousin argument was much more valid in comparison to gay marriage, though not quite on the mark. However, if you want to see more psychosis with world views, check out www.ageofconsent.com (I think its .com and not .org or something.) Pretty strange laws all over the place, even in the US. It can also let you know how homosexuality is legally viewed in the different states or around the world.

 

[Istanbul]

America was founded because the British were oppressing them religiously. In essence, America exists because of the idea that telling people that they can or can't do something based on your religious beliefs is wrong.

For a very long time, black people were slaves. But eventually, America grew past that prejudice. For a very long time, women were basically property. But eventually, America grew past that prejudice too. As time has gone on, America has gradually evolved to the point that race and gender no longer limit what you can or can not do with your life.

It is well past time that America grows past its prejudice against homosexuals. It is the next step in the slow social evolution of this country from a hypocritically oppressive theocracy into a fair and just assemblage of some of the more enlightened minds in the free world.

Homosexual marriage won't hurt heterosexuals. You can't argue that you're "protecting the integrity of the institution of marriage", because allowing homosexuals to marry each other will not damage the institution of marriage. It won't suddenly become more difficult for heterosexuals to marry, nor will it cause them to be denied any benefits of that union.

Nor can you make any arguments based on religion or faith. If you do, you are attempting to use your faith to decide what other people...people who may or may not believe as you do...are allowed to do. That is the very worst kind of shoving your religion down someone's throat, the kind that oppresses innocent people and denies them rights that others enjoy.

mythosx, you have yet to give one good reason that you feel homosexuals should not be allowed to marry that stood up to scrutiny. Everything you have said has either been an attempt to depersonify homosexuals, an argument based on your personal religious beliefs, or an erroneous claim that somehow, allowing homosexuals to marry will harm the institution of marriage.

I have called you to task on multiple points upon which you have made grievous errors.
You have incorrectly defined 'oppression' as being based only on age, sex, or religion. Look up the word in the dictionary sometime.
You have recently attempted to assume facts about me which are significantly off-the-mark.
You have utterly failed to produce any quotes from the bible that claim that homosexuality is a perversion, when asked to do so.
You have claimed that calling you a jackass is an infringements of your rights, which it most definitely is not - you would know this, if you actually knew what your rights were.
You have accused me of 'dogging' your faith, but when I pointed out that I never did so, you had no evidence to offer to contradict me.
You have referred to homosexuals of being 'of ill mind', but have failed to bring forth any evidence to that regard.
You have claimed that research suggesting that homosexuality is genetic is 'biased', but failed to bring forth any evidence to that regard as well.
You have claimed that the homosexual marriage would be a marriage of convenience that existed only for tax breaks, ignoring the hundred or so protections posted on page 1 of this very topic that heterosexual married couples enjoy, that homosexual couples currently can not.

In short, virtually everything you say seems to boil down to unfounded, unsupported, and blatantly inaccurate statements, followed closely by 'I'm Christian, so homosexuals shouldn't have rights.'

Well, you win. I give up.

Over the course of discussing this topic with you for I-forget-how-long now, I have come to the realization that you have decided to cling to your opinion, regardless of how unfounded, unjust, and ill-conceived it is, both in foundation and in execution. No amount of factual evidence, moral appeals, or attempts to appeal to your rational side will sway you from your unshakable opinion, no matter how unable you are to support it.

My patience with you has reached its end. There is no point in continuing to discuss this matter with you - your mind is closed. I will rattle your cage no longer.

May God have mercy on your soul.

 

[Spiderman]

Wow, lots of stuff from yesterday that I missed. Here's where I try to catch up

mythosx:

Discrimination based upon prefrence isn't discrimination. We discriminate and make laws against poor decisions all the time. We discriminate against druggies, alcholics, violent criminals. As long as any thing you do is a decision, we can "discriminate" against it. The government makes rules against poor decisions all the time. Jay walking, Drug intake and possession. Criminals can say your oppressing them by not letting them steal. Ted Bundy can say you are oppressing him by not letting him eat human flesh. This is of course an extreme end. It's not discrimination if its a choice. Everyone can understand this, even the homosexual community. That's why they fight so hard to say it is a genetic trait. That's why their opponents fight so hard to say its not. Why is it that people on this site can't seem to understand that?

I'll agree with this although I was unaware that homosexuals were using the "genetic trait" as justification for stopping discrimination. Where did you find this?

We have equal rights, we all can marry anyone we want as long as they are of the opposite sex. We all have that equal right.

And why stop "at the opposite sex"?

Yes it does, not voting for blacks and women isn't the same thing. Because people werent allowed to do the same things others were. This case they are allowed to do the same thing as everyone else but they want to do something different.

It IS the same thing. It's not allowing a subset to do what "everyone else" is doing. There's nothing "different" about it.

Anyways, we are debating the wrong issue here. The bottom line of the arguement is decided by whether or not homosexuality is a genetic trait. I haven't seen any solid evidence for either side of the arguement. All research is biased. This isn't skirting the issue. If you can't understand that there isn't a reason why you should be posting here. Marriage is a choice and as a choice people can make the wrong choices. We limit other groups from this choice, i.e. minors, animal philes, cousin/sibling/and other incestious messes. And unless you fight for cousin lovin, you are just randomly drawing your line at homosexuality. There is no point in debating issues with situational ethics and relative morality because in a few days, months or years, your positions might change.

Again, need for info on that genetic trait argument thing. 'Cause this is the first time you've thrown that in.

Isty and SeFRo kinda already covered this angle, but some groups are excluded because of their ability to decide things on their own. It's the same reason why there's a juvenile court vs being charged as an "adult" no matter what your age (although that's obviously changing as more teenagers are being charged as adults, since it's being determined more and more that they know what they're doing). But juvenile homosexuals under the age of consent would be barred from marrying each other, just the same as juvenile heterosexuals.

The cousin thing is more due to society's repugnance against incest, which comes from proven results of mixing genes of the same family. Abstractly, there's nothing really wrong with it either.

DUke:

Actually, there is no need to argue anymore. What's done is done. Now that it has become legal somewhere, it will certainly catch like wildfire in the rest of the world. I give it few years.

All opinions from this point on are superfluous; and are, at best, only intellectual activities.

This is fairly true, unless it becomes unlegal and it has to start over again.

 

[Notepad]

The genetics of homosexuality is new to your Spidey? Wow, I guess it's only really used in Christian circles then, because when I think back that's all I've seen it used around.

I'd say there's some basis to the argument--whether homosexuality is genetic, or if its a result of some trauma or even a choice. There are good arguments for both sides as to which it really is. (which likely means its both...some are born gay and some are raped by their uncles and turned gay from the trauma).

If the latter option is proven to be the case, however, then it means homosexuality is more akin to mental disorder like shellshock or ADD or neurosis, etc. In that case, people are not granted rights just because of their disorders. People with Turret's Syndrome (sp?) are not given special or equal rights just because their brain behavior is different (by this I mean a person with Turret's Syndrome would possibly be restricted from going into a classroom or a church or something. not trying to say they're restricted from marriage or anything.). So by extension, homosexuality is something to be worked on and "hopefully cured" rather than seen as a category of who you are like gender and race.

The fault in this whole line of argument, however, is saying that you can only be discriminated on the basis of genetics. Determining homosexuality to be a choice or something you've been forced into doesn't discredit gay's abilities to have rights. After all, religion is a choice or something you're forced into, and mainstream it is viewed as something you can be discriminated against because of.

mythosx has himself stated how he's been harassed on the basis of religion. I'd say what those folks did to him is blatant discrimination.

So then, people can suffer based on choices. Which leaves only the "if homosexuality is a trauma..." portion of the argument. If it is a result of trauma, then yes, the religious circles are right in that there should be counselling to help people who've been traumatized into being homosexual. However, it should be a choice for therapy, instead of a "You're gay, so get up on this electroshock machine here." We can't force people out of being who their life experiences have made them into, after all.

And in that case, homosexuality would become a choice.

Then again, this is all on the grounds that homosexuality is not genetic. And at this point the whole thing becomes just as much of a debate quagmire as the whole issue of gay rights itself. Just with a heaping dose of science added into the philosophy and sociology of it all.

Which is probably why this argument isn't so mainstream.

 

[Spiderman]

No no, I know of the theory that homosexuality is genetic. What I didn't know what that it was being used as the argument for gay marriage (or discrimination). Everything I've read was for equal rights as given to hetero marriages.

 

[train]

Blanket statement... if genes were being used as a basis for discrimination - it's no different than color of skin...

 

[chocobo_cid]

Originally posted by Istanbul
America was founded because the British were oppressing them religiously.

Not really. What people think of as the progenitor of our country, the Pilgrims were far from the first to come over and establish a colony on this contitent.

Also America was founded not for the protections of religion, but instead for those of property protection and stability in property values, as all of the of the forefathers were rich Virginian landowners.

The first official mandate of the protections of the first Amendment, counting neither Paine's Common Sense nor the establishment of various seperate colonies that condoned a specific religion (Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Maryland are such colonies,) was when the Bill of Rights was passed decades after the beginning of conflict between Britain and her American Colonies.

America was founded not for the grand ideals that you may think, so your point is invalid. It would be invalid anyway, considering that the ideology for which people think America was founded upon have little to no relevance in this discussion. Opinions change; lets hope this happens in this case.

 

[mythosx]

The reason I bring up all those seemingly obscure far fetched and abstract arguments are not because I am for pedophilia, animaphilia, or incest. Far from it, I brought it up because I wanted to show you that some of you are arbitrarly drawing lines randomly at homesexuallity. You are randomly deciding that you can accept certain things and not others. There is no debating with such a person. Whether or not you concede this, the fact is you are using your own faith or belief system just as badly as you are accusing your opponents.

Most everyone can agree with the blanket argument of Uncontrollable factors vs. Choice. No one ever argues about this because it is a fact which we don't have the answer to as of yet. But when we do have this fact, one side will basically be right while the other has to admit that it was wrong all this time.

As far as non religious reasons for not suppporting homosexuality if it is a choice. Here are two...

I am a human being, and as living being I have this instinct of survival and propegating my race. Homosexuality undermines that. So I don't want to support it. If you are a naturalist aethist, you can appreciate that argument. It isn't that far fetched.

Sodomization hurts the human body. The government has the right to step in to keep someone from hurting himself. Same rational as why we have anti suicide laws.

 

[Notepad]

Originally posted by mythosx
I am a human being, and as living being I have this instinct of survival and propegating my race. Homosexuality undermines that. So I don't want to support it. If you are a naturalist aethist, you can appreciate that argument. It isn't that far fetched.

Good point on a naturalist argument. Then again, polygamy should be supported under such logic, because the more females a strong male mates with, the better off the species is.

Polygamy, now there's something you'd be better off using as a "how can you draw lines here and not there?" argument. It works much better by comparison than incest, or for that matter, it works much better in comparison than beastiality or pedophilia.

I'd have an argument for drawing the line at homosexuality, but you know what? I left my rhetoric book at school...and um, I'm not smart enough to make my own argument in this matter.

Just a note though, mythosx, you're better off sticking with polygamy and incest as an argument for line drawing.

Originally posted by mythosx
Sodomization hurts the human body. The government has the right to step in to keep someone from hurting himself. Same rational as why we have anti suicide laws.

Why is it sodomy is always brought up in gay arguments? What if two gay dudes blow each other because they don't like the discomfort of sodomy? Or hell...this is only half the friggen equation here. What of lesbians? Nothing inherently painful about their relationships.

Mmmm...lesbians...

Suicide is hardly comparable to sodomy. Yes, there is a huge risk of problems involved in sodomy, but then again, same with many legal body mutilations that go on for pleasure, statement, or sometimes health reasons. Circumcision? Tattoos? Piercings? Vasectomy? Hell, plastic surgery, implants, dental corrections?

 

[Spiderman]

It's true, we're drawing the line at different points. <shrug>

I am a human being, and as living being I have this instinct of survival and propegating my race. Homosexuality undermines that. So I don't want to support it. If you are a naturalist aethist, you can appreciate that argument. It isn't that far fetched.

Sodomization hurts the human body. The government has the right to step in to keep someone from hurting himself. Same rational as why we have anti suicide laws.

SeFRo covered the second pretty well. About the first, let me ask you this: are you against vasectomies and the female equivalent when they are done for the purpose of stopping procreation? Do you disapprove of those people who chose not to have children and thus propogate the human race?

What about a gay man donating his sperm to a female or a gay female either donating her egg or getting artifically inseminated so they can have kids?

 

[chocobo_cid]

"Choice" implies that Homosexuality is a choice, though it isn't. There have been documented cases of animals that have tried to indulge in homosexual unions.

I don't know about you, but I think that if animals, as they have no discernable ability to make conscious decisions are able to be homosexual, that makes a pretty good argument for homosexuality being just as natural as heterosexuality. Though children cannot be produced in a purely homosexual union without adoption or artificail insemination, they still occur naturally.