To those that think gay marriage is wrong...Moving video

Originally posted by markosity1973

These same arguments will be used by lawyers arguing for an incestual or polygamist marriage.

That was my point. Its what I would do if I were a lawyer. Once that barrier comes down no court of law would be able to deny either of these due to discrimination.

This is not meant to detract from the OP but just a side point since you brought it up. Now you may or may not be fine with this but it will happen and there are court cases pending as we speak on both of these issues.

I get where you are coming from and polygamy is one of those grey issues. It isn't my cup of tea, but at the end of the day if you were to argue it on pure religious grounds, then as with incest, there is plenty of precedent for it.

I think the legal precedent for incest would not be so strong due to the very real problem of inbreeding, which is why the law came in to practice in the first place. However, on religious grounds once again one can argue a point for it strangely enough.

Actually the issue of childbearing has been addressed by the Court and forgive me for not having the case off hand. It had to do with a lawsuit by parents on their daughters marriage to a man with HIV. They contended that the offspring may be inflicted with the disease but the court ruled that a marriage cannot be denied based on the possibility of harm to a future child.

They ruled it infringed upon the couples rights and since the child was not here yet, it was irrelevant. I will try and find the specific case for you.

Even given that, suppose the woman was infertile?

How could you deny them. I personally find it disgusting but if gay marriage is adopted I will agree that these other types of marriages have to be allowed also.

It would be discrimination not to allow them and if you've ever been to the Supreme Court I'm sure you've seen the statue of the blindfolded lady holding scales.

Justice is blind regardless of the subject matter.

Originally posted by Hopechest
Actually the issue of childbearing has been addressed by the Court and forgive me for not having the case off hand. It had to do with a lawsuit by parents on their daughters marriage to a man with HIV. They contended that the offspring may be inflicted with the disease but the court ruled that a marriage cannot be denied based on the possibility of harm to a future child.

They ruled it infringed upon the couples rights and since the child was not here yet, it was irrelevant. I will try and find the specific case for you.

Even given that, suppose the woman was infertile?

How could you deny them. I personally find it disgusting but if gay marriage is adopted I will agree that these other types of marriages have to be allowed also.

It would be discrimination not to allow them and if you've ever been to the Supreme Court I'm sure you've seen the statue of the blindfolded lady holding scales.

Justice is blind regardless of the subject matter.

We are getting off subject, but I definitely see your point. However, how is it that two people of the opposite sex can marry and nobody else in the first place? This is the first precedent that needs to be looked at. Who wrote this law and on what basis did they use to form the definition of marriage?

Bet you hands down that they used a biblical interpretation to create it. Which actually means that if you use the original spirit of the law and the original document it was based upon i.e the bible, you can easily argue the case for both incest and polygamy.

This does frighten me somewhat as my own moral compass finds these things disturbing, however if we go down the justice is blind path, you are correct.

However, if science were to prove that there is no harmful consequences in the case of incest (as long as it is within the bounds of legal consenting age) I would reluctantly accept it. Polygamy is one of those personal taste things, and while I disagree with it personally, I can't see what harm it causes and it is after all still practised in parts of the world to this very day.

Originally posted by markosity1973

Originally posted by Hopechest
Actually the issue of childbearing has been addressed by the Court and forgive me for not having the case off hand. It had to do with a lawsuit by parents on their daughters marriage to a man with HIV. They contended that the offspring may be inflicted with the disease but the court ruled that a marriage cannot be denied based on the possibility of harm to a future child.

They ruled it infringed upon the couples rights and since the child was not here yet, it was irrelevant. I will try and find the specific case for you.

Even given that, suppose the woman was infertile?

How could you deny them. I personally find it disgusting but if gay marriage is adopted I will agree that these other types of marriages have to be allowed also.

It would be discrimination not to allow them and if you've ever been to the Supreme Court I'm sure you've seen the statue of the blindfolded lady holding scales.

Justice is blind regardless of the subject matter.

We are getting off subject, but I definitely see your point. However, how is it that two people of the same sex can marry and nobody else in the first place? This is the first precedent that needs to be looked at. Who wrote this law and on what basis did they use to form the definition of marriage?

Bet you hands down that they used a biblical interpretation to create it. Which actually means that if you use the original spirit of the law and the original document it was based upon i.e the bible, you can easily argue the case for both incest and polygamy.

This does frighten me somewhat as my own moral compass finds these things disturbing, however if we go down the justice is blind path, you are correct.

However, if science were to prove that there is no harmful consequences in the case of incest (as long as it is within the bounds of legal consenting age) I would reluctantly accept it. Polygamy is one of those personal taste things, and while I disagree with it personally, I can't see what harm it causes and it is after all still practised in parts of the world to this very day.

edit on 13-5-2013 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)

Well that's an easy one actually.

Society determines the rules and laws. When the institution of marriage, in the United States, was written, society determined it to be between a man and a woman.

Now if society is changing, which it always does, then homosexual unions probably will happen.

As a historian I look at trends and homosexuality was never considered taboo in the past. In fact, their is evidence from even the earliest societies that homosexuality was commonplace and not frowned upon whatsoever.

It wasn't until the boom of religion, the few hundred year period where we saw Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Confucious, that homosexuality was actually considered bad.

Societies go in circles...what's allowed one day is forbidden the next and this is a constant so perhaps we are seeing a return to our earlier days.

I'm as anxious as anyone to see how it turns out.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by markosity1973
reply to post by Hopechest

 

So your argument against gay marriage is then by taking extremely ridiculous (and illegal) scenarios

Until very recently, sodomy was ILLEGAL all over the country. I am not sure you have chosen the best argument there. If you and your boyfriend want to sodomize each other, do it in the privacy of your own bedroom. Why broadcast it all over?

Actually, strictly speaking the act of Sodomy is a referral to anal sex, something that is also practiced by some heterosexual people. So it was an act that heterosexual people could be charged with too.

Be careful not to confuse the issue of once banned a sexual position with the concept of love, as the sodomy law meant that lesbian relationships were never illegal as a result for instance. This is one of the reasons the sodomy law was repealed in NZ - it was illogical and did not cover gay relationships properly in the first place as it only meant a male homosexual relationship was illegal and only if the act of anal sex was observed.

Not asking anyone to like gay sex here, just pointing pointing out the already observed flaws with some of the laws that have been repealed.

reply to post by markosity1973


Um, I know a guy that is married to a woman and has four kids. He is very gay actually. So being married in no way keeps you from being a deviant.

Hypocrites as in "gays should have the right to marry", but polygamy is wrong because marriage should only be "between two people".

Originally posted by markosity1973

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by markosity1973
reply to post by Hopechest

 

So your argument against gay marriage is then by taking extremely ridiculous (and illegal) scenarios

Until very recently, sodomy was ILLEGAL all over the country. I am not sure you have chosen the best argument there. If you and your boyfriend want to sodomize each other, do it in the privacy of your own bedroom. Why broadcast it all over?

Actually, strictly speaking the act of Sodomy is a referral to anal sex, something that is also practiced by some heterosexual people. So it was an act that heterosexual people could be charged with too.

Be careful not to confuse the issue of once banned a sexual position with the concept of love, as the sodomy law meant that lesbian relationships were never illegal as a result for instance. This is one of the reasons the sodomy law was repealed in NZ - it was illogical and did not cover gay relationships properly in the first place as it only meant a male homosexual relationship was illegal and only if the act of anal sex was observed.

Not asking anyone to like gay sex here, just pointing pointing out the already observed flaws with some of the laws that have been repealed.

To back you up a bit I would just say there are many laws on the books that are irrelevant.

Did you know that in order to run for a government seat in Texas that you must believe in God?

No non-christians are allowed to hold office.

In Alabama, oral sex is against the law, even in your own home..

I imagine you get the point.

reply to post by Hopechest


the point is - DO NOT move to Alabama


In all seriousness the sodomy (between willing adults) laws should be struck down across the board. If it's done in private it should only be the business of those involved.

ETA - the US Military has a much broader definition of sodomy btw-

reply to post by purplemer


there are five loves


1.Mania – Manic love is almost not a love at all. The word “lust” is probably not strong enough – “obsession” is closer to the word. This is the love of possession. I “mania” that which I obsessively desire to own. It is generally seen as taking over the “lover” like insanity – thus the connection to modern concepts of madness (kleptomania, pyromania). It is like the opposite of a phobia – an obsessive need to avoid something. “Mania” is translated as “madness” and “beside yourself” in Acts 26.
1.Eros – Eros is obviously the root word for “erotic,” but it does not describe sexual love only, it actually describes all emotional love; the feeling of love. Eros love is that insatiable desire to be near the target of this love. The exciting, passionate, nervous feelings that sweep over people in the appropriate circumstances. This is the love that says “I love how you make me feel.” As an emotion, Eros changes, sometimes suddenly. Remember that it is entirely based on circumstances and on the target of its emotion. As an emotion, alone it is morally neutral, however, it can just as easily lead to lust (sinful desire) as it can passion. It is also a good picture to think of Eros as the fruit and flowers of a new relationship. Eros is not a bad thing, but it is also not a “good” thing. The word Eros does not appear in the Bible. I have some more thoughts on the way “eros” thinking affects our interaction with sex and intimacy at chrismlegg.com... .
1.Philos – Philos love, or brotherly/friendship love, is the next kind we will look at. Philos describes the love between two people who have common interests and experiences, or a fondness for. Hemophiliacs apparently seemed to ancient doctors to have a “fondness” to bleeding, for example. Unlike Eros, which pulses up and down like waves on the ocean, Philos steadily grows, like a building being constructed stone by stone. For this reason, when close friends are separated for a while and reunited, they will often say “it is like we picked up exactly where we left off.” Philos is half about the circumstances, and half about the commitment of two people to one another; it says “I love who we are together,” or in case of a non person: “I am fond of this food.” Philos love generally grows over time except in the case of some kind of betrayal. It is commonly used in the New Testament, as in Matt. 10:37, John 12:25, and Revelation 3:19.
1.Storgy – We will not spend much time here; storgy is the love one has for a dependent. It is commonly called “motherly love.” It is entirely based on the relationship between the “lover” and the “lovee.” When the dependent is no longer dependent, this love remains only in its emotional remnants. It is one of the stronger loves, because it involves a commitment that relies on only one trait of the receiver – that he or she is dependent. This type of love is toxic to a marriage under normal circumstances. Marriages that look more like a mother/son or father/daughter relationship is moving quickly downhill.
1.Agapeo – Agape love is the final of the five loves we look at here. Agape love is entirely about the lover, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the one loved. Agape love, in its purest form, requires no payment or favor in response. The most common word for God’s love for us is Agape (I John, John 3:16) and the love we are commanded to have for one another (Matt. 5:44, I Cor. 13). This lack of input from the recipient makes it possible for us to love our enemies even though we may not like them or the situation they have put us in – because Agape love is not in any way dependent on circumstances; it says “I love you because I choose/commit to.” Unlike eros or philos, Agape creates a straight line that neither fades or grows (!) in its perfect form (which of course only exists from God outward) Oddly enough, even though many people marry out of eros love alone, they make vows that speak of commitment despite any circumstance: richer/poorer, better/worse, sickness/health. This kind of love is about a commitment to the very best for another, no matter what emotions or feelings exist! You can see why in the King James Version of the Bible, Agape was usually translated as “charity.” It is a love freely given, and freely committed to. For a more in depth look at its aspects, look at I Corinthians chapter 13.
chrismlegg.com...

reply to post by 200Plus


really?
who pays for the astronomical medical bills?
HIV and AIDS?

everybody else that's who.

Originally posted by Hopechest
Well that's an easy one actually.

Society determines the rules and laws. When the institution of marriage, in the United States, was written, society determined it to be between a man and a woman.

Now if society is changing, which it always does, then homosexual unions probably will happen.

As a historian I look at trends and homosexuality was never considered taboo in the past. In fact, their is evidence from even the earliest societies that homosexuality was commonplace and not frowned upon whatsoever.

It wasn't until the boom of religion, the few hundred year period where we saw Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Confucious, that homosexuality was actually considered bad.

Societies go in circles...what's allowed one day is forbidden the next and this is a constant so perhaps we are seeing a return to our earlier days.

I'm as anxious as anyone to see how it turns out.

Yes you are correct, but most common law has it's roots in the bible. A lot of it has changed over the years, but the original concept of law and morality still traces back to there in Western society. In the middle east they very eagerly follow Sharia law in some places, which is from the Qu'ran - same concept, different set of rules.

It's only in more recent times that we have begun to wake up and question those laws as society has dared to question the validity of God in everyday mundane life.

Personally I think law should be based more on cause and effect, i.e what becomes of our actions. Therefore, if something like gay marriage is benign, why should it be illegal? There is a difference between someone not liking something because they just don't like it and it actually causing physical and / or emotional harm to a person. If we were to be able to make things illegal based on us simply not liking things, I would be at parliament protesting to get brussel sprouts made illegal for instance

Yes this does open up a pandora's chest as you have so validly pointed out, but if it can be proved that there are no ill effects in cases of other things then maybe we as a society need to rethink those things too.

However things like Pedophilia, rape and bestiality would still not stand a chance in cause and effect based law as the pyschological and physical damage it causes the victims is immense and therefore there is very definitely a negative effect on society as a result.

I guess at the end of the day marriage comes down to a religious ceremony so therefore gays should not partake.

As for legal rights, of course give them the same and let them develop their own, even better, ceremonies.

I feel they are trying to force their way into something that doesn't belong to them and wasn't made for them.

reply to post by slugger9787


Hate to tell you man, but HIV/AIDS has moved out of the homosexual population and into the community at large.

IV drug use contributes to medical bills and the HIV epidemic, we should outlaw that too...............

I think homosexual relations and marriage are wrong. That's just the way it is. It's what I believe. That's all there is to it. Do I hate homosexuals ? No. But I still think it's wrong.

reply to post by markosity1973


You can look at what else was going on around the time the religions were rising: Pandemic diseases with high mortality rates. Some European cities lost up to 90% of their population. Islam required a high population to spread to all corners of the earth, while the European and Asian nobility need high populations to work the land. It stands to reason that homosexuality should "fall from grace" during this period as it does not produce offspring. Hence, why it was considered a "crime against nature" for so long (1983ish).

Originally posted by Hopechest
I guess at the end of the day marriage comes down to a religious ceremony so therefore gays should not partake.

As for legal rights, of course give them the same and let them develop their own, even better, ceremonies.

I feel they are trying to force their way into something that doesn't belong to them and wasn't made for them.

I thought you said you didn't care whether they got married or not. Seems like you do care. Let's not allow atheist heterosexuals to marry, shall we? What about the churches who are perfectly willing to marry gays in the eyes of God?

What happen to your pragmatic view of societies evolving to accept/reject certain institutions? If our society evolves to the point of accepting gay marriage (which it is moving toward more and more every day), then who is to say that marriage doesn't belong to them?

Are you the same person who has been posting, because you are being very inconsistent.

Originally posted by Hopechest
I guess at the end of the day marriage comes down to a religious ceremony so therefore gays should not partake.

As for legal rights, of course give them the same and let them develop their own, even better, ceremonies.

I feel they are trying to force their way into something that doesn't belong to them and wasn't made for them.

Agreed, religious marriage ceremonies should only for those who believe in the religious system. The gay community needs to take a step back from religion and give it the respect it deserves. After all, religion is a way of life for billions of people the world over.

The religious community on the other hand needs to understand that you cant simply wish gay people away. They need to understand that whatever faith they come from, their's is not the only one and that in such a connected world as we live today, tolerance is the key word our existence.

Tolerance does not mean that anyone has to give up what they believe or change their own personal beliefs, it simply asks that we admit that other people think in other ways and as long as we all follow the common law of the land we can all get co-exist.

For the religious, think of it this way; You already believe that gay people are going to hell, so why make their life in this world harder than it needs to be? You will not be judged for the actions of another person, unless you are directly responsible for them, so what's the harm in letting gay people have the same rights as you do?

reply to post by markosity1973


Thank you sir for a very informative discussion. Its been a pleasure to talk about a serious issue with someone who sees all sides.

Thank you for that.

I don't know... all this talk about gays being hypocrites because they don't like people being intolerant of them -- if I had people all my life coming up to me and telling me that everything about who I am is wrong, several times a day, day in and day out, month after month, year after year, for many years -- I think I would get a little annoyed by that. Especially when I haven't hurt anyone. And then on top of that, knowing that many of these same people specifically tried to keep me from being treated equally under the law - I'd get a little hyper-sensitive about it too.

I'm getting so tired of this circular logic of "you shouldn't be intolerant of my intolerance". Why is it okay for everyone else to be intolerant?

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by markosity1973

 

You can look at what else was going on around the time the religions were rising: Pandemic diseases with high mortality rates. Some European cities lost up to 90% of their population. Islam required a high population to spread to all corners of the earth, while the European and Asian nobility need high populations to work the land. It stands to reason that homosexuality should "fall from grace" during this period as it does not produce offspring. Hence, why it was considered a "crime against nature" for so long (1983ish).

Good point, but with the world's population now well and truly at the point where we have no worries about humanity dying out and whether there will be enough slaves to support our dynasties, these reasons are nowadays rather invalid.

In fact it could actually be argued in countries where the one and two children policies are enforced that if gay relationships were actually allowed, other families could have more children and the population would remain stable.

In Japan for instance, there is this rather heart breaking cemetary where all the women go and mourn for the children they have had to abort because of their population laws. Imagine the difference it would make in ordinary people's lives if gay relationships were openly allowed and the heterosexual couples were allowed to have the babies that the gay couples could not.

Click here for more information.