TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Major Victory for Gay Rights
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

I am admittedly not a deeply religous person, my view on this is that as unfathomable the idea of same-sex marraige may seem to some, the main argument centers around the definition of marraige versus the rights of gays under the laws in relation to this definition. If marraige is a strict union of man and woman by law then there will always be those who frown upon the idea of gay marraiges. I personally feel that two individuals who pay taxes, serve their country and are protected under the laws of the constitution should be able to have this choice. The situation is vastly more complex than this of course, but I feel that ultimately gays are an intrical part of society, like any other citizen and deserves the rights that come along with that including to marry.

NYCTrancefan, but why? the purpose of marriage is to have kids and create a good environment for them to grow up in - hence the "tax breaks" and other legal manevours in favor of marriage (of course there are also some which are detremental to it). So if the purpose of marriage is to get people to make children and raise them in a proper fashion why should gay people be recongized with this liberty when they can't make children or raise them?

quote:

Originally posted by Shad0wmaster "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," he said. "Today's decision ... violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage." ^^^^ what a twat.

if bush really wants to defend the sanctiity of marriage, then ban the ability to get divorce! what happen until death do us apart? arent half the marriages in the states end up in divorces, most of which are in the south? heh I believe Bush's brother-in-law is getting a divorce at the moment

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus NYCTrancefan, but why? the purpose of marriage is to have kids and create a good environment for them to grow up in - hence the "tax breaks" and other legal manevours in favor of marriage (of course there are also some which are detremental to it). So if the purpose of marriage is to get people to make children and raise them in a proper fashion why should gay people be recongized with this liberty when they can't make children or raise them?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage

take note of 1d and 3, which I agree with

yes the purpose of marriage is to have kids, and raise them in a "proper fashion", just look at Bush's kids or how about all the abandoned children who wish they had a parent(s)

quote:

Originally posted by rizen if bush really wants to defend the sanctiity of marriage, then ban the ability to get divorce! what happen until death do us apart? arent half the marriages in the states end up in divorces, most of which are in the south? heh I believe Bush's brother-in-law is getting a divorce at the moment

I don't know if most are in the south or not, its the first time I heard this and I'm not sure I believe it. The divorce rate is defintely a problem. Of course your not going to make anything worse with extremism, but perhaps a greater cost for the ceremony of marriage might do the trick. Some marriages, such as those under Catholisim are very restrictive and divorces are extremely shunned. Problem with marriages is it is hard to restrict them in a legal sense, its the dominion of the state, but it has great implications on the federal level, thats the problem.

quote:

yes the purpose of marriage is to have kids, and raise them in a "proper fashion", just look at Bush's kids or how about all the abandoned children who wish they had a parent(s)

Sure, Bush's kids came out much better then Clinton's child living under a sham of a marriage (an "undeclared divorce")

No but seriously you can't draw minor examples to prove it general incorrect. There have been dozens of study that show that a family with a male and female parent have produced more favorable circumstanes for their children then say a one parent family, especially for the poor.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I just thought of this one; Marriage is supposed to be a sacred bond between a man and a women. If we now allow this bond to be between a man and a man, or women and women, then how come we can not allow this bond to be made between say two men and one women, or perhaps one man and three women? Won't this be the same logic, we are discriminating against polygomous people? After all they are consenting adults as well? I'm curious what logic one could use to agree with the first instance but not the latter. I guess you would have to give up to both.

�Marriage is supposed to be a sacred bond between a man and a woman.� According to whom? God? This is precisely the reason I don�t believe government has any business sanctioning marriage at all.

quote:

Now for the real rant: Now, I hate to bring the conservative angle in, but I will, and first let me state that I am perfectly cool with gays. I have no problems with their lifestyle, and don't mind if they have lifepartners or what not. My boss is gay, and one of the coolest bosses I know. Marriage is the historical fundamental building block of society. I do believe in a strong family is essential to create well minded educated and proper individuals and citizens. Marriage creates the strength of the family, this strength was historically explained by religious or cultural authority. Marriage's purpose is to provide a strong stable structure for the production ()and raising of children. Without marriage, I believe the environment a child grows in is detremental. This strong stable structure is also provided by the monogomous relationship between man and women. When you look at it from this perspective - that marriage is the institution of family it brings context into who should have a "right" to marriage. The government interest should be to create well educated proper citizens, this is best done by re-enforcing the strength and institution of marriage. As such, as Occrider noted many benifits are given to married couples as to support this instiution.

In a society which values freedom, that is, the freedom of individuals, there can be only one fundamental building block, and that is the individual. Not the family, or the race, or the commune or the church. You can certainly believe that the family is essential to creating an optimized citizenry. However, unless you can substantiate these beliefs with empirical evidence which can be objectively analyzed for the establishment of direct causality, then such a belief is not a valid criterion upon which to formulate the legal code of a free society.

Here in the United States, for example, there are many people who believe that a strict Christian upbringing is essential to producing a citizenry which exhibits ethical behavior. This belief, however, is by no means a justification to require individuals to raise their children in accordance with Christian ideals, nor to provide those individuals who choose to do so with tax breaks.

quote:

Now if the government were to bestow the "right" (is it really a right?) to marry between man and man, and women and women, it would weaken any significane of the insitution. No longer will it stand for what it has historically, if it simply a symbol of "love" and not the institution of family. From here you are on a dangerous path to a cultural forgetfulness of the value and utility of this institution of marriage; I will believe marriage will continue in its high divorce rates and pathetic understanding of its vows if such a hypocratic allowance as to allows gay marriage is added to it. The only exception to this rule I can forsee is of a gay couple who intends to adopt or has adopted, in this regard I believe it as vital for that couple to marry as any other to reinforce their strength and provide a stable environment for the child. Still one can either make an exception in allowing gays with children to be allowed to marry (I wouldn't do this as it would introduce some great legal loopholes I am sure), or simply ignore this problem hoping a personal ceremony of lifelong commitment between the two individuals will suffice. To recap, marriage is a vital instution for a society - without it the value of family degrades and in such the value of the well educated, stable, and proper indivdual, in turn the degredation of the society itself. To avoid degradation to marriage and hence society, don't degrade it.

This hypocrisy of the conservative position never ceases to amaze me. The same people who ardently oppose the imposition of economic programs which socialists believe are necessary to benefit society are eager to embrace the notion that an arbitrary set of values, which they believe are necessary to benefit society, ought to be imposed or encouraged upon the individuals residing in the society.

It is precisely the same argument, just in social terms instead of economic ones. One can either embrace both, as Hobbes and Mussolini would have. Or neither, as anyone who values individual freedom does. To take any other position seems to me to be logically inconsistent.

To the credit of the socialists, at least many of the programs they advocate produce, as a direct result, clear observable benefits to some individuals. The moral authoritarianism of the conservative position, on the other hand, provides little or no objectively analyzable evidence to support their supposition that marriage, or any other set of arbitrary moral standards, produces any benefits to society, or any members of society, at all.

Now, whether in the case of socialism the ends are sufficient to justify the means is highly debatable. I, for one, do not believe so. Ergo, even if the conservatives could demonstrate in precise terms exactly how the traditional institution of marriage and, by extension, family is providing some benefit to society, I still doubt I would be persuaded that these benefits are sufficient to justify the usurpation of the individual freedom to choose whatever lifestyle, in accordance with respect for the natural rights of others, one wishes to partake in.

Regards,

Arbiter

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter �Marriage is supposed to be a sacred bond between a man and a woman.� According to whom? God? This is precisely the reason I don�t believe government has any business sanctioning marriage at all.

Your right, I would agree to leave marriage in the realm of religion. But even then you have religions such as the Mormans where polygomy is ok, what do you do then?

Again most families have children in hetrosexual relationships:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/digest98/d98t018.asp

This probably will not hold true with homosexual relationships.

quote:

In a society which values freedom, that is, the freedom of individuals, there can be only one fundamental building block, and that is the individual.

But where do individuals come from? and who are individuals? are children individuals? Not according to the law they are not, they are under custodianship from their parents till they become of legal "individual" age. What are parents, who has the right to determine this custodianship?

According to your very extreme view, no one. The family has no value in the creation of individual as you only recongize the individual and not its creation. You must also realize that the government decides who is an individual, so why can they not decide what a family is?

They do. The government (both federal and state) recongize households and use this to determine taxes and so forth, I believe they should proceed in this way. Currently most government agencies recognize just 3 different types of family households:
1) with two parents (male/female)
2) with one parent (male)
3) with one parent (female)

The government also decides who an individual is. A criminal is not an individual, someone who is severly mentally ill is not an individual, children are not inviduals and so forth. Why do I say this, because all these "individuals" do not share or enjoy the same rights are recongized "individual" consenting adults. Those not classified as individual have their constitutional rights removed in many cases. Neither children, criminals, or the mentally ill can vote for example - a constitutional right.


So yes the creation of the invidual is very important for society. In American society there is typically only one way to raise individuals and that is through family. From here it is argued that families that are more stable produce better environments for their children and hence better individuals.

There are several studies relating two-parent families to the well being of society, such as an increase in their children's education, reduction of crime and so forth compared to one parent families (the alternative to marriage).

quote:

Here in the United States, for example, there are many people who believe that a strict Christian upbringing is essential to producing a citizenry which exhibits ethical behavior. This belief, however, is by no means a justification to require individuals to raise their children in accordance with Christian ideals, nor to provide those individuals who choose to do so with tax breaks.

Of course not the government can't force anyone to do something. But it can prevent people from doing something! If a cult of alien believers abused and molested their children the government could chose to make this cult an illegal organization and prevent people from doing so. It can't however force people to join a cult of alien believers, or chistianty or whatever it be for that matter.

If you do not support the ability of a government to set up a tax plan as it choses to benifit and encourage society, then you should be completely against government subsudies, regressive income tax, welfare, education, scholarships, scientific grants, roads, etc. As all these give advantages to someone over someone else.

quote:

This hypocrisy of the conservative position never ceases to amaze me. The same people who ardently oppose the imposition of economic programs which socialists believe are necessary to benefit society are eager to embrace the notion that an arbitrary set of values, which they believe are necessary to benefit society, ought to be imposed or encouraged upon the individuals residing in the society.

You can call it hypocrisy I guess, but the conservative "position" supports public education and limited welfare - if this is not an arbitrary set of values which people believe is necessary to benifit soceity I don't know what is. They are not against the government meddling in society, I don't think a society with complete "freedom" can exist, I government will have to create education services, and encourage strong stable environments for the development of its individuals. Conservatives simply disagree in the extent this should be done - they aren't flat against it - those are libetarians.

quote:

I still doubt I would be persuaded that these benefits are sufficient to justify the usurpation of the individual freedom to choose whatever lifestyle, in accordance with respect for the natural rights of others, one wishes to partake in.

Society and government already prevent our individual freedoms with the aforementioned initiatives - add to those social security, medicare, minimum wage, industry regulation, the ability to yell fire in a crowded theatre, and a slew of other government protections. These are all if we come down to it with such a cynical approach as you restraints on our freedoms.

Marriage, just like industry regulations, or minimum wage, is something government deams worthy and hence it exists.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Sure, Bush's kids came out much better then Clinton's child living under a sham of a marriage (an "undeclared divorce")

guess you didnt get it, when was the last time Chelsea Clinton was caught drinking underage/drunk, doing drugs or getting into underage clubs like Bush's daughters? Don't forget Jeb's kids as well. also didnt Michael Reagan go through a divorce as well?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus No but seriously you can't draw minor examples to prove it general incorrect. There have been dozens of study that show that a family with a male and female parent have produced more favorable circumstanes for their children then say a one parent family, especially for the poor.

Yeah I'll agree with that, especially since my sister and I come from a poor single parent household. I'm doing well, but I can't say the same for my sister, and I had a worse friends and overall community than her growing up. There are also studies that children do worse when parents go through a divorce. While I'm not sure about the total number of same sex divorce rate, I'm confident they are alot lower

quote:

Originally posted by rizen guess you didnt get it, when was the last time Chelsea Clinton was caught drinking underage/drunk, doing drugs or getting into underage clubs like Bush's daughters? Don't forget Jeb's kids as well. also didnt Michael Reagan go through a divorce as well?

True dat, but I would rather have my kids drink and have a good time then being a stuck up bitch related to Hillary

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Now, I hate to bring the conservative angle in, but I will, and first let me state that I am perfectly cool with gays. I have no problems with their lifestyle, and don't mind if they have lifepartners or what not. My boss is gay, and one of the coolest bosses I know. Marriage is the historical fundamental building block of society. I do believe in a strong family is essential to create well minded educated and proper individuals and citizens. Marriage creates the strength of the family, this strength was historically explained by religious or cultural authority. Marriage's purpose is to provide a strong stable structure for the production ()and raising of children. Without marriage, I believe the environment a child grows in is detremental. This strong stable structure is also provided by the monogomous relationship between man and women. When you look at it from this perspective - that marriage is the institution of family it brings context into who should have a "right" to marriage. The government interest should be to create well educated proper citizens, this is best done by re-enforcing the strength and institution of marriage. As such, as Occrider noted many benifits are given to married couples as to support this instiution. Now if the government were to bestow the "right" (is it really a right?) to marry between man and man, and women and women, it would weaken any significane of the insitution. No longer will it stand for what it has historically, if it simply a symbol of "love" and not the institution of family. From here you are on a dangerous path to a cultural forgetfulness of the value and utility of this institution of marriage; I will believe marriage will continue in its high divorce rates and pathetic understanding of its vows if such a hypocratic allowance as to allows gay marriage is added to it. The only exception to this rule I can forsee is of a gay couple who intends to adopt or has adopted, in this regard I believe it as vital for that couple to marry as any other to reinforce their strength and provide a stable environment for the child. Still one can either make an exception in allowing gays with children to be allowed to marry (I wouldn't do this as it would introduce some great legal loopholes I am sure), or simply ignore this problem hoping a personal ceremony of lifelong commitment between the two individuals will suffice. To recap, marriage is a vital instution for a society - without it the value of family degrades and in such the value of the well educated, stable, and proper indivdual, in turn the degredation of the society itself. To avoid degradation to marriage and hence society, don't degrade it.

I guess this is one of those rare times when I actually agree with Yoepus. The state shouldn't get itself involved in anyone's personal sexual life, if someone wants to fuck with girls, guys, goats, dead people, or whatever, it's not the problem of the state. But what the state should do is to provide beneficencies to those people that want to have children, because it is of vital social and national interest. There's simply no reasonable explanation as to why gay people should have a tax return.

Well, if you wanna give them marriage as just a formality, then it's ok, but they shouldn't get any state subsidies for it.

AHHH, i cant wait to sse six gay men all married at once.
i think that the popes head will implode anytime now with all this going on.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa The way I see it from the point of view of Realpolitik, is that gay marriages are unavoidable because they have a strong biological basis. My guess is that because of evolution, people are vulnerable to falling in love with one person of their preferred sex. By nature, love and partnership are interwoven with their culture-specific manifestation and a legal position.

I am still yet to see any "biological" evidence of homosexuality. Of course, one would assume not to be able to find it as it goes counter to the theory of evolution (perhaps one might see bisexual, but not gay). Right now I know many people reiterate this line, but I still don't believe in the truth of it. As of date, we still really don't know what makes people gay. My personal belief is that it is 10% biological disposition, and 90% enviromental/psychological.

So as to the argument that gays have a "strong biological" basis, Where is it? and if it was this strong, how come we have not seen it in history?


On the other hand polygamy does have a strong biological basis, our physcial dimorphism tends to suggest we are/were biologically adapted to a polygamious style (1 male, many female). In fact, over the summer, I learned in my anthropology course that over 70% of human societies are polygamious. We must also rememeber that the natrual precentage of bearing a female is slightly larger then that of a male, indicating the truthfulness of this argument.

When looking at history, especially in tribal societies, and our evolutionary corse polygamy is the rule, not the exception. If over this period of million of years it has not been hardwired into our brain, then I don't know what has.

This of course explains as well why men traditionally in monogomous relationships cheat more often on their spouces, and tend to look and are attracted to other females besides their wives. You don't see many married women going into their strip bars as occasionally as men do, do you?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I am still yet to see any "biological" evidence of homosexuality. Of course, one would assume not to be able to find it as it goes counter to the theory of evolution (perhaps one might see bisexual, but not gay). Right now I know many people reiterate this line, but I still don't believe in the truth of it. As of date, we still really don't know what makes people gay. My personal belief is that it is 10% biological disposition, and 90% enviromental/psychological. So as to the argument that gays have a "strong biological" basis, Where is it? and if it was this strong, how come we have not seen it in history?

Homosexualtiy is widely seen and widely practiced in nature

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Homosexualtiy is widely seen and widely practiced in nature

No not homosexuality, bisexuality - the same can be said in our human history.

Then again, in "nature" some creatures like say a dog will hump anything he sees, and ive heard some nasty shit about donkeys too...

edit: so wait, are you now arguing for beastiality too?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus No not homosexuality, bisexuality - the same can be said in our human history. Then again, in "nature" some creatures like say a dog will hump anything he sees, and ive heard some nasty shit about donkeys too...

quote:

Same-Sex Pair Bonding in Animals Just as in humans, animals often form long-term same-sex relationships. In species in which this normally occurs in heterosexual couples, that shouldn't come as a great surprise, but it does come as a surprise in species where heterosexual pair-bonds don't normally form for long if at all. This is true of bottlenose dolphins, which are not known to form heterosexual pair bonds, but which do in fact form homosexual pair bonds, including sex, and often lasting for life. In animals in which "bachelor groups" form, such as bison, gazelles, antelope, sage grouse and Guinean cocks-of-the-rock, it is not uncommon for same sex pair bonds to form and last until one or the other member of the pair departs the relationship and breeds. It is also not uncommon for homosexual preference to form among members of such bachelor groups; when offered the opportunity to breed unencumbered with members of the opposite sex or the same sex, they choose the same sex. The human pattern of bisexuality also appears in animals. In some cases, animals prefer same sex at one point in their lives, and change preference later. They may even change back and forth. In some cases, animals may seek sex with partners of either sex at random. In animals with a seasonal breeding pattern, homosexuality can even be seasonal. Male walruses, for example, often form homosexual pair bonds and have sex with each other outside of the breeding season, but will revert to a heterosexual pattern during the normal breeding season. species | percent homosexual | percent bisexual | percent heterosexual silver gulls (females) | 10 | 11 | 79 black headed gulls (both sexes) | 22 | 15 | 63 Japanese macaques (both sexes) | 9 | 56 | 35 bonobo chimpanzees (both sexes) | 0 | 100 | 0 galahs (both sexes) | 44 | 11 | 44 source: Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D., Biological Exhuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press, 2000, page 35

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I am still yet to see any "biological" evidence of homosexuality. Of course, one would assume not to be able to find it as it goes counter to the theory of evolution (perhaps one might see bisexual, but not gay). Right now I know many people reiterate this line, but I still don't believe in the truth of it. As of date, we still really don't know what makes people gay. My personal belief is that it is 10% biological disposition, and 90% enviromental/psychological. So as to the argument that gays have a "strong biological" basis, Where is it? and if it was this strong, how come we have not seen it in history?

Well, nature is not always perfect, there are many common inherent deficiencies, like blindness or deafness. But if something is natural it doesn't mean it's always good.

quote:

On the other hand polygamy does have a strong biological basis, our physcial dimorphism tends to suggest we are/were biologically adapted to a polygamious style (1 male, many female). In fact, over the summer, I learned in my anthropology course that over 70% of human societies are polygamious. We must also rememeber that the natrual precentage of bearing a female is slightly larger then that of a male, indicating the truthfulness of this argument.

Now, you're kinda wrong here, it's actually 1.05:1 in favor of men. Women tend to dominate a bit later on because males die off more quickly.

quote:

When looking at history, especially in tribal societies, and our evolutionary corse polygamy is the rule, not the exception. If over this period of million of years it has not been hardwired into our brain, then I don't know what has. This of course explains as well why men traditionally in monogomous relationships cheat more often on their spouces, and tend to look and are attracted to other females besides their wives. You don't see many married women going into their strip bars as occasionally as men do, do you?

Yeah, well, you could say it's kinda natural for the alpha males to screw bunch of women, while those of a more recessive personality stay dry. So there is some point to the poligamy issue. But as I've already said, the state shouldn't interfere into who screws who, and in what numbers, it should only enforce the well being of a child.

quote:

But where do individuals come from? and who are individuals? are children individuals? Not according to the law they are not, they are under custodianship from their parents till they become of legal "individual" age. What are parents, who has the right to determine this custodianship? According to your very extreme view, no one. The family has no value in the creation of individual as you only recongize the individual and not its creation. You must also realize that the government decides who is an individual, so why can they not decide what a family is? They do. The government (both federal and state) recongize households and use this to determine taxes and so forth, I believe they should proceed in this way. Currently most government agencies recognize just 3 different types of family households: 1) with two parents (male/female) 2) with one parent (male) 3) with one parent (female)

I agree that the individual - for all that we praise "individualism" on these forums - is still subservient to a greater social contextuality in a lot of ways, but I don't think that the role or structure of the "family" is one of them. If the definition states that a "family" can only take on one of those three forms, then the definition is wrong. If the definition suggests that the role of the family must take on a specific form (i.e. one designated by the government/religion) then, again, it's the definition that's wrong not the occurances that fall outside its scope.

So long as there's no "abuse" (a term which has a wide-scope) or criminal mistreatment within a family, then governmental or religious institutions have no right to cast value judgements about the form it takes or the societal role it performs. Now, for me, the issues of "gay marriage" and "gay child-rearing" are entriely seperate - there's no logical inconsistency in supporting one and not the other -but this basic theme of what society has the right to dictate remains the same. Similarly, the difference between condoning gay marriage and the condoning the right to gay marriage are different issues as well: that is, it is possible to be, say, morally opposed to homosexuality while still recognising the right of an individual or a group of individuals to participate in homosexual activity and, moving from there, to recognise the legitimacy of these acts institutionally.

quote:

So yes the creation of the invidual is very important for society. In American society there is typically only one way to raise individuals and that is through family. From here it is argued that families that are more stable produce better environments for their children and hence better individuals. There are several studies relating two-parent families to the well being of society, such as an increase in their children's education, reduction of crime and so forth compared to one parent families (the alternative to marriage).

Once again, though, the issues of marriage and child-rearing are seperate. I think that, psychologically, on the whole, having two parents are better for the child than one (though this is obviously only a broad social trend and says nothing for individual cases) but what does this have to do with homosexual marriage?

No child can choose its parents. No child has any say in the situation into which it is born. The question of whether we have the right to decide which individuals are capable of determining these two issues for the child (that is by having/not having children, dictating who can and can't) is a complex one and one we're not likely to resolve it in any discussion on these boards. If we're ultimately looking out for the well-being of the child, and have the right to decide which individuals can and cannot raise a child, then we're left with issues such as: can we prevent poor people from having children? People who discipline to harshly or too meekly? Any individuals who harbour ideas not congenial to the social-adjustment of a child (which open up a new lot of questions)? Unintelligent individuals (what child would want to grow up in a dumb household)? Any individuals with a family history of genetic illness or predispositions towards illness? If we're seeking only to maximise the welfare of the child, how many people would be allowed to have children, do you think, based on these criteria? Would you be a good father, bringing up a well-adjusted child? How do you know? How can anyone know?

There are few things more immoral than a parent/parents bringing up children they have neither the will nor ability to raise, but to use this point and extend it into the suggestion that we can therefore prevent "unsuitable" individuals from having children, ultimately creates more moral dilemas than it solves.

quote:

You can call it hypocrisy I guess, but the conservative "position" supports public education and limited welfare - if this is not an arbitrary set of values which people believe is necessary to benifit soceity I don't know what is. They are not against the government meddling in society, I don't think a society with complete "freedom" can exist, I government will have to create education services, and encourage strong stable environments for the development of its individuals. Conservatives simply disagree in the extent this should be done - they aren't flat against it - those are libetarians.

In this sense I agree with you. So long as society exists, there can be no such thing as "true" individualism. One cannot exist in the frame work of a society (reaping the benefits this sort of contextuality creates) and still expect to remain independant from it, doing as one wishes. Ultimately, in any society, there needs to be a compromise between the individual (freedom) and the society (responsibility) and all social structures in the history of mankind have, in a sense, been an attempt at reconciling the two.

So I agree that society (represented by the government) has the right to dictate a certain level of values and obligations upon individuals, but we just disagree on how far this right extends, and upon what sorts values and obligations can be dictated.

quote:

The way I see it from the point of view of Realpolitik, is that gay marriages are unavoidable because they have a strong biological basis. My guess is that because of evolution, people are vulnerable to falling in love with one person of their preferred sex. By nature, love and partnership are interwoven with their culture-specific manifestation and a legal position.

And that's the crux of it right there. To suggest that hetrosexuality is the only legitimate "choice" from a moral and biological standpoint is completely unfounded. If two individuals love each other, I'm not sure that society has the right to dictate how this love is expressed (well, in this case anyway) or to evaluate the "legitimacy" of this love. However if we take this line:

quote:

But what the state should do is to provide beneficencies to those people that want to have children, because it is of vital social and national interest. There's simply no reasonable explanation as to why gay people should have a tax return.

Then it's a slightly different issue, but the same basic principle: why is the love of the hetrosexual couple more legitimate than the love of the homosexual couple? If the only reason we sanction and subsidise marriage is to give rise to the birth and rearing of children, then what about infertile couples? Can we prevent them from getting married or force them to divorce as soon as they become menopausal or have problems sustaining an erection?

The tax-status of marriage has more to do with recognising the co-dependancy of the individuals within it than encouraging the birth of children. The law in most parts of the western world offers most of the same privilages to those in de-facto relationships (i.e. co-dependants who aren't married) that they do to those in matrimonious relationships, so - again - why shouldn't these privilages be extended to homosexuals? Are there any non-moral arguments as to why this should be the case?

quote:

I am still yet to see any "biological" evidence of homosexuality. Of course, one would assume not to be able to find it as it goes counter to the theory of evolution (perhaps one might see bisexual, but not gay). Right now I know many people reiterate this line, but I still don't believe in the truth of it. As of date, we still really don't know what makes people gay. My personal belief is that it is 10% biological disposition, and 90% enviromental/psychological.

It comes back to the nature vs nurture debate, but, as Occrider said, homosexual activity has been observed in nature.

Have a read of this topic:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=106659

quote:

So as to the argument that gays have a "strong biological" basis, Where is it? and if it was this strong, how come we have not seen it in history?

Actually, up until the rise of religion (and thus, religious morality as well), homosexuality was fairly common and sometimes explicitly encouraged in enlightened societies such as ancient Rome and ancient Greece.

In ancient Sparta, because the female was seen as inferior, men were encouraged to only have sex with females only in order to procreate. Sex for "leisure" was performed almost exclusively with other males. In fact, for young men training for the army, homosexuality was seen as a masculine strength and hetrosexuality as a weakness.

It was only the millenia of religious oppression, really, that homosexuality was seen as inherently "wrong" and most of those sentiments, sadly, still exist in todays society. I'm sure that homosexuality was just as common during this period, it was merely better supressed by the religious institutions.

I just finished writing a lengthy post only to have it erased grrr, so I will post quotes from some of the people who lead the opposition to gay rights in order to give those who do not live in the United States an insight into their (sick) mentality:

quote:

"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'" --from Pat Robertson's "The New World Order," page 218.

quote:

"National Organization for Women (NOW) is saying that in order to be a woman, you've got to be a lesbian." --Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," 12/3/97

quote:

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." -- George Bush

quote:

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." --Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93

quote:

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" --Jerry Falwell talking about the Sept. 11th terror attacks

These aren't just some wackos on the street corner, their candidates control the US House, US Senate (debatable), and of course, the presidency.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Once again, though, the issues of marriage and child-rearing are seperate. I think that, psychologically, on the whole, having two parents are better for the child than one (though this is obviously only a broad social trend and says nothing for individual cases) but what does this have to do with homosexual marriage? Then it's a slightly different issue, but the same basic principle: why is the love of the hetrosexual couple more legitimate than the love of the homosexual couple? If the only reason we sanction and subsidise marriage is to give rise to the birth and rearing of children, then what about infertile couples? Can we prevent them from getting married or force them to divorce as soon as they become menopausal or have problems sustaining an erection?

I don't want to comment to much here on your comments, as they are basically the genuine rival opinion to the side I have portrayed. But the tactis you use often involve a "slipper slope". This would be the same as me saying; Families are the building block of soceity. Marriage is the bond of families. Marriage is a strong institution because of its historical and religious implication evidenced by the fact that a monogomous male and women parents build strong families. If we are to make marriage acceptable between men and men, or women and women, this would reduce its strenth. The institution of marriage would then collapse, and so would the institution of family, and hence all of society will be destoryed.

I'm not arguing that, all I am arguing it will weaken society in a nudge, because it weakens marriage and family in a nudge.
You use this slippery slope argument above, by stating, if we stop gays from marriage, who next dumb people?? poor people?? anyone we want, how can we stop it then after such a dangerous precedent is set? Well its no slope, and its surely not slippery.

Just as I doubt legalizing gay marriages will lead to beastiality or polygamy (even though I do make these points as a sort of mockery of the argument) legalization, so will not legalizing it create this precedent. After all the status quo - no gay marriages - has been the precedent for lets say oh at least a 200 years of Ameircan society, and in this time they have not restricted those people (dumb, poor, etc) from marriage. It is like saying if we don't give prisoners the right to vote, then we don't have to give it to everyone.. who will be next??? But in fact because prisoners vote, it is not a slippery slope against the rest of us from not voting.

quote:

It comes back to the nature vs nurture debate, but, as Occrider said, homosexual activity has been observed in nature. Have a read of this topic: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=106659

True, again I favor the nurture debate. I'll make this point below. But this is another argument, that really has no bearing. In essence we should all agree on this point; we don't really know.

And we can not adapt the sexual habits of animals to humans necessairly to justify morality - animals also kill their very own young, yet in our society this is completely and universally unacceptable. In our immediate ape family, the bigger the size ape the male is to the female, the more polygmous the society - yet so what does that tell us, nothing. What should we extrapolate that bigger men in our society therefore should be able to marry more women then the weaker skinny unhealthy looking ones? no it doesn't.

Occrider, also I am very skeptical in regards to your post. Yes I will concede homosexuality exist in nature, yet its prevelancy and occurance are not made known to us by such biased reasearch. Perhaps if a census of all animals was conducted we could put this in context. Most troubling to me was the inclusion of "bonobo chimpanzees (both sexes) | 0 | 100 (bisexual)| 0 " as an animal that would prove homosexuality in the wild. These certain type of chimpanzees literally jack-off instead of saying "hello" to one another. No wonder they are bisexual huh?... I guess we should adapt this into our society as well. Hello Occrider

quote:

Actually, up until the rise of religion (and thus, religious morality as well), homosexuality was fairly common and sometimes explicitly encouraged in enlightened societies such as ancient Rome and ancient Greece. In ancient Sparta, because the female was seen as inferior, men were encouraged to only have sex with females only in order to procreate. Sex for "leisure" was performed almost exclusively with other males. In fact, for young men training for the army, homosexuality was seen as a masculine strength and hetrosexuality as a weakness. It was only the millenia of religious oppression, really, that homosexuality was seen as inherently "wrong" and most of those sentiments, sadly, still exist in todays society. I'm sure that homosexuality was just as common during this period, it was merely better supressed by the religious institutions.

Ahh the field of my expertise, classics.. and especially Sparta.
First, you probably don't mean the rise of religion but monothestic religion - yet still in muslims societies we see homosexuality (again its more bisexual but still) completely tolerated (i.e. Afghanistan and camels).
Homosexual bonds amongst men in Sparta was encourage, and often cited to help bring up and educated young men (these bonds were always between a younger male playing the passive role, and a older male playing the active role).
Homosexuality in Spartan society amongst the Spartiates was very high undoubtly because of their culture. One of the ancient sources mentions that in their marriage ceremony (see even they had marriages.. again only male women despite their homosexuality) women were made to wear "fake beards" to ease the guys into having sex with women on their wedding night.
In Spartan society child rearing was very important, and you not having a wife could be argued as being much more severe then you not having a fellow lover in the barracks (which not all had).

Aside from that interesting spew of facts (i thought it was interesting anyway ) I use the example of Sparta and their high homosexuality rate to best argue that homosexuality is indeed a "nurture" phenomena, culturally and environmentally dicatated in all but the most severe cases where biological dispoistion may have a factor.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I guess this is one of those rare times when I actually agree with Yoepus. The state shouldn't get itself involved in anyone's personal sexual life, if someone wants to fuck with girls, guys, goats, dead people, or whatever, it's not the problem of the state. But what the state should do is to provide beneficencies to those people that want to have children, because it is of vital social and national interest. There's simply no reasonable explanation as to why gay people should have a tax return.

If you think it is ok to fuck dead people and the government shouldn't interfere in that then you have a problem buddy. Dead people don't have a say in what you are doing to their body....that's kinda fucked up don't you think?? that's crossing the line there! If you are fucking dead people then the I think it is the problem of the state because you shouldn't be on the street!

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa This is easy to answer from the macho world view (which I support).

somebody has been reading a little to much Nietzsche

I liked your first post, that was interesting. I still have a problem though considering the "gay gene". I always believe sexuality is a spectrum:

* I believe most people are born into here
..............................................|
..............................................|
..............................................V
super fab five gay <- - bisexual - - > straight as an arrow
.........................^
.........................|
.........................|
* biological rareity, where biology factors at birth on orientation, probably 1% or less (some say as high as 10% but I am completely skeptical of that)



I think perhpas in the extreme cases where people are "super fab five gay" biology may have a rule, but in a little off of that in say "just gay" nurture plays a greater importance.

I know I myself am straight, but I also believe if I were a young Spartiate I would probably be quiet bisexual, or even gay due to the fact that 80% or so were. When you get such large descraptancies you won't really get that many "super fab five gay" - and I'm sure all those that in Sparta were like "dud you really need to do something with that toga, here try this new goat color, it works much better for you, oh and heres a nice shinny sword to go with it! Oh you look so cute" would probably be thrown off the infamous cliff.

As for your second post, I completly disagree with that, and don't believe it really has any real true anthropoligical bearing, or truth in today's societies. We must also remember tribes were no larger then say 200, and that would be what, 1-10 gay people, not that much.

I think the only true arguments for marriage between man and wife, is its historical precedent, its religious backgrounds, and arguments about child raising. Right now we can't really make valid arguments about child raising as not enough research has matured or been conducted on this topic.

Lastly, as for the last post. I agree with you Drug Tito is a sick bastard One should not have sex with dead people or animal - those are not consenting adults.

quote:

Originally posted by PaulyPooPounder If you think it is ok to fuck dead people and the government shouldn't interfere in that then you have a problem buddy. Dead people don't have a say in what you are doing to their body....that's kinda fucked up don't you think?? that's crossing the line there! If you are fucking dead people then the I think it is the problem of the state because you shouldn't be on the street!

Hehe, I was kinda joking on this one. But as they say there's a bit of truth in every joke. I do think that people who fuck dead people should be thrown into a loony house, but since dead people are inanimate objects, there's really no harm being done.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Hehe, I was kinda joking on this one. But as they say there's a bit of truth in every joke. I do think that people who fuck dead people should be thrown into a loony house, but since dead people are inanimate objects, there's really no harm being done.

Yes that's true to a certain extent .... I guess if no one finds out but hey I wouldn't like to be a family member finding out something like that out......

with if they die during sex, and you keep fucking them, is that still immoral?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.