|
Gay Marrages (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| arctic |
Then again, sticking easter eggs up ones ass in public is a lot different to having sex with someone of, well, the same sex. The latter is not nesecarily unlike hetrosexual sex, it's still performed between two people, prefferably in the privacy of one's own home. :p
Two people of the same sex are perfectly able of having a loving relationship together, whereas an easter egg isn't exactly an appealing life partney.
Either way, you've brought up an interesting point, i'll have to think about it before formulating a proper response. ;) |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
Then again, sticking easter eggs up ones ass in public is a lot different to having sex with someone of, well, the same sex. The latter is not nesecarily unlike hetrosexual sex, it's still performed between two people, prefferably in the privacy of one's own home. :p
Two people of the same sex are perfectly able of having a loving relationship together, whereas an easter egg isn't exactly an appealing life partney.
Either way, you've brought up an interesting point, i'll have to think about it before formulating a proper response. ;) |
That's clearly beside the point, seeing as how the nature of the fetish itself was irrelevant. It could just as well have been a man and a woman who like giving each other Cleveland Steamers in public. :p
But I think you recognized that, so I await your reply. :)
Also, the "public" issue is also secondary - it only matters in my example because the law is specifically related to publicity. In general though, it's a simple case of whether or not we should rewrite laws for people because it's "who they are" - AKA moral relativism. ;)
|
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
[FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#99CCEE]Surprised to see that this thread is still alive. Orbax is making a very good point here and unfortunately you all seem to be ignoring it.
Let's give a hypothetical example: Jack has a bizarre sexual fetish that involves pulling down his pants and sticking easter eggs up his ass in public. In fact, it's such a strong fetish that it's gotten to the point where he is unable to get off any other way. It's all-consuming.
Jack gets cuffed for indecent exposure. His argument to the court is:
- He has had this fetish for as long as he's known. He was probably born with it. He has actively seeked out help and seen psychiatrists but none of them have been able to cure him of his fetish.
- In recent times, there has been a surging increase in the number of people who have admitted to having the easter-egg-up-the-ass-in-public fetish.
- No one is being harmed by this behaviour - Jack simply loves easter eggs. Up his ass. In public places.
- It's unfair to deny Jack his rights to get himself off sexually because of the person he is. He can't change it. He's been taunted and teased all his life about his fetish, but never thought that the government would actually step in and take away his rights to his sexuality.
- It's unfair that society hates and bashes on these people because of their easter egg fetish. They are people too. Just because they like doing this doesn't mean they're animals, and they should have the same rights as everybody else, including the rights to perform the egg-shoving in public.
See how ridiculous it sounds in this case? The main difference, the only difference between that example and homosexuality, is that the latter is far more widely acknowledged and accepted.
|
Your "example" is more or less worthless because, for the most part, homosexuals practice their sexuality (the actual act) behind closed doors and not in public. As an artist, if I were to photograph or paint a nude woman in public (not having sex or masturbating) that would be ok in the United States because of a recent US Supreme Court ruling. Nudity for the sake of art is protected by the first ammendment of the US constitution, but what you describe is a person experiencing sexual gratification through public lewdness without benefit to art in any way. It's true there are some exhibitionists who are also homosexuals, but for every homosexual exhibitionist, I'm sure there are probably 3 or more hetero exhibitionists due to sheer population alone. I try to imagine if I were a parent with a young child. Personally, I believe art should never be censored, and I would always fight for the right of an artist. But, I believe there's a clear distinction between people playing with themselves or having sex in public, and simple nudity. Mardi Gras celebrations that include nudity are also protected free speech.
| quote: |
we think they should have the same rights as all other citizens.
|
| quote: | | What we don't think, however, is that we should have to rewrite the law to suit their personal tastes. |
^^
Contradiction.
Even for "civil unions" we'd still have to rewrite the law in some way in order for homosexuals to "have the same rights as all other citizens," as you purportedly support. If you don't support "civil unions" either, your above statement is simply untrue. :P
| quote: |
It would take society's resources (taxpayer's money) and spend them entirely on gay men and women wishing to get married.
|
BS. The majority of people getting married would still be heterosexuals.
Whatever you want to call it, "marriage" or "civil unions," the most important things are the legal benefits that come with marriage. Equality in other words. What a concept. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSaenz
Your "example" is more or less worthless because, for the most part, homosexuals practice their sexuality (the actual act) behind closed doors and not in public. As an artist, if I were to photograph or paint a nude woman in public (not having sex or masturbating) that would be ok in the United States because of a recent US Supreme Court ruling. Nudity for the sake of art is protected by the first ammendment of the US constitution, but what you describe is a person experiencing sexual gratification through public lewdness without benefit to art in any way. It's true there are some exhibitionists who are also homosexuals, but for every homosexual exhibitionist, I'm sure there are probably 3 or more hetero exhibitionists due to sheer population alone. I try to imagine if I were a parent with a young child. Personally, I believe art should never be censored, and I would always fight for the right of an artist. But, I believe there's a clear distinction between people playing with themselves or having sex in public, and simple nudity. Mardi Gras celebrations that include nudity are also protected free speech.
^^
Contradiction.
Even for "civil unions" we'd still have to rewrite the law in some way in order for homosexuals to "have the same rights as all other citizens," as you purportedly support. If you don't support "civil unions" either, your above statement is simply untrue. :P
BS. The majority of people getting married would still be heterosexuals.
Whatever you want to call it, "marriage" or "civil unions," the most important things are the legal benefits that come with marriage. Equality in other words. What a concept. |
You took the words right out of my mouth.
First the example is flawed becuase it is not a group of people that seems to be doing this and second, homosexuality has existed since the dawn of time, where easter eggs havent.
Why should heterosexuals be the only ones to be recognized as partners that love each other in marriage? Why cant they get the same benefits....is it becuase it was written by religious leaders thousands of years ago???
Its simple, it comes to this... they are the same sex and you dont think that they should be entitled to be married... thats all. |
|
|
| vmc |
| Personally I'm against either homosexual marriages or adopting children by gay/lesbian couples. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSaenz
Your "example" is more or less worthless because, for the most part, homosexuals practice their sexuality (the actual act) behind closed doors and not in public. As an artist, if I were to photograph or paint a nude woman in public (not having sex or masturbating) that would be ok in the United States because of a recent US Supreme Court ruling. Nudity for the sake of art is protected by the first ammendment of the US constitution, but what you describe is a person experiencing sexual gratification through public lewdness without benefit to art in any way. It's true there are some exhibitionists who are also homosexuals, but for every homosexual exhibitionist, I'm sure there are probably 3 or more hetero exhibitionists due to sheer population alone. I try to imagine if I were a parent with a young child. Personally, I believe art should never be censored, and I would always fight for the right of an artist. But, I believe there's a clear distinction between people playing with themselves or having sex in public, and simple nudity. Mardi Gras celebrations that include nudity are also protected free speech. |
Your counterargument is more or less worthless because, as I already explained, publicity is a very trivial part of the example. This isn't a question of free speech, and it hardly surprises me that people decided to nit pick at the difference between my example and the issue of gay marriages even though those differences are completely irrelevant. You're creating a straw-man argument. I repeat, publicity is not the issue here. The issue is the question of redefining legal doctrines to suit certain individual tastes. This is moral relativism at its finest, and I am completely opposed to that philosophy.
| quote: |
^^
Contradiction.
Even for "civil unions" we'd still have to rewrite the law in some way in order for homosexuals to "have the same rights as all other citizens," as you purportedly support. If you don't support "civil unions" either, your above statement is simply untrue. :P |
I support civil unions because they already exist, and no law needs to be rewritten under such circumstances. My two quotes, however, hardly contradicted each other - in fact, my entire argument (as well as Orbax), which everybody seems to be ignoring again, centers around the fact that those two do not contradict each other at all. Giving them the same rights as everyone else does not equal rewriting the law to give them special rights.
To me, gay marriages are not giving people equal rights, they are giving certain people more rights than the rest of us. Should they rewrite the law so I can marry a dog? Maybe I'd like to marry my mother or my sister? Some people are into incest... maybe we should rewrite the law for them too. After all, they can't change what they are.
| quote: | | BS. The majority of people getting married would still be heterosexuals. |
Yes, but the institution is already in place for them. We're talking about extra money going to this cause.
| quote: | | Whatever you want to call it, "marriage" or "civil unions," the most important things are the legal benefits that come with marriage. Equality in other words. What a concept. |
Yes indeed, what a concept. Just because you've come to accept such things as "equality" and "multiculturalism" as shining examples of how far society has progressed, does not mean all of us have. Homosexuals are not literally equal to heterosexuals - this does not mean to say that one of them is higher or lower on the cultural scale, but they are not the same.
People are desperate for "equality" because they've been taught to believe that "inequality" automatically implies some sort of hierarchy. This is not the case. To me, gay marriages, multiculturalism, all of these things are just subsets of moral relativism.
How far are we willing to go for "equality?" True equality would seem to be a Harrison Bergeron/1984ish extreme dictatorship society. I don't think that's what I'd like to live in. Everybody loves equality when it means getting more rights and getting something for nothing, but I wonder, how would you feel if equality meant taking away some of your rights?
I don't want equality. I want individuality. But hey, that's just one political opinion, right?
In closing, I'd like to start a campaign to legalize incestual marriages. Who's with me? |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
You took the words right out of my mouth.
First the example is flawed becuase it is not a group of people that seems to be doing this and second, homosexuality has existed since the dawn of time, where easter eggs havent. |
Then we should forget about AIDS and Ebola too because they are new things?
Im saying that they shouldnt call it marriage. Call it a Coupling, or a civil union, or whatever the hell you want. They get to pay for it, they get to handle it, and they get the same benefits as a married couple would. They dont get to be called married though. That is my point. You may find my dedication to word choice odd, but its one of those little things I care about. Others are Honor, Morals, Integrity. just words, but a lot of tradition is carried with them.
The reason most people are up in arms about it is because the idea of a pair of homosexuals getting married under God is one of the most offensive things they can think of.
People always say to me "but its LOVE". Once you bring it to that kind of emotional level, you are a simpleton, and thats the weakest argument Ive ever heard. You may say that I speak of honor and tradition and those are just as emotional.
No so. Honor and Integrity have been codified for the most part. Open doors, take off your hat. Love though? No one can define it, and its different every time. Completely subjective.
| quote: | | Why should heterosexuals be the only ones to be recognized as partners that love each other in marriage |
again, marriage has been codified. thats like asking why blue cant be red, and birds be called fish. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
again, marriage has been codified. thats like asking why blue cant be red, and birds be called fish. |
But we should change the code. Because they're people too. :rolleyes:
It's so easy when you skip about 10 steps of logic. Reminds me of the proofs I did on my eng exams when I didn't know what the hell I was talking about - write 3 lines, then "clearly, further manipulation will lead to", then write whatever it's supposed to end up looking like. :toothless |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
But we should change the code. Because they're people too. :rolleyes:
It's so easy when you skip about 10 steps of logic. Reminds me of the proofs I did on my eng exams when I didn't know what the hell I was talking about - write 3 lines, then "clearly, further manipulation will lead to", then write whatever it's supposed to end up looking like. :toothless |
lol |
|
|
| failsafe |
digi: your easter egg argument holds NO water. That is ONLY illegal because it would be done in public. I'm sure you could shove easter eggs up any oriface you want all day in the privacy of your own home. If you were a hetrosexual and could only get off by having sex in a public place you would also be arrested. What we're talking about here is peoples lives, not some easter egg fetish. The fact that you'd even lower it to an arguement like that proves very clearly that you have no concept of the issues involved here. You talk about this great cost to tax payers. Explain to me, exactly what costs I'm going to have to pay as a tax payer. Gay Marriage is legal in Canada and I haven't seen my taxes go up. I haven't seen a new "gay marriage tax" on my incometax form. You're scared and grasping at anything you possibly can.
You truly insult yourself every time you try to relate this issue to "marrying dogs".
Orbax, Dolphins as a whole are not gay, nor are they the only animal that practices homosexual relationships for pleasure. Again your sweeping generalizaions make you look like quite the bright light. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by failsafe
digi: your easter egg argument holds NO water. That is ONLY illegal because it would be done in public. I'm sure you could shove easter eggs up any oriface you want all day in the privacy of your own home. If you were a hetrosexual and could only get off by having sex in a public place you would also be arrested. What we're talking about here is peoples lives, not some easter egg fetish. The fact that you'd even lower it to an arguement like that proves very clearly that you have no concept of the issues involved here. You talk about this great cost to tax payers. Explain to me, exactly what costs I'm going to have to pay as a tax payer. Gay Marriage is legal in Canada and I haven't seen my taxes go up. I haven't seen a new "gay marriage tax" on my incometax form. You're scared and grasping at anything you possibly can.
You truly insult yourself every time you try to relate this issue to "marrying dogs".
Orbax, Dolphins as a whole are not gay, nor are they the only animal that practices homosexual relationships for pleasure. Again your sweeping generalizaions make you look like quite the bright light. |
lol get the out of here dumbass. Your bus is leaving. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by failsafe
digi: your easter egg argument holds NO water. That is ONLY illegal because it would be done in public. I'm sure you could shove easter eggs up any oriface you want all day in the privacy of your own home. If you were a hetrosexual and could only get off by having sex in a public place you would also be arrested. What we're talking about here is peoples lives, not some easter egg fetish. The fact that you'd even lower it to an arguement like that proves very clearly that you have no concept of the issues involved here. You talk about this great cost to tax payers. Explain to me, exactly what costs I'm going to have to pay as a tax payer. Gay Marriage is legal in Canada and I haven't seen my taxes go up. I haven't seen a new "gay marriage tax" on my incometax form. You're scared and grasping at anything you possibly can. |
Wow, you're stupid. Once again, for the 473rd time, yes, it is illegal because it's in public, but publicity is not the issue, the issue is rewriting a law to suit a specific cultural group. God, the ease with which some people manage to miss the point every time in order to suit their own point of view is astounding.
I'm scared though. Please don't hurt me with your big words and your small... complicated words. :nervous: :toothless
Mothers and sisters are people too, don't deny us the right to marry them!!! |
|
|
|
|
