Below is a snippet of the nearly-final draft of the speech I am planning to give tomorrow at the Marriage Equality Demonstration in Trenton.
…marriage equality is not JUST a civil rights issue, if there is any such thing as JUST a civil rights issue, it’s also a separation of church and state issue. The reason nobody is offering any logical reasons against marriage equality is because there ARE no logical reasons to be against it. The only reason that anyone opposes marriage equality is religion, and American Atheists, as staunch supporters of the separation of church and state, are eager to step in and do our best to make sure that religion doesn’t make laws.
Here are the details of the event:
Date: Saturday, December 5, 2009
Time: 11:00am – 2:00pm
Location: In front of the State House
Street: 125 West State Street
City/Town: Trenton, NJThe “Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act” (S1967/A2978) is likely to be taken up by the New Jersey state legislature in the coming weeks, and Governor Corzine has promised to sign the bill if it reaches his desk. Governor-elect Christie, however, has stated that he would veto any marriage equality bill. It is imperative that this bill be signed into law during the lame-duck session of the legislature; i.e., before January 19.
Opponents of same-sex marriage recently took to the streets in Trenton, grabbing the media spotlight on this issue.
THE TIME IS NOW to show our support for marriage equality in our state!
On December 5, join hundreds of LGBT rights activists and supporters in Trenton, NJ, to demand marriage equality!
As a genuine, bona-fide homo, thanks!
Dave likes to wrap just about any of life’s situations with the blanket of the “myth”…it give his life purpose. I wonder who he complains to that the first major snow storm hit NJ exactly at the time of his speech to the 12 people who will attend…?
How do the “bona-fide” homo’s feel about teaching preschoolers about sex? Or encouraging Adult-child sex?
Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Is Promoting Child Porn in the Classroom
http://tinyurl.com/yab5pyd
I’ll bet Dave will claim that those who want to protect the innocence of our children is another example of the “myth”…
hopefully sanity prevails and people get their dignity back from the religiously stupid that want to define who should love who….
I am becoming more and more fed up with these kooks….to the point that I can only ridicule their claims back to reality and the 21st century….
enough with these stupid stories about some super natural entity suspending our natural laws and also providing us with instruction manual on how to worship it….
leave love alone stupid religion
Marriage is not a right and it is not a church/state issue.I don’t see our fellow atheists in [china,north korea or cuba all secular nations]for example talking about making same sex marriage legal.What is the purpose of marriage how do we define it what rights,obligations should it entail and what standard for eligiblity should there be?What proof do you offer that the state,society will benefit from making same sex legal.
It isn’t an argument of benefit to the state/society. It’s simply a logical argument. It behooves the society to have their laws based off of logic and reason as opposed to superstition and dogma. That being said, I suppose the argument could be made that marriage, itself, was the result of religious dogma… although I think it’s origins stemmed more from property rights (women being seen as property).
Personally, I see marriage as a simple change in title. The relationship doesn’t actually change, just the name of it. Legally, the rights of the parties in question do change. It has even been declared by the UN that the institution of marriage, being essential to society, should be protected by the law. It is almost universally accepted that laws must exist that concern marriage for several reasons:
1. Custody of children
2. Inheritance
3. Visitation Rights
4. Insurance considerations
And the list goes on.
While the right to marry may not be a fundamental right, it is a necessary right that is the result of our current social structure. The way we’ve been forming family units and our society as a whole has been the same for centuries and is such an integral part of our society that it has become a right. Laws have been made because of the rights that must stem from such an arrangement.
Also, keep in mind that the law is designed to protect the minority from the majority. Even if the majority agrees on something, if it is discriminatory, then the law is obligated to do something about it.
At the very least, same-sex marriage will not have a negative impact on society. However, it will have a positive impact upon the GLBT community, which is going to benefit at least a subset of society.
Whell, who can argue with that? Silverman said, his lackeys believe it, that settles it…
Riiiiight, because as the atheist god just decreed, there are no “logical” reasons (that he agrees with) to oppose it…
i.e. a belief, which, by definition, (once again) proves that atheism is itself a religion…
…but are perfectly content to force their belief system into our laws.
The atheist who? Are you losing your mind? Oh wait…you have to have something in order to lose it. My bad.
♪Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies♫
Giacomo is most certainly enamored of his tu quoques, ain’t he?
I just want you to know, JCC, that you are a fucking moron. Debating (which you probably know nothing of) with you is not worth my time, so this will suffice.
And I just want you to know, Mack, that despite your puerile hatred and abject inability to express yourself with even a modicum of intelligence, or think independently, that Jesus still loves you.
A typical, hackneyed response.
You attempt to make your point by throwing insults at the points of another. Instead of attacking the writer when he states “There are no logical reasons” why don’t you attempt to prove him wrong by suggesting some logical arguments?
Oh, that’s right, you would have to defend such statements. Insults, however, need no defense, they are simply hurled with the intent to discredit. If you tried to prove your point, you would only prove yourself a fool. This way, you only prove yourself a jerk.
As for attempting to force our beliefs on you. Yes, we want to make gay marriage legal and then make you get gay married. You found us out.
Wow, finally someone here almost perceives reality as it is (note my added emphasis to your quote). Congratulations!
Calling Silverman the “atheist god” is attacking him? And I’ll leave it to you to search the threads on this blog to find threads on which I have, many times, given logical, reasoned, and intelligent arguments against homosexual marriage.
See above.
Ok, I retract and apologize for inferring that you are Silverman’s lackey. So, does this mean Silverman will retract and apologize to me for all the insults he’s hurled at me and others who share my beliefs?
You really should do your homework before “hurling” such insulting accusations.
In light of new information available to you, I’d say someone has been proved a “jerk” here, and it ain’t me.
Wow, not only is that a “logical reason” to support homosexual marriage, but an extremely intelligent and mature one as well…
Another heaping shovel of sh…. balderdash, I see, JCC. You never run out.
There are no reasons to oppose same sex marriage, except the rigid totally inflexible creedos of religion.
“Atheism is itself a religion”, what a broken record you are, over and over, repeating the same BS in hopes that someone else will parrot it like some mind-numbed robot.
Atheism is a reaction to religion. Atheism does not promote itself to anyone, it is totally a reaction to religious poseltyzing efforts. Atheism does not go door to door, does not provide sermons.
Before I decided to seek out other atheists I really was unaware that there were so many. Many more than I could have imagined. They never approached me with so much as a “Brother, let me tell you my story” and certainly no atheist came knocking on my door, at least, not to spread the gospel of atheism. If I had not taken an active measure to find them I would not know about either the FFRF or the American Atheists. Nor would I know how many people in my own neighborhood were non-believers.
Take your bag O’ crap and knock on someone else’s door.
Your “mind” is open as wide as the sky…
…that is itself based on a particular belief system—i.e. A RELIGION.
Right, it just buys advertising space on billboards and buses…
Yes, and does not engage in proselytizing on its own (the billboard and bus advertising is really just a “fund raising” effort for the needy…)
Right, people like Silverman, Shermer, Myers, Dawkins, Hitchins and Harris keep totally to themselves—never make a peep in public expounding the “virtues” of their belief system—nope, never.
Really? I’ve heard that that seems to be a common condition among troglodytes…
Is it possible to have this idiot banned from this blog site? All he ever does is flame. He has no argument whatsoever.
“A lie told often enough becomes truth” – Vladimir Lenin
You can repeat that lie often as you like, little mouse, but it doesn’t make it any less of lie.
Those of you who’d like JCC banned, please email David about it.
Oh wow, so much for “tolerance.” Uh-bama and Lenin would be proud.
Simply solid proof of a closed mind. KA has never been able to gain the upper hand in a debate. So, as all losers do…they attack the character of their opponent. Very cowardly…but what else would one expect?
Substance KA…substance. You know…if it’s to hot in the kitchen…
You’re a liar. I’ve thrashed both you & jcc on multiple occasions.
There have been multiple requests to ban JCC – if I wanted to, I’d probably be able to do so on my own. I consulted w/David – who turned it down.
You’re constantly attacking people on this blog. This horseshit you’re spouting makes you a hypocrite & a 1/2.
Neither of you have ever brought the heat, so it’s pretty cool in there…
When I said we’ll force you to be gay married, it was sarcasm. Familiarize yourself with it.
If you do indeed have logical arguments against gay marriage, might I make a suggestion? Get a free web hosting account, something easy like a wordpress or blogspot blog. Then make a post with all your logical objections to gay marriage. That way, you can refer people to it instead of having to make your point every time the topic comes up simply by posting a link to the article. I am not going to go digging for your old and buried comments. You have made the positive assertion, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.
If you do indeed have logical reasons to be against gay marriage, not all of us have read them (or want to dig to find them). Obviously, you’re not lazy. You’re spending quite a bit of time slinging mud at anyone who will look your way and you do it in a very methodical manner. However, despite this fervor of yours, you have only said that you have logical reasons, but have not presented them.
there are people that want you banned, I’m not one of them. While your comments may be infantile and easily refuted, you do offer a moderate amount of a mental workout. Arguing with an illogical mind offers it’s own challenges. Also, trolls do help to increase traffic to a site. I, and others, keep coming back to see what BS you’ve posted next and refute it. Keep in mind that you’re actually helping this community by increasing readership, reader retention and overall site traffic. You’re also not painting a very good picture of your “side”. I hope the knowledge that you’re actually helping this site won’t make you rethink your presence here. This wouldn’t be much of a discussion if we all agreed with each other.
How is that? If you think being able to intellectually defend myself paints a bad picture of my “side,” then clearly, I’m doing something right.
Do you really think I haven’t considered what my presence contributes to the traffic here—or what kind of subliminal impact mine and phreedm’s posts are actually having on people like you?—if so, there’s clearly a lot about us that you’re oblivious to.
You’re welcome.
Jcc merely turns arguments around, without basis, and with few alterations. Nothing original. If he is a believer, he is a fine example, as that is all believers do is repeat repeat repeat. Polly wants a cracker?
Yeah, my whole counter argument to your “atheism doesn’t proselytize” or “provide sermons” was completely baseless.
If I’m a believer?
Why thank you—and may I point out that you’re a “fine example” of an atheist believer in “non-belief” as well?
“i.e. a belief, which, by definition, (once again) proves that atheism is itself a religion…”
No, it proves that American Atheists (not in any way representing all atheists) is an organization of people. If every organization of people was a religion, we sure would have a lot of them. Is Congress a religion? I mean, it is a group of people who follow the same rules and fall under the jurisdiction of a higher power (the government). But I suppose, any organization (including my example) is a religion according to you. Think before you go on a tangent, about what you are stating as truth. What you are stating as truth, in this case, is that any organization of people is in some form or another, a religion. The definition of religion is as follows : an organization of people under one unified set of beliefs about the inherent nature of the universe, what happens postmortem to the soul or some other assumed spiritual entity, what the nature of god(s) is(are), and how to pay homage to them, etc.
By your definition, perhaps American Atheists could be a “religion” if they all have the same beliefs about something, but even then, it wouldn’t prove that all atheists fell under their beliefs. I’d like to ask you to think without the religious bias that has been so deeply ingrained into your mind for once in your life (you could consider it my ‘Christmas’ gift). If that’s even possible at this point. I doubt it, seeing as you have reached a point where nothing satisfies you more than harassing others while they’re in their own peers’ presence. The presence of peers with similar beliefs. Merry solstice, if you ever see this.
There can be no logical reason for or against anything, really, unless there are multiple non-redundant objectively true premises to start with. I am sure that most arguments against gay marriage are not based in objective reality because gay marriage (specifically in the USA in modern times) has never been legalized in the first place from which to take that objective data. My personal bias is to legalize it and see what happens as a result before making any kind of judgements for or against it.
Actually, I remember I thiiiink it was New Jersey that experimented with Civil Unions. A couple states have and from what I remember reading they’ve found that the “separate but equal” idea behind civil unions for same-sex couples is detrimental and far from equal. Partially, it requires some major amending of laws to ensure it remains separate but equal, partially the language of it is extremely confusing to some who didn’t recognize it as a legal union, and the fact that it was separate but equal opened up for loopholes and the like to be exploited in an effort against same-sex couples seeking the legal rights bestowed upon them for being in a civil union.
Either legally we should just recognize civil unions as the legally binding coupling of two consenting adults (that way church keeps its precious worthless word of marriage) or just shut up and say it’s constitutionally sound for marriage to be a right and gender doesn’t matter, stick an amendment into the constitution, and be done with it.
Id like to challenge the religionists in here to offer me just one non religious argument against marriage equality which stands up to scrutiny. Just one is all I ask. Come on, try. You cant.
Ok, once again, I can give three (non-“religious”) reasons:
1. Striving for a “values neutral” culture is itself a value, hence a self-defeating argument.
2. Redefining traditional marriage sets a dangerous precedent to continue altering the definition to include any kind of arrangement—including ones that are demonstrably harmful to children.
3. Children are indisputably better adjusted when reared by parents of each gender.
1. Why is valuing a value self defeating? Please explain further.
2. This is called the slippery slope fallacy. A will not necessarily lead to B, C, and D. Although it is possible. What you’re suggesting is that pedophilia might become legal if we allow gays to marry. This is not the case. Currently, the law does provide a way for adults to marry children with the consent of their guardians… unless the person wanting to marry the kid is the kid’s guardian. The only one that might end up gaining ground would be the argument for polygamy. However, the level of complexity that would be required to add to the law is prohibitive to such a law ever being passed. It can be argued that polygamous marriage have detrimental effects on spouses and children, however, these are more often the result of the religion of the family in question and their practices, not the actual effect of the polygamous relationship. The only other I can think of is bestiality, and since animals cannot enter into legally binding contracts, this will never happen. Did I miss anything?
3. “Indisputably?” Studies have shown that children will find mother and father figures in adults around them, even resorting to aunts/uncles/teachers/neighbors/etc… studies have also shown that the only negative effects that children experience from having gay parents is the discrimination they face when their peers find out. Also, what about single parents? Should the children of single parents be taken away because their children will be better adjusted if they have a mommy and a daddy? Single parents can currently adopt, but gay parents cannot. How does that make sense? Wouldn’t two gay parents theoretically be better than one single parent? Additionally, no one said that all of them will be getting kids. Their being allowed to marry, and their being allowed to adopt are two separate issues.
next?
Point 1:What arrogant nonsense. Proclamations from someone without the authority to proclaim.
Point 2:Traditional marriage was defined by religion. Many people are no longer religious, so the definition must change.
Point 3: is in dispute. You have no facts to back up your charge.
On point one, this is the same tired argument that you use to try to categorize atheism as a religion. A misdirection, but then, the religious are very prolific at this type of thing.
jcc,
godless sodomite said,
All three of your arguments are based on “religious views”; they are not non-religious.
Argument 1: This makes no sense, but in efforts to interpret/extract meaning from it I came up with a couple of questions and answered them based on the assumption they captured the clearer point of your argument.
Are you proposing that striving for tolerance within a culture equates to a “values neutral” culture? If so… I say that a tolerant culture is not “neutral” in its values; a tolerant culture is just less restrictive than your RELIGIOUS culture.
Are you also proposing that a culture that evolves into a more tolerant one defeats the purpose to become a “values neutral” culture because it does not accept your personal values? If so… Building upon my explanation above, I would like to state clearly that a tolerant culture IS NOT A VALUELESS culture.
A tolerant culture allows for multiple sets of values; not just one. Your neighbor’s set of values to freely engage in an alternate lifestyle has no impact on your freedom to engage in a more traditional lifestyle. In other words, YOUR PERSONAL values remain intact and are preserved by you; however, YOUR values are not impose upon others who don’t share them. This is what I believe you refer to as a “value neutral” culture. Unfortunately, because of your RELIGIOUS VIEWS about traditional marriage, you tend to see a tolerant culture as VALUELESS. It’s a shame… Nothing could be further from the truth…
Argument 2 (Part A): Let’s say we limit the word “Marriage” for one man and one woman to preserve the “traditional” or “religious” definition. What would be “dangerous” about allowing for “Civil Unions”? By definition, “UNIONS” would be a civil/legal recognition that a relationship exists between two adults of the same sex. That’s not marriage!
What’s the problem? Again… the problem is that it conflicts with your RELIGIOUS VIEWS…
What dangerous precedent would it set to NOT alter, but ADD a NEW definition that describes a NEW type of relationship in a changing society? None! You believe it does because of your religious views. (See explanations under point 1)
Argument 2 (Part B): What kind of arrangements demonstrably harmful to children could arise from same sex unions? None! The same was said when Black and Whites began to marry… Ignorance and fear is a bitch!
Are you asserting that same sex unions between two consenting ADULTS can somehow harm children?
I offer you the following to consider… If harm exists when two consenting homosexual adults unite, the same harm exists when two consenting heterosexual adults marry. IMO, the only harm that could come of it, would be:
• A religious homophobe acting on some God given mission to save society; resulting in harm to kids
• An Intolerant society who mistreats same sex couples; resulting in harm to kids (Same as above)
IMO, there is no higher degree of harm introduced to children or society as a result of same sex unions as there is for heterosexual marriages. You know the song… you feel that unions are harmful because of your RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
Argument 3: I’m not convinced that children are “UNDISPUTABLY” better adjusted when reared by parents of each gender. It may be preferred for other reasons, but the preferred reason is no guarantee that the children themselves will be better adjusted. But to be honest, I guess in order to prove either way is predicated on the qualifier or it depends on how you define “better adjusted”.
What’s your definition of “better adjusted”?
Do you mean more in line with traditional/religious views?
Or
Do you mean more TOLERANT of other’s freedoms; even when they differ from one’s own?
I think your definition of “Better adjusted” would be closer to the former… because of your RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
#2). We currently allow hetero arrangements which are demonstrably detrimental to children. Addiction, poverty, etc are much more common and much worse.
#2b). Who says marriage has to include children???
Nathaniel:
When that value is to be “values neutral”—that is, to have no preferred values. That’s rather self-explanatory.
It’s no fallacy. In an obsessively litigious culture like ours, the law of unintended consequences is unavoidable in this.
No, that’s not what I’m suggesting (though it’s not beyond the realm of possibilities). What’s far more realistic (and probable) is the possibility of sibling or parent/child marriage–or worse yet, marriages to oneself.
Oh really? So, excluding the “religious” aspect of the ill effects of polygamy, are you saying that it’s otherwise not an unhealthy arrangement?
Uh, yes you did, big time. Given the extreme behaviors associated with “animal rights” fanatics, the assumption of bestiality being permanently off-limits is naïve at best and woefully ignorant at worst. You’ve obviously never heard of the push for “animal standing.”
References please?—and are you admitting that children intrinsically need role models of both genders?
But you just alluded that children will seek-out role models of both genders. And could you cite references on this too, please?—specifically, long-term studies?
What about them?—are you suggesting that single parenting is a less than ideal environment?
Asserting an exaggeration as a genuine concern is the only fallacy being presented here.
Because it’s an intentional deprivation of one gender role model.
No.
No one had to. Rearing children is an intrinsic privilege of marriage whether the couple desires them or not—besides, people do change their minds.
No they’re not; one is inextricably associated with the other.
Those reasons are more than sufficient…but if you insist on another: because it’s a biological aberration—contrary to the “evolved” reproductive mechanics of the species.
I shudder to think of what kind of mind can link animal lovers with beastiality. JCC has sunk to a new level of sickness. I feel sorry if there are pets in his home–or children. The horror!
MX-and if I may add that some marriages SHOULD NOT breed (see above).
3. Children are indisputably better adjusted when reared by parents of each gender.
To JCC:
If they’re so indisputably better reared by parents of each gender, how come they keep turning out all these homo’s around here, not to mention these damn criminals we got??? (hope you guys appreciate the humor in that statement)
Hi folks. I have been back several times over the weeks, and turned away with similar disinterest. My password quit working and I tried to change it, but, instead I was assigned a case sensitive coglomeration of shit that would pass protect the identities of every covert CIA operative in the Asian theater, while I would have been fine with using the pet name for my penis.
The only sane solution I have every heard proposed was by Dave Silverman. To wipe the word “marriage” off the legal books (since it is a religious concept), federal, state, and local, and replace it with “civil union”. If someone wants their union blessed by some imaginary god concept, let them go in front of their clergy. That way, the fundies can own their holy “word”, and yet everyone can possess equal civil rights. Let Phreedumb and JaCCoff have their “word”, let the babies have their bottles.
Do you realize that in the Estados Unidos de Mexico, a clergyman does not have the authority to perform a legal marriage? It can only be done by a justice of the peace. Church weddings are formalities. And we, as a society, think we are so progressive. What a joke!! We are being taught secularism by a third world catholic country. Sad.
NeoWolfe
Correct me if i’m wrong but secular Mexico doesn’t have same sex marriage does it. Dave Silverman solution is not sane because it could lead to reduced income tax revenue if they are allowed to file as a married couple as well as increase in health and retirement costs for business and gov’t.
reason,
Please explain how Dave’s solution is not sane? I don’t know anything more about his plan other than the simple statements above… Is there more to it than allowing same sex couples to unite?
Thx
It’s also a 3rd world country.
So…the price of treating a group that’s discriminated against comes out of your wallet in pennies, then you’re against it?
Real nice.
@JCC
I think you’re correct in stating that valuing “value neutrality” doesn’t make sense. However, there isn’t really such a thing as true value neutrality. While intrinsic value may not exist, or rather that everything is intrinsically worthless, life places value on things via simple supply and demand. There are very basic core values that all things share and based on our specific attributes, these values are expanded into all our current values. Getting down to the core values of our species, that we can all agree on (with the notable exception of the insane) is not a futile endeavor, it is necessary to ensure that everyone actually has equal rights under the law.
JCC, to suggest that an outcome is unavoidable and using the slippery slope as an argument is a fallacy, and a well known one. Just because it could happen, doesn’t mean that it will.
There are currently laws against parent/child marriages and marrying yourself would just be silly… although you might get a tax break, I see no other reason to do something like that. Also, how would this be worse than a parent marrying a child?
I do not believe polygamy to be a bad concept. It can be handled badly, but this does not mean that it is bad. This is similar to the argument that we should not eat meat because the meat we eat is raised in feed-lots where people are very cruel to the animals. While this may be the case, I may get my meat from a local farmer who does not mistreat his animals. If all parties are considered married to one-another, and all must consent to the marriage, I see no problem. If domestic violence and/or child abuse ensues (which are the things usually used to say polygamy is bad), then those specific acts are illegal and we have systems in place to deal with them. But of course, this debate isn’t really about polygamy.
As for animal standing (thank you for that article, it was an interesting read, even if it’s source was questionable), I actually support equal standing between self-aware species such as dolphins, elephants and some apes with that of human infants (Specifically, that I believe it should be considered murder to kill them). However, children are still unable to enter into legally binding contracts. Even if animals have equal rights, how do you expect one to say the words “I do?” or otherwise communicate its intent to marry or that it understands the concept of marraige? We can determine the will of an animal in a broad sense, but not for something as specific as marriage… yet. It may be possible, that let’s deal with that issue when/if it ever arises.
Here’s a few articles from the American Psychological Association concerning the well-being of children raised by same-sex parents:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/kids.html
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
and specifically:
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpsummary.html
all cite many sources.
You suggested that same-sex couples are unfit parents because children need both a mother and a father. Such a suggestion also implies that single parents are just as unfit as same-sex parents for the same reason. The fact remains that current laws allow single parents to adopt but not a same-sex couple. If same-sex couples are on equal standing with single parents, they how can this be legally justified? You might suggest that the single parent COULD marry and obtain the lacking parental figure, while the homosexual couple would not. However, it is also possible that the single parent will never obtain the missing parental figure.
Single parents are not necessarily less than ideal. It is simply that if the argument can be made that children REQUIRE a mother and a father, then single parents, having only one or the other, are unfit to raise children. Not only is this untrue, but pisses off all the single parents out there. When the ability of same-sex couples to raise children is challenged, it pisses them off just as much, for the same reason.
Gender roles are highly overrated. I would argue that gender roles lead to sexual dysfunction. I may be male, and I may prefer women, but that is not who I am. My self-image does not hinge on my gender and if I am emasculated, I do not start fights to defend my manhood. I think people have the right to be who they want to be, and damn gender roles if they say differently.
If the purpose of a marriage is to start a “family” then you might have a point about marriage and child-rearing being inexorably related. However, to suggest that a marriage must have this as the reason for being, implies that the government would have the right to determine “why” you’re getting married. If it is not because you intend to start a family, you will be denied. What if you’re exceptionally old? What if you suffer from infertility? What if you simply don’t want to have kids? While it might be arguable that certain reasons for getting married are “better” than others, you must ask yourself if the government has the right to deny you a marriage simply because of the reason why you wish to get married? It’s already bad enough with the hoops that couples must go through to prove they are not marrying for citizenship reasons. Need we extend such hoops to everyone?
Homosexuality has been observed in almost every species ever observed:
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
Also, nothing can be unnatural since everything is part of the natural world. The separation between man and nature is an illusion. While one might also suggest that cars, sky-scrapers, electric razors, and tampons might also be unnatural we still took the materials from nature, used our minds (which evolved naturally) to figure out how to make them into something else, and then manipulated them with our hands (which also evolved naturally) or by using machinery (which we built in the same process here), to develop these new items. If all resources used to make something are natural in origin, how can any combination of those resources be unnatural? I would argue that the only thing that can be unnatural would be something that is truly outside of nature, which encompasses all of existence. I can only think of one thing that has been suggested to exist outside of existence and that is God. Yes, I’m suggesting that the only thing that could possibly be unnatural is God. But my belief is that he too arose naturally, since human imagination also evolved through natural means.
Also, the argument from nature fails. Simply because something occurs or dose not occur in nature doesn’t have any bearing on its morality. Koalas, for instance, reproduce entirely by rape. The male beats the female until she no longer resists before copulation. By your logic, rape is natural, and therefore is permissible. Many species eat their young, that is perfectly natural, so should cannibalism be permissible? Everything is natural.
If I were to ascribe to your views about what is and is not natural, I would come to the conclusion that marriage is unnatural. With that being said, many have suggested that there be no legal benefits to marriage. Leave it all to the religious. While that sounds good, there are several issues with this. The most important issue being that of child custody. I suppose these issues could be resolved over time, but the fact remains that our current social structure is so reliant on the legal status of marriage that to completely abolish it in one fell swoop would be folly. Laws would first need to be enacted to make marriage legally redundant before marriage could be safely abolished.
It’s wonderful that you try to reason w/JCC like he may be a rational person, but I’ve been butting heads w/him in various tones for 4 years on this very blog, & it only provides a stump for him to jump on & start hollering about his weird little conspiracies.
I garner that he’s ruthlessly honest, but his actual take on things is eye-buggingly bizarre.
Maybe people should start ignoring him then. With as little a time as I’ve been here reading the blogs, it seems to mostly be the same handful of people responding to him. What trolls crave is attention, so people should stop feeding him if this Dave person won’t ban a chronic troller.
I debate with him purely for my own enjoyment. As I’ve said before, arguing with the rational offers it’s own challenges, as does arguing with the irrational. That being said, he’s more articulated than most with his viewpoints. I don’t expect him to ever agree with me, I expect a challenge.
That being said, I suppose when a single comment has a higher wordcount than the post it’s made one, it’s gotten out of hand.
CPT_BRUMBL3Z:
I’ve advised that on occasion, but it’s too tempting, even for me. Of course he doesn’t respond to me anymore, mostly because I played him like a fiddle.
Nathaniel:
I used to as well, so I understand that. I suggest not asking any questions – somehow he deludes himself that he’s teaching you something, & gets even haughtier when the questions stop & the derision begins.
On 2nd thought, have @ it.
Don’t sweat it: little mouse will fisk every (well, almost every) paragraph.
Well, I can’t imagine I’ll bother responding to him. He seems more interested in posting a wad of flames and then not responding afterwards unless you make a clear “attack” on him so he can keep flame baiting. Really if this has gone on over 4 years now I’m really surprised he’s not banned.
Nathaniel:
That’s exactly my point—especially when it comes to trying to reshape a society based on that goal—i.e. marriage equality for “homosexuals.”
…or a possible one, especially when a vocal minority of the population has rejected long-held values that have withstood the test of time for their practical proscriptions.
When it comes to marriage, everyone does have equal rights under the law—chosen behaviors do NOT define “classes” of human beings.
Again, given our overly litigious culture, that claim is demonstrably false despite your continued assertion otherwise.
…for now…
Glad to see you think so too, so don’t be surprised when (not if) some whacko files suit to be able to do it.
Because it, like any alteration of its definition, would render the institution of marriage meaningless.
Wow, are you married?—or ever been in a serious relationship? Is jealousy just an outmoded, vestigial emotion—another relic of the “poisonous” after effects of our religious past to you?
Uh, maybe the same way you expect a dolphin, elephant or ape to give its consent to being represented in a human court of law?
…or to be party to a human law suit… If only you realized how ridiculous you sound.
Thanks, those are “interesting read[s] even if [their] source was questionable.” You shouldn’t be surprised to know that I’ve already seen those studies—and I wasn’t surprised to see that you failed to produce citations of any long term studies that I specifically asked for. The ones you did provide admit their own shortcomings in this area. This one admits as much: “longitudinal studies that follow lesbian and gay parent families over time are still needed.” The APA is well known to be permeated by a humanist, atheistic agenda which unquestionably compromises any objective integrity it may have once had. So, until you can produce multiple, objective studies that demonstrate no long-term social or behavioral problems with these kids—after they’ve reached middle-age—then the jury is irrefutably still out on the issue.
No. I said single parenting is a “less than ideal situation.” By definition, same-sex parenting always deliberately deprives any children in that situation of one gender role-model; single parenting carries no such immutable restriction.
Again, because of the intentional, deliberate deprivation of one gender role-model.
I disagree. Our very nature indicates that the ideal parenting model consists of a mother and a father.
That sounds suspiciously like a “slippery-slope”
fallacyargument—fortunately, it’s one that the real world amply disproves. A less than ideal environment is an entirely different kettle of fish than one that deliberately deprives, and automatically excludes a needed resource.Says who, the APA?
Oh dear, more references please.
Whoa, I hope you haven’t let any of your homosexual friends know you think that way.
Wait, you are you saying one’s sexuality is a preference?
I never said that that was marriage’s “reason for being.” Again, implicit to marriage is the sanctioned environment to rear children if they’re desired—only you are asserting that it must carry an “intent to bear” clause.
Uh, we’re not talking about animal homosexuality—besides, how prevalent is homosexual adoption in the animal kingdom?
Right, there is nothing intrinsically, extrinsically or qualitatively unique about mankind in the realm of things “natural.”
References please?—specifically ones that cite experimental data corroborating (i.e. duplicated under controlled conditions) your claim that human intellect “evolved naturally.”
Ditto for references.
Then how did we “manufacture” the concept and emotion we call love?
So, you’re a closet theist, posting on an atheist blog?
What is the character and nature of this God whose existence you seem to be asserting? If he is omnipotent and omniscient, then how could he have “arisen naturally?”
Oh wow, I doubt even Krystalline Apostate could manage to torture logic so severely in order to arrive at such a bizarre conclusion. Please re-read what I wrote: “it’s a biological aberration—contrary to the “evolved” reproductive mechanics of the species. Your analogy hopelessly breaks down because the mismatch of the natural, physical equipment and lack of an essential genital required for reproduction is irrelevant to whether or not those parts are used for their “naturally” intended purpose.
I take exception to that – I’ve never tortured logic in my life. We’ve dated, but aren’t into BSDM.
Neither JaCCoff or Phreedumb have answered my post, which I assume means that they accept Dave’s proposal. No one gets a legal civil union except in front of a justice of the peace. No one gets a marriage except in front of a representative of an imaginary god.
I’m sure, though, that this does not make them happy, because they know that under the same shroud of immunity that their ridiculous religious organizations exist, gay churches can also organize and bless the unions of their same sex unions. LOL. They can see the writing on the wall (Daniel) that eventually they are going to lose.
(Chuckle) I am not gay, and though I find the thought repulsive of pulling my tool out and finding a cornel of corn or the husk of a lima bean stuck to my dick, I also know how repulsive it is to smell a vagina that hasn’t been douched. Sex is about drive and orientation, and really, it’s all a lie told by nature which uses us as pawns to fulfil it’s directives. It promises happiness and fulfilment, but as soon as you shoot your wad, you know you’ve been had. Ignoring that moment of clarity, you go back again and again, hoping to recapture that instant of hormone induced insanity. But, the rule of diminishing returns eventually leaves you looking for alternatives or condemned to the mundane.
And while christians talk about one man and one woman, the old testament is full of herums of wives and concumbines, owned by those deemed by their god as “righteous”. But, suddenly, the christian enlightened have recieved a new perspective. LOL. Even though new testament accounts imply that the apostle John was getting a rump thumping from Jesus.
All I can say is that the assholes who sit in judgement of those who live the life they were born to, should give heed to the bible passage, “as you judge, so shall you be judged”.
NeoWolfe
I avoided this post because I thought it was some sort of marriage contract where the man has to do the dishes, and do the laundry and treat his wife as a goddess at all times. Seems I was wrong, JCC reality check, Gays have all rights that straights have. Constitutional and Civil rights apply to everyone. As far as I care Polygamy should not be illegal it is based solely upon Christians false beliefs.
If a man and man or women and women want to get married they should have the right to be as miserable as everyone else who gets married. They should not be restricted because of some false beliefs of some false religion that has no evidence whatsoever to support those beliefs. If I wanted to protect Christian marriages I would first outlaw divorce in regards to Christian Marriages only. Then go on from there.
Not all Atheist are for gay marriage, I’m not – and it has nothing to do with religion.
Congratulations on your sexual bigotry, then.
Thank you
So your only against equality under the law. Same difference.
Ordinary Atheist, please explain your position. Im curious.
Really nothing to explain, except I commented as a reaction to what was written that made it sound as if all Atheist support gay marriage, which I don’t. I support AA for their stated goals, and I would hope that it doesn’t turn into an organization that focuses on other issues other than the principals they are founded on.
I’m sure there are other venues that are better left to arguing over opinions of gay issues instead of here.
OrdinaryAtheist is against it because it’s ‘icky’.
If you cant expalin or defend your position then you either dont have one or you are ashamed to post it becasue you know that it isnt defensible.
Nothing to defend – it’s my opinion. It’s like trying to defend why I prefer vanilla over chocolate. I don’t know why somethings I like or dislike, care for or don’t. That’s just the way it is. As previously stated, I’m a bigot
I really don’t understand at all why some people believe in a god either, but the majority do – I don’t.
OrdinaryAtheist,
I understand you have an opinion… we all do. My question is even though you disagree with gay marriages, would YOU allow your personal opinion to deprive another of the right to engage in an act contrary to your opinions?
My favorite quote from Harlan Ellison – “You’re not entitled to an opinion, you’re entitled to an informed opinion.”
Or comparing apples to oranges. We’re not talking about individual preferences, we’re talking about civil rights for other human beings.
What a self-involved person you are.
Technically, in VA an Atheist cannot get married. Now I’m sure there is, and always has been, ways around it, but the law requires a ceremony from a religious society. It also requires an ordained minister of some sort (ordained defined as; to invest with ministerial or sacerdotal functions; confer holy orders upon.), to perform a ceremony, or solemnization of some sort. Seeing as how I don’t recognize religion, ceremony, rituals, god, and/or the idea of an ordained person is meaningless, I technically have no way to become married in the eyes of Virginia. Virginia law essentially requires me to utilize an ordained religious clergy in order to ratify my marriage. If I don’t have a ceremony within 60 days of issue, the license expires, and I am no longer able to marry.
The problem as I see it is state involvement in marriage itself. A license is a license, be it a fishing license, drivers license, etc., etc. What I do after issuance of the license, is no ones business but my own, as long as I abide by the laws.
Do I agree with gay marriages? Well, honestly, I could care less. Whatever trips your trigger I suppose. I guess I believe in legal unions of individuals, as long as those legal unions aren’t created for reasons of legal sidestepping (ie. citizenship, etc). Beyond that, if someone wants to fight the church and call it marriage, matrimony, or whatever, go right ahead. I won’t stand behind the fight on that though.
The problem is, our government is trying to govern human emotion, and love, and human bonds, when it cannot. All it needs to do is administer licenses.
As for someone considering it marriage, well, that’s up to their peer group, and how they see the union. Unions of 2 people are a social issue, and that social issue should be blind to our government, but have legal consequences for abuse of the issuance of the license.
My parents were married in VA in a nonreligious civil ceremony at the Christiansburg(!) town hall. No religious ceremony and no minister.
I’m talking about technicality here, not ways around the technicality. The person issuing the license technically needs to be an ordained minister, if you read the requirements. Most likely, the person performing the ceremony was an ordained clergy of some sort ordained by the courts, but obviously liberal in their view. A person must be ordained in order to perform the legal ceremony. If you research it, I’m fairly certain you’ll find they were married by a person who was considered a member of a religious society of some sort. The bottom line is, Virginia requires a ceremony to be performed, even though a legal document is signed by both parties wishing to legally bind. The legal document is not valid until such ceremony is performed by an ordained person from a religious society. It is a redundant, archaic, and useless ritual, which only serves to line the pockets of ordained ministers who belong to a church. Religion latched onto marriages long ago, in order to invoke a marriage tax and line their pockets with cash. It may not have been a conventional religious ceremony, but it was a ceremony performed by a legally ordained person, because that is a requirement of the state. Obviously, it could have been a mail order ordination by the person performing the ceremony or ritual, but once again, there’s always ways around the law if a man and woman desires to get married in the eyes of the law.
You’ll love this…
§ 20-26. Marriage between members of religious society having no minister
Marriages between persons belonging to any religious society which has no ordained minister, may be solemnized by the persons and in the manner prescribed by and practiced in any such society. One person chosen by the society shall be responsible for completing the certification of marriage in the same manner as a minister or other person authorized to perform marriages; such person chosen by the society for this purpose shall be required to execute a bond in the penalty of $500, with surety.
As you can clearly see, the courts of Virginia do not recognize a person without religion, and assumes we all belong to a religion of some sort. This is against the constitution, which vows the separation of church and state. Atheists are essentially denied legal rights to marriage according to the state of Virginia, because we don’t even have a religious society from which to designate a person to marry two people. Of course, this is all about the language and technicalities of the written law, but it is a fact. We are forced into a ritualistic ceremony performed by a court appointed religious peer within our category of human classification. A license/legal document should be sufficient from a bureaucratic standpoint.
It’s all about the money honey…
So, in the case of your parents, it probably went something like this.
Mom and Dad fall in love, and decide to get hitched. Being without a particular religion, they decide to go for a court marriage. Joe, the clerk, fills out all the paperwork, and then asks how they want to be married. Your parents, being non religious, opt for a court appointed clergy. Joe, the clerk, assigns a legal clergy to perform the ceremony. your parents, not really caring about the technicalities, accept Joe’s assignment of clergy. The guy/girl marrying your parents, could care less about their religious views, and reads them the courts written legal vows. The clergy though, technically broke the law, because he/she is not a member of your parents legal religious society, because they have none, and neither does he/she. Technically, according to the law, your parents marriage license is not valid.
So here in lies the outdated language of the law…
“One person chosen by the society shall be responsible for completing the certification of marriage in the same manner as a minister or other person authorized to perform marriages”
The general consensus within a non-religious or non-deity based union would be; authorization by a peer is unnecessary, unjustified, and not needed. Individuals possess enough common sense within themselves to authorize the union, and don’t need anyones approval or consent as law abiding adults/citizens of this country.
The state however, stands to gain this, and the certified clergy stands to gain a fee for services rendered…
“such person chosen by the society for this purpose shall be required to execute a bond in the penalty of $500, with surety.”
Now the real kicker is in the last word of the sentence, surety.
“Surety: a person who has made himself or herself responsible for another, as a sponsor, godparent, or bondsman.”
I find it offensive that I need a third party to ratify my marriage, because as an adult, I am responsible for my own actions in life, and so is my partner/wife/whatever. Marriage processes by the state is not about anything other than people sticking their hands in the cookie jar and collecting fees. I don’t need a middle man to certify a document which my wife and I have already agreed too and signed, and shown proof of with drivers licenses, birth certificates, passports, or whatever. I don’t know why or how anyone, religious or non-religious, could see it any other way.
If their are no legal “marriages” then the subject and all attached arguments are moot. If all unions are labeled “civil unions” the fundies can go to their church and have their future divorce blessed by their imaginary holy creator, but when it comes to collecting child support and alimony, they’ll be right back to civil court. LOL.
I find this discussion amusing, kinda like watching plantation owners bidding on off loaded slaves in a port in New Orleans. OrdinaryAtheist made my point for me. Just because you’re an atheist, doesn’t mean you have a clue. That’s why I call myself an agnostic and a freethinker. Rebelling against religion is just the first step toward seeing the big picture.
NeoWolfe
“That’s why I call myself an agnostic and a freethinker.”
Not sure what to call myself other than human, but I’m sure someone will figure it out for me. People like categories…
As for legal unions, any two people should be eligible, as long as they’re willing to accept the legal ramification and liabilities that go along with it…
Why stop at two people? Im all for legal civil plural marriages too.
The unions might be formed for a number of reasons legally, like shared health benefits, tax breaks, etc. To allow more than two to become legaly bound in a union would increases the chances of corruption from such unions. Our laws are designed for two.
So in this thread, the stupidity of the other side of the argument is well illustrated.
On the ‘secular’ side, we have ‘OrdinaryAtheist’, who doesn’t like it, because…well, he just doesn’t. How’s that for a well thought-out argument. Then we have fried rice, who thinks that if enough people w/a genetic predisposition towards disgusted moues say “EEWWW!”, that trumps people’s civil rights. Of course, there’s STILL no proof that homophobia is genetic.
The religious side is well represented by phreddy & little mouse. Phreddy’s clarion call ‘think of the children!’ is intellectual cowardice – & he readily inserts a red herring about school reading material, trying to suggest that there’s a ‘radical gay agenda’ like all the anti- crazies claim.
JCC’s posts are a little more articulate, but a little more retardation posing as intellectual substance. He too regurgitates all the schizophrenic nonsense of the reichwingnuts.
Between the 2 of them, they could start their own media echo chamber on Faux Noise.
And on the misrepresent-everyone-else’s-argument side we have KA.
Demonstrate.
To ajento
The problem is that for the majority of human history, multiple wives and polygamy were the standard, polygamy was the best way to increase human population levels in a very hostile environment. Generally the ratio of male to female births is 2/3 for every two males born three females are born. Monogamy is only a recent development in human history steaming from Christianity.
I prefer the Moslem standard of four wives myself. This allows for not only the smooth running of a house hold but allows a stressed out wife to take a leave without detriment to the house hold. Monogamy is a lousy way to run a civilization. There are always left over women who will not have a husband and these women would seek a husband even at the expense of disrupting a marriage.
If Monogamy is the standard then the unmarried women would have to be accounted as concubines or harlots. And this causes trouble within it’s own right. But allowing multiple wives solves this problem. The idiot who came up with Monogamy as the blue print of the human race should be dug up and burned in effigy and then castrated and hung from a cross.
I think in the effort of changing laws, you’d have to take it one step at a time. We as a society can’t even accept a legal union between same sexes, let alone multiple partners in life. My thought is it doesn’t matter why 2 people choose to invoke a legal union, be it love, friendship, or economics. Our laws are designed for two people, and that is pretty much exclusive to a man and woman at this juncture. If you read the laws, it’s pretty clear that religion hi-jacked unions long ago, and made them eternal, or heavenly. That becomes a moral bias or prejeduce within governement, as that union unfairly awards the couple with tax incentives, shared retirement accounts, shared health benefits, etc. There are some people in this country that will never be able to form any sort of union as laid out in the current laws, so it unfairly costs them money directly for benefits they will never be elligible to receive. It is financial discrimination, as well as social discrimination. So, either we elilminate these incentives across the board and let people take on as many partners under their own beliefs, or we allow these unions on any level between sexes. Allowing multiple partners in this country would be complicated, as one could essentially set up a citizenship import business marrying multiple mail order brides for the purpose of citizneship. The government can’t legislate love, so there would be no way to prove these were legitimate unions of multiple people. Love doesn’t even enter into the scenario on an arranged marriage anyway. It’s not so much of a social issue in my view, as it is a financial issue. The government is taking our money, and showing preferencial distribution of our funds based on relationship status. Essentially, if you’re not married, you’re penalized. That’s disrimination on a segment of society that will never become married for reasons of love between opposite sex or for a multitude of reasons, aside from merely being gay. I’m sttrictly talking about the distribution of our tax dollars, nothing more. If someone wants multiple wives under there religious beliefs, have at it, but the benefit from a government standpoint would only cover two people in that relationship, and lawyers would have to do the rest to cover the balance of patners.
” Generally the ratio of male to female births is 2/3 for every two males born three females are born.”
Mathematically, a percentage of society will suffer from discrimination and financial inequalities. It’s bad enough these people will pay for some welfare mother in the ghettos with 15 little tax deduction, when they can’t even obtain shared health coverage through a legal union. This is about money, not what constitues morality between the sexes. Government cannot legislate sexual preference, love, morality, or friendship. Our government inherently and openly discriminates with our tax dollars based on what it feels is human morality, and love.
Another glittering example of your colossally faulty and deficient knowledge of just about everything. The natural human sex birth ratio is about 105 males per 100 females. Do you just make this bilge up as you go along?
Well, I did just assume Mark was correct in his response, so, my bad. I’ll be more thorough next time…
So, at 105m to 100f ratio, that leaves a natural discrimination factor of approximately 15,000,000 men who cannot possibly marry the opposite sex within the US. There simply isn’t enough females to go around. Worldwide, if we assume the same ratio, we’re talking about 300,000,000 men that cannot marry the opposite sex, or the equivalence of the entire population of the US.
Whoa, so you’re making bilge up as you go along too. There is no “natural discrimination factor.” Are you seriously unaware of the higher across-the-board mortality rates for men vs. women–which is the reason why there is a naturally higher birth rate for males? The only thing that can come close to your so-called “discrimination factor” is when cultures (like China) deliberately skew that birth ratio by favoring one sex over the other by
abortingmurdering preborns of the less favored sex.I’m not encouraging or discouraging marriage at all JCC. I am simply saying that it is not the governments place to create a bias towards an individuals relationship status period. If two people want to join legally for the purposes of estates, taxes, health coverage, etc, then they should be able to do so under the law. It is not the governments place to legislate love, friendship, or anything of that nature. This is everyones money, not yours, and we all have a say in how it’s spent, like it or not. It’s bad enough we support blatant procreation in depressed areas simply so some individuals can receive our tax dollars without working for a living. I am not debating the moral opinions of what constitutes a relationship, I’m debating how our tax funds are used. As for mortality rates, it’s meaningless. There will never be an equal amount of males versus females, as that rate fluctuates depending on environmental factors. I am well aware of the evolutionary mechanisms which alter the births of male vs female in species. Some species actually change sexes if rates dip too low one way or another. I don’t support gay marriages, anymore than I support tax breaks for conventional marriages. I support equality in tax breaks among all citizens of this country, gay or otherwise. If a man and a woman receive tax incentives for a legal union, then same sex unions should receive the same consideration, gay or straight. This evens the playing field where our tax dollars are concerned. If the idea of same sex unions is just too much for this country to accept, then all tax incentives of marriage should be removed from our laws. In this way, individuals are free to marry whoever they want within their own peer groups.
In general, I think American Atheist is wrong in its approach for government sanctioned gay marriages. Our government has absolutely no reason to sanction such unions and classify them as right or wrong. There is nothing legally stopping two people from living together, and doing whatever they want behind closed doors, and calling it whatever they want to call it. That’s simply not the issue here, but trying to force people to accept a point of view which they feel is inherently and biologically wrong, is pointless and equally as wrong. Trying to force legislation that accepts someones gayness is also wrong. This is not about sexual preference, it’s about legal benefits from the union of two people gay or otherwise. It’s about the distribution of our tax dollars and shared legal benefits, and the inherent discrimination present in the current laws. By promoting gay marriages, American Atheist advances an issue of subjective morality, which even some Atheists have a problem with currently. Why, because it’s icky as someone on this blog so elegantly stated. That response, promoted a defense that icky is not a reasonable argument. So, in short, promoting gay marriages will only accomplish promoting opposition from opposing views. Neither is right or wrong, simply different, but the financial benefits do have a right and wrong position. Opposite sex marriages receive financial benefits from such unions, which discriminates financially to a segment of the population that inherently cannot benefit from such unions. That’s a misappropriation of tax dollars based on a bias towards opposite sex unions. As I said early, I could care less about the gay marriage issue, because it has nothing to do with me. Take that up with your peers and churches if you want people to consider it morally right. The law though, needs to remain blind to such unions, but it doesn’t, because it is financially bias.
Whoa, hold on there, partner. You may have missed this, but there are several states that specifically legislate against gay unions – so the boat has sailed on the ‘right or wrong’ point.
If their POV is wrong, then they need to be enlightened.
How you can say all of the above, & then state:
So yes, your tax $ ARE GOING TOWARDS DISCRIMINATION. You should be in high dudgeon.
I don’t think you’re quite grasping what I’m conveying, or I’m not conveying my point clearly enough.
The issue is about money and estates, not morality. Yes, gay people should be able to form a legal union exactly as a heterosexual couple of the opposite sex. However, heterosexual couples of the same sex should also be able to form a legal union, just as a gay or opposite sex couple. To promote a marriage as gay, only serves to raise opposition from the self described moral police, which is pointless. The issue is what constitutes a legal union of assets and benefits, not whether someone is gay or straight.
Krystalline,
If you really read what I’m saying, you’ll understand I am promoting a legal scenario where any two people can form a legal union. Love and all that jazz has absolutely nothing to do with it. Too many times I hear the sob stories from the gay community about how they’re in love, and should be able to marry, blah, blah, blah. I honestly don’t care about why someone wants to marry, I care about the tax dollars associated with that union. So do they in all honesty, because that’s the only reason someone would want the state to recognize the union. If this was purely an issue as to whether they can be married or not, it becomes a non issue, because they can be married at any time. No one in this country is preventing anyone from sharing their lives together, in love, or whatever. They can even hire a lawyer to draft a legal document giving them power of attorney, estates in death, etc, etc.
Why can’t I form a legal union with my buddy of 15 years though? It has nothing to do with love, or anything like that, rather finances. What constitutes a legal union? Is love really a factor? Does it matter at all in the end? There are plenty of very morally questionable heterosexual relationships that are perfectly acceptable in some circles, where swinging and wife swapping occurs. Look at Tiger Woods for heaven sakes. He’s up to about 12 mistresses at last count. If his wife doesn’t contest the marriage, it becomes acceptable to them. Look at arranged marriages, where absolutely no love could have ever occurred initially, only a remote possibility at some point in the future. That seems okay to people.
So, what constitutes a legal union in the eyes of true Atheists?
In essence Krystalline, we cannot allow a same sex a gay marriage, without inherently discriminating against a same sex heterosexual marriage. One discrimination, leads to another discrimination, which leads to another kind of discrimination. It’s all very important to clarify, otherwise, I can’t marry the same sex, unless I call myself gay. The government cannot ask sexual preference in a relationship in order to establish equality in marriage rights.
I don’t know where to begin.
No, the issue is primarily about religiously imposed discrimination.
Those are called business partnerships. A platonic marriage? Are you kidding me? You know about the terms of annulment?
They need their asses dragged into the 21st CE.
News flash: if you value your wallet higher than the civil rights of your fellow man, you need to re-assess your priorities.
Already answered that 1.
How does this count as anything? A golfer philandering has no bearing.
Likely you’d be whinging on if that cost you pennies a day too.
I don’t agree much w/the little mouse, but obviously this is all ad hoc, & you haven’t given any thought to the matter past the silver in your palm.
There’s no clearcut definition of what is a ‘True Atheist™’ is, so you can’t be addressing me.
” if you value your wallet higher than the civil rights of your fellow man, you need to re-assess your priorities. ”
If my values are higher than my wallet???? What??? The entire gay marriage issue is about government tax breaks and shared assets. If two people want to live together in love and all that jazz, no one in this country is stopping them.
As for allowing same sex marriages, and offering that only if you are gay, then proof of gayness would need to be a requirement. How do you proprose the government do that?
And no, this is not about money for me, because I am engaged to a beautiful woman and will be married within the year. I am simply playing the devils advocate on the issue.
If the government only allows people of the same sex to become married, and only if they are gay, and you agree with that law, than how do you propose to test someones gayness? This issue has nothing to do with sexual preference, and never has. This is about same sex relationships wanting to share in the same legal benefits as heterosexual relationships. If that door is open, then you have to open it for all people, gay or otherwise.
Yes, this is definitely about the religiously imposed views on relationships, but those relatioships offer government incentives. Relationships though, come in many different flavors. Is a relationship based on love and freindship between two heterosexual people of same sex, any more or less significant than a gay relationship? You have to ask those questions when you’re pushing an issue of legal equities.
Can the government legislate love?
Can the government prove gayness?
Can the government prove friendship?
Once the door is open to same sex unions of any kind, reasons for those unions will come into question. Why couldn’t two friends form a legal union? Is there love any more or less valid than a gay relationship? Is sex a requirement of being married?
The answers are very complex, so what it always boils down to is two peoples willingness to share a life together, gay or otherwise.
Is a gay couple anymore fit to parent a child, versus an identical heterosexual pairing?
What about bi-sexuals, are you saying they shouldn’t be able to marry, because they aren’t quite gay enough for your liking?
Gee, it’s so romantic when you put it like that.
No, it is NOT all about tax breaks & shared assets. That’s a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The problem is equality. You may want to look that up.
Oh great. So 2 gay people are living together for 4 decades, 1 dies, the other’s left out in the cold altogether.
Are you really that short-sighted?
Really, you must be about 12 yo.
So…you’re a woman involved w/another woman? Your attitude is extremely surprising.
That’s a ridiculous scenario. Obviously the gov’t's not going to ban hetero couples.
Regardless of your current status, it very much is.
Who else is there?
You keep switching tacks, it’s hard to stay focused on what you really mean. Incentives? Like…tax breaks, joint filings, property, etc?
Why shouldn’t they be equal under the law?
I can’t share benefits w/my longtime buddy of 30 years – unless we have a business partnership. Do try to keep up.
Depends who’s in power.
See above.
I don’t know of any legislation that tries to.
Binary. Yes, it is. That’s why I referenced annullment.
Platonic friends don’t share benefits. They can live together, own a house together, etc. But marriage by its very definition implies sexual congress.
That’s a different topic, & the jury’s not in on it yet.
Any adult should be able to marry another consenting adult, regardless of gender.
Your ‘devil’s advocate’ needs serious work.
“Gee, it’s so romantic when you put it like that.
No, it is NOT all about tax breaks & shared assets. That’s a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The problem is equality. You may want to look that up.”
Law does not recognize positions other than the legalities of the union. It does not have emotion. This is entirely about shared assets, nothing more as far as the written code is concerned.
“Oh great. So 2 gay people are living together for 4 decades, 1 dies, the other’s left out in the cold altogether.
Are you really that short-sighted?”
Once again, law doesn’t care if someone is left out in the cold, as that statement is based on injected human emotion. The end result becomes the legalities of the assets.
“Really, you must be about 12 yo.”
I’m 44, and this issue is about detached human emotion, and how the law is going to handle platonic same sex relationships, heterosexual relationships, asn same sex gay marriages. Law does not concern itself with emotions. A judge does not want to hear sob stories, only the facts of law. It’s their job.
“Regardless of your current status, it very much is. ”
No, it’s about the joint assets in a relationship in the eyes of the law when you strip out all the emotion. Yes, it does stem from questionable relationship choices, but that’s becomes irrelevant in a court of law when dividing assets.
“Who else is there? ”
Not sure what you’re refering too. I’m talking about legal unions and shared assets.
“You keep switching tacks, it’s hard to stay focused on what you really mean. Incentives? Like…tax breaks, joint filings, property, etc?
Why shouldn’t they be equal under the law?”
Exactly my point.
“I can’t share benefits w/my longtime buddy of 30 years – unless we have a business partnership. Do try to keep up.”
Once again, this is exactly my point. Why can’t you and your buddy form a legal union?
“Depends who’s in power.”
No, government cannot legislate love. Love is unprovable and untestable, as it is purely a human emotion.
“Binary. Yes, it is. That’s why I referenced annullment. ”
Sex is absolutely not a requirement of marriage under current law. The only real requirement in the majority of the US is being male and female. Once again, this is exactly my point, because sex does become grounds for divorce. A same sex platonic marriage is based on different criteria. So, should same sex marriage only apply to gay people?
“Platonic friends don’t share benefits. They can live together, own a house together, etc. But marriage by its very definition implies sexual congress.”
You’re advancing an opinion as to what constitutes a formal marriage according to traditional values, and applying it to same sex marriages. Gay marriages are already unconventional, so traditional values don’t apply. Sex is not a legal requirement of marriage, but it can be grounds for divorce, and only if one party contests the marriage. We all know as human beings, when a relationship gets to the divorce stage, lack of sex is only a small part of a much larger issue.
“That’s a different topic, & the jury’s not in on it yet.”
Once again, it;s the next logical argument that will arise from same sex plutnic realtionships.
“Any adult should be able to marry another consenting adult, regardless of gender.
Your ‘devil’s advocate’ needs serious work.”
My devils advocate is as sharp as it’s ever been. You seem to agree, as “any two consenting adults should be able to form a marriage”, regardless of gender. Removing the word marriage is all I’m saying. After the union, call it whatever you want, because that ups to the church you belong too, the couple, or your peers. Law doesn’t care about the details, only the consequences should something go sideways. But the issue is a little more complex than that though, as we now have three possible relationship types. Conventional, gay, and friendship based. You want to inject feelings into the issue, but pure law is an emotionless process. It doesn’t care about the why’s, or why nots, only the trainwrecks that insue. The law has to take into consideration the various types of unions that could occur under the new law, not just the gay vs heterosexual relationships. It would be very naive to think heterosexuals don’t marry for a multitude of reasons now, but the laws already cover those relationships and really doesn’t care. It’s acceptable, because it has the appearance of normalcy as judged by the people in this world. Same sex unions are inherently different, because we are accepting that not all relationships are based on traditional values. Who’s to judge that a marriage based on friendship, is any less significant than a marriage based on sexual love? This is not primarily a gay rights issue, it’s a question of mutually agreed upon shared assets, divorce and death. If two gay men or woman can get married, than two heterosexual men or woman should be able to get married. It is the only scenario where true equality can be realized. Unless of course, we elliminate any and all legalities concerning unions as a whole. That would go over like a turd in punch bowl though, so it’s not going to go down like that…
No ajento, you obviously haven’t even looked @ the definition of marriage. I’m not talking about ‘traditional values’ – marriage is about kinship, becoming relatives, not 2 old buddies deciding to ‘merge their assets’. Really, your logorrhea is not an adequate substitute for critical thought.
I would say on the average that yes, sex is actually the intrinsic reason for marriage. It’s 2 families agreeing to merge via a union of 2 members from the respective units. It usually involves (but doesn’t have to) procreation.
As to the rest of it, we agree for the most part that it should be an equal division of property, assets, benefits, etc.
Learn to use blockquotes, BTW.
How the heck do you do block quote anyway? All I have is a reply window, with no features.
You are defining marriage based on your view of marriage, which is biased towards your beliefs. Your beliefs are equally as valid as anyone elses. Marriage was definitely about kinship, but tradtionaly, that kinship was about making babies and blood relatives and passing on stuff through blood relations. Obviously, same sex marriages are inherently incapable of that task.
Marriage itself is an entirely subjective topic to begin with, as many people feel marriage itself is unatural to our species. You’ve added romance, and love to it, as in what is considered normal hetero couples, and all kinds of entirely meaningless qualities where the law is concerned. If this issue was about the ability for two people to live in love and romance, no one is stopping anyone from that act in this country. You are more than free to create your own ceremonies and rituals and become married under the eyes of your peer group. That is not a road block for gay couples.
So, when you strip away all the arguable subjective traditional and new age concepts of marriage in the eyes of society, our laws governing marriage is about our tax dollars. A man and woman can legally benefit from a legal marriage, as well as their legal offspring. That is a fact of law, which unfairly discriminates against a minority of people within this country, gay or otherwise.
Obviously, if you’re gay, you inherently do not qualify for those legal benefits, but gays do not corner the market on discrimination where these benefits are concerned. We have people in this country that are disformed, naturally homely, asexual, etc, etc, who will never qualify either. For all we know, the number of people who become ineligible for marriage for natural reasons beyond thier control, out number the gay community.
Remember, as far as the law is concerned, this issue has absolutely nothing to do with two peoples ability to live together and do whatever they want behind closed doors. This is not about love, acceptance, romance, or anything of that nature. This issue is about the legalities of unions and our tax dollars where laws are concerned. Everyone pays into the kitty, but only male/female relationships benefit.
I live in Virginia, and if one really looks at the law, Atheists cannot legally marry. Virgnia law requires a ceremony, and the person doing the marrying must either be an ordained minister, or a designated official marrying person from your “religious society.” That designated person must also forfeit a bond of $500 with surety.
I’m not sure what you mean by critical thought, as that statement is biased towards your beliefs in life. And sex is not the natural historic reason for marriage, making blood lines and carrying on the family name throughout generations.
In essence, the gay community wants to claim they are disadvantaged because they naturally, and beyond their control, prefer the same sex. This biological fluke discriminates against gays because heterosexual couples recieve tax benefits. The law does not recognize this biological oddity and is blind to the relationship between same sex unions. Likewise, the law does not recognize biological oddities in all human beings who become ineligible for marriage for reasons beyond their control. So, there’s a legal benefit that both groups of deficiencies are naturally ineligible to recieve, even though both groups pay into that benefit for others. Keep in mind, no one is stopping anyone from living together in their own version of love and harmony, and all that jazz. This is entirely about the benefits associated with legal unions, becuase there are many people in this country who become ineligable irrespective of their relationship status.
“And sex is not the natural historic reason for marriage, making blood lines and carrying on the family name throughout generations. ”
I meant to word that differently….
Sex is not the historical reason for marriage, as purely sexual relationships are shallow and meaningless. It was about making love and making babies, and creating lasting bloodlines and the carrying on the family name throughout generations. It was about entitlements, and royalty, and land, and stuff. All of this was viewed as strictly hetero reasoning. I’m not sure love really had much to do with it actually, as women were more of a commodity historically rather than an object of some sort of sacred love.
& still I wait, patiently, for a real world example – which you haven’t supplied. That Adam Sandler movie was a movie, & incredibly unlikely to occur.
Obviously, you still don’t know what ad hoc means. & yes, you inferred that. If you have any shred of honesty, you’d re-read it, because when you apply the slippery slope fallacy (“Hey, all those OTHER people will want it too”), that’s exactly what it implies.
Hello? Marriage is both already?
You’ve stated a helluva lot more than that.
I’m not going to answer it, because it’s fucking stupid. In a marriage, the act of consummation is implied, both on a societal AND a legal level. I brought up the term annulment (a legal term used in court that applies ONLY & DIRECTLY to marriage), which you hand-wave off.
Ha! I’ve heard all these arguments before – I’ve tried to be polite in the past, but STUPID IS STUPID. You’ve tried to make it about opinions, it’s not. You’ve tried to hypothesize (heterosexual same sex unions? No such thing, never will be), very poorly. You’re really, really terrible @ this.
ROTFLMAO! That’s not going to ‘abolish’ any such thing. Nothing is. Next you’ll be predicting the decline of western civilization.
No, you’re calling it what you feel like calling it, which is Loki’s wager, another logical fallacy.
& dude, debate isn’t about stamina, or repeating yourself ad infinitum. Nor is it about courtesy. I don’t play by any of those rules. Simple logic dictates: the rule for one is the rule for all. No free passes.
Wow. Does any body actually read these tit-for-tat exchanges between KA and Ajento or KA and JCC. They are long, tangential and fragmented. And they get worse with each iteration. I stopped reading them at the second iteration. Wow.
You only have the 1st 1 right – they’re long. Tangential as in definitions 1, 2, or 3? & no, not fragmented – I’m fisking the arguments, & addressing them.
His or mine? Oh wait – we don’t get along so well, so it’d be mine.
Says Mr. Monosyllable. You may want to work on the attention span thing.
I should pay more attention? The idea of marriage had to do with the possibility of procreation. If the technology had existed to determine someones ability to procreate back then, there would have been a lot less marriages. Of course, that statement is somewhat speculative, but certainly not off the mark. Regardless, finding an actual definition of marriage is difficult to say the least.
see above.
You’re actually telling me homosexuality is normal behavior? As for my response being ad hoc, the entire debate is ad hoc on both sides of the arguement. You have not once made a logical argument based on any sort of factual evidence in our entire debate. Quite lame is an opinion, and the little insults you sling throughout your responses are evident of a lack of reasoning or position.
Essentially, when you break gay marriage down to its simplist terms, it’s about physical attraction. The gay community contends they are physically and biologically different, as they are women trapped in mens bodies, and vice versa. That’s an admitted biological defect, which may qualify for ADA support, but isn’t necesarily grounds to disrupt the entire social structure of several thousand years. What would make your affliction any more significant than extreme uglyiness in the eyes of the law? Both conditions limit the possiblity of marriage, but both conditions still have the posibility to marry the opposite sex. The problem is, there is no biological proof of homosexuality. Even if they do find the gay gene, it would be rational to consider the possiblity of a cure. If such a cure was available, who would opt to take it in the gay community?
So, the gays community defense is about attraction, or the ick factor. One could simply say, if gays want the legal benefits of marriage, marry the opposite sex. That would be a little too “icky” though, wouldn’t it?
You continue to bring these highly subjective topics into this debate, which have no right or wrong defnition. The debate itself really has to do with the legalities or money within legal unions. Laws have been made where a man and woman can benefit from a legal union, and similar same sex situation don’t. It’s just as easy to say, life isn’t fair, grow up and get over it.
So, I’ve given a perfectly secular argument, which says homosexuality may qualify for ADA benefits, but there still is no hard evidence to support a biological cause. So, until hard evidence is found, it could be considered a sexual preference. In other words, gays find the opposite sex icky, and won’t even attempt to try what society considers normative behavior. It’s a secular argument, void of all religious views. Gays want the law changed, because they find heterosexual sex/relationships icky. It could be said, life isn’t fair, so what?
And for the record…
The ideal standard or model from which we judge homosexual behavior, is heterosexual behavior. Homosexual behavior is actually contrary to the procreation of a species innature, and inherently puzzling to science.
Here we see in philosphy, normative is based on ones beliefs, and not necessarily verifiable. Sexuality is a philosiphical debate, but homosexuality could be considered factual should humanity find the gay gene, or human defect which impairs what could be considered, normal physical attraction of the opposite sex.
You use the term normative behavior as an absolute, when it’s actually at the heart of the debate itself. What is considered normative behavior is entirely a matter of which side of the debate one stands.
I think you should really try comprehending the actual meanings of words or statements before you use them in the debate. Clearly, normative behavior is as subjective as marriage itself.
The ideal standard/model is incorrect then.
It’s also used in law, & social sciences. I was using the lawyer’s term.
Here’s the problem – you keep talking about it as if it were a mistake of some sort, a congenital defect. It’s no such thing.
No, it is most certainly not an opinion. It’s a normative minority behavior. I left that word out on purpose.
LMAO! Nice try, no cigar.
450 different species engage in it, you tell me.
That’s what I mean by doing research.
Tu quoque. Terribly incorrect.
I think you’ll actually need to get over your umbrage, & re-read my posts. I’m being very logical, just not very polite.
Sorry, I have trouble taking someone who would propose a same-sex heterosexual marriage seriously. You may not be stupid, but the idea is.
Zen master of the obvious here. Wait – you say 1st it’s about the money, now it’s about the physicality. Change goalposts much?
Those are transsexuals, see, this is why I have trouble taking you seriously.
You keep calling it a ‘biological defect’ – which it isn’t – but you claim there’s no ‘hard evidence’ either way. Make up your mind. Also, arguments from tradition are also a logical fallacy.
Yeah, you’re showing more & more sexual bigotry as you spew your crap.
Non sequitor.
That’s not really the problem.
Do you even listen to yourself?
Anti-gay vaccine? An antidote? Wow.
Ideological bullies are the worst kind.
So…telling people they’re not permitted an institution that everyone else can perform is subjective?!? Treating an entire subgroup of humanity like 2nd class citizens (wait, even 2nd class citizens get to marry) is subjective? What’s wrong w/you?
No, it has to do w/equality & civil rights. You want to make it about money, it’s not about that. The $ is a secondary symptom.
Thanks for the news flash.
So say the shruggers.
There’s no hard evidence, but there’s plenty of soft evidence that shows it very likely is. & really, strong-arming people by claiming it ‘could be a preference’?
Again, do the research. There are plenty of gay fathers who had children via the ‘normative’ way. & let’s not forget all the gay teenagers who’ve suicided, because society tried to force them to be otherwise.
It’s a stupid argument, void of all empathy & class.
& you wonder why I don’t treat your opinion w/respect? It doesn’t deserve any.
Wow, we better reconsider the theory of evolution.
That’s a silly ass argument in defense of your position. Some species eat their young, should we legalize insestual canabalism too, because other species eat their young? Or maybe like the blackwidow, we should legalize murder of husbands after sex. Maybe rape should be legalized as well, hell, many females within species are raped on a regular basis.
News flash, we’re human beings, not animals.
That’s what I say about your lack of evidence and reasoning. Your position is weak, and based entirely on what you define or believe is right and wrong, acceptable or unacceptable, normal and abnormal. This entire debate is a debate of opinions, and what each side feels is acceptable to society as a whole.
I do my homework when it’s relevant to the topic at hand. If it’s a genetic defect or anomoly, then it qualifies for ADA benefits. If it’s not a genetic defect or anomoly, then it’s a preference. Why should the law change based on preference?
I don’t care what term you were intending, normative behavior is a subjective state. As an admitted minority, you actually make the argument against normative behavior in gay relationships by default. Your assertion that homosexual behavior is perfectly normal, is based entirely on your beliefs and from your minority position.
Now that’s pretty damn funny coming from an atheist. Do you actually believe in “holly matromony” as significant debate?
No, you’re backpeddling. Normative behavior is a matter of perspective, and not very useful in this debate. There could be scientific causation, and I would tend to agree there most likely is. That said, it becomes speculative, because there is no physical evidence, so it’s not very useful in debates. I caught you using an entirely subjective term which is not definable in absolutes. It’s normal to the gay community, obviously, but as a percentage of the population, it is not the norm. You simply can’t say something is normal within a minority segment of the population, when that segment of the population deviates from the norm. That’s absolutely silly and completely illogical.
No, the dollar is the only reason. Society already accepts you’re gay(most anyway), and does not prevent anyone from living together under love and romance and all those subjective arguable states. The gay community has absolutely no road blocks where love and companionship is concerned. What the gay community wants is the legal umbrella that heterosexual relationships enjoy. That’s a simple fact of law, otherwise, there wouldn’t be a debate. This is not about love, and society does not have to recognize your beliefs, anymore than atheists have to believe in the flying sphagetti monster.
So, my idea of relationships based on friendships is stupid? Much of the population has a problem taking a homosexual relationship seriously. What’s your point? Just because you don’t support a minority group who will never be able to enjoy the same benefits that married heterosexuals enjoy, and what the gay community is fighting for, certainly doesn’t make your opinion right. As a matter of fact, your opinion is completely biased towards your minority peer group, judgmental, and a fine example of human bigotry.
If you really look at what the majority of the world believes, love is a gift from god. We as atheist are incapable of love in their definition. Although, they bring us in because they say we are gods creation. Love is considered something very holly, and exclusively between males and females.
So, what each person in this world defines as love between human beings, is entirely up to each relationship. Just because you don’t like the idea of a marriage based on friendship, certainly doesn’t make it invalid in human terms. It could be equally as fulfilling to some people who will never have the benefit of finding love and happiness within a normal sexual relationship, hetero or homo. It’s a very strong argument, contrary to your biased and bigoted belief system, of love and all that jazz. You are discriminating against a segment of the population who has no voice.
Heck, even ‘normal’ (using that term losely) hetero relationships are not always based on love, rather equity. Anna Nichol, and Michael Jackson come to mind. There are also political marriages. Of course, proving any of this is impossible, because love itself is not definable in a court of law. The only realy hard lined requirement for marriage in most states, is that it is a man and a woman, + all the required legal documents, like passports, licenses, etc, etc.
Not if you’re propounding homosexuality as a ‘biological defect’ it’s not. Otherwise natural selection would’ve weeded out that behavior already.
This just in: humans are primates, which are a part of the animal kingdom.
Of course, if you knew what you were talking about, you’d've known that.
That’s a whole load of bullshit to throw around when someone plays the argument from numbers fallacy & the ‘my opinion is just as valid as yours’.
Okay. Stop being an atheist. That way, you can benefit from social networks, not get upset @ religious propaganda, etc.
Even if hypothetically, homosexuality is a choice, you have no problem telling people to change their sexuality (like it’s a light switch or something) if they want equal rights? Are you kidding me? You can’t see anything wrong w/that?
You’d better fucking well care, because if a word has 3 meanings, you need to ask me which 1 I’m using, rather than build a strawman by cherry-picking your term.
& the majority doesn’t decide what’s right, it decides what’s acceptable. Huge difference.
What? Stop putting words in my mouth. No, the pro-gay side isn’t ‘ad hoc’. Look up the word.
Don’t tell me shit like that. I never lie online.
No, it’s not a matter of perspective – it’s a matter of equal treatment under the law.
There’s SOFT EVIDENCE. Cobble up your own definition of that.
Yeah, not a moral relativist, so that’s a hit & a miss. No, it’s NOT an entirely subjective term, no, you DIDN’T catch anything. Equal rights for all adults IS NOT ‘subjective’.
Yeah, another nice try @ the argument from numbers. Another miss. I said a ‘minority normative behavior’ – human ANIMALS have doses of estrogen as well as testosterone. & sexuality isn’t an either/or thing. So false dichotomy. Again.
Yeah, this argument was bullshit the 1st time I heard it. “Oh, they can live together, nobody’s stopping them, but equal rights under the law? How dare they?”
& they should have them.
Again, & again, until it sinks into your thick skull – IT’S ABOUT EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW. & sexuality isn’t a matter of belief, otherwise that’d be covered under the 1st amendment.
I’ll say this again: all opinions ARE NOT EQUAL. So you can shred that ‘ace up your sleeve’. You may want to look up the word bigotry too, since your vocabulary’s limited to what you want words to mean.
See above, in re: arguments from numbers. “If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.”
Again, you need to look the word up. You assume too much.
It used to be exclusively between members of the same religion, & the same race too.
So, you propose a rigid standard, & then tailor it to suit your purpose? Nice.
Well then, provide some examples. Are you marrying your straight best buddy tomorrow, or are you just fixated on this dumb idea?
Hey, either show me the money, or buzz off. Does anybody honest ever laugh in your face when you propose this? Do you have realtime examples of this even happening?
In your false dichotomy of human sexuality (which sadly, is shared by a majority, most of whom are dimwits), those are the hard & fast rules.
Marriage itself has been re-defined over the centuries, & the ‘traditional family’ is largely a myth. It veers wildly over the years as well as cultures.
There’s also multiple genders, & chromosomes aren’t locked into the ‘traditional’ XX & YY – but you’d know that, if you actually bothered to look it up.
Well then, that ends the debate right there! You want to take one observed behavior of the animal kingdom, and apply it to human beings to make your point. If that’s the tactic YOU wanted to try, then murder in the name of hunger should be perfectly acceptable to that line of rationale. As well as all the other inhumane acts animals commit. Just because other animals do such things, doesn’t mean we should, and that’s really the greater lesson when comparing our civilization to other primates. More times than naught, we make laws to avoid acting like the rest of the animal kingdom, not the other way around. And I knew exactly what you’re talking about, it’s just a weak argument where humans are concerned. Why? Because we’re human, not cows.
As I said earlier, I am simply playing the devils advocate on the issue. You have to admit, it’s a much more interesting debate than the religious ones.
Truth is, the gay community will win the fight eventually. It’s inevitable, because they are politically active and united. All it’s going to take is time, will, and patience.
However, once that door is open, heterosexuals will walk through it. There is no way to substantiate reasons for marriage. There is no test of love. There is no test for gayness, even if they find some sort of gay gene. Even if they find it’s an abnormal hormonal imbalance. The human factor always comes into play regardless. Many people play both sides of the fence for the pure thrill and excitement of it all. That’s a fact, and a fact I’ve seen time and again. Sometimes they enjoy it so much, they switch sides. This would be particulary true for females, as apposed to males. Society is changing though, and gay male relationships are becoming more and more in vogue.
The debate I propose is merely a hypothetical, but very real. Once the limitations of sexes are breached in the laws, people will abuse those laws. It is human nature, plain and simple. The legislation you want passed, will turn society on its ears, and there isn’t a damn thing anyone can say or do to change that. My thought is simple, take the marriage out of the government, and people can decide what those unions represent. In the end, it’s all about the $$$, because single peoples assets go to the state at time of death.
So, two heterosexual friends of the same sex go to the courthouse, and ask for a marriage license. Should the clerk ask if they’re gay, or simply assume they’re gay? It’s a good quesiton, like it or not, because it will happen. Should the law require same sex couples to be gay? If so, what exactly does that mean?
There is no way to govern a gay relationship status, so essentially, the entire country can become married for any reason. It’s a consequence of the laws you are asking for, and undeniable. It turns the entire concept of marriage on its ears, like it or not. This is exactly what you’re fighting for, or atleast, where it will end up.
My point becomes the meaning of legal unions, and how those unions could potentially disrupt society, and the family structure. I’m not saying in a bad way, or a good way, because it’s simply an unknown. Most likely, it is inherently meaningless, and a simple sharing of interests, and the ability to join ones health policy…
And I would disagree 1000 times, the entire debate is an ad hoc debate. There is no hard evidence that could be substantiated in a court of law, period. So the issue becomes a philosophical debate of opposing ideals. One group contends gay marriages will harm the fabric of our society, and the other group says it won’t. One groups ideal is that marriage is exclusive to a man and woman, the other says they’re wrong.
You say it’s about civil rights, I say bullshit, it’s about the benefits. Your civil right to live together in love and happiness is not violated in the least, so all that’s left is the money. If you want society to accept it, you’re going to have to wait several 100 years irrespective of the law.
Personally, I don’t give a rats ass, but I do enjoy a good debate. Can’t get that from the religious around here.
Ummm…I call red herring. I was illustrating that YOU claimed gayness was a ‘biological flaw’, when obviously it wasn’t.
That’s an appeal to nature, & I wasn’t committing that fallacy.
Exactly. Which is why everyone should get equal treatment under the law. Because we’re human.
It’s a lot more aggravating, because I’m getting the impression you should know better.
Then this debate is a moot point.
It’s really, really not something you can just switch on & off for the hell of it. It’s not like changing one’s socks.
That’s not a good reason to refuse to enact equality legislation.
There’s no way to separate gov’t & marriage. There’s joint tax returns, arbitration, lawsuits – it’s too complex for the mob to handle or decide. Besides which, the majority tends to be wrong a huge % of the time.
Unless you have real world examples, this is a ridiculous guessing game.
Again, ridiculous. Polygamy & polyandry are both illegal. The limitation is 2 @ a time. & the ‘entire concept of marriage’ as you put it, has been & always will be in a state of flux.
Equality’s a good thing. The Suffrage movement ‘disrupted’ society, as did the civil rights movement.
Reality says otherwise.
The only correct ideal, is equality in the eyes of the law.
It’s not about a variance between opinions. It’s about an unequal divide in our country.
& then 1 of the couple dies, the other’s left in the dust. Not just benefits. Family members can contest the will, the significant other can do nothing but stand by & watch as everything else is done, & he/she is not allowed to participate in any way.
It’s sickening, because it’s inequitable, straight couples GET MORE RIGHTS.
Let me give you a few pointers:
You’ve committed a number of logical fallacies. Tu quoque, argument from numbers, argument from tradition, false dichotomy, & you’ve built a strawman more than once.
So you ain’t quite as great as you think you are.
Just sayin’.
No, I’ve given absolutely no logical fallacies what so ever. You’re injecting ideals and meaning into marriage that are simply non existent where the law is concerned.
I’ll give you the legal definition of marriage as far as the law is concerned now.
Marriage: A legally binding social contract between a man and woman.
Beyond that definition in law, all we have is a bunch subjective ideals, nothing more. You can bury your head in the sand, and ignore the obvious all you want, but it doesn’t change the facts of what you’re really fighting for on a core legal level. Why two people choose to get married is not defensible in a court of law. It certainly can’t be regulated either. People get married for all kinds of reasons as it is now, and the laws you’re fighting for will only expand those reasons. The change in law you’re fighting for will without doubt, change the social significance of marriage in this country.
The law you want passed will redefine the core social contract from which society currently accepts.
Marriage: A legally binding social contract between two people.
Lawyers are going to love it, because it will expand their customer base. And the gay community will enjoy all the pleasures of divorce and the battle over shared assets that heterosexuals enjoy now. What exactly that marriage means between two people, is entirely subjective, and a personal choice between two people. What they’re willing to tolerate within the scope of that legal union, is between them.
It all comes down to money, like it or not. And it will change the social landscape by default.
So, I absolutely have not committed any logical fallacies. You’re just giving meaning to something that has no defensible position in a court of law. Ironically, the very acceptance you fight for in society, will only serve to diminish its very meaning. It’s a casualty of the equality you seek.
And no, I certainly do not consider myself any smarter than anyone else in this forum. I am a humble idiot in this world, and accept the fact I do not have the answers to life, unlike the fundamentalists that seem to have all the answers. You’re putting me on that pedestal, for the sole purpose kicking me off it. It’s a simple fact of your insult, intended to attack my intellect in the debate. I consider you to be a reasonably intelligent person, like myself, but you’re position in this debate is only the promotion of what you feel is right or wrong. It’s entirely ad hoc, based entirely on your ideals of marriage, just like anyone else that fights against your position on the subject.
And further more, the entire issue of legal marriage is because we can’t trust one another to act responsibly in a relationship. It’s why we now see a rise in prenuptial contracts. In a perfect world, two people living together without a legally binding contract is a hell of lot more admirable than the other. So right now, the gay couples who decides to live together in love, has a hell of a lot more meaning than an actual legally binding contract between a man and woman. That’s not the reality we live in though, is it? I love you, and want to spend the rest of my life with you, but sign this contract just in case you cheat on me, or worse.
Your lack of self-awareness is duly noted.
What? Are you kidding?
Bad laws need to be changed.
Yeah equality is a ‘subjective ideal’, right.
No sand in these ears.
A. It’s a social contract, so yes, it IS defensible, &
B. the social significance is again, constantly in flux.
If you’d done any research, you’d know that societal acceptance has changed from decade to decade.
Ergo defensible in court.
Your grasp of the obvious is as keen as ever.
It will come down to money, but it’s not ALL ABOUT MONEY. As if cash taints the enterprise.
You don’t know what they are, do you?
Just like freeing the slaves diminishes freedom? Don’t be an idiot.
You’re not.
Nobody has all the ‘answers’, ridiculous flourish.
There! You did it again! Are you kidding me?
I think your position on this is stupid. Equality is only how I feel? No, it’s an objective standard. Stop making it about ‘feelings’.
It is not ad hoc (do you know what that means?), stop using the Tu Quoque. My reasoning is entirely sound & logical.
& we can’t allow the gays in on any of this…because…well, it’ll cost extra MONEY, & lawyers might get extra work, & the majority might bridle @ it, & some retards think that being gay is a biological fluke that might be vaccinated against or there might be an antidote, & all you need to do is just change your sexuality, or just live together quietly & don’t rock the boat…
You sound like a homophobic adolescent.
You may get your equality some day, but in doing so, you will alter the perceived social meaning of marriage itself. As I keep saying, but you’re either too ignorant to understand, or flat out belligerent; you are opening the door for all to get married for any reason what so ever. Why two people choose to get married IS NOT DEFENSIBLE IN A COURT OF LAW. If there is a financial gain in marriage, people will exploit it. THE LAW CANNOT REGULATE THE REASONS FOR MARRIAGE. It can’t do it in heterosexual relationships, and it can’t do it in homosexual relationships. The door is being open to everyone, for any reason. Marriage cannot be defined in a court of law. Law can only regulate who is eligible, and try to sort out the train wreck that often occurs, or the assets in time of death. What that marriage means to individuals, is entirely up to the parties getting married.
As for me being a homophobic, seriously. That is completely laughable.
As for me bringing up genetic possibilities, read the many post around here from the gay community about exactly that probability. If there is a genetic causation, than it’s reasonable to consider a scientific solution. I can’t help it if it seems a little too sterile for you to handle, because it’s simply a factual probability where science is concerned. If they find a gay gene, develop a test for babies in the womb, and figure out a way to correct it, they will offer it/sell it. Take it one step further, and consider that correction possible for adults, and gay becomes a choice for some at that point. Obviously, I’m detaching from the human side of this when I state these probabilities. I seriously doubt most gay adults would take the pill. I wouldn’t, if I were in your shoes.
As I said right from the start, I’m simply playing the devils advocate. As I’ve also stated, I could give a rats ass. I only offer the facts void of all esoteric definition. When the esoteric reasoning leaves the concept of marriage, all that’s left is the money and legalities. You want to hold your partners accountable in a court of law for the commitments they make, and you want the benefits associated with marriage, exactly like your heterosexual counterparts. That’s all well and good, but you’re burying your head in the sand if you think that’s all there is to it. You’re also being extremely naive if you think it will solve the issue of acceptance in society. As I’ve repeatedly stated, that aspect of gay life will most likely take 100′s of years. You can’t legislate human emotion and feelings, as hard as we try at times. Laws are black and white, not shades of gray.
So I’ll ask a third time. Should the courts assume same sex couples are gay, or should they ask if they’re gay? Should the courts care? Can they do anything to prevent heterosexuals from exploiting the legal loophole that’s been created? Do you care?
So what? It changes regularly anyways.
Wait – what? You can’t seriously be proposing that people will marry their poodles or couches, can you? Because that’s just further down the scale of stupid.
Yet strangely, most matters that pertain to it are arbitrated in a court of law.
That’s a lousy argument against it.
Jury’s in. Official retardation.
We are talking about 2 grown individuals – here, in caps, for the brain-impaired: THIS WILL NOT LET PEOPLE PRACTICE BIGAMY, POLYGAMY, PEDERASTY, OR VARIED PARAPHILIACS. Those are SEPARATE ISSUES. Arguing that giving equal rights to gay people is equivalent to letting some clown marry a tree is ANOTHER LOGICAL FALLACY (a non sequitor), something you seem to be good @.
I’m willing to bet most divorce lawyers would laugh @ that statement.
Please – don’t go into law. Johnny Cochran is coherent next to you.
Well, you need to do some serious self-exams, because baby, you sure sound like it.
Yeah, buddy, your exact words were…’a biological fluke’, or ‘anomaly’, oh and DEFECT.
Jury’s still out, either way.
WTF are you talking about?
Sure. Despite that little thing called ethics.
Why can’t you see this? You keep talking about being gay as if it’s a DISEASE.
I’m not gay either, for 1 thing.
You’re offering an opinion void of any deep thought, in my subjective opinion.
Yeah, subtract the human aspect. Oh wait – can’t be done.
It’s a social contract, so that’s how it works, if arbitration is needed.
No, you obviously got it all wrong. Of course it’ll be an ongoing process. Really, how simplistic.
So what?
Yeesh, you’ve never been in court. Another false dichotomy. If laws were ‘black & white’, it would take hours, not years of litigation.
Really, if you’d actually done some research on the matter, you’d know that each of your ‘arguments’ have been debunked numerous times, & the only people left who take them seriously are the talking-headnuts on Faux Noise.
Class dismissed.
As I’ve said numerous times, but you just seem completely incapable of grasping.
Laws cannot regulate the reasons for marriage. Marriage cannot be regulated in a court of law. All the law can do is regulate who is eligible to become married. Hence, one unrelated man, and one unrelated female currently (ignoring second cousins, etc). Two heterosexual males or females can become married for any reason, according to the laws you want passed. To add polygamy, animals, or any of the such, is your ad hoc heterophobic concepts, as I never said anything of the sort. That simple fact redefines marriage from a social perspective to legal unions. This is what I stated initially, and this is what I said the law should be about, not gay marriages. I never once said I was opposed to such unions. This issue is not about gay marriages from a legal standpoint, after the law changes.
I’ve asked several times, but you obviously cannot answer the question, because it makes my point very clear.
Should the courts assume a same sex union is gay, or should it be a requirement? How could they test gayness if gay is a requirement for same sex unions? How could they prevent heterosexuals from marrying? Current law has no requirements for love. Current law does not ask why two people get married. The only requirement of marriage is that it be between a man and a woman, plus all the legal documentation to prove you are who you say you are. Getting married is not defensible in a court of law.
The only person being narrow minded and ignorant is you. This law abolishes the entire concept of marriage in our legal system, and turns it into legally binding social unions between any two unrelated people. I’m calling it what it is, and you’re making it about gay marriage.
Let’s look at the facts of your research, and see who’s really the talking headnut on Faux Noise.
Science claims there are nearly 1500 species that engage in what is considered homosexual behavior by science, not 452 as you claim. 500 of these species are well documented, according to science. Science though, has not taken a serious interest in studying this is depth, due to the social implications within our own society, and the scientific community at large. It is suspected that in some species, two males may be more suitable parents, but they still produce offspring via what is considered normal heterosexual behavior, and steal the offspring as their own. In other species, it is speculated that homosexual behavior is vital to the social order within that species, because they may be kicked out of that particular society eliminating access to the opposite sex entirely.
Whatever the reasons, pairings are driven for the purposes of evolutionary advantages, nothing more. As for social pairings, no single species can define the reason. From an evolutionary standpoint, it could be deduced that there is an undefined evolutionary advantage in a number of species.
Seeing as how our means of survival is currency based, and socially we are also religiously based, unlike the animal kingdom, social pairings in our society may have been forced to conform unnaturally to exclusively male and female pairings. Over the past several 1000 years, this has been the dominate social tendency in human beings, which makes those pairings to be considered normative human behavior.
Likewise, normative human behavior would also be defined as the belief in a deity, and participating in religious rituals to maintain societal acceptance. In other words, human beings may be susceptible to belief systems themselves, no matter how outlandish they are in reality. Considering human beings are capable of abandoning all sense of reason and logic, and actually drinking the Kool Aid, or blowing themselves up in the name of beliefs, it certainly is not beyond the realm of possibility that a certain amount of genetic programming has occurred.
In both cases, there could actually be an evolutionary difference in our genetic makeup, programmed in over 1000′s of years, which defined by the dominate behavior, makes both gays, and atheists, abnormal. So what?
You’re so hung up on political correctness and idealism, you suggest we redefine how human beings classify things in science. Civil rights themselves are an effort to defy natural laws of evolutionary behavior. Referring to the animal kingdom for validation of certain behaviors, actually becomes contrary to the purpose of developing civil rights. Hence, we have to look at ourselves to determine what is appropriate and acceptable behavior, not other animals. Human beings are perfectly capable of deciding what is and isn’t appropriate behavior, without turning to fish, or other primates. All that will ever accomplish is ridiculous debates and controversy. For instance, some species eat their young, etc, etc.
AA was not established for the sole purpose of any particular minority in society. AA is about the separation of church and state, and the advancement of human intellect, over ridiculous religious dogma. As I’ve said before, in the state of VA, an Atheist cannot be legally married. Of course, this is a technicality which does not prevent them from becoming married, but it is a fact of law. VA assumes all people have a religious society from which to draw on for a person ordained by that religious society to validate the marriage. The governments involvement in marriage should end at the issuance of a legal document agreed on by two people. The state of VA, and probably in most other states, forces a ceremony or ritual of holy matrimony after the issue of the legal document. I simply do not need anyone to validate the way I feel about someone else. All that is required from a legal standpoint is the willingness of two people, and signatures on the legal document. Beyond that, it is, and always has been, between the two parties to decide what that marriage means in the eyes of their peers, or beliefs in life.
I suggest that two friends might become married under the proposed law, and you say that’s ridiculous and stupid. Well, according to the laws of evolution, and considering our survival is currency based, this idea is not at all beyond reason. As a matter of fact, according to the laws of evolution, this is exactly what is going to happen considering there is an advantage based on our need for currency for the purpose of survival.
Class dismissed??? What an arrogant statement. For all we know, raising children in prehistoric same sex male and female relationships may have been the norm, and not necessarily definable as homosexual. This may just be nature taking its course, no matter how civil we think we are, or what we consider marriage.
I stand corrected. For once.
I’m skipping over most of it, because it’s logical, & I agree w/it.
Maybe you missed it, but I stated in no uncertain terms, that the ‘normative minority behavior’ was a reply to your responses that gayness is a FLUKE, DEFECT, or ERROR.
I’m doing no such thing. I’m ‘hung up’ on EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW, PC be fucked.
Could care less.
How many times do I need to repeat this? THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO YOUR…oh never mind.
Duh. Yeesh.
Read the mission statement.
I’ll entertain the notion once it happens. Until then, it remains quite laughable.
Normative Minority Behavior makes absolutely no sense, and appears to be some made up term as near as I can tell. It’s a pointless term to describe behavior in a minority segment of society which is defined by it’s behavior. Of course homosexuals behave homosexually in there minority, which is defined by normative sexual behavior, which is considered heterosexual. In your definition, serial killing is normative minority behavior. Pointless redundant double talk, which sounds like something, but is actually a double negative and virtually meaningless in describing anything.
And for the record, my use of genetic deviations from what we consider the standard model was never intended as a derogatory statement. You made it derogatory, when it’s a simple fact of how we measure and compare things in the world to others. Hence, you took it as a politically incorrect statement, and didn’t like how it sounded.
Considering a mother would sell her baby for cash, the only thing laughable here is your opinion…
Why is it pointless? Oh yeah – because you have trouble changing the definition, which is Loki’s wager.
Which doesn’t sound so pointless, & makes sense.
That’s a non-sequitor, & a red herring to boot. Serial killers aren’t even considered a minority in any sense of the word except numbers. You may want to look up the definition.
You obviously don’t even know what a double negative is. Again, you redefine whatever you feel like.
Excuse me, I thought words like ‘fluke’ & ‘defect’ were pejorative.
Listen, I don’t care about ‘politically correct’, you can repeat yourself till you turn blue. It’s how we ‘measure & compare’ when we think 1 thing’s superior to another, stop telling me bullshit. You fucked up, come clean.
That’s the same thing, how? Comparable, how? It’s not. Another non sequitor.
Entirely unimpressed. Bad show, bad form, bad logic.
Don’t quit your day job.
I didn’t need to change anything. A minority can only be defined against the majority. The term ‘Normative Minority Behavior’ is virtually the exact same thing as abnormal behavior when defining a single characteristic within the accepted standard of normal behavior. You just don’t don’t fucking like it, plain and simple. And you keep bringing it up over and over again, which is pointless.
Considering your liberal use of normative minority behavior as applied to human behavior, it certainly could be considered normative minority behavior. We weren’t talking about minority groups, we were talking about deviations from the accepted definition of what is considered normal human behavior. Psychopathic behavior could be classified as normative minority behavior in human beings. I didn’t bring up the term, you did. It’s a generalized term being applied to a single behavior quality, homosexuality.
Depends entirely on how they’re used. My statement was not pejorative, rather a comparison to the accepted standard of the human genome. Deviations from the accepted model are considered defects, deviations, flukes, errors, variations, mutations, whatever, etc, etc, etc. You have to have a reference point to identify variations.
Once again, you’re just completely unable to comprehend people will do just about anything to obtain what is most important to their survival, money. If there’s a financial advantage, especially if it’s legal, people will take that advantage. If someones willing to sell their child, it’s not at all beyond people to marry for money. It’s true in heterosexual relationships, it will be true in homosexual relationships, and it could very well happen in same sex heterosexual relationships.
The law will not be able to prevent marriages of any kind. Another fact you seem to have difficulty comprehending.
As for the rest of your intentionally derogatory remarks. You must be compensating for something in life.
Wow, for someone who doesn’t ‘give a rat’s ass’, you seem to be incredibly stubborn. Sadly, stubbornness is a flaw in this instance.
You claimed it was a double negative. Definition:
A double negative occurs when two forms of negation are used in the same clause. In some languages (or varieties of a language), negative forms are consistently used throughout the sentence to express a single negation. In other languages, a double negative is used to negate a negation, and therefore, it resolves to a positive.
No it doesn’t. It means a normal behavior that’s more of a subset contrasted w/the majority behavior. Fewer people liking vanilla contrasted w/chocolate, as an example. It dips into abnormal behavior when minors, animals, cushions etc. are involved.
No, 10 people out of 10 million are serial killers, that’s not a ‘minority’ it’s an aberration.
We are talking about minority groups who ‘deviate’ from what is considered the normative majority behavior.
The APA estimates that every human being has had @ least 1 psychopathic break. But no, it couldn’t. I’d consult the DSM on this, since you don’t seem clear on what constitutes aberrant behavior. Homosexuality has been de-classified. Paraphilia, psychosis, schizophrenia, have not.
Equally applicable to other behavior forms.
fluke, definition of:
1.n.
1. Any of various flatfishes, especially a flounder of the genus Paralichthys.
2. See trematode.
2.n.
1. Nautical. The triangular blade at the end of an arm of an anchor, designed to catch in the ground.
2. A barb or barbed head, as on an arrow or a harpoon.
3. Either of the two horizontally flattened divisions of the tail of a whale.
3.n
1. A stroke of good luck.
2. A chance occurrence; an accident.
3. Games. An accidentally good or successful stroke in billiards or pool.
Okay, owe you on that 1. Unless you were going for 3.2.
Defect, definition:
n.
1. The lack of something necessary or desirable for completion or perfection; a deficiency: a visual defect.
2. An imperfection that causes inadequacy or failure; a shortcoming.
There’s the point of my anger: it’s perceived as an imperfection (there’s no such thing as perfection anyways) – it’s the judgment of something less than optimal. But nothing in nature is optimal, by human standards. You say we’re not to be judged as per animals, because we’re human, & then you use the yardstick that sexuality should optimally be used to procreate, which is all it’s used for by animals. It’s a subset of human behavior, not a deviation from the norm. 10 people is a defect. 10 million is another number altogether, because @ some point consensus is what derives a constant in behavior. Homosexuality has been a constant behavior for centuries, if not longer.
I understand that fine, but this about equality, & this is the primary reason – anything else is gravy.
Sex is still implied in marriage. & sure, it’s happened in the past where it was platonic, between man & woman, but the sex is implied, otherwise there’d be no annulment (legal) clause.
Still no real world examples? Unless you produce 1, you may want to drop that.
Yeah, I addressed this already, & you denied making the implication. That’s a slippery slope fallacy – or an absurdio ad reductum. You can’t prove something like that. Polygamy isn’t going to happen, neither is polyandry. Or pederasty, or people marrying their poodle. It was bullshit when you said it the 1st time, & it still smells like it.
Of course other folks will try to get their piece of the pie. Doesn’t mean they’ll get it. & it’s a sad talking point, because all it is is an observation, not a proof, an axiom – & you can’t prove any of those other groups will get theirs.
Sorry, I get quite irritated when someone not only voices a stupid opinion, but keeps insisting it’s not stupid.
So:
Tu quoque, false dichotomy, slippery slope, reductio ad absurdum, Loki’s wager, strawman…the list goes on.
Most people don’t appreciate having their flaws (in this case, reasoning) pointed out.
PS – this is what I meant by ad hoc:
In science and philosophy, an ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified.
Lets look at the facts of the points I’m making…
First, I claim that the law cannot regulate who gets married if they are changed to allow for same sex marriages. Asking someones sexual preference becomes discriminatory. You’ve continually debated this point, trying to prove me wrong, and you can’t.
I’m right, you’re wrong.
The only red herrings being cast are from you on this issue.
Next, you claim I’m wrong when I make the statement that homosexual behavior is abnormal compared to what human beings define as normal sexual behavior. You try and correct the statement with the use of “normative minority behavior”, to invalidate what I say. Next, you make derogatory remarks to validate your position against me, when in fact, it’s a perfectly valid statement. Even Einstein was a societal fluke, because he possessed an abnormal intelligence compared to the standard model. Maybe we should coin a new term to fit your sense of political correctness, and say Einstein was normative minority intelligence. You go even further and claim the standard is invalid, when in fact, it’s not. You simply don’t like it.
Once again, you’re wrong, and I’m right.
The fact is, the only person throwing out false logic with a bag full of red herrings is you. I simply state the facts of the law being proposed, and say the law cannot appropriately handle the scenario it’s potentially allowing.
You have no position in this debate, so your last resort is a position of character defamation. It’s all you have left, and you don’t like it. So, you consider my opinion stupid. I consider your lack of position ignorant, arrogant, and childish.
I personally don’t find the law stupid, but the laws that are being proposed allow for a loophole that can’t be patched. The law needs to be able to cover this possibility, because if there’s a way for people gain financially, they will.
I’m right, you’re wrong, so get over it.
Tu quoque, false dichotomy, slippery slope, reductio ad absurdum, Loki’s wager, strawman…the list goes on.
You’re just plain arrogant, and I don’t care how many terms you grab to prop up your intelligence, so you can appear, well, in the normative minority intelligence class. You’re just an average person, who thinks their opinion is gospel.
You’re wrong, again.
You mean your wild speculation?
You’re wrong because
A. it’s regulated already (being heterosexual IS A REQUIREMENT IN MOST STATES)
B. Marriage is already regulated, BECAUSE THERE ARE LAWS IN PLACE.
Insistence that I haven’t debunked your points is sad.
Again, you don’t know what words mean.
False dichotomy – either it’s a ‘normal’ behavior’ or an ‘abnormal’ behavior – ignoring the fact that human behavior is nuanced.
Oh boo hoo poor you.
You’re comparing behavior to intelligence?
No, it’s an objective stance – quit w/the either/or nonsense. I’ve already explained how you were wrong on this 1. (W/o being insulting, no less.)
That’s a tu quoque. I’m doing no such thing.
You’re…kidding, right? What’s the difference? It’s 2 people getting married, for crying out loud, it’s that simple.
Actually, I’m not the poor loser here.
Yes I do. You’ve tried to ‘argue’ that
A. All opinions are valid, ergo both our opinions are subjective,
B. Use observation as talking point (if gays get married, everyone else will want to, too)
C. Gay behavior is abnormal (it’s not, it’s a normal minority behavior)
D. Sexuality can be switched on & off, so gay people should just change their minds
E. Gay men are women trapped in men’s bodies (those are transsexuals, a different category)
I mean, I could list the amount & degree of mistakes you’ve made, but you insist on being miffed.
I’m not lacking in position, logic, or anything else. It’s just that I’ve heard these same ridiculous arguments about a million times, & this is the first time I’ve heard them from an atheist. It gets frustrating when you hear the same nonsense over & over again.
Obviously the religious don’t have exclusive domain over foolishness.
Deny people equality because…why?
Yeah, nice try, wrong again.
I was right, you don’t know what any of those mean. I’m not using them to make myself look smarter, they’re standard terms in the world of debate, & you need to wipe your little tears, look them up, re-read what you’ve written, & cope w/it.
Your major objection is that I’m not nice to you? Are you 12? You sure argue like it.
As most on here feel there is no logical argument against a gay marriage, all will eventually have to agree there is no logical reason a marriage can’t be based on friendship. No one can decide why two people would want to share a life together, as that becomes a personal choice. To make marriages exlusively gay, or exclusively heterosexual though, discriminates against the obvious issues that will likely arise.
I will say it again, AA is wrong in support of gay marriages, when it should be focusing on legal unions between citizens of this country.
“How does this count as anything? A golfer philandering has no bearing.”
I’ll admit, it’s a pretty weak argument on that one… I guess I was saying that no relationship is perfect, but in the end, what we’re willing to accept becomes the barometer in life. Most woman would say dump him, and take his money, but what they decide will be the right decision for them…
It was a weak argument though, I admit…
All your ‘arguments’ are weak.
To ajento
Actually it was my bad I was working off of the information I had in grade school. Back then it was a 2/3 ratio which in times of stress reversed. During times of stress or war the birth rate reversed itself in which there was 3 female births to every 2 males. Apparently medical science has made a few advancements since I learned this statistic. But I am not completely wrong, I am simply wrong on the birth numbers.
As of July 2006, males in the US numbered 147,512,152 (49.27%); the median age was 35.1 years. Females numbered 151,886,332 (50.73%), with the median age at 37.7 years.
While female births no longer are greater then male births female adults do out number male adults. So there is a balance discrepancy of more women then men. Also while male births out number female births the infant mortality rates for males is greater then for females.
Infant mortality rate
(2007 est.)
total population: 6.40 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 7.00 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 5.70 deaths/1,000 live births
So more males are born, but more females survive. Also the male to female ratio is thrown off because of selective abortion and infanticide.
The human sex ratio is of particular interest to anthropologists and demographers. In humans the secondary sex ratio is commonly assumed to be 105 boys to 100 girls (which sometimes is shortened to “a ratio of 105″). In human societies, however, sex ratios at birth or among infants may be considerably skewed by sex-selective abortion and infanticide. The CIA estimates that the current world wide sex ratio at birth is 107 boys to 100 girls.
Meaning that there might be closer to a 1 to 1 ratio but since modern science can determine the sex before birth more females are aborted or killed after birth which would throw the percentages of male to female births off. It would seem that the only time in which the male population is greater then the female population is at birth. Past that point the female population is either equal to or greater then the male population.
Human sex ratios
(2007 est.)
at birth: 1.05 males/female
under 15 years: 1.05 males/female
15−64 years: 1 male/female
65 years and over: 0.72 male/female
total population: 0.97 male/female
So sorry for the misinformation due to me being stuck in the dark ages, and not keeping up with the modern world or it’s sciences. But in the end I was partially right, when it comes to females of procreation age and males of procreation age, the females out number the males.
So JCC since we have this out of the way, would you like to discuss why the apostles lied and deceived in their written accounts contained in the bible?
Amazing… You just pull stuff out your rear-end and actually think people will take you seriously. The natural ratio has always been, and always will be 105.
Ok, ya got me… You’re right, the inconsistencies of “major” details in the Gospels like exactly when Joseph took Mary and Jesus to Egypt after his birth; or exactly when Harod ordered the infanticide or exactly when the shepherds spread the news of his birth, irrefutably invalidate them as genuine historic accounts. Yes, those calling themselves the Apostles are demonstrable liars in their supposed eyewitness accounts of Christ’s life precisely because of the “insignificant” and “minor” points of harmony their Gospels contain like: where He was born; who His parents were; who His disciples were; where He taught; what He taught—and most “insignificantly” of all—their individual accounts of His trial, passion and resurrection. Yep, none of that could possibly make for credible forensic, or historic evidences of His existence—and absolutely makes his Apostles the biggest liars in all of history.
And this is phenomenal; you quote me: “Yeah, that explains why the vast majority of them were rejected, ostracized and martyred by their peers after they wrote what they did–that’s a real good way to “expand their power base,” then turn right around and repeat your original gross misrepresentation of that quote with:
when I’ve never said any such thing. You’re demonstrating unmistakable signs of a learning disability.
And then this
proves without a doubt just how clueless you really are about Christendom—the Reformed Church is unequivocally NOT a “branch” of the Catholic Church.
Really? Where?— exactly what “Divine knowledge” have I claimed to have?
Wow! You actually got something right for once…
And this is what’s so baffling about you: me coming right out and saying, “I’m a Christian”—and standing by that claim—for some reason, isn’t sufficient proof for you that I am one.
So much wrong…where to start?
They went to Egypt? But the other gospel…it says Bethlehem for a census. The infanticide was the pseudopigraphic Matthew’s attempt to sync up to those little lies xtians call ‘prophecies’. Herod’s infanticide never happened.
You can’t even prove they existed, let alone that they wrote the ‘gospels’.
Really? They mixed up the days like crazy. 1 of 4 made wild claims of zombie saints, 2 of 4 made claims of a ‘darkness that spread over the earth’ only 2 of 4 mentioned the ‘virgin birth’, only 1 mentions the ‘infanticide’, nobody can decide who was @ the tomb, nobody can find the damn tomb, & your mythical madman stated that nobody there would taste of death until he returned.
If this sort of imbroglio was foisted by the Obama administration, you’d be laughing your ass off. But…this is different…because you WANT to believe all of that, ergo you apply a most liberal interpretation.
Finally. An honest admission.
You are a big fucking liar. You’ve used the ‘argument from martyrdom’ on this blog more times than I can count on my fingers & toes.
To ajento
I was wondering, have you considered homosexuality to be evolutions way of birth control. The world population is at 6 billion as it stands now, the population is beyond a sustainable level as it is now. Could it be that Mother Nature or Evolution is simply creating homosexuals so that the birth rates drop and become more manageable? Just wondering.
Yes, I’ve often considered the possibility. However, it’s hard to say entirely, as bisexual views among women has been altered through the increase/acceptance in pornography. Human beings have been inundated with images of women on women for a number of years now, softening the view on such activity. Recently, we’ve seen the same sort of increase in popular media emphasizing man on man relationships. Essentially, same sex relationships are becoming more in vogue, which is a trend I personally don’t see reversing. It could be that people are more willing to try something different, or can’t find what they want within conventional realtionships. Maybe our race is more accepting of a little kink because it’s so easy to find now.
So, it’s kind of hard to pin point the actual cause. Maybe it’s a little of both, society and nature. Who knows? Who really cares entirely? Whatever floats your boat I always say. As long as the boat aint hurt’n anyone…
As for me, I’ll stick with females…
So, AA wins the battle, and gays are now able to become legally married in the eyes of the law…
Two friends of the same sex, discouraged by miserable relationships, somewhat homely and advancing in their years, decide they’re just going to give up on relationships, and get married themselves. The law says same sex marriages are okay, so they go to the courthouse to obtain a marriage license.
Is the clerk suppose to ask if they’re gay?
Does the clerk assume they’re gay, and ask nothing?
Should being gay be a requirement for same sex marriages?
Will the court require proof of their gayness?
Would bisexuals be elligable for gay marriage?
Is the couple categorized as gay, even though neither are gay?
Should the benefits only apply to gays in same sex situations?
Should the courts require a sexual desire for a marriage license?
Should the courts require sexual activity to consider it a legal marriage?
When I say AA is wrong because they support Gay marriages, it’s because I don’t see where they’ve really thought the issue through fully. The gay community wants acceptance from the country, but the country is really not obligated to approve of such relationships, regardless of what the law states. That battle won’t change for hundreds of years. Discrimination is a deep seeded issue, and simply changing out dated laws does not change attitudes one bit. No one can be forced to accept anyones point of view, on either side of the issue. The best AA can hope to solve, is marriage inequalities in all forms of relationship types, not just the gay community. Once the door is open to same sex marriages, that door becomes open to all walks of life, and for a multitude of reasons. None of the reasons are necassarily wrong, so the benfits should be applied to everyone relationship. After the union is legalized, it is entirely up to both parties as to what that union means, not the courts. How their peers want to view that relationship is entirely up to them, not the country or the courts. Gay marriage is a non issue in my opinion, because an overwelhming majority of the people in this world are not ready to accept that sort of lifestyle. At least, not with open arms. That doesn’t mean the laws shouldn’t be fixed, which is absolutely not what I’m suggesting. Making this issue entirely about the gay community, makes AA look like a gay support group, when it is not. AA is about religious freedoms, secular goverment, and legal reform of arcane laws, not the plight of gay community.
No disrespect for the gay community intended here.
To JCC
I use the baby Jesus lies simply because it is one of the shortest to post and to invalidate the infallible truth of the bible all I need is to prove one lie, contradiction, or inconsistency. The bible cannot be the infallible truth of God if it is fallible. Consider it a natural law of the universe. But I can post documented lies concerning every major event contained in the New Testament. I can prove that the apostles falsely claimed full filled prophecies that were not full filled by Jesus.
Prove that they rewrote prophecies, invented prophecies or deceptively claimed a full filled prophecy by referring to one or two verses in a 30 or more verse prophecy when the other 28 verses clearly show that Jesus could not have full filled the prophecy. The Bible has been proven invalid in regards to being the infallible truth of God.