Homosexual Marraiges

[Peregrine]

Marriage is an agreement that has effects on both parties. It would be completely immoral to force those effects on someone who doesn't want them, just because someone else does. That's just basic common sense, you don't force things on someone unless there is a really good reason. And the happiness of some other person is not a good enough reason.

 

And something that you forget for the cases that you mention, is that an animal/inanimate object can't even meet the "no protest" requirement. Unless you're causing them physical pain, they would have no way of making their opinions known. So they might be protesting, but you wouldn't even know it.

 

The only sane rule here is clear consent and agreement required.

[Nevermore]

Marriage is an agreement that has effects on both parties. It would be completely immoral to force those effects on someone who doesn't want them, just because someone else does. That's just basic common sense, you don't force things on someone unless there is a really good reason. And the happiness of some other person is not a good enough reason.

 

I agree with what you said, but this is if they animal/object does NOT want the marrage but still has to do it. I didn't say that A/O (animals/objects) should be forced into marrage if they don't want to. I said that the marrage should go on if the A/O doesn't seem to care, or does in fact want to marry the other.

 

an animal/inanimate object can't even meet the "no protest" requirement. Unless you're causing them physical pain, they would have no way of making their opinions known. So they might be protesting, but you wouldn't even know it.

 

Under the same logic then we shouldn't use "The Cardinals" or "The Cubs" as a team masscot for sports beacuse we don't know if the birds and bears are agianst such a thing. Many indians are oppsed to their image splashed on tees and the tamahawk chop, and they do voice their opinoin. Maybe bears don't like it when people have tees with thier image on it, and when/if people make bear claws and growl after a touchdown/homerun/ect. (Note: I'm using bears as an example. Any animal can be replaced in the bears' place, such as eagles or wolfs). They have no way of protesting their disagreement so we should not allow this to go on.

[Peregrine]

didn't say that A/O (animals/objects) should be forced into marrage if they don't want to. I said that the marrage should go on if the A/O doesn't seem to care, or does in fact want to marry the other.

 

Didn't you read what I wrote? Unless you're talking about physical pain, there's no way they would react in a way that you could translate as "not caring". Unless you're willing to call anything that isn't obvious objection "not caring"?

 

Now to put it in human terms... would you like to wake up tomorrow and find out you're married to me? I mean, you've never said you'd object... I'll go get the papers signed right now!

 

Under the same logic then we shouldn't use "The Cardinals" or "The Cubs" as a team masscot for sports beacuse we don't know if the birds and bears are agianst such a thing.

 

That's absolutely stupid. The bears and birds are not affected directly by this. If you can show me where a specific animal is even aware of this use, you might have a point.

 

Many indians are oppsed to their image splashed on tees and the tamahawk chop, and they do voice their opinoin.

 

Concession accepted. Now you're talking about a situation where clear objection does exist. That's entirely different.

 

Maybe bears don't like it when people have tees with thier image on it, and when/if people make bear claws and growl after a touchdown/homerun/ect. (Note: I'm using bears as an example. Any animal can be replaced in the bears' place, such as eagles or wolfs). They have no way of protesting their disagreement so we should not allow this to go on.

 

That doesn't involve direct effects on a specific animal. Marriage with one would, which is entirely different. Unless you're talking about just adding the "marriage" label on anything you feel like, even if absolutely nothing remotely marriage-like exists between the two. In that case, I'm marrying my computer just for the legal/financial benefits.

 

====================

 

There's one simple thing you don't understand:

 

Marriage involves a two-way (or more) relationship. It's not enough to say you want to be married, the other party has to feel the same way. No matter what definitions of "wanting" and "caring" you use, it all comes back to this fundamental point: it's all one-sided. There has to be some substance to that claim of marriage, and it can only exist if both parties feel the same way about it.

 

All these things you are talking about are not marriage. There's no return feeling in any of those cases. There's about as much of a marriage as if I "married" my computer so I could cut my tax rates.

[4n+13[]D0p]

NO! Marraige is a sacred bond between man and woman NOT man and man or woman and woman!

[Peregrine]

Ah, the Christian fanatics are so cute when they live in their dream worlds...

 

But seriously, where do you get this delusion of "sacred marriage" from? You do realize that your "sacredness" comes from an imaginary God that has no place in our system of laws, right?

[Nevermore]

Now to put it in human terms... would you like to wake up tomorrow and find out you're married to me? I mean, you've never said you'd object... I'll go get the papers signed right now!

 

This situation indicates that I was not aware of the cerimony. The A/O would have to obvisly be present in order for the marrage to be legal, and I would have had to been at the cerimony in order for the marrage to be legal.

 

The bears and birds are not affected directly by this.

 

How would you know? Maybe they suffer emotional abuse.

 

Are indians physicly effected by the tomahawk chop? Unless people deside to injure an indian because the Braves lost a game or somthing equally unbelievable then the answer is no. But does that make indian mascots any less wrong? Indians still object to it so the answer must be that it is offencive.

 

Which leads me to:

If you can show me where a specific animal is even aware of this use, you might have a point.

 

Just because some one doesn't know that people are talking behind their that doesn't make it less wrong. Like murdering an unknown hobo is still murder, degrading animals with sterotypes with out them knowing about it is still degrading animals with sterotypes.

 

That doesn't involve direct effects on a specific animal. Marriage with one would, which is entirely different.

 

So then the mocking indian religion with the tamahawk chop, and printing racist logos such as the Braves indian logo doesn't effect the individual indian and so is all right? So degrading a people as a whole is all right as long as you don't directly effect a speciffic one?

 

[/establishment for next section]

 

To end the A/O marrage and mascott debate:

 

You said that if something might be protesting to what we are doing to it but we don't know it then we should give the thing the benifit of the doubt and make such a thing illegal. This was expressed by you in this quote:

 

an animal/inanimate object can't even meet the "no protest" requirement. Unless you're causing them physical pain, they would have no way of making their opinions known. So they might be protesting, but you wouldn't even know it.

 

The only sane rule here is clear consent and agreement required.

 

For your opinion to be correct you would have to denounce all mascots of animals immoral because the animals are not directly giving consent. And as stated in this post all ready: "Just because some one doesn't know that people are talking behind their that doesn't make it less wrong." Which, I belive, is genrally accepted.

 

So in the end we are arguing the morality of marrage between A/Os and humans and are Un/justifing the marrage depending on who we give the benifit of doubt to. Should humans be allowed happyness because A/Os can't say no, or should A/Os be left unmarried because they can't say yes? And I have said this early on when I said:

 

Well it comes down to the individual persons' opinoins. Should both partys have to give consent , or should no protest be enough?

 

To wrap up: I have just pointed out that we could argue up to wazoo (which we were begining to do) about wether or not marrage and masscots should be legal with A/Os and not getting anywhere because the right answer will always depend on who you ask. And thier answer is who gets the benifit of the doubt.

-------------------------------------------

 

In complete conclustion of the A/O debate:

 

I only brought A/O marrage up as an add-on to my first post. You can ommit everything about animals in my first post and it still runs smooth, see:

 

I think gay marrage should be legal. I see no reason for it not to be. None.

 

--omit--

 

If the USA says that it goes agianst god's will then they are breaking the constitution. If they are saying it goes agianst nature, then so is stoping evolution and so we should revert back to a state where evolution is possable.

 

The constitution was written to protect the minority, the individual. To keep one's natral right sacred and unscathed unless the one proves they can not handle them. If a decent human gets their kicks from marrying heterosexualy, homosexualy, or even --omit-- then why not let them?

 

I was OT to mention animal marrages, and our entire debate about them has been OT.

 

Finally done.

[Amphex]

Theres that thing about seperating Church and State. Maybe some of you have heard about it. God, should not be any influence in law and ammendment making. Gay and Lesbian people have the right to get married. I just see this whole debate in congress just flat out stupid. I really don`t see any downfall in this besides a bible hummper getting upset.

[Nevermore]

That's why it's called congress. It is "con" gressing, as apposed to progressing...

 

Anyways, I think the laws will soon allow homosexual marrages simply because their sole reson to not do it is religion. Well the only one that sounds even remotly intelligent...

 

I do think that if the same topic was brought up in two generations there would be little debate and an overwhelming majority saying yes to gay marriges. After all throught america's history the people have become increasingly less religuse and I'm certian I'll live to see the day where more people don't have faith then those that do in a religion.

 

With the decrease in religion will come increase in libral thinking and things like homosexual marrage and discrimination in any form will be an urban legand and found primarly in textbooks.

 

Or we'll all blow up in an atomic explostion that will abliterate the ozone and any one not disintergrated in the initial blast will be fried by the unhampered UV rays, but that's a diffrent topic.

[Ancalagon]

It is interesting to see how many support this (Marriage between same-sex partners). However, the same cannot be said for the rest of the U.S. It seems that little more than 80% (I believe) feel that Marriage should be defined as a union between Man and Woman, not Man and Man or Woman and Woman. Many anti-same-sex marriage groups state that if this is allowed as commonpractice, then the 'Family' will suffer because of the negative aspects that Homosexual Marriages bring about.

 

This argument is ironic. It would be interesting to note that the divorce rate for heterosexual couples is significantly higher (around 50% or more, I believe) than the seperation rate for some homosexual couples who aren't even married! A lesbian couple that had recently been married in S.F had been together as partners for 55 years, and they just got married. That shoots to hell the notion that same-sex marriages are detremental to 'Family' and 'Society'. Yet how the Religious Groups and Conservatives howl!

 

A large part of this possible 80% or more dissenting from acception is the role that the Media plays. For years, the Media has pounded the impression upon us that it is wrong to be Homosexual and that it is right to be Heterosexual. Look at all the shows on any given television station and you tell me one that doesn't portray Homosexuals as flamboyant, ridiculous, and completley unrealistic in ways of behaviour as comared to the real world. (note: 'Will and Grace' does not count since the character Jack falls under the 'Flamboyant, ridiculous, etc.' category. Nor does 'Queer Eye...' count either.) I'm talking about a sitcom, not 'fantasy television' (as I prefer to call it), that depicts everday Homosexuals and not the flamboyant, lisping, limp-wristed stereotype that plagues the better part of television.

 

More to come, I fear I have taken up too much space....

 

~A.

[Nevermore]

the 'Family' will suffer because of the negative aspects that Homosexual Marriages bring about

 

This brings up somthing that I feel needs to be looked at.

 

Just what ARE the negitive aspects of two men raising a family?

What are the negitive aspects of two women raising a family?

 

First you have to look at what type of people the couple are. If they are two butching manly men then any girl raised in their house hold, i would think, would be more apt to be tomboyish. If the two men are more on the sentimental side, like say the queer eyes, then I would think that any male raised by them would be apt to be homosexual.

 

Not that tomboyish females are bad, or that homosexual males are either, I'm just randomly pointing out traits that may accour.

 

Well any one care to list "negitive" traits that may be exibited by persons raised by same sex couples? Oh, and being "butterdumpster eithens boud for a life of sin and eventual damnantion" is not a negitive trait; it's a possable outcome as seen through the eyes of religiuse zelots.