 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:31
|
|
Mr. Fun:
"1) One benefit is that the creation of families -- generally -- tend to create more community stability."
Families in general. I want to hear about the specifics, with gay unions in general. Do they provide the same benefits to society?
"2) I have read about horror stories where a grieving gay lover was not allowed to see his/her dying spouse in hospitals."
Why didn't the person say that he was a friend? Trying to make a political statement during a time of tragedy? 
"3) Well duh -- to adopt a child, one needs to meet legitimate qualifications. But sexual orientation is simply not one of those legitimate qualifications."
Are they the same? That's my question.
4) So because we should not expect laws to magically change society overnight with these issues, does this mean that civil rights laws in regards to blacks should not have been legislated because they would not change social values overnight??
I'm saying that even if you change the law, you will not change how people value homosexuality. Social legitimacy is another beast entirely from legal status.
5) I'm not sure what you're saying here, exactly.
I'm jumping around since I really did not have time to do a sustained argument. First off, you assume that this is a human rights issue, that there is indeed a right to get married. What I am trying to say is that you assume marital status conveys greater value to a person. A person who is married has more value than a person who is not married.
In saying that one's value matches one's marital status, you are abandoning one of the tenets of equality, that all people are equal in value.
6)
"BUT how can they go about improving their life if they are discouraged by mainstream society's exclusion of non-heterosexuals??"
Again, assumes exclusion, which I must ask you to prove.
Secondly, it also assumes that the society has the responsibility to coddle everyone, and that's just not so! Even if you were to remove all the barriers, there are some people who will not try to improve their life. It has nothing to do with the society, but everything to do with the character of the person.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:31
|
|
molly bloom:
quote:
Not just Christianity, but any sect that discriminates.
|
How does Christianity discriminate? You certainly could get married to a wonderful woman.
As for the Bible, people can say that they follow biblical teachings, and do the exact opposite. Why do you believe them when the Bible says the opposite?
quote:
What is then the purpose of marriage? Simply to perpetuate itself?
|
No, but that is a part of it. Anything fruitful ought to perpetuate itself rather than withering on the vine.
quote:
Is my love of a lesser quality?
|
Compared to what? The average among heterosexual married couples? How would we ever measure such a quality?
For Christians, the standard would be God's love for us, and all of our love falls short.
quote:
ruin my life, and the lives of other people like me.
|
How are they ruining your life? You did not answer my question as to why I cannot appeal to scripture.
Point e.
quote:
Sterile men and sterile women marry fertile partners all the time.
|
False analogy, since not all homosexuals will be infertile.
quote:
Many men and women choose not to have children at all.
|
I would argue that if this is the road, they choose, than they should consider other alternatives to getting married.
quote:
Marriage is hardly invalidated by this. And how is marriage in and of itself 'moral'?
|
For the same reasons that Mr. Fun cites, it provides the best environment for raising children, and for the stability of society.
First of all my Kantian argument is not Malthusian, it's about as far away from Malthus as you would get. Neo-Mathusians would celebrate anything that would reduce population growth.
quote:
It assumes for instance, that gay men and lesbians might not choose to have children together- something which can and does occur today.
|
I'm going to use a counterexample, say doing good for your neighbor. If everyone did good for their neighbour, the practice would spread and perpetuate.
Now, in assessing gay marriage, without outside intervention, you would not be able to call the action in itself moral. You always need help from others.
quote:
These children are not inevitably gay or lesbian.
|
Not an assumption. Universalisability by definition means that everyone must follow this path.
f.
quote:
No. It is the assumptions in your bible that are the source of the inequality. My arguments are for the equal right of everyone (regardless of sexuality) to marry the willing partner of their choice-
|
And I argue you already have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. How are your rights being violated?
quote:
The argument that marriage between heterosexuals serves to further the human race does however automatically confer a lesser status on those who opt not to procreate and reproduce.
|
I argue marriage has nothing to do with human rights, therefore marital status has nothing to do with one's value as a person.
Point g.
quote:
In any case, the meaning of marriage has undergone many changes through the course of human history and society
|
Has any society defined homosexual unions as the equivalent of marriage? That was my question and you refused to answer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's not my argument here molly, I am simply arguing why marriage ought to remain between one man and one woman. The positive argument rather than the negative. Perhaps you should more carefully examine my arguments that you carelessly dismiss.
Perhaps you should start here. Part of what makes marriage moral is that it perpetuates itself. That's the heart of my Kantian argument, and the main secular difference between gay unions and marriage. |
I would hardly call an argument founded on denial of the franchise to certain groups (based on prejudice) a positive argument- it's like saying restricting voting rights to white male householders is a positive thing, rather than recognising the right to vote for ethnic minorities and women.
I carelessly dismiss nothing, but what you choose to ignore is that gay men and lesbians are not going to die out any time in the near future. Given that love (sacred and profane) has existed in same sex milieu since recorded history, I fail to see how the creation of a civil union to recognise this fact is doomed to extinction.
You might care to read more about Malthus before dismissing my neo-Malthusian label for your reasoning.
Marriage in and of itself is no more nor less moral than the societal setting and the reasons for it. Marriage has hardly been a fixed institution, engraved in stone since time began, but rather has taken on many forms in all the different societies on earth.
You should read John Boswell's 'Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe', for instance- which shows that relationships between same sex partners were given the same value as those between men and women. You should also realize that the Western Christian definition of 'marriage' is not the sole definition, and that secular marriages exist as well as 'sectarian' marriages, and the application of religious prejudice to restrict the former has no place in a civil society.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:31
|
|
Can I just state my pov and ask a couple of questions to those involved in the debate?
First of all, I'd like to say that my pov on the issue is that I can hardly see the point why lesbian and gay people want to marry. There is a possibility of a civil union, that would give them the same status by law as a married couple. This insistance on it being called marriage, well, it's hard for me to understand it, honestly. Marriage is indeed the officialized long-term relationship between a 'normal' heterosexual couple. As Ben said, you can't marry your grandma.
On the other hand....
It seems that this is a thinly veiled attempt, esp. from various religious groups/people, e.g. Ben, to delegitimize any homosexual relationship. This, too, is seen in his 'grandma' example, since marrying your grandma, or in fact, having any sort of sexual relationship with her is not only, not the right thing to do for you, and your sanity, but also something that cracks the delicate family structure like a 10lb hammer through a baby's skull. THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS. Homosexual relationships with non-family members don't hurt the family structure on themselves.It's the reaction of the household members that destroys the bond.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
Can I just state my pov and ask a couple of questions to those involved in the debate?
First of all, I'd like to say that my pov on the issue is that I can hardly see the point why lesbian and gay people want to marry. There is a possibility of a civil union, that would give them the same status by law as a married couple. This insistance on it being called marriage, well, it's hard for me to understand it, honestly. Marriage is indeed the officialized long-term relationship between a 'normal' heterosexual couple. As Ben said, you can't marry your grandma.
On the other hand....
It seems that this is a thinly veiled attempt, esp. from various religious groups/people, e.g. Ben, to delegitimize any homosexual relationship. This, too, is seen in his 'grandma' example, since marrying your grandma, or in fact, having any sort of sexual relationship with her is not only, not the right thing to do for you, and your sanity, but also something that cracks the delicate family structure like a 10lb hammer through a baby's skull. THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS. Homosexual relationships with non-family members don't hurt the family structure on themselves.It's the reaction of the household members that destroys the bond. |
I argue that religions ought to recognize and sanction marriage between two people regardless of sexual orientation.
However, I do not wish to see the government intervening in any religion, so I believe that if religions do not wish to adapt to contemporary society, that the federal government needs to legislate legal recognition for civil unions administered by justices of the peace.
That way, religious leaders can have their bottle, and non-heterosexuals will be able to move further into mainstream society by creating their own stable, healthy families with all the legal privileges and protection.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
Oh, and your purported sexual attraction for your grandmother is a rather ridiculous strawman. |
Why is this a strawman? I think it brings up a very valid point. Why does marriage have to be about sex?
Homosexuals et al are not complaining that they cannot have sex with each other - they are either complaining that there is no way of obtaining the same legal rights with respect to one another as married couples have, or that they are unable to 'legitimise' their relationship in the eyes of society.
The second complaint is just silly because why would they need to be ligitimised in the eyes of people they don't like - surely to all 'reasonable' people (ie. those whose opinions matter) their relationship is already recognised.
The first complaint doesn't really hold either, because they can simply enter a contract with one another which gives them the rights of a married couple. Nevertheless, I understand that they might want this to become 'easier', 'legitimising' them in some more conventional style.
If that is so, wouldn't it be better to do away with state 'marriage' altogether, and just have a standard legal contract which gives all the rights of marriage to the people who sign it. That way it becomes unrelated to sex. If I were to have a male best friend who I did everything with (live with etc) but didn't have sex with, why should he not have the same rights as a 'partner'? This comes back to Ben's grandmother - why shouldn't Ben be allowed to give his grandmother the same rights without implying sexual relations (yuck!). Also 3 people or more would be able to join such a contract.
The fact of the matter is that the state shouldn't care what you do in your bed. But this holds not only for homosexuals, but everyone else.
Then 'marriage' in the traditional sense (white dress in a church) could be left to the church. They can decide their own criterion and since they are private organisations confering no legal status it is up to them what criterion they choose.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-10-2003 06:00
great pic!
|