The Gay Marriage Controversy

[Nobody1]

No, you see I still don`t "get" it. Explain it to me..what exactly are we "laughing" at here?

Also what has this clip to do with this thread ?

just take it the way it is,
you dont get it and i think its funny.

 

[Barrister]

It might be a definition of free societies. Gays were always amongst us, coming out off closets only during times of personal liberty, personal safety.
There were no gays during middle or dark ages, or pretty much till 20th century. It is still hard to be openly gay in small European of American villages, ...village justice is always close by...around the corner.

I agree, for sure.

 

[Boss]

I don't agree with people who believe "genetics" can justify homosexuality. Whether or not homosexuality (or heterosexuality or any other sexuality) is a choice is irrelevant. Perhaps pederasty or bestiality are not chosen either. That doesn't mean they're justified (i.e. surely we think that pederasty is immoral whether or not the pederasts themselves chose to be pederasts or they simply just can't help it). Nor is of course equal rights (for a similar reason).

To me the justification of gay marriage has to do with several different facts that together build a cumulative case for gay marriage, rights and so on. Homosexuals are not mentally unstable. They are capable of forming loving, long-term relationships. They are as capable of raising children together as heterosexual persons are. Their acts are consensual and generally speaking, they do not harm anyone.

So IMO, it is not because homosexuality is innate (dunno if it is and as I said I think that's irrelevant) that we should be in favour of gay marriage. It is because homosexuals are doing nothing wrong, they are not harming anyone and as such they deserve to enjoy the same benefits everyone else does.

 

[nordicwarrior]

The word marriage is being hijacked. Marriage is historically attached to the union of a man and a women. If you understand the power of word use-- you may see what's going on here.

That being said:

Government(s) have no business in adult romantic relationships.

When children are involved, this rule does not apply. That is where this issue will get very tricky.

For those of you who think this is all brand new, look at how the Greeks treated their youth. You may then have an idea of what is next on this political agenda.

 

[LeBrok]

The word marriage is being hijacked. Marriage is historically attached to the union of a man and a women. If you understand the power of word use-- you may see what's going on here.

In case of polygamy technically you can have two women and man in same union. If man dies there are only two women left in it. I think the definition of marriage already encompasses it even in many old conservative societies. Nothing new to be afraid off.

For those of you who think this is all brand new, look at how the Greeks treated their youth. You may then have an idea of what is next on this political agenda.

Oh but we know. Tony told us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=q1U7MLr5eSU

 

[nordicwarrior]

I'm not talking about how ancient Greeks treated canines, I'm talking about how they viewed children.

 

[sparkey]

The word marriage is being hijacked. Marriage is historically attached to the union of a man and a women. If you understand the power of word use-- you may see what's going on here.

I hate word redefinition in political philosophy (misuse of the terms "rights" and "justice" really get to me), but I don't think that is what is happening here. "Gay marriage" is simple a specification of "marriage," like "straight marriage" and "polygynous marriage." What we're looking at is instead the recodification of marriage, which has been traditionally codified (in the developed Western world's case) to be between one man and one woman.

Government(s) have no business in adult romantic relationships.

I agree with this.

When children are involved, this rule does not apply. That is where this issue will get very tricky.

For those of you who think this is all brand new, look at how the Greeks treated their youth. You may then have an idea of what is next on this political agenda.

That's a highly inflammatory example. Ancient Greek culture allowed for certain sexual practices with young boys, but that's obviously not part of modern culture, including modern gay culture. If we want to have a discussion about the relative qualifications of average single men or women vs. average gay or lesbian couples, let's have that discussion, and we can get into the minutia of adoption policy. That's the only place I expect this to "get very tricky." But what you're suggesting seems to be that acceptance of gay marriage will lead to acceptance of legalized pedophilia, an idea you're presenting without evidence.

 

[nordicwarrior]

I hate word redefinition in political philosophy (misuse of the terms "rights" and "justice" really get to me), but I don't think that is what is happening here. "Gay marriage" is simple a specification of "marriage," like "straight marriage" and "polygynous marriage." What we're looking at is instead the recodification of marriage, which has been traditionally codified (in the developed Western world's case) to be between one man and one woman.

I agree with this.



That's a highly inflammatory example. Ancient Greek culture allowed for certain sexual practices with young boys, but that's obviously not part of modern culture, including modern gay culture. If we want to have a discussion about the relative qualifications of average single men or women vs. average gay or lesbian couples, let's have that discussion, and we can get into the minutia of adoption policy. That's the only place I expect this to "get very tricky." But what you're suggesting seems to be that acceptance of gay marriage will lead to acceptance of legalized pedophilia, an idea you're presenting without evidence.

I agree that this is a highly inflammatory example Sparkey. Please allow me to clarify (and also site examples).

Firstly, I don't think homosexual males are any more likely to molest children than heterosexual males. However, compared to women... both male groupings probably commit these crimes much more frequently than their female counterparts. The recent highly publicized trend of female teachers seducing their male students might eventually effect these numbers on a macro level, but I don't think we're any close to this point yet.

Secondly, our complex societies would not be able to function without laws and contracts. Ask most any social scientist what the most basic legal contract is-- odds are he or she will say the marriage contract. This is THE historical binding agent between a man and a woman in the West. Altering this building block of society will have huge consequences.

Thirdly, (and this is where it gets controversial-- I don't want to get banned so I will limit my statement to this comment)... the Western World has been constructed on Judeo-Christian values. We have looked to the Bible to determine what is acceptable behavior and what isn't. The Bible has served as our collective set of directions to living life.

I've noticed that whenever a man (or group of men) decide that these laws don't apply to them-- big problems seem to pop up from every corner. You asked me to site examples other than the Greeks-- the most obvious is the Catholic priest situation. These priests started thinking they were above Biblical Law, or that these laws no longer applied to them and they abused their authority terribly.

Another example of someone who mistakenly believed the laws no longer applied to them... Michael Jackson. He became so rich and powerful he thought he could do anything, or anyone unfortunately. We all watched that train wreck-- a weird theme park, questionable sleep-overs, multiple pay-offs, plus pet monkeys and oxygen chambers.

So the crux of my point is that when we have members of society that start to veer off the roadmap provided to us by God... I don't see positive things happening. What happens if the whole of society decides to go off-road?

The nuclear family has served us well in raising our children and I think society works best with men and women together raising the next generation. Each compliments the other and frankly I don't see another system that will work better.

 

[hope]

Firstly, I don't think homosexual males are any more likely to molest children than heterosexual males.

The "abuse" or "molestation" of children is a seperate issue and is not driven as result of ones gender preference.

Ask most any social scientist what the most basic legal contract is-- odds are he or she will say the marriage contract.

I`m not so sure about that. In essence, all that is needed for a "contract" , is that both [ or all] parties are in agreement and it contain mutual "consent" and "agreement".
Party A may say, "I will give you four eggs if you give me a jug of milk".. therefore an offer is made. Party B may say, "Yes, okay" , thereby the offer is "accepted"...thus contract between the two is made. Now back in history this happened .."barter".. [and oral contract may still occur to-day] It happened before even the invention of marriage. I think this shows as a good example of both a "basic" and "historical" form of contract. And yes, oral contracts may be binding as long as they contain mutual "consent" and "consideration". The only thing here is mutual consent can sometimes be difficult to prove with an oral contract.

Thirdly, (and this is where it gets controversial-- I don't want to get banned so I will limit my statement to this comment)... the Western World has been constructed on Judeo-Christian values. We have looked to the Bible to determine what is acceptable behavior and what isn't.. The Bible has served as our collective set of directions to living life

.

Yes, but not every individual looks to the Bible or religion. Therefore there must be laws and directives to cover all individuals..this is one reason we have seperation of church and state.

the most obvious is the Catholic priest situation. These priests started thinking they were above Biblical Law, or that these laws no longer applied to them and they abused their authority terribly

.

I think these priests you speak of disregarded "legal" laws and "moral" laws also { as do many who commit offences,} so I`m not sure why you speak only of Biblical law here N.W.

Another example of someone who mistakenly believed the laws no longer applied to them... Michael Jackson. He became so rich and powerful he thought he could do anything, or anyone unfortunately. We all watched that train wreck-- a weird theme park, questionable sleep-overs, multiple pay-offs, plus pet monkeys and oxygen chamber

.

Not sure which laws exactly you are speaking of here..Legal or Biblical?

So the crux of my point is that when we have members of society that start to veer off the roadmap provided to us by God... I don't see positive things happening. What happens if the whole of society decides to go off-road?

The nuclear family has served us well in raising our children and I think society works best with men and women together raising the next generation. Each compliments the other and frankly I don't see another system that will work better.

Now N.W. we both know that those who govern you, are [ for the most part at least] people who like to be seen as God fearing, Church attending men or women, who are likewise products of the "Nuclear" family. And are you not always one of the first here, to say how bad a job they are doing..and how in general they conspire against the people for their own purposes? Have they, as you say gone off-road, even though they seem to display those characteristics you deem ultra important to humanity?

Do not think I am making little of your beliefs N.W. for that is not intended.

 

[gyms]

Gay:OK. Gay marriage:OK. But:...gays leave them kids alone!

 

[nordicwarrior]

...Yes, but not every individual looks to the Bible or religion. Therefore there must be laws and directives to cover all individuals..this is one reason we have seperation of church and state.

Now N.W. we both know that those who govern you, are [ for the most part at least] people who like to be seen as God fearing, Church attending men or women, who are likewise products of the "Nuclear" family. And are you not always one of the first here, to say how bad a job they are doing..and how in general they conspire against the people for their own purposes? Have they, as you say gone off-road, even though they seem to display those characteristics you deem ultra important to humanity?...

Fair criticism Hope. And yes I'm all for the seperation of Church and State. Lest you think I'm a heartless hillbilly, I think homosexual partners should have the financial and legal rights heterosexual couples have (property, visitation, tax benefits, etc.).

If the State insists on regulating adult sexual relationships (gay or straight)... I think the best option for same sex couples is a civil union. But again, the State should stay out of it.

Regarding the ultra-elites, in my opinion most of them are avowed humanists. I don't think they could obtain their power or position otherwise in today's framework.

 

[hope]

Lest you think I'm a heartless hillbilly

,

Believe me N.W. I think nothing of the sort

I think homosexual partners should have the financial and legal rights heterosexual couples have (property, visitation, tax benefits, etc.).

Agreed.

 

[sparkey]

NW, let me try to understand your argument better, because you said you'd cite examples, but I'm having trouble pulling anything specific out of your screed.

1. You believe that explicitly legalized (i.e. state-supported) gay marriage will lead to an increase in sexual abuse of children. (Correct?)
2. (1) is not because homosexuals are more likely to sexually abuse children.
3. (1) is partly because more men will adopt children in general with gay marriage, and men are more likely than women to sexually abuse children.
4. (1) is partly because legalizing gay marriage will interfere with contract law. (I'm having trouble following this line of logic--why would contract law alterations lead to abuse of children? Just an "ignoring the law" rationale like (5) below? But doesn't the law become easier to follow when more things are legalized?)
5. (1) is partly because legalizing gay marriage will strike at the Judeo-Christian pillar that Western law is founded upon, and that pillar keeps people from running rampant. (You offer some examples, but isn't that looking at the effects of Judeo-Christian influence on law through rose colored glasses? I mean, the Bible has been used to justify atrocities, just as it has been used to justify reasonable laws. Why can't we strive for upholding Judeo-Christian-influenced laws where they work, and removing them where they hurt, like how gay marriage restrictions prevent equal treatment of homosexuals?)

All said, we're probably arguing semantics here, since I seem to have the same prescription to the issue as you: Simply drop marriage as a legal concept. Our only difference is that we disagree on whether or not gay marriage should be legalized as long as marriage is a legal concept. I say yea.

 

[Boss]

Gay:OK. Gay marriage:OK. But:...gays leave them kids alone!

Are you referring to adoption or something else? (or maybe just wanted to pay tribute to Pink Floyd?)

 

[Grubbe]

I don't have anything against gay marriages per se. What I do worry about is that this certainly seems to have given more demand for children - and how can a gay or lesbian couple have children? Through surrogaty (I am not sure if that is the right term in English, but it means that a woman gives birth to a child that is genetically not hers) and (anonymous) insemination. Especially insemination I am against, as I think that every child has a right to know who both their parents are. In Norway this situation has gone so far in the last couple of years, that a child who has a mother and a"co-mother" no longer is allowed to have a father! I think this has nothing to do with gay rights anymore, but is pure madness. Needless to say, it has been quite a heated discussion about this.

 

[LeBrok]

I don't have anything against gay marriages per se. What I do worry about is that this certainly seems to have given more demand for children - and how can a gay or lesbian couple have children? Through surrogaty (I am not sure if that is the right term in English, but it means that a woman gives birth to a child that is genetically not hers) and (anonymous) insemination. Especially insemination I am against, as I think that every child has a right to know who both their parents are. In Norway this situation has gone so far in the last couple of years, that a child who has a mother and a"co-mother" no longer is allowed to have a father! I think this has nothing to do with gay rights anymore, but is pure madness. Needless to say, it has been quite a heated discussion about this.

Good point. Everything would be so simple if there were only straight women and men, and all fertile, I must add. Plus human nature is eager to compartmentalize and an label everything, just to make sense of all, or develop adequate laws. However, life is not that orderly, life always give us curve balls, life gives us infertile couples to deal with, homosexual people, asexual people (we have these too, people who never feel sexual desire), etc. Now, somehow we have to figure it out to live in harmony and peace with all, in lieu with basic human right, the pursuit of human happiness.

 

[Grubbe]

Good point. Everything would be so simple if there were only straight women and men, and all fertile, I must add. Plus human nature is eager to compartmentalize and an label everything, just to make sense of all, or develop adequate laws. However, life is not that orderly, life always give us curve balls, life gives us infertile couples to deal with, homosexual people, asexual people (we have these too, people who never feel sexual desire), etc. Now, somehow we have to figure it out to live in harmony and peace with all, in lieu with basic human right, the pursuit of human happiness.

Yes, we have human diversity, and I am not against that.

My point is that somebodys rights (two concenting adults) should not violate other peoples rights (children, who have not asked to be born). Or to rephrase it: It's not a human right to have children.

Sometimes we make choices in life that have consequences. Perhaps, if children feels so important, that you ought to have them the "usual" way, that would mean to sacrifice a same sex relationship. If, on the other hand, the relationship is more important, then it would be better to live without children, for the children's sake. I went to school with a girl who was adopted (ethnic Norwegian) and who was extremely frustrated because she could not know who her biological parents were. Now adoptees have the right to know when they are 18 years old. Why would we now create a society where many would never ever know of their originis because of anonymous insemination? Do governments know what a "Pandora's box" they have opened? And what mental pain and despair it could cause for future generations?

 

[nordicwarrior]

NW, let me try to understand your argument better, because you said you'd cite examples, but I'm having trouble pulling anything specific out of your screed.

1. You believe that explicitly legalized (i.e. state-supported) gay marriage will lead to an increase in sexual abuse of children. (Correct?)
2. (1) is not because homosexuals are more likely to sexually abuse children.
3. (1) is partly because more men will adopt children in general with gay marriage, and men are more likely than women to sexually abuse children.
4. (1) is partly because legalizing gay marriage will interfere with contract law. (I'm having trouble following this line of logic--why would contract law alterations lead to abuse of children? Just an "ignoring the law" rationale like (5) below? But doesn't the law become easier to follow when more things are legalized?)
5. (1) is partly because legalizing gay marriage will strike at the Judeo-Christian pillar that Western law is founded upon, and that pillar keeps people from running rampant. (You offer some examples, but isn't that looking at the effects of Judeo-Christian influence on law through rose colored glasses? I mean, the Bible has been used to justify atrocities, just as it has been used to justify reasonable laws. Why can't we strive for upholding Judeo-Christian-influenced laws where they work, and removing them where they hurt, like how gay marriage restrictions prevent equal treatment of homosexuals?)

All said, we're probably arguing semantics here, since I seem to have the same prescription to the issue as you: Simply drop marriage as a legal concept. Our only difference is that we disagree on whether or not gay marriage should be legalized as long as marriage is a legal concept. I say yea.

I realized after I read my own comment it might be difficult to follow. I'll address your questions numerically.

1. If we as a society distance ourselves from Judeo-Christian values-- I have no doubt that the baser elements of mankind will fill the void. It may take fifty years or 200 years, but if we erode our traditional structures and mores... the simple answer to your question is yes. Over the course of time the sexual abuse of children will increase-- but it may not even be viewed as wrong at that point in the future because we would have abandoned our "instructional guidebook".

2. Again, the increase or even acceptance of children used as sexual objects will come from the fact that we now seem to be moving away from Biblical teachings and traditional structures.

3. Not an easy question to answer. It is my opinion that women are better equiped to raise children than males. I don't want to sound sexist (probably unavoidable here), but I feel women on average are more patient, caring, and nurturing than men. This is dealing with typical male/female observation-- excluding outliers which of course we see on an almost weekly basis.

4. This is where everything comes into sharp focus. I believe marriage is a religious covenant more than anything else. Calling a union between two men or two women a marriage does not compute in my world view. I know this may seem harsh or selfish-- there isn't another way to say it though.

I can imagine a future where certain groups demand a re-write of key segments of the Bible so that they feel no discrimmination. This may sound far-fetched or even laughable, but in the U.S. we now have a legal development called "hate crimes". I'm old fashioned though and view crime as crime. Hate crime to me smacks of thought control or at least thought patrol.

5. This is another difficult question Sparkey. My answer is that those with my mindset should strive to take the high road at every junction and help those less fortunate than ourselves. We are our brother's keeper. It doesn't matter if this brother (or sister) is gay, straight, black, white, yellow, red, or purple. We all have to try and love one another.

 

[nordicwarrior]

So to recap Sparkey, this is a complicated situation and there are no easy answers. If you apply strict logic to my viewpoints, you will soon see that they are not fully logical. For me, this is where faith takes over.

Hopefully this last screed is more an example of informal writing than diatribe.

 

[Grubbe]

I can imagine a future where certain groups demand a re-write of key segments of the Bible so that they feel no discrimmination. This may sound far-fetched or even laughable, but in the U.S. we now have a legal development called "hate crimes". I'm old fashioned though and view crime as crime. Hate crime to me smacks of thought control or at least thought patrol.

I wouldn't be surprised. In Norway (and Sweden, maybe in other countries as well) they are now rewriting children's books, and especially take away words such as "negro" and "gipsy", which are now considered very offensive to use, even though there were no offense meant when these books were written in the 1950'ies and 1960'ies. I am myself grown up with these words. And if they can't rewrite things, as with songs, they simply ban them. But what is political correct now can very well turn around again, as it has before: If somebody read "The Dark Tower" books by Stephen King, they will perhaps remember the african-american woman who were transported from her own time in the 1960'ies and to the 1990'ies. She was appaled by the word "black", and insisted that she be called a negro, because to her, "black" was the "no-no" word. It could happen again. And then they are going to rewrite again?? Can't they see how idiotic this is?