Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Gay Marriage


  • Please log in to reply
1006 replies to this topic

#931    Dr. D

Dr. D

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:15 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • I love being me even though sometimes I'm still a stranger.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 03:55 AM

View PostLikely Guy, on 08 September 2012 - 03:47 AM, said:

Yes, I did say that, but I took it from what you implied on an earlier point. Rhetorical really, because I thought you might take in context. But there was an influx of posts at the time.But yes the question still holds. Do you mean to say that, "So, if a minute minority create a disproporniate amount of violence, that should be stamped out, immediately. But 'proportionate' (straight white heterosexual families) violence is okay, or it isn't important enough to deal with right now?"

I answered that in post 915


#932    Dr. D

Dr. D

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:15 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • I love being me even though sometimes I'm still a stranger.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 03:57 AM

View PostKazoo, on 08 September 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

You left out the question mark. Those are important

You are comparing give two people the legal benefits of marriage to slavery and doctor assisted suicide. Does that not seem silly to you?

The best argument people made for something like this happening is gay marriage leading to allowing people to get married to ducks and box turtles.

You don't think slavery and the right to die are valid examples of the concept of human rights?


#933    Likely Guy

Likely Guy

    Undecided, mostly.

  • Member
  • 4,251 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Likely, Canada

  • I might have been born yesterday but, I've been up all night.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 03:58 AM

DR. D. "We do not permit people to terminate their own lives when afflicted with a terminal illness. We determine as a society that they do not have that right. Imagine, your life is yours. It’s your exclusive possession and yet you do not have the RIGHT to end it. Why? Because decisions of such magnitude require time, analysis, debate, consideration, an evaluation of the consequences, etc."

And how is this on topic? Shorten your answers (i.e. make your point.)


#934    Dr. D

Dr. D

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:15 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • I love being me even though sometimes I'm still a stranger.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 04:01 AM

View PostLikely Guy, on 08 September 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

DR. D. "We do not permit people to terminate their own lives when afflicted with a terminal illness. We determine as a society that they do not have that right. Imagine, your life is yours. It’s your exclusive possession and yet you do not have the RIGHT to end it. Why? Because decisions of such magnitude require time, analysis, debate, consideration, an evaluation of the consequences, etc."

And how is this on topic? Shorten your answers (i.e. make your point.)

I didn't know you were a mod.  If you were, you would have realized that the right to die and slavery are valid examples of human rights and the controversy surrounding them.

I will use however many words I need to express my opinion.  You are free to do the same.


#935    Kazoo

Kazoo

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where the old one sleeps.

  • “What a treacherous thing to believe that a person is more than a person.”

Posted 08 September 2012 - 04:01 AM

View PostDr. D, on 08 September 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

You don't think slavery and the right to die are valid examples of the concept of human rights?

The right to marriage is not a human right. Its a law governed by individual governments.

Its a much smaller problem then slavery. Comparing them is almost an insult to the struggle of slavery.

Edited by Kazoo, 08 September 2012 - 04:02 AM.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H.L. Mencken

#936    Dr. D

Dr. D

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,275 posts
  • Joined:15 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • I love being me even though sometimes I'm still a stranger.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 04:02 AM

View PostKazoo, on 08 September 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:

  The right to marriage is not a human right. Its a law governed by individual governments.

Fine.  Then you agree with me.


#937    Likely Guy

Likely Guy

    Undecided, mostly.

  • Member
  • 4,251 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Likely, Canada

  • I might have been born yesterday but, I've been up all night.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 04:04 AM

View PostDr. D, on 08 September 2012 - 03:55 AM, said:

I answered that in post 915
No you didn't, you answered a question I didn't ask. I asked a question based on what I thought you implied. No, on second thought, what you said - I was actually asking for some clarification.


#938    Kazoo

Kazoo

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where the old one sleeps.

  • “What a treacherous thing to believe that a person is more than a person.”

Posted 08 September 2012 - 04:08 AM

View PostDr. D, on 08 September 2012 - 04:02 AM, said:

Fine.  Then you agree with me.

I agree with that fact. But your stance was very broad. I'm worried about the details.

Do you want to keep gay marriage illegal because it could lead to other things?

Do you think gay people should not be aloud to adopt children because they could be pedophiles?

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H.L. Mencken

#939    Likely Guy

Likely Guy

    Undecided, mostly.

  • Member
  • 4,251 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Likely, Canada

  • I might have been born yesterday but, I've been up all night.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 04:09 AM

View PostDr. D, on 08 September 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:

I didn't know you were a mod.  If you were, you would have realized that the right to die and slavery are valid examples of human rights and the controversy surrounding them.

I will use however many words I need to express my opinion.  You are free to do the same.
Granted. Good point. But the converstaion has devolved to a 'human rights' or 'human privelege' issue now.So where does marriage fall?


#940    Supersquatch

Supersquatch

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 486 posts
  • Joined:30 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth, Milky Way, Local Group

  • Supersquatch powers, activate!

Posted 08 September 2012 - 04:35 AM

View PostDr. D, on 08 September 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:

Again, an action requiring the authorization of law does not become a right until it is legislated as a right.  Marriage as known to heterosexuals was enacted in 1228 as a part of British law.

We do not have rights to breahe, have a pulse or think, those are physical functions necessary to life.  Rights are not simply rights because someone declares them to be.  I have the right to be a millionarie because there are many millionaires?  Who will give me my money?

We are throwing the concept of human rights around here like it is an absolute fact when it is not.

In answer to your question, they cannot marry in many places because the law forbids it.  Will that change?  Who knows.  The British court ruled that gay marriage is not a right.

Here's what I think about "rights": if anybody else can do it, I have the right to do it. So why can't gay people get married? This is bigotry and the "legislation of rights" is obviously corrupt.

There is common sense, then there is legislation.

Edited by Taylor Reints, 08 September 2012 - 04:41 AM.

Posted Image

#941    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,012 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 06:03 AM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 08 September 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

lIke I said earlier straight marriages have produced some really effed up kids and totally dysfunctional families.......to disallow gay marriage based on that same basis...is ding ding ding bigotry! saying it is ok for starights because some Bible says it is ok but not ok for gays because some allegedly holy book says it isn't ok? come on...reality time...NOW is the time to THINK for some of you.
Personally my opinion on homosexuality and gay marriage has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with   outcomes for individuals and for society. I do not happen to believe that an individual has "rights" which might cause harm and thus costs to to others.  So i do not accept that a person has a right to eat unhealthily, or drink, or smoke, or engage in ANY harmful form of  dangerous sexual behaviour,  and then expect their society to pick up/pay for, the costs resulting from those individual practices.

But i apply that to all things. I do not  accept that homosexuality is a safe productive or biologically sound form of  physical relationship, particularly statistically for males but also demonstrably for men and women, despite its "natural" condition. Cancers, blindness, dwarfism and infertility etc., are all natural products of evolution too. That doesnrt mean, inherently, that we accept them as the status quo

Personally, in principle and in practice i would treat a gay person  the same as a straight person with allowances for their differing sexuality of course. I would love them the same.  I would judge their behaviour on an individual basis, eg if they were honest or bad tempered, or a killer or a saint. That is all independent of their sexuality.

As i have stated numerous times I WANT gay people to be in along term monogamous relationship like marriage for their own health benefits and particularly if they chose to have kids, because such a relationship provides the best outcomes for human adults and children.

In fact give my first preferences, I'd tend to force or legally/financialy strongly encourage parents, gay or straight, to be in a commited relationship with legal boundaries before I let them have kids. For example a woman gets 6000 dollars and a weekly income from the govt for every child she has in Australia. I would restrict that payment to couples (straight and gay) who were in and remained in a monogamous  commited relationship, and fulfilled other obligations to their children like feeding them, attending regular health clinics for check ups, having them vaccinated, and making sure they attended school regualary.

Edited by Mr Walker, 08 September 2012 - 06:04 AM.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#942    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,012 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 06:19 AM

View PostTaylor Reints, on 08 September 2012 - 01:49 AM, said:

How would homosexuality affect anybody besides those whom wanted to be gay married?



I think drafting is bull. Most of the wars America drafts people to go fight in are pointless and stupid (i.e., the Gulf War, the Iraq War).



Also bull. However, isn't the latter a mental issue?



Marriage shouldn't be in the hands of anybody--the church, the state or the feds. You could marry a tree stump for all I care.

EDIT: 900th comment!

Laws on mariage effect everyone in a society. They impact on all aspects of relationships from the silly to the serious For example when spain legalised gay marriage one of the royals who was a lesbian married her partner  as she (the royal) was dying of cancer. Hence we have the first and only dowager royal from a same sex couple

.More seriously marriage sets the paramenters for many laws and outcomes for families and especailly for children. These were originally designed to balamnce the differnces and inequalities between men and women and to provide for the security of women and chilfdren. They just don;t work the same way between same sex couples  Other laws, in many areas from maternity leave to inheritance to taxation regulations, have to be changed to adjust to the new definition of marriage.. That effects everyone, individually and collectively.

Like all "state" laws, marriage laws serve a purpose of regulation and protection. That is why you cant marry a tree stump or your sister. The state (and in a democracy that means the voters) decide who requires protection and regulation and where individual laws will apply.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#943    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,012 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 06:25 AM

View PostLikely Guy, on 08 September 2012 - 01:55 AM, said:

Agreed. Does that make it right though?. As TrueBeliever pointed out above,  slavery simply used to be a property issue. Times change.Time will tell, but I think that humankind will eventually side with the liberals on this issue.

Perhaps. In part that will depend on human mores and values which change collectively over time. But it wil also depend on outcomes and practicalities. No where in the world was slavery abolished until AFTER it was no longer an economically viable proposition. Womens rights and emancipation did not succeed until economic and social imperatives made them a productive outcome for society.. In other words people's feelings and opinions dont change the world, UNLESS they coincide with practical benefits/advantages for the world.  Economic realism is a far more effective driver of humans and human society than emotions and beliefs.

The proof of this is in a fact you may not be aware of. There are more slaves in the world today than at the height of the slave trade. These include women ensalved in the sex trade, and children enslaved on commercial plantations and other work places in africa. If you dont believe me, look this up.  Again, the reason is simple. Economic reality always trumps both ethics and the laws. Prohibition in America was a classic example.

Edited by Mr Walker, 08 September 2012 - 06:56 AM.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#944    Likely Guy

Likely Guy

    Undecided, mostly.

  • Member
  • 4,251 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Likely, Canada

  • I might have been born yesterday but, I've been up all night.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 06:56 AM

View PostMr Walker, on 08 September 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

Perhaps. In part that will depend on human mores and values which change collectively over time. But it wil also depend on outcomes and practicalities. No where in the world was slavery abolished until AFTER it was no longer an economically viable proposition. Womens rights and emancipation did not succeed until economic and social imperatives made them a productive outcome for society.. In other words people's feelings and opinions dont change the world, UNLESS they coincide with practical benefits/advantages for the world.  Economic realism is a far more effective driver of humans and human society than emotions and beliefs.
So, what you're saying is that 'economics suppresses gay marriage'?, or something to that effect?


#945    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,012 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 07:21 AM

View PostLikely Guy, on 08 September 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

So, what you're saying is that 'economics suppresses gay marriage'?, or something to that effect?

You were saying that gay marriage will vindicate present liberal beliefs. I am saying gay marriage will only prove succesful if it creates a nett economic benefit and not a liability.

All past evolutions of marriage have occured primarily as the economic structure of society, and the value/ worth of women changed. When their highest value was staying home and having 14 kids that s wha they did  When war forced them into factories they went, when their highest value is contributing to a modern economy ,and providing the workers required to drive that economy, then they are almost forced into working even if they want to stay home and have 14 kids.This happened to my wife and I. She decided to stay home after marriage, having worked from age 15 to age 34.. In the 70s govt's. wanted women to enter the work force. They changed taxation and other arrangements, to force this to happen. We lost many thousands of dollars But my wife never worked after marriage, as a matter of principle. She saw it as taking a job from a single woman who did not have a husband to support her and provide for her.

But as fertility drops, and western populations age, a women's value is again being accounted in their fertility, and govts are restruturing laws and rules to encourage women to have more children, and to try and balance this with a working life. Too late for us, LOL.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users