Gay Marriage

[+DieChecker]

We also already know that homosexual relationships were a part of life for Romans and Greeks and many other societies. Some didn't even insist on characterizing a person as straight or gay, recognizing that sexual contact was not the defining characteristic of a person and that a person could have sexual contact with both sexes, and a lot of people did. It's hard to understand all of this if you can't remove the filter of our societal mores.

Those honored societies also used slavery, fighting to the death for entertainment and worshiped pantheons of Gods. Do you suggest we go back to those too? Just because a society in the past was great does not mean it applies to the modern world.

I still think if you allow gay marriage, then you are going to have to allow polygamy. Otherwise you will be discriminating against people who want it for their religion. Or, maybe they were "born" polygamous. Are you going to allow child - adult marriages? Why not? That is discrimination too. Or, what about those few people who want to marry their brother/sister? Why not? That is discrimination too!

Where do you draw the line?

[Bill Hill]

I think I do because of listening to people rationally.

You don't come across of being accepting of people lifestyles if you want to support the exclusion of them from something like Christianity.

Bothered..how I come across.. I do accept other people's lifestyle choices but also I'm a man of logic.

But in this case, I don't support a political movement- ie the gay rights movement in their bid to deliberately antagonise another group- ie christians.

while I might think some christians are highly illogical- the same also applies to some gay people I've met.

One might worship at the house of our lord while the other worships at the house of gaylord...

but if so need be- Science can come along and and kick in both houses.

In the absents of evidence I'm not going to fill it up with faith.

Edited September 20, 2007 by billyhill

[questionmark]

I can see both sides of the argument, and I switch between them often.

I understand why some people oppose it. Marrige is a strictly relegious ordeal, civil unions or whatever, they can have. But most people understand taht their god/godess/gods/godesses werent exactly tolerant of homosexuality.

If we analyze the history of marriage it has little to do with any of the above, but was an exchange in ownership all along history. Wherein the man owned and the woman was the piece of property. And the possession was passed on from the father (or brother) to the husband.

I really don't understand why anybody wants to keep the remnant of a male dominated culture and transfer it to other ways of life. But if people want to (have to) do it they should be able to as long as both are in full knowledge and understanding of what they are doing.

[Bill Hill]

Isn't it funny how certain people here 'pick 'n' mix their genetics and psychology ie one's considered 'good' the other 'bad'

Drink/drug addiction- considered 'genetic'- "he can't help it.. it's not his fault he's addicted"

Murder- considered psychological- "He knew what he was doing- he deliberately chose to kill"

Homosexuality- considered 'genetic' "they can't help it, they don't have a choice, they just want to love"

Pedophilia - considered psychological "Those dirty freaks they know what they're doing!"

********** -considered psychological... "errugh what was he thinking..it's dead"

All wierdo sexual perversions are twisted variations of the heterosexual act. Some more twisted than other..

Some don't affect other people- so are considered 'ok' but it doesn't change what they are.

You can even change the meanings of the words- and play 'mental gynamstics' call it something else but it doesn't change 'what it is.'

[Neognosis]

Those honored societies also used slavery, fighting to the death for entertainment and worshiped pantheons of Gods. Do you suggest we go back to those too? Just because a society in the past was great does not mean it applies to the modern world.

Are you equating homosexuality with slavery and bloodsport? Surely you can't be. My point is that homosexuality is not the cause, nor the sign of, a declining society.

I still think if you allow gay marriage, then you are going to have to allow polygamy. Otherwise you will be discriminating against people who want it for their religion. Or, maybe they were "born" polygamous. Are you going to allow child - adult marriages? Why not? That is discrimination too. Or, what about those few people who want to marry their brother/sister? Why not? That is discrimination too!

Fine with me. As long as the relationship involves CONSENTING adults, who are you or I to tell people how to live?

Although your point about polygamy is a logical falicy. If X than necessarily Y is a logical fallacy.

[Bill Hill]

Fine with me. As long as the relationship involves CONSENTING adults, who are you or I to tell people how to live?

Although your point about polygamy is a logical falicy. If X than necessarily Y is a logical fallacy.

What logical fallacy? He made a valid point- where do we draw the line?

The gay rights movement has already opened the flood gates for the pedophiles to form a civil right's movement.

They've copied the same arguments used by the gay rights movement.

The only saving grace is 'consenting adults' and that's it.

But what about the cannibal murder case in Germany? One man agreed to be killed and eaten by another- so, it was between two consenting adults.

Very messy from a legal perspective.

[Neognosis]

What logical fallacy? He made a valid point- where do we draw the line?

It is a logical falacy to assume that if X, then Y.

People said that if we allow interracial marriage, then people will be marrying animals too. It's the same ignorant and illogical fallacy. We draw the line wherever our society decides to draw that line. And the line is being redrawn at "two consenting adults."

your insistence on mating the homosexual movement with peophilia is very insulting and ignorant. One involves the victimization of children. There are more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual pedophiles, but nobody is going around saying that straight marriage paved the way for pedophilia, are they?

But what about the cannibal murder case in Germany? One man agreed to be killed and eaten by another- so, it was between two consenting adults.

Another logical fallacy. I think that's called a red herring. Currently, homicide, even with the consent of the victim, is illegal. Homosexuality is not. Again, it's quite enlightening to see the comparisons you are making in your argument about homosexuality: pedophilia, murder, canibalism, bestiality. It is very telling.

[Siara]

Those honored societies also used slavery, fighting to the death for entertainment and worshiped pantheons of Gods. Do you suggest we go back to those too? Just because a society in the past was great does not mean it applies to the modern world.

Lot's of people on this forum worship pantheons of Gods, DieChecker. Do you think their financial status should be restricted too?

Slavery and fighting to the death abuse the rights of non-consenting people. My approval of homosexuality only includes relationships involving consenting adults. But then, that's how I feel about heterosexuals as well.

Edited September 20, 2007 by Siara

[Neognosis]

Slavery and fighting to the death abuse the rights of non-consenting people. My approval of homosexuality only includes relationships involving consenting adults. But then, that's how I feel about heterosexuals as well.

POINT

and even if both parties agreed to fight to the death, we don't sanction homicide in our society, unless it's done by the government. there are those who would like to see convicts fight to the death anyway.

Clearly, each society decides what is acceptable and what is not. and our socitey is coming around to accepting homosexuality.

don't worry, though, homosexuality does not cause pedophelia, not does it lead to an acceptance of bestiality or pedophelia, or anything else some would have us believe.

Truth is, there is NO logical reason to forbid recognition of homosexual relationships. None. the resistance is completely cultural and religios bias.

Edited September 20, 2007 by Neognosis

[Bill Hill]

It is a logical falacy to assume that if X, then Y.

People said that if we allow interracial marriage, then people will be marrying animals too. It's the same ignorant and illogical fallacy.

That's my point, It's not an assumption it's already happening-

your insistence on mating the homosexual movement with peophilia is very insulting and ignorant.

It's not me making the connection-

It's NAMBLA the North American Man/Boy Love Association. Do a google.

Again, it's quite enlightening to see the comparisons you are making in your argument about homosexuality: pedophilia, murder, canibalism, bestiality. It is very telling.

Is it? they are all aspects of 'human nature' Do we agree? or is this ignorant as well.

It's only telling if you're prepared to assume something about me- and commit a fallacy. Take my posts as they are.

We draw the line wherever our society decides to draw that line. And the line is being redrawn at "two consenting adults."

So it can 'change'... it's not fixed. So again where's the fallacy?

At the moment it's between two consenting adults... only two... why not three?

Edited September 20, 2007 by billyhill

[Siara]

At the moment it's between two consenting adults... only two... why not three?

I have no interested in this sort of thing, but it does not strike me as a decision that should involve the government.

Edited September 20, 2007 by Siara

[Siara]

(btw- hi, billyhill)

People here are arguing about the slippery slope of legalizing gay marriage, saying, "What's going to be next? Marriage to animals?", etc.

An equally important issue concerns the slippery slope of allowing the government to legislate what you can and can't do in your bedroom. What aspect of your personal life will power-hungry politicians try to legislate next?

[Bill Hill]

(btw- hi, billyhill)

An equally important issue concerns the slippery slope of allowing the government to legislate what you can and can't do in your bedroom. What aspect of your personal life will power-hungry politicians try to legislate next?

Hi

That's a good point- each to his/her own.

I think once you try a politize an aspect of human sexuality into a movement, then you're on a very slippery slope indeed.

Just makes me laugh, if you make this point- you're considered homophobic and ignorant.

But these same people, I'm sure would mock and laugh at someone who married a fruit. Tolerance appears to be a one way street.

Like the Greek guy who married a watermelon... holds it in.... can't anymore..

Edited September 20, 2007 by billyhill

[Siara]

Hi

That's a good point- each to his/her own.

I think once you try a politize an aspect of human sexuality into a movement, then you're on a very slippery slope indeed.

Just makes me laugh, if you make this point- you're considered homophobic and ignorant.

But these same people, I'm sure would mock and laugh at someone who married a fruit. Tolerance appears to be a one way street.

Like the Greek guy who married a watermelon... holds it in.... can't anymore..

If some guy wants to marry a watermelon I don't think we should arrest him. I think we should reward him for removing himself from the gene pool

[Neognosis]

That's my point, It's not an assumption it's already happening-

Are you serious? You REALLY think that accepting homosexuality is leading to an ecceptance of pedophilia? Wow. I can't even argue with that kind of mindset.

It's NAMBLA the North American Man/Boy Love Association. Do a google.

I'm well aware of NAMBLA, and I'm also aware that heterosexual pedophilia is more common than homosexual pedophilia. Some people who can't think logically and are emotional don't recognize this and insist on placing more of a link between homosexuality and pedophilia than on heterosexuality and pedophilia, even though more pedophiles are straight.

Regardless, there is a distinct seperation between homosexuality and pedophelia. One does not lead to the other, or to the acceptance of the other. The assertion that if X then Y is, sorry to say it again, a logical fallacy.

Is it? they are all aspects of 'human nature' Do we agree? or is this ignorant as well.

It's only telling if you're prepared to assume something about me- and commit a fallacy. Take my posts as they are.

i am, and your posts tell me that you repeatedly try put homosexuality on the same level as murder, pedophelia, cannibalism, bestiality. By that illogic, perhaps sex should only be allowed with a liscense and permission to procreate. After all, sex is the common factor in hetero, homo, and pedeophelia sex.

The fact is there is NO link between homosexuality and pedophilia or any of the other things you would have us believe are caused or influenced by pedophilia. No more or less a link than with heterosexuality.

So it can 'change'... it's not fixed. So again where's the fallacy?

At the moment it's between two consenting adults... only two... why not three?

yes, the line can change, and always has, and most likely will change. Women don't have to marry who their fathers want anymore. People can divorce. It is illegal to rape women. People of different races can marry. These are all lines that had to be moved. it is a logical fallacy to assert that if you move the line, it will move to horrible and unacceptable things, like canibilism and pedophilia. or even **GASP** polyamory! good lord, no! God, please save us from the evil of people loving too many other people!

Myself, if our society ever decides that polyamory or polygamy is legal, that's fine with me. it won't affect my marriage one iota. That day is at least a hundred years off, if it ever comes. As for pedophelia, our society puts the line at consenting adults. CONSENTING ADULTS. That is a fundamental foundation of our morality, we, as a society, don't believe in forcing people to do anything, and that's not likely to change unless the very fabric of our society shifts. And it will take far, far more than homosexuality to make that happen.

You can not provide a single logical reason to not accept homosexuality because there is none.

[Cradle of Fish]

I still think if you allow gay marriage, then you are going to have to allow polygamy. Otherwise you will be discriminating against people who want it for their religion. Or, maybe they were "born" polygamous. Are you going to allow child - adult marriages? Why not? That is discrimination too. Or, what about those few people who want to marry their brother/sister? Why not? That is discrimination too!

What's wrong with Polygamy? Wasn't that the way it was hundreds of years ago when it was one man to several or many women? How are you born polygamous exactly?

Drink/drug addiction- considered 'genetic'- "he can't help it.. it's not his fault he's addicted"

I dont think I've ever heard anyone call drug addiction as genetic other than the cult that is Alcoholics Anonymous.

[Neognosis]

I dont think I've ever heard anyone call drug addiction as genetic other than the cult that is Alcoholics Anonymous.

We KNOW that there are genes that make a person more likely to form a dependence on alcohol. We KNOW this. However, the choice to give in to that dependence or the likelyhood is still their choice.

I don't think it's rational to assert that there is no "choice" involved in drug and alchol addiction, but it's also not rational to dismiss the genetic facts entirely either.

the idea that if you allow gay marriage then you have to allow polygamy is ridiculous and a ploy to scare people on the fence about gay marriage. If they don't mind gay marriage so much, you have to scare them into thinking that everything else will then be likely to happen too, like polygamy (harmless, anyway), pedophile, bestiality, etc.

it's a common but poor and illogical argument as old as the interracial marriage debate.

[Bill Hill]

Are you serious? You REALLY think that accepting homosexuality is leading to an ecceptance of pedophilia? Wow. I can't even argue with that kind of mindset.

People said that about the Gay rights movement...what mmmh 20yrs ago...even.

The connection is- the pedophiles are copying the gay rights movement's arguments- it's about 'love' it's genetic man we can't help it.

But you're aware of this because-

I'm well aware of NAMBLA,

Ok so try and deny its existence and say I'm ignorant?

But, I see you've justified it's existence or brushed it under the carpet by- making this point

and I'm also aware that heterosexual pedophilia is more common than homosexual pedophilia. Some people who can't think logically and are emotional don't recognize this and insist on placing more of a link between homosexuality and pedophilia than on heterosexuality and pedophilia, even though more pedophiles are straight.

You point is-It's ok because pedophilia is a straight's problem? yet straight pedophiles aren't forming civil right's movements only gay ones are..

That just fact- I'm just pointing this out.

By that illogic, perhaps sex should only be allowed with a liscense and permission to procreate. After all, sex is the common factor in hetero, homo, and pedeophelia sex.

Strawman and slippery slope...

I would decipher the rest of your post but it started to go into a diatribe. Seems like you're arguing against some kind of point I haven't even made..

[Neognosis]

You point is-It's ok because pedophilia is a straight's problem? yet straight pedophiles aren't forming civil right's movements only gay ones are..

No, no no. Not at all.

My point is that there is no more a link between homosexuality and pedophilia than there is between heterosexuality and pedophelia.

So long as our standard remains "consenting adults," we don't have to fear the agenda of an organization like NAMBLA.

To condemn the homosexuality movements because another movement is copying their tactics is ridiculous.

Surely you don't deny the existance of straight pedophiles, do you?

Just because they aren't organizing doesn't mean they don't exist, and just because NAMBLA exists doesn't mean that homosexuals are any more or less likely to be pedophiles.

Pedophilia is completely seperate from homo and heterosexuality.

When a straight guy molests a 9 year old girl, do you say "well, it's those damn heterosexuals! See, they're dangerous!"

[Bill Hill]

Pedophilia is completely seperate from homo and heterosexuality.

You're missing the point- heterosexuality is the headline...

the rest are different aspects of human sexuality/ and or perversions under the headline.

Even homosexuality is connected to heterosexuality.

Without getting to graphic.. gaymen are still searching for a 'hole' while lesbians are still searching for..

well, you get the picture...btw I saw great film the other day highlighting what....

nevermind.

[Neognosis]

You're missing the point- heterosexuality is the headline...

the rest are different aspects of human sexuality/ and or perversions under the headline.

Even homosexuality is connected to heterosexuality.

Without getting to graphic.. gaymen are still searching for a 'hole' while lesbians are still searching for..

do you even KNOW any gay men?

so what's your point? Most people self identify as heterosexual. So what? Is your assertion that if we accept anything other than heterosexuality (namely homosexuality) then all the other sexualities, legal or accepted or not, would have to be accepted too?

I don't know if this is your argument. I hope it isn't, becuause it's ridiculous. Your assertion about "looking for a hole" is laughable. The overwhelming majority of people are someplace on a sliding scale anyway. Very few people are 100% homo or hetero sexual. Research Masters and Johnson, Kinsey.

[Bill Hill]

do you even KNOW any gay men?

Why yes I do actually.. your point? Is it important to comment on this debate?

Although I've never had sex with one..

so what's your point? Most people self identify as heterosexual. So what? Is your assertion that if we accept anything other than heterosexuality (namely homosexuality) then all the other sexualities, legal or accepted or not, would have to be accepted too?

I don't know if this is your argument. I hope it isn't, becuause it's ridiculous.

Is that all you say? ridiculous, and ignorance... and ridiculous again.

My point was- you said there was no connection between pedophilia, **********, beastuality, heterosexuality and homosexuality.

I just told you the connection.

Heterosexuality is the headlining act... the rest are variation of the theme.

Now why did nature make sex so pleasurable? For a laugh? for an accident through evolution? Or motivation to procreate to insure the survival of the species?

Your assertion about "looking for a hole" is laughable. The overwhelming majority of people are someplace on a sliding scale anyway. Very few people are 100% homo or hetero sexual. Research Masters and Johnson, Kinsey.

Never heard of them, I'll look into it- give me good old- wiki....

The Masters and Johnson research team, made up of William Masters and Virginia E. Johnson, pioneered research into the nature of human sexual response and the diagnosis and treatment of sexual disorders and dysfunctions from 1957 until the 1990s.

Ok...

Treatment of Homosexual Behavior

From 1968 to 1977, the Masters and Johnson Institute ran a program to convert or revert homosexuals to heterosexuality. This program reported a 71.6% success rate over a six-year treatment period. [2] Summaries of this program were published in their book Homosexuality in Perspective and in the American Journal of Psychiatry. [3]

At the time of their earlier work, homosexuality was considered a psychological disorder by the American Psychiatric Association.[1] In 1973 the APA determined that homosexuality did not fit the criteria for a disorder, although a state of distress or poor functioning brought on by dissatisfaction with one's sexual orientation did qualify.

Interesting... 71.6 success rate. Oh...

It's also interesting to note.. American Psychiatric association took off homosexuality from it's list of psychological disorders not through reasoned debate but through, intimidation, mob rule and protest by the gay rights movement.

mmmh, now, why does this not surprise me..

[Stixxman]

treat us the same, but different right

[Mabon]

Billyhill, you keep putting forth the argument that sex (namely heterosexual sex) is for procreation that is it's main goal.

Do you or think that people only have sexual intercourse solely for the purpose of having children? I think this question falls outside of religious morals and dogma but into biological imperative.

Mabon.

[Stixxman]

is it intimacy your talking about?