Be a Supporter!

A Different Spin On Gay Marriage

  • 3,481 Views
  • 147 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 26th, 2013 @ 09:39 PM Reply

I. Introduction!

As a daughter of two tremendously conservative parents, I naturally took on a number of their political views. It wasn't until I was a high school junior that I truly began to develop my own by simply listening to all alternative arguments. I have refined a wide variety of stances passed down to me - including the position on gay marriage. It is clear that the majority of Americans are at least unopposed to the idea of gay marriage. It's even as high as 73% among the youngest. It's a pretty amazing statistic considering where the country stood just a couple decades ago. But, what exactly are we supporting? I have an interesting twist on this whole debate to propose to you (pun intended)!

I hope you would agree that the most common argument in favor of gay marriage (and the most relevant) is: The prohibition of a marriage between a gay couple is clear discrimination. Unfortunately, the mainstream arguments for the negative are extremely subjective, religiously-based, and/or spawned from a fear of change. I cannot blame the right, to be honest, because the premise is convoluted - yet nobody seems to be addressing the real question:

What does it mean to be gay; what is sexuality?

II. English, Do You Speak It?

Many people - I daresay over 95% of the public - believe in the idea of "sexuality." This is to say, we believe that a person is attracted to a specific sex either from birth (biological) or through environmental conditioning (psychological). My opinion had shifted plenty of times over the years from the biological theory to the latter. Finally, I resolved that both are only partial scientific observations - harboring only some truth based on facts, yet much presumption based on ideals. Sexuality is ambiguously defined as a trait when in fact it is an action. Before I continue, here are some examples of this idea:

A. If I step into a car and drive it to the store, I become a driver.
B. If I attempt to paint a picture, I become a painter.
C. If I go for a run in the morning, I become a jogger.

These are not inborn traits, rather, designations for a specific action one partakes in. A person can be a driver one day, and a passenger the next - a painter one day, and a patron the next. These elements of language (nouns) are important for us to understand what one is currently doing or does regularly, possibly as a profession. Frequently, they carry over for a period of time relative to the significance. A thief, for example, tends to remain "a thief" until caught, and subsequently tried in a court. A baker remains "a baker" until he retires from his job.

It is exactly the same for homosexuals. One who has a sexual relation with a member of the same sex becomes a homosexual. This is absolutely not equivalent to homosexual tendencies (which I will go over shortly). The length of time one remains a homosexual is subjective to the language speaker. The same can be applied to "heterosexuals." A heterosexual is one who has a sexual relation with a member of the opposite sex. Like with the previous example, the period of time this classification remains is entirely up to the speaker.

But, what does this mean for people who exhibit emotions indicative of "being homosexual?" Quite simply, they are not defined as anything because they are not in the process of sexual actions. Feelings and urges may lead to homosexual acts, but one does not linguistically become a homosexual until engaging in such acts. Likewise, "heterosexual urges" do not make a heterosexual. Sexuality is simply not a concept in biology because science only understands reproduction (and pleasure for humans, which I will address in the next segment). This is why the scientific community is so chaotic on this topic.

So, what actually is scientific which can be used in this debate?

III. Sex!

Yep, sex. We all do it. If you don't, you wish you did. If you don't wish you did, you have a chemical imbalance or disorder.

Sex in the animal kingdom - with some exceptions - is purely functional. It is used as a means of reproduction in order to continue the survival of the species in question. As one of the exceptions, humankind operates similarly; however, we are one of the rare forms of life that also has sex for enjoyment. How this came about evolutionarily is speculative, but one thing is for certain, it is a damn good way of increasing the population.

If one is to deduce that homosexuality is a biological trait, one must first address this issue: a gay couple cannot procreate. Sure, we hear this all the time on the media from scapegoated Republicans - but how many of you actually consider this scientific dilemma? If there is a gene that renders someone homosexual, it is in direct opposition with evolution which the primary function of is the creation of offspring.

What's more, the pleasure gained from sex would have to be neurologically exclusive to actual sex. This obviously isn't true, and I can cite masturbation; sex can be simulated! In other words the human body can be fooled into behaving as if it were fertilizing or being fertilized. Thus, the pleasure-related aspects of sex is actually irrelevant to the idea of human sexual relations. We are biologic creatures. Plain and simple. As I have shown, it is tremendously more likely that homosexuality is simply a confusing term rather than a biological trait - and one yet to be found at that!

(cont.)


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 26th, 2013 @ 09:40 PM Reply

IV. I Have Rights!

If you got ahead of me, slow down here because this is the climax (no pun intended)!

Marriage, as it's root, is intended to unite families together and subsequently produce more (and more successful) members. The benefits given to married couples are intended to encourage people to marry in order to increase national the population (the future wealth, the future workforce, the future military, the future law enforcement, the future government). Benefits and unions function as an investments. A homosexual marriage is a botched investment. While procreation is certainly not the only argument in favor of traditional marriage, I am confident it is the strongest. Should the sanctity of marriage collapse and be redefined, the benefits must be taken away rather than extended to everyone - because we WOULD be discriminating the types of marriages, yet would no require the benefits (wasted money).

As I elaborated, homosexuality is not, and cannot be, a physical trait. Therefore, it cannot be held at the same level as age, sex, and ethnicity - as these attributes are inborn and cannot be changed. This is why interracial marriages should be (and are) certainly allowed! "Gay," however, is an action and emotion rather than a trait. Of course, we should not treat people with disrespect if their actions cause you no harm. But, the sanctity of marriage (a positive right) should NOT be compromised on the bases of actions and emotions; redefining marriage on this basis can argumentatively lead to further redefinition to include animals and inanimate objects (both of which certain minorities of people are attracted to and commit lewd acts with). Yes, this is a slippery slope - but I only use it as a means of illustrating the hidden equivalents of the argument presented.

V. Conclusion!

Please, please, do not misunderstand me. I treat all men equally, and have the utmost respect for many people who call themselves gay. I have no problem with people, I have a problem with concepts. My only issue is when science and language are distorted, and mass confusion then arises from it. I welcome anyone's opinion on this (I am positive some of you will have a few choice words!), and will respect our differences should we find some.

Oh, and thanks for reading! I swear it was so much shorter in my head.

Characters remaining: 1

"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Entice
Entice
  • Member since: Jun. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 26th, 2013 @ 10:22 PM Reply

I'm sorry but to me this is just a very verbose repeat of a stance that I've heard many times before. I have some specific things I want to address though.

At 3/26/13 09:39 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: If there is a gene that renders someone homosexual, it is in direct opposition with evolution which the primary function of is the creation of offspring.

Evolution does not have a function. It simply means that organisms change over time.

Sure, organisms that are bad at reproducing tend to die off, but there's many more factors to consider. I know this is simple but I point it out because you're hung up on evolution being some form of progression when it's a natural, unregulated process that can go in many directions including backwards.

There are many other genetic disorders that prevent reproduction and survival in general. Recessive genes, mutations, etc. are responsible for their existence. You can't say that homosexuality can't be genetic simply because it prevents reproduction. There's not enough evidence to do so.

What's more, the pleasure gained from sex would have to be neurologically exclusive to actual sex. This obviously isn't true, and I can cite masturbation; sex can be simulated! In other words the human body can be fooled into behaving as if it were fertilizing or being fertilized. Thus, the pleasure-related aspects of sex is actually irrelevant to the idea of human sexual relations.

Completely false. The body and mind don't naturally "know" that sex is in any way connected to reproduction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Sex_for _pleasure

I also don't see why sex and relationships can't have psychological and social benefits as well as biological ones.

As I elaborated, homosexuality is not, and cannot be, a physical trait.

Moot because as I pointed out, you're wrong.

The bottom line is that there's no psychological difference between same-sex relationships and other romantic relationships.

A homosexual marriage is a botched investment. While procreation is certainly not the only argument in favor of traditional marriage, I am confident it is the strongest.

Not all couples will or are capable of procreating, yet by your logic they will receive the same benefits and thus be a "botched investment". If you even consider reproduction an investment on the part of the government, seeing as we have more than enough people.

The primary reason that people get married in the United States is because they're in a committed romantic relationship. Marriage may have had other purposes in the past but that's irrelevant now.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 26th, 2013 @ 10:52 PM Reply

At 3/26/13 09:40 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: A homosexual marriage is a botched investment.

I hate to just respond to just one sentence out of a post so big it needed to be broken up into two parts, but I have a question for you: Are you against people in prison from getting married? There was a case that actually went to the supreme court (what a coincidence, the SC just heard oral arguments on Prop 8 today and will again for Section 3 of DOMA tomorrow, hmm) where it was decided that prison inmates have a right to marry. However, procreation is impossible, since they're incarcerated. If you agree with the procreation rationale, then logically you can't just subject that to one classification as it shouldn't just be based solely on sexual orientation, it has to be applied to the populace as a whole. What about infertility? Elderly couples?

You said you believe that the procreation argument is the strongest argument here, and I actually agree - but that's not saying much, because no matter how hard I think about it, it's an extremely weak argument in a sea of even weaker ones.

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 26th, 2013 @ 11:26 PM Reply

At 3/26/13 10:22 PM, Entice wrote:
At 3/26/13 09:39 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: If there is a gene that renders someone homosexual, it is in direct opposition with evolution which the primary function of is the creation of offspring.
Evolution does not have a function. It simply means that organisms change over time.

I'm not sure if you are actually speaking of something different, or if you just misunderstood my statement. "Change over time" is literally adaptation, which is acquired through reproduction and hereditary line. Differentiations are primarily made through the passing on of genetic code to offspring. Is this what you were referring to?

I point it out because you're hung up on evolution being some form of progression when it's a natural, unregulated process that can go in many directions including backwards.

I don't believe I delved deep enough into evolutionary studies for you to be able to induce this. Regardless, the idea of "progression" is not my position. I am merely explaining how evolution works (in an extremely simplified manner). It's obvious that evolution has no specific direction; however, any and all adaptations require some form of reproduction. The methods vary from species to species - some are even able to reproduce by themselves. Any gene that inhibits the ability for a species to reproduce is not only extremely recessive, but harmful to the race and certainly becomes extinct after several generations. Moreover, an intact reproduction-preventative gene could not be passed on to biological offspring for obvious reasons.

There are many other genetic disorders that prevent reproduction and survival in general. Recessive genes, mutations, etc. are responsible for their existence. You can't say that homosexuality can't be genetic simply because it prevents reproduction. There's not enough evidence to do so.

There is not enough evidence to determine anything. We cannot create a study out of something that is not known to exist. Not only is it foolish, but it allows for other speculative "sciences" which proclaim the original to be a valid theory. Sure, there could be a homosexual gene - just like there could be a superhero gene. Neither currently make even the remote bit of scientific sense apart from interpretation and convoluted language (explained in my post). Again, we don't know; but that is not an excuse to suddenly base theories on it, and it's especially dangerous when introduced into social issues.

What's more, the pleasure gained from sex would have to be neurologically exclusive to actual sex. This obviously isn't true, and I can cite masturbation; sex can be simulated! In other words the human body can be fooled into behaving as if it were fertilizing or being fertilized. Thus, the pleasure-related aspects of sex is actually irrelevant to the idea of human sexual relations.
Completely false. The body and mind don't naturally "know" that sex is in any way connected to reproduction.

You have totally lost me, and the link you provided was insufficient for clarification (I'm not even sure how it is relevant). I hope it is obvious that an orgasm can be induced without a partner. Do you know what an orgasm is? If not, this probably isn't the topic for you. Perhaps you are simply unaware of our part in the whole deal? If so: http://www.womenshealthmag.com/sex-and-relationships/anatomy -of-an-orgasm?page=1

Pleasure derived from sex is, as I stated, independent of actually having sex. It can be achieved without a partner which proves that it is not directly tied to the actual physical contact of a mate. However, the main functionality of arousal is to initiate sex. The body begins to behave in preparation for it and reacts as if engaging in it. Don't be fooled, you're just an intelligent animal (well, hopefully).

This is literally one of the first lessons you learn in 9th grade.

I also don't see why sex and relationships can't have psychological and social benefits as well as biological ones.

I never addressed this, let alone denied that they don't.

The bottom line is that there's no psychological difference between same-sex relationships and other romantic relationships.

This is exactly the thesis of my post. Try not to regurgitate the rhetoric you hear on television simply because you assume someone is opposed to your position.

Not all couples will or are capable of procreating, yet by your logic they will receive the same benefits and thus be a "botched investment".

True, but my intention was solely to illustrate the purpose of marriage. I have offered no subsequent actions we need to take because that is quite possibly the foundation for three separate threads considering how monumental marriage is in our culture.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 26th, 2013 @ 11:43 PM Reply

At 3/26/13 10:52 PM, Feoric wrote:
At 3/26/13 09:40 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: A homosexual marriage is a botched investment.
I hate to just respond to just one sentence out of a post so big it needed to be broken up into two parts, but I have a question for you: Are you against people in prison from getting married? There was a case that actually went to the supreme court (what a coincidence, the SC just heard oral arguments on Prop 8 today and will again for Section 3 of DOMA tomorrow, hmm) where it was decided that prison inmates have a right to marry. However, procreation is impossible, since they're incarcerated. If you agree with the procreation rationale, then logically you can't just subject that to one classification as it shouldn't just be based solely on sexual orientation, it has to be applied to the populace as a whole. What about infertility? Elderly couples?

You said you believe that the procreation argument is the strongest argument here, and I actually agree - but that's not saying much, because no matter how hard I think about it, it's an extremely weak argument in a sea of even weaker ones.

I would have to think about it a lot before affirming one way or the other. But, I can say that I would not be likely to support a marriage between prison inmates - and, not really because of the procreation issue. Your rights as a prisoner are up for debate. Personally, I do not believe one who breaks the law should be privileged with positive rights beyond basic necessities until their time has been served. So, while it seems heartless to "deny love," marriage as the ideal institution wouldn't apply to them regardless. I see no issue with some sort of "formal engagement" in prisons, but an official recognition of marriage should not apply until both parties have been released.

Infertile couples should certainly be able to marry, but I would argue that certain benefits should be limited. Again, it's for the purpose of encouraging the population that marriage functions - not necessarily to actually force the creation of babies. It is certainly possible to veer so far to the right that one must be a federally hand-picked candidate for marriage. I think there is a middle ground between that and a system where marriage is simply a word people use when they love each other very, very, very much.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Ron-Geno
Ron-Geno
  • Member since: Jun. 26, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 13
Gamer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 27th, 2013 @ 12:12 AM Reply

Clap Clap Clap.
Clap Clap.
Clap.

Mainly clapping because I really had no idea what a homosexual was.
Really.

I would state your definition to homosexuals, and they would reply "That's not the only thing that makes us gay" and I would be like "what, there's more?"

But great discussion on the issue.


Skynet is upon us.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 27th, 2013 @ 12:30 AM Reply

Quite honestly it's easy to see the anti-Gay Marriage group constantly changing their arguments. I was watching the head of the most prominent pro-marriage groups and I was just realizing how terrible his arguments were and his counter-arguments. For example people say it's hypocritical for a Conservative to say they're for small government at the same time saying they should ban gay marriage, this guy responded to this stance by stating that if you let the government legalize gay marriage then you're giving them the power to define marriage. This would be nice had Prop 8 not done exactly that (it defined marriage, effectively banning gay marriage). All his other arguments were in that same contradicting style. The just downright horrible reasoning behind the anti-gay marriage group is simply killing them, at the Prop 8 hearing in the CA supreme Court all of their witnesses turned against Prop 8 because the arguments were just atrocious and torn apart by the prosecution.

This isn't even a bias, I listened to what pro-life groups had to say and I honestly saw where they were coming from and they made many good points. I was just contrasting the two groups constantly and how delusional anti-gay marriage groups seem to be while this guy was talking.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 27th, 2013 @ 01:18 AM Reply

At 3/26/13 09:39 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: II. English, Do You Speak It?

Your semantics are long boring and have no purpose. So what if a person who has an ongoing sexual interest in the same sex isn;t actively engaging in sexual relations with the same sex? The preference itself makes them homosexual. A guy with yellow fever (sorry for the term, but there just ain't many appropriate terms involving sexual attraction to specific groups) doesn't have yellow fever only for the few breif moments he is screwing asian women. He has yellow fever for the period in which he expresses primary sexual interest in asian females. In the end, who cares? What difference does it make whether the person in question is actively engaged in sexual activity? It doesn't. So your point is not only wrong, it is pointless. Please stop obfuscating.

Sexuality is simply not a concept in biology because science only understands reproduction (and pleasure for humans, which I will address in the next segment).

Please PLEASE explain why so many animals masturbate. Why dogs hunch for dominance. Why there are countless examples of homosexuality IN NATURE.


III. Sex!
Sex in the animal kingdom - with some exceptions - is purely functional.

Masturbation is extremely common. Sexual acts as a form of dominance are extremely common. Sexual acts upon different species (or even inanimate objects) are extremely common. So what exactly were you trying to claim? That sex is a purely reproductive act? Either it is extremely shitty at its stated goal, or you're just wrong. (indications point to the later)

IV. I Have Rights!
Marriage, as it's root, is intended to unite families together and subsequently produce more (and more successful) members.

I absolutely FUCKING HATE this lazy and 100% false argument. Marriage was orginally a contract. It was a financial system of bringing two entities together into one financial being. It merely glommed onto the sexual relations as those are where strong common bonds between two families are most often created.

Marriage wasn't made into a family producing entity until the church got a hold of it (thousands of years AFTER the inception of the practice) and it wasn;t brought into the state's hands until the mid 19th Century when nations began to do more than merely hold land.

V. Conclusion!

My only issue is when science and language are distorted, and mass confusion then arises from it.

If such is your concern, then I politely request that you stop distorting the scientific language and the history of the institution.

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 27th, 2013 @ 02:10 AM Reply

Camarohusky:

I develop my arguments and choose my words carefully, spending much time refining my language before submitting it in order for readers to best understand my position - and you, most certainly, do not. However, I do not feel that further elaboration is required on my part because judging by the nature and content of your response, you only briefly skimmed the text. It is extremely insulting that you not only attempt to retort my thesis with repackaged versions of my own arguments, but you seem to ignore the entire bulk of my post as partially indicated by these statements:

"Masturbation is extremely common [....] So what exactly were you trying to claim? That sex is a purely reproductive act?"

I specifically addressed this issue; moreover, I used masturbation as a means of showing why sex is not purely a reproductive function for certain species.

My postscript only applies to those who are actually willing to engage in the discussion - such requires an honest attempt at understanding the argument. If you lack the attention span, I completely understand. Come back when you have enough free time to think critically. If you think I am boring, I'll consider making complex social issues more entertaining in the future by adding excess swear words, condensing them into a couple vague sentences, and posting a link to a mildly-relevant YouTube video.

Kindly, read through the opening post before voicing your opinion on it.

Thanks in advance!


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Entice
Entice
  • Member since: Jun. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 27th, 2013 @ 11:39 AM Reply

Yes, I passed ninth grade biology

What I was trying to say was:
1. It's possible for genes that prevent reproduction to be present in a population. You said that it's impossible for homosexuality to be a physical trait, which I presume would also mean that it's impossible for homosexuality to be genetic. You yourself said that there's no evidence either way so why are you assuming that it's impossible? Also what Camaro said in his second paragraph.

2. Animals are not consciously aware that sex is reproduction. The reason animals have sex is because they receive pleasure or some other sort of incentive, so it'd be wrong to say to sex is purely for reproductive purposes. I now know that you agree with me there so need to elaborate further.

...but if you agree with me there I quite frankly don't understand why you'd be opposed to gay marriage, but anyways

As I elaborated, homosexuality is not, and cannot be, a physical trait. Therefore, it cannot be held at the same level as age, sex, and ethnicity - as these attributes are inborn and cannot be changed. This is why interracial marriages should be (and are) certainly allowed!

Assuming for a moment that you're right and homosexuality isn't a physical trait, aren't there other factors that could affect marriage (such as religion) that aren't inborn? Don't we have a right to make our own choices to a certain extent?

both of which certain minorities of people are attracted to and commit lewd acts with)

A relationship between two people is not equivalent to one-way attraction.

Yes, this is a slippery slope -

Yes it is.

but I only use it as a means of illustrating the hidden equivalents of the argument presented.

Equivalents... where? You agreed with me when I said that there's no psychological difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. On the other hand there's a huge different between those sort of relationships and sex with inanimate objects and animals. My pencil sharpener can't consent. My cat isn't intelligent. My computer can't feel emotion. Another man can do all of these things.

There might not be a difference in the mind of the individual that feels love for his chair, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not equivalent in the ways that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality.

---

I'll say it again, I see absolutely nothing new being brought to the table here. I have no idea how this is a different spin on gay marriage because the "marriage is for reproduction" argument was literally the first argument I ever heard concerning gay marriage when I was 14, and this is essential a verbose repeat of that same argument. A very weak argument.

I think there is a middle ground between that and a system where marriage is simply a word people use when they love each other very, very, very much.

Exactly. What's wrong with that?

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 27th, 2013 @ 11:55 AM Reply

At 3/27/13 02:10 AM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: "Masturbation is extremely common [....] So what exactly were you trying to claim? That sex is a purely reproductive act?"

I specifically addressed this issue; moreover, I used masturbation as a means of showing why sex is not purely a reproductive function for certain species.

No you didn't. All you said was masturbation was simulated sex. That does not explain why so many animals (far exceeding the small group that gets pleasure from sex) do it. If sex was purely about reproduction, why is it so common that animals are essentially wasting their reproductive talents?

My postscript only applies to those who are actually willing to engage in the discussion

I guess that excludes you. Whne I present problems with your ideas you merely claim bullshit that I didn't read (even though I read it several times to grasp your long winded, meandering, and largely goal-less paragraphs).

How's about you actually try to defend your claims?

Even if the masturbation point falls away, what about your misunderstanding of the tradition of marriage? Or what about the extremely common existence of hokosexuality, interspecies sex, and sex with inanimate objects that occurs in the animal kingdom? What about the common existence of sexual acts used as methods of gaining and showing dominance? What does your incorrect view about the ephemerality of sexuality have to do with the entire issue?

Stop trying to deflect and answer for these major holes in your argument.

HibiscusMallow
HibiscusMallow
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 27th, 2013 @ 02:07 PM Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_or ientation

Homosexuality is due to prenatal hormones. The genes for the development of the brain are not stored in the XY or XX sex chromosones, they are stored elsewhere and activated by hormones released by the genitals which develop due to the individual's XY or XX sex chromosone, sometimes the hormonal stage is disrupted and the brain develops like that of the opposite sex or both to varying degrees. This has led to some confusion, there is no need to apologize just confirm that you are not one of those people who can never admit they are wrong.

Anyway, the state shouldn't discriminate against homosexuals but why should the state step in and discriminate against the unmarried in favor of the married in the first place? Gay marriage promotes discussion about this issue and help people become conscious of the heavy hand of government.

Then there is the abuse of the gay rights movement, as can also be seen in ethnic group movements and women's movements, their leaders claim anyone who disagrees with their particular ideology opposes equality, they are demagogues who prey on the fears of their followers so they can use their political capital, for instance if a politician wants to drop a tariff on sugar a sugar company might pay them to falsely accuse the politician of homophobia. Some of their followers take the ideology to embarrassing extremes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfzSTx2peeo

Gay marriage could be used as a bargaining chip, if their followers categorically reject their leaders we can say "I guess it is not a complete farce, I suppose it would make things simpler and allow us to concentrate on more important things, ok we will help".

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 27th, 2013 @ 03:38 PM Reply

At 3/27/13 11:39 AM, Entice wrote: 1. You yourself said that there's no evidence either way so why are you assuming that it's impossible?

There is no such thing as evidence for nonexistence. However, I probably should have said "highly improbable." As I said before, scientifically there is no way to call a superhero gene impossible because it is not a theory founded on observation. Similarly, a homosexual gene has not truly been observed; I explain why in the second portion of my post. For there to be a homosexual gene, the pleasure derived from sex would have to be related solely to the act of sex. Moreover, the term is misused as a physical trait rather than action.

Evidence for genes determining ethnicity is observable because heredity is a biologic trait and can be predicted. We cannot (have not) determine(d) how homosexuality is passed on - and I argue it is because the word is being misused. You are searching for "driver," "baker," and "painter" genes. While there may be some factors that contribute to a person engaging in driving, baking, and painting, these variables are not exclusive to the factors simply because they are not traits.

2. Animals are not consciously aware that sex is reproduction. The reason animals have sex is because they receive pleasure or some other sort of incentive

Actually, many animals, especially smaller organisms, are not conscious of anything (apart from instinct). Not all species have sex for pleasure. While the field is still growing, it is obvious from basic biologic study that sex is for reproduction first and pleasure second. It would be a false statement to say that all animals are not aware of the reproductive process. Reproductivity is very basic biology.

Assuming for a moment that you're right and homosexuality isn't a physical trait, aren't there other factors that could affect marriage (such as religion) that aren't inborn? Don't we have a right to make our own choices to a certain extent?

Absolutely we have a right to make our own choices! I am not in any way suggesting that we ban homosexual acts or prevent those who prefer that lifestyle from pursuing it with likeminded adults. Doing so would be the obstruction of a negative right (freedom). However, marriage is not included in this decision because marriage is a socially constructed positive right (privilege or benefit). As stated previously, the benefits tied with marriage are defeated with a redefinition to include subjectivity. Benefits should be stripped for all couples if homosexual relationships are introduced, because they no longer serve their purpose. Therefore, the pursuit of gay marriage is vain.

both of which certain minorities of people are attracted to and commit lewd acts with)
A relationship between two people is not equivalent to one-way attraction.

Animals have been known to attempt mating rituals with humans. By your theory above, this indicates that the animal in question is attracted to the human, and wishes to have sex with him for pleasure. Thus, any restriction on inter-species relationships is discriminatory with the change of marriage being an objective function to a subjective emotional title.

A less striking result would be the possible introduction of pedophiliac relationships. The most common argument against this (and I agree) is that one party is too young to be able to make such a commitment. However, the bar set at the arbitrary age of 18 is not founded in biology or any objective reasoning. In fact, biology suggests that a person undergoes puberty around age 12. It can be argued that emotions felt by certain, more mature teenagers are equivalent to less mature and irresponsible adults. Again, it's a slope - but becomes much less slippery when philosophies are used in place of functionality.

I'll say it again, I see absolutely nothing new being brought to the table here.

I redefined homosexuality, yet no one has touched on it yet. Probably because you fail to tie all portions together - mistaking my argument as "gays can't reproduce." My problem is that the word "gay" is being misused. Homosexuality as an action eliminates it from later arguments regarding traits. If I were you, I would be tackling this idea as the root of the problem before attempting dismantle the leaves.

I think there is a middle ground between that and a system where marriage is simply a word people use when they love each other very, very, very much.
Exactly. What's wrong with that?

Marriage without benefits becomes less important than civil unions. The gay community is obliviously fighting over a word to call their relationships. This is literally one of the silliest phenomena because there would be no real gain from a formal ceremony (which can be carried out privately). We are trading benefits which actually help people for the subjective definition of a word because a minority of people are offended that the system functions without their emotional connections.

People with no arms are trying to play basketball, and instead of accepting a job other than being the player, they are attempting to change the rules to satisfy their lack of arms. Inevitably, the sport becomes little league football and the original players lose their paychecks.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 27th, 2013 @ 04:06 PM Reply

At 3/27/13 03:38 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: I redefined homosexuality, yet no one has touched on it yet. Probably because you fail to tie all portions together - mistaking my argument as "gays can't reproduce." My problem is that the word "gay" is being misused. Homosexuality as an action eliminates it from later arguments regarding traits. If I were you, I would be tackling this idea as the root of the problem before attempting dismantle the leaves.

I have touched on it. Your definition is both narrow and incorrect. Sexuality is not merely "the act of engaging in sex". Heterosexuality is not merely the act of "engaging in sex with the opposite sex". One does not stop being heterosexual the minute sex is over. Heterosexuality is defined as the state of being heterosexual, which is defined as "or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward the opposite sex". The desire and the preference are what makes one heterosexual or homosexual. There are such things as heterosexual virgins. Under your definition they would not be heterosexual as they do not partake in heterosexual sex, even though sexually they desire the opposite sex.

Now, EVEN IF your definition was the proper one, what does it have to do at all with the marriage debate? So what if we're all nothing sexually except for those select moments where we are actively engaging in sex?

Marriage without benefits becomes less important than civil unions. The gay community is obliviously fighting over a word to call their relationships. This is literally one of the silliest phenomena because there would be no real gain from a formal ceremony (which can be carried out privately). We are trading benefits which actually help people for the subjective definition of a word because a minority of people are offended that the system functions without their emotional connections.

So let's put all the black kiddos in separate schools. I mean if they're taught the same thing at the same quality there's no problem, right? That's exactly what you're arguing here: separate but equal.


People with no arms are trying to play basketball, and instead of accepting a job other than being the player, they are attempting to change the rules to satisfy their lack of arms.

Except it is damn near impossible to perform ANY basketball function without arms. There is only one function that marriage has that being homosexual restricts, and that's conception. However, just like we have invented prosthetic arms, we have numerous ways around that one little minute part of a marriage (really, how much time in a marriage is actually spent on conception? A total of minutes over a 20 year marriage?).

You have also failed to address how your "reproduction is the reason gays can't get married" philosophy does or does not restrict the elderly, the infertile, those who already have kids and don't plan to have any more, and those who just plain don't want children. If reproduction is the only reason for marriage, why do we let these people marry all the time?

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 27th, 2013 @ 04:15 PM Reply

At 3/27/13 04:06 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So let's put all the black kiddos in separate schools. I mean if they're taught the same thing at the same quality there's no problem, right? That's exactly what you're arguing here: separate but equal.

Ooh, you called it "separate but equal" so he must be for apartheid and segregation. You know what else is separate but equal? Male and female restrooms.

No, they really just care about the benefits. Since when has the gay community supported integration with cultural norms? They've created an entire subculture that flaunts traditional notions of gender roles, behavior, and dress, yet you expect me to believe they're hung up about whether their legally recognized partnership is actually called "marriage?"

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 27th, 2013 @ 04:30 PM Reply

At 3/27/13 02:07 PM, HibiscusMallow wrote: Homosexuality is due to prenatal hormones.

I just wanted to correct this in saying it may be due to hormones. This is actually a study in progress, and much evidence is not exclusively indicative to a type of "homosexuality."

This has led to some confusion, there is no need to apologize just confirm that you are not one of those people who can never admit they are wrong.

I have no issue admitting when I am wrong. I am welcome to, and encourage objective information just as you provided and will adjust my position accordingly! However, I have not seen enough evidence indicative of what you imply. A homosexual gene cannot be solely dependent upon some sort of hormonal dysfunction. There are many adults who suffer from a lack of, or excess of a certain hormone, yet do not engage in homosexual behaviors.

While hormonal factors may play a role in a person's probability of becoming homosexual, since they are absolutely not primary, other factors such as free will and environmental conditioning are clearly more relevant. There are plenty of people who claim to have been homosexual at birth, as well as people who "discovered" their orientation, even those who have chosen the lifestyle as a means of avoiding the opposite sex (one of my friends is like this), or due to lack of contact with the opposite sex. This wide variety, I believe, indicates a problem with the term - I elaborated on this in Part II of my post.

Anyway, the state shouldn't discriminate against homosexuals but why should the state step in and discriminate against the unmarried in favor of the married in the first place?

I believe you have a misconception of the idea of benefits and discrimination. Benefits are given to serve a purpose or function, and also to reward members of a certain group. For example, there are employment benefits, military benefits, and insurance benefits - all of which are intended to attract more able members and/or create an easier environment for current members to operate. Marriage, without a purpose or function, lacks the need for benefits; they must then be revoked if homosexuals are allowed to marry. This is because benefits cannot be given to one type of marriage (that would certainly be discrimination), yet also cannot be given to all members because the investment no longer offers a return.

Some of their followers take the ideology to embarrassing extremes.

True, but do I understand the passion of the gay community who feel there is an injustice. I have no problem with civil unions, or even a type of system specific to gays in terms of functional benefits that excludes heterosexuals (although, it is difficult to think of one).


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 27th, 2013 @ 04:51 PM Reply

At 3/27/13 04:06 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Your definition is both narrow and incorrect. Sexuality is not merely "the act of engaging in sex". Heterosexuality is not merely the act of "engaging in sex with the opposite sex". One does not stop being heterosexual the minute sex is over.

Since you still haven't thoroughly read my post, allow me to quote from it:

One who has a sexual relation with a member of the same sex becomes a homosexual. This is absolutely not equivalent to homosexual tendencies (which I will go over shortly). The length of time one remains a homosexual is subjective to the language speaker. The same can be applied to "heterosexuals." A heterosexual is one who has a sexual relation with a member of the opposite sex. Like with the previous example, the period of time this classification remains is entirely up to the speaker.

Under your definition they would not be heterosexual as they do not partake in heterosexual sex, even though sexually they desire the opposite sex.

Quite simply, they are not defined as anything because they are not in the process of sexual actions. Feelings and urges may lead to homosexual acts, but one does not linguistically become a homosexual until engaging in such acts. Likewise, "heterosexual urges" do not make a heterosexual. Sexuality is simply not a concept in biology because science only understands reproduction (and pleasure for humans, which I will address in the next segment). This is why the scientific community is so chaotic on this topic.

Now, EVEN IF your definition was the proper one, what does it have to do at all with the marriage debate?

Please read Part IV of my post within the context of the previous three. I would also recommend reviewing my responses to other users.

That's exactly what you're arguing here: separate but equal.

You can't be serious. You seem intelligent enough to understand that segregation does not apply to benefits, rather, communities. Discrimination is the word you probably intend, which is also non-applicable to my argument for the same reason benefits are given to military veterans, the elderly, and poor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 27th, 2013 @ 06:25 PM Reply

At 3/27/13 04:51 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Like with the previous example, the period of time this classification remains is entirely up to the speaker.

So in the words of someone who knows how to communicate you're simply saying "homosexuals don't deserve marriage because a person's sexuality isn't necessarily permanent."

Well, if permanency in marriage is your real concern, isn't there a big D word you should be focusing your energy on?

Please read Part IV of my post within the context of the previous three. I would also recommend reviewing my responses to other users.

Just because a trait isn't physical doesnt mean it's co ntrollable, and grounds for denying entrance to a practice that is gender blind all except for one part which has greatly diminished in importance within the practice.

That's exactly what you're arguing here: separate but equal.
You can't be serious. You seem intelligent enough to understand that segregation does not apply to benefits, rather, communities.

It IS separate but equal. It may not rise to full on segregation but the term "separate but equal" applies. You're trying to say that there is NO ill effects from giving them everything but the simple basic respect of the same name. In other words you try to claim they deserve rights out of one side of your mouth while out of the other side loudly shouting so that all can hear that they are not the same and they should just deal.

Segregation was struck down because of the psychological effects such a practice has upon those who are denied the equal opportunity. The fact you use it with a benefit (which seeing as you don't have to do anything to earn the benefit is more like robbing them of something they should otherwise get) does not change that your idea is still very harmful.

Discrimination is the word you probably intend,

No. You're doing a very poor job of playing the high road here.

which is also non-applicable to my argument for the same reason benefits are given to military veterans, the elderly, and poor.

NOPE. The benefits those people recieve come in two categories: enefits related to dire need, and benefits directly related to an act.

A person's ability to procreate is at most tangentially related to the modern institution of marriage.

Finally, why do you even care? What does a gay marriage do to you?

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 27th, 2013 @ 07:19 PM Reply

Ooh, you called it "separate but equal" so he must be for apartheid and segregation. You know what else is separate but equal? Male and female restrooms.

They really aren't remotely equal..

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 27th, 2013 @ 07:35 PM Reply

At 3/27/13 06:25 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 3/27/13 04:51 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Like with the previous example, the period of time this classification remains is entirely up to the speaker.
So in the words of someone who knows how to communicate you're simply saying "homosexuals don't deserve marriage because a person's sexuality isn't necessarily permanent."

I am saying homosexual marriages defeat the purpose of marriage. Even if it was genetic, marriage still could not apply to a gay couple - it would have to undergo great change or be partnered with an institution specifically made for homosexual relationships (we have a version of that: civil unions).

Please read Part IV of my post within the context of the previous three. I would also recommend reviewing my responses to other users.
Just because a trait isn't physical doesnt mean it's co ntrollable, and grounds for denying entrance to a practice that is gender blind all except for one part which has greatly diminished in importance within the practice.

I never said emotions are controllable (actions are); despite this, the marriage practice is sex-blind not gender-blind. Sex is biological, while gender is psychological. The "importance of marriage" is highly subjective and only stands beyond such with the benefits associated with it. If we wish to change marriage to a purely emotional contract, so be it - but I'd imagine plenty of people still want (and need) the benefits. This is why I suggest having two separate institutions. I could care less what you call it, but merging current marriage with homosexual union is, in my opinion, needless and foolish.

You can't be serious. You seem intelligent enough to understand that segregation does not apply to benefits, rather, communities.
It IS separate but equal. It may not rise to full on segregation but the term "separate but equal" applies.

I suppose you really don't understand the concept of segregation. "Separate but equal" is the denial of negative rights - meaning, it is denying someone the ability to go somewhere or do something on the basis of discrimination. This is absolutely not the case for marriage. Marriage is a positive right or privilege in that it offers something to someone (plus, theoretically expecting a return). No one is denying people the right to have homosexual relationships.

As I have said before, military veterans and family members (myself included) receive certain benefits, while civilians are excluded. For example, some insurance policies cover military families in different ways than others. Is this segregation? Absolutely not because it is a privilege designed to encourage people to join. Similarly, benefits given to heterosexual couples through marriage are exclusive to heterosexual couples because the privileges are designed to encourage the growth of the workforce, military, and government. The introduction of homosexual marriages causes these benefits to be discriminatory, and thus, obsolete.

Finally, why do you even care?

I would imagine I care for similar reasons that you care enough about my opinion to respond so passionately.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 27th, 2013 @ 07:40 PM Reply

Marriage incentives are to combat population decline. Well, and to combat the penalties of combing incomes when calculating taxes.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 27th, 2013 @ 08:56 PM Reply

At 3/27/13 07:40 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Marriage incentives are to combat population decline.

Those arguments always made me laugh. Who the hell has a child just because the birth rate is declining? People have children on the basis that they could afford it, whether they truly want one or whether they'll have the time to raise it. No one goes "the population is declining so we must have 10 children to strengthen our nation" unless you live under a totalitarian regime.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 27th, 2013 @ 11:47 PM Reply

At 3/27/13 07:35 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: I am saying homosexual marriages defeat the purpose of marriage. Even if it was genetic, marriage still could not apply to a gay couple - it would have to undergo great change or be partnered with an institution specifically made for homosexual relationships (we have a version of that: civil unions).

Come out and directly say it. What do you believe the primary purpose of marriage is supposed to be?

I never said emotions are controllable (actions are); despite this, the marriage practice is sex-blind not gender-blind. Sex is biological, while gender is psychological.

Point of clarification: you have this backward. Current marriage is not sex blind, it is gender blind. So long as one party is biologically a man, and the other is biologically a woman they can marry. It doesn't matter if they're both transgender with the man living as a woman and the woman living as a man.

This is why I suggest having two separate institutions. I could care less what you call it, but merging current marriage with homosexual union is, in my opinion, needless and foolish.

How is it needless? And, more importantly, how is it foolish?


I suppose you really don't understand the concept of segregation. "Separate but equal" is the denial of negative rights - meaning, it is denying someone the ability to go somewhere or do something on the basis of discrimination. This is absolutely not the case for marriage. Marriage is a positive right or privilege in that it offers something to someone (plus, theoretically expecting a return). No one is denying people the right to have homosexual relationships.

But they're denying them the simple respect of joinging into a relationship that is considered on the same level as a heterosexual one. Ins the rare cases where civil unions are equivalent or damn near equivalent to marriage it's like saying "here are you benefits, but just remember, you're second class and will never be as good as us hetero folks." In the places where civil unions ae incomplete or don;t exist it's boldly saying "you're relation is so second class you don't even deserve simple basic rights that even UNMARRIED HETERO COHABITANTS recieve.

You seem to think the world runs on definitions. That may be true for many things, but everything involving the human factor runs on connotations. The connotation of having civil unions be separate is that civil unions are lesser.


As I have said before, military veterans and family members (myself included) receive certain benefits, while civilians are excluded. For example, some insurance policies cover military families in different ways than others. Is this segregation? Absolutely not because it is a privilege designed to encourage people to join.

Military benefits are given as a direct reward for the time taken often putting one's life on the line for the country. It also takes into effect the struggles many military members have trying to enter the job market having given the prime of their lives to an occupation that often has little marketable trasnitional skills.

Similarly, benefits given to heterosexual couples through marriage are exclusive to heterosexual couples because the privileges are designed to encourage the growth of the workforce, military, and government.

What about infertile couples? What about couple who do not want children? What about the elderly? You letthe ABUSE the system, but won't let homosexuals?

The introduction of homosexual marriages causes these benefits to be discriminatory, and thus, obsolete.

How exactly does the opening of all people to the opportunity of marriage create discrimination?

I would imagine I care for similar reasons that you care enough about my opinion to respond so passionately.

Because you see your friends being oppressed by others who don't know them, and never will?

HA!

Really, WHY do you care?

Th-e
Th-e
  • Member since: Nov. 2, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 12:20 AM Reply

Looking at some stuff, here are a few thoughts.

What is with this marriage and procreation and stuff? Sometimes a man and a woman who cannot procreate still marry. One of the partners is infertile, or childbirth could kill the mother. A marriage in this case has nothing to do with procreation, and neither does gay marriage. Besides, a couple in either case could still adopt children. If procreation was really a big thing, than wouldn't we be fighting against marriage of the infertile, regardless of genders.

You speak about animals masturbating. Yes, I have found evidence of that online. Maybe we should make a topic about that in the General forums someday! But I will disregard that any further with regards to this thread.

In the end it feels that permitting gay marriage is the American thing to do.

The one thing I wish, though, would be for an alternate word to define gay marriage. Gays and lesbians would have the same rights as a heterosexual married couple, just under a different name. Unfortunately, I cannot think up a suitable alternative name for gay marriage.

Guess we'll just have to get used to the same word referring to both types of couples.


Feel no mercy for me. It will only cause you to suffer as well.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 12:38 AM Reply

At 3/28/13 12:20 AM, Th-e wrote: The one thing I wish, though, would be for an alternate word to define gay marriage.

Why?

The only purpose I can think of is to rub it in their faces.

Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 12:45 AM Reply

At 3/27/13 11:47 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Come out and directly say it. What do you believe the primary purpose of marriage is supposed to be?

Oh fantastic, I get quote myself yet again! You know, I am actually glad you haven't been reading carefully because it takes significantly less time to post replies.

Marriage, as it's root, is intended to unite families together and subsequently produce more (and more successful) members.

This is why I suggest having two separate institutions. I could care less what you call it, but merging current marriage with homosexual union is, in my opinion, needless and foolish.
How is it needless? And, more importantly, how is it foolish?

Marriage without benefits becomes less important than civil unions. The gay community is obliviously fighting over a word to call their relationships. This is literally one of the silliest phenomena because there would be no real gain from a formal ceremony (which can be carried out privately). We are trading benefits which actually help people for the subjective definition of a word because a minority of people are offended that the system functions without their emotional connections.

But they're denying them the simple respect of joinging into a relationship that is considered on the same level as a heterosexual one.

No one is denying people the right to have homosexual relationships.

Ins the rare cases where civil unions are equivalent or damn near equivalent to marriage it's like saying "here are you benefits, but just remember, you're second class and will never be as good as us hetero folks."

Wow. Call civil unions "gay marriage" or something more sentiment if it's honestly that important!

You seem to think the world runs on definitions.

You're the one who is trying to change the definition of a word. I am showing why doing so jeopardizes the benefits currently given to married couples.

Military benefits...

How about your rights as a citizen? Why are certain privileges not allowed for immigrants?

What about [group of people]

Marriage is intended to encourage reproduction not force it.

How exactly does the opening of all people to the opportunity of marriage create discrimination?

Marriage, without a purpose or function, lacks the need for benefits; they must then be revoked if homosexuals are allowed to marry. This is because benefits cannot be given to one type of marriage (that would certainly be discrimination), yet also cannot be given to all members because the investment no longer offers a return.

At 3/27/13 08:56 PM, Warforger wrote:
At 3/27/13 07:40 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Marriage incentives are to combat population decline.
Who the hell has a child just because the birth rate is declining?

Precisely.


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Cynical-Charlotte
Cynical-Charlotte
  • Member since: Feb. 2, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Writer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 12:56 AM Reply

At 3/28/13 12:20 AM, Th-e wrote: Looking at some stuff, here are a few thoughts.

What is with this marriage and procreation and stuff? Sometimes a man and a woman who cannot procreate still marry. One of the partners is infertile, or childbirth could kill the mother. A marriage in this case has nothing to do with procreation, and neither does gay marriage.

The difference is that allowing homosexual marriages defeats the purpose of encouraging marriage. Infertile couples probably should not have the same benefits, but there are many issues associated with this such as mandatory doctor visits. Whereas, homosexual couples, by definition, cannot increase the population and are easier to prevent from abusing the system.

Besides, a couple in either case could still adopt children.

Adoption does not increase the population.

You speak about animals masturbating. Yes, I have found evidence of that online. Maybe we should make a topic about that in the General forums someday! But I will disregard that any further with regards to this thread.

Haha, that will be a nightmare considering the juvenile behavior of the General board community!

In the end it feels that permitting gay marriage is the American thing to do.

I agree. Unfortunately, it feels that way because we mistake homosexuality for a trait; so, it seems as if we are demonizing a type of human being (not unlike the slavery era and civil rights movements). That is why I hope to clear up this confusion in order to have a more sound debate on this issue.

Unfortunately, I cannot think up a suitable alternative name for gay marriage.

"Gay marriage" =)


"Yes!" - Fred Fredburger
CC | Nemesis | Lit Lovers | Ideas Worth Spreading

BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 01:06 AM Reply

At 3/27/13 08:56 PM, Warforger wrote:
At 3/27/13 07:40 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Marriage incentives are to combat population decline.
Those arguments always made me laugh. Who the hell has a child just because the birth rate is declining? People have children on the basis that they could afford it, whether they truly want one or whether they'll have the time to raise it. No one goes "the population is declining so we must have 10 children to strengthen our nation" unless you live under a totalitarian regime.

You don't really understand the basics of the argument based on what your saying. It isn't about people strengthening the nation. It is about the government trying to give people incentive to combat natural population decline. If you even bothered to look at US history you'd see a glorification of the nuclear family not long ago. And population decline is a legitimate concern in many nations but it isn't just about population decline it also has to do with the worker/retiree future ratio.

like I said at the start, you must be laughing because you don't understand what is actually being said.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to A Different Spin On Gay Marriage Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 01:07 AM Reply

At 3/28/13 12:45 AM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: Marriage, as it's root, is intended to unite families together and subsequently produce more (and more successful) members.

This is an attempt at a historical definiton of marriage, which is wrong. But I guess putting that otherwise irrelevant sentence as an answer to the question clears it up.

We are trading benefits which actually help people for the subjective definition of a word because a minority of people are offended that the system functions without their emotional connections.

The respect of one's government is HARDLY needless or foolish. Try again.

No one is denying people the right to have homosexual relationships.

They're not. They're merely denying in most cases the benefits of said relationshp, and in the rare cases a relationship that is equal to those heterosexuals can have.

Wow. Call civil unions "gay marriage" or something more sentiment if it's honestly that important!

Why waste that effort when we can just call it marriage? What is the purpose of calling it something different?

You're the one who is trying to change the definition of a word. I am showing why doing so jeopardizes the benefits currently given to married couples.

HOW?!?!?!?

What benefits will I lose if Joe and John get married? WHAT?

How about your rights as a citizen? Why are certain privileges not allowed for immigrants?

Because immigrants are not citizens yet. They were not granted the privilege of citizenship via birth, nor have they earned it yet.

Marriage is intended to encourage reproduction not force it.

If forcing it isn't the goal, then how does allowing homosexuals to marry violate the rule? Even then, homosexuals marrying DOES encourage reproduction as a stable homosexual family provides a place for children born to unstable families or without families to go to.

Marriage, without a purpose or function, lacks the need for benefits; they must then be revoked if homosexuals are allowed to marry. This is because benefits cannot be given to one type of marriage (that would certainly be discrimination), yet also cannot be given to all members because the investment no longer offers a return.

Marriage DOES have a purpose and a function. It's function is to allow people from separate families to join together into a family thus gaining rights equivalent to, and sometimes greater, than blood relatives. It has the added bonus of creating stable units off of which families can be grown, however that family chooses to grow. The production of children, especially in today's world, is NOT tied to marrige, although it is often encouraged in marriage.

In a heterosexual marriage reproduction is but a MINOR part of the institution. The REARING of the child is far more important. Adopted children are just as much of a family as biological children. The stability created by the marriage has 100% more to do with the child's life after birth than it does with the conception of the child, and frankly, the ability to concieve a child with the partner is the ONLY difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple. That insignificant detail in the days of hundred of thousands of babies being adopted yearly is but a minor detail. Are you really trying to base the denial of an equal opportunity to a class because of such a minor detail?

Precisely.

Precisely what? The point proves nothing.

So, I ask you, AGAIN, why do you care?