Homosexual marriage

[Lief Erikson]

You say "moral" as though it were a bad word. The current definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. In most places. Acceptance of homosexuality means a redefinition to this. The state is saying that couplings aside from a man and a woman have the right to make this statement. And if two men can do the job of raising a child as well as a man and a woman, then three men can too, or four men, or five. Indeed, surely they can do the job even better (since marriage with a partnership is seen as normally preferable to situations with a single parent). So as far as the child is concerned, this kind of marriage would sound great. As far as interpersonal relationships is concerned- why not three? Really, why not?

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Marriage could simply be defined as between TWO loving adults.

Well, between two adults anyway. You can't stipulate loving.

It already has been defined as between a man and a woman. Why do you think it would it stop with two adults, really?

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

There's a problem with this reasoning: animals are not citizens.

There's no law that says an American isn't allowed to marry someone who's French.

[Count Comfect]

About the French - treaty rights are what allow that, which are under the Constitution as assuredly as citizenship. You CAN'T marry a North Korean (unless they become naturalized)... so my point stands.

[Lief Erikson]

I couldn't give you anything more then a lame answer at the moment. Not without the proper research done, the proper questions asked to the proper person. I don't know if it's worth it, on this particular matter, so I'll leave you with the stronger argument in conclusion.

I really do believe that polygamy will be something that follows rapidly after homosexual marriage, if that takes root in the US, which it . . . I think it probably will . But not until we get a new president. The animal thing might take place and might not. If it does, it probably would take a while.

Meanwhile, I feel that I probably am done here for now. If I get the time, I'll come back to Entmoot more this week. I hope I do have time!


I do feel as though some of my earlier posts didn't receive very much in the way of responses. We seem to have spent more time arguing here and there over a few details. Forming conjectures about what might happen after homosexuality, rather then about homosexuality itself, and discussing morality, which is off-topic. Not that that isn't my fault too! It's just also . . . off-topic.

Anyway, I'm signing off for tonight.

~Lief

[Count Comfect]

I certainly do hope you can come back to the discussion... regardless of our disagreement, it is a good discussion, I feel. I think the problem is that the only points that can really be directly debated are issues like the narrow legal points I've been bringing up, because there isn't broad scientific evidence about the effects of gay marriage, and other than that and the law, it all comes down to subjective things like morals. And pushing ones morals on someone else (me on you or you on me or anyone on anyone) is a touchy subject to discuss.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I certainly do hope you can come back to the discussion... regardless of our disagreement, it is a good discussion, I feel.

I expect I will be back. It's just after I can get a proper handle on my school, which may be a bit tricky. Also when I come back after everyone else has had a full day of posting, I'm always frightfully behind, and it's hard to catch up .

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I think the problem is that the only points that can really be directly debated are issues like the narrow legal points I've been bringing up, because there isn't broad scientific evidence about the effects of gay marriage, and other than that and the law, it all comes down to subjective things like morals. And pushing ones morals on someone else (me on you or you on me or anyone on anyone) is a touchy subject to discuss.

Hmm. Do you see what I mean, though, about your mother not being able to fill your father's role in your upbringing? Women are different from men. We're talking about this also in the Theology thread. Do you really think your mother could fill that same masculine, influential role in your life that your father has filled? Obviously she fills a vital and extremely important place in your life (well, should. I'm taking a leap here in assuming there hasn't been some parental separation or disturbance. Please, please forgive me if I'm wrong). Could she fill the same place, the same function?

After you respond to that, I'd like one more response. Do you agree with me that there are definite differences between the natures of the two different genders, male and female?

Agh, it's late. I may be able to respond to one more post though before getting off, since I'm in the process of writing a friend a PM anyway . . .

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Hmm. Do you see what I mean, though, about your mother not being able to fill your father's role in your upbringing? Women are different from men. We're talking about this also in the Theology thread. Do you really think your mother could fill that same masculine, influential role in your life that your father has filled? Obviously she fills a vital and extremely important place in your life (well, should. I'm taking a leap here in assuming there hasn't been some parental separation or disturbance. Please, please forgive me if I'm wrong). Could she fill the same place, the same function?

I see what you mean but I disagree. All people are unique. All fathers do not fill their influential role (a role that society has agreed is the norm, it seems) in a family. This doesn't have anything to do with disturbances at all. Of course parents fill "a vital and extremely important place in your life". But do you think less of families where maybe the mother is the husband and the father is the wife? What about families where the kids have several father figures, such as their father and uncle?

My answer to your question, if a mother could fill a father's role and vice versa - maybe she could, maybe she couldn't. That depends on the persons. Your argument that research needs to be done is poor IMO. Look at how diverse and special every family is today. The world hasn't gone under because of families that differ a bit from society's standards.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

After you respond to that, I'd like one more response. Do you agree with me that there are definite differences between the natures of the two different genders, male and female?

There are differences of course. There are differences between white people, blacks and Asians too. There are cultural differences between other countries and communities. In some places women have this and this role in a family, in other places men and women are more equal. This goes for Christian societies as well (in case one thinks a Christian family is the typical example of how a family should be). In Italy for instance, it's common that kids grow up not only with their mothers and fathers, but with their uncles, aunts, cousins, grandmothers and grandfathers - you name it. Italian kids can have multiple persons who help with the upbringing, you can say they have several parents.

Before the Civil War, Afro-Americans could not marry. I suppose Afro-American marriages and families were different than American ones, due to another cultural heritage. However that is not a valid reason for why they shouldn't be able to marry.
Before the 60s, interracial marriages were forbidden in the US. I guess people thought mixed race families could have their differences too, when compared to "normal" American families. Still, that's not a good reason for prohibiting marriage for them.

This talk about how we must take a really careful look at how kids are affected by gay parents, it's not too different from the examples above. People most likely thought that interracial marriage was something unnatural, just like people who oppose same sex marriage think it is unnatural.
So what? Are we to blindly follow nature? We're not animals for heaven's sake, we do what we want

I believe when people say "oh, we must look at what's best for the kids!", they're really saying that they don't trust homosexuals with children. As if homosexuality is something utterly abnormal that children must be protected from. It's not unusual that children lack a mother figure or father figure but they do well anyway.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

genderisation point
my mother is the head of our house,
she manages everything, from my younger brother and sister, to finance, to housework, and everything in between, my father works at night, and so therefore takes on very little of the masculine parent role, i suppose that makes me, and my family, unnatural?? however, me, my twin siste and my 21 yr old sister have all turned out fine, and i believe that my younger brother and sister will turn out fine also

[Jonathan]

I dunno if you've turned out fine. You're gay, aren't you?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

and my twin sister is bisexual, but hey i don't care, no one else cares,
so, um, yeh....

[LickTheEnvelope]

This talk about how we must take a really careful look at how kids are affected by gay parents, it's not too different from the examples above. People most likely thought that interracial marriage was something unnatural, just like people who oppose same sex marriage think it is unnatural.

Ya it's a US thing with the Right-wingers... in their opinion, it seems to me, they have to have long lists of scape-goats to blame self-inflicted problems on.

If you look at the bible-belt in the US there is always an air of hatred from the caucasian whites to anything that is different. It used to be racist anger, which would be fair enough if large groups of blacks had invaded the US but they were brought as slaves and paid nothing.

It's the same ideal with the homosexual issue. I'm sure homosexuals have even been around before the blacks! Before anyone in the US thought to bring blacks over there were most likely many homosexuals in the US. Hell look at Ancient Greece. It was the Mecca of knowledge for mankind and a large % of grown men had male concubines.

The ideal that this is wrong because the United States says it differentiates from the norm is obsurd. If the churches don't want to sanctify it, fine. I'm sure there are few homosexuals who would want a sanctified marriage, the issue is in the eyes of the law, and many other industrialized countries allready agree that in the eyes of the law it is indeed a right of the people to form that type of bond.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope

Ya it's a US thing with the Right-wingers... in their opinion, it seems to me, they have to have long lists of scape-goats to blame self-inflicted problems on.

If you look at the bible-belt in the US there is always an air of hatred from the caucasian whites to anything that is different. It used to be racist anger, which would be fair enough if large groups of blacks had invaded the US but they were brought as slaves and paid nothing.

It's the same ideal with the homosexual issue. I'm sure homosexuals have even been around before the blacks! Before anyone in the US thought to bring blacks over there were most likely many homosexuals in the US. Hell look at Ancient Greece. It was the Mecca of knowledge for mankind and a large % of grown men had male concubines.

The ideal that this is wrong because the United States says it differentiates from the norm is obsurd. If the churches don't want to sanctify it, fine. I'm sure there are few homosexuals who would want a sanctified marriage, the issue is in the eyes of the law, and many other industrialized countries allready agree that in the eyes of the law it is indeed a right of the people to form that type of bond.

Contrary to your many erroneous statements - this is NOT only a US issue and actually - many of the states are ahead of many european countries in giving gays rights such as dual adoption and so forth. The only reason why you don't hear anything about the problems of Europe is because no one wants to discuss that - especially the Europeans on the board who would much rather point fingers at the US.

As for the slavery issue - you might want to check the history books ON WHO brought slavery to this country. The US wasn't even a nation during that time. And I'm tired of us getting blamed for it. If you want someone to blame - blame the Europeans who broght it to these lands and the Africans who sold their enemies to the Europeans.

You have mahy bigotted statements in your post - regarding "right-wingers" and whites. When people make generalized statements like you have about blacks or hispanics - the liberal camp goes off about racism. But it sure as hell okay to make bigotted statements about whites.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope

The ideal that this is wrong because the United States says it differentiates from the norm is obsurd. If the churches don't want to sanctify it, fine. I'm sure there are few homosexuals who would want a sanctified marriage, the issue is in the eyes of the law, and many other industrialized countries allready agree that in the eyes of the law it is indeed a right of the people to form that type of bond.

Which countries? There are only a handful of countries which has full marriage for gays - and that's Denmark (Marriage 1983), Netherlands (Marriage 2001), Norway (Registered Domestic Partnership Act 1993), Greenland (1996). There is one state that fully allows gay marriage and that is Vermont and several which will honor gay marriages performed in Vermont such as NY state.

Many states have what the rest of the world has and much more - most states allow civil unions and MOST allow for gay couples to jointly adopt. So I would like to know where all the "industrialized nations" are that you speak of sicne that is far from the truth.

Marriage is determined by each state. You get a state marriage license not a US marriage license.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope

If you look at the bible-belt in the US there is always an air of hatred from the caucasian whites to anything that is different.

"always"? "hatred"? "anything"? Is that why many bible-belt caucasian whites helped slaves to escape? Because they hated them? This seems like a pretty inaccurate and stereotypical statement. It's obviously untrue.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

We're not animals for heaven's sake, we do what we want

But Jonathan (and I say this with respect, and this is a serious question), if you believe evolution is true, how are we NOT animals?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But Jonathan (and I say this with respect, and this is a serious question), if you believe evolution is true, how are we NOT animals?

Well I'll take stab at it - since I'm on the smae page with jonathan in terms of evolution - but here we go again. Our brains have evolved to where we have free thought - we are not wild animals working on instinct alone. I am sure you were aware of what he was getting at.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

So I doubt very much if lizards, apes, or even polygamy are in the future for marriage.

There are already cases in the courts applying for polygamous marriages to become legal. These cases are appealing to Lawrence V. Texas, which was the Supreme Court decision made a few years back declaring laws against sodomy unconstitutional.

As Lief said, he wasn't saying that homosexuals are like lizards! I think what is more accurate is that we are ALL like lizards - heterosexuals AND homomsexuals, it doesn't matter- if evolution is true. Why do so many people fight on some threads, saying it's just conceit and pride to say we're different from the other animals in any way, and then turn around and contradict themselves and say we're NOT animals on other threads when it suits their purpose?

As G.K. Chesterton said, "The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they are beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts." Think about it

[Nurvingiel]

Forget about evolution in this thread anyway. Personally I think we are animals, and I also think there are examples of homosexuality in other animals besides ourselves.

Even if there wasn't, it doesn't matter, I just think it's interesting. The point is, it occurs naturally in human beings.

(Yay RÃ*an is back! )

[Rían]

My point wasn't to debate the merits (or lack of merits) of evolution; my point was to say that if a person thinks we're the same as any other animal (which many people have said here), then why point out some animal behaviors and say they're wrong, and point to others and say, "well, the animals do it, so it's ok with us!" Isn't that logically inconsistent?

Do you see what I mean?

(Yay, Nurvi's here! )

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Forget about evolution in this thread anyway. Personally I think we are animals, and I also think there are examples of homosexuality in other animals besides ourselves.

Even if there wasn't, it doesn't matter, I just think it's interesting. The point is, it occurs naturally in human beings.

Actually it occurs naturally THROUGHOUT the animal kingdom. Primates especially routinely practive bisexuality as do dolphins and many other animals have been observed. But this is about marriage anyway - not about homosexuality and whether it's natural or not.

[Nurvingiel]

I agree RÃ*an but I can't really respond further because I didn't originally say that we weren't animals. I do agree with everything else Jonathan said in his last post though.

Interesting JD. If someone believes that homosexuality is natural, they're more inclined to be okay with gay marriage. They won't necessarily agree, but they are more likely than someone who doesn't think it's natural. We do have the GLB thread for that train of thought though.