Homosexual marriage

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

one boy was Sporus that he married, nd i forget the name of the other man, but he was Nero's freedman

[inked]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Why is research necessary to allow gay marriage? We haven't done any research on any other kinds of marriage before allowing them. What type of research would you propose?


Actually, I do think this. Aside from physical and hormonal differences, the differences between men and women are cultural and societal. These differences are not significant enough to determine a law.
My boyfriend (and future husband) and I have much more in common than Britteny Spears and I. Are you suggesting that I marry Britteny Spears instead? She'd dump me after 24 hours...

Nurv,

We have been over this ground before. Apparently we need research for people who ignore history, sociology, culture, and tradition. That's to establish the intergender nature of marriage in all cultures. Remember?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Why is research necessary to allow gay marriage? We haven't done any research on any other kinds of marriage before allowing them.

Heterosexual marriages have been around for thousands of years, predominant everywhere. Homosexual "marriage" is an extremely rare phenomenon.

When our researchers are studying new drugs, they examine them very closely to make sure what, if any, harmful side-affects there might be before they introduce them to society. It would be an irresponsible researcher that said, "there should be a preponderence of evidence against this before we introduce it!"

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What type of research would you propose?

Compare and contrast. Look at similarities and differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships that are of strong consistency. I think that looking closely at nations that already do permit homosexual marriages would be a very good idea, in doing this. But I haven't thought about this enough to give you a very good answer on the spot.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
Culture differences are not the same as gender differences though. Not unless your view is that all gender differences are really cultural differences, that men and women are not different sexes from one another in anything aside from having different kinds of physical bodies.

Actually, I do think this. Aside from physical and hormonal differences, the differences between men and women are cultural and societal. These differences are not significant enough to determine a law.

Here then we differ. I've only just recently been led to realizing how gender difference would logically cause homosexual and heterosexual relationships to be different from one another myself, with legal ramifications being in order. These thoughts have really only been with me for the last few days, since yours and Child's questions about submission on the Theology thread. That led logically to realization of the difference of genders, which led to realizing what ramifications this would have in the homosexual and heterosexual marriage issues. I've still got a ways to go in properly pinpointing effective evidences, seeing as I haven't had time enough with this to look far. Also school's in the way . It will be interesting to locate those arguments and evidences. I agree with you that having a firm basis for a difference between the genders is essential to the argument. I'm looking forward to finding what I'm looking for, on this.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

My boyfriend (and future husband) and I have much more in common than Britteny Spears and I. Are you suggesting that I marry Britteny Spears instead? She'd dump me after 24 hours...

I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about, here.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Lief:
I disagree about the degree to which the differences between men and women are social rather than innate. I think a large fraction of them are socially created or constructed, rather than inborn. I could pull examples about, say, my cousins (homosexual) who wanted to get married in California. They definitely cover both stereotypically "masculine" and "feminine" roles.

I have an uncle and aunt that also have the feminine and masculine roles reversed. One uncle and one aunt. In comparison with all the other married couples I know, this makes a rather short list.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Also, homosexual couples can already adopt children pretty much everywhere in the US, so the homosexual marriage issue (at least here) is not about whether children grow up better with parents of the different genders, because allowing homosexuals to marry would not change their ability to adopt. So the issue is whether it would cause any harm to society, and I personally would view it that, in light of the fact that homosexual couples already live together OUT of wedlock and this doesn't seem to have done anything particularly harmful, it can't be a major problem to allow them the right to actually marry and thereby have a legal relationship that binds them together.

You're basing this argument on assumptions that only go to underline further my cry that we need evidence on the matter before introducing something completely new to society. Homosexual relationships have existed in this society for a long time, granted. We don't have sufficient studies done, though, in my opinion, that show whether these out of wedlock unions are harmful for society or not. I challenge you on that. You're making an assumption, an assumption based entirely upon personal opinion.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And thats the bottom line to this really. Why is it those who are against gay marriage insist that we need to PROVE that gay marriage is not harmful before we can consider having such a thing? You cant prove a negative (gay marriage isnt harmful).

Looking closely at what's been going on in other countries that have these relationships should be a useful indicator. I expect that other means can also be found. No, you can't prove a negative. But you can find strong evidence to back up your position. I believe there already are gays or pro-gay people around who do this already, finding sturdy evidence to back up their point of views.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And cant you restrict one group from doing something another group can do based on such a thing ESPECIALLY when no one had to prove that heterosexual marriage is not harmful.

See my surgeon example. I can think of others though, I bet. You're comparing something that's tried and true to something that's untried in this country, and saying that because the tried and true never had to be tried for a first time, this other untried thing shouldn't be. We know that many, many things can be done with sex that are harmful. By your argument, we should have to give the benefit of the doubt to new drugs coming in, imported from other countries, without putting any tests or preservation requirements on them or anything. It's just weak. It's saying, "because this one thing works, this thing will work," without being willing to draw a link between the two. The link between the two being studies taken that find out how safe and good or dangerous and bad these relationships are. You all seem to find the idea of state sponsered studies repugnant as a prerequisite to the establishment of homosexual marriage, preferring to run on assumption that they will be fine. Perhaps the state isn't the best source for unbiased studies . . . I don't know what group could be broadly accepted as impartial. But I think one should be found, or created.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I can show you cases where heterosexual marriage has proven very harmful. What does this ultimately prove? Not a whole lot. Should we ban all marriage because of this?

If you can find a general trend that suggests most heterosexual are harmful, you'd have a valid argument. Of course, that's only one argument. Depending upon the strength of the single argument, more might have to be found before you have something convincing against heterosexual marriage being permitted.

Originally Posted by inked

Nurv,

We have been over this ground before. Apparently we need research for people who ignore history, sociology, culture, and tradition. That's to establish the intergender nature of marriage in all cultures. Remember?

If you could provide me with the links to where you put some of the more extensive data you have provided, it would be appreciated. I'm into this subject enough at the moment to be ready to do some good reading.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Heterosexual marriages have been around for thousands of years, predominant everywhere. Homosexual "marriage" is an extremely rare phenomenon.

so is multi generational marriage but we don’t make it illegal for that reason.

No, you can't prove a negative. But you can find strong evidence to back up your position.

ok heres your evidence. When gays got married last year in this country the country didn’t implode. Nor did the gays themselves blow up on the spot. Diseases didn’t break out and frogs and locusts didn’t fall from the sky. Now… I CAN show you study after study that smoking is bad for society in general and does some pretty awful stuff to you and in fact kills people by the millions. Why aren’t you all screaming for its illegality then? If this is the logic you are going to use to keep gays from marrying.

I believe there already are gays or pro-gay people around who do this already, finding sturdy evidence to back up their point of views.

generally to counter the lies and exaggerations from the other side defaming their character. But they shouldn’t have to do that to PROVE its ok for them to marry.

You're comparing something that's tried and true to something that's untried in this country, and saying that because the tried and true never had to be tried for a first time, this other untried thing shouldn't be.

so you are saying heterosexual marriage never needed to be proven originally but homosexual marriage does? That heterosexuals are exempt from standards but homosexuals aren’t? This is treating things with unequal bias from the start lief. Anything you say beyond this becomes meaningless. EITHER you deem that both need to be proven to be unharmful or you throw away the whole bogus harm theory all together and use another tact.

We know that many, many things can be done with sex that are harmful.

are you really going to get into the argument of attempting to limit marriage based on sex acts? Youll get no where with that believe me. Theres nothing that gays can do that heterosexuals cant do.

By your argument, we should have to give the benefit of the doubt to new drugs coming in, imported from other countries, without putting any tests or preservation requirements on them or anything.

what in the world do drugs have to do with marriage? Marriage is marriage. Valium is NOT aspirin. I don’t understand this comparison at all. Are you saying that the same drug can effect homosexuals differently from how they effect heterosexuals? And drugs are taken as a necessity when we are ill or injured. Marriages cant be compared to them in that way. They are done when adults love each other by their own choosing. Not because they are in a life or death situation. Are you suggesting we should have a marriage review board like the FDA? Because if that’s true then better get ready to have a LOT of heterosexual marriages banned because they are unhealthy.

The link between the two being studies taken that find out how safe and good or dangerous and bad these relationships are.

see above about the relevance of studies about marriage to their legality. See also about tobacco.

You all seem to find the idea of state sponsered studies repugnant as a prerequisite to the establishment of homosexual marriage, preferring to run on assumption that they will be fine.

its not at all about any assumption. Its about the irrelevancy of needing a special test for homosexuals to get married AT ALL. ESPECIALLY when we allow LOTS of other stuff in this country that is MUCH worse then gays marrying. Youll need to address 10 million other things before you can really get into using this logic against gay marriage.

If you can find a general trend that suggests most heterosexual are harmful, you'd have a valid argument. Of course, that's only one argument. Depending upon the strength of the single argument, more might have to be found before you have something convincing against heterosexual marriage being permitted.

what if I found clear evidence that mixed marriages result in death at a higher rate then all white marriages? Would we then by logic need to ban mixed marriages?

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Lief Erickson

I challenge you on that. You're making an assumption, an assumption based entirely upon personal opinion.

I disagree. My "assumption" is that, since homosexual couples have been allowed to adopt for a while now, we should be seeing some serious side effects with the children they do adopt. I have seen no evidence anywhere (after searching) that indicates such to be the case.

Given that, I fail to see what reason exists for preventing homosexual marriage on account of the lack of a "masculine" or "feminine" influence on children that might be adopted.

Given that in turn, I fail to see what reason exists for banning homosexual marriage: it's a private action which doesn't appear to have any negative effects on anyone else... since I also fail to see how it affects anyone other than the gays themselves and any children that might be involved in the union.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

one boy was Sporus that he married, nd i forget the name of the other man, but he was Nero's freedman

ok, have foubnd out the name of the other man that Nero married, he was called Doryphorus so Nero's marriages were Octavia and Poppaea (ladies), tho he also wanted to marry Acte, but she used to be a slave, and Augusta, but she turned him down (Octavia and Augusta were Nero's half-sisters, and also his 1st and 2nd cousins and technically also his aunts!) nero also married Sporus and Doryphorus (men)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
Heterosexual marriages have been around for thousands of years, predominant everywhere. Homosexual "marriage" is an extremely rare phenomenon.


so is multi generational marriage but we don’t make it illegal for that reason.

It doesn't do any harm to anyone except the people involved. There are problems with multi generational marriage. The age difference is a real hassle for most of these couples. One person gets old and bedridden, while the other is still young and vibrant. The younger has to take care of the older for X number of years, until his or her youth is almost spent too. Not the prettiest scenario. Multi generational marriages have been around for thousands of years too, though. They aren't common in societies, but I don't know of any societies where they've actually been made illegal. You can't force two people not to hurt one another. In the same way, I wouldn't back a law that says homosexuality should be made illegal. However, multi generational marriages at least are not out of the same category as heterosexual relationships. They are still monogomous heterosexual relationships, the same as other heterosexual relationships, and hence the same laws apply to them. I know there are differences from heterosexual marriage to heterosexual marriage. Some are positive and some are negative. Some people who get married just don't fit well together at all. I am not in favor of making a law whereby the state decides which heterosexual couples are fit for marriage and which aren't. Some men do badly with some women and others do well. We aren't to judge between these relationships. Because of this, I suppose we shouldn't judge between these relationships and the relationships of men and women to animals, should we? Just as the general relationships between people and animals are different from those between heterosexuals, so I believe the general relationships between heterosexuals is different from that between homosexuals. They are different kinds of relationships. I think there are strong reasons for you to believe that too, because of the obvious inherent gender differences between human males and females. However, how different or similar these relationships are to heterosexual ones cannot be known until we take studies. Taking those studies is the only rational and nonbiased course of action we can take, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
No, you can't prove a negative. But you can find strong evidence to back up your position.

ok heres your evidence. When gays got married last year in this country the country didn’t implode. Nor did the gays themselves blow up on the spot. Diseases didn’t break out and frogs and locusts didn’t fall from the sky.

"When gays got married last year . . ."

Also, since you all around reject the idea of collecting data and studies on this issue, how do you know your opinion to be true? I know that Inked has already posted a fair amount of data on these types of threads, showing the negative impact upon society of homosexual marriage in other countries.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Now… I CAN show you study after study that smoking is bad for society in general and does some pretty awful stuff to you and in fact kills people by the millions. Why aren’t you all screaming for its illegality then? If this is the logic you are going to use to keep gays from marrying.

Incorrect. It is the logic I would be using if I were arguing that homosexuality be made illegal. I am not arguing that though, and that is not the logic I am using. I have already presented arguments earlier that homosexual marriage is different from heterosexual marriage by necessity because of the gender differences. These differences mean we are dealing with significantly different relationships. The evidence for the difference of gender being real is very strong, in my opinion. We've been debating the issue in depth on the Theology thread. A different kind of relationship logically should be examined to see whether or not the same laws should be applied to it as to what are already applied to something else, or we could have a legal mess on our hands.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

generally to counter the lies and exaggerations from the other side defaming their character. But they shouldn’t have to do that to PROVE its ok for them to marry.

Yeah, and if I want to marry a penguine, I shouldn't have to prove that it's ok for us to marry either. The law should just be changed without my presenting any evidence at all to validate the same law being extended to me.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
You're comparing something that's tried and true to something that's untried in this country, and saying that because the tried and true never had to be tried for a first time, this other untried thing shouldn't be.

so you are saying heterosexual marriage never needed to be proven originally but homosexual marriage does? That heterosexuals are exempt from standards but homosexuals aren’t? This is treating things with unequal bias from the start lief. Anything you say beyond this becomes meaningless. EITHER you deem that both need to be proven to be unharmful or you throw away the whole bogus harm theory all together and use another tact.

I disagree. You seem to be arguing that I should have to prove a clean bandage is a beneficial instrument to healing a wound if you have to prove a floormat will be. Clean bandages have been used for ages with good results. Floormats have not been used. Should I have to prove about the clean bandages before you have to prove about the floormat?

It is obvious that heterosexual marriages work out fine. It is dead obvious, just like with the bandages. With the doormat . . . we don't know, and you won't let us know, because you won't have studies taken.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
We know that many, many things can be done with sex that are harmful.

are you really going to get into the argument of attempting to limit marriage based on sex acts? Youll get no where with that believe me. Theres nothing that gays can do that heterosexuals cant do.

My point was that homosexuality could be one of those things where sex is harmful. There are many, many examples, and not all of them are abuses. Just like with smoking, that doesn't mean I'd make homosexuality illegal. However, I would make illegal signs that say smoking is good for your health. I'd also make illegal a public declaration of validity like marriage for homosexuality, when we don't know whether it is fine or negative. And you refuse that evidence be found. It's like saying we should put up signs that smoking is healthy, but we shouldn't conduct any studies to find out whether it is healthy or not.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

what in the world do drugs have to do with marriage? Marriage is marriage. Valium is NOT aspirin. I don’t understand this comparison at all.

Allow me to explain what this sounds like from where I'm sitting. "Valium is not aspirin. Heterosexual marriage is the same as homosexual marriage. Oh, and don't take any studies; we don't want to really know whether heterosexual marriage is the same as homosexual marriage. We prefer to run on that assumption."

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

its not at all about any assumption. Its about the irrelevancy of needing a special test for homosexuals to get married AT ALL.

Your assumption is that heterosexual and homosexual marriages are the same. That is the assumption that a study would validate or invalidate. You prefer to live with the assumption then find out whether you're right or not. I'm beginning to get tired of running over this ground so many times, though. I'm just repeating myself endlessly. Until something new shows up, I probably will exit the thread.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

ESPECIALLY when we allow LOTS of other stuff in this country that is MUCH worse then gays marrying. Youll need to address 10 million other things before you can really get into using this logic against gay marriage.

When I was studying economics, I once heard the professor describe a commercial. In the commercial, it showed one car driving over the roofs of cars, smashing them flat. Then the car that the company was advertising was driven over, and its roof stood firm. The economics professor went on to say that the company had been sued for an invalid commercial, because really they had wooden supports holding up the roof to their car, making it not collapse.

This homosexual marriage thing is much the same. Marriage would be a state declaration that this is fine, and just as good as heterosexual marriage. It is submitting a commercial that something is good without knowing that it is. The audience for the commercial is the United States.

This problem is only one of the problems. There are good reasons to think that the homosexual relationship is not at all the same, which is like knowing there are good reasons to believe the car's roof can't really hold. Even if homosexual relationships are healthy and good (which we don't know), it is very likely that they are different from heterosexual relationships simply because of the gender difference, and may require different laws made for them because of this. Else we may land in a legal nightmare. I think that we shouldn't keep our blinders on, but should look closely at what we're getting into before we plunge our country headlong into it.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
If you can find a general trend that suggests most heterosexual are harmful, you'd have a valid argument. Of course, that's only one argument. Depending upon the strength of the single argument, more might have to be found before you have something convincing against heterosexual marriage being permitted.

what if I found clear evidence that mixed marriages result in death at a higher rate then all white marriages? Would we then by logic need to ban mixed marriages?

"Of course, that's only one argument. Depending upon the strength of the single argument, more might have to be found before you have something convincing against heterosexual marriage being permitted."

Yes, I have no problem with discrimination provided that there's a very valid reason for it.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erickson
I challenge you on that. You're making an assumption, an assumption based entirely upon personal opinion.


I disagree. My "assumption" is that, since homosexual couples have been allowed to adopt for a while now, we should be seeing some serious side effects with the children they do adopt. I have seen no evidence anywhere (after searching) that indicates such to be the case.

I'm glad you did the search. Very glad. I'll want to look around too, I expect. I would say your last sentence should be revised to, "I have seen no evidence in the places I looked that indicate such to be the case," however. Did you look on any Christian websites?

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Given that, I fail to see what reason exists for preventing homosexual marriage on account of the lack of a "masculine" or "feminine" influence on children that might be adopted.

Understood. I thought it was intuitively easy to understand, simply because of the obviously different roles males and females have in children's lives. I did hear about one person who was raised by homosexuals saying he had a great upbringing. And of course that kind of thing is only logical. People aren't prone to going and biting the hand that has raised them from birth. This is often true even of children that grow up in abusive climates. I can understand your wanting some evidence on the matter though; I certainly can. So do I. In my view, that is what Insidious Rex and Jonathan are against. One of the primary views I am fighting with in this thread is the view that we should support gays being allowed to marry without seeing any evidence for or against their marriages being the same and having the same affects as heterosexual ones. I'm glad you went and looked for evidence. I really want that evidence searched for, preferrably by some kind of impartial group. I think that the collection and sifting through of data on the matter is important before we should go ahead with those kinds of marriages. That's for the good of the US, so that we know what we're getting into. Then, with that knowledge in our heads, we either go forward or we shy away.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Given that in turn, I fail to see what reason exists for banning homosexual marriage: it's a private action which doesn't appear to have any negative effects on anyone else...

Which is a different kind of relationship from a heterosexual one, because of the gender difference. If the full legal rights of marriage are given to homosexual marriages, the government would not be recognizing it as at all different. Furthermore, at present there is no real effort to collect facts that compare between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. The facts you were looking in vain for regarding homosexual adoption doubtless would be turned over extensively by such an organized study. Those kinds of organized studies are what I am in favor of, the kind that we could really learn the truth from. That's what you were looking for, and that's what Jonathan and Insidious Rex do not believe should be necessary at all.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

since I also fail to see how it affects anyone other than the gays themselves and any children that might be involved in the union.

The worst affects of smoking aren't felt by anyone but the smoker and the children the smoker might have. However, if we refused to heed all of our medical resources and put up billboards everywhere saying that smoking is good, we would see an increase in smoking and in its negative impact upon society. This is what we may see regarding homosexual marriage. We refuse to have necessary a major impartial search for evidence on the subject before we give full marriage rights. I'm not arguing against people being allowed to smoke- or against people practicing homosexuality. I am against the state declaring that smoking is healthy and good. I am also against it declaring that homosexuality is healthy and good (which is what it would be doing by making it equal with heterosexual marriage), while not backing those claims with any evidence. I believe that substantial evidence on the matter is possible to find, both by looking at the differences and similarities between homosexual and heterosexual couples in our own country, and by looking at them and how they have impacted society in other countries- countries where this homosexuals can marry. I find it amazing that so many Entmooters in support of homosexual marriage refuse to go on anything but their personal beliefs.

[Count Comfect]

But Lief, smoking is different from homosexual marriage in many ways: not least of which is that I can die from your second-hand smoke just by being in the same room with it. My parents' marriage is not going to dissolve from my cousins getting to marry. The situations are not analogous just because both have effects shown on the subject and the subject's family. I would posit that the ONLY real effects of homosexual marriage are on the homosexuals and their families, while smoking and such things can have broadcast effects.

I thought it was intuitively easy to understand, simply because of the obviously different roles males and females have in children's lives

I think those roles are predominantly (although not entirely) caused by socialization. And I still don't think that is related to the issue at hand anyway, because homosexual marriage is NOT equivalent to letting homosexuals adopt children. They ALREADY CAN. So the question is whether to allow them to enter into the legal contract between themselves and the state commonly referred to by the term "marriage." It does not involve their adoption or raising of children except as a side effect onto an already legal practice.

Given that, a situation in which it is already established that homosexuals CAN adopt and raise children regardless of marital status, I find no reason why how they raise children should affect whether they can marry. Personally, I believe they can raise children quite well (as you've probably figured out by now ) but regardless, that is not specifically germaine to the topic of homosexual marriage because it is already legal.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

But Lief, smoking is different from homosexual marriage in many ways: not least of which is that I can die from your second-hand smoke just by being in the same room with it. My parents' marriage is not going to dissolve from my cousins getting to marry.

I think that we'll see something like this in the US. Society declaring that homosexuality is "healthy and good" by making it equal with heterosexual marriage will encourage an increase in the homosexual practice. I personally am not all that excited about seeing my taxes double because of a gigantic new AIDS problem in the US. Legal turmoil because of different relationships being treated equivalently also will result. These things will impact me. I responded to this statement of yours in some length in my first post in this topic. Here is part of that post, which I would like to repeat.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So upbringing for children is a major issue. But there also is the issue that it would be simply painful to live in a society where these . . . other kinds of relationships are called equal with my own bond with my wife. Marriage is such a precious and infinitely important institution that living in a society where it is worth dirt (homosexuality wouldn't likely be the end of the redefining process) would be a tragedy both to me and my marriage partner. Even if it is just homosexuality though, it still would to me be a sad thing to have these weaker kinds of relationships be called equivalent to heterosexual marriage. I know you have noted that I call them weaker. I believe that they are weaker. Inked has brought up statistics already that most men do not stay in relationships with other men over the long term. Also, both male and female homosexual couples do tend to be more promiscuous. I know that has not been your experience with the homosexuals you know. It has been mine. And all you have to do is look at the Gay Pride rallies to see it. When I was looking at BBC articles on the subject, the pictures showed them dressed like prostitutes and transvestites.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

The situations are not analogous just because both have effects shown on the subject and the subject's family. I would posit that the ONLY real effects of homosexual marriage are on the homosexuals and their families, while smoking and such things can have broadcast effects.

So the state should be able to say something is good and healthy without evidence if it is impacting only those people who participate in that course of action and their families, so long as it doesn't impact people that don't listen to that stupid state?

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I think those roles are predominantly (although not entirely) caused by socialization.

I think they are predominantly because of gender, though further enhanced because they become ingrained in society.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

And I still don't think that is related to the issue at hand anyway, because homosexual marriage is NOT equivalent to letting homosexuals adopt children. They ALREADY CAN. So the question is whether to allow them to enter into the legal contract between themselves and the state commonly referred to by the term "marriage." It does not involve their adoption or raising of children except as a side effect onto an already legal practice.

Where is it legal? All over the US, or only in specific states?

Now, I also would remark that the gender difference impacts those people who take part in homosexuality as well as the children. A man cannot get the same thing from a man as he could from a woman.

Anyway, I need to get offline at the moment.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think that we'll see something like this in the US. Society declaring that homosexuality is "healthy and good" by making it equal with heterosexual marriage will encourage an increase in the homosexual practice.

i really don't know where to start with this...

I personally am not all that excited about seeing my taxes double because of a gigantic new AIDS problem in the US.

oh yes, because straight folk are immune to AIDS, i had completely forgot about that

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

oh yes, because straight folk are immune to AIDS, i had completely forgot about that

I'm willing to help deal with the problem where it exists. I am completely in favor of President Bush's endeavors to curb the problem in Africa. I am not excited about helping to expand the problem, however. Solving the problem, yes. Expanding it, no.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm willing to help deal with the problem where it exists. I am completely in favor of President Bush's endeavors to curb the problem in Africa. I am not excited about helping to expand the problem, however. Solving the problem, yes. Expanding it, no.

expansion would not be due to acceptance of marriage - expansion can only be due to unsafe sexual practices, i mean really

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

However, multi generational marriages at least are not out of the same category as heterosexual relationships. They are still monogomous heterosexual relationships, the same as other heterosexual relationships, and hence the same laws apply to them.

but this is irrelevant. You made the point that because you feel homosexual marriages are harmful they shouldn’t be allowed. Well you just gave all sorts of reasons why intergenerational marriages are harmful and yet they SHOULD be allowed? That’s a double standard. If one is as harmful as the other then you cant just ban one.

I am not in favor of making a law whereby the state decides which heterosexual couples are fit for marriage and which aren't.

Then why are you in favor of a law that make a blanket ban on all homosexual relationships no matter how UNHARMFUL any one given one is? It makes no sense. You admit yourself that there are some awful awful heterosexual relationships but that they should be allowed because its ok if they are harmful but that even the best homosexual relationships should not be allowed because they represent something that to you is harmful even if there is no signs of harm in that particular one.

Because of this, I suppose we shouldn't judge between these relationships and the relationships of men and women to animals, should we?

apples and oranges. Animals cannot give rational consent. Homosexuals can. Please lose this line of arguing.

Just as the general relationships between people and animals are different from those between heterosexuals, so I believe the general relationships between heterosexuals is different from that between homosexuals.

Ill just choose not to justify this kind of comparison… animals aren’t even close to being comparable to homosexuals.

However, how different or similar these relationships are to heterosexual ones cannot be known until we take studies. Taking those studies is the only rational and nonbiased course of action we can take, in my opinion.

what exactly would be the end result of the studies you be doing that would justify banning gay marriage exactly? That gays get divorced more then heterosexuals? That gays die younger? That gays have 3% more extra marital affairs then heterosexuals? EVEN if we were to assume for arguments sake that these were all true you could not use this as legal justification for banning gay marriage. Just as you could not ban smoking EVEN THOUGH it kills hundreds of thousands of people a year and costs us untold billions in healthcare strain and lost wages. You would have to come up with some unbelievable results in your study to justify banning gay marriage. Instant combustion comes to mind.

Also, since you all around reject the idea of collecting data and studies on this issue, how do you know your opinion to be true?

Lief have a gander at the gay thread (if you can find the part they archived somewhere). We have been over data and studies showing homosexual marriage would NOT lead to the end of the world. Its been done… My point is that it is ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether people can marry or not. Oh and I find it ironic that you say im against studying this issue and you refuse to allow EQUAL studies on BOTH heterosexual marriages and homosexual ones saying oh well EVERYONE knows heterosexual marriages are ok since weve had them around already…

I know that Inked has already posted a fair amount of data on these types of threads, showing the negative impact upon society of homosexual marriage in other countries.

and most of what hes posted has been rightfully refuted. How come you ignore all that? And ALL of what he posted is irrelevant to the question of marriage.

It is the logic I would be using if I were arguing that homosexuality be made illegal. I am not arguing that though, and that is not the logic I am using.

Yes it is. You are arguing that gay marriage should not be allowed because you think its harmful. Well smoking is harmful too. So if we are going to ban gay marriage why is it we aren’t banning smoking?

I have already presented arguments earlier that homosexual marriage is different from heterosexual marriage by necessity because of the gender differences. These differences mean we are dealing with significantly different relationships. The evidence for the difference of gender being real is very strong, in my opinion.

EVERY relationship is different. EVERY SINGLE ONE. No two relationships are ever the same gay or straight. And the range is enormous. This has nothing to do with whether gender exists or not. It has to do with discriminating against one group when you don’t against another.

A different kind of relationship logically should be examined to see whether or not the same laws should be applied to it as to what are already applied to something else, or we could have a legal mess on our hands.

what legal mess are you referring to exactly?

Yeah, and if I want to marry a penguine, I shouldn't have to prove that it's ok for us to marry either.

see apples and oranges comparison above. Penguins cant give legal consent pretty much in all cases.

[Insidious Rex]

You seem to be arguing that I should have to prove a clean bandage is a beneficial instrument to healing a wound if you have to prove a floormat will be. Clean bandages have been used for ages with good results. Floormats have not been used. Should I have to prove about the clean bandages before you have to prove about the floormat?

we have reams and reams of documented evidence on WHY clean bandages are medically beneficial. More then you and I could ever read. They NEVER proceed from the logic that “ok well people have been doing this for a long time so lets just do it” when it comes to medicine so that’s a bad comparison. Secondly, I reject the notion that homosexual marriages are ‘floormats’. Marriages are marriages. Bandages are bandages. The proper analogy would be putting the IDENTICLE bandage on two different people.

It is obvious that heterosexual marriages work out fine.

Hey lief I have ten thousand examples of heterosexual marriages NOT working out fine. what does this tell you?

My point was that homosexuality could be one of those things where sex is harmful.

how could homosexuality be “one of those things where sex is harmful” exactly? Especially when I can have the same kind of sex as any homosexual. In fact the kind of sex I have is by definition more harmful then the vast majority of lesbians who don’t have penetration at all for the most part.

Oh, and don't take any studies; we don't want to really know whether heterosexual marriage is the same as homosexual marriage. We prefer to run on that assumption."

once again… if you want to ban one group from marrying because you think its harmful and until you get data to satisfy you then you gotta do the same for heterosexual marriage too. Stop trying to have your cake and eat it too. If you want studies do them BOTH ways. Don’t give me this well heterosexual marriage is exempt because its been around a while. And anyway if you did studies ONLY on homosexual marriage (nevermind that this is all irrelevant to the issue of course) then youd have no basis for comparison to say what is harmful or not now would you.

I'm beginning to get tired of running over this ground so many times, though. I'm just repeating myself endlessly.

Believe me I know the feeling.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Marriage would be a state declaration that this is fine, and just as good as heterosexual marriage.

Divorce is a state declaration that marriage is not a perfect institution and we should therefore not be micromanaging it or using it as a tool for discrimination. That as long as both parties are adults of sound and consenting mind not closely enough related as to risk endangering any offspring then do what you want to do. But don’t blame us if it doesn’t work out.

Even if homosexual relationships are healthy and good (which we don't know), it is very likely that they are different from heterosexual relationships simply because of the gender difference, and may require different laws made for them because of this.

Im still not sure what you are referring to when you say this exactly.

"Of course, that's only one argument. Depending upon the strength of the single argument, more might have to be found before you have something convincing against heterosexual marriage being permitted."

so then… if I show you one data point that shows that mixed marriages result in earlier deaths we can still keep them legal because its only one data point BUT if I do the same for gay marriage we have to keep it illegal? Again unequal playing field Lief.

Yes, I have no problem with discrimination provided that there's a very valid reason for it.

right like someone is a known murderer. You can discriminate against them. You can keep them from having freedom like others. Or if a lawyer abuses their legal powers we can discriminate them by disbarring them and keeping them from practicing law like other lawyers. But we CANT discriminate against gays because we think there is some harm in their marrying. Because you can never prove definitively that the actual act of marriage causes any harm. You would be showing instead if gay SEX caused harm or gay RELATIONSHIPS caused harm. So if that’s your agenda then go after those things. And make sure as I have been saying that you do this EQUALLY to BOTH gay and heterosexual couples. Apples to apples. But marriage is an impossible measuring point to make. What is marriage but simply a word? It doesn’t physically alter anything about the given relationship. Certainly mentally and emotionally it can effect the people involved but I would say more often to the benefit of the couple.

[Lief Erikson]

IR, if you want to examine heterosexual marriages, go right ahead. It's been around since the beginning of humanity, so it seems to me that a test is unnecessary. If you want to test it though, go right ahead. If you have 10,000 heterosexual marriages that aren't working out, I'd say that's an awfully small number . But that's a useless response of course, not addressing your point at all. If you can find strong enough reasons to keep heterosexuals from marrying, you'll convince the legislature to get working and heterosexual marriages will be made illegal. Go for it. I also do most definitely agree with you that one must examine heterosexual relationships in order to evaluate homosexual ones. If we didn't do that, we would have nothing to compare homosexual relationships with. You say, "marriages are marriages, bandages are bandages." You say the analogy would be correct if one bandage were applied to two different people. This would be an incorrect analogy, because we do not know that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are the same. Your assumption, your firmly felt belief without evidence, is all you've got. We cannot know whether the relationships are the same or not because you and others like you refuse to support the adoption of studies in this case. You insist instead upon your unsupported belief that they are the heterosexual and homosexual relationships are the same.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

so then… if I show you one data point that shows that mixed marriages result in earlier deaths we can still keep them legal because its only one data point BUT if I do the same for gay marriage we have to keep it illegal? Again unequal playing field Lief.

If you can present a convincing case against mixed marriages, fine. If I can present one about homosexual relationships, fine. I'm not saying that more evidence has to be found concerning one then the other.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But we CANT discriminate against gays because we think there is some harm in their marrying. Because you can never prove definitively that the actual act of marriage causes any harm.

The status of marriage being offered suggests state approval, and encourages further spread of the practice. If we find that there's something bad about the practice (like there is something bad about smoking), then it shouldn't be government supported.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

What is marriage but simply a word? It doesn’t physically alter anything about the given relationship. Certainly mentally and emotionally it can effect the people involved but I would say more often to the benefit of the couple.

I refuse to go after hetersexual marriages, because I think it's completely unnecessary. I think it's obvious from history that there's nothing wrong with them. As far as homosexual relationships, we don't know. If we don't know, we should learn. Giving the benefit of the doubt is potentially dangerous. Marriage is not just a word, though the word itself is important because it carries with it state affirmation. The marital status has legal ramifications that include the treatment of the two as one, the union of property and people.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You made the point that because you feel homosexual marriages are harmful they shouldn’t be allowed.

I made the point that because homosexual relationships are different, laws shouldn't be made that treat them as though they were the same. I also made the point that we don't know whether they are harmful or not, and if they are harmful, our state will be doing us a disservice by affirming them.

I did not say we should place a blanket ban on all homosexual relationships. I wrote earlier in this thread that I don't mind laws being made involving homosexual relationships. I think it would be doing them a service also for these studies to be taken comparing and contrasting their relationships to heterosexual relationships, because they won't find themselves jammed into legal positions they don't really want. For example, Inked posed evidence earlier on that homosexuals tend to switch partners more rapidly then heterosexuals. If this is true, then the distribution of property laws involved in divorce wouldn't be particularly heavy handed on homosexual couples. If a different status was given to homosexuals, different rights, we'd be avoiding the legal problems and making everyone better off- both heterosexual and homosexual couples. I don't think we have the right to judge between homosexual relationships. If some new legal status were created for them, it would not be saying some homosexuals were allowed to take part in it and some weren't. It wouldn't be discriminatory. In the same way, marriage should not be discriminatory between heterosexuals (except when they're too young, or too closely related, you know, all that).

These are a good reason to do the studies. If we do the studies and find that there are clearly observable differences between heterosexual and homosexual couples, we'd be doing the homosexuals a service by giving them the new status. On the other hand, if we found that there weren't such differences and wasn't any greater of negative impact on society then heterosexual marriages have, then they can be given the full legal status of heterosexuals involved in marriage. These are the important answers such studies I hope could provide us.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

what exactly would be the end result of the studies you be doing that would justify banning gay marriage exactly? That gays get divorced more then heterosexuals? That gays die younger? That gays have 3% more extra marital affairs then heterosexuals? EVEN if we were to assume for arguments sake that these were all true you could not use this as legal justification for banning gay marriage. Just as you could not ban smoking EVEN THOUGH it kills hundreds of thousands of people a year and costs us untold billions in healthcare strain and lost wages. You would have to come up with some unbelievable results in your study to justify banning gay marriage. Instant combustion comes to mind.

That's funny. We don't have laws to stop smoking. We don't have laws to stop homosexuality. Nor do I think we should have such laws. I'm glad we don't. I do NOT think that we should have the state encouraging this practice though without understanding what it's encouraging.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
It is the logic I would be using if I were arguing that homosexuality be made illegal. I am not arguing that though, and that is not the logic I am using.

Yes it is. You are arguing that gay marriage should not be allowed because you think its harmful. Well smoking is harmful too. So if we are going to ban gay marriage why is it we aren’t banning smoking?

The government does not approve smoking. Neither should it approve gay marriage. It does it outlaw smoking. Neither should it outlaw homosexuality. Approving gay marriage is approving the practice of homosexuality and saying that it is good, healthy, and equal to heterosexual marriage. It is insane to me that this should be done when we don't know that homosexuality is "good, healthy, and equal to heterosexual marriage."

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

EVERY relationship is different. EVERY SINGLE ONE. No two relationships are ever the same gay or straight. And the range is enormous. This has nothing to do with whether gender exists or not. It has to do with discriminating against one group when you don’t against another.

I think doing these studies on heterosexual marriages would be a waste of the government's money. No one questions heterosexual marriage at all. There would be no point to such a study. The negative impact upon society that these relationships are is universally believed to be very small in comparison to the benefit.

[Lief Erikson]

By the way, IR, what is your Avatar representing?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by lief

Approving gay marriage is approving the practice of homosexuality

whether you get a piece of paper saying that you are married or not, gay men and women will still be in couples, so i dont quite see what you can drive at with this one

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

whether you get a piece of paper saying that you are married or not, gay men and women will still be in couples, so i dont quite see what you can drive at with this one

More people will grow up with the idea that homosexuality is fine if there are married couples. It will increase general society's acceptance. It will convince people not to suppress those feelings, but to follow them through to their natural conclusions. It may provide more opportunity for those feelings being generated too; you see, in my opinion those feelings are not permanent or genetic. There are several renowned Christians I've heard of who were freed from their homosexual impulses. I myself know two people who once were homosexual, but now no longer have those feelings. If those feelings can leave people through non-genetic means, they can enter people through non-genetic means. That's my opinion .

[Nurvingiel]

Yeah, brainwashing and/or abusing someone is definitely non-genetic.
I respect you Lief, I just heartily disagree with your opinion on this matter.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

More people will grow up with the idea that homosexuality is fine if there are married couples. It will increase general society's acceptance. It will convince people not to suppress those feelings, but to follow them through to their natural conclusions.

I know you don't think that, but this all sounds like a good idea to me.

I agree with you that being gay isn't genetic.