Would you vote to legal same gender marriages?

Kali said:

Of course! Only some homophobic freak would say no

Click to expand...

Homophobic freak? Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron? I think it's rather normal for people not to feel comfortable around sodomites.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

What's any of this have to do with marriage, which is primarily a social function

Click to expand...

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

So what? The biological function is fulfilled quite handily by boinking in the bushes. In the old days if the father of the result of that boinking didn't want to stick around, he didn't, just like today. The social function evolved as a means of formally identifying property and lineages.

Fact of the matter is that it's no one's business who marries whom, or how they're constructed, or if they have children, or if they don't. Clearly if the purpose of marriage was to "make babies", we wouldn't have over-the-counter, out-of-the-vending-machine contraception.

Click to expand...

That could be considered a self-contradictory argument.

If marriage is a social issue, then how can it be possible for a social issue to be nobody's business? Society implies that more people are involved, intrested, concerned, looking-on, etc than just you.

What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is private. Marriage, as you said, is a social institution... and social means that other people have an intrest in it.

I'll even give you a for-instance about the social aspects of marriage.

In the 1930's up to the 1950's, divorce was rare. Most people considered it all but unthinkable.

Why?

Divorces were harder to get, generally... but that isn't why there was a sort of emotional repulsion to the idea, and a social stigma.

"It simply wasn't done." Hardly anyone knew anyone who had been divorced. Nobody wanted to be the "town divorcee" with the stigma that attached to it.

If you grew up in post-60's America to Boomer parents, the odds are 50/50 your parents were divorced, or got divorced. The odds are you knew lots of kids whose parents were or got divorced. With divorce so commonplace, the idea that YOU might one day get divorced is hardly a great intellectual leap.

Most likely one of the reasons we have such a high divorce rate is that once it become somewhat common, and the social stigma eroded, it became "thinkable" and "doable" and thus became ever more common. Not saying that's the sole cause, but certainly one of them.

"No one is an island." Social institutions like marriage have an effect on society as a whole, so they are to some degree the concern of society as a whole.

Goshin said:

Of course. I would however say it is the primary function...if you believe in evolution it is the sine qua non of species survival, in fact.

Click to expand...

Reproduction is certainly a main function, and arguably is the primary function. Reproduction is not the only function of sex.

Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate

Homosexual activity is found in birds, in monkeys, and even the great apes.

The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual. Frans de Waal, author of Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, calls the species a "make love, not war" primate. He believes bonobos use sex to resolve conflicts between individuals.

Click to expand...

The "unnatural" argument regarding homosexuality fails on the evidence of the natural world.

Goshin said:

That could be considered a self-contradictory argument.

Click to expand...

No.

What you said could be construed as failure to conform to standard uses of basic English, like taking things in their proper context.

Goshin said:

If marriage is a social issue, then how can it be possible for a social issue to be nobody's business?

Click to expand...

Because I'm not a lawyer, I speak english freely and accurately enough for usage here.

The function of marriage is to publicly announce a formally recognize pair bond, which traditionally carries penalties to outsiders who seek to poach. Naturally, as anyone can see, a marriage in itself is public to that extent. But the decission of who marries who is, in modern culture, up to the individuals foolish enough to tie the knot.

So you're trying to construct an imaginary contradiction because you can't find a real one.

Goshin said:

What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is private. Marriage, as you said, is a social institution... and social means that other people have an intrest in it.

Click to expand...

It doesn't mean they have the right to interfere. A marriage is an announcement that interference is not permissible.

How many times do you hit on broads wearing wedding rings? I've done it a time or two, for kicks, but the grazing's easier when the grass doesn't have a fence around it.

55% of the general adult public opposes same gender marriages.

100% of moderators so far support gay marriage.

25% of members on this forum oppose gay marriages.

Above the thread like all above all threads is:

“This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every ones position on topics equally.”

Interesting.

Goshin said:

In the 1930's up to the 1950's, divorce was rare. Most people considered it all but unthinkable.

Why?

Divorces were harder to get, generally... but that isn't why there was a sort of emotional repulsion to the idea, and a social stigma.

Click to expand...

While you're absolutely right, it was a good thing that divorces were harder to get as well. Even going beyond the social stigma, it genuinely hurt to get a divorce, as it ought to hurt today. The idea that you can walk into a marriage, soak up all sorts of social, legal and monetary benefits, and the second the going gets the slightest bit rough, just walk away from it with no muss and no fuss is ludicrous. Marriage ought to be hard to get into, harder to get out of and socially awkward to ignore.

If you grew up in post-60's America to Boomer parents, the odds are 50/50 your parents were divorced, or got divorced. The odds are you knew lots of kids whose parents were or got divorced. With divorce so commonplace, the idea that YOU might one day get divorced is hardly a great intellectual leap.

Most likely one of the reasons we have such a high divorce rate is that once it become somewhat common, and the social stigma eroded, it became "thinkable" and "doable" and thus became ever more common. Not saying that's the sole cause, but certainly one of them.

"No one is an island." Social institutions like marriage have an effect on society as a whole, so they are to some degree the concern of society as a whole.

Click to expand...

But marriage didn't change appreciably to make people think divorce was fine and dandy, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. My parents were married for 37 years before my father died. My wife's parents have been married for almost 50 years. If you're brought up with that kind of mindset where divorce is unacceptable except in the most extreme circumstances, the chances you'll get a divorce are minimal at best because you'll take more time choosing a partner and more time working through any problems you run into. That's why my wife and I have been married for almost 17 years now and still going very strong. Divorce simply is not an option.

Perhaps it's the generation after mine that fell into the "just do it" and "hang loose" trap, where caring about yourself became more important than caring about anyone else, where self-esteem and self-worth outweigh personal responsibility and social obligations. But that really has nothing to do with gay marriage, certainly it wasn't the homosexuals that caused marriage to fall apart, that bomb lands straight in the lap of heterosexuals who got self-involved to the point that they just couldn't care less about anyone else for longer than a few months or years.

If there's anyone to blame for things, it sure isn't gays, I've seen plenty of people try to thrust blame on them though, which is outright ridiculous.

joko104 said:

55% of the general adult public opposes same gender marriages.

100% of moderators so far support gay marriage.

25% of members on this forum oppose gay marriages.

Above the thread like all above all threads is:

“This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every ones position on topics equally.”

Interesting.

Click to expand...

Were you trying to make a point or earn a 6a infraction?

joko104 said:

Interesting.

Click to expand...

What the hell is so interesting about that?

Is there a point that i have missed? :roll:

joko104 said:

55% of the general adult public opposes same gender marriages.

100% of moderators so far support gay marriage.

25% of members on this forum oppose gay marriages.

Above the thread like all above all threads is:

“This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every ones position on topics equally.”

Interesting.

Click to expand...

Where are you getting these numbers from? You really are a piece of work.

Regarding the poll - lack of choice, yet again. The options do not support everyone's stance. As I have stated before, I do not approve of gay marriage, but I would not vote for a ban of it (or an amendment to the Constitution either). It is also a state's rights issue and not a federal issue, but that's an entirely different conversation altogether.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

The only function of sex is reproduction.

Sex evolved to be fun because otherwise no one would bother.

Could you imagine a female elephant letting some horny bull elephant clambering all over her if she didn't get some enjoyment out of it?

Can you even begin to imagine what a pair of brontosauruses had to do to make broto-eggs? Would they have bothered if they didn't like it?

Click to expand...

If sex were only for reproduction, all animals would be repulsed by pregnant females, or there would always be some mechanism to avoid wasting energy on having sex with them. For some animals, this is called being "in heat," but humans and some other animals have no such mechanism. Sex has social functions, especially in people, dolphins, and bonobos.

Blackdog said:

I am no "homophobic freak" and yes I would vote no.

Even though I feel it is wrong for the US Federal or State Government to deny homosexuals the same basic rights as married couples, I also (for religious reasons) will not support it in any way.

I have no problem with civil unions, but two men or women do not make a marriage as I see it. Semantics, I know. But it is my opinion and that is what counts most when I vote.

Click to expand...

Another example of why you can't rely upon democratic processes to ensure minority rights.

joko104 said:

55% of the general adult public opposes same gender marriages.

100% of moderators so far support gay marriage.

25% of members on this forum oppose gay marriages.

Above the thread like all above all threads is:

“This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every ones position on topics equally.”

Interesting.

Click to expand...

Uh, the moderators don't have to agree with you to be fair to you.

joko104 said:

Would you vote to legalizing same gender marriages if the issue was on an election ballot and you could vote in the election?

Click to expand...

I used to not care one way or the other, but 'gay activists' have become so obnoxious and petty I would make it a point to vote no, just because of the annoyance factor of their insipid whining alone. They are actually an affluent demographic, hardly in the same league as black Americans, so another major annoyance is the constant ludicrous comparisons with racial discrimination, and of course they aren't even remotely in the same league.

I might make an exception for lesbians, since they as a group played a key role in finally running the pedophiles out the 'gay rights' movement, with little or no help from male activists, and they aren't nearly as juvenile and snotty in general as male activists.

joko104 said:

Would you vote to legalizing same gender marriages if the issue was on an election ballot and you could vote in the election?

Only two options are given as that is how an election would work.

Click to expand...

There is a third option - abstention - and it's the one I'd use.

I probably wouldn't be able to vote for gay marriage, but I wouldn't vote against it. When I came to that space on the ballot, I wouldn't mark anything and move on to the next question.

LiveUninhibited said:

Another example of why you can't rely upon democratic processes to ensure minority rights.

Click to expand...

The only thing that can guarantee any right is the threat of force. As much as I love the Constitution, it is still nothing more than a piece of paper with no force to back itself up without either the people or government.

No form of government is perfect, but our form of democracy (Representative Republic) at least gives everyone a voice.

joko104 said:

55% of the general adult public opposes same gender marriages.

100% of moderators so far support gay marriage.

25% of members on this forum oppose gay marriages.

Above the thread like all above all threads is:

“This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every ones position on topics equally.”

Interesting.

Click to expand...

100% of joko104's posts are negative towards homosexuality with NO substantiation. Now that we have thrown out some irrelevant percentages, do you have anything of substance to contribute?

joko104 said:

55% of the general adult public opposes same gender marriages.

100% of moderators so far support gay marriage.

25% of members on this forum oppose gay marriages.

Above the thread like all above all threads is:

“This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every ones position on topics equally.”

Interesting.

Click to expand...

99.9% of statistics are made up on spot.
Or was it 99.8%..?

Apocalypse said:

99.9% of statistics are made up on spot.
Or was it 99.8%..?

Click to expand...

BTW, though I will retract my comment referring to those who argue that homosexuality is not natural are fools, I stand by the fact that this is a fallacious position. And, as my migraine is only marginally better, I will debate this will you, tomorrow, hopefully. However, a good start, so that I am clear on what YOU mean, would be for you to tell me how you would define "natural".

CaptainCourtesy said:

BTW, though I will retract my comment referring to those who argue that homosexuality is not natural are fools, I stand by the fact that this is a fallacious position. And, as my migraine is only marginally better, I will debate this will you, tomorrow, hopefully. However, a good start, so that I am clear on what YOU mean, would be for you to tell me how you would define "natural".

Click to expand...

First of all, I appreciate your retraction.
It's easier to debate with someone who doesn't immediately call you a fool for having a certain opinion.

Now, to the definition, I will quote parts from replies I posted in this thread.

Post #49:

Your analogies are way off the line.
By unnatural I've meant that homosexuality prevents the couple from reproducing their genes and creating new lives.
It is bad not simply because it is unnatural, but because it damages the circularity of life.

Click to expand...

Post #39:

In nature, you need both a male and a female for reproduction.
Reproduction is the continuance of life.
A gay couple cannot reproduce.
And that's why homosexuality isn't natural.

Click to expand...

Post #60:

This is not reproduction.
Homosexual couples cannot reproduce because they're from the same gender.
If two lesbians go to the sperm bank to take a sperm from some male, and then use it to create life with one of the lesbian's ovum, the other lesbian's genes would not be transferred into the created life.

Click to expand...

And this basically sums that up.

Apocalypse said:

By unnatural I've meant that homosexuality prevents the couple from reproducing their genes and creating new lives.

In nature, you need both a male and a female for reproduction.
Reproduction is the continuance of life.
A gay couple cannot reproduce.
And that's why homosexuality isn't natural.

Click to expand...

As homosexuality is an observable trait in many different species, the position that it isn't 'natural' is incorrect. Homosexuality is perfectly natural. Claiming that it is not is akin to me saying, "rearing children to adulthood is unnatural"; or even better, "mongamy is unnatural". The scientific evidence supporting these two claims would be shaky at best. Same with homosexuality as being 'unnatural', as all scientific evidence points to homosexuality as being perfectly natural.

Singularity said:

As homosexuality is an observable trait in many different species, the position that it isn't 'natural' is incorrect. Homosexuality is perfectly natural. Claiming that it is not is akin to me saying, "rearing children to adulthood is unnatural"; or even better, "mongamy is unnatural". The scientific evidence supporting these two claims would be shaky at best. Same with homosexuality as being 'unnatural', as all scientific evidence points to homosexuality as being perfectly natural.

Click to expand...

My dog humps strangers' legs.
What does that mean? :shock:

By natural I have not meant that animals do not partake in such acts, as I have already known that for quite some years.
By natural I mean to life itself, what religious people would call "God's creation" and I simply call 'nature'.
Life couldn't continue if all animals were homosexual, could it?

Apocalypse said:

Life couldn't continue if all animals were homosexual, could it?

Click to expand...

And the likelyhood of that ever happening?

winston53660 said:

And the likelyhood of that ever happening?

Click to expand...

The same as God's existence.
It was a mere question, Sherlock.

winston53660 said:

And the likelyhood of that ever happening?

Click to expand...

That could only happen if the Good Reverend was "bi-curious" fortunatly for the human species, he is not. Just sayin... :shrug:

Singularity said:

As homosexuality is an observable trait in many different species, the position that it isn't 'natural' is incorrect. Homosexuality is perfectly natural. Claiming that it is not is akin to me saying, "rearing children to adulthood is unnatural"; or even better, "mongamy is unnatural". The scientific evidence supporting these two claims would be shaky at best. Same with homosexuality as being 'unnatural', as all scientific evidence points to homosexuality as being perfectly natural.

Click to expand...

By that standard, serial murder, rape, theft, pedophilia, embezzlement, shoplifting, genocidal rampages, in effect everything is 'perfectly natural', unless you believe in magic and the supernatural, there is no such thing as an 'unnatural act'.

Apocalypse said:

My dog humps strangers' legs.
What does that mean? :shock:

Click to expand...

It means your doggy is kinky and into the canine equivalent of bestiality?:2razz:

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

No.

What you said could be construed as failure to conform to standard uses of basic English, like taking things in their proper context.
Because I'm not a lawyer, I speak english freely and accurately enough for usage here.

The function of marriage is to publicly announce a formally recognize pair bond, which traditionally carries penalties to outsiders who seek to poach. Naturally, as anyone can see, a marriage in itself is public to that extent. But the decission of who marries who is, in modern culture, up to the individuals foolish enough to tie the knot.

So you're trying to construct an imaginary contradiction because you can't find a real one.



It doesn't mean they have the right to interfere. A marriage is an announcement that interference is not permissible.

How many times do you hit on broads wearing wedding rings? I've done it a time or two, for kicks, but the grazing's easier when the grass doesn't have a fence around it.

Click to expand...

Must you always act like that? I have attempted to debate honestly and I get this ****, being accused of making up imaginary contradictions and mangling the English language. If you can't refute my argument, don't resort to BS.

A social institution is a part of society...you know, that gestalt of "norms" that a given population uses as a baseline of interaction. Those who publically deviate from those norms affect society as a whole, because they show by example that they can thumb their noses at society. When divorce was percieved by society as abnormal and outside of most people's experience, it was rare. As that norm was broken the social stigmas weakened and divorce became more and more common. Thus the actions of individuals affected society as a whole, and THAT is why "social institutions" ARE a concern of "society".

Look dude, I live back in the woods and don't participate in "society" all that much, but even I know that no man is an island, and that my actions do affect society as a whole to some degree, and vice-versa.

If it is a purely private institution, why is it established in public? Because it is part of the social matrix and some degree of acceptance by society is involved.