Gay Marriage - are you for or against it and why?

[Ashendant]

I think it is a side-effect of sentience. We make moral judgments about animals and aliens. (In your hypothetical example.)

You mean sapience?

[QuestingHound08]

I would oppose it because I like language to mean something--calling homosexual relationships "marriage" doesn't make them the same as heterosexual relationships--they remain radically different. Homosexual relationships do not of themselves result in an organic union disposed toward the procreation of life, and speaking a natural language of exclusivity and permanence. Those elements can be added on extrinsically by the intention of the partners, but only from outside. The act itself is not fundamentally oriented toward a permanent, natural, life-giving relationship, bespeaking permanence. That is a real distinction, and a real difference between the intrinsic nature of heterosexual and homosexual relationships. I'm not saying that homosexual people can't stay together, or build stable homes. I am not saying they shouldn't be free to pursue their real happiness however they best can--what I'm saying is--don't pretend that that search justifies hijacking language to make it mean whatever sounds nicest. Homosexual relations are not heterosexual relations, by any stretch of the imagination--and nobody should be forced to say they are equivalent.

Where does that leave me? If it does become common practice to call it 'marriage' then we have solved the hurtful divide between committed homosexual couples and committed heterosexual couples being distinguished from each other in the fundamental nature of their relationship. But we overcome that only by ignoring, by covering our eyes to, the real difference between them. Either that, or we have to recognize it in a way that was never necessary before. It was never necessary before because those relationships were not put in the same category. If it is really thought necessary for people's feelings to make a simple verbal recognition that they are both 'marriage', then we are watering down the original definition of marriage to be more general and less specific...meaning we would need newer, more specific terms to distinguish between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage. Because the differences are valuable to recognize not only for the individuals involved, but also for the state--the only reason the state recognizes marriage as a legal relationship is because of its role of forming new citizens (young children). The fact that one of these romantic committed relationships is organically and naturally disposed towards the conceiving and rearing of children, and the other at best has only the potential to add a similar dimension to their relationship through adoption or surrogate motherhood, indicates to me that we would still be facing a situation of logical discrimination. The state need not indiscriminately endorse every relationship that makes us feel good--but they should endorse the ones fundamental to the build-up of society. Only traditional heterosexual marriage (I'm talking in its natural observance, not its abuse) naturally does this. In relation to the state, homosexual marriage it seems to me would be no more intrinsically useful than two bachelor brothers who decide to share living expenses.

What it forces us to do is to make up a new word for that difference. I say the exclusive and permanent heterosexual relationships have been called marriage for time out of mind here--everyone knows what it means both connotatively, and denotatively until the last few decades called into question. If people want to recognize and explain homosexual relationships as legitimate--to argue and point out the intrinsic beneficial effects (if there are some I haven't heard, beyond "making people feel nice and fair") for individuals and society at large--and to allocate state benefits accordingly, I have no objection--I only want the reasoning to be there. But why hijack a word that has always indicated another type of relationship? What is being made war on there is not bigotry, but the meaningfulness of language and the freedom to make real distinctions.

Finally: I think that people will probably be thinking about heterosexual infertile couples--kudos to them--and that is an anomaly of a general rule. The general rule is, that when heterosexual partners are healthy, fertility happens. When homosexual couples are healthy and all is proceeding according to the natural norm--new life isn't. So for the government--unless you want to take it on a case-by-case basis for heterosexual couples, it makes much more sense to endorse the whole of the heterosexual couples as marriages.

[HeyItsZeus]

This is why religion slows progress. You, sir, are making a fool of yourself.

[Ashendant]

Finally: I think that people will probably be thinking about heterosexual infertile couples--kudos to them--and that is an anomaly of a general rule. The general rule is, that when heterosexual partners are healthy, fertility happens. When homosexual couples are healthy and all is proceeding according to the natural norm--new life isn't. So for the government--unless you want to take it on a case-by-case basis for heterosexual couples, it makes much more sense to endorse the whole of the heterosexual couples as marriages.

Anonymous donors of genetic material creates a fertile homosexual couple, even homosexual animal recur to donors to breed

This is the definition of Marriage

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.

[Rhizomorph13]

Hey Hound,

What about DINK's (Dual Income No Kids) that have made a choice to have no kids? What about infertile couples? Should they have their marriage license revolked?

[HeyItsZeus]

I would oppose it because I like language to mean something--calling homosexual relationships "marriage" doesn't make them the same as heterosexual relationships--they remain radically different. Homosexual relationships do not of themselves result in an organic union disposed toward the procreation of life, and speaking a natural language of exclusivity and permanence.

So if I love a woman I can't marry her if I don't plan on producing offspring? Or does your rule not apply to me because I'm not gay?

Those elements can be added on extrinsically by the intention of the partners, but only from outside. The act itself is not fundamentally oriented toward a permanent, natural, life-giving relationship, bespeaking permanence. That is a real distinction, and a real difference between the intrinsic nature of heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

Prove to me that distinction of which you speak is valid... can you?

I'm not saying that homosexual people can't stay together, or build stable homes. I am not saying they shouldn't be free to pursue their real happiness however they best can

OK, so happiness doesn't include the freedom to choose to "unite" yourself with any person of your choice?

--what I'm saying is--don't pretend that that search justifies hijacking language to make it mean whatever sounds nicest. Homosexual relations are not heterosexual relations, by any stretch of the imagination--and nobody should be forced to say they are equivalent.

No one is forcing you to, but that doesn't make you correct. Let me add that your definition of marriage is morphed by your doctrinaire to your religion.

Where does that leave me? If it does become common practice to call it 'marriage' then we have solved the hurtful divide between committed homosexual couples and committed heterosexual couples being distinguished from each other in the fundamental nature of their relationship. But we overcome that only by ignoring, by covering our eyes to, the real difference between them.

Once again, your statement is invalid since the creation of children has no bearing on marriage.

Either that, or we have to recognize it in a way that was never necessary before.

No. You need to recognize marriage for what it actually is.

It was never necessary before because those relationships were not put in the same category. If it is really thought necessary for people's feelings to make a simple verbal recognition that they are both 'marriage', then we are watering down the original definition of marriage to be more general and less specific...meaning we would need newer, more specific terms to distinguish between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage.

No distinguishing is in need, my friend. Love is love.

Because the differences are valuable to recognize not only for the individuals involved, but also for the state--

The state has no need to peek into a persons personal life. It's fascism.

the only reason the state recognizes marriage as a legal relationship is because of its role of forming new citizens (young children). The fact that one of these romantic committed relationships is organically and naturally disposed towards the conceiving and rearing of children, and the other at best has only the potential to add a similar dimension to their relationship through adoption or surrogate motherhood, indicates to me that we would still be facing a situation of logical discrimination. The state need not indiscriminately endorse every relationship that makes us feel good--but they should endorse the ones fundamental to the build-up of society.

So we are tools for the state? On the contrary, the state (in a democratic society) is a tool for the people. Besides, nothing negative comes from homosexual marriage. Nothing at all that doesn't exist in heterosexual marriage, that is.

Only traditional heterosexual marriage (I'm talking in its natural observance, not its abuse) naturally does this. In relation to the state, homosexual marriage it seems to me would be no more intrinsically useful than two bachelor brothers who decide to share living expenses.

You're an a$$ H01e...

What it forces us to do is to make up a new word for that difference. I say the exclusive and permanent heterosexual relationships have been called marriage for time out of mind here--everyone knows what it means both connotatively, and denotatively until the last few decades called into question.

You (a representative of your religion) do not decide to define marriage to be only for heterosexuals! Why? Because people like me (and most other rational people on this forum) will fight you all the way.

If people want to recognize and explain homosexual relationships as legitimate--to argue and point out the intrinsic beneficial effects (if there are some I haven't heard, beyond "making people feel nice and fair")

Hold on... so fairness is not important? Congratulations, your vocabulary didn't make up for your ignorance.

for individuals and society at large--and to allocate state benefits accordingly, I have no objection--I only want the reasoning to be there. But why hijack a word that has always indicated another type of relationship? What is being made war on there is not bigotry, but the meaningfulness of language and the freedom to make real distinctions.

Once again, you do not have the right to force your definition of marriage onto a person that has holds different beliefs than you!

Finally: I think that people will probably be thinking about heterosexual infertile couples--kudos to them--and that is an anomaly of a general rule. The general rule is, that when heterosexual partners are healthy, fertility happens. When homosexual couples are healthy and all is proceeding according to the natural norm--new life isn't. So for the government--unless you want to take it on a case-by-case basis for heterosexual couples, it makes much more sense to endorse the whole of the heterosexual couples as marriages.

Don't you see what you did to yourself?

[reverendjeremiah]

Hey questing hound..keep your eye out for Hey-its-Zeus and minimalist... they may just rip you a new one and staple the old one inside your nostrils as a flavor savor.

[HeyItsZeus]

Hey questing hound..keep your eye out for Hey-its-Zeus and minimalist... they may just rip you a new one and staple the old one inside your nostrils as a flavor savor.

Am I really that evil on the internet?

[Violet]

---

I would oppose it because I like language to mean something--calling homosexual relationships "marriage" doesn't make them the same as heterosexual relationships--they remain radically different.

Because person+person agreeing not to have sex with anyone else is so radically different if those two people are within platforms that are even more similar?

Homosexual relationships do not of themselves result in an organic union disposed toward the procreation of life, and speaking a natural language of exclusivity and permanence.

Relationships aren't there simply to have children. My relationship with the humans is *strictly* as trade partners. I am aware that they might declare war on me at some point, but I do not expect them to do so today. Especially not while the Klackon and Darlok alliance are at war with them (And the Sakra at war with me).

Being able to have children/having children is irrelevant to exclusivity and permanence.

Those elements can be added on extrinsically by the intention of the partners, but only from outside. The act itself is not fundamentally oriented toward a permanent, natural, life-giving relationship, bespeaking permanence.

Natural would suggest they have sex whenever and wherever they want. Permanence is not possible in a universe where there is change. Life-giving relationships are not necessarily loving, worthwhile, or even exclusive, as my Silicoid breeding program suggests. Can't wait till we get cloning technology.

My people are wonderful: they don't care about... anything. Inferno Planet? Hot rocks. Tundra? Cold rocks. Toxic? Rocks with a kick. Radiated? Psychedelic Rocks. Barren? How does this affect rocks? Sex? I don't feel like it. I swear, if I didn't force them to have a birth quota we would have gone extinct.

That is a real distinction, and a real difference between the intrinsic nature of heterosexual and homosexual relationships. I'm not saying that homosexual people can't stay together, or build stable homes. I am not saying they shouldn't be free to pursue their real happiness however they best can--what I'm saying is--don't pretend that that search justifies hijacking language to make it mean whatever sounds nicest. Homosexual relations are not heterosexual relations, by any stretch of the imagination--and nobody should be forced to say they are equivalent.

Language is "hijacked" all the time. Oh look, i can't use the word 'gay' in respect to myself without people thinking I am "homosexual". Tut, and I so enjoy saying that I am gay as a lark, as merry as a schoolboy.

I agree that homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are different. But they are both relationships. Orange and apple are different, but they are both fruit. As it turns out, marriage is a type of relationship (one that I think shouldn't exist, of course) that forms sexual exclusivity within reason. Then I see people "cheating" on each other all the time, and have an even harder time respecting marriage as a relationship beyond words

Where does that leave me? If it does become common practice to call it 'marriage' then we have solved the hurtful divide between committed homosexual couples and committed heterosexual couples being distinguished from each other in the fundamental nature of their relationship. But we overcome that only by ignoring, by covering our eyes to, the real difference between them. Either that, or we have to recognize it in a way that was never necessary before. It was never necessary before because those relationships were not put in the same category.

It wasn't necessary until people changed the definition of marriage so that it could only be between (one) man and (one) woman. I mean, seriously... one? And I can't even have a lesbian marriage now? This is not going to work for me, fellows. I really can't tell you how much I despise those notions of exclusive marriage which incessantly get in my way. Is it so much of a special thing for you that I'll only have sex with you? Really? Seriously? Selfish prick. That's a major turn off by the way. I simply can't make it work, as it goes against everything I understand in a relationship (that it is with a person, not their body). I digress though

If it is really thought necessary for people's feelings to make a simple verbal recognition that they are both 'marriage', then we are watering down the original definition of marriage to be more general and less specific...meaning we would need newer, more specific terms to distinguish between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage.

Would you like to know the original definition of 'no'? It was a vague 'over there', or sometimes simple used as an expression of pain. Seriously: language changes with time. Hopefully it also becomes more simplified where it needs to be (ie: marriage) and more complex where it needs to be with time.

Because the differences are valuable to recognize not only for the individuals involved, but also for the state--the only reason the state recognizes marriage as a legal relationship is because of its role of forming new citizens (young children).

FULL STOP.

The state needs to not give a rats left ankle about the sexual and familial relationships of *ANY* of its individuals. It is irrelevant to the function of the state, and makes for being a major fucking organizational hassle.

New citizens honestly need a better schooling system (not this industrial model that ensures that almost every member of the citizenry is as barely useful as the next, with either few or no specializations to make them useful. Parents should have at most 5 years to get some of the more annoying kinks with children worked out (potty training. Do it), and the state then take them and give them a competitive state in society. They should have visitation rights i suppose... but if you actually want to have a competent and highly specialized citizenry: leaving them in the often incapable hands of parents is a poor plan indeed. Forcing them to be under the legal control of their parents until the moment they enter your citizenry is also a poor plan for this.

And standardized testing is ridiculous and needs to go. Now. Already. Fifty years ago. Get it gone. /enddigressing

The fact that one of these romantic committed relationships is organically and naturally disposed towards the conceiving and rearing of children, and the other at best has only the potential to add a similar dimension to their relationship through adoption or surrogate motherhood, indicates to me that we would still be facing a situation of logical discrimination. The state need not indiscriminately endorse every relationship that makes us feel good--but they should endorse the ones fundamental to the build-up of society. Only traditional heterosexual marriage (I'm talking in its natural observance, not its abuse) naturally does this. In relation to the state, homosexual marriage it seems to me would be no more intrinsically useful than two bachelor brothers who decide to share living expenses.

No sexual/love-based relationship is necessary for society. And none of these should make a difference to the state.

What it forces us to do is to make up a new word for that difference. I say the exclusive and permanent heterosexual relationships have been called marriage for time out of mind here--everyone knows what it means both connotatively, and denotatively until the last few decades called into question. If people want to recognize and explain homosexual relationships as legitimate--to argue and point out the intrinsic beneficial effects (if there are some I haven't heard, beyond "making people feel nice and fair") for individuals and society at large--and to allocate state benefits accordingly, I have no objection--I only want the reasoning to be there. But why hijack a word that has always indicated another type of relationship? What is being made war on there is not bigotry, but the meaningfulness of language and the freedom to make real distinctions.

I think my comment on this follows from everything else I have said in this thread /yawn.

Finally: I think that people will probably be thinking about heterosexual infertile couples--kudos to them--and that is an anomaly of a general rule. The general rule is, that when heterosexual partners are healthy, fertility happens. When homosexual couples are healthy and all is proceeding according to the natural norm--new life isn't. So for the government--unless you want to take it on a case-by-case basis for heterosexual couples, it makes much more sense to endorse the whole of the heterosexual couples as marriages.

Anomalies break rules. Instead of trying to mess with a broken rule and figuring out what is and is not an exception to it: make a new rule that fits the data. /enter holmes quotes.

---

[theVOID]

I would oppose it because I like language to mean something--calling homosexual relationships "marriage" doesn't make them the same as heterosexual relationships--they remain radically different.

Then you would support the state recognizing their union, giving them all the rights and ability to share resources as a straight couple who gets married?

How exactly are gay marriages "radically different"?

Homosexual relationships do not of themselves result in an organic union disposed toward the procreation of life, and speaking a natural language of exclusivity and permanence.

Lots of straight couples can't have children, if that is really your reason for opposing gay marriage you should oppose that marriage too, right?

Also, that's a bare assertion, Show me data that supports the idea that homosexual relationships don't last as long on average or your argument remains inherently fallacious.

Those elements can be added on extrinsically by the intention of the partners, but only from outside.

Huh?

The act itself is not fundamentally oriented toward a permanent, natural, life-giving relationship, bespeaking permanence.

1. Gay relationships being less permanent is still an assertion.
2. It's just as "natural". Normal may be the word you are looking for.
3. There are straight marriages that never create life. If this is not a requirement for straight marriages then why gay ones?

That is a real distinction, and a real difference between the intrinsic nature of heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

No, it's an arbitrary constraint (bearing life) applied only when convenient (to the exclusion of straight infertility) coupled with a bare assertion of impermanence.

I could find you an infertile straight couple who will not last in their relationship, by your reasoning we should forbid them from marriage, or at least given the reasoning you've provided, but we both know in reality this is a thin veil masking your irrational bigotry.

I'm not saying that homosexual people can't stay together, or build stable homes. I am not saying they shouldn't be free to pursue their real happiness however they best can--what I'm saying is--don't pretend that that search justifies hijacking language to make it mean whatever sounds nicest.

Marriage used to be between one man and a bunch of women. Do you still think that's valid or have you just hijacked the term to mean 'one man one woman'? If that is the case your use of the word is no more legitimate.

Homosexual relations are not heterosexual relations, by any stretch of the imagination--and nobody should be forced to say they are equivalent.

How exactly are they different? Child bearing isn't a good reason to stop it, after all there are infertile straight couples we allow to marry. No penis and vagina combo? Is that a good enough reason to stop it? In principle they are precisely the same thing, a union between two people that aims to share life and resources and wants to be recognized by the authoritative body.

Where does that leave me? If it does become common practice to call it 'marriage' then we have solved the hurtful divide between committed homosexual couples and committed heterosexual couples being distinguished from each other in the fundamental nature of their relationship.

No fool, all you do is apply a label to a union that is officially recognized.

But we overcome that only by ignoring, by covering our eyes to, the real difference between them.

Two penises, shocking! We must not allow it!

Either that, or we have to recognize it in a way that was never necessary before. It was never necessary before because those relationships were not put in the same category.

Because bigots like yourselves fought against it with dogma and oppression.

If it is really thought necessary for people's feelings to make a simple verbal recognition that they are both 'marriage', then we are watering down the original definition of marriage to be more general and less specific...meaning we would need newer, more specific terms to distinguish between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage.

No we wouldn't, it works just fine as it is. You just want them to be 'lesser'.

Because the differences are valuable to recognize not only for the individuals involved, but also for the state--the only reason the state recognizes marriage as a legal relationship is because of its role of forming new citizens (young children).

I love how you keep using the same bullshit line of reasoning, with your argument contingent upon this point it's laughably easy to refute.

The fact that one of these romantic committed relationships is organically and naturally disposed towards the conceiving and rearing of children, and the other at best has only the potential to add a similar dimension to their relationship through adoption or surrogate motherhood, indicates to me that we would still be facing a situation of logical discrimination.

The only discrimination here is your irrational bigotry.

The state need not indiscriminately endorse every relationship that makes us feel good--but they should endorse the ones fundamental to the build-up of society.

The state only needs recognize that two or more consenting adults intend to share their lives and set legal precedents for it in case of death, debt, children etc. I couldn't care less whether they use the term "marriage" or "union" or "wobbledob" as long as everyone is given the exact same status, treatment and opportunity.

Only traditional heterosexual marriage (I'm talking in its natural observance, not its abuse) naturally does this. In relation to the state, homosexual marriage it seems to me would be no more intrinsically useful than two bachelor brothers who decide to share living expenses.

Stop being a selfish ass, what matters is not how it benefits you, what matters is that these two people agree to share their lives and are able to start a family should they wish to do so.

Marriage is not a measure of utility.

What it forces us to do is to make up a new word for that difference.

No it doesn't, it forces you to come up with these pathetic attempts at rational arguments to mask your bigotry.

I say the exclusive and permanent heterosexual relationships have been called marriage for time out of mind here--everyone knows what it means both connotatively, and denotatively until the last few decades called into question.

Then people should only be able to call their relationship a marriage after one of them dies, after all there is no other way of telling whether or not it will be permanent.

Your also using an argument from antiquity, another fallacy. To say that something has historically been done one way is reason why we should continue that tradition is illogical.

If people want to recognize and explain homosexual relationships as legitimate--to argue and point out the intrinsic beneficial effects (if there are some I haven't heard, beyond "making people feel nice and fair") for individuals and society at large--and to allocate state benefits accordingly, I have no objection--I only want the reasoning to be there. But why hijack a word that has always indicated another type of relationship? What is being made war on there is not bigotry, but the meaningfulness of language and the freedom to make real distinctions.[./quote]

Marriage is about the attitudes of two or more consenting adults and their intention to share their lives, liabilities and resources. The state should recognize any such union not because it's seen as an investment, but because it's none of the states damn business to do anything but uphold their rights and people should be free to do whatever the fuck they want so long as they aren't preventing others from doing the same..

[quote]
Finally: I think that people will probably be thinking about heterosexual infertile couples--kudos to them--and that is an anomaly of a general rule. The general rule is, that when heterosexual partners are healthy, fertility happens. When homosexual couples are healthy and all is proceeding according to the natural norm--new life isn't. So for the government--unless you want to take it on a case-by-case basis for heterosexual couples, it makes much more sense to endorse the whole of the heterosexual couples as marriages.

New Life = Unjustified constraint.

It doesn't matter one little tiny fucking bit whether or not a child is produced, or whether there could be if they tried, or whether there generally is between the genders, what matters is that these people wish to share their lives and be given the same rights by the state as any other couple that wishes to do the same - That's it, no conditions, no time tests, no double standards, no bigotry.