Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

Lets disect this argument for a moment:

1) We live in a secular society, not a religious one. Your religious ideals of "sin" based on the bible have nothing to do with whether or not it should be legal under out constitution.

2) Ok, how does being gay equate to incest? And lets try to not make too much of a stretch here when you attempt to explain.

3) You ask us if we know whats going on in a gay person's mind. Well, do you? Didn't think so. In fact most modern evidence suggests that gay people are born that way. Wait a second... aren't all men created in God's image???? GOD'S A BI-SEXUAL!!!!! Mind blowing...

Also, if you are going to attempt to back up the legal aspects of why gay marriage should be banned, lets keep religion out of it, as it has no place in our government. I'm interested in your non-religious arguments.

As for religious arguments, if all men are made with free will according to the bible, why should we make gay marriage illegal considering it doesn't HURT ANYONE? Isn't it up to God to make that judgement when they die? I also remember something about "judging" in the bible too, and how we humans shouldn't do it.

lol... read my other arguements for 'religios' answers.

As for non-religious reasons to make it illegal, I have nothing against it... my whole bias is based religion. I have hinted at it many times in this thread, but I would like to make it clear.

Game, say the tables are turned. Say being gay is the norm both socially and religiously. But you're born heterosexual and have absolutely no attraction to other men and even find it disgusting. So, knowing this, you would never EVER take a woman as your wife or see one romantically? You would never have sex with a woman or have act on your erotic thoughts?

lol... of course I would still be who I am... But this is a 'what if' question that holds no water in a arguement. If the only way to have babies remained the same, I would use that as my arguement to jutify my actions as more than just a sexual desire.

A better question would have been: what if I woke up tomorrow morning and I was a girl. Keeping all my same thoughs about women. In that case I would have to chose between my faith and my fleshly desire.... and that would be a ****ed up situation...

What I would do is simply never be married, and pray about it... if I had to chose between going to hell and having sex with women, I would never touch a girl again, and just never be attracted to a guy.

-EDIT- had to make this more clear

I would not have any sexual relationship of any type with anybody.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

I would not have any sexual relationship of any type with anybody.

So you never plan on having sex with anyone ever?

BTW, but "lol" in front of your posts does not validate your opinions nor invalidate those who disagree with you. It comes off more as a nervous defense mechanism.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

So you never plan on having sex with anyone ever?

If I were gay I wouldn't... I don't plan on doing any sins, because in a way, that's commiting a sin in itself. If I were planning to ave sex with a girl (if I were a girl) I might as well be planning on robbing a bank and killing sombody... Either way I'm hurting myself, and I would pay for it.

They can adopt kids, it's not like we don't have plenty out there who need families.

And if you really want to go along the lines that humans need to reproduce to exist, they can reproduce as well as straight. If there are only 4 people left, 2 male, 2 female, and they're all gay, they may feel no sexual attraction to the opposite sex, but they can still have sex and reproduce. The gay men could help the lesbian couple have kids. Just need to learn to cooperate with one another.

they could... but I have heard that it's extremely hard for a virgin woman to go through child birth. I don't want to go through the details. just hope thre of those people are doctors.

-EDIT-

One Winged Angel has a bit more 'personal' experience in this subject than you or me.... To be honest, I am shocked that he didn't take your side full on.

[GameMaster]

Live and let live.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

If I were gay I wouldn't...

Thats very easy to say when your looking from the outside in. Try walking a mile in another man's shoes before condemning them.

[Joeiss]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

Thats very easy to say when your looking from the outside in. Try walking a mile in another man's shoes before condemning them.

Right on.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

Thats very easy to say when your looking from the outside in. Try walking a mile in another man's shoes before condemning them.

It's easier said than done, I'll admit to that... but I mentally put myself in thier shoes, and that's as much as I could do.

[playa_playa]

I'm dismayed to find that there have been no compelling or cogent arguments against gay marriages in this thread. And before any logic-bereft individual accuses me of being homophobic, let me just say that I have no stance on the issue. But as things stand, there are sound reasons for the government to oppose the legalization of gay marriages.

Changing norms in a society invariably presents a predicament. That is, until the norm in question has been determined to be evil or inhumane, there is no sound justification to change it. Why should there be? Many people oppose the right to bear arms. The reason that the second amendment has not been declared unconstitutional, however, is the fact that there has been no clinching evidence that it is somehow evil, inhumane, unconstitutional, or unjust.

Gay marriages present a similar question: do we have a justification to change the existing laws (therefore, changing the societal norms) in favor of gay marriage? Well, would that decision not depend on whether being gay is absolutely intrinsic? In other words, what if it's the case that homosexuality is strictly a learned behavior? That, noone is born gay, but are conditioned to be gay through trauma, accidents or etc (I'm not advocating that such is the case with homosexuality; I'm just asking why should the laws be changed if this were the case)? And in which case, the person could be reconditioned to be straight? Societies do not and should not change its norms to cater to those that are deviant to them. It should be the other way around. After all, do we not tell drug addicts that although they are clinically addicted, they should still seek help and become sober (thereby being readmitted to the society's norms)?

As far as I've been paying attention, there has been no absolute evidence that there is a "gay gene" or that there is some hereditary condition that forces a person to be homosexual. And until that datum is ascertained, do you not think that we should reserve our judgement intent on changing our laws and norms? Most of you, obviously, do not think so. Since most of you for gay marriages seem to think that "being gay is pretty much hereditary (nice evidence!)" it is the case that homosexuality is intrinsic. Well, show me some data to support that. Last time I checked, not even the human genome project has been able to accomplish this.

It's a very, very simple inference. Seriously, just because a lot of people start saying that marrying animals (this has happened already), your family members, inanimate objects or what have you should be legal, does that mean we should change the laws to cater them? I mean, when does it stop?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by playa_playa

I'm dismayed to find that there have been no compelling or cogent arguments against gay marriages in this thread. And before any logic-bereft individual accuses me of being homophobic, let me just say that I have no stance on the issue. But as things stand, there are sound reasons for the government to oppose the legalization of gay marriages.

Changing norms in a society invariably presents a predicament. That is, until the norm in question has been determined to be evil or inhumane, there is no sound justification to change it. Why should there be? Many people oppose the right to bear arms. The reason that the second amendment has not been declared unconstitutional, however, is the fact that there has been no clinching evidence that it is somehow evil, inhumane, unconstitutional, or unjust.

Gay marriages present a similar question: do we have a justification to change the existing laws (therefore, changing the societal norms) in favor of gay marriage?

Its called the CONSTITUTION. It states that all men (people) are to be treated equally. Now, when one sexuality is given a privaledge and another is not, that is not equal. Therefore, denying gays the right to marry in unconstitutional. This makes it unjust and I'm sure many would argue inhumane as you are denying human rights. I won't even mention whther or not its "evil" as thats a silly concept to put in law as its far to relative to legislate.

Well, would that decision not depend on whether being gay is absolutely intrinsic? In other words, what if it's the case that homosexuality is strictly a learned behavior? That, noone is born gay, but are conditioned to be gay through trauma, accidents or etc (I'm not advocating that such is the case with homosexuality; I'm just asking why should the laws be changed if this were the case)? And in which case, the person could be reconditioned to be straight? Societies do not and should not change its norms to cater to those that are deviant to them. It should be the other way around. After all, do we not tell drug addicts that although they are clinically addicted, they should still seek help and become sober (thereby being readmitted to the society's norms)?

Such an argument could be made about anti-semitism. Are you born a Jew or are you a Jew by Religion alone? If so, it is not the societal norm and therefore there should have been nothing wrong with making separate laws treating them differently. Once start categorizing people by ANY stereotype and start using that category to determine that way they are treated, you are then being both unconstitutional and unjust. Slavery was once a "norm" of society and considered just fine as black people were considered more like cattle than human beings. Does that mean it shouldn't have been changed? Remember, what we consider to be "evil" and "unjust" often change as our societal norms change and the law should accomodate those changes as we develop as a society. People are people and they should be treated as such and therefore equally.

Please expalin how keeping laws in place that treat one group of people differently than another in constitutional and "just".

And why do you even care? How does legalizing gay marriage affect you? Why is it even illegal if it does not matter to anyone ecept those that are getting married?

[playa_playa]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

Its called the CONSTITUTION. It states that all men (people) are to be treated equally. Now, when one sexuality is given a privaledge and another is not, that is not equal. Therefore, denying gays the right to marry in unconstitutional. This makes it unjust and I'm sure many would argue inhumane as you are denying human rights. I won't even mention whther or not its "evil" as thats a silly concept to put in law as its far to relative to legislate.

But that aspect of the Constitution is based on traits that human beings have no control over, such as race and gender. I'm asking, is this the case with homosexuality. Well, does anyone know for sure? Courts deny addicts custody of their children sometimes. In your view, should this not be unconstitutional?

Such an argument could be made about anti-semitism. Are you born a Jew or are you a Jew by Religion alone? If so, it is not the societal norm and therefore there should have been nothing wrong with making separate laws treating them differently. Once start categorizing people by ANY stereotype and start using that category to determine that way they are treated, you are then being both unconstitutional and unjust. Slavery was once a "norm" of society and considered just fine as black people were considered more like cattle than human beings. Does that mean it shouldn't have been changed? Remember, what we consider to be "evil" and "unjust" often change as our societal norms change and the law should accomodate those changes as we develop as a society. People are people and they should be treated as such and therefore equally.

The difference is, the Jewish religion does not do anything that goes against the laws of the United States. Homosexuality is fine until it is put into question whether it should be validated in the form of marriage. In which case, it should rightly be questioned whether it is a genuinely human trait (hardcoded in our genetics).

And what's with this unconstitutional hoopla? Your views on the 14th Amendment is somewhat erroneous to your standards. Simply stated, the 14th Amendment does not force the government to stop categorizing people by stereotypes. Why do we give disabled people special previliges then?

Why, sadists love to torture people to attain sexual stimulation. Does that mean we let it go since well, sadists are just sadists and they're only people?

Please expalin how keeping laws in place that treat one group of people differently than another in constitutional and "just".

So, treating disabled people differently to give them previliges is unconstitutional? Uh-huh. Registering people under the sexual offenders list is unconstitutional? Right. The government should rightly treat people differently.

And why do you even care? How does legalizing gay marriage affect you? Why is it even illegal if it does not matter to anyone ecept those that are getting married?

If some aspect of the society condones ethically unsound actions, I shudder to think that the citizens should just stand by and do nothing. According to your views, marriages between brothers and sisters should be fine also (since it affects only those that are getting married). Problem is, it marks a moral bankruptcy of a society to allow an ethically unsound legislation to pass. Now, I'm not saying homosexuality is an ethically unsound behavior. I'm merely saying that we do not know for sure whether it is or it isn't (given the lack of genetic evidence). When this is the case, should we pass a legislation to change our norm to suit homosexuality? When we don't even know for sure its very nature?

[Professor S]

The problem with your argument is that you think its the government's responsibilty to legislate morals. Its not. Its the job of the family and religious affiliation. To legislate morals is the same as legislating religion as that is where morals come from. Are there existing laws that are based very much on religious morals? Yes. There is also a law in a town in MD that no monsters are allowed in the city borders and another in MA that states that all women drivers are to have their husbands in front of the car waving a flag to warn other drivers and pedestrians. Just because the law is on the books doesn't mean its logical or even enforced.

Also, this is not about repealing laws, as right now its a state issue. This is about creating NEW FEDERAL laws that prohibit homosexual marriage. So no laws are being repealed, they are being created to deny rights and legislate morals that should be kept relative to religion and personal belief.

And by the way, if brothers and sisters want to get married... more power to them. Incest between two people has nothing to do with me or anyone else besides them. After all, what right do we have to tell two grown people whats right or wrong if all they do affects only them? Thats for God and themselves to sort out.