Sayonara Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 The " Homos Vs. Hetros..again" thread? It seems to encompas the subject I brought up. Most of these subjects have been covered before, can we not talk about them anymore? Discussing it further: okay. Bringing up exactly the same points that got utterly crushed before: pointless. My argument was based on the basis that we can all agree that some kind of marriage is bad, but obviously its all good to you guys. Any argument that dresses gay marriage as a threat to the institution is (almost pre-emptively) usurped by the fact that the institution of marriage - insofar as it is presented in the argument - is already corrupted. Which pretty much makes the provocateur of such an argument a whiney special pleader with a thing for bashing gays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Why? I fail to see the logic that its alright for guys to marry each other but not alright for 17 year olds to get married. As Phi eluded, I was thinking about a major marrying a minor, but while on the subject: (1) two 25 year old men married (2) two 12 year olds married which bothers you more? ALSO (A) telling (1) they can never be married (B) telling (2) to wait 6 years I guess the definition of a minor is a problem, since I think some 17 year olds are capable of handling marriage. In fact, my parents were both this age when they were married. Although in all cases it is better to grow up some first. In any case, making a 17 year old wait one year before getting married is a far cry from telling someone they can never be married or never adopt a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Discussing it further: okay. Bringing up exactly the same points that got utterly crushed before: pointless Good. Any argument that dresses gay marriage as a threat to the institution is (almost pre-emptively) usurped by the fact that the institution of marriage - insofar as it is presented in the argument - is already corrupted. Which pretty much makes the provocateur of such an argument a whiney special pleader with a thing for bashing gays. How is it alrady corrupt? Is it bashing to honestly believe something is wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Believing something is not bashing. The reasons behind the belief can be. The institution is already corrupt because it incorporates people of the "wrong faith", the areligious (whether atheistic, agnostic, or what have you), "classical" sinners, blah blah blah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 If its corrupt, then why not fix it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coral Rhedd Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Why? I fail to see the logic that its alright for guys to marry each other but not alright for 17 year olds to get married. Because they should finish high school first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 In any case, making a 17 year old wait one year before getting married is a far cry from telling someone they can never be married or never adopt a child. I completely understand what you're saying but your logic is failing. Thats not what anybody is saying. ANY gay man can marry a woman and adopt a child. Nobody is depriving homosexuals of rights that their straight counterparts have. Also, Just because I'm straight doesn't mean I'm special and aloud to marry a man. Like a said, the rights are exactly the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coral Rhedd Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 I completely understand what you're saying but your logic is failing. Thats not what anybody is saying. ANY gay man can marry a woman and adopt a child. Nobody is depriving homosexuals of rights that their straight counterparts have. Also, Just because I'm straight doesn't mean I'm special and aloud to marry a man. Like a said, the rights are exactly the same. Actually, I think gay men marrying straight women in order to have children would be corrupt, especially if this were not discussed beforehand. What do you think women are? Babysitters for the convenience of men? Even if it were discussed beforehand, most straight women would decline. Are you suggesting that gay men marry in bad faith in order to become fathers? Also, you make the rather silly assumption that no gay man could use his imagination in order to sexually function with a woman? Obviously you really underrate the power of human fantasy. Gay men married women for years and cheated on the side in order to pass for straight. Has it occured to you what these sorts of marriages (based upon a fraud) were like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Are you suggesting that gay men marry in bad faith in order to become fathers? I was suggesting nothing of the sort. I was simply stating that gay men have the same rights straight men have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coral Rhedd Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 I was suggesting nothing of the sort. I was simply stating that gay men have the same rights straight men have. Oh, do you mean the right to marry the person of their choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Oh, do you mean the right to marry the person of their choice? Thats not a right. What If I wanted to marry my sister? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coral Rhedd Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 I am assuming a mutual arrangement. The question then would become: Does your sister wish to marry you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 I am assuming a mutual arrangement. The question then would become: Does your sister wish to marry you[/b']? Thats irrelevant. You implied that I have a right that gays don't have, a right that doesn't exist. No, my sister doesn't want to marry me, and no, I don't want to marry my sister. I was simply showing you that nobody has the 'right' to marry the person of choice. What if I wanted to marry that 16 year old down the street? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 I'd say the right to marry someone of your choice is a restricted right. Say, isn't this going off topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coral Rhedd Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Thats irrelevant. You implied that I have a right that gays don't have' date=' a right that doesn't exist. No, my sister doesn't want to marry me, and no, I don't want to marry my sister. I was simply showing you that nobody has the 'right' to marry the person of choice. What if I wanted to marry that 16 year old down the street?[/quote'] I have a direction here. Not as off-topic as some might think. Tell me why it would be wrong for you to marry your sister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 I have a direction here. Not as off-topic as some might think. Tell me why it would be wrong for you to marry your sister. I didn't say it was wrong. It is however against the law. Are you stating that gays should be able to marry just as I should be able to marry my sister? Also the reasoning behind not being able to marry family members in this case is also irrelevant because the conversation started with you implying that I have a right gays don't have. Can you state a right gays currently do not have(that the straight counterpart does)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coral Rhedd Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 I didn't say it was wrong. It is however against the law. Are you stating that gays should be able to marry just as I should be able to marry my sister? This is a forum full of scientists. Perhaps they might have a viewpoint as to whether there are sound' date=' scientific reasons why you should not marry your sister. Or at least some of them surely have an opinion on why you should not produce children with your sister. You are circular here. You say the reason (you should not marry your sister) is that it is against the law. If the law were the measure of right and wrong, in the early 20th century it was wrong for a black man in the American South to marry a white woman. Now it is right because it is legal. Is this your reasoning? Do you equate morality absolutely with law? Also the reasoning behind not being able to marry family members in this case is also irrelevant because the conversation started with you implying that I have a right gays don't have. Can you state a right gays currently do not have(that the straight counterpart does)? It is a sophistry to say that because both gay men and straight men can marry a woman then they have equal rights. Are you saying that marriage need have nothing to do with desire? I say you are merely playing with words and this sort of argument ignores all human feeling. It is a Mr. Spock approach to human understanding. No gay men do not have the same rights that straight men have to marry the person of the sex they desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 This is a forum full of scientists. Perhaps they might have a viewpoint as to whether there are sound' date=' scientific reasons why you should not marry your sister. Or at least some of them surely have an opinion on why you should not produce children with your sister. [/quote'] Because it causes retardation. And yes, I am aware that gay couples do not cause retardation. You are circular here. You say the reason (you should not marry your sister) is that it is against the law. If the law were the measure of right and wrong, in the early 20th century it was wrong for a black man in the South to marry a white woman. Now it is right because it is legal. Is this your reasoning? Do you equate morality absolutely with law? Did I say the law was right? Did I say it was wrong to marry your sister? No, I did not. Not Only did I not state that but I stated that I did not state that. This is the Second time that I stated that I did not state that. You can not compare a gay man to a black man in the 20th century because white men DID have rights that black men did not have. In this case we are COMPLELTY equal in terms of the law. Are you saying that marriage need have nothing to do with desire? I say you are merely playing with words and this sort of argument ignores all human feeling. No, I'm saying the law need nothing to do with desire. If law were based on desire I would be allowed to marry my sister breeding retarded children and mowing my lawn would be against the law It is a Mr. Spock approach to human understanding. You cought me, Im Mr. Spock. What shall I ever do now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coral Rhedd Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Did I say the law was right? Did I say it was wrong to marry your sister? No, I did not. Not Only did I not state that but I stated that I did not state that. This is the Second time that I stated that I did not state that. Hey you were the one who dragged your sister into this, not me. But since you do not seem to think it is wrong to marry you sister, perhaps you should try to change the law. Me, I don't have a sister. No, I'm saying the law need nothing to do with desire. If law were based on desire I would be allowed to marry my sister breeding retarded children and mowing my lawn would be against the law It would be interesting then to get your perspective about what you think laws should be based upon. Hmmm. Please reread you second sentence in the above quote. (I definitely understand your feelings about the lawn. ) You can not compare a gay man to a black man in the 20th century because white men DID have rights that black men did not have. In this case we are COMPLELTY equal in terms of the law. Then the main purpose of law should be to enforce equality? You cought me, Im Mr. Spock. What shall I ever do now. Watch the Wizard of Oz and observe what happened to the Tin Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 I completely understand what you're saying but your logic is failing. Thats not what anybody is saying. ANY gay man can marry a woman and adopt a child. Nobody is depriving homosexuals of rights that their straight counterparts have. Also, Just because I'm straight doesn't mean I'm special and aloud to marry a man. Like a said, the rights are exactly the same. OK, so if all people can only marry within their race(religion) and adopt children only within their race(religion) then everyone has the same "rights". That might be fair, but it is wrong IMO. If people of two different races(religions) love each other and want to be married, let them be married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 and btw' date=' I know one gay chap, and you`de never know it! he`s no show-off or camp acting, just seems a regular guy, that sort I don`t mind at all, and happy to be a friend of his, odd that you singled out the Girl types in your post though, I`ve know a few of them too, I find them equaly as objectional.[/quote'] I have to be careful here, since I don't know all the details of behavior you are referring to, but this sounds very similar to remarks towards blacks that I have heard. (1) "He doesn't act black at all, like a normal person" (2) "He is ghetto, he makes all blacks look bad" (3) "He's trying to be white" Accepting people who are different means accepting different behaviour also, and realizing that within "groups" are individuals with vastly different behaviour and attitudes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Everyone needs a break: http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I have to be careful here' date=' since I don't know all the details of behavior you are referring to, but this sounds very similar to remarks towards blacks that I have heard. (1) "He doesn't act black at all, like a normal person" (2) "He is ghetto, he makes all blacks look bad" (3) "He's trying to be white" Accepting people who are different means accepting different behaviour also, and realizing that within "groups" are individuals with vastly different behaviour and attitudes.[/quote'] Behavior is completely different than race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Whoooooosh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Everyone needs a break: http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com Good One! I was getting too preachy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now