Is banning gay's rights to marry wrong?

[winoman]

There are some who propose "civil unions" that will have the same legal ramifications as "marriage". But as this is a state by state thing - its not clear how possible this would ever be to implement - kin issues and associated property/inheritance etc things unclear for example - (whereby everyone [every state] pretty much agrees - with perhaps some minor variation - what constitutes marriage). But if it is in all respects equal - and it is (fundementally) really a civil/legal term to begin with - then why not just call it what it is - marriage?

To not do so is the same concept as "Seperate but equal" which has been discredited as discriminatory in this country (though some here would love to go back to such - let the "coloreds" have their own seperate schools and bathrooms & such...(I actually frequently work in a building that still has its "white" and "colored" lavatories - though not labled or restricted as such anymore - one can easily tell whose was whose...its really an interesting everyday reminder.

And in addition to the legal aspects - there is an emotional issue (and more even then this - really a fundemental aspect of life). For a couple to be married - well that is one of the highlights of life. It explicity means things to family, friends and to the couple...and it is a most special thing. These folks live as families already - let it be recognized. Aren't we mature anouhg as a people to grant this - to understand that this is a RIGHT for people. Gays are not going away - they have not genetically disapeared even though their avenues to reproduce are much more limited. Lets be human and evolved a bit and do the right thing...

[Anonymouse]

well men and women marry becuase they are deeply in love with one another. are you saying gay's only want money with there way of life? are gay's no able to love or something?

Marriage is more than just some selfish walk in the park. It is an institution that is the atom of society, and the nuclear family. One can no more change the measurements of a yardstick and still use it as a reliable source of measuring than one can change the definition of marriage and still have it as a reliable source of measuring. The hive like moral conformity of the leftist intellectuals and their peon followers is among the wonders of the modern world. They are positively attracted to perverse ideas like same sex "marriage" Never mind that this never even occurred to the sodomites of antiquity, who understood perfectly well that the point of marriage was to care for children.

Furthermore, I am not even stating that homosexuals cannot marry. If you understood my argument, if marriage is privatized and left to local institutions such as the Church, it is entirely up to them who they choose to marry.

[Anonymouse]

Was Adolk satisfied with that? Why should he have been when the "Final Solution" was available to him...and remember its just the idea of these people that is the issue...ewwww...(kill them all!) etc

Folks, do you want to know how to win an argument on the internet? Well, one of the most imperative things you should pick up from your foruming experience is calling someone a Nazi. When you are losing an argument, at some point in time it is important that you call the other person a Nazi. Winoman here has shown the most excellent example of this and I urge you all to follow it. This is one of the most basic requirements of an average internet debate, and although the rational among us might find it irrational to compare a person arguing on the internet with a dictator, this action is the basic rule in any online debate.

[Anonymouse]

INTERACIAL MARRIAGE
March 18, 2004

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and
he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with
his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that
he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

This was a view held by those who opposed miscegenation, a term coined in
1863, to give a scientific connotation to interracial marriage. And, from
that period, until 1967, 30 American states passed law prohibiting
marriages between a white and a non-white.

It must be noted that a non-white was defined differently by different
states. In some, one-eighth of black blood made you black, in others, one
drop sufficed.

And, there were the penalties. People engaged in interracial unions would
go to jail for up to five years in states like Virginia. But, jail term
is minor compared to the lynching administered by the all too powerful
KKK, a white supremacist organization funded in 1860s after the Civil War.

Today, the head of the United Nations (Koffi Anan), an African, is married
to a Scandinavian woman. No couple can be any more interracial than this
one. It is then intellectually fair to inquire on the reasons why
interracial marriage was so ill-received in America.

The reasons were two-fold. The first one is biblical. Call it
pseudo-biblical, because fundamentalists assimilate Africans with
Canaanites, a fact that was never proven.

In Deuteronomy 7:3-4, God, as follows, warns the chosen nation against the
Canaanites: "Neither shall you make marriage with them. For they will turn
your son away from following me that they may serve other gods, so the
anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy you suddenly."

The second reason was scientific. Call it pseudo-scientific since all the
basis of Eugenics, the science of race improvement through better
breeding, were refuted by modern genetics. "White race-purity is the
cornerstone of our civilization," said the eugenicists, therefore marrying
a white to a species considered as inferior would only produce sterile
human mules. Eugenics theories led to the Holocaust.

The pseudo biblical and scientific notions that today oppose gay marriage
are similar to the ones that opposed interracial unions, not even forty
years ago. Now, like then, they go against the right of 10% of the
population of the United States.

Hollywood in its 100 year history has never showed a leading lady (not a
secondary, often prostitute character) in bed with her black co-star. A
black man openly making love to a white woman is as offensive to wider
America as is the view of two male homosexuals kissing. It has everything
to do with the way we feel, and nothing to do with the civil rights of the
involved citizens.

(OdlerRobert Jeanlouie, Thursday, March 18, 2004)

This is a classic example of someone comparing race and homosexuality. Are you not the same person who argued with me about the existence of race, and only now to use it when it benefits your argument? It appears you have contradicted yourself. The "progressive" leftists who promote same sex marriages often make comparisons to blacks and whites who couldn't marry. Now this seems a bit of a stretch when one considers that race is a genetic biological factor, whereas homosexuality is rooted in behavior. To this we can only witness people who call themselves "bi" or people who are gay one day and then go back to being straight. There is no case here.

[Thai-Samurai]

I didn't read any of this thread, but I think all gay people should be treated inhumanely.

[winoman]

First of all - I have shown that unlike claims made to the contrary - the concept of marriage predated Christianity (should be obvious) and even religious overtones of such and has in fact always been both to establish bonds of kinship (direct and extended) as well as establish the married pair as a single legal (recognized) entity in society. Thus the civili institution of marriage predates and has precedence over the religious aspects.

Obviously the prime reason for marriage in the past was to establish the standing of the offspring (and an argument could be made that it was to establish the woman as the property of the man (husband) and no longer of her father/father's family). Nowdays not all married couples have children - and we accept this - and we no longer legally follow the practice that the woman is the man's property. Thus the concept of marriage in our society has already changed through time. First from a purely civil institution (concerning property/ownership/inheritanc etc - and remember many marriages were arranged - no love or necissarily even courtship) to one that has religious overtones as well (even if in truth secondary), and next to one that serves to define the relationship between 2 people - irrespective of any desire/capability or plan for children.

The argument against gay (or same sex) marriages is almost wholly based on religious belief of homosexuality being wrong - along with this concept of marriage being this unchanging thing (which it clearly is not). As we specifically prohibit a specific religion/set of religious beliefs from determing or civil.legal policy - this also becomes a non-argument. So like tradition, the religious argument does not hold. So in fact denying people to marry whom they wish - purly on the basis of sex - becomes descrimination of the type I first referenced - against sexual orinetation - which is specifically prohibited by law.

As for private marriages held by the church - you are free to do so as you wish - but as they have no legal standing (and remember its not the feds but the State governemnts we are talking about - a complicating factor to be sure - but also an important distinction) - well private marriages (and here we are opening a Pandora's box - are we saying that perhaps group marriages among satantic witch covens would be allowed/sanctioned? - and what would it allmean - "oh we 13 are married under the Salem Witch covenents and share a home together down on the shore...? I really don't see what this does for anyone - it certainly doesn't replace marriage as we know it and as is fundemental to our social and economic system...(and all states would have to go along...oh - but these marriages have nothing to do with legal issues - right - so no problem - but then again they also do not perform the same function as marriage as we know it in our society - so what is really being promoted perhaps is that hetrosexual (or whatever?) marriage be nullified/not recognized by the government etc - and then we should probably call it somethign else - right - and that perhaps same sex marriages will then be (legally) recognized and called marriage. I must say - I really don't see too much clamor for this outside of a very small minority (perhaps of one)...but I supose if it were publisized more we might have a few more hetero couples going for it and opting out...(talk about proposing something that fundemntally attacks the structure of our society as we know it - I would say that this is a potential threat - then again as I don't see it as anything at all bearing on reality I'm not too worried...

[winoman]

This is a classic example of someone comparing race and homosexuality. Are you not the same person who argued with me about the existence of race, and only now to use it when it benefits your argument? It appears you have contradicted yourself. The "progressive" leftists who promote same sex marriages often make comparisons to blacks and whites who couldn't marry. Now this seems a bit of a stretch when one considers that race is a genetic biological factor, whereas homosexuality is rooted in behavior. To this we can only witness people who call themselves "bi" or people who are gay one day and then go back to being straight. There is no case here.

Its not what I believe - its what society (even being wrong in such categorizations) promoted. Much like they are using spurious arguments to prohibit same sex marriages.

BTW - you really are poor at making valid points....you really are stretching in almost every case - but since you have taken some dubious positions its no wonder that you really have no worthwhile arguments to speak of...

And funny - a biological determinst in everything but being gay it seems....I find this highly amusing....I for one don't see being gay or Bi as being at all so simple. While there are (seem to be) genetic factors that are predilections - no deterministic gene or such has ever been identified (nor do I think that there ever will)...but even if it is a choice (where I grant genetics that result in skin pigmentation are not a choice...not yet anyway...) - I still find no valid arguments for discrimination against someone just because they have sexual relations different then the majority....or such...

[Anonymouse]

The family is not a product of culture, that is to say, not something of man's making. The family is, as great sociologists such as Malinowski in Sex and Repression in Savage Society have shown, "the starting point of all human organization" and "the cradle of nascent culture." The family is what distinguishes man from animal in social culture. Animals, like human beings, have sexual and parental instincts. It is only when these instincts transcend their purely biological function into a permanent social relationship that we speak of marriage and this can only occur among human beings. My point was not that Christianity started marriage. It is foolish of you to assume so. My point is that it be left to local institutions such as the Church, as an example. The rest of your points are, as you say, "non issue".

[Anonymouse]

Its not what I believe - its what society (even being wrong in such categorizations) promoted. Much like they are using spurious arguments to prohibit same sex marriages.

BTW - you really are poor at making valid points....you really are stretching in almost every case - but since you have taken some dubious positions its no wonder that you really have no worthwhile arguments to speak of...

And funny - a biological determinst in everything but being gay it seems....I find this highly amusing....I for one don't see being gay or Bi as being at all so simple. While there are (seem to be) genetic factors that are predilections - no deterministic gene or such has ever been identified (nor do I think that there ever will)...but even if it is a choice (where I grant genetics that result in skin pigmentation are not a choice...not yet anyway...) - I still find no valid arguments for discrimination against someone just because they have sexual relations different then the majority....or such...

I made a valid comparison to which you couldn't reply with anything other than your usual invectives. What is a stretch of comparing something that is biological, such as race, in which one person cannot change themselves, to someone who is a homosexual, a behavior, in which they do go back and forth. I think I've made my point clear and I am done with this thread.

[winoman]

I made a valid comparison to which you couldn't reply with anything other than your usual invectives. What is a stretch of comparing something that is biological, such as race, in which one person cannot change themselves, to someone who is a homosexual, a behavior, in which they do go back and forth. I think I've made my point clear and I am done with this thread.

You fail to understand - purposfly or otherwise why the comparison is entirely valid. And it matters not if it is choice or not - though I find it funny that folks like you - who are anti-gay rights tend to claim that it is learned behavior - yet you claim that intelligence (and other mental attributes) and such are inherited/geneticically/biologically determined. That you fail to see the fallacy and paradox of your positions is amusing to me. My position is that it matters not (and I don't know the answer) - its still descrimination.

Yeah - your done in this thread alright - since its inception. You have no response that I have not thoghouly rebutted. But that won't prevent you from always making the last post - go ahead - i know that you can't help yourslef - your too insecure about yourself to do otherwise..."Oh I made the last post - so I won the argument" etc - pathetic