|
Post by Yaw on Apr 20, 2004 1:09:10 GMT -5
First of all, this thread also belongs in the Politics forum. So, *fling*.
Second, the affirmative action discussion really works better as a topic with reparations in the thread about Rwanda in this forum. I'm willing to defend it over there. It's sort of a separate issue from same-sex couples and marriages.
|
|
livinitup
Broken-in Plebe
In God I trust
Posts: 69
|
Post by livinitup on Apr 20, 2004 1:30:46 GMT -5
A quick fix,
IT WAS AN EXAMPLE
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Apr 20, 2004 1:41:40 GMT -5
No, I actually went back to the beginning of the thread, read the first post, and decided that it belonged in the Politics forum. (It was actually on my mind when this thread first started, but I let it go because I wasn't sure in what direction it was going to lead.)
Don't think there's anything wrong with this being a political discussion. It isn't a punishment to have a thread flung. It just means it's better suited here.
|
|
livinitup
Broken-in Plebe
In God I trust
Posts: 69
|
Post by livinitup on Apr 20, 2004 2:29:05 GMT -5
I think we are agreeing just saying different things. its doent bother me that it got flung what so ever, i was just using affermative action in my example i was not tring to relate the topic to politics
|
|
|
Post by Narninian on Apr 20, 2004 8:17:10 GMT -5
I think you are over-simplyfying things... Gay marraiage is not step towards communism or anarchy.
How do you know I'm not asian or black? Anyway - the affirmative action thing IS a seperate issue. So I'll leave that one alone.
Laws should be based on what people think - but not from the view of one religon - The fact is there are citizens that don't believe homosexualism is morally wrong. Many people believe that 'Swingers' couples that have sexual intercourse are morally wrong - there are no laws against that.
If a homosexual couple wants to get married - its their perogative - what GOOD reasons are there to not allow them to get married??
Some churches have 'good' reasons - so if they do they can simply not marry these couples - but what reasons do the state have?
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Apr 20, 2004 8:59:55 GMT -5
I don't think they should not be allowed to get married in a country that is "free" I put this in quotes because I'm starting to doubt wether or nto that is still true.
I'll finsh this later bell rang.
|
|
livinitup
Broken-in Plebe
In God I trust
Posts: 69
|
Post by livinitup on Apr 20, 2004 10:34:02 GMT -5
Many people believe that 'Swingers' couples that have sexual intercourse are morally wrong - there are no laws against that. ehh is it not Adultry? This is where the problem that i have previously stated comes in, The government is rulled by the people. The Majority of the people say its wrong. Yes there is a minority who think its ok. So if congress needs a majority vote to change something, now we have our problem correct? So Now what makes a person feel one way or another, i would say their morals and what they have grown up around additional comments are welcome... ok so now the majority believes its wrong, i am one of those people, so until you can either A change the majority...BTW your doing a good job, accept your not talking on a large enough scale, or B change the rules in congress... So that is the reasons the states have, they are keeping the Majority happy, yes yes the government should treate everyone fairly, but what would happen if you pissed off the majority? 2 things they could use the law and work past the government impeach people to get what they feel is right. OR Civil War, I dont some of the things that go on in government, the problem is the majority does, i accept them and move on. Not only will this happen but also it will create a slippery slope, regardless of what some people say, there will be people out there that will use the homosexual acts to get what they want. As i have stated in previous posts. So untill Homosexuals are more accepted by the community as a whole nothing will happen, this is just a fact.
|
|
|
Post by BaalShemRa on Apr 20, 2004 11:30:13 GMT -5
Livin,
"ehh is it not Adultry?" When was someone punished in the US for having sex outside of marriage ( not for entering into more than one marriage contract )?
"2 things they could use the law and work past the government impeach people to get what they feel is right." If they use the law, they won't work past the government.
"or B change the rules in congress..." Now, while you're talking about procedures. Are you familiar with Montesquieu? As in the seperation of powers. Also, can you see the difference between a purely majoritarian democracy and a constitutional democracy/republic?
"So untill Homosexuals are more accepted by the community as a whole nothing will happen" Nothing will happen? How about the anti-sodomy law that was overturned?
In the South in the 50s/60s, a lot of people were against integration, yet it happened anyway. Your "just a fact" is not factual.
"there will be people out there that will use the homosexual acts to get what they want" What? What are you thinking about precisely?
"IE its not natural, nature did not intend for 2 men to mate or 2 women " Nature has intentions? You could make the same argument against heterosexual oral sex. I'm not hearing many people who want to ban that though.
"i think it can be very socially hurtful for a kid growing up in a straight society to be raised by a gay couple"
The "it hasn't been done so it shouldn't be done" argument. As others have pointed out, if the social change isn't made, people will never grow accustomed to it and it will always be perceived as marginal. Just as children of interracial couples once were ( and still are to some extent ). Again, I'm not hearing you complain about interracial marriages.
"The definition of marrage is union between a man and a woman" That definition is contingent. One could also claim that it's the union of a man and a woman for life. Let's make divorce illegal, eh? Under any condition, including abuse.
"As far as the tax breaks go, they are ment for heterosexuals for the simple fact they are TAX breaks for the couples kids. The goverment gives tax breaks to allocate more money for the children in the family." Then give tax breaks which are proportional with the number of children the family has, not with marriage.
"Okies Gay people are now allowed to marry, well you know I love my dog so much, i care about it and i want to marry my dog so now im gonna protest for human animal marriage" Since marriage is a contract and that a contract can only be entered into by free agents, your dog would be left out.
"Regarding the point about homosexual adoption, I just feel its ethically wrong, if they want a kid get it naturally, else dont plan on getting one." If you apply that logic consistently, then you should be against infertuile couples adopting. Actually, you should be against all adoptions.
"As for the case with the couple not being able to produce ofspring due to complications the point is that they can when everything funtions procreate."
Whether or not it should fonction isn't germane to the argument. The fact is that some heterosexuals can't. You takled about people who cannot have children, that includes infertile heterosexuals whether you like it or not.
"Would you not agree that having both parents influence IE man and woman influence helps to grow a healthy child." As Pie pointed out, two fathers or two mothers is better than no fathers and no mothers.
"Also what happens if one of his friends thinks its funny and decides to laugh at the 11 year old...at this age it can be quite tramattic (sp)" Again, the same argument can be used against interracial couples but I'm not hearing that from you.
"In nature will you agree that Sex is used for reproduction? Nature uses sex to procreate." That is one way animals use sex. Pleasure is another. Bonobos frequently have homosexual sex. Before you start saying "it's not because animals do it that we should", let me remind you that it is you who talked about how nature uses sex, that means animals.
"I think its crap and discrimination but society deems it ok." heh, because most people thin it's ok it's ok.
"My Point No matter what you will always have discrimination... Its a fundamental flaw in human society." Because it's a regularity in human history, it's ok. Are you willing to apply that to murder? Is murder moral? There will always be murder, so I guess it's ok, eh?
"Anarchy is no system of goverment IE we are free to do what ever we please. So the more stuff we deem ok the closser we come. That is with everything not just homosexuality." According ot your logic then, we should live in a totalitarian society. Then, we would be as far away as it possible from anarchy. To allow something is to get closer to anarchy, we should not get closer to anarchy, so we should not allow anything.
Your logic would make capitalism illegal, since free entreprise is one thing that is allowed, and thus gets us closer to anarchy. I'm guessing you,re not a communist.
Ya know, maybe the reason you didn't get into college is because you're such a horribly spelling troglodyte.
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on Apr 20, 2004 12:12:28 GMT -5
livinitup
Yes, I agree that reproduction is a part of nature. Do you agree that sexual pleasure is also natural?
livinitup
By banning gay marriage, aren't you forcing them into a situation where they must have sex before marriage?
livinitup
I respect your right to base your actions and morals on your religious ideas and upbringing. But you are stepping over the line when you are trying to force your views onto others through government bans on things that don't affect you.
livinitup
Infertile couples cannot procreate because their bodies do not function properly. That puts infertile heterosexual couples in the same position as homosexual couples. Both are not able to procreate but both can still have sex.
livinitup
Single parent and step families are more than matters of balancing equations. Depending on the custodial arrangement, the equation may not be balanced at all with a step parent.
I'd actually like to retract my statement that children would be better off in gay two-parent families than in single parent families. I believe children, if raised properly, can fare equally well in both situations. Of course, the variables might be different for each family but I think it can be done.
But I do still believe that children without parents (dependents of the state) would fare better ina family of any type (gay or straight). Why should homosexuals wishing to adopt be prevented from doing so?
livinitup
There is truth to the fact that the involvement of both genders is influential in a child's psychological development. But this doesn't mean that a gay couple will negatively affect the child. It only means that the child's development might be affected differently.
livinitup
I admit to making an assumption here. But I'm assuming that, if the child fears the social implications of having gay parents, that the children coming over probably already have an idea of the one child's parents.
livinitup
If you agree that tolerance must be raised, why not argue for that instead of for a ban on gay marriage?
livinitup
What I think you're driving at here (correct me if I am wrong) is that affirmative action discriminates against white people. If that is the case, your comparison doesn't quite work. I asked if it became acceptable to discriminate against a group if they are the minority. You countered by saying that you ask yourself the same question and identifying a group that you believe to be discriminated against, white people, which is the majority.
In other words, you still haven't answered my question. Does it become acceptable to discriminate against a group of people if they are a minority?
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Apr 20, 2004 13:13:57 GMT -5
Stepping in...BaalShemRa, we don't do ad hominem attacks here (as in the last line of the post two above this one). Keep to attacking the argument instead of the person, please.
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Apr 20, 2004 20:34:03 GMT -5
See what I don't get abotu adoption is they don't let you adopt if you can't have kids of your own (i.e homosexual) yet poeple that can have kids can adopt other poeple's kids they didn't want, isn't that a waste?
LIvinitup- Now a days the minority can rule the majority because the minority ussually works harder for the cause where as the majority doesn't care. And even thought the us's goverment is ruled by the poeple, there are still certian laws such as the first admandment that can not be overlooked. I also think that who cares if it is behind closed doors? And Is it really such a big deal as everyone is making it out to be? I mena look at all those couples that got married in San Fransico or Canada, did god punish us? did the world end? No I think this is a case of over-dramatising.
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on Apr 20, 2004 21:58:24 GMT -5
hey, another thought on the "having gay parents" issue.
You seem to think that that fact should make it illegal. If that is truly a problem, it should then be illegal to come out of the closet once you have kids, right?
|
|
|
Post by Griffey on Apr 20, 2004 22:24:33 GMT -5
Been following this thread loosely...
Livinitup, I have a major issue with this logic. You stated earlier that a child would benefit best from having 2 parents, one from each gender. I concede to this point, that it might be better for the child to be able to see either the male or female view on something, and especially to talk to someone of the same gender regarding something gender-specific, such as menstration. (I do NOT, however, think that women are incapable of solving physical conflicts, as you seem to imply with your argument).
However, I'd sure as hell rather have 2 same-sex parents than 1 hetero parent, much less one who dates. I have seen way too many people who have seriously been screwed up by their divorced parents dating to think that this setup is somehow more beneficial to a child than a stable relationship between two people! Having a parent who dates various people as opposed to two parents in a marriage can cause some serious psychological trauma, ie, attachment issues, jealousy, bad relationship modeling, resentment, inability to bond with these boy/girlfriends, etc. I realize that I'm not a Psy.D. and that my experiences with this are a little limited, so please feel free to correct me or bring stuff up.
Also, livinitup, if you think that some kind of potentially ephemeral relationship with an older member of the opposite sex is just as good as a permanent one, what is wrong with a same-sex couple having a "godparent" of the other gender that the child can talk to? I don't think this is out of the question, especially if said godparent was more avaliable and permanent than a boy/girlfriend of the parent.
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Apr 20, 2004 22:39:31 GMT -5
I agree Griffey. I think two steady parents is better then one with replacment parents that don't last that long. (I think when divorced parents with young kids date it is selfish, but that is off subject.)
|
|
|
Post by BaalShemRa on Apr 21, 2004 8:32:53 GMT -5
Yaw,
Alright, I'll be a good boy.
|
|