POLL: Gay Marriage and Homosexuality

Remove all ads!

Wouldn't you rather marry one of them?

 

Free tube children for everyone? Sperm banks and substitute mothers? Oh dear...

 

Maybe you missed the preceding line?

"I'm not saying it's a desired state of affairs"

It wasn't so much of an argument as me being pedantic.


Syv,

No, I took part in the previous "natural" or not bit. That's why I was admitting that this was totally unnatural in case you thought otherwise.

 

Balle, you would only be invited to video tape the wedding and the reception, not the honeymoon.

Syv, I sure as hell would want to marry one of them...

 

My question is this: If homosexuals were allowed civil unions, how would this hurt anyone?

If the reply is the children they raise will be disenfranchised, that arguement has been shown to be untrue by numerous studies.

So outside of religious convictions (invalid as enforcable law -- see Jewish pork banning), and lacking a case for showing homosexual unions are inferior in any way to heterosexual unions (surrogate mothers, equal parenting skills, equal social mobility), what case, beside subjective disapproval, can be made against their right to equivalency as human pairs?

 

The equivalent parenting is still up in the air. The pro-homosexuals will cite numerous studies that show no difference, the con-homosexuals will cite numerous studies that show great differences. The problem is, it is almost impossible to make a study of this subject that is entirely accurate and unbiased, especially at this point in the game.
The two real issues that come up are:
1.) Is homosexuality moral? This opens a whole can of worms about who's morality you use and such.
2.) Does one group, even a vast majority, have the right to force their moral views of right and wrong onto another, even a vast minority, that is otherwise integrated into society? And if that doesn't open a can of worms!

 

In response to the two points of NOG:

1: Those that believe it is immoral (myself included) will fight to defend that point. When you consider what we believe to be at stake, There is no room to compromise there.

2: What do you think laws are? If a minoroty thought there was nothing wrong with stealing or killing, would we then be required to change our laws to allow this? Hell no. The same reasoning ought to apply to same sex marriage, but our politicians on Canada didn't see it that way...

 

Whaddaya mean "if"? Don't you have crime in Canada?

 

Yes, but we don't change out law to accomodate them. By that, we should have the right to say that something is against the morals we put in place, therefore we will not allow it.

 

His point is that a minority do think there is nothing wrong with stealing/killing and yet you haven't had to change your laws because of it.

Simple difference: Stealing/Killing has a victim. Homosexuality doesn't.

 

Using Crack cocaine is illegal. It is considered a victimized crime. I don't see it being legalized any time soon. I think that every country makes a moral stand, one way or the other. Those that object are free to leave, which I would strongly consider myself if I could find work elsewhere...

 

I just always assumed I was straight...until that fateful day when I received a hernia test from Dr. Palsy.

 

Gnarf

I'm confused, did you mean victimless and were trying to contradict me? Otherwise it supports my point: There is a victim, therefore it shouldn't be legalised.

The problem with any addictive drugs is that they are directly responsible for other crimes - and therefore there are victims directly associated with it. This applies to a greater extent to the more addictive drugs than to the lesser ones which is why you can see a difference in which are legal and which are illegal. Why? Because addicted users have to find money to feed their next fix. Of course you still have crime associated with the lesser addictful and legal drugs such as alcohol and tobbaco as well.

The other point of course is that Crack Cocaine users are victims themselves and are extremely likely to end up in hospital. The same can't be said of merely being a homosexual.

 

What about the people who get AIDS? They're victims. Or the people who are forced into being rent boys, homeless boys and such. they should be classed the same as protitutes. Everyone says prostitutes are victims

 

Is this an intentional red-herring?

These are a purely homosexual issue how?
Being Homosexual does not necesitate that you are rent boy or prostitute or that you would use them. It does not mean you will get AIDS. Heterosexual people get AIDS, Heterosexual people are prostitutes. There's been a case in London with teenage foreign girls being brough over from Eastern europe and forced into prostitution. Are other heterosexuals victimised by this? Do you want to ban Heterosexual relationships because of this? I don't think so.

We are also talking about marriage. Care to explain how the chance of getting AIDS in a monogomous homosexual relationship are any different to that in a heterosexual relationship?

[ October 06, 2005, 18:21: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

Shell's point is that Homosexuals (not all, but there is a strong perceived link) put themselves at great risk and there are cases of crime committed by these people. Since you kept crack cocaine illegal under those grounds, Homosexuality ought to be banned for the same reasons. Think of it as one pervert screwing things up for the rest of those that identify themselves as gay.

 

I don't understand this at all. It seems like there are two separate statements here. This first part is true, but the second part isn't. It is true that all other factors being equal, being homosexual does put you in a higher risk group for getting AIDS as being single. I'm not saying that most homosexuals have AIDS (actually the opposite is true - there are many more heterosexual people with AIDS than homosexual), but the percent of HIV positive people is higher in the homosexual population. The key factor here though is "all things being equal". A heterosexual person who has unprotected sex with multiple partners is at a much higher risk than a homosexual in a monogamous relationship.

It's really the second part that I'm confused by. The part about "there are crimes committed by these people." While it is certainly true that homosexuals commit crimes like this, I do not think it is something that is exclusive to homosexuals. Don't heterosexuals commit many of these same crimes?

 

Self-mutilation "doesn't". Fetishism "doesn't".

The whole gay rights movement victimises gay people by telling them their condition is proper and they should fight to legalise what preference comes out of it instead of concentrating on treatment.

 

I didnt read all 8 pages, but I would still like to comment, hopefully people haven't already said some of the same things:

1. Chevalier mentionioned homosexuality is a sickness.
Are you kidding?! You are calling a feeling (whether love or lust) a sickness? So if I'm cold (another feeling), then i'm sick?

Although, what i just said could possibly be stretching it a little (my not-so-great analogy). But still, A SICKNESS? COME ON!

2. Screw the church and what they think. Period. If you think that gay marriage is bad, fine, but don't give "The Church" as a reason. They are corrupt (look at any European history), and, well, i just don't like them. Screw 'em.

3. Its America, aren't people supposed to be allowed to do what they want as long it doesn't restrict people's freedom, life, or property? Well, by saying people can't marry because they are homosexual, you are restricting their freedom.

4. Personally, i think homosexuality and homosexual marriage is wonderful. I see nothing wrong with people who are attracted to people of the same sex, and i think it's great if homosexual people are comfortable with their sexual preference.

 

Gnarf,

No, you legislate against rape and paedophilia, or surprise, surprise you already have.
Otherwise you may as well legislate against all heterosexual men for one rapist bastard screwing it up for everyone else. From what I understand of crack cocaine, although it may be easy to start a habit without recourse to crime, the chances are you're not going to be able to hold down your job, at which point you have an addiction with no way to fund it and therefore will resort to crime. The legislation is intended to prevent people becoming victims. Making homosexuality illegal isn't going to stop rapists and paedophiles in any way shape or form.

Chev,
Actually I agree, strictly speaking self-mutilation doesn't have a victim, though the participant may well have been the victim of something else. With exception to sadism, Fetishes don't create victims (except in an accidental, Autoerotic asphyxia has claimed a Tory mp and a high ranking member of the BNP amongst others) I don't have a problem with fetishists, people dressing up in leather or rubber, or going to Nudist camps. To be honest I don't even think of it on a day to day basis. Do you? Are you recommending that such people are legislated against?

On one of the other threads I've listed the beliefs of the MAJORITY of specialists in the field who say that homosexuality isn't a disease, it isn't a disorder and that treatment doesn't work and is actually likely to be more detrimental. Yet you persist in ignoring the prevailing beliefs of the medical fraternity without any evidence what-so-ever.