Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[Sly_Wizard]

Marriage is a socially and legally binding contract between individuals. Denial of this "basic civil right"[1] creates a clear discrimination and removes the right to equal protection. Legalizing gay marriage will help to curb discrimination and homophobia in a similar way that legalizing interracial marriage will help to curb racism.

 

 

 

It was only a matter of time until someone decided to quote Loving versus Virginia. Oh well... Since you want to reference Supreme Court decisions, enter Baker versus Nelson in which the courts specifically rejected the notion that "the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons" and therefore, rejected the case all together.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

 

 

 

Legalization of gay marriage also helps to separate church from state, removing the religious undertones of the "Man and Woman" morality.

 

 

 

...That's a complete stretch if I ever did hear one, specifically given the fact you can't find a law in the U.S. which bans gay marriage on account of religion.

 

 

 

I'm curious to understand your reasons for not wanting to legalize gay marriage. More specifically, what is the basis on which it should be prohibited (or remain unsanctioned)? Other than, of course, the destruction of beloved "tradition." :)

 

 

 

This isn't the way it works. Since you want to legalize something, you have to provide the rationale upon which to do so. As I said, I don't care, but I get tired of people whining as if they're being denied a fundamental right when, in fact, they aren't.

 

 

 

This is irrelevant to the question of gay rights. It's also strikingly similar to the beginnings of a slippery slope argument.

 

 

 

1.) Marriage is not a right *See above* and

 

 

 

2.) It's not a slippery slope to point out that gays are not specifically discriminated against since the government does not issue marriage licenses to everyone.

[Zierro]

It was only a matter of time until someone decided to quote Loving versus Virginia. Oh well... Since you want to reference Supreme Court decisions, enter Baker versus Nelson in which the courts specifically rejected the notion that "the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons" and therefore, rejected the case all together.

 

 

 

You know, if you didn't hide behind precedents and technicalities of definitions you wouldn't have much of an argument at all. And yeah I know Venomai referenced a precedent too but even without it, his point would still make logical sense. You just seem to be going by the book no matter what it says.

 

 

 

This isn't the way it works. Since you want to legalize something, you have to provide the rationale upon which to do so. As I said, I don't care, but I get tired of people whining as if they're being denied a fundamental right when, in fact, they aren't.

 

 

 

Yeah and you completely ignored the rationales over and over again. All you need to do to debunk the "gay is wrong" argument is ask the question "What is so wrong about it?". Not once have I seen an answer which isn't completely ridiculous. Isn't the fact that we get no good answers an acceptable rationale within itself?

 

 

 

 

I don't play the "Everything is relative/subjective game". You should know that by now.

 

 

 

You should know by now that most of us here don't play the "everything is objective" game.

[folmer_veeman]

call me ignorant, but i think it's wrong.. i mean, why is there no way to procreate for homosexuals (well a natural way at least), right, because god/evolution/whatever ruled it out!

 

So then sex should only be for people who want to(and have the ability) to bear children and everyone else shouldn't?

 

 

 

No, but have you ever seen a homosexual monkey or other humanoid? No, because their goal is to procreate, that goal can't be made with homosexuality, thus they only have heterosexuality.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think homosexuals are like, freaks of nature, but I do think they shouldn't be allowed to marry. It's just one step too far...

[magekillr]

call me ignorant, but i think it's wrong.. i mean, why is there no way to procreate for homosexuals (well a natural way at least), right, because god/evolution/whatever ruled it out!

 

So then sex should only be for people who want to(and have the ability) to bear children and everyone else shouldn't?

 

 

 

No, but have you ever seen a homosexual monkey or other humanoid? No, because their goal is to procreate, that goal can't be made with homosexuality, thus they only have heterosexuality.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think homosexuals are like, freaks of nature, but I do think they shouldn't be allowed to marry. It's just one step too far...

 

 

 

Yes, yes I have:

 

 

 

[folmer_veeman]

call me ignorant, but i think it's wrong.. i mean, why is there no way to procreate for homosexuals (well a natural way at least), right, because god/evolution/whatever ruled it out!

 

So then sex should only be for people who want to(and have the ability) to bear children and everyone else shouldn't?

 

 

 

No, but have you ever seen a homosexual monkey or other humanoid? No, because their goal is to procreate, that goal can't be made with homosexuality, thus they only have heterosexuality.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think homosexuals are like, freaks of nature, but I do think they shouldn't be allowed to marry. It's just one step too far...

 

 

 

Yes, yes I have:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry my youtube doesn't work :wall:

[Sly_Wizard]

You know, if you didn't hide behind precedents and technicalities of definitions you wouldn't have much of an argument at all. And yeah I know Venomai referenced a precedent too but even without it, his point would still make logical sense. You just seem to be going by the book no matter what it says.

 

 

 

Ooo... So now I only have an argument because I hide behind precedents and technicalities, huh?

 

 

 

I'm bored, so let's see how much "logical sense" his argument makes. He starts off by stating that marriage is a "basic civil right" and proceeds to copy and paste a quote by SCOTUS stating as much. Now, take away the quote by SCOTUS (Since it's both a legal precedent and a technicality) and try to tell me why marriage is a "basic civil right"? Can't do it, can you? Oh, you can try, but you'll have no legitimate basis upon which to make that claim except "You think" which, last I checked, holds about the same weight as the phrase "I think". Buuut... That's not really all that important or anything. Nope. Your argument happens to be based upon actuality.

 

 

 

Oh, and for what it's worth, I think that running people over with my car is a "basic civil right", too, but that doesn't make it as such.

 

 

 

Yeah and you completely ignored the rationales over and over again. All you need to do to debunk the "gay is wrong" argument is ask the question "What is so wrong about it?". Not once have I seen an answer which isn't completely ridiculous. Isn't the fact that we get no good answers an acceptable rationale within itself?

 

 

 

Here's the problem: You don't have a rationale, much less one to ignore. I made this point before, but I'll do it again.

 

 

 

1.) Marriage is not a right and

 

2.) Gays are not being discriminated against anymore than the other groups who are not permitted to get a marriage license anymore than those people who are not granted driver's license. But you'll most certainly claim otherwise without actually proving as much.

 

 

 

You should know by now that most of us here don't play the "everything is objective" game.

 

 

 

And I also know that a lot of you don't happen to live in the real world (That's got a double meaning for those good enough to figure it out).

[magekillr]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/us/07 ... ref=slogin

 

 

 

Somehow, social conservatives still manage to hurt our economy, even when their political views about things like marriage technically have nothing to do with economic political ideology.

 

 

 

A week before Election Day, Christopher Burnetts floral shop filled an order for one of the many same-sex weddings he has worked in the last five months: eight corsages, a dozen boutonnieres and two bouquets for the two brides, each with three dozen roses.

 

 

 

Now, Mr. Burnett said, since Tuesdays voter approval of Proposition 8, which amended the states Constitution to recognize only marriages between men and women, that type of business is gone.

 

 

 

I have done a gay wedding every week, he said. And so its very disheartening, because other business is very slow.

 

 

 

Even as opponents of the measure officially conceded defeat on Thursday, California business owners particularly those in the marriage business were trying to determine how many wedding cakes would now go unsold and how many tuxedos unrented.

 

 

 

Arturo Cobos, a manager at Kard Zone in the citys traditionally gay Castro neighborhood, said he had done big sales of same-sex wedding cards and other trinkets since marriages began in June, but had recently stopped stocking new goods.

 

 

 

We were afraid that they would pass Proposition 8, Mr. Bobos said, and thats exactly what happened."

 

 

 

.............

 

 

 

"In June, the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, which studies sexual orientation and the law, estimated that legalizing same-sex ceremonies in the state would result in about $63.8 million in government tax and fee revenue over three years."

[Howlin0001]

call me ignorant, but i think it's wrong.. i mean, why is there no way to procreate for homosexuals (well a natural way at least), right, because god/evolution/whatever ruled it out!

 

So then sex should only be for people who want to(and have the ability) to bear children and everyone else shouldn't?

 

 

 

No, but have you ever seen a homosexual monkey or other humanoid? No, because their goal is to procreate, that goal can't be made with homosexuality, thus they only have heterosexuality.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think homosexuals are like, freaks of nature, but I do think they shouldn't be allowed to marry. It's just one step too far...

 

 

 

Yes, yes I have:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry my youtube doesn't work :wall:

 

 

 

Ok here's an extract form wiki

 

 

 

Homosexual, as well as bisexual, behavior is widespread in the animal kingdom. Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species and the motivations for and implications of their behaviors have yet to be fully understood as most species have yet to be studied.[3] A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.[4][5]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

[Ginger_Warrior]

[hide=]

call me ignorant, but i think it's wrong.. i mean, why is there no way to procreate for homosexuals (well a natural way at least), right, because god/evolution/whatever ruled it out!

 

So then sex should only be for people who want to(and have the ability) to bear children and everyone else shouldn't?

 

 

 

No, but have you ever seen a homosexual monkey or other humanoid? No, because their goal is to procreate, that goal can't be made with homosexuality, thus they only have heterosexuality.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think homosexuals are like, freaks of nature, but I do think they shouldn't be allowed to marry. It's just one step too far...

 

 

 

Yes, yes I have:

 

 

 

[/hide]

 

Sorry my youtube doesn't work :wall:

 

Why stop at monkeys?

 

New Scientist[/url]":kaz3he6z]For 10 years [bruce] Bagemihl scoured the scientific literature, unearthing documented cases of same-sex encounters with apparent sexual significance. He also contacted scores of researchers to add details not included in published papers. The result is a species-by-species profile of more than 470 species. "Most are mammals and birds," says Bagemihl, "but perhaps only because I didn't have time to go further."

 

Evolution has nothing to do with homosexuality. Saying it is "unnatural" due to a lack of procreation is a totally redundant point.

[Yomyth105]

I havent posted in this thread for a while now. I just dont understand how it can be wrong or right. Being gay doesnt mean that u wake up one morning and decide that u r going to like men. It is totally in genetics and if u r attracted to men u sir are gay. u cant become straight or anything because thats who u r. So when u ask whether its wrong or right. It seems wrong to many because its not common and in our opinion dont believe that u should be attracted to ur own gender. It seems right to gays because there is nothing wrong with it. Now the real question is are gay marriages right or wrong?

 

 

 

personally i think gays should be gays and whatnot but im not supporting it.

[venomai]

Oh well... Since you want to reference Supreme Court decisions, enter Baker versus Nelson in which the courts specifically rejected the notion that "the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons" and therefore, rejected the case all together.

 

And other Supreme Court rulings (e.g. California, May 2008) have declared that denying marriage to same-sex couples is unconstitutional. We can play this game all night. :lol:

 

 

 

Although you claim that "marriage is not a right", a number of cases have recognized it as a clear right to the person (Loving v. Virginia, Hernandez v. Robles, Zablocki v. Redhail, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, Perez v. Sharp, even Baker v. Nelson). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also agrees that we "have the right to marry and to found a family" and that "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."[1]

 

 

 

Quite simply, marriage -- traditionally defined in the West as the union between consenting opposite-sex, same-race adults who are not too closely related -- is a fundamental right in any free society.

 

 

 

Racism throughout the 19th and 20th centuries strongly influenced Western society. The same-race condition was eventually extinguished from the "tradition" of marriage due to it being too discriminatory (in the United States, the overturning of anti-miscegenation laws reflected this change). A similar change is occurring now, as society continues to move forward, and as the definition of marriage continues to broaden.

 

 

 

you can't find a law in the U.S. which bans gay marriage on account of religion.

 

Perhaps it's a stretch, but by no means do religious undertones need to be explicitly defined for them to exist.

 

 

 

Since you want to legalize something, you have to provide the rationale upon which to do so.

 

An act that is not prohibited by law is, by default, legal. Prohibition of something is the first to require a rationale, not legalization.

 

 

 

It's not a slippery slope to point out that gays are not specifically discriminated against since the government does not issue marriage licenses to everyone.

 

Nope, that obviously isn't slippery slope. Of course, trying to then suggest that we must also make exceptions for all other discriminated groups would be a slippery slope.

[Bloodstain]

It is totally in genetics and if u r attracted to men u sir are gay. u cant become straight or anything because thats who u r.

 

 

 

I haven't read any of the thread but what the [bleep]? Being gay is genetic? So people inherit a gay or not gay gene now? This has never been proven and you need to read up on it some more. There are other factors, like environment (big one), genetics MIGHT play a part in it, MIGHT, but it isn't the driving factor

 

 

 

Anyway, to be somewhat on topic I guess, we discussed the topic of gay marriage in my Criminal Justice class and about how it is against Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms

 

 

 

Equality Rights

 

Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

[MirageOfDeath]

I havent posted in this thread for a while now. I just dont understand how it can be wrong or right. Being gay doesnt mean that u wake up one morning and decide that u r going to like men. It is totally in genetics and if u r attracted to men u sir are gay. u cant become straight or anything because thats who u r. So when u ask whether its wrong or right. It seems wrong to many because its not common and in our opinion dont believe that u should be attracted to ur own gender. It seems right to gays because there is nothing wrong with it. Now the real question is are gay marriages right or wrong?

 

 

 

personally i think gays should be gays and whatnot but im not supporting it.

 

I kinda agree with you. I'm not against gays doing whatever it is they like to do, but it's unfair for them to expect the church to marry them. It's like a black person complaining he can't get membership in the Klan. (That analogy is probably not the most perfect one but I hope you know what I meant.)

[venomai]

MirageOfDeath - Many gay couples would like the same legal and social benefits that can be attained through heterosexual marriage. Oftentimes there is little care for the actual religious aspects of the union.

[MirageOfDeath]

Venomai, I'm not against civil union. But I'm under the impression some gays hate the church because they won't marry them, correct me if I'm wrong.

[Bloodstain]

I havent posted in this thread for a while now. I just dont understand how it can be wrong or right. Being gay doesnt mean that u wake up one morning and decide that u r going to like men. It is totally in genetics and if u r attracted to men u sir are gay. u cant become straight or anything because thats who u r. So when u ask whether its wrong or right. It seems wrong to many because its not common and in our opinion dont believe that u should be attracted to ur own gender. It seems right to gays because there is nothing wrong with it. Now the real question is are gay marriages right or wrong?

 

 

 

personally i think gays should be gays and whatnot but im not supporting it.

 

I kinda agree with you. I'm not against gays doing whatever it is they like to do, but it's unfair for them to expect the church to marry them. It's like a black person complaining he can't get membership in the Klan. (That analogy is probably not the most perfect one but I hope you know what I meant.)

 

 

 

I always found it funny that "god" condemns homosexuality but is perfectly ok with slavery

[MirageOfDeath]

I always found it funny that "god" condemns homosexuality but is perfectly ok with slavery

 

I don't see how that post had anything to do with mine...

[Zierro]

I'm bored, so let's see how much "logical sense" his argument makes. He starts off by stating that marriage is a "basic civil right" and proceeds to copy and paste a quote by SCOTUS stating as much. Now, take away the quote by SCOTUS (Since it's both a legal precedent and a technicality) and try to tell me why marriage is a "basic civil right"? Can't do it, can you? Oh, you can try, but you'll have no legitimate basis upon which to make that claim except "You think" which, last I checked, holds about the same weight as the phrase "I think". Buuut... That's not really all that important or anything. Nope. Your argument happens to be based upon actuality.

 

 

 

You're just pulling straws now. Instead of even trying to comprehend the point he was making, you just go for the "basic civil right" argument. This is what I meant about hiding behind a technicality. :lol:

 

 

 

Oh, and for what it's worth, I think that running people over with my car is a "basic civil right", too, but that doesn't make it as such.

 

 

 

Since when does homosexual marriage even come close to murder? Please don't ignore the question as usual. I'd love to hear an answer.

 

 

 

Here's the problem: You don't have a rationale, much less one to ignore. I made this point before, but I'll do it again.

 

 

 

Look harder, maybe you'll see it eventually.

 

 

 

1.) Marriage is not a right and

 

2.) Gays are not being discriminated against anymore than the other groups who are not permitted to get a marriage license anymore than those people who are not granted driver's license. But you'll most certainly claim otherwise without actually proving as much.

 

 

 

God, that's the biggest strawman I've ever seen, and this is coming from Zierro. They are being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. No matter how you want to look at it, that's what it all comes down to. Being gay =/= failing a driving test.

 

 

 

And I also know that a lot of you don't happen to live in the real world (That's got a double meaning for those good enough to figure it out).

 

 

 

And you should also know that you're not the only person on this real world.

[Sly_Wizard]

You're just pulling straws now. Instead of even trying to comprehend the point he was making, you just go for the "basic civil right" argument. This is what I meant about hiding behind a technicality. :lol:

 

 

 

...What? Apparently you totally FAIL to recognize that it's your "side" of the argument that consistently mentions mentions marriage as a "right" and/or as a "basic civil right to man". And, since you still haven't grasped what's being said to you, I guess I'll try just one more time.

 

 

 

Marriage is a social institution. It's not a right nor is it an act of God. It's something invented by society and therefore defined by society. Marriage is a term, or definition, or state, or whatever term you want to use for the institution, which is conferred by some ceremony recognized as legitimate in the society. And since society defines what marriage is, then you must accept the definition of that society, otherwise marriage is no longer a social construct.

 

 

 

Since when does homosexual marriage even come close to murder? Please don't ignore the question as usual. I'd love to hear an answer.

 

 

 

No one was equating the two?

 

 

 

Look harder, maybe you'll see it eventually.

 

 

 

No matter how hard you look, you can't find what isn't there.

 

 

 

God, that's the biggest strawman I've ever seen, and this is coming from Zierro. They are being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. No matter how you want to look at it, that's what it all comes down to. Being gay =/= failing a driving test.

 

 

 

Hooray for not understanding what a straw man is! I thought my last post was pretty self-explanatory but, alas, I guess I'll try again one more time.

 

 

 

You cannot cry "discrimination" because all laws are "discriminatory" (Key point!!!), and are enacted as well as enforced by that society based on a consensus of what best benefits that society. Gays are "discriminated" against the same way anyone who does not agree with a law is "discriminated" against, whether it be someone wanting to drive 70 mph in a 40 mph zone (Isn't it their right to go as fast as they want where and when they want?) or a person wanting to be a murderer (Isn't it their right to do what they want, how they want, to whomever they want?).

 

 

 

Let's see if you ignore it this time.

 

 

 

And you should also know that you're not the only person on this real world.

 

 

 

Apparently I am. You seem to live in some world where everyone has "equal rights". If there were such a world, what would be the need for laws?

[Zierro]

Marriage is a social institution. It's not a right nor is it an act of God. It's something invented by society and therefore defined by society. Marriage is a term, or definition, or state, or whatever term you want to use for the institution, which is conferred by some ceremony recognized as legitimate in the society. And since society defines what marriage is, then you must accept the definition of that society, otherwise marriage is no longer a social construct.

 

 

 

Has it ever occurred to you that society is wrong for disallowing gay marriages though? The point we're trying to make is that there is no reasonable rationale of why it should be banned. I just don't understand why you're so set on keeping things the way they are. You have no rationale to do so. I mean, are you trying to say that terms shouldn't be altered? Societies evolve, so should definitions.

 

 

 

No one was equating the two?

 

 

 

Then could you explain why you even brought that up in the first place?

 

 

 

No matter how hard you look, you can't find what isn't there.

 

 

 

Oh you mean like the reason of why homosexual marriage is wrong? :mrgreen:

 

 

 

Hooray for not understanding what a straw man is! I thought my last post was pretty self-explanatory but, alas, I guess I'll try again one more time

 

 

 

You cannot cry "discrimination" because all laws are "discriminatory" (Key point!!!), and are enacted as well as enforced by that society based on a consensus of what best benefits that society. Gays are "discriminated" against the same way anyone who does not agree with a law is "discriminated" against, whether it be someone wanting to drive 70 mph in a 40 mph zone (Isn't it their right to go as fast as they want where and when they want?) or a person wanting to be a murderer (Isn't it their right to do what they want, how they want, to whomever they want?).

 

 

 

Again, gay =/= bad driving/murder. Please, for the sake of your own credibility, try to understand that.

 

 

 

If bad driving is wrong, there has to be a reason - like you said "best benefits society". Bad driving is wrong because you can hurt others. We don't allow bad drivers to have licenses because it benefits society (less people are hurt in crashes). If homosexual marriage is wrong, there has to be a reason of how banning it is beneficial to society, but you fail to give us one.

[J a m e s]

All the things that are wrong with gay marriage are equally wrong to all the things wrong with regular marriage.

 

 

 

And to all Christians who think homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so: Did you know that Christians divorce at a far higher rate than atheists?

[Ginger_Warrior]

And to all Christians who think homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so: Did you know that Christians divorce at a far higher rate than atheists?

 

Yes, but as we all know, Atheists are more likely to commit suicide as a result of a divorce, stupid. Just accept marriage and homosexuality is wrong 'coz God says so. It makes perfect sense. If you say otherwise, you're just persecuting people who follow God.

[Cyco_Reborn]

Here are the lyrics to Anti-Homophobe by Brutal Truth, enjoy:

 

 

 

Ignorant in thought.

 

Distorts your twisted values.

 

Break your ancient chains.

 

And part with the ways of the past.

 

You don't have the right.

 

To force you own opinion.

 

You don't understand.

 

So you have to lash out.

 

Anti - homophobe.

 

We believe in freedom.

 

Whatever turns you on.

 

Life is short and full of woe.

 

So you have yourself a blast.

 

I may not be gay.

 

But I don't care if you are.

 

Live your life in peace.

 

And [bleep] them if they laugh.

[J a m e s]

And to all Christians who think homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so: Did you know that Christians divorce at a far higher rate than atheists?

 

Yes, but as we all know, Atheists are more likely to commit suicide as a result of a divorce, stupid. Just accept marriage and homosexuality is wrong 'coz God says so. It makes perfect sense. If you say otherwise, you're just persecuting people who follow God.

 

 

 

It doesn't make sense at all. God, according to Christians, gave us free will for a reason. Just because your fairy tale God tells you to believe something doesn't mean a large sector of the human population should suffer discrimination.

 

 

 

Oh, and yes, I am persecuting people for believing in God. A real all-loving God wouldn't have created gay people who are automatically guarenteed to eternity in hell.

[Utopianflame]

And to all Christians who think homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so: Did you know that Christians divorce at a far higher rate than atheists?

 

Yes, but as we all know, Atheists are more likely to commit suicide as a result of a divorce, stupid. Just accept marriage and homosexuality is wrong 'coz God says so. It makes perfect sense. If you say otherwise, you're just persecuting people who follow God.

 

 

 

It doesn't make sense at all. God, according to Christians, gave us free will for a reason. Just because your fairy tale God tells you to believe something doesn't mean a large sector of the human population should suffer discrimination.

 

 

 

Oh, and yes, I am persecuting people for believing in God. A real all-loving God wouldn't have created gay people who are automatically guarenteed to eternity in hell.

 

 

 

I think you need to take your sarcasm meter in for some repairs.