Gay marriage

Gay Marriages should be allowed-

  • No- Marriage is something gays should not be allowed to enjoy. Gays are unfit for the purpose of mar

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes- Marriage is more than a sacrament, but a civil right of family that everyone is entitled too re

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes- Marriage is about love and the right to love who you want, and therefore is an expression of th

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Who cares? Frankly, marriage is an out-dated concept anyway.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Who cares? Frankly I don't care what you suck as long as I don't have to smell your breath

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    133
Ah but that is the problem. Homosexuals do not, currently, get the same protections against classification schemes as do race, ethnicity, religion, national origins or even gender. In fact, they get only the weakest form of protection - rational basis.

Thus the government must show there is no rational basis for discriminating against gays as against others. This is a very easy standard for the government to pass. I would venture that if the government could offer some proof that there is a rational basis of the state to encourage child bearing throught marriage, than perhaps that rational basis might pass.

As for pedophilia, incest, yes- those are considered deviant forms of behavior. I would also believe that the risks of harm to the individuals would be taken into consideration.

But what about an incestful relationship in which the couple do not seek to have children? By the way (spoiler here) if you have seen the film Lone Star, this comes up.

But then what about beastiality- if its not covered in law, than there is no reason not to. Furthermore, who is getting hurt? The dog? But animals have no civil rights.

I know, this is a bit too kinky, but the idea here is what is considered deviant can change, but the question is how much change are we willing to allow.
 
Ah, I didn't know that. This is why I don't participate in a lot of the deeper discussions here, I tend not to check to see if the "facts" I have are actually true or not.

Well, another question: Is it how much change we will allow, or how much effort those considered deviant are willing to put forth to get us to change? I'm not too sure about the history of the movement towards equality and acceptance for gays, but I'm assuming that it is almost entirely founded and continued by gays putting the effort forth to get the public to recognize and accept them. If they weren't fighting to gain acceptance and keeping themselves in the public's eye, would this even be an issue? I.E., would the non-homosexual public ever even consider equality, non-discrimination, and marriage rights for gays if it weren't pressured to do so by the group itself?
 
It's a good point Montez. The way I have taught law in the past is to examine it as a battle of moral principle created through political processes and ideally judged through rational (if sometimes subjective) criteria.

The issue you are raising here is "would anyone have given a crap about the gays if they hadn't been active?" The same issue can be applied to both Blacks and women- their rights, and the quality of their rights has often been shaped by their willingness to get politically active to further their individual causes. It is, I think, no coincidence that the women's movement has been successful in further the interests of upper and middle class white women (marriage rights, education and opportunity) but not poorer or minorities.

To get rights you have to fight for it.

If you look at the black civil rights movement, the NAACP's great strength came from demaning equality when there was the whole "seperate but equal" nonsense- a very clever legal campaign.

But in that sense, there is an argument that the entire AIDS scare beginning in the 1980s set back gay rights about 10 years.
 
welsh said:
But in that sense, there is an argument that the entire AIDS scare beginning in the 1980s set back gay rights about 10 years.

I believe it. In elementary school the big insult was "You're a fag with AIDS!", and in junior high it was about the same. Beyond the juvenile insults, I remember people were actually honestly afraid as well. My mom had a friend who was gay, and my older brother and sister used to get extremely angry when he'd stop by the house because they were afraid of catching aids from him.

This just makes me think that since they were able to get they public to overcome the "disease ridden degenerates" stereotype, getting marriage legalized isn't going to be too big a hurdle for them.
 
Montez said:
welsh said:
But in that sense, there is an argument that the entire AIDS scare beginning in the 1980s set back gay rights about 10 years.

I believe it. In elementary school the big insult was "You're a fag with AIDS!", and in junior high it was about the same. Beyond the juvenile insults, I remember people were actually honestly afraid as well. My mom had a friend who was gay, and my older brother and sister used to get extremely angry when he'd stop by the house because they were afraid of catching aids from him.

This just makes me think that since they were able to get they public to overcome the "disease ridden degenerates" stereotype, getting marriage legalized isn't going to be too big a hurdle for them.

Yes, I remember those insults as well. My mom had friends who were dieing of AIDS during the early 90s so this was pretty memorable. The guy had discovered he had "alternative" desires, caught AIDS and gave it to his wife. Bad scene.

I even remember the AIDS wards. Most of its was homosexuals who had caught the virus. But I also remember people talking about homosexuals spitting in the greens at the grocery store, about the importance of getting a list of those infected with AIDS to protect health care workers who might get cut. I even remember the girl who caught AIDS from her dentist. SO there were a lot of fears spreading about.

As for hurdles- well there are a lot of folks on the Christian Right who think its an abomination to God. There are plenty of folks that are still thinking that its all a matter of choice. It's not like national origins, ethnicity or gender- which a person is born with. Some gays may be genetically predisposed but not all. Which is one of the reasons gays have received less protection than other classes of people.
 
welsh wrote:
If you abstract this, all laws are laws of morality. The question is a matter of degree.

good eyes, welsh.

That's true, but finding an answer to that is another matter entirely. Like you mentioned earlier, it is now becoming socially acceptable to be gay. One could say that it is now becoming morally acceptable as well. Perhaps not with certain groups of people, but it's more accepted now than it was in the 1950's.

My point is, if the perception of morality can change according to the whim of society, then what basis does any law have that regulates morality? Taking what you said, all laws can be considered laws of morality. So that would mean that if the definitions of a societies morals change, some laws wouldn't be useful or needed, and others will be added.

So now we have a constant changing basis of morality, with our laws changing to accomodate it. Your question remains though, to what degree?

Right now the government is considering allowing homosexuals to be legally married. That idea wouldn't have been well received 50 or 60 years ago. Just one example of the relationship between the perception of morality and laws. Let's say that the law is passed, or an Amendment to the Constitution. Whatever legal action neccessary to ensure gays have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. What then about incest, pedophiles, and bestiality?

montez wrote
As far as pedophilia and beastiality: Pedophilia is illegal (and will hopefully remain illegal) and beastiality is illegal in most states and is recognized as deviant even in the states where it isn't illegal - therefore these "sexual preferences" have no status before the law. There's no point in taking that line of thought any further.

If we take Montez line of thinking, then the ideas, the morality of pedophilia and beastiality will never change. They will always be considered deviant or illegal. But being homosexual was considered deviant not half a century ago, and now gay people are getting married. To say that we shouldn't "take that line of thought any further" is to stick your head in the sand and hope the problem will go away by itself. I'm sure there were many people who chose to simply ignore the gay protests and parades years ago, hoping they would go away.

I wouldn't want to see someone marry a dog or child or their sibling as much as I wouldn't want two homosexuals getting married. But that's my opinon, my perspective on morality, and not neccessarily public opinon.

But i'm getting away from my point, i think. If some of the laws of a government can change to accomodate societys changing morality, then why not all? What's stopping them from taking away freedoms instead of granting them with laws? Public opinon, political support and influence. Look at the Patriot Act that was published soon after 9/11. That infringement on civil liberties was made law because of the public opinon that supported the hunt for terrorists in America. Some may have thought that the government would have never passed a bill like that. But it doesnt surprise me a whole lot, given what we've discussed about how the publics perception of morality affects law and legal rights.

So where's the stopping point? If we lived in a truly democratic society, then there would be none. Whatever the public opinons and perceptions of morality would be, the laws would change to accomodate them. But there are many influences on the people that make the laws beyond the mere will of the people they represent. Political deception and pandering will play a role in which "morality laws" will be allowed to pass. So although I'm concerned that one day people might think it's okay to marry your dog or a child, I would hope that there are enough people in charge that think like me to make sure that doesnt happen.

Of course, the whole debate of societys morals is dependent on the morals of the person who is observing the group or society. I know that I am not completely objective. What I think is right morally, I am for. But I am willing to place the wishes of my society above my own, as far as legal concerns go. I don't agree with what the "deviants" are doing, but I will support their right to do it. That seems like a conflict between my beliefs and the ideals of my country. I don't think of it like that. I will always have my own beliefs, and no one else really cares what they are. But the ideas that my government and society are based on affect people other than myself. A whole lot of people. So there needs to be a continuing effort to make sure that those ideals, based on freedom, are redefined to accomodate the will of the people. The degree of the changes to the law, and the different perceptions of morality are dependent on the society.
 
I'll say this, and then that's it for me in this thread: A child is a human being who is not physically, mentally, or sexually mature. If they were mature in these ways, they would no longer be a child. Pedophilia is sexual attraction, by an adult, toward human beings who are not physically, mentally, or sexually mature - children. I don't think it's quite in the same class as homosexuality, the sexual attraction of one gender towards someone else of the same gender, which other than the gender issue follows all the same conventions as heterosexuality.

Edited out the rest. Sorry guys, lost my head for a second there.
 
Montez- I hope you won't take the debate as offensive, and I agree with you. There is a difference here when you talk about pedophilia- there is someone who could be harmed.

But if you step down to bestiality, than the person who gets harmed is the person who is having sex with an animal. The animal has no rights. So its a person's conduct that we regulate. Why? Because society finds it morally reprehensible. Because we don't want lots of folks in society playing with the pooch the wrong way.

Is it bad to ban bestiality- no. Frankly, I think there is something wrong with a person who wants to have sex with a goat.

Ok, lets look at incest. Ok if there are going to be kids, than sure, that's wrong. Kids from incest are often handicapped or otherwise disabled.

But if the could who wants to practice incest are not planning to have children? No, because you can't be sure.

What if they can't have children? What if they didn't know they were brother and sister when they became close?

There are lots of exceptions that could come up. Somewhere someone has to draw a line and say

Do gays deserve the right to marry- yes. Why, because society now says its ok to be gay and is ready to embrace the lifestyle as alternative. Or is it? If it were than we would not be having this debate.

If you go back a few years, people did think that gays were deviants and that if gays were in society then they could spread that deviance to others. Hopefully we are beyond that. But it was a regulation of morality.

But you can't just say regulating based on morality is wrong, because its all moral. How many days you have to file an appeal in a civil or criminal case has to do with a choice between giving the parties to a suit a chance to appeal and the demands of judicial administration. How we value one or the other is a question of what we feel morally is more important. Most crimes are considered wrong because society feels that the act is harmful- from murder to sexual misconduct. This is why statutory rape is of a different age depending on the state you are in- moral choices.

This is the issue that confronts the US now and its a battle between our moral values- the right to extend to a group, which I think deserves it, protection and enfranchisement within the body of civil rights, or not because we think its deviant, not good for our kids and goes against our religious values.

I also think GP raises a good point. There is a difference between what we believe, privately, is right and what we think, publically, others should be allowed to do. There are a lot of folks out there who might say, "What? Gay rights? FUck that, I don't want someone screwing me in the ass. But if they want to do it. Well fuck 'em, I don't give what they do."

Which is a world of difference from saying. "No, no one should be allowed to have gay sex or have gay marriages."
 
Montez, I was never on the high school debate team and I'm not playing the devils advocate here. When I do that, I'll let you know beforehand.

Let me clear a few things up. I am against pedophillia, bestiality, and homosexuality. If I found some middle-aged scumbag in bed with my hypothetical prepubescent daughter, i'd most likely go to jail because I killed him. And I think i'm safe in saying that most of society will agree with you that pedophillia is wrong - except those who engage in it, of course. But that's just our society, at this point in time. Didn't the acient greeks or romans have sexual relationships with little boys? And i've heard that in some african tribes, the women are used for reproduction, but the boys are used for pleasure. Does that make me sick to my stomach? Yes, because of how I was raised and the ideas that i've grown up with and adopted. But those people in those cultures where it's an accepted practice wouldn't see it as an deviant lifestyle. So while our society now thinks that pedophillia is deviant, there may be a time when it's an accepted practice. I personally don't want that to happen, but I'm not going to ignore history and deny the possibilities of an ever growing and accepting culture.

The other point you brought up was about rape. Rape is not the same as homosexuality. When you rape someone, you are forcing yourself upon them, it's not a form of sexual expression that both of the participants want to engage in. The rapist is committing a crime by infringing on the liberties of the victim. For rape to become socially acceptable would mean that the perceived morality of the society has changed to no longer respect the rights of the individual. That means you are able to do whatever you want, whenever you want to, with whomever you want to do it. That's a system of anarchy, with no rules or laws and definately no common sense of morals.
 
Let me say a few things:

1) ANY form of sex with ANYONE is okay, as long as there are two AWARE and CONSENTING parties, and since this is unlikely with children, pedophilia is banned. Bestiality is a bit harder, but I'll say it should be banned, because I feel that animals have the same rights as humans.

2) I'd like to know one thing here. Would you guys allow gays to have less rights(By, for instance, denying them the rights a marriage would give them(This has NOTHING to do with the church marriage)) than heterosexuals if the majority of the people agreed with it? In other words: What do you think is more important: Equality, or majority?
 
That's a good question. Equality vs Majority.

First, a quick answer to your other question. If the goverment allows gays to be legally married then they should have all the rights of heterosexual couples.

I say equality is more important than majority, with some stipulations. The idea of freedom I hold is that I can do whatever I want to do as long as it does not impede on anothers freedom. That said, two homosexuals wanting to get married doesnt impede my freedom. But what about the other sexual habits we've discussed?

Rape definately abuses another persons freedom, and therefore rapists should not be considered a group of people that should have equality.

Pedophillia imposes on children who are typically too young to understand the full implications of what is happening. That's another case of someones actions imposing on anothers liberty.

Bestiality imposes on the animals freedom because the animals don't have a conscious choice in the matter. Breeding is instictual (is that a real word?) for them and animals shouldnt be held responsible for what their owners do to them.

Personal equality to the point where it interferes with anothers freedom.
 
This seems to be the hot topic again.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112087,00.html

Ok, first off, I kind of had a change of thought and now I don't care about gay marriages. Let them, for all I care anymore. But what upsets me now is the judges in America. Now, remember that judge awhile back that built that monument of the Ten Commandments. Ok, that was a mistake and according to our constitution, wrong. But what about this judge in San Francisco? Is he also not going renegade and disobeying orders to stop letting gays get married when he was told to? Oh I see, lock up the Christian, noone will remember him in a few days right?

In the San Francisco Bay area, 58 percent of all respondents support gay marriage

Gee, I wonder why?

About 25 anti-gay-marriage protesters later blocked the door of the county clerk's office, lying down in front of the line and singing religious songs. Gays and lesbians responded by belting out "The Star-Spangled Banner" until sheriff's deputies escorted the protesters out. No arrests were made.

Ha ha, hit them with the good old national anthem.

I'm getting tired of these judges doing stupid things and making stupid laws. Illegal to have sex with a pineapple? Are you retarded? So anyhow, what do you think, arrest the judge? If they don't I'll tell you this now, if I ever go to San Francisco, I'll take a dump on the steps to the courthouse where the judge went section 8. I'll do illegal shit all the time. If a judge gets away with it, why shouldn't I?
 
Ehehe, yeah..

Though I agree pretty much with everything Kharn said.
 
Hehe In norway there are gay couples that has raised children, there is no problems there, the difference is that the children has been more open to new things. But it has worked out fine.

Also we have taken the middle path, gays are not allowed to mary, they form a "partnership". Wich grants them the same rights as married people, exept for the right to adopt, (we have not decided on this yet) in others words it looks like marriage, smells like marriage and it is marriage in all but the name. It works.

and bah i don´t care let them marry.
 
I really don’t want to read 5 pages of thread so if I repeat anyone, sorry.

In my opinion marriage is a legal document between any two people.
 
Despite popular belief, I'm not gay. But in my mind, if any two people TRULY love each other, than Jerry Falwell, George Bush and any other homophobe should examine their own.. uh.. self further. Just don't get me involved in your activity is all.
 
Why not? Don't you want big stiff cocks pumping in and out of your ass? :(

I don't think marriage is that important really, just something to do when your relationships getting stale or it's gone on too long.
 
Back
Top