Marriage and sexuality

[enchanted_one1975]

All this talk about gay sex and baby making is getting me excited...

 

[Mr Cheese]

Tolerance does not necessitate providing special benefits to those who behave contrary to the fundamental existence and survival of the species.

there's no talking to bigots really

 

[Perfect Circle]

that is actually a very good question. However, people seem to think marriage is secular. But that is also for a different debate. The reason i point this out is ssm pundits blatantly disregard not only the full sentence in the loving v. Virginia ruling, but also forget that the loving v. Virginia case was about ethnicity, to which homosexuality has nothing in common.

no, the case was about different-race marriage, which has a lot in common with same-sex marriage. And the sentence you keep repeating supports our argument. Marriage is a fundamental right because it is crucial to our survival, and so that right should be protected for everyone.

In other words, it's not that joe's marriage to lisa or ann's marriage to rachel is important to our survival, it's that the right of people to marry each other is.

And madhatter is still blissfully unaware (because he has me on ignore, due to being uncomfortable with facts cited in opposition to his religious views) that the supreme court has extended the same right in other circumstances, including prisoners.

...qft

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Tolerance does not necessitate providing special benefits to those who behave contrary to the fundamental existence and survival of the species.

I would like to know what these special benefits are that you keep talking about. I mean, I assume that you realize that since homosexual couples can't pro-create that most of them both work and therefore provide individual benefits for themselves. That is unlike a married couple with children where half of the couple and all the kids are unemployed, thus putting an additional financial burden on the employer of the one person in the family that does work. Please explain to us how the homosexual couples are soaking up all these benefits that you feel responsible for.

 

[Autodidact]

But then you could debate values all day long, because not everyone is on the same moral high-ground. In order to debate this properly you have to remove all emotion, morals, and values to it and stick directly to the facts.

Well that's where you really lose, because every fact you've cited so far has been factually wrong.

Tolerance does not necessitate providing special benefits to those who behave contrary to the fundamental existence and survival of the species.

It's tedious having to teach someone the same thing over and over. IT'S NOT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT. That's what every court who has considered the matter has held. You're wrong. That's a fact.

 

[Perfect Circle]

But then you could debate values all day long, because not everyone is on the same moral high-ground. In order to debate this properly you have to remove all emotion, morals, and values to it and stick directly to the facts.

Then let's remove marital benefits for couples who do not want children. If we remove all morals and emotion, they simply should not be allowed to marry because they do not propagate the species. I guess when they get all upset and say "but we love each other and benefit society in other ways", we'll just say "tough ****". We can't allow emotion or morality to enter into this.

Tolerance does not necessitate providing special benefits to those who behave contrary to the fundamental existence and survival of the species.

Exactly. You start making the picket signs, and I'll start printing the t-shirts. We should be able to revoke these ungrateful, babyless, excuses for humans marriage licenses by christmas.

 

[Mr Cheese]

And that's why I am keen to win this politically rather than through the courts. The courts do have a role - and without them, the gay minority would have had no standing on this question. And the critical fact in American law is that civil marriage is already regarded as a very basic constitutional right - more basic than the right to vote. But the legal and constitutional arguments provide, I believe, an opportunity for the broader and deeper case: that this is a reform that benefits all of us. And that's why I'd rather win this in the next initiative than have it enforced by the state Supreme Court.

Is Marriage A Human Right? - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

 

[Autodidact]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Loving v Virginia...[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with 'the fundamental freedom" of marriage.
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Zablocki v Redhail (1978)...[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]the Court struck down a Wisconsin law that required persons under obligations to pay support for the children of previous relationships to obtain permission of a court to marry.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]..The Court reasoned that marriage was "a fundamental right" triggering "rigorous scutiny" of Wisconsin's justifications under the Equal Protection Clause.[/SIZE][/FONT]

The Supreme Court repeatedly has held that the right to marry the person of your choice is a fundamental human right guaranteed by the equal-protection and due-process clauses of the Constitution.In 1987, in Turner v. Safley, the court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, struck down as unconstitutional a Missouri law preventing imprisoned felons from marrying, holding that marriages were "expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship."
from here

MARRIAGE IS NOT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE; IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Perfect Circle]

Tolerance does not necessitate providing special benefits to those who behave contrary to the fundamental existence and survival of the species.

NO DIRECT PROCREATION. DOES NOT COMPUTE.

 

[madhatter85]

Then let's remove marital benefits for couples who do not want children. If we remove all morals and emotion, they simply should not be allowed to marry because they do not propagate the species. I guess when they get all upset and say "but we love each other and benefit society in other ways", we'll just say "tough ****". We can't allow emotion or morality to enter into this.

If you want to bring emotion or moral values and belief to a debate, you cannot condemn the opposing party for doing the same simple because you do not follow their belief system.

 

[madhatter85]

And the critical fact in American law is that civil marriage is already regarded as a very basic constitutional right - more basic than the right to vote.http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/is-marriage-a-h.html

Based in the fact that it is declared to be fundamental to our very existence and survival. Homosexual behavior is not.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Based in the fact that it is declared to be fundamental to our very existence and survival. Homosexual behavior is not.

You seem to be the only one declaring this. If I declare you to be ignorant does that make it so?

 

[sojourner]

because its a human rights issue also.....

Of course it is. (Which, I think, is debatable, but I'll address that later).
So why would they discriminate, based upon religious principle, which is obviously what they're doing, and then couching their argument in sociological camouflage.

I assume you're also against same sex marriages?

Don't assume. It can get ugly when you do that.
Actually, I'm all for gay civil unions. I think the govt. should advocate for it, just as they advocate for the full rights of other minority groups.

But, at least for me, "marriage" implies something sanctioned by a religion. I really don't know how I feel about that at this point. I'm just not so sure that homosexuals can be "married," at least by the standards of the Christian Church. Since it is the Church that sanctions marriage, then, from the perspective of those who attend that Church, marriage is not a right, but a call. And the marriage, being something that is called into existence by God, is not something that is "up to the couple," but, ultimately, up to the Church, as the Body of Christ, speaking on God's behalf.

That being said, the Church needs to define "marriage" for its own purposes, before such can be entered into. Does "marriage" include homosexuals, or not? I don't know.

Until such time as that issue is given frank and honest attention in the Church, I feel that homosexual couples ought to be able to obtain a "legal union" from the State, and that the Church ought to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's (that is, honor the union without judgment), whether or not it believes God sanctions "marriage" for that couple.

who cares?

I care, as well as a whole lot of conscientious Christians who advocate for homosexuals.

because penises go in vaginas....

the reasoning is as simplistic and puerile as that

As far as Xy is concerned (and, as far as I'm aware, this is a religious debate), "marriage" constitutes a whole lot more than "tab A goes in slot B."
Mad's gonna have to come up with a much, much better reason than that, for it to fly on a religious forum -- and he's gonna have to provide a much, much more authoritative answer than "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."

Marriage can be both secular and religious. There is no one religion who owns the concept.

I think we would all be better off if we didn't do that. Since the argument is, at its heart, a religious one, why not make "marriage" the purview of religion and let the religions duke it out amongst themselves? That way, the gov't would be free and clear to sanction same-sex unions, regardless of what the mindless fundagelicals think.

The relevance of the Supreme Court is that they have found that marriage is a fundamental right, directly contradicting madhatter's assertion that it is a privilege.

IMO, that's where they missed the mark. If they'd made a distinction between the right of people to a State-sanctioned union, they'd have avoided the argument altogether.

Plus the fact that Mad's just plain wrong in his religious opinion of the matter. marriage isn't a "right," nor is it a "privilege." It's a call, placed upon us by God. Our responsibility is to answer that call.

 

[Mr Cheese]

You seem to be the only one declaring this. If I declare you to be ignorant does that make it so?

+
In this case, it may well do...

 

[enchanted_one1975]

I think that if I talked about my sex life madhatter might be up all night shuddering at the mental images.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Of course it is. (Which, I think, is debatable, but I'll address that later).
So why would they discriminate, based upon religious principle, which is obviously what they're doing, and then couching their argument in sociological camouflage.
Don't assume. It can get ugly when you do that.
Actually, I'm all for gay civil unions. I think the govt. should advocate for it, just as they advocate for the full rights of other minority groups.

But, at least for me, "marriage" implies something sanctioned by a religion. I really don't know how I feel about that at this point. I'm just not so sure that homosexuals can be "married," at least by the standards of the Christian Church. Since it is the Church that sanctions marriage, then, from the perspective of those who attend that Church, marriage is not a right, but a call. And the marriage, being something that is called into existence by God, is not something that is "up to the couple," but, ultimately, up to the Church, as the Body of Christ, speaking on God's behalf.

That being said, the Church needs to define "marriage" for its own purposes, before such can be entered into. Does "marriage" include homosexuals, or not? I don't know.

Until such time as that issue is given frank and honest attention in the Church, I feel that homosexual couples ought to be able to obtain a "legal union" from the State, and that the Church ought to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's (that is, honor the union without judgment), whether or not it believes God sanctions "marriage" for that couple.
I care, as well as a whole lot of conscientious Christians who advocate for homosexuals.
As far as Xy is concerned (and, as far as I'm aware, this is a religious debate), "marriage" constitutes a whole lot more than "tab A goes in slot B."
Mad's gonna have to come up with a much, much better reason than that, for it to fly on a religious forum -- and he's gonna have to provide a much, much more authoritative answer than "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."
I think we would all be better off if we didn't do that. Since the argument is, at its heart, a religious one, why not make "marriage" the purview of religion and let the religions duke it out amongst themselves? That way, the gov't would be free and clear to sanction same-sex unions, regardless of what the mindless fundagelicals think.
IMO, that's where they missed the mark. If they'd made a distinction between the right of people to a State-sanctioned union, they'd have avoided the argument altogether.

Plus the fact that Mad's just plain wrong in his religious opinion of the matter. marriage isn't a "right," nor is it a "privilege." It's a call, placed upon us by God. Our responsibility is to answer that call.

at least you're honest, and have clearly THOUGHT about the issue

to me I think the main problem is same sex couples are not getting the privilages that hetero couples are... besides medical benefits etc, there is the whole taxation issue.... it realy is a large can of worms.

I tend to agree with you that marriage is a call, howver I have no problem wioth same sex unions because yin contains yang and yang contains yin...the polarity of people is dynamic, but thats a religious mystical view point, which is clearly beyond the scope of madhatter and maybe the LDS church as a whole, except maybe some learned elders... to put it simply (and grossly watereddown) a person's spirit does not care if another person has a penis or not...I could be wrong, but non corporeal "things" (in this case the non corporeal part of a person) does not have genitals....
BUT thats a whole other discussion

So once again, I tend to think the real crux of the matter is not allowing a small minority group in society to have the same rights as the rest of society..... As has been stated, even criminals can get married...:areyoucra

What is that saying for our society? that we consider murderers "better" (as there are allowed "more")than homosexuals?

:thud: uh..... maybe it is just me, but that seems a little warped

 

[sojourner]

The problem here is that the stipulations for marriage, even in a culture in which there is clear separation of Church and State, are imbedded and grounded in a moral awareness that has been fostered by Christian thought. That's why all arguments pertaining to the definition of marriage ultimately end up with "That's what the Bible says," (even though there are lots of people who don't ascribe to the Bible).

If the government stopped trying to foist an opinion upon "marriage," (which *edit* off the fundagelicals) and created a whole new paradigm called "civil union" -- which has nothing whatsoever to do with "marriage," the whole problem could be averted. The State could recognize the fundamental human right of individuals to live together as they please, and the Church could protect it's definition of "marriage."

The State could continue to recognize the civil legality of "marriage" -- as it has always done, and also recognize the civil legality of a "civil union." The Church could protect it's sacrament from governmental tampering, and everyone would be happy except for those religious and church-going homosexuals who want the Church's sanction. But that's a whole different ball game, IMO.

 

[Autodidact]

Based in the fact that it is declared to be fundamental to our very existence and survival. Homosexual behavior is not.

Your circular argument is irrelevant. Because marriage is basic to our existence and survival, IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT. Interracial marriage isn't--marriage is. Get it?

 

[MSizer]

the supreme court ruled marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival" This conflicts with homosexual urges as it is not fundamental to our existence and survival.

That is such a load of crap. Great white sharks have been around for over 200 million years, and not a shred of evidence exists to suggest that any two sharks have ever been married. Horseshoe crabs have been around even longer still, and wayyyyyy longer than humans, and they don't have any marriage ceremony that I know of.

 

[Autodidact]

I think that if I talked about my sex life madhatter might be up all night shuddering at the mental images.

Or doing something with them.