left biblioblography: CONSIDER THE LINE IN THE SAND DRAWN: SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE

Monday, July 17, 2006

CONSIDER THE LINE IN THE SAND DRAWN: SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE


This is really such a no-brainer; I’m surprised that anyone should speak out against it.

Simply put, marriage is a civil right. Let’s start by defining this term. Here, from the Legal Encyclopedia section:
“Not all types of discrimination are unlawful and most of an individual's personal choices are protected by the freedom to choose personal associates, to express herself or himself, and to preserve personal privacy. Civil rights legislation comes into play when the practice of personal preferences and prejudices of an individual, a business entity, or a government interferes with the protected rights of others. The various civil rights laws have made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin. Discrimination that interferes with voting rights and equality of opportunity in education, employment, and housing is unlawful.
The term privileges and immunities is related to civil rights. Privileges and immunities encompass all rights of individuals that relate to people, places, and real and personal property. Privileges include all the legal benefits of living in the United States, such as the freedom to sell land, draft a will, or obtain a divorce. Immunities are the protections afforded by law that prevent the government or other people from hindering another's enjoyment of his or her life, such as the right to be free from illegal searches and seizures and the freedom to practice religion without government persecution. The Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The clause is designed to prevent each state from discriminating against the people in other states in favor of its own citizens.”
Now, let’s look at the term discrimination from the Legal Encyclopedia section:

“In constitutional law, the grant by statute of particular privileges to a class arbitrarily designated from a sizable number of persons, where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes. Federal laws, supplemented by court decisions, prohibit discrimination in such areas as employment, housing, voting rights, education, and access to public facilities. They also proscribe discrimination on the basis of race, age, sex, nationality, disability, or religion. In addition, state and local laws can prohibit discrimination in these areas and in others not covered by federal laws.”

Marriage is a civil right, as it is a civil union. No religion need be involved.

Now, I effectly demolished many (if not all) of the right-wing neocon arguments here. However, it has come to my attention that these arguments have evolved lately, and so it’s time to put the blocks to those babies.

  1. So what if it’s natural (it’s pretty darn funny how scientific research deflated that balloon, ain’t it)? We’re special. We stand ABOVE nature. We are the only creature that’s developed philosophy, morality, insert term of choice here. Talk about arrogance. This is speciocentrism, pure and simple. So let’s see: if ducks, dogs, penguins, birds, bees, bonobos, insert species of choice here indulge in said behavior, well, that’s because they’re animals: we most emphatically are NOT? No free passes, not buying it, sorry. Animals defecate, copulate, reproduce, eat, raise offspring, breathe, bleed, most of them have five senses, in short we share SO much commonality with them (mammals at least), it’s a forgone conclusion. It’s natural behavior, cut and dried. So our social constructs are a little more complex, so what?

  2. We have all these studies that conclusively show that homosexuals aren’t mentally stable. I find this to be an utterly repugnant argument, an entirely facile and sophistic squirm. We’re talking about a minority that’s been kept in the ‘closet’ so to speak, for centuries. Anyone recall the punishment for ‘buggery on the high seas’? The ‘blue laws’ put in effect for most of this country’s history? Multiple occurrences of homophobic bashing? Let’s face facts, people: until recently, the very accusation of homosexuality could destroy people’s lives. They’ve been lumped in with all sorts of horrible behaviors (and still are). Has anyone ever heard the term, ‘gay ghettos?’ We have them here.

  3. It’s all a part of the radical gay agenda! This almost doesn’t even rate a reply. They’re a minority, you numbskulls. A very discriminated-against one, to boot. So they’re standing up for their rights: that does qualify as an agenda, sure. But radical? Anyone who starts in with this diatribe, I’ll be more than happy to lend him or her a quarter, so they can buy a clue. You may as well say there’s a large radical African-American agenda, or a feminist one. Sure, there’s probably a minority fringe group inside the minority, but it doesn’t take a professor’s degree that that’s just an expected side effect. Hell, we atheists have our wingnuts and moonbats: who doesn’t?

  4. Save the children, let’s do it for the children! This is just cowardice, pure and simple. We’re talking about gay marriage: let’s get past that hurtle before we get to adoption. Float a trial balloon. My suggestion is this: we allow gay marriage for the next two decades, and compile statistics then. It hasn’t been legitimate behavior in our particular culture since day one. Anyone who tells me that an illegal behavior will remain the same after it’s legalized is just blowing smoke right out their ass.

  5. They’re shoving it right in our faces! Oh, grow up. Of course they are. When African Americans finally got their say, they had an attitude, still do. That’s to be expected, after being oppressed for so long. It’s the same with any minority, be it a mindset, a race, a gender, anything. Once the dust settles, and acceptance is embraced, this’ll go away. The aphorism about squeaky wheels springs to mind.

  6. The one-man/one woman tradition/paradigm. I effectively demolished that here, so I’ll leave it to the reader to give it the old look-see.

  7. It’s an age-old tradition! Same place, see here.

  8. If you allow this, you allow ALL sexual behaviors! This is complete and utter tripe. Why all the opponents’ play this ridiculous card is beyond me. If this is about two consenting adults, why the fuck do you care? They’re not infringing on anything except your projected sense of esthetics. In for a penny, in for a pound? Not even. If they’re adults, none of your damned business, so mind your own.

  9. (I found this one particularly funny) The anus isn’t built for this sort of activity. Well, A. Studies show that anal sex is on the lower scale of activity for most homosexuals (it’s mostly oral and/or stroking), and 2. Anyone who says that should most definitely prevail on his spouse to do the old Asian ‘pearls-on-a-string’ trick (I hear orgasms are THUNDEROUS for that one!). And I quote Margaret Cho, from Assassin!, who said: “If you’re going to do the strap-on thing with your guy, make sure he’s the ONE. Otherwise, he’ll never leave you alone!” (Paraphrased) Also, Sodomy is defined in the Legal Dictionary as: “Sodomy -Anal or oral intercourse between human beings, or any sexual relations between a human being and an animal, the act of which may be punishable as a criminal offense.” So if you fellers want to play ‘in for a penny’, etc, well then, you’re just going to have to bypass that little special act, aintcha? ;)

  10. GOD SAYS THAT’S A NO-NO! Hey, ya know what? Until you can provide some proof of this invisible beast, negligent parent at best, imaginary construct at worst, outside a bunch of old wives tales scribbled on papyrii in a desert region two millenia ago, I say your morality is null and void. Unless you can provide me with tangible evidence of a being that’s the core root of your epistemology, I say your moral high ground is as level as mine.

So, the line is drawn, the gauntlet thrown. My guard is up, and my thumb is tap-stroking the side of my nose.  

As Duke Nuke ‘Em once said: “Who wants some?”

Stumble Upon Toolbar

95 comments:

karen said...

RA
I'd say you pretty much covered all the bases. Good show.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"It’s natural behavior, cut and dried. So our social constructs are a little more complex, so what?"

So you don't think man has unique value over monkeys?

"They’re a minority, you numbskulls. A very discriminated-against one, to boot."

Huh? For what i know, a homosexual person has exactly the same rights as me.

"So they’re standing up for their rights: that does qualify as an agenda, sure."

You mean by demanding that we redefine marriage? There is no obligation for society to do that.

Gay people have all the rights i the world to live in life long commitments if they want.

"They’re shoving it right in our faces! Oh, grow up. Of course they are. When African Americans finally got their say, they had an attitude, still do."

Slavery&apartheid is morally wrong.
Gay bashing is morally wrong. This does not mean that we should redefine marriage though.

"That’s to be expected, after being oppressed for so long. It’s the same with any minority, be it a mindset, a race, a gender, anything. Once the dust settles, and acceptance is embraced, this’ll go away."

You said when africans got their say, they had an attitude, still do. Why should the gay comminuty be different with regards to shoving it in our faces? Your words btw.

"If you allow this, you allow ALL sexual behaviors! This is complete and utter tripe. Why all the opponents’ play this ridiculous card is beyond me. If this is about two consenting adults, why the fuck do you care?"

Actually homosexuals have the freedom to do what they please in their bedrooms. I (we) do care when we are asked to redefine marriage.

"If they’re adults, none of your damned business, so mind your own."

Re-definition of marriage affects all society.

"The anus isn’t built for this sort of activity. Well, A. Studies show that anal sex is on the lower scale of activity for most homosexuals (it’s mostly oral and/or stroking), and 2. Anyone who says that should most definitely prevail on his spouse to do the old Asian ‘pearls-on-a-string’ trick (I hear orgasms are THUNDEROUS for that one!). And I quote Margaret Cho, from Assassin!, who said: “If you’re going to do the strap-on thing with your guy, make sure he’s the ONE. Otherwise, he’ll never leave you alone!” (Paraphrased) Also, Sodomy is defined in the Legal Dictionary as: “Sodomy -Anal or oral intercourse between human beings, or any sexual relations between a human being and an animal, the act of which may be punishable as a criminal offense.” So if you fellers want to play ‘in for a penny’, etc, well then, you’re just going to have to bypass that little special act, aintcha? ;)"

You don't adress the issue if the "anal is built for it". Which it isn't.

"GOD SAYS THAT’S A NO-NO! Hey, ya know what? Until you can provide some proof of this invisible beast, negligent parent at best, imaginary construct at worst, outside a bunch of old wives tales scribbled on papyrii in a desert region two millenia ago, I say your morality is null and void."

No, we have no burden of proof. In that case you have to prove that there is no God. We do have reasons for our beliefs though.

Finally, since morals are relative, you cannot say the we ought not to have "false beliefs".

Krystalline Apostate said...

So you don't think man has unique value over monkeys?
Sure I do. Only because I’m a man, not a monkey.
Huh? For what i know, a homosexual person has exactly the same rights as me.
I’m glad to hear you say that. I always knew you were all right. But you don’t live over here.
You mean by demanding that we redefine marriage? There is no obligation for society to do that.
I got news for you: it’s regularly being redefined. Once, no 1 would permit interracial couples. One, 1 man could have many wives. Once, divorce was out of the question.
Gay people have all the rights i the world to live in life long commitments if they want.
Good. Then they call it marriage, who are we to interfere?
Slavery&apartheid is morally wrong.
Gay bashing is morally wrong. This does not mean that we should redefine marriage though.

No 1’s redefining it. Think of it as an extension.
You said when africans got their say, they had an attitude, still do. Why should the gay comminuty be different with regards to shoving it in our faces? Your words btw.
I’m missing your point here. This is standard human behavior, is my point.
Actually homosexuals have the freedom to do what they please in their bedrooms. I (we) do care when we are asked to redefine marriage.
I see. So it’s the verbiage you object to. So they can’t use specific words w/o explicit consent.
Re-definition of marriage affects all society.
That’s right, it does. However, as my prior post on this states, marriage wasn’t always a ‘1 man/1 woman’ paradigm. Only when the Judeo-xtians stepped in, & ‘redefined’ it in accordance w/their viewpoint.
You don't adress the issue if the "anal is built for it". Which it isn't.
Au contraire, mon ami. Both examples point to a contradiction in that. How odd, that some folks find pleasure in the act, even though it’s supposedly not ‘built’ for it.
Try out the Asian pearl trick sometime, get back to me.
No, we have no burden of proof. In that case you have to prove that there is no God. We do have reasons for our beliefs though.
Ya know, I try very hard to be nice about this, but you gotta be kidding me. We’ve had this discussion before, you refuse to take the burden. It’s on you people, it’s always on you people, it will always be on you people. I’m not the 1 making extravagant claims here. That’s how it works in the real world, baby. Get used to it.
Finally, since morals are relative, you cannot say the we ought not to have "false beliefs".
Snort, chuckle, giggle. Get real. You know I’m not a moral relativist anymore, right? I am in no way under any obligation to keep my mouth shut, & be respectful about something that I find abjectly foolish.

So, in summation: bullshit. To all of it.

Besides which, didn't mr. mythical state that his kingdom was 'not of this world'?
You religious folks should seriously stay out of other people's business. Sit on your hands, & wait for the 'new world coming'.

Then you can say 'we told you so.'

GooseHenry said...

RA

"Sure I do. Only because I’m a man, not a monkey."

Ok, so it's subjective. It boils down to behaviour.

"I got news for you: it’s regularly being redefined. Once, no 1 would permit interracial couples."

It was still between man&woman

"One, 1 man could have many wives."

which was wrong. objectively

"Once, divorce was out of the question."

Is still as wrong as ever, only people don't care anymore

"Good. Then they call it marriage, who are we to interfere?"

They can call it what they want. Society has no obligation to redefine marriage so it can be male-male

"No 1’s redefining it. Think of it as an extension."

socety has no obligation to extend marriage then

"I see. So it’s the verbiage you object to. So they can’t use specific words w/o explicit consent."

No it's the re-definition of what constituts a marriage, legally, that i object to

"That’s right, it does. However, as my prior post on this states, marriage wasn’t always a ‘1 man/1 woman’ paradigm."

That doesn't mean we have any obligation to change it. Slavery was allowed once. Children were sacrificed once.

"Only when the Judeo-xtians stepped in, & ‘redefined’ it in accordance w/their viewpoint."

And this was bad, you think?

"Try out the Asian pearl trick sometime, get back to me."

Has nothing to do with either anal sex&if the anal was built for it

"Ya know, I try very hard to be nice about this, but you gotta be kidding me. We’ve had this discussion before, you refuse to take the burden. It’s on you people, it’s always on you people, it will always be on you people. I’m not the 1 making extravagant claims here."

According to us, you are. We have reasons for our beliefs. The only way you can sustain your position is by undermining our reasons.

"Snort, chuckle, giggle. Get real. You know I’m not a moral relativist anymore, right?"

No? Naturalist then? Still face the same problems. Or do you now have an objective standard?

"I am in no way under any obligation to keep my mouth shut, & be respectful about something that I find abjectly foolish."

No, but in order to have a discussion about right and wrong we need an objective standard. Behaviour/conventions won't do.

"You religious folks should seriously stay out of other people's business. Sit on your hands, & wait for the 'new world coming'."

I don't dabble in other peoples business. I do however have an opinion about things that affect the entire society. I believe i have a right to do so.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Ok, so it's subjective. It boils down to behaviour.
Yes, it is subjective. It’s contingent on species.
It was still between man&woman
Have you even bothered to look at my earlier post? It hasn’t always been like that.
which was wrong. objectively
But permitted in the OT. Objectively? You been reading old C.S Loonie, ey?
Is still as wrong as ever, only people don't care anymore
Tell that to my ex-GF, who was married 18 yrs to an alcoholic abusive wack job. Tell that to the woman who’s married to a heroin addict who molests his kids. Tell that to any woman who’s been beaten, burned, raped, all because of this ‘paradigm’ that originated in the concept of women being PROPERTY.
They can call it what they want. Society has no obligation to redefine marriage so it can be male-male
??? I thought that ‘they’ had as many rights as you do? Apparently not.
socety has no obligation to extend marriage then
So much for rights, eh? They have as many rights as you do, save 1.
No it's the re-definition of what constituts a marriage, legally, that i object to
You realize, of course, that it’s a civil union, not a religious 1?
That doesn't mean we have any obligation to change it. Slavery was allowed once. Children were sacrificed once.
& gay marriage was banned. Once.
And this was bad, you think?
I think approx. 90% of what the Judeo-xtian mindset did was bad.
Has nothing to do with either anal sex&if the anal was built for it
How do you know, unless you find out 1sthand? The pearl-trick is that the woman inserts a string of pearls into the anus, & as the man orgasms, she pulls them out via the string 1 by 1. I’m sure your church won’t object. Man can do it to the woman, too.
According to us, you are. We have reasons for our beliefs. The only way you can sustain your position is by undermining our reasons.
Well, then, sorry, YOU’RE WRONG. You don’t have any real ‘reasons’. It’s all a loosely cobbled-together ink on pages. Gimmee a break. You can’t prove ANY of it. Onus is SQUARELY on the believer. Can’t escape it, don’t bother trying. Otherwise, why have apologia?
I will not accept the burden of proof. Old saying in Missouri: “Show me.” So either put up, or shut up.
No? Naturalist then? Still face the same problems. Or do you now have an objective standard?
In case you’ve not been paying attention: DO NO HARM. That simple.
No, but in order to have a discussion about right and wrong we need an objective standard. Behaviour/conventions won't do.
Oh, no, I don’t fall for that old ‘dictating the premises’ trick anymore. I’ve given my stand on this far too often. Behavior & conventions will HAVE to do.
I don't dabble in other peoples business. I do however have an opinion about things that affect the entire society. I believe i have a right to do so.
Hey, you’re not entitled to an opinion. You’re entitled to an INFORMED opinion. Telling people they can’t get married is sure as fuck ‘dabbling in other people’s business’, no matter how you squirm.

There is, in short, no threat whatsoever from allowing gay marriage. The only forseeable side effect that I can predict, w/any amount of accuracy:
It’ll promote TOLERANCE. It will promote ACCEPTANCE.
Which every human being on earth, regardless of race, creed, age, gender, or sexual tendency (consenting ADULTS ONLY), is ENTITLED to.
As long as they play by that 1 golden rule: Ahimsa.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"Yes, it is subjective. It’s contingent on species."

What one animal does to another is ethically irrelevant. So why even have this discussion?

"Tell that to my ex-GF, who was married 18 yrs to an alcoholic abusive wack job. Tell that to the woman who’s married to a heroin addict who molests his kids. Tell that to any woman who’s been beaten, burned, raped, all because of this ‘paradigm’ that originated in the concept of women being PROPERTY."

Of course i am not saying that people should stay in abusive realtionships. I am not talking about women in these situations.

"??? I thought that ‘they’ had as many rights as you do? Apparently not."

Everyone can marry, as long as it fits the definition of marriage.

"So much for rights, eh? They have as many rights as you do, save 1."

No, exactly the same still.

"& gay marriage was banned. Once."

They can still do whatever they please. They have all the rights. I'd say society has become more tolerant towards the gay community.

"Has nothing to do with either anal sex&if the anal was built for it
How do you know, unless you find out 1sthand? The pearl-trick is that the woman inserts a string of pearls into the anus, & as the man orgasms, she pulls them out via the string 1 by 1. I’m sure your church won’t object. Man can do it to the woman, too."

Doesn't adress the issue of anal intercourse. Which the anal isn't desgined for, physically.

"Well, then, sorry, YOU’RE WRONG. You don’t have any real ‘reasons’. It’s all a loosely cobbled-together ink on pages. Gimmee a break. You can’t prove ANY of it."

There are many reason for rejecting atheism and embracing theism. Morality (which you adhere to all the time but deny), the existence of minds&free will, laws of logic, intrinsic values etc.

If you deny that people and things have immaterial properties of worth&goodness beyond their physical make-up then you are simply wrong.

"In case you’ve not been paying attention: DO NO HARM. That simple."

This is only your subjective opinion unless you can provide a sound rationale for it.

"I’ve given my stand on this far too often. Behavior & conventions will HAVE to do."

You have, and indeed you revert to your default position each time.

"Hey, you’re not entitled to an opinion. You’re entitled to an INFORMED opinion."

There you go with objective standards again. Moreover you assume that i have a mind that can see rationally. Already in this stage of the discussion it is more reasonable to accept some form of theism.

"It’ll promote TOLERANCE. It will promote ACCEPTANCE."

Hope it's not the kind of tolerance and acceptance we see on atheist blogs. Whenever someone disagrees, just bully them into the corner.

say no to christ said...

Oh how this debate gets under my skin!

First off, the bible and its vengeful god did NOT created marriage. Marriage is far older than the bible itself. The Hebrews were one of the first to redefine marraige as a way to own women and as many women as possible.

And further more no one is saying churches will be made to marry gays! If you dont agree with it then dont allow it in your own church. You can NOT force the rest of the world to accept yours and your fellow followers views!


And for the record there is a glan in the ass that triggers intence orgasms and I am sure that the human species isnt the only one to engage in anal sex. You can garantee it, that if there is the possiblity of a feel good sensation, humans and other species are going to do it, it is only natural.


Amy

Krystalline Apostate said...

What one animal does to another is ethically irrelevant. So why even have this discussion?
You were the 1 asking about monkeys vs. men. I answered it.
Of course i am not saying that people should stay in abusive realtionships. I am not talking about women in these situations.
Hey, you didn’t count any exclusions to your ‘they just don’t care anymore’ statement.
Everyone can marry, as long as it fits the definition of marriage.
I see.
No, exactly the same still.
Except the right to get married, in the eyes of society.
They can still do whatever they please. They have all the rights. I'd say society has become more tolerant towards the gay community.
That it has, but it still has a looonnnng way to go.
Doesn't adress the issue of anal intercourse. Which the anal isn't desgined for, physically.
Hey, I’m not a doctor, so I’m going to leave the anus out of this for now, seeing as it’s not the most common option chosen. I’ll have to look some things up.
There are many reason for rejecting atheism and embracing theism. Morality (which you adhere to all the time but deny), the existence of minds&free will, laws of logic, intrinsic values etc.
All of which is explainable by natural law, which you ascribe to some supernatural entity. All of which is explainable by 1 concept: EVOLUTION.
If you deny that people and things have immaterial properties of worth&goodness beyond their physical make-up then you are simply wrong.
A statement you have absolutely no proof of, outside of a book of fairy tales, & enforced tradtions, & an appeal to wonder.
This is only your subjective opinion unless you can provide a sound rationale for it.
I have many times, but I’m not getting diverted by this.
You have, and indeed you revert to your default position each time.
Oh my, haven’t you accused me of inconsistency in the past?
There you go with objective standards again. Moreover you assume that i have a mind that can see rationally. Already in this stage of the discussion it is more reasonable to accept some form of theism.
Okay, dissection:
1. It’s my personal, subjective opinion.
2. I could really take advantage of the ‘see rationally’ statement, but I’ll cut you some slack, & just say you’re semi-rational
3. I accept NO FORM of theism whatsoever. Because I consider ALL forms of theism unreasonable.
Hope it's not the kind of tolerance and acceptance we see on atheist blogs. Whenever someone disagrees, just bully them into the corner
Hey, Goose, the tone of my post is antagonistic. Besides, it’s not as if I’m pushing you in a corner & demanding your lunch money. Yeesh, we’re all adults here.
Not to mention I find the effort to suppress gay marriage a bully pulpit, forcing others to accede, depriving other human beings of their rights, a last-ditch effort to bring lockstep conformity to a lifestyle frowned upon.
In short, I find the whole concept of telling others what to do (in this matter) an inequity, an injustice, completely wrong.
People OWN themselves. Not your absent deadbeat deity. Not society at large. So unless there’s clear & present danger (which there ain’t), I say: Gay marriage? So be it.

Krystalline Apostate said...

SNTC:
And further more no one is saying churches will be made to marry gays! If you dont agree with it then dont allow it in your own church. You can NOT force the rest of the world to accept yours and your fellow followers views!
Ramen, sista!
And for the record there is a glan in the ass that triggers intence orgasms and I am sure that the human species isnt the only one to engage in anal sex.
Hmmmm...do you have links for any of those?
You can garantee it, that if there is the possiblity of a feel good sensation, humans and other species are going to do it, it is only natural.
I second that motion, & carry it.

Krystalline Apostate said...

D'oh! The prostrate gland, of all things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgasm
Male prostate orgasm

"Some men are able to achieve ejaculation or orgasm through intra-anal stimulation of the prostate gland. Men reporting the sensation of prostate stimulation often give descriptions similar to women's accounts of G-spot stimulation. Other men report finding anal stimulation or penetration of any kind to be painful, or simply that they find no profound pleasure from it. With sufficient stimulation, the prostate can also be "milked". Providing that there is no simultaneous stimulation of the penis, prostate milking can cause ejaculation without orgasm. When combined with penile stimulation, some men report that prostate stimulation increases the volume of their ejaculation, and provides an enhanced and more pleasurable version of the standard male orgasm."

Sounds built-in to me.

say no to christ said...

Very good Ra. I was a little shocked when you asked for links about the anal glan thing. I thought all men knew about the prostate and how it works with the ejaculation.

I personally think that the reason some men have reported pain with anal penetration is psychological and not being stemulated enough. If a woman isnt stemulated enough before penetration it can be very painful. It has also been reported that some women with psychological issues with sex claimed that penetration was always painful. And lets face it the majority of americans have a lot of hang ups with sex due to all the religious influence on society.

Krystalline Apostate said...

SNTC:
I personally think that the reason some men have reported pain with anal penetration is psychological and not being stemulated enough. If a woman isnt stemulated enough before penetration it can be very painful. It has also been reported that some women with psychological issues with sex claimed that penetration was always painful. And lets face it the majority of americans have a lot of hang ups with sex due to all the religious influence on society.
Or it might be that most Americans are a bunch of tight-asses. ;)

Beowulf said...

There are some sub-par arguments against gay-marriage and there are sub-par arguments for gay-marriage. It looks like some of yours are not that great either.

Thirteen Bad Arguments for Same-Sex Marriage

You can schedule my hanging whenever. I am sure you had the rope ready when you stated “Who wants some?”

Krystalline Apostate said...

bf:
There are some sub-par arguments against gay-marriage and there are sub-par arguments for gay-marriage. It looks like some of yours are not that great either.
Oh, boo hoo, I knocked the legs out from under your standard talking points.
You can schedule my hanging whenever. I am sure you had the rope ready when you stated “Who wants some?”
Oh, here we go again.
I'm willing to fight for other peoples' rights, now I'M the 'intolerant bigot'. -YAWN-
That link was hysterically funny. Thanks for brightening my day.

Krystalline Apostate said...

BF:
Here, just for the fun of it, I demolish your pathetic link:

Bad argument No. 1
"Gay marriage is a basic human right."
There are huge differences between constitutional rights with few restrictions (such as the rights to life or free speech) and other rights with important restrictions, which do not carry the right of universal access. We already recognize that not everyone has the right to enlist in the army, but that one must be of the proper age, physical condition, citizenship, and philosophy—anarchists and pacifists need not apply. We also agree that certain persons do not have the right to marriage—children, multiple partners, family members, and those already married.

So, in short, let’s deny gays the right to ‘use our words’. Let’s deny them the right to be recognized as ‘human beings’. This is thinly veiled bigotry at best.
Bad argument No. 2
"Gay marriage is a civil right."
This is based on the false assumption that homosexuality is the same sort of human difference as race. But while the difference between sexual orientations is profound (one desires the opposite sex and procreates while the other does neither), racial difference has no intrinsic bearing on love and marriage. This is why philosophically opposed African American leaders such as Shelby Steele and Jesse Jackson agree that "gay marriage is simply not a civil rights issue."

The key issue here is DISCRIMINATION. Trying to say it’s not the same based on race is simple bifurcation. The African Americans were at the forefront of civil rights movements, but by no means does that entitle them to dictate the meaning of the word.
Bad argument No. 3
"Opposition to gay marriage is discrimination."
Let's not mistake rational restriction for unconstitutional discrimination. Just as we rightly restrict marriage against polygamists, there is no constitutional reason why we cannot continue to restrict marriage to what all civilizations have defined for millennia: the union of a man and woman. This does not deny anyone the "equal protection of the laws," since this restriction applies equally to every individual.

Thinly veiled argument from popularity. The ‘all civilizations’ crap is historically untrue.
Bad argument No. 4
"Marriage has changed through the centuries, so gay marriage would be just another development in its ever-changing definition."
True, our understandings of sex and the role of women in marriage have grown. While these changes are important, they are trivial when compared to the agreement across time and from East to West that the social institution of marriage is about the union of sexual opposites for, primarily, the procreation of children, as well as intimate companionship.

So then we keep other people from marrying, if say the man or woman is infertile?
Bad argument No. 5
"Opposition to gay marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state."
It is true that Western marriage and family law stem in part from the Judeo-Christian tradition, as do many of our other laws. But the separation of church and state (assured by constitutional law) is different from the enforced separation of religion and politics, which is forbidden by the First Amendment.

More crap. This is such a blatant mendacity, no need to address it.
Bad argument No. 6
"Marriage is necessary for gays to gain important legal benefits."
Homosexuals don't need marriage to gain most significant legal benefits. For example, hospital visitation depends on the wishes of the patient. If families disagree about medical treatment, even marriage won't solve the problem, as the Terry Schiavo case has demonstrated. The answer is medical power of attorney, which is open to anyone regardless of sexual orientation. Another example is Social Security benefits. Children's benefits are not dependent on the marital status of their parents, and the only certain benefit is a one-time death benefit of $255. A wife can access her deceased husband's Social Security, but if she has had her own work history, her Social Security benefit would usually be higher than the survivor's benefit—and she must choose one or the other. Most other benefits are based on work history.

More lies. Insurance agencies won’t even TALK to one’s significant other, unless there’s a marriage agreement. There are multiple occurrences where the lifetime gay partner is CUT OUT of any dispensation of the estate. Many workplaces only grant benefits to the SPOUSE. In short, a recognized CIVIL UNION.
Bad argument No. 7
"There is no proof that gay marriage would change the marriages of heterosexuals."
If marriage is all about fulfilling human desires and not parenting (as many proponents of gay marriage argue), it makes sense to dissolve marriages that don't seem fulfilling. Recent experience in Scandinavia suggests that when a society reduces marriage to this minimalist definition, families dissolve more quickly. British demographer Kathleen Kiernan has shown that since gay marriage came to Scandinavia in the early '90s, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has leaped significantly, and the family dissolution rate has risen. Only where the gay marriage movement had little success has the out-of-wedlock birthrate remained low. Marriage has virtually disappeared in the most gay-friendly districts of Norway, formerly the most conservative of the Nordic countries.

OMG, you’re kidding me, right? We have here, the traditional slippery slope combined w/the unrepresented sample fallacy. What was the size of the control group? Was it double blind? NEWSFLASH: this ain’t Scandinavia.
Bad argument No. 8
"Social science shows that gay parenting is no different from heterosexual parenting."
Many studies have claimed this, but, according to University of Chicago's emeritus professor of ethics and social sciences Don Browning, none of these studies was rigorous or large-scale. Stephen Nock, scholar of marriage at the University of Virginia, writes that every study on the subject of gay parenting "contained at least one fatal flaw," and "not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research." Other studies show that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, had homosexual experiences more frequently, and suffered a greater rate of molestation by members of their families (Adolescence, 1996; Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1986; American Sociological Review, 2001).

Oy gevalt! What utter garbage. Every study contains ‘flaws’. Not to mention the nonsense about pedophilia.
Here’s a better appeal to authority:
” In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.”
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
I’ll take the APA’s word on it.
Bad argument No. 9
"The fact that many married couples do not have children proves that marriage is not intrinsically related to procreation."
Yet the fact remains that most married couples either have had or will have children. The exceptions prove the rule: Being married tends to prevent a person from having a child with someone other than his or her spouse. In all cultures, even if some couples are childless, marriage as an institution is principally concerned with children and, therefore, society's future.

No, the exception tests the rule. All cultures? Tell that to ancient Rome, or ancient Greece. Since being married ‘tends to prevent a person from having a child’, it also tends to change the dynamic, requiring fidelity.
Bad argument No. 10
"Heterosexuals have done a terrible job at marriage. Who are they to speak?"
It is true that half of all new heterosexual marriages end in divorce. But far more than half have succeeded, if you count marriages established before the divorce boom of the '70s and '80s. Yet the point is not how many are successful, but what marriage means. To accommodate gays, marriage would have to change into something it has never been: an institution for same-sex love without the biological possibility for children. It will probably not require sexual fidelity, which even the majority of unfaithful heterosexuals have conceded is the ideal. Some of the most prominent proponents of gay marriage, such as Andrew Sullivan, say the ideal needs to change, since gay understanding of fidelity includes other sexual liaisons.

& how do you know that it won’t require ‘sexual fidelity’? How are the ideals to change, w/the rampant bigotry & immoral mistreatment? Hinting that they’re promiscuous (which most men are, BTW, before they get married) is poisoning the well.
Bad argument No. 11
"The resistance to gay marriage is motivated by fear and loathing for homosexuals."
While no large group is free of hate-mongers, the vast majority resist because they strongly believe in the positive features of traditional marriage. They have experienced the benefits of the lifelong union of two persons who are complementary in many important ways—biological, psychological, temperamental, and spiritual—and who, because of this complementarity, have a unique capacity to bear and nurture children. It is appreciation for the unparalleled success of this complementarity—not fear or hatred for gays—that motivates most Americans to oppose gay marriage.

So whom do intersexuals get to marry? So wait – you’re going to deny gay people the ‘the benefits of the lifelong union of two persons who are complementary in many important ways—biological, psychological, temperamental, and spiritual’?
How is this NOT bigotry, again?
Bad argument No. 12
"Those who resist gay marriage are irrational, Neanderthal, and bigoted."
The gay marriage movement is only a few decades old. Could it be that billions of people who for millennia upheld traditional marriage were really irrational and bigoted? On the contrary, we would argue that a common-sense understanding of life leads in the direction we have argued. Further, it seems clear that reason without religious vision misses the depth dimension of human life. It tends to dissolve basic human institutions into contracts between persons who make whatever they want of them, to the detriment of children and society.

Yep. Argument from popularity, & argument from tradition. There were people who upheld slavery for millenia. & no, it DOESN’T seem clear about this ‘reason w/o religious vision’. The detriment? Oh, dear, save the children! Do it for the children!
It’s not about the children, you mooks.

Bad argument No. 13
"The legal issue of gay marriage ought to be left up to the states."
Quite the opposite, we need a national definition of marriage. Without a public definition embodied in a constitutional amendment, activist judges at various levels will undo the conviction of the vast majority of Americans. Some already have, in defiance of state defense-of-marriage acts. Precedent for a national definition is ample—the federal government outlawed polygamy in the 19th century and the Supreme Court has ruled in the 20th century on many cases regarding marriage.

Polygamy: SEPARATE ISSUE. Biblically okay, too. Yeah, let’s dispense w/the 14th amendment:
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
In short, you folks are trying to limit someone else’s liberties.
So we’re clear on the definition:
1.
a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See synonyms at freedom.
2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

In short, a bunch of sad, sad excuses for discriminating against a specific group. What’s this called? BIGOTRY.

So unless you can provide me w/MULTIPLE studies, cited from SCIENTIFIC, NON-RELIGIOUS sources, I say your argument is null & void.

Now, excuse me, my best friend’s marrying a couch today, so I have to go pick up my tuxedo.

Mesoforte said...

goosehenry

No, we have no burden of proof.

Really, from what I understand of the definition of 'burden of proof', outside of its legal definition, is-

"'burden of proof' means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this". Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it."

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

So, when you make a postive claim, such as 'God exists', you have to 1) first define 'god' and then 2) provide sufficient evidence.

Otherwise, I could hold that there is an invisible, intangible teapot orbiting Mars that is undetectable by any of human means and also created the universe, and still be considered right.

RA

Good post, I might have to 'borrow' some of your arguments if I'm forced into another debate.

Da Rat Bastid said...

Nicely done.
See, this is the "Mud People" argument regurgitated. It's all about "I'm better than you for X reason".
Of course, they're all stupid reasons. You know, like how religious dogma works.
That's all these people do. They denigrate those whom they think denigrate their dogma.
Too bad they don't realize how shallow and crass they truly are...

Beowulf said...

“Oh, boo hoo, I knocked the legs out from under your standard talking points.”

You really haven’t knocked the legs out of anything, because when speaking of *rights* you’re striking with the wet noodle of subjective opinion; a textbook example of wanting your cake and eating it too.

Beowulf said...

***
Da Rat Bastid said...

Nicely done.
See, this is the "Mud People" argument regurgitated. It's all about "I'm better than you for X reason".
Of course, they're all stupid reasons. You know, like how religious dogma works.
That's all these people do. They denigrate those whom they think denigrate their dogma.
Too bad they don't realize how shallow and crass they truly are...

***

Nicely done.
See, this is the "Mud People" argument regurgitated. It's all about "I'm better than you for these subjective reasons".
Of course, they're all stupid reasons. You know, like how atheist dogma works.
That's all these people do. They denigrate those whom they think denigrate their dogma.
Too bad they don't realize how shallow and crass they truly are...

Krystalline Apostate said...

bf:
You really haven’t knocked the legs out of anything, because when speaking of *rights* you’re striking with the wet noodle of subjective opinion; a textbook example of wanting your cake and eating it too.
Is that the best you can do?!?!?
See what happens when it's a level-playing field? Cry, 'persecution!'
That's sad, it is.
I'm not gay: it impacts my life NOT AT ALL if 2 men, or 2 women get married.
But you want to deny a specific group of people a privilege that you & yours have taken for granted for centuries?!?!?
What's that called again?
DISCRIMINATION. Don't cry to me when your limp-ass excuses fail to meet the criterion of liberty.
Be certain: I will fight you people tooth-and-nail over this. If it comes to loud bellows, I'm ready. If it comes to blows, I'm still ready.

Because if someone else's liberty infringes on another's, it's no longer liberty at all.

That's called TYRANNY.
As an American, I expected better from you.

Krystalline Apostate said...

DRB:
Do you go by 'Da', 'Rat', or 'Bastid'?
Nicely done.
It wasn't hard to pull apart, truthfully.
See, this is the "Mud People" argument regurgitated. It's all about "I'm better than you for X reason".
I'm thru granting these people the 'moral high ground', when there's no obvious inclination that they can hold it.
It's all an argument from superiority. Got it in 1.
Of course, they're all stupid reasons. You know, like how religious dogma works.
"none so blind as those who won't listen," hehehehe.
That's all these people do. They denigrate those whom they think denigrate their dogma.
Since government doesn't permit the use of thumbscrews & pillories, it's all they have left.
Too bad they don't realize how shallow and crass they truly are...
I could weep for them, were I not so enraged.

Krystalline Apostate said...

BF:
Of course, they're all stupid reasons. You know, like how atheist dogma works.
That's all you can come up w/? Repeating, word substitution?
Level playing fields suck, don't they?

You wanna worship? Go right ahead, that's your right, as an American.

But YOU have no right to make YOUR beliefs MY law.

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier.

Here:
"An equal application of law to every condition of man is fundamental. -- Thomas Jefferson, to George Hay, 1807. ME 11:341"

Welcome to America. This isn't YOUR country: this isn't MY country: it's OUR country.

& I will not stand idly by, & watch 1 select group of people be discriminated against. That is the antithesis of what we are, what we stand for, the principles we are founded upon.

So, no, in short, your sphere of influence CAN NOT have more liberties than anyone else. Not in the case where no 1 is being hurt.

Krystalline Apostate said...

MF:
Good post, I might have to 'borrow' some of your arguments if I'm forced into another debate.
Feel free, but remember:
Don't be 'forced'.

Goose is a good guy as a rule, but he refuses to bear his 'cross', so to speak.

say no to christ said...

Wow Ra
I am impressed! I did not know you felt so strongly. I am completely with you! Good job tearing down all that garbage.

Bf said:"You really haven’t knocked the legs out of anything, because when speaking of *rights* you’re striking with the wet noodle of subjective opinion; a textbook example of wanting your cake and eating it too."

Do you not get your cake and eat it too? I do. And I think it is sick that you think gays dont deserve the same, after all they pay their taxes too!

Anonymous said...

Hey homey. I just want you to know that I love you.

Americium

Beowulf said...

“Cry, 'persecution!'”

Were did I do that? Straw man as usual.

But you want to deny a specific group of people a privilege that you & yours have taken for granted for centuries?!?!?
What's that called again?


There is no objective standard of privilege remember? It’s like telling lettuce they have the right to be in salad vs. a sandwich. Why is so hard to accept the logical conclusion of your position?

DISCRIMINATION. Don't cry to me when your limp-ass excuses fail to meet the criterion of liberty.

The criterion of liberty stands as it is. Perhaps I’m just not evolved enough. Perhaps, just being a physical being, the laws of physics have determined my chemical states in my mind and I can’t help be opposed to this issue.

Be certain: I will fight you people tooth-and-nail over this. If it comes to loud bellows, I'm ready. If it comes to blows, I'm still ready.

Resorting to violence eye? You act as if there is some ultimate purpose to a nihilistic species.

Because if someone else's liberty infringes on another's, it's no longer liberty at all.

There are limits to everything.

That's called TYRANNY.
As an American, I expected better from you.


As a Christian, I cannot divorce my position of morality from a Biblical grounding. Yes, I know you can’t stand it, but it’s an incontrovertible consequence of who I am. You may hate me because of it, but cant deny it.

‘Tyranny’ is an overstatement. Were not kicking down doors.

That's all you can come up w/? Repeating, word substitution?
Level playing fields suck, don't they?


The field was never level, I don’t usually stoop, but I like to conversate with atheist sometimes. ;-} It’s called giving back the folly. It’s works great with atheist rhetoric.

You wanna worship? Go right ahead, that's your right, as an American.

You want to be homosexual go right ahead, that's your right, as an American. I don’t have a problem w/it.

But YOU have no right to make YOUR beliefs MY law.

I can say the same about same sex marriage mate.

"An equal application of law to every condition of man is fundamental. -- Thomas Jefferson, to George Hay, 1807. ME 11:341"

The same laws that bind homosexuals from marrying bind me from marring another of the same sex.

Welcome to America. This isn't YOUR country: this isn't MY country: it's OUR country.

True, and I have my view on the issue and you yours. So if same-sex marriage is to be approved it needs to be approved democratically, rather than imposed through the courts.


& I will not stand idly by, & watch 1 select group of people be discriminated against. That is the antithesis of what we are, what we stand for, the principles we are founded upon.

The burden of proof is on pro-same sex marriage to make the case to change the definition on marriage, not for the opposition to burden reasons why not to.

So, no, in short, your sphere of influence CAN NOT have more liberties than anyone else. Not in the case where no 1 is being hurt.

I DON’T have MORE liberties than anyone else PERIOD. Your always creating false dilemmas.

Mesoforte said...

As a Christian, I cannot divorce my position of morality from a Biblical grounding. Yes, I know you can’t stand it, but it’s an incontrovertible consequence of who I am. You may hate me because of it, but cant deny it.

The burden of proof is on pro-same sex marriage to make the case to change the definition on marriage, not for the opposition to burden reasons why not to.


You can solve this problem quickly by quitting Christianity, but if you refuse to do that, according to the definition of 'burden of proof', you have to justify your morality and justify why your morality trumps the morality of those who want to be married. Seeing as to fufill this burden of proof you have to prove that your deity not only exists, but also wrote your Bible. I don't think its possible.

Without your capability to prove your morality, I have to assume that 'marriage' is a human creation and that it is amendable to change so that it agrees with natural processes.

I DON’T have MORE liberties than anyone else PERIOD.

Do you have the right to marry a person that you love? A homosexual can't.

True, and I have my view on the issue and you yours. So if same-sex marriage is to be approved it needs to be approved democratically, rather than imposed through the courts.

America isn't a democracy, its a republic. We have a Supreme Court to act as a check on popular opinion. We also have the Senate to act as a check also. (That's the reason the recent amendments haven't passed.)

Krystalline Apostate said...

Were did I do that? Straw man as usual.
I dunno, maybe the part where you suggested “You can schedule my hanging whenever. I am sure you had the rope ready when you stated “Who wants some?”
There is no objective standard of privilege remember? It’s like telling lettuce they have the right to be in salad vs. a sandwich. Why is so hard to accept the logical conclusion of your position?
You forget I’m not a moral relativist. What, is Manata whispering in your ear? Other humans are important to me because they’re human. They ain’t brocolli, my man.
The criterion of liberty stands as it is.
Yes it does, and you fail the test.
Perhaps I’m just not evolved enough.
You said it, not I.
Perhaps, just being a physical being, the laws of physics have determined my chemical states in my mind and I can’t help be opposed to this issue.
& because evolution has hastened my empathy, I can’t help but be sympathetic.
That was a little better effort, but still falls flat.
Resorting to violence eye? You act as if there is some ultimate purpose to a nihilistic species.
Oh, no, no, nice try at a diversion. Still an even playing field. Ultimate purpose? I don’t know. Neither do you. I was raised in America, fella: can’t help it if injustice gets me all fired up.
There are limits to everything.
& I have defined the limits pretty much in a nutshell.
As a Christian, I cannot divorce my position of morality from a Biblical grounding. Yes, I know you can’t stand it, but it’s an incontrovertible consequence of who I am. You may hate me because of it, but can’t deny it.
Hate you? I hate your opinion, but you? You’re just misled. Incontravertible? Must be sad, to be so bereft of free will.
‘Tyranny’ is an overstatement. Were not kicking down doors.
Hey, don’t kid me, sonny. Your own book tells me this:
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
10:6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled."
You’d be kicking down doors if given the chance. You people want the world. & it shows.
The field was never level, I don’t usually stoop, but I like to conversate with atheist sometimes. ;-} It’s called giving back the folly. It’s works great with atheist rhetoric.
HAHAHAHAHA! Oh, that’s just delightful. ‘Don’t usually stoop’? See, you xtians are just as arrogant, if not more so, than anyone else. ‘Giving back the folly’. Most jolly. Rhetoric? Sour grapes: your position is indefensible w/o god existing.
You’ve been debunked my friend. Don’t get all butt hurt over it.
You want to be homosexual go right ahead, that's your right, as an American. I don’t have a problem w/it.
Mighty white o’ you, son. But, if I were gay, you’d take away my right to be recognized by society as having a lifetime companion?
You people make me sick.
I can say the same about same sex marriage mate.
Oh, please, it doesn’t impact you at all. It’s all esthetics, & stone age morals.
The same laws that bind homosexuals from marrying bind me from marring another of the same sex.
Then the law will be changed.
True, and I have my view on the issue and you yours. So if same-sex marriage is to be approved it needs to be approved democratically, rather than imposed through the courts.
Snort, chuckle, snort. It must be soothing to be that naïve. The State either ratifies it, or it doesn’t. Going to start in w/the ‘radical activist judge’ crap anytime now.
This goes beyond ‘subjectivity’, this goes to the very heart of the human condition: DISCRIMINATION.
No amount of sophistry is going to change that.
The burden of proof is on pro-same sex marriage to make the case to change the definition on marriage, not for the opposition to burden reasons why not to.
I think I’ve addressed these well enough. Civil rights. No, don’t squirm: that’s the gist of it.
I refer you to the definition of civil rights at the beginning of my post.
I DON’T have MORE liberties than anyone else PERIOD. Your always creating false dilemmas.
You have the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex, but not to marry someone of the same sex. As for false dilemmas, well, I’d have to say: your side takes the brass ring on that 1.

You want to be a slave to Iron Age morals & fairy tales, be my guest.
But I will not kiss the boot, or bless the whip.

Krystalline Apostate said...

SNTC:
I am impressed! I did not know you felt so strongly. I am completely with you! Good job tearing down all that garbage.
Hey, I feel strongly about ALL inequities. Injustice really blows a wild hair up my...prostate gland.
Could be too many years reading comic books, or suffering injustice at the hands of other kids.
Or maybe it's because...I'm an American, & it goes contrary to our principles.

Beowulf said...

You can solve this problem quickly by quitting Christianity,

I can also play chicken with train, but then I would have to crucify my intellect first.

but if you refuse to do that, according to the definition of 'burden of proof', you have to justify your morality and justify why your morality trumps the morality of those who want to be married. Seeing as to fufill this burden of proof you have to prove that your deity not only exists, but also wrote your Bible. I don't think its possible.

You’re the one’s saying there is an injustice right? The burden of proof is of you. Whether or not I am a theist or Buddhist, I can demolish you moral claim, tuff luck.

My world view meets the preconditions for universal moral standards. Unfortunately for you, you’re high and dry for morality. The thing is, I can beat at your own game of morality using your own rules. If I step inside your world view, you got nothing but meat patties talking in accordance the laws of physics.

Without your capability to prove your morality, I have to assume that 'marriage' is a human creation and that it is amendable to change so that it agrees with natural processes.

Fine, lets assume we are natural processes are evolving to accept same-sex marriage, since there is no *goal* (except for maybe survival) can it not evolve into ‘gasp’ bigotry and revert right out? Why assume natural processes are promoting same sex marriage. There doesn’t seem to be any survival advantage to it?

Do you have the right to marry a person that you love? A homosexual can't.

Well, you can if it's a woman; you can't if it's a man. Neither can I.

According to the law, I can't marry any person I love. Likewise, if I fell in love with my daughter (blast the retched thought!), or if I fell in love with my mother, I couldn't marry them.

If I fell in love with my first cousin I can't marry her. So in the same way, I'm restricted in that I cannot marry a member of the same sex.

But of course the objection of "they don't want to marry the opposite sex, they want to marry the same sex." Well, what you want is a different issue.

The fact is you, me and all other homosexuals have the same freedoms; however, homosexuals just don't want to exercise them.

Homosexuals want more than the same legal freedoms that I have. Thus, this is an *additional freedom* (whether right or wrong), a *special right*. As it stands, Society has no *obligation* to grant that.

Honestly, as an Americans homosexuals *ought* to have the very same rights that every other American has, but as homosexuals, they *ought not* have any unique status by the law.

Krystalline Apostate said...

I can also play chicken with train, but then I would have to crucify my intellect first.
I think that you already have.
You’re the one’s saying there is an injustice right? The burden of proof is of you. Whether or not I am a theist or Buddhist, I can demolish you moral claim, tuff luck.
You can’t demolish squat by your own. Burden of proof is all yours, stop squirming.
My world view meets the preconditions for universal moral standards. Unfortunately for you, you’re high and dry for morality. The thing is, I can beat at your own game of morality using your own rules. If I step inside your world view, you got nothing but meat patties talking in accordance the laws of physics.
You haven’t done that at all. What a joke. All you have is co-dependence on an absent daddy.
Fine, lets assume we are natural processes are evolving to accept same-sex marriage, since there is no *goal* (except for maybe survival) can it not evolve into ‘gasp’ bigotry and revert right out? Why assume natural processes are promoting same sex marriage. There doesn’t seem to be any survival advantage to it?
No, because we don’t need survival advantage anymore. Welcome to civilization.
Well, you can if it's a woman; you can't if it's a man. Neither can I.
& that’s not bigotry?!?!?
According to the law, I can't marry any person I love. Likewise, if I fell in love with my daughter (blast the retched thought!), or if I fell in love with my mother, I couldn't marry them.
That’s demonstrably antagonistic to the gene pool. Called inbreeding.
But of course the objection of "they don't want to marry the opposite sex, they want to marry the same sex." Well, what you want is a different issue.
Yes it is. Nothing to do whatsoever w/incest.
The fact is you, me and all other homosexuals have the same freedoms; however, homosexuals just don't want to exercise them.
Sophistry. I’m afraid to even ask: what the fuck are you talking about?
Homosexuals want more than the same legal freedoms that I have. Thus, this is an *additional freedom* (whether right or wrong), a *special right*. As it stands, Society has no *obligation* to grant that.
They want to get married, that’s more of a legal freedom than you have? Yeesh, don’t bogart that joint, my friend, pass it over here.
Honestly, as an Americans homosexuals *ought* to have the very same rights that every other American has, but as homosexuals, they *ought not* have any unique status by the law.
Good shit you’re smoking! Aye, caramba! Their being able to get married, like regular folks, is giving them unique status?

Man, my estimation of your thinking abilities just dropped 2 notches. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.

If I were superstitious, I’d say that C.S Loonie is spinning in his grave right about now.

Your dervish dances of divinity are pretty much grotesque acrobatics right about now. Unfunny, un-cogent, & completely bereft of logic. Get some sleep.

Beowulf said...

Thank you very much for your comments.

Classically, the magic shield of skepticism and begging the question can shelter any requirement for you to justify your assumptions. I can always count on you to call names, respond out of context, miss all my points, then waste a great deal of time slaughtering straw men on my behalf. Next thing you know, my archaic “dervish dances of divinity” will be attributed to licking toad bellies and commenting while under induced psychosis. May evolution and the laws of physics change the molecular structure in my brain…

GooseHenry said...

RA

"Hey, you didn’t count any exclusions to your ‘they just don’t care anymore’ statement."

Well, i should be more careful. There certainly are cases where divorce is justified.

"There are many reason for rejecting atheism and embracing theism. Morality (which you adhere to all the time but deny), the existence of minds&free will, laws of logic, intrinsic values etc.
All of which is explainable by natural law, which you ascribe to some supernatural entity.

All of which is explainable by 1 concept: EVOLUTION."

It's not that easy to explain these phenomenon without assuming some form of dualism - matter&mind.

You and I are not two zombies exchanging input and output according to our biological programming.

"A statement you have absolutely no proof of, outside of a book of fairy tales, & enforced tradtions, & an appeal to wonder."

I don't have to prove this. Persons simply are worthy of dignity&respect. Helping an old lady cross the street is good. Reduction to simple accounts of energy&matter is absurd.

Okay, dissection:

"Hey, Goose, the tone of my post is antagonistic. Besides, it’s not as if I’m pushing you in a corner & demanding your lunch money. Yeesh, we’re all adults here."

Yes, we are. It sometimes baffles me though, on atheist blogs, that arguments aren't met with counterarguments, but rather arguments from outrage.

"Not to mention I find the effort to suppress gay marriage a bully pulpit, forcing others to accede, depriving other human beings of their rights, a last-ditch effort to bring lockstep conformity to a lifestyle frowned upon."

Doesn't this cut both ways? I mean all laws force morality in some way or another. Legalization of gay marriage would "force" your morality as much as we "force" our.

"In short, I find the whole concept of telling others what to do (in this matter) an inequity, an injustice, completely wrong."

Again, i don't see it as if we were telling homosexuals what to do. What they do is up to them.

We want to keep the definition of marriage as it is.

In all fairness, you have to agree that if we change the definition, we could end up with people marrying anything.

Beowulf said...

“In all fairness, you have to agree that if we change the definition, we could end up with people marrying anything."

The old slippery slope argument? That will never work! RA has refuted that so many times. It’s not as if someone would marry a Dolphin, or a snake.

farmgirl said...

Hey ra must admit I havent read all the comments yet but this is for GOOSE.
so would you stare me in the eyes and tell me I cant marry the person I love. How dare you how dare anyone tell anyone they cant marry who they choose Im not asking to marry my car or any thing like that. just the man or women I choose to.

But the most fucked up thing is If I fall in love with a man and have srs I can marry him afterwards or if I fall in love with a women and get married and have srs I have to divorce her.

But of course the hets have such a great system of marriage its not what over 50% divorce rate I think the xtians main problem with gay marriage is we might make there divorce rate look worse then it is.

Toni

Dave Fitzgerald said...

Heya RA!
Usually I'm happy to jump into discussions like this with both feet - but damn, man! What could I add at this point? You've done a great job of pointing out the illogic of the anti-gay marriage crowd! Well done!

I have no doubt whatsoever that 50 years from now, Gay Marriage will be just as accepted as the end of slavery, women's sufferage, divorce and interacial marriage -all of which were thought to surely going to destroy society, too! The exact same lame arguments were pulled out for all of them, too.

Incidently, ditto for Evolution. It will be like the flat Earth vs. round Earth "controversy." The steps go like this:
1. First Christians kill those who believe the earth is round and point to all the Bible verses which say it's flat.
2. Then as it becomes increasingly obvious that they are wrong, they declare " the jury is still out."
3. Then it's gingerly suggested that you can still be a Christian and believe the earth is round.
4. Then, when the evidence is so overwhelming that their position has become ridiculous, they re-interpret all the old flat -earth bible verses and start looking for verses that imply the earth is round.
5. Then they act like they've always known the earth was round.
6. Then they cite the round earth as proof positive of their god's wonderful creation.

Just substitute "evolution" in the above and watch. I think we're already well into stage 3 and getting into stage 4. I fully expect Christians to be taking credit for Evolution in 10-20 years. So don't worry, Christians: you'll be just fine. You'll survive Gay Marriage, Evolution, Stem cell research, etc. and if your apocalypse fetish hasn't destroyed civilization, you'll be all worked up over some other non-issue then, too.
-DF

heathenz said...

Just a couple of comments

1. bf:
According to the law, I can't marry any person I love. Likewise, if I fell in love with my daughter (blast the retched thought!), or if I fell in love with my mother, I couldn't marry them.

ra:
That’s demonstrably antagonistic to the gene pool. Called inbreeding.


I am sypathetic to bf's position here. Unless the purpose of marriage is procreation (which it demonstrably is not) there seems no logical agrument to prevent the marriage of close family members. I certainly recognise the commonly held repugnance of such a union, but I have yet to see a valid reason outside of 'inbreeding' and 'eww'.


2. In terms of the "everyone lives uder the same restriction - therefore there is no discrimination" argument. This was framed by bf in the manner of everyone is free to marry a member of the opposite sex (close family excluded), and everyone is also restricted from marry a member of their own sex, there fore everyone is treated equally and lives by the same rules.

I'd like to try an analogy with a ficicious "whites only" golf club. If member A brings a white guest to play a round of golf - no poblems. If member B brings a black, yellow, or purple guest - they are refused entry. Here also the rules are the same for both members, but it's the rules that are discriminatory, not the application of said rules.

Likewise the application of restrictive marriage laws is not in principle discriminatory, but the rules themselves are discriminatory and unfair.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Yes, we are. It sometimes baffles me though, on atheist blogs, that arguments aren't met with counterarguments, but rather arguments from outrage.
Well, personally, I’m filled w/a bit of outrage, that somebody is relegated to the status of 2nd class citizenry due to rules that are way past their prime. & I don't understand how I haven't 'counterargued'. I feel I covered all the bases.
Doesn't this cut both ways? I mean all laws force morality in some way or another. Legalization of gay marriage would "force" your morality as much as we "force" our.
If you want to view it this way, then it’s a matter of balance, of being fair. It's not 'forcing' anyone. You yourself said they have just as many rights as you do. Save 1.
Again, i don't see it as if we were telling homosexuals what to do. What they do is up to them.
You’re telling them they can’t get married.
We want to keep the definition of marriage as it is.
A definition that has changed considerably over the centuries.
In all fairness, you have to agree that if we change the definition, we could end up with people marrying anything.
Unless you can establish a direct causal link between a man marrying another man, as opposed to a man/woman marrying a couch, I’d say that’s bogus.

BF:
The old slippery slope argument? That will never work! RA has refuted that so many times. It’s not as if someone would marry a Dolphin, or a snake.
I can’t speak to that crazy lady marrying Flipper, but you do know, that the snake marriage was a religious ceremony, right?

Classically, the magic shield of skepticism and begging the question can shelter any requirement for you to justify your assumptions. I can always count on you to call names, respond out of context, miss all my points, then waste a great deal of time slaughtering straw men on my behalf. Next thing you know, my archaic “dervish dances of divinity” will be attributed to licking toad bellies and commenting while under induced psychosis. May evolution and the laws of physics change the molecular structure in my brain…
Likewise, I can always count on you to conjure these items out of thin air. As most of your mythical tautology consists of such.
Thanks for your complete lack of explanation of what the hell you meant about homosexuals wanting -more- rights (unless you’re hinting at the VAST RADICAL HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA, another mythical creature you believe in).

Let's be honest here: As an atheist, this to me is our only shot, our 1 time on earth. There is no hereafter, no 'ultimate purpose'. So which do we choose? Darkness, or light? Mistreating others is darkness. Fairness is light.
A greater, more eloquent man than I, once said: "You have to be the change you want to see in the world."
I want to be that change. You should as well. We all should.
Life is short. There is no other.
No better reason exists than this, to extend kindnesses to our brethren.
It is only fair, that we extend the courtesies, the kindnesses, the considerations that we ourselves expect, to others.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"Unless you can establish a direct causal link between a man marrying another man, as opposed to a man/woman marrying a couch, I’d say that’s bogus."

I can't. However i've seen what liberalisation can look like.

For example, at first abortions were meant to be used in rare cases. Today it has escalated, it is an industry. The death machine consumes masses of babies, something unimaginable just a couple of decades ago. Protest against it today, and you are called bigot and fundie. Bullying into a corner.

There is no reason that 20 years from today, given that we redefine marriage, that the left won't scream "hatespeech" if somebody protests against someone marrying their car.

Mesoforte said...

You’re the one’s saying there is an injustice right? The burden of proof is of you. Whether or not I am a theist or Buddhist, I can demolish you moral claim, tuff luck.

I haven't made that claim, yet. My claim so far is that your morality has not evidence to support it.

My world view meets the preconditions for universal moral standards. Unfortunately for you, you’re high and dry for morality. The thing is, I can beat at your own game of morality using your own rules. If I step inside your world view, you got nothing but meat patties talking in accordance the laws of physics.

What are you talking about? I base my 'morality' on something else.

Fine, lets assume we are natural processes are evolving to accept same-sex marriage, since there is no *goal* (except for maybe survival) can it not evolve into ‘gasp’ bigotry and revert right out? Why assume natural processes are promoting same sex marriage. There doesn’t seem to be any survival advantage to it?

You don't think it could promote 'survivorship'? When you have overpopulation, homosexual relationships reduce the overall population over the span of a few generations and can bring a species back into its carrying capacity.

Well, you can if it's a woman; you can't if it's a man. Neither can I.

Gender is irrelevant if you don't love them.

According to the law, I can't marry any person I love. Likewise, if I fell in love with my daughter (blast the retched thought!), or if I fell in love with my mother, I couldn't marry them.

Incest is demonstatably harmful. We still have yet to try homosexuality, so we don't know if it will create problems or not.

Homosexuals want more than the same legal freedoms that I have. Thus, this is an *additional freedom* (whether right or wrong), a *special right*. As it stands, Society has no *obligation* to grant that.

Well, if we grant them the ability to marry, the you would also be able to marry a person of the same gender, so you would have the same rights as them. ^_^

Honestly, as an Americans homosexuals *ought* to have the very same rights that every other American has, but as homosexuals, they *ought not* have any unique status by the law.

But you would have the same rights, you could both marry within your sex.

mxracer652 said...

someone marrying their car

This is nonsense, marriage is nothing more than a contract between 2 competent, opposite sex adults. This is no different than a business partnership, when the partnership/marriage dissolves, assets are divided, and the two parties go their separate ways.

Non-homosapiens can't enter into legally binding contracts, this includes automobiles, animals, etc.

The only thing gays want is to have their contract legally acknowledged.

say no to christ said...

I think the christian argument is still based on choice. They think people choose to be gay. They completely ignore all the research or just dont care and want gay people to conform to their ideaology. It is NOT that simple! They are born gay, it is NOT a choice! Would any of you want to be forced to marry someone that did nothing for you sexually? Someone that did not stir that sexual passion in you that just makes you want to ravish your partner? I know I wouldnt!!

Do any of you anti-gay marriage christians know what happens to gays who try to go staight? They cant stop how they feel and end up having affairs with the same sex EVERYTIME! And do you know how awful it makes a woman feel when the man she married doesnt want to have sex with her or vise versa? Why put these people is these heart breaking situations? Why not give people the freedom to live and love and marry who and how they want to? Who in the hell is that going to hurt?? NO ONE!

My marriage will not be effected whatsoever, it will still be valid and it doesnt effect the passion we have for eachother. If you are truely worried about gay marriage affecting your marriage than your marriage was doomed anyways.

And finally as a parent I would not want my children to marry anyone that doesnt make them truely happy and if that means someone of the same sex, sobeit! Only a tyrantical asshole would deny their children the right to true happiness!

bf

for your childs own mental being I hope to hell she doesnt turn out gay. And from one parent to another never say never cuz your kids will always do something to shock the hell out of you.

GooseHenry said...

mxracer

"Non-homosapiens can't enter into legally binding contracts, this includes automobiles, animals, etc."

says who?

say not to christ said...

Goose

When did cars and animals begin speaking and writing??

MF said:"You don't think it could promote 'survivorship'? When you have overpopulation, homosexual relationships reduce the overall population over the span of a few generations and can bring a species back into its carrying capacity."

Absolutely!! Nature has always found ways to balance itself out.

My inlaws have cattle and a certain type of twins are always born sterile and the sterile females are always the babysitters. I know it is a bit of a different situation with cows and gays but I think gay people make the best homes for unwanted children for similar reasons. I cant help but think about all the orphans and aids babies that could finally have loving homes. We sure havent seen all those anti gay marriage christiatns out there adopting the orphans and aids babies and come to think of it neither are those crazy anti choice christians.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
There is no reason that 20 years from today, given that we redefine marriage, that the left won't scream "hatespeech" if somebody protests against someone marrying their car.
I...just...can't...stop...laughing. I think you're really treading on thin ice w/that example.
I sure would like to be miles away from that event, I assure you.
I was kidding, BTW, about my best friend marrying a couch, I hope you know that.
He's actually marrying a tree.
LMAO!
says who?
Says any1 w/ 1/2 a lick of sense, that's who.
I'm starting to wonder: is there any historical data on people/inanimate objects getting married?

This is a ridiculous red herring is what this is. 'Gateway behavior'. Hmph! If some kid is that easily gulled into something like that, I'd have to say the parent's not doing a very good job of raising them.

Let's put this back on track: we're talking about a contract between 2 human beings. That's it.
& you think that people are going to slide into something that ridiculous?
You call ME a cynic? Yeesh, you make me look like Polyanna.

Krystalline Apostate said...

SNTC:
A few items.
They are born gay, it is NOT a choice!
I'm not up on the biological aspect, but as I understand it, men are born w/a specific amount of testosterone, & women w/an amount of estrogen.
Would any of you want to be forced to marry someone that did nothing for you sexually? Someone that did not stir that sexual passion in you that just makes you want to ravish your partner? I know I wouldnt!!
In all actuality, it was the Romans who 1st instituted the concept of love in marriage, & allowing people to pick their own partners. As much as it repulses us Americans, the world by & large engages in arranged marriage.
I cant help but think about all the orphans and aids babies that could finally have loving homes.
Er, ummm, let's get gay marriage institutionalized, & find out if the majority can provide such things. The adoption talking point is 1 of their red herrings, which needs to get fished out of the equation, so to speak.
I am fairly sure that gay couples can provide loving homes (as evidenced by the APA study I provided in the post).
1 thing at a time, is what I'm saying.

heathenz said...

I'd like to again ask the question about marrying close relatives (assuming procreaton is not involved) whether it be a gay or straight marriage. Other than unhealthy breeding and customary illegality, what logical reasons are there to ban the practice? The former is not necessarily a component of any marriage gay, straight, or kissing cousins; the latter is I think an anacronism.

I ask this not to advocate the institution, but because I can't see any reason to treat it differently than any other pair of people wanting to marry. Please - atheist or theist help me out. What am I missing?

heathenz said...

I wonder if the repressed right's objection to gay marriage is rooted in a fear that after it's legalized many of these same repressed pairing will dissolve to search for a mate that better fulfills their wants and desires .... someone of their own sex???

heathenz said...

With regard to marrying cars, I know a few redneck xians around here that would happily marry their trucks :)

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
For example, at first abortions were meant to be used in rare cases.
Turned out that the need was underestimated.
Today it has escalated, it is an industry.
An industry, as I understand it, has spokesmen & sales people. It has neither.
The death machine consumes masses of babies, something unimaginable just a couple of decades ago. Protest against it today, and you are called bigot and fundie. Bullying into a corner.
The 'death machine'? You obviously don't live out here.
I realize this was example only, but this is an entirely separate topic.
As to bullying in a corner: your side of the fence is starting to know how that feels.
As you sow, so shall you reap.
Now: attack the argument, stop poisoning the well, & lay off the red herrings. I can smell 'em from here.

Krystalline Apostate said...

HZ:
I ask this not to advocate the institution, but because I can't see any reason to treat it differently than any other pair of people wanting to marry. Please - atheist or theist help me out. What am I missing?
Incest is an age-old taboo, as I understand it, institutionalized in the stone age.

"incest, sexual relations between persons to whom marriage is prohibited by custom or law because of their close kinship. Ideas of kinship, however, vary widely from group to group, hence the definition of incest also varies. Customs prescribing whom a person may and may not marry are found among all human groups, and these apparently antedated knowledge of the genetic effects of the intermarriage of close relatives. Even modern prohibitions of incest are based only in part on the observed fact that inherited defects tend to be transmitted in intensified form when both parents possess the same genes. In many societies, the marriage of parents and offspring, or brothers and sisters, is prohibited and abhorred—this is the incest taboo, much discussed in the anthropological literature. Only in some royal families, as in ancient Egypt and among the Inca, were such marriages customary, perhaps with the goal of conserving royal prerogatives and property; such marriages may have been largely symbolic. Theories concerning the incest taboo include sociological and psychological interpretations. In anthropology, it is often considered in relation to rules of exogamy, by which marriage serves as a means of social alliance between groups who might otherwise be disposed to fight one another. Incest is a recurrent theme in mythology and literature across the world, and it has played an important role in psychoanalytical speculation and theory (see Oedipus complex). For the contemporary legal aspects of incest, see consanguinity."

I knew the Egyptians used to intermarry (& their deities had some weird-ass family trees, I tell ya!), but I didn't know about the Incans. There was intermarriage among the earlier European monarchs (good thing, or the good ole USA wouldn't exist!).

Originally, far as I can tell, marrying outside the clan was used to cement alliances w/neighbors. Probably that, combined w/the obvious side-effects (six fingers, webbed feet), resulted in the taboo against incest. But that's my uneducated observation.

heathenz said...

RA,

Thanks for the attempted answer, but all I really see in there is that it's a social taboo, which epistemologically speaking is about equivalent to "eww".

This is one of the same reasons espoused against homosexual relationships, and I reject it on that front too.

As regarding the necessaity of building alliances, well that seems more than a little anachronistic in this day and age.

In other words these are not logical reasons to outlaw such relationships.

I'm begining to think that logical reasoned arguments may not even exist.

say no to christ said...

Ra said:"In all actuality, it was the Romans who 1st instituted the concept of love in marriage, & allowing people to pick their own partners. As much as it repulses us Americans, the world by & large engages in arranged marriage."

Love and monogamy have been observed in endigenous peoples that had not been influenced by patriarchal cultures. Marriage arrangments came around with dowry and property rights and dowry and property rights evolved out of patriarchal rule and patriarchal rule evolved out of drought and famine.

Marriage on the otherhand is really a product of patriachal rule as a way for men to make claims on a woman and her land. In prehistoric times only women owned land. Women were the gatherers and naturally they were the ones to create agriculture and work the land. Even today in very patriachal areas of India women are still responisible for and own their farms. I'm getting way off my point here so I'll get to it. Love and monogamy are prehistoric, but had a horrific change due to drought and famine. It was the romans that re-introduced it probably because of memories and stories from their pasts.

say no to christ said...

HeatheNZ said:"I'm begining to think that logical reasoned arguments may not even exist."

Lol I know what you mean.

The studies done on endeginous peoples show that there were very little taboos about sex and kind of mates yet there was no incest and very little same sex coupling. Of course the oldest endigenous peoples were matriarchal and young men were incouraged to leave the clan and to find a mate just like the rest of the mamals on this planet. Inbreeding doesnt happen in the wild, but gay sex does!

say no to christ said...

Ra said:"I'm not up on the biological aspect, but as I understand it, men are born w/a specific amount of testosterone, & women w/an amount of estrogen."

I know that depending on the amout of hormones delivered during gestation has a lot to do with sexual identity, but I cant say exactly how that all works. I also read a few articles on the studies of the effects male pharamones have on gay men and vise versa and I also read about a study done on brain waves. It appears gay men tend to have feminine brain waves and vise versa.

say no to christ said...

Here are some links on the studies of biological gaydom.

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/95/950310Arc5328.html

http://www.geocities.com/southbeach/boardwalk/7151/biobasis.html

mxracer652 said...

goose, what's your angle? Non humans lack the capacity for bartering (OK, some non human apes delve into prostitution). They lack the mental capacity to understand what is going on, they are not competent, based on our standards. Same applies to persons under 18 (in the US), or people with mental difficulties.

mxracer652 said...

HNZ,
Aside from the potential to reproduce & create a genetic misfit, there are no real arguments against it. Even in parent/offspring mating, there is a 25% chance the resulting child could be genetically OK, depending on which sets of chromosomes get passed on.

Since most marriages wind up producing offspring, the argument could be made that the risk is too high. But this doesn't apply to the infertile or people who just don't want children. Tricky indeed, I'll have to put that in bf's pipe & smoke it.

Krystalline Apostate said...

mxracer:
goose, what's your angle?
Oh, I know his angle.
It's the argument that someone can marry anything that gets them aroused.
'Love ain't nothing but sex misspelled', as Harlan Ellison puts it.
Man, he makes ME look like Rebecca of Donnybrook farm.
Word substitution intentional.

SNTC:
Thanks for the links, I'll give 'em a gander.

Krystalline Apostate said...

SNTC:
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/95/950310Arc5328.htm
That 1 didn't work at all.

say no to christ said...

Man, I must have had monogamy on the brain earlier when I posted. I ment to say love and freedom to choose their mates.

say no to christ said...

Sorry Ra it sure doesnt work. If you type in studies in gay biology you should get a few good links. Gay studies has come a long way and the religious right has fought hard to keep it surpressed. Thank gawd for the net. ;)

Can you tell I had nothing to do all day, but fart around on the computer? Dont get many of those days so I gotta take advatage when I can.:)

GooseHenry said...

Goose:

"I...just...can't...stop...laughing. I think you're really treading on thin ice w/that example."

Had you lived 100 years ago, you would have been equally outraged at the thought of redefining marriage.

"I was kidding, BTW, about my best friend marrying a couch, I hope you know that."

I assumed you did, yes.

"Says any1 w/ 1/2 a lick of sense, that's who."

Who has a lick of sense? It's all subject to change.

Imagine all the people that have been hurt in relationships with people. They have the right to marry an object which will never cheat on them.

Why wouldn't this be seen as common sense in 30 years?

There is absolutely no reason why it wouldn't go this way.

"I'm starting to wonder: is there any historical data on people/inanimate objects getting married?"

No, but that's no obstacle as sociey "progresses"

"we're talking about a contract between 2 human beings. That's it."

Says who?

"& you think that people are going to slide into something that ridiculous?"

I bet the same thing was said about redefinition of marriage 100 years ago. Ridiculous is subjective and subject to change&redefinition.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"An industry, as I understand it, has spokesmen & sales people. It has neither."

No, but it sees only money and have no problems treating women as mere clients without any consideration for the baby.

"Now: attack the argument, stop poisoning the well, & lay off the red herrings. I can smell 'em from here."

I am niehter poisoning the well nor am i trying to introduce a irrelevant topic. It was an example only of how things can escalate.

Beowulf said...

RA,

You need more of those ‘beauty’ naps. You didn’t even give a charity laugh at my “licking toad bellies” crack.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Had you lived 100 years ago, you would have been equally outraged at the thought of redefining marriage.
Perhaps. Moot point.
Who has a lick of sense? It's all subject to change.
Oh, my. How cynical.
Imagine all the people that have been hurt in relationships with people. They have the right to marry an object which will never cheat on them.
Why wouldn't this be seen as common sense in 30 years?
There is absolutely no reason why it wouldn't go this way.

The actual term you’re alluding to is paraphilia.
No, but that's no obstacle as sociey "progresses"
Oh please. It’s commonly acknowledged fact that these are disorders. Homosexuality used to be classified as such, but we’re talking about human beings here. You seem to think there’s no depths humans will sink to w/o god.
I have more ‘faith’ in my species than you do, it appears.
Says who?
Says the definition of a civil union, as put forth here:
” A civil union is a legal partnership agreement between two persons. They are typically created for same-sex couples with the purpose of granting them benefits that are found in marriage. Some jurisdictions, however, also allow entry by opposite-sex couples. Unions that are similar to or synonymous with civil unions include civil partnerships, registered partnerships , and domestic partnerships. Some jurisdictions have unions that are identical to marriage in nearly every way except name, while some only allow minimal reciprocal benefits.”
I bet the same thing was said about redefinition of marriage 100 years ago. Ridiculous is subjective and subject to change&redefinition.
This is a really, really weak talking point. Unless you can establish a distinct causal link, it’s entirely speculation.
In short, you should abandon it entirely. It’s silly.
Unless you can provide some authentic real-world examples, that is.


No, but it sees only money and have no problems treating women as mere clients without any consideration for the baby.

& you know this how? From personal experience? Hearsay? Maybe you can enforce that w/some facts?
I am niehter poisoning the well nor am i trying to introduce a irrelevant topic. It was an example only of how things can escalate.
Okay. It seems to be a blurry grey line on this 1, so I'll cut you some slack.

Krystalline Apostate said...

bf:
You need more of those ‘beauty’ naps. You didn’t even give a charity laugh at my “licking toad bellies” crack.
Sorry, the joke kinda got lost in between your defaming my character & your declaration of moral & intellectual superiority.
I think you need to work on your humility & modesty a little bit more. ;)

GooseHenry said...

RA

"The actual term you’re alluding to is paraphilia."

Yes. What would stop paraphiles from marrying in the future?

"Oh please. It’s commonly acknowledged fact that these are disorders. Homosexuality used to be classified as such, but we’re talking about human beings here."

Paraphiles are also human beings with needs.

"You seem to think there’s no depths humans will sink to w/o god.
I have more ‘faith’ in my species than you do, it appears."

Dephts? Humanity is a product of evolution remember? It can neither sink deep or elevate itself, it just becomes. It just is. Period. Your moral statements should be based in nature, ie. that which appears is natural. That which appears cannot deviate from any norm, since no such exists.

Ahimsa - do no harm. Preventing paraphiles from marrying their couch harms them. Therefore they should be allowed to. They aren't violating any norm in doing so.

"Says the definition of a civil union, as put forth here:
” A civil union is a legal partnership agreement between two persons. They are typically created for same-sex couples with the purpose of granting them benefits that are found in marriage. Some jurisdictions, however, also allow entry by opposite-sex couples. Unions that are similar to or synonymous with civil unions include civil partnerships, registered partnerships , and domestic partnerships. Some jurisdictions have unions that are identical to marriage in nearly every way except name, while some only allow minimal reciprocal benefits.”"

That's so old fashioned, the law is way past its prime.

"This is a really, really weak talking point. Unless you can establish a distinct causal link, it’s entirely speculation.
In short, you should abandon it entirely. It’s silly.
Unless you can provide some authentic real-world examples, that is."

No, you cannot claim to any norm whatsoever. Can you provide any good reason why redefinition of marriage wouldn't lead to a slippery slope?

"& you know this how? From personal experience? Hearsay? Maybe you can enforce that w/some facts?"

Read some online testimonies of women who have had the procedure.

Beowulf said...

“Sorry, the joke kinda got lost in between your defaming my character & your declaration of moral & intellectual superiority.”

I neither defamed your character nor claimed moral & intellectual superiority in my statement. I merely called it how I see it. I thought you had thicker skin than to get all but hurt over it.

I think you need to work on your humility & modesty a little bit more. ;)

Tu Quoque

Krystalline Apostate said...

BF:
I neither defamed your character nor claimed moral & intellectual superiority in my statement. I merely called it how I see it.
Then I suggest you get glasses.
I thought you had thicker skin than to get all but hurt over it.
Oh, please. You flatter yourself far too much. If I were truly 'thin-skinned', I'd be hiding in a corner mumbling these opinions to myself, not being the brazen big-mouth blogger that I am. Someone here's walkin' funny, & it ain't me, from what little I can tell.
Tu Quoque
A touch! A veritable sting! Forsooth, I am wounded to the quick!
You did see the wink emoticon at the end of the sentence.
Humble & modest I ain't. Honest, & blunt I am.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Yes. What would stop paraphiles from marrying in the future?
-GROAN- you didn't look up the definition, did you?
"Any of a group of psychosexual disorders characterized by sexual fantasies, feelings, or activities involving a nonhuman object, a nonconsenting partner such as a child, or pain or humiliation of oneself or one's partner. Also called sexual deviation."
Paraphiles are also human beings with needs.
Well, until the APA changes those definitions, you've got no point at all.
Dephts? Humanity is a product of evolution remember? It can neither sink deep or elevate itself, it just becomes. It just is. Period. Your moral statements should be based in nature, ie. that which appears is natural. That which appears cannot deviate from any norm, since no such exists.
Well, let's see: humanity can elevate itself. I've said as much in prior posts. That's due to evolution. Paraphilia, for instance, is demonstrably unnatural.
Ahimsa - do no harm. Preventing paraphiles from marrying their couch harms them. Therefore they should be allowed to. They aren't violating any norm in doing so.
Very good. Nicely done. Seriously. You're doing much better. However, it is violating the norm. There are normative conditions in any society. Remember, not a moral relativist? Anyways, that was a joke, & seriously, I've searched for any instance, historical or modern, where someone has tried to marry an inanimate object. Came up w/zilch. Maybe you can find some? Until then, this is still not a great example.
That's so old fashioned, the law is way past its prime.
What? Denmark was 1st, in 1989. Plenty of states in my country have instituted this in the 21st CE. & I can easily say the same thing about the laws in that book you treasure. Far more outdated.
No, you cannot claim to any norm whatsoever. Can you provide any good reason why redefinition of marriage wouldn't lead to a slippery slope?
What? Well, because thus far, all the redefinitions to date haven't resulted in an orgy of immoral excess. Really, this is getting a little out there. There's NO WAY you can prove a direct causal link to any of your 'slippery slope' arguments, outside of speculation. You can't prove any of it. You guys w/your 1 note of 'doom & gloom' is getting old.
Has ANYONE in ANY of the countries that recognize a civil union, demanded the right to marry inanimate objects? Outside of some loony in the booby hatch?
Oh, & I missed a talking point, which I will promptly refute here & now.
1 of the commoner comments I've seen, is that 'other deviants/wackos/perverts' will jump on the bandwagon, & insist on getting THEIR views in the public arena.
Of course they will. That's just human nature. NAMBLA pulls this sort of shit in this country all the time.
They have absolutely NO lobbyists. They send in contributions, which are promptly SENT BACK, UNCASHED.
Because there are limits. To everything.
But gay marriage is completely unconnected to any of these things.
I require EVIDENCE. Only then will I grant you any leeway.
Read some online testimonies of women who have had the procedure.
Hey, I know some women who've gone thru it. But I'm not going to go there, seeing as I have no uterus.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose, BF:
Either of you guys gonna vote?
http://biblioblography.blogspot.com/2006/07/and-votes-arent-quite-in-yethey-are.html

GooseHenry said...

RA

Going to have to browse through your posts then.

It's going to take some time deciding which one is the least whacky;)

good night

Beowulf said...

Okay, I’ll give some input. But it’s kinda like asking me what my favorite commentary is from the skeptic’s annotated bible. So, I will try to dissociate my disagreement with much of your posts and just focus on some good issues and topics you have discussed.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
It's going to take some time deciding which one is the least whacky;)
Yeesh, thnx for making me sound mental. ;)
(yeah, I saw the emoticon)

BF:
So, I will try to dissociate my disagreement with much of your posts and just focus on some good issues and topics you have discussed.
Geez, guys, flattery'll get neither of you anywhere w/me.

Try to be nice, fish for a compliment (grumble, mumble, rassafrass,....).
LOL.

karen said...

Wow, I was away from my computer for 2 days and you guys really ran away with this!

HZ
Except for the ew factor, I agree, there don't seem to be any logical reasons for denying relationships as you described---if childbearing is not going to be involved. I was in love with my firs cousin when I was young. But I would have wanted to have his kids! Personally, I don't know how anyone could have a love relationship with their sibling or parent and it be a psychologically "normal" love.

SNTC
Cattle need babysitters!!!??? Do they go out to the movies? Or is it for when they're pulling pranks on tourists or playing football, as in the commercials? LOL

Mesoforte said...

I know its late, but you guys ran with this, and I'm only now catching up.

Goose

says who?

A legally binding agreement (such as marriage) requires the consent of all parties involved. A car cannot marry a person because the car cannot give its consent. Another animal cannot realistically give its consent either because we don't know whether or not we understand whether or not the animal gives it consent. Therefore, we don't marry people to other animals, or to inanimate objects.

Krystalline Apostate said...

karen:
Wow, I was away from my computer for 2 days and you guys really ran away with this!
How's that song by Pink Floyd go?
"How I wish, wish you were here?"
Missed ya, dear.

GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

"A legally binding agreement (such as marriage) requires the consent of all parties involved. A car cannot marry a person because the car cannot give its consent. Another animal cannot realistically give its consent either because we don't know whether or not we understand whether or not the animal gives it consent. Therefore, we don't marry people to other animals, or to inanimate objects."

Says who?

GooseHenry said...

Ra

still disagreeing with you on certain points.

"Well, until the APA changes those definitions, you've got no point at all."

There is absolutely no reason why they wouldn't.

"Well, let's see: humanity can elevate itself. I've said as much in prior posts. That's due to evolution."

This means that humanity can move closer to the norm. It is not possible to say this without a norm that transcends people&cultures.

"Paraphilia, for instance, is demonstrably unnatural."

It could also be natures way of regulating population growth. I am just following your lead (everything can be explained by evolution) in these points.

"Remember, not a moral relativist?"

You said so. Still, morals are founded in man, right? Which means that they are subject to change.

"That's so old fashioned, the law is way past its prime.
What? Denmark was 1st, in 1989. Plenty of states in my country have instituted this in the 21st CE. & I can easily say the same thing about the laws in that book you treasure. Far more outdated."

I was trying to be ironic... apparently one shouldn't do that in foreign languages. As they say.

"1 of the commoner comments I've seen, is that 'other deviants/wackos/perverts' will jump on the bandwagon, & insist on getting THEIR views in the public arena.
Of course they will. That's just human nature. NAMBLA pulls this sort of shit in this country all the time.
They have absolutely NO lobbyists. They send in contributions, which are promptly SENT BACK, UNCASHED.
But gay marriage is completely unconnected to any of these things.
I require EVIDENCE. Only then will I grant you any leeway."

Evidence - you said it yourself. 'other deviants/wackos/perverts' will jump on the bandwagon.

The only obstacle is that the law doesn't permit it. Yet. What your side cannot provide is a sound rationale why the law wouldn't be changed since it is man-authorized.

"Because there are limits. To everything."

Again, says who?

Krystalline Apostate said...

still disagreeing with you on certain points.
Does that mean you agree w/me on any others?
There is absolutely no reason why they wouldn't.
Wait & see. I'm willing to bet they'll stay disorders (to varying degrees). Still waiting for any studies providing proof of the assertion that someone'll marry an inanimate object. It'd be pretty funny if this turned out to be restricted to religious folks, wouldn't it? You'd not be amused, but I certainly would.
Still, proof is in the pudding.
This means that humanity can move closer to the norm. It is not possible to say this without a norm that transcends people&cultures.
No, I’m a firm believer (if I may use that word) that we can ascend our primitive nature. History shows that. The only norm I believe in is freedom: but freedom is defined by boundaries. It is also defined by expansion of those boundaries.
It could also be natures way of regulating population growth. I am just following your lead (everything can be explained by evolution) in these points.
Well, I never anything about the population growth. Wasn’t me. Besides which, read up on paraphilia. Interesting stuff.
Besides which, there can be pluses as well as minuses to evolution.
You said so. Still, morals are founded in man, right? Which means that they are subject to change.
No, I’m a moral naturalist, remember? That also could be subject to change (my stance on that, I mean). Of course some morals change. History shows that.
I was trying to be ironic... apparently one shouldn't do that in foreign languages. As they say.
No big deal. It’s okay to say ‘oops’: not a social darwinist.
Evidence - you said it yourself. 'other deviants/wackos/perverts' will jump on the bandwagon.
Wait – you’re saying ‘deny it’ because other people will take advantage of it? That’s creeping very closely to fascism, for my taste.
You can’t deny rights to 1 group because someone else might try to take advantage. Does that sound fair to you? It sounds slanted to me.
The only obstacle is that the law doesn't permit it. Yet. What your side cannot provide is a sound rationale why the law wouldn't be changed since it is man-authorized.
My ‘rationale’, as you put it, is very simple: it’s discriminatory. Unless you’ve truly suffered at the hands of others, you wouldn’t understand it. We’re talking about a contract between 2 adults, not paraphilia, not fetishism.
Again, says who?
Humanity. Science. Simple observations of the natural world.

It’s my country, & I say we let them at least have a go at it.
It’s only fair.

Have you tried the pearl trick mentioned before? There’s nothing mentioned in the bible, so you should at least give it a try: check w/your pastor.

I’m also curious: what about intersexuals? People w/2 sets of genitalia? Who do they get to marry? I really like how that topic gets evaded regularly by the religious.

GooseHenry said...

RA

Re-read your own post.

"The only norm I believe in is freedom: but freedom is defined by boundaries. It is also defined by expansion of those boundaries."

"It’s my country, & I say we let them at least have a go at it.
It’s only fair."

Apply the above to paraphiles.

"Besides which, there can be pluses as well as minuses to evolution.

No, I’m a moral naturalist, remember? That also could be subject to change (my stance on that, I mean). Of course some morals change. History shows that."

Morals are a convention. There can be nothing objectively wrong with changing those as the times change.

"My ‘rationale’, as you put it, is very simple: it’s discriminatory. Unless you’ve truly suffered at the hands of others, you wouldn’t understand it."

Apply the above to paraphiles

"Humanity. Science. Simple observations of the natural world."

According to observations of the natural world, scientists can conclude that paraphilia occurs for some natural reason. The humane thing to do would be to allow them to marry.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose
Apply the above to paraphiles.
No, I won’t. & your willingness to equate homosexuals w/paraphiles…well, I’m surprised you’re hanging onto to this point. I’m talking about 2 people, not someone who’s got a fetish. Still waiting for evidence, BTW. Anyone in Denmark marrying furniture? If not, this point is getting stupider by the post.
Morals are a convention. There can be nothing objectively wrong with changing those as the times change.
I beg your pardon, but I doubt they’re going to change that radically in the next 20 years.
Apply the above to paraphiles
Last time: NO CAUSAL LINKS. NO EVIDENCE.
I defer you to the Medical Dictionary’s definition:
” Sexual practices that are socially prohibited.”
If & when marriages between humans & furniture do become legal (which is never, since furniture, animals & small children are incapable of entering a mutual contract), I will pay you 1,000$ USD.
According to observations of the natural world, scientists can conclude that paraphilia occurs for some natural reason. The humane thing to do would be to allow them to marry.
Ain’t gonna happen. Do you have any studies, scientific, that is, that might make an allowance for this? No? You got nothing, then.
Further, if I were gay, I’d find your ‘guilt by association’ point quite insulting. As it is, I find it insulting to my intelligence.

I will, come my ‘Sunday Sermon’, be posting something that a lot of religious folks definitely won’t like. That’s all I’ll say on that.

karen said...

Goose

This means that humanity can move closer to the norm. It is not possible to say this without a norm that transcends people&cultures

I don't understand this. How could a norm that transcends anything still be a "norm"?

Jerret said...

I don't understand how complicated this issue is. It's extremely cut and dry.

The law is not based on your religous doctrine, hence, get over it. "Marriage" in and of itself may not be a given right, but getting all the legal rights of marriage should be, and it's only fair. But I don't see much evidence that Christians really care if anything's fair, so nevermind.

People use the term "gay marriage" because they're not sure what else to call it, is my guess. I mean, it essentially is marriage without the religion. One of your words got taken to describe something not religous? Oops.

Krystalline Apostate said...

karen:
I don't understand this. How could a norm that transcends anything still be a "norm"?
That's a good question, but I smell an 'objective morality standard' coming a mile away.

Jerret:
It's extremely cut and dry.
Exactly, & thank you.
One of your words got taken to describe something not religous? Oops.
http://www.answers.com/marriage
Makes for fascinating reading.

Jerret said...

Huh. Didn't know that. People can use the word if they feel like, it seems. I always though it carried a religous connotation.

And polygamy? I'm not too against it, really. Consenting adults? Do whatever the hell you want.

Of course, if it turns into the current state of affairs in Utah, then it's bad. Rape and forced marriages? No thanks.

Mesoforte said...

Goosehenry

Says who??

What do you mean, 'says who??'. You cannot obtain consent. Its literally impossible to obtain consent from an inanimate object. Consent involves conciousness, something like a car isn't concious, so you can't obtain consent. And I just gave you the legal definition of a legally binding contract.

GooseHenry said...

Mesoforte

Who says there has to be any consent involved?

Laws are man-authorized and thus subject to change

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Laws are man-authorized and thus subject to change
Sure they are.
Who says there has to be any consent involved?
It's pretty much a stipulation in a contract, that 2 parties are involved.
But answers.com says...
"1.
A. An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law. See synonyms at bargain.
B. The writing or document containing such an agreement.
2. The branch of law dealing with formal agreements between parties.
3. Marriage as a formal agreement; betrothal."

You're doing more harm than good to your credibility ratio on this point. So unless you have some scientific surveys/studies to back this angle up, it's still idle speculation. Not very good speculation, either. Truthfully, it's a crap point.

GooseHenry said...

RA

And what about your credibility? 1st you agree that laws are man-authorized and subject to change, a moment later you quote the definition from Answers.com AS IF IT would be etched in stone.

Make up your mind.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
And what about your credibility?
What about it?
1st you agree that laws are man-authorized and subject to change, a moment later you quote the definition from Answers.com AS IF IT would be etched in stone.
Hey, everything's subject to change, even definitions.
Whether you like it or not.
Make up your mind.
Au contraire, mon ami, I have.
It's time to change the law. The definition of marriage has already changed:
"1
A. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
B. The state of being married; wedlock.
C. A common-law marriage.
D. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage."
Getting a little cross w/me, are you?

SMT said...

It's quite funny that people think that by giving others the same basic rights they have, that somehow all of humanity will go temporarily insane.

When women were allowed to vote, we didn't see dogs and cars also added to the amendment. It's been 80+ years of women voting and not one proposed & passed bill/amendment of allowing dogs or cars to vote.

Now there are some real nutjobs out there that will try for those things, but let's just say that I have more "faith" in humanity to realize what is absolutely and completely ridiculous. Granted they haven't realized this about religion yet, but I still have hope for 'em.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"Hey, everything's subject to change, even definitions.
Whether you like it or not."

My point exactly. So you agree that you have no basis for saying that marriage won't be adjusted to accomodate everybody.

Krystalline Apostate said...

SMT:
It's quite funny that people think that by giving others the same basic rights they have, that somehow all of humanity will go temporarily insane.
Yes, I find it vastly amusing as well.

Goose:
My point exactly. So you agree that you have no basis for saying that marriage won't be adjusted to accomodate everybody.
Hey, I do so. It's historical. Note that the phrase 'contract' still retains much of its meaning today.
Note that polygamy was legal, once upon a time. Ain't so any more. Common law marriages today would have been severely frowned upon, even persecuted, a century ago.
& really, telling a select group of individuals they can't have the same rights as other groups, based on the vaguest possibility that other, non-conjunctive unrelated groups will want some too?
Really, you have the tenacity of a terrier w/a rat. You've provided diddly-squat in the venue of proving your point, outside of argumentum ad infinitum. Zero links, zero scholarship, zero proof.
It's a ridiculous talking point, because you can't proved diddly.