Support NeoGAF

[Matt]

1. Talking about morals, that topic can lead in many different directions. Heck, it could even be pushed back so far where we can try and tackle the question "Where do our moral ideals originate from?" And you probably know as well as I do how much of a headache that discussion can be. Of course, I guess it's not fair to mention that pretty much all of human society over the past 5000 years or so has never allowed homosexuals to marry, and this includes the ancient Greek and Roman societies too, and I doubt anyone here can call them bigoted or homophobic or whatever.

Personally, and I know by saying this that most of ya'll will pounce on me like a pack of dogs on a three legged cat, but oh well, when it comes to faith and religion, I know how to defend myself . But anyways, my morals (i cannot speak for anyone else), and thereby, moral reasons against homosexuality (as well as incest, rape, murder, theft, lying, bestiality, etc. etc.) originate in the firm belief in a perfectly moral theistic being, specifically the one revealed in the book commonly known as the Bible.

2. Refer a bit to Eggplant's posts please. And the charge you made against polygamy and incest promoting abuse and rape, please be careful, becuse I do believe a very good case, historically, can be made charging that to homosexuals as well, specifically when it comes to children in a homosexual household.

I guess it doesnt hurt to mention that polygamy has been a perfectly valid and acceptable lifestyle in many cultures for thousands of years. Now I am not defending it, as I am morally agasint it as well, it's just something I wanted to point out. The big trend today is to not judge a foreign culture based on your own understanding of what "culture" is, as most likely one is culturally biased.

Also, the legal aspects of polygamy or bigamy could be worked out. Thats not a big problem really. Something along the lines of pre-nupts, fitted to the group, would be sufficient, I think.

In your last paragraph, you asked "Don’t they, like everyone else, deserve respect?" Does that section "like everyone else" also include those parties mentioned above as well? Should they be denied the respect of a union that is officially recognized? Surely, not all of those types of relationships lead to abuse and rape, and if you claim that they do, please be careful before we start talking about all the "stereotypes" placed upon homosexuals.

Does your arm hurt? Because you’re seriously reaching.

1. Whatever your morals are, this country is based on the idea that religious beliefs should not be the guideline for how it is run. Therefore, the belief that your morals should dictate the legality of something is a completely baseless notion.

2. The figures for homosexual rape are much, much, much lower then any figures for heterosexual rape, including within a household.

As for polygamy and incest, I never said I was against their legalization. I was simply outlining some of the differences between them and homosexuality. But it is a fact that many, if not all of the isolated societies in the US that practice incest and polygamy are ones teeming with rape and incredibly cruelty towards women. That being said, if two consenting adults that happen to be married want to have sex, or even get married, its not my place to stop them. And if three or more people want to get married, and a legally amicable solution can be created (although I doubt it,) I can’t really object. Bestiality should still be illegal, because it’s cruelty to animals.

Sorry to rain on your little self indulgent final paragraph, even with its cute little

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

The second complaint is more substantial. It’s true that homosexual couples do not have the same legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. However, no other non-marital relationships between individuals—non-gay brothers, a pair of spinsters, college roommates, fraternity brothers—share those benefits, either. Why should they?

If homosexual couples face "unequal protection" in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?

Sex schmex. Let any of these groupings form a legal bond with these extra rights.

The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children.

Such a tired argument, since there's no requirement for marriages to produce children, there's nothing to prevent people who don't want children from being married, children are all the time created outside of marriage, and so on.

There is no obligation for government to give every human coupling the same entitlements simply to "stabilize" the relationship.

The government is for, by, and of the people. If it's the best thing for the citizens, and doesn't hurt others... it's contrary to the government's purpose not to.

Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates or tax relief. It’s meant to build families.

And homosexual marriage would be to build families that happen to be led by homosexuals.

Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. There is no difference between a black and a white human being because skin color is morally trivial. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman. Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex is fundamental to marriage.

So the reason they're different is because... I SAID SO AND IT'S OBVIOUSLY TRUE.

These remarks reflect a common misconception: Same–sex marriage will secure new liberties for homosexuals that have eluded them thus far. This will not happen because no personal liberty is being denied them. Gay couples can already do everything married people do—express love, set up housekeeping, share home ownership, have sex, raise children, commingle property, receive inheritance, and spend the rest of their lives together. It’s not criminal to do any of these things.

It is, however, made unnecessarily more difficult... and of course this very article already mentioned other rights that can't be done without marriage, so this paragraph is bunk.

There have been changes. Historically some have been denied marriage (e.g., the young, the genetically aberrant, and interracial couples). Others were allowed to marry more than once, either consecutively (divorce and remarriage), or concurrently (polygamy). Spousal rights have altered and traditions have evolved. But marriage has still been marriage. And spouses have always been male and female.

Untrue. This page ( http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm ) talks about some Christian rites of past centuries that have to do with same-sex unions.

In the same way, the natural tie of marriage to procreation is not nullified because in some individual cases children are not intended or even possible. Marriage still is what it is even if its essential purpose is never actualized. The exceptions prove the rule, they don’t nullify it.

Wait, so the fact that not all marriages have children proves that marriages are for children?

If the definition of marriage is established by nature, then we have no liberty to redefine it. In fact, marriage itself wouldn’t change at all even if we did. Philosopher Francis Beckwith has wryly observed, "Just because you can eat an ashtray doesn’t make it food." Linguistic tricks can’t change what nature has already determined something to be. Neither ashtrays nor same-sex marriage provide the nourishment intended by food or families, respectively.

Alright then... so since changing the legal definition won't really change marriage according to this view, what harm will it do?

 

[gofreak]

If the definition of marriage is established by nature

WTF? Marraige is a human construct. There are lots of other "WTF?!" quotes in here, but this is the only one I can be bothered pointing out.

And no tag

 

[Gruco]

The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children.

Well, I guess now I can better understand the constitutional ban against vasectomies, and the whole "old people shouldn't be allowed to marry" argument.

 

[hooo]

<aside>I meant monochrome, not poly. The issue isn't black and white, but one of many shades.</aside>

Marriage's definitions has been linked with children from the time of its conception. It's something that's been embodied in both our culture and our code of laws. Some may have a more progressive definition of marriage, and that's all well and good, but many of the details that ya'll have blurred out and lost over time are still very important to others. You don't have to agree with it, but you should at least recognize it and it's effect on society. We aren't ruled by the whims of one alone, but by the whims of many.

I don't think that any child should be adopted into or fostered to a household that would be detrimental to their growth. There are hetro married couples out there that aren't fit to raise children and as of now, I don't think any homosexual couple is fit to raise them. That's my opinion, plain and simple. I very willing to tolerate, but I won't accept, at least not now. I could be right or I could be wrong. Either way, I don't think that we should experiment with children that have no informed consent on the matter. Children left in society's care shouldn't be the playthings of psychological progress. We should try to do what's best for them, and not what's politically correct.

 

[Che]

As for polygamy and incest, I never said I was against their legalization. I was simply outlining some of the differences between them and homosexuality. But it is a fact that many, if not all of the isolated societies in the US that practice incest and polygamy are ones teeming with rape and incredibly cruelty towards women. That being said, if two consenting adults that happen to be married want to have sex, or even get married, its not my place to stop them. And if three or more people want to get married, and a legally amicable solution can be created (although I doubt it,) I can&#8217;t really object. Bestiality should still be illegal, because it&#8217;s cruelty to animals.

There's nothing wrong with polygamy it's just that our religious based society doesn't allow it. Incest on the other hand brings many many problems (deformed children for example) so it should be illegal. And like you said there are many differences between polygamy and homosexuality. For starters the later is about the rights every person should have, including getting married.

 

[brooklyngooner]

I don't think that any child should be adopted into or fostered to a household that would be detrimental to their growth. There are hetro married couples out there that aren't fit to raise children and as of now, I don't think any homosexual couple is fit to raise them.

Again: WHY. You offer no reasoning for your position, and as such, you come off only as the most shameful of bigots. "Just 'cause" isn't sound logic.

 

[Matt]

There's nothing wrong with polygamy it's just that our religious based society doesn't allow it. Incest on the other hand brings many many problems (deformed children for example) so it should be illegal. And like you said there are many differences between polygamy and homosexuality. For starters the later is about the rights every person should have, including getting married.

There are essential legal problems involved with polygamy. I am strongly anti-religious, and even I can see that.

And as someone else stated in this thread, the probability of birth defects in children raises only slightly from inbreeding (from 1% to 3%, I think.) The essential problem with allowing incest to be legal is te ramifications is can have on growing children if brothers and sisters or fathers and daughters or mothers and sons can have sex (yes, parent-child sex would still be statutory rape, but I’m not talking about that.) It could introduces sex into an environment where the children would not be able to handle it properly, and therefore might effect their development (a.k.a. the Lolita complex.) But again, a situation with two consenting adults is almost completely different.

 

[hooo]

Again: WHY. You offer no reasoning for your position, and as such, you come off only as the most shameful of bigots. "Just 'cause" isn't sound logic.

Did you read my post before you called me a bigot?

I could be right or I could be wrong. Either way, I don't think that we should experiment with children that have no informed consent on the matter.

It's not natural for a homosexual couple to have a child (ie they can't reproduce), and it's something that's not been widely done in the past. I don't know how it would effect children so I've sided with the negative till it can be proved otherwise (without subjecting children to something that could be harmful).

Try to understand others opinions' before you blast them for them. You might just discover a well intentioned person with a fundamentally different view on our world and the people in it.

 

[brooklyngooner]

Did you read my post before you called me a bigot?


It's not natural for a homosexual couple to have a child (ie they can't reproduce), and it's something that's not been widely done in the past. I don't know how it would effect children so I've sided with the negative till it can be proved otherwise (without subjecting children to something that could be harmful).

Try to understand others opinions' before you blast them for them. You might just discover a well intentioned person with a fundamentally different view on our world and the people in it.

I read your posts and it's the reason I am asking you again. Your whole reasoning is "because I just don't think so." What evidence do you have to support the theory that two informed, consenting homosexual adults cannot effectively raise a child?

 

[brooklyngooner]

It's not natural for a homosexual couple to have a child (ie they can't reproduce.

In addition, this is real simpleton logic. So by this measure, couple with fertility problems shouldn't be able to adopt, because they can't conceive naturally?

 

[Hitokage]

It's not natural for a homosexual couple to have a child (ie they can't reproduce), and it's something that's not been widely done in the past. I don't know how it would effect children so I've sided with the negative till it can be proved otherwise (without subjecting children to something that could be harmful).

Try to understand others opinions' before you blast them for them. You might just discover a well intentioned person with a fundamentally different view on our world and the people in it.

Yet you aren't actually contributing any information. You don't know that it's harmful, yet you maintain that position anyway. It would help to know that studies HAVE been done on this subject.. and homosexual parents are no inherently better or worse than their heterosexual counterparts(remember, not all moms and dads are good).

 

[OmniGamer]

Funny how when it comes to gay marriage, people bring up the environment for the child(even though, marriage and having children are 2 different things and neither is needed for the other), as if ALL HETEROSEXUAL HOUSEHOLDS ARE A PERFECT CHILD-RAISING ENVIRONMENT. Are man/woman couples required to take courses on how to raise a child/children, or on child psychology? Are married couples required to have children? Are barren/sterile or old(past child bearing years) people forbiddened to marry? Are single-parents required to find a mate(of the opposite sex of course) to marry and co-raise the child?

 

[reggieandTFE]

1 I don't think that any child should be adopted into or fostered to a household that would be detrimental to their growth. There are hetro married couples out there that aren't fit to raise children and as of now, I don't think any homosexual couple is fit to raise them. That's my opinion, plain and simple. I very willing to tolerate, but I won't accept, at least not now. I could be right or I could be wrong. Either way, I don't think that we should experiment with children that have no informed consent on the matter. Children left in society's care shouldn't be the playthings of psychological progress. 2 We should try to do what's best for them, and not what's politically correct.

1) Are you a child psychologist who has published research on the correlation between non-traditional couples and detrimental growth? If not, show me the statistics (Heritage Foundation analysis and Weekly Standard articles don't count.)

2)Exactly, that's why so many Republicans support universal health care, more funding for public schools and resdistributive tax policies that alleviate the driving poverty that affects American children....

 

[ge-man]

Funny how when it comes to gay marriage, people bring up the environment for the child(even though, marriage and having children are 2 different things and neither is needed for the other), as if ALL HETEROSEXUAL HOUSEHOLDS ARE A PERFECT CHILD-RAISING ENVIRONMENT. Are man/woman couples required to take courses on how to raise a child/children, or on child psychology? Are married couples required to have children? Are barren/sterile or old(past child bearing years) people forbiddened to marry? Are single-parents required to find a mate(of the opposite sex of course) to marry and co-raise the child?

Excellent point. This is where I usually see anti gay marriage arguments fall apart. What exactly makes a gay couple less capable of parenting? I would like to see an answer from the other side of the debate, but I'm afraid it will be filled with way too many assumptions about sexual orientation.

 

[gofreak]

it's something that's not been widely done in the past. I don't know how it would effect children so I've sided with the negative till it can be proved otherwise (without subjecting children to something that could be harmful).

Just putting this out there, I don't know the answer myself, but: can two persons of the same sex be worst than one person of the same sex when it comes to parenting? Because we have had single parent families forever now. I'm not sure if there's any research out there to suggest that those coming from single parent families are usually negatively affected in any way (someone care to enlighten us?).

I believe I read that whatever little research has been done on kids with two same-sex parents, suggested that the kids where in no way differently affected and that usually they were in fact as well if not better adjusted than the average child from a traditional family setup. But those studies are indeed few in number..it's early days.

 

[Dilbert]

The fundamental problem is that somehow -- and I'd love to figure out the history on this one -- the religious/social aspects of marriage got conflated with the LEGAL aspects of marriage, when in fact they should have NOTHING to do with each other.

If you want to fix the issue, pick one of these two options:

1) Make it so that the only legal contracts for couples to enter are civil unions, regardless of the gender of the two consenting adults involved. If you want to get married in the church of your choice at the same time, go for it...but it's non-binding in a legal sense, and it's strictly between you, your god(s), and your neighbors who think such things actually matter.

2) Remove all special legal rights for married couples. This would be a non-trivial change to the legal system, but fair is fair.

Quite frankly, if there were no special advantages to being married, I seriously doubt that any gays would be interested in pursuing this status. Not to be overly cynical, but if you take the legal dimensions out of the picture, marriage is simply a set of words which don't mean a whole lot. If you intend to have a relationship with someone for the rest of your life, you need to choose the behaviors over and over again which help you maintain and grow that relationship. Reciting vows on a particularly nice day isn't going to help you with that goal -- it's the ACTIONS which count.

Oh, and one more thing. Marriage does not have any necessary connection to child-raising, so drop that line of attack right now...unless you intend to start forcing ALL heterosexual couples to breed as part of the marriage contract.

 

[gofreak]

Quite frankly, if there were no special advantages to being married, I seriously doubt that any gays would be interested in pursuing this status. Not to be overly cynical, but if you take the legal dimensions out of the picture, marriage is simply a set of words which don't mean a whole lot. If you intend to have a relationship with someone for the rest of your life, you need to choose the behaviors over and over again which help you maintain and grow that relationship. Reciting vows on a particularly nice day isn't going to help you with that goal -- it's the ACTIONS which count.

I totally agree with your latter comments about the words/contract being somewhat meangingless to the health of the relationship, and that it is the behaviour and actions that will define the relationship in the long run, but IMO, partners in a longterm relationship should be afforded legal protections (if not benefits) simply because so much is at stake for the two as a result of the relationship, economically etc. Therefore I choose your first option

edit - I'd also like to add, that marriage effectively concerns so much more than "just" kids, regardless of the original reasoning behind the construct. In todays world it impacts so much more. You probably don't realise it unless you're gay yourself, but there's a whole lot of barriers that stand between you and regular life milestones because of your single status. For example, mortgages. I'm left here wondering how the fuck I'm ever going to own a home on my own steam. I doubt my own word that I'll be forever with a partner will mean much to the bank..enter a contract. Marriage!

edit 2 - apparently when you're gay, you can't even spell Marriage.

edit 3 - w00t, i have a tag! Thank you, invisible forces of tagging goodness!

 

[IJoel]

The fundamental problem is that somehow -- and I'd love to figure out the history on this one -- the religious/social aspects of marriage got conflated with the LEGAL aspects of marriage, when in fact they should have NOTHING to do with each other.

If you want to fix the issue, pick one of these two options:

1) Make it so that the only legal contracts for couples to enter are civil unions, regardless of the gender of the two consenting adults involved. If you want to get married in the church of your choice at the same time, go for it...but it's non-binding in a legal sense, and it's strictly between you, your god(s), and your neighbors who think such things actually matter.

2) Remove all special legal rights for married couples. This would be a non-trivial change to the legal system, but fair is fair.

Quite frankly, if there were no special advantages to being married, I seriously doubt that any gays would be interested in pursuing this status. Not to be overly cynical, but if you take the legal dimensions out of the picture, marriage is simply a set of words which don't mean a whole lot. If you intend to have a relationship with someone for the rest of your life, you need to choose the behaviors over and over again which help you maintain and grow that relationship. Reciting vows on a particularly nice day isn't going to help you with that goal -- it's the ACTIONS which count.

Oh, and one more thing. Marriage does not have any necessary connection to child-raising, so drop that line of attack right now...unless you intend to start forcing ALL heterosexual couples to breed as part of the marriage contract.

IAWTP

 

[NLB2]

<aside>I meant monochrome, not poly. The issue isn't black and white, but one of many shades.</aside>

Ehem:
From dictionary.com
mon·o·chrome
n.

1. a. A picture, especially a painting, done in different shades of a single color.
b. The art or technique of executing such a picture.
2. The state of being in a single color.
3. A black-and-white image, as in photography or on television.

pol·y·chrome
adj.
1. Having many or various colors; polychromatic.
2. Made or decorated in many or various colors: polychrome tiles.

n.
1. An object or a work composed of or decorated in many colors.