Hey, let's get married!

[Canuckkev]

Your trying to ban their lifestyle from them, that is what is wrong.

First of all, the issue wasn't "banning" gay marriage, it was whether to allow it. It previously wasn't recognized.

Second, the issue was marriage, not the lifestyle. I don't think anyone has said that the lifestyle should be banned (although there are those out there who think that). Like I said, I consider myself very open and accept homosexuality in my society. But I don't consider it equal to heterosexuality. And therefore I don't feel it necessary to equate homosexual and heterosexual marriages.

And really there is nothing about homosexuality that makes it "unhealthy". If two healthy homosexuals without STD's do it, there is nothing "unhealthly" about it. Your trying to bring in the fact that its "unclean" which is a religious implication.

I don't need The Bible to tell me that the anus is unclean.

 

[Archbob]

Well, on the contrary, outside of relgious context, I don't believe its "unclean". And if the anus is unclean then heterosexual marriage is also 'unclean'.

Not allowing gay marriage is not the same as banning it. Just like not allowing women to have political rights is the same as banning women from political rights.

A century ago, women's political rights weren't recognized, so in effect, at that time, they were "banned".

 

[Canuckkev]

Well, on the contrary, outside of relgious context, I don't believe its "unclean". And if the anus is unclean then heterosexual marriage is also 'unclean'.

Alright, I hate to do this, but you do know what an anus is?

Not allowing gay marriage is not the same as banning it. Just like not allowing women to have political rights is the same as banning women from political rights.

No, it isn't the same. "Banning" to me means taking rights away. It is not the same as not granting rights.

 

[Archbob]

Yes, I do know what an anus is and both sex between homosexuals and heterosexuals involve it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anus

Both banning and no granting rights has the same effect, that certain group doesn't get those rights. And like political rights for women, like rights for the minorities, state recognition of homosexual marriage should be granted. Its pretty much the same thing all over again, a minority group(ok maybe not women) or a group not in power demands equal rights and the rest of everyone tries to oppress them. But over time,society comes to see that they do deserve those rights.

I don't think the church or any clergymen should ever wed homosexual couples, but there is no reason why the state doesn't recognize homosexual marriage.

 

[Canuckkev]

Well, I'm glad that we are talking about the same anus. But I still don't understand how you don't believe the anus to be unclean.

Its just that society hasn't come to terms with the concept yet.

Well if the majority haven't come to terms with it yet, then why the need to force through the legislation while it is still controversial?

 

[Corazu]

Well, first off I'd like to point out that Meksilon has indeed done it again, bringing the discussion off-topic.

Meksilon, who gives a crap about anl sex? It has NOTHING to do with homosexual marriage. Anal sex is performed whether in wedlock or not, by being allowed to marry this rate is not going to increase or decrease. Your problem is with anal sex, not with homosexual marriage here.

Regards,

 

[stabme]

and.. well.. female homosexuals don't participate in anal sex, as far as i know.. at least not commonly.

in fact, if you want to decrease the amount of anal sex... i think you have a good chance with eliminating all males, and converting all women into homosexuals. ta-da! no (or little) anal sex.

 

[Meksilon]

Should only people who can reproduce be allowed to marry?

I've already addressed this question. Not every Marriage will include children, because not every Marriage is between people who can have children. That's fine, but it doesn't change the meaning of Marriage just because sometimes it doesn't include children.

The main reason I'll point out is that the proven best environment in which to raise a child is a Marriage. Now again, some marriages will be abusive and will not be an ideal environment. But that's not because of the meaning of Marriage it's because of human failure. Marriage is fundamental to a family structure, and as such is the reason I truly believe Marriage is about family - even when children are not present.

To your question about heterosexuals who engage in anal sex just let me say I'm not saying they shouldn't engage in it, but I am saying that it isn't a healthy form of sex.

Even heterosexuals don't always have sex to reproduce.

Perhaps not. But from time-to-time they do have sex to reproduce. Something homosexuals do not do.

Ok, the point of sex is not to reproduce. When 17 year olds have sex, it certainly not for the sake of reproduction, its for the sake of pleasure. I'm sure many heterosexual couples have sex for the sake of pleasure also. Pleasure is also a purpose and both homosexual and heterosexual sex serves that purpose.

Archbob you're drawing a strawman, because sex is natural and healthy. You're pointing out that "pleasure" is something they share in common and that's fine. But you still have to acknowledge what they don't share in common: 1. Heterosexual sex serves the purpose of reproduction which no other form of intimacy does. 2. Heterosexual sex is natural and healthy, anal sex is unnatural and unhealthy even if it is pleasurable.

The state by banning homosexual marriages is not really protecting anyone or anything. Its just upholding certain religous beliefs, which is wrong for the state to do. Its ok, if you don't believe in homosexuality, no one is forcing you to do it. You just can't go around enforcing your belief on others. If two homosexuals get married, it does not effect you in any way since you are not involved in the relationship.

You're arguing here straight from your mouth with no substance to back up your argument.

http://www.freewebspace.net/forums/showpost.php?p=581180

Try addressing some of my actual points. Anyhow your assumptive-circular arguing is going nowhere. By changing the definition of Marriage you're the one who's imposing your beliefs on others, as Canuckkev put very well.

You can disapprove someone's lifestyle and not practice it yourself. But what you are trying to do is ban them from doing it, and you can't do that.

I'm not trying to impose bans, homosexuals are not banned from getting married. Everyone who wants to get married must do so within the law, and within the definition of marriage. You're the one who's trying to impose your proposed legal redefinition of Marriage.

Homosexuals may dissapprove of your heterosexual ways, but they aren't pushing to ban heterosexual marriages.

Oh you aren't serious. Please, show me one person who truly finds heterosexuality morally wrong and disapproves of it in the same way that heterosexists disapprove of homosexuality, finding it morally wrong.

Its life saying "I dissaprove of you eating beef", "Therefore we are going to make if illegal for people to eat beef".

It's not unhealthy to eat beef. But just so you know, the old Biblical commands given by God to the Ancient Jews not to eat certain meats have today been shown to be in the interests of their health. For instance pork contains many parasites that the Ancient Jews would have been eating if it wasn't for those commandments. Anyhow I'm just showing you why that's not comparable here.

And really there is nothing about homosexuality that makes it "unhealthy".

You've clearly not paid attention to anything, and are arguing from your "gut beliefs". The problem is that you think you just inherently know best are not willing to examine the truth of the situation. That's the definition of a "closed mind". The same goes for Robert:

... I believe in equal rights. 100 years ago every party believed that blacks were inferior to whites. Thanks to Martin Luther King and other strong advocates, that has changed.

You're talking about people who were denied legal rights based on their ethnicity. How has this got anything in common with homosexuals who partake in a chosen lifestyle demanding we redefine the institution of Marriage?

Well, on the contrary, outside of relgious context, I don't believe its "unclean". And if the anus is unclean then heterosexual marriage is also 'unclean'.

Another circular strawman argument.

 

[jmiller]

Try addressing some of my actual points.

Perhaps you should take some of your own advice and quit derailing threads, and address the actual topic at hand.

 

[Canuckkev]

I find this whole thread very insulting. Insulting to Meksilon. He has gone through a lot of effort to outline his argument and provide supporting evidence, yet few if any of his points have even been addressed.

I thought I might make a post saying something like "My part in this thread is done". But, those are stupid...

Instead, I think an interesting question on this topic that needs answering is "Why is it important that homosexual couples be allowed to marry?". I'm sure I know some of the reasons people feel this way, I just would like to hear more.

Thanks.

 

[Gayowulf]

I call for this thread to be locked. We're just hearing the same BS over and over again.

I believe all that's to be discussed (argued about) has been discussed (argued about)

 

[Archbob]

Melkinson, if there's no law that says homosexuals can't get marriedm then they should legally be able to get married. But obviously, you can to impose your will on them and say that they can't get the legal benefits of being married and therefore you are basically saying that they should not be able to get married.

About your answering the eating beef comment:

It's not unhealthy to eat beef. But just so you know, the old Biblical commands given by God to the Ancient Jews not to eat certain meats have today been shown to be in the interests of their health. For instance pork contains many parasites that the Ancient Jews would have been eating if it wasn't for those commandments. Anyhow I'm just showing you why that's not comparable here

That argument doesn't hold any water because your arguments are based on the fact that 'God gave them the commands'. I'm not argueing it in a religous context, I'm argueing in a legal context.

You said that homosexual anal sex is unhealthy. Sorry, but heterosexual sex also involves anal sex, your argument just completely falls apart there.

I am not imposing my beliefs on you. Having a law that says homosexual can get married is not forcing you to go marry another man. Its simply saying that those who want to marry someone of the same sex can. The law doesn't force you to do anything yourself. It does not force you to change your lifestyle at all. Lets say that I do change the legal definition of marriage, how does that effect your lifestyle outside of religious context? You are still heterosexual. You still practice heterosexuality. You do not have to practice homosexuality. How are homosexuals imposing they're will on you?

Your the one trying to prevent a law being passed that says homosexual can get married and therefore you are the one trying to prevent other people from doing something of their choosing and so are imposing your will on others.

It really looks to me like anything that you can't answer not using religous context your just dismissing as "circular strawman logic".

 

[Canuckkev]

Instead, I think an interesting question on this topic that needs answering is "Why is it important that homosexual couples be allowed to marry?". I'm sure I know some of the reasons people feel this way, I just would like to hear more.

Thanks.

Ahem..

 

[Gayowulf]

Kev, it's because the rainbow 'aint enough for them god damn queers. They gotta marry too.

 

[Peo]

Is there anyone who would like this thread to continue or can we close it? It's been requested to be closed by a number of people but if there's anyone who wants it open I'd like to hear that and why please.

 

[Corazu]

No, i think it's fine to close, I've given up arguing with Meksilon since he can't stay on one topic for his life.

Basically everything is being repeated. Well, besides the different topics that Meksilon brings in..

Regards,

 

[jmiller]

No, i think it's fine to close, I've given up arguing with Meksilon since he can't stay on one topic for his life.

Basically everything is being repeated. Well, besides the different topics that Meksilon brings in..

Regards,

quoted for truth.

This thread is long since off topic.