October 14

[SlowwHand]

Nobody is going to make any comment at all about "being in love" with one's grandmother?
If that's not a clincher in this debate I don't know what is.

[Chemical Ollie]

How could a thread commenting another "troll and spam thread" grow this large? Why aren't people posting in Sloww's original thread. Isn't this the 3rd thread on this non-topic?

[MrFun]

Chemical, this thread is on the topic of Bush's homophobic proclamation of Marriage Protection Week.

Not about SlowwHand's "prophecy" -- although if this would have been what SlowwHand was alluding to, THEN this thread would be a copycat thread.

But that is not the case.

Oh, and MTG -- excellent points.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by MrFun

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Gatekeeper:

I'm pointing out an assumption of your argument. Just because I love my grandmother does not mean that I ought to marry her.

The issue here is not love, but what is the purpose of marriage?

what a joke


First off, there is a distinct difference between platonic love between biological family members, and that of intimate/romantic love between spouses.

Two gays or lesbians want to marry one another because they are intimately in love with one another -- that is definitely different from the platnoic love between you and your granny.

What other kind of illogical fallicies can you come up with?

Ben, you've left me utterly confused. What was the assumption in my post you tried to point out? I thought it was obvious I was referring to love between two people — regardless of gender — who are not blood relatives. Where does your grandmother come into the equation?

Gatekeeper

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
molly:



a. Well, 'sectarian prejudice' must = christianity, eh?

b. And I have yet to see any beneficial effects of such a union. One case is insufficient evidence.

c.So you admit that Melbourne wallows in depravity and social disorder?

d. Why outside of the bible? What scares you about those arguments?

e. Secondly, according to the principles of Kantianism, a moral action is one that can be universalisiable. A faithful union of two gay people cannot produce children, hence the institution destroys itself over time. Eventually there would be no people to get married.

f. So people who are not married are somehow less equal than those who are? You realise that your assumptions cause you to contradict the principle of equality?

g. But we are not talking about polygamy. We are talking about homosexuality. Do these societies sanction homosexual unions?

Point a.

Not just Christianity, but any sect that discriminates. If the cap fits... After all, prejudice against homosexuality is simply one more in a long line of prejudices that we can notch up for Christianity- along with institutionalized anti-semitism, being used to bolster racism in the Deep South and South Africa, anti-feminism, etc, etc. Whatever you might say is 'Christ's real message', I prefer to look at what the bible has been used for.

Point b.

What is then the purpose of marriage? Simply to perpetuate itself? The love my partner and I have for each other has grown over the years- we are closer now than we were when we first met, nearly twenty years ago. However, I am not automatically considered his next of kin, I cannot automatically inherit his estate, his pension rights, and yet these rights are conferred upon heterosexuals if they get married. Why does my sexuality preclude this happening? Is my love of a lesser quality?

Point c.

Having a sense of humour blockage, par chance?

Point d.

Nothing scares me about the bible- what scares me are the people who insist on using it to run and ruin my life, and the lives of other people like me. As I said, produce a cogent argument, not based on scripture, as to why civil unions between gay men and lesbians should not be allowed. You have signally failed to do so.

Point e.

Your logic escapes me here. You leap from Kant's philosophy to civil unions. Sterile men and sterile women marry fertile partners all the time. Many men and women choose not to have children at all. Marriage is hardly invalidated by this. And how is marriage in and of itself 'moral'? Was Henry VIII's marriage to Anne Boleyn 'moral', or was it more about desperately trying to secure the Tudor dynasty and succession? As for there being no people to get married, please.... I though I'd seen the last of these quasi-malthusian arguments. It assumes for instance, that gay men and lesbians might not choose to have children together- something which can and does occur today. These children are not inevitably gay or lesbian.

f.

No. It is the assumptions in your bible that are the source of the inequality. My arguments are for the equal right of everyone (regardless of sexuality) to marry the willing partner of their choice- if society chooses to endow 'married' couples with certain rights, then I would expect 'married' couples of the same sex to have the same rights as couples of the opposite sex. My argument does not confer inequality or fewer rights on single people- any more than already exist in today's society. The argument that marriage between heterosexuals serves to further the human race does however automatically confer a lesser status on those who opt not to procreate and reproduce. How galling for
Isaac Newton and Immanuel Kant to realize how empty and wasted their lives were by not fathering offspring...

Point g.

But we are talking about forms of union other than those found 'acceptable' to Christian sectaries (other than unreformed Mormons).

In any case, the meaning of marriage has undergone many changes through the course of human history and society- in America, couples of mixed race can now get married- which of course was not always the case. And marriage was hardly always about love, commitment and sacred bonds- it was (and still is in many parts of the world) about money, property and politics.
Besides which- civil marriages exist, and for the purposes of a secular society, I see no reason why religious prejudice should infringe upon the extension of civil rights- you may assume I am immoral, deviant, and damned, and that is your prerogative- but it should have no bearing on my being allowed access to the same civil rights as heterosexuals.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Ben, you've left me utterly confused.

Gatekeeper

Ben is very good at doing that -- that's his only skill he has in debating.

[Imran Siddiqui]

when you try to exclude non-heterosexuals to imply that they are incapable of having family values

Like DD said, they are incapable. Unless you radically change the meaning of 'family values'.

[Drake Tungsten]

I thought I said that?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

when you try to exclude non-heterosexuals to imply that they are incapable of having family values

Like DD said, they are incapable. Unless you radically change the meaning of 'family values'.

WRONG -- non-heterosexuals are capable of embracing family values, but they're not given much of a chance if political leaders want to exclude them from mainstream society.

There are many non-heterosexuals who live conventional life-styles in spite of this exclusion, though.


We're not talking about radical change of family values -- we're talking about stopping the use of the subjective, narrow-minded concept of "traditional values" to exclude others from mainstream society.
Non-heterosexuals need to be given the opportunity to hold the same values that many heterosexuals embrace.

[Imran Siddiqui]

WRONG -- non-heterosexuals are capable of embracing family values

Nope, sorry. 'Family Values' implies heterosexual atomic families.

We're not talking about radical change of family values -- we're talking about stopping the use of the subjective, narrow-minded concept of "traditional values"

You are talking about a radical change of family values. Family values = traditional values.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Like DD said, they are incapable. Unless you radically change the meaning of 'family values'.

Say it with me now. Drake isn't DD's DL. Ming and rah are.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Pphht.. that's what you want us to think .

[Drake Tungsten]

'Family Values' implies heterosexual atomic families.

"Atomic" families? Looks like I'm not the only one who's English skills are degrading. What's your excuse?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Atomic, nuclear, what's the difference .

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

WRONG -- non-heterosexuals are capable of embracing family values

Nope, sorry. 'Family Values' implies heterosexual atomic families.

We're not talking about radical change of family values -- we're talking about stopping the use of the subjective, narrow-minded concept of "traditional values"

You are talking about a radical change of family values. Family values = traditional values.

What is so radical about unconditional love?
What is so radical about uncondtional acceptance?
What is so radical about family and community stability?

These are the values that many non-heterosexuals embrace with their families.