Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[DinoDoc]

I'm still waiting for someone to address my point.

[MrFun]

congrats DD -- you pulled a MrFun!!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It'd be goos for the economy to allow gays to marry because you know that all the ceremonies would have to be FABULOUS.

I don't know if I missed your last one or not, but this was the one that I found.

Was this your last post?

[DinoDoc]

Yes. I think it's a valid point in favor of gay marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

Excuse me? I thought straight people *already* receive protection, in the form of marriage.

No they don't.

What if you are a very nice woman who can't find a man? Shouldn't you have the same benefits as a married couple.

As long as gay people don't receive the same protection, it is discrimination.

Then single people are also discriminated against, in a similar manner.

I am not demanding *separate* rights for gay people, I am demanding the rights *already* afforded to straight people.

You are demanding rights that do not exist. There is no right to recieve the benefits of marriage, simply a right to be married. Any gay person does not lose his right to be married, so long as he can find a nice woman to marry him, the same as anyone else. If for whatever reason you do not want to marry, that is your choice, and you should not expect to receive the same benefits as those who do choose to marry.

[Ben Kenobi]

Again, reductionism...sodomy or marriage, it is none of your business. Just because you think gays should have the right to have penetrative sex does not qualify your position any further.

It makes a big difference. I am not saying that gay people should be prevented from having sex. One such argument against these regulations is the one that having a law unenforced, weakens all the others. There is no way to enforce a ban on sodomy, ergo, one ought not to place a ban, since such ban would be detrimental to the rule of law.

I agree, they are an infringement of civil liberties. If consenting adults want to get married in higher multiples, so be it. If incestuous couples want to get married, so be it.

Fair enough. That is a consistent position, but then you are left with this question. If anything goes, why have marriage licenses at all? Why should the state be required to provide benefits to these relationships, if they have no authority to regulate?

It is not the role of the state to stand in moral judgement. Why should it openly condone heterosexuality?

In the state of marriage, the state derives benefits not found in other relationships essential for the propagation of the state.

Are you advocating the state restricting individual freedom?

That is the purpose of the state, to regulate individual freedom, to ensure collective harmony. Complete individual freedom produces anarchy.

No, marriage involves the couple involve. It is a contract between those two, a bond between those two. It is the role of the state to provide the necessary legislation and framework,

Thus the state has a role in the regulation of marriage. If you demand the intervention of the state, then you admit their regulations on personal freedom.

not to stand in moral judgement.

The state has a responsibility to all citizens, ergo, one of their responsibilities is to stand in moral judgement. It's one thing to disagree with the moral judgement of the state, and quite another to deny the state any such role.

If there is no role for the state in regulation, then no marriage licenses may be issued.

You still do not grasp the difference between democracy and tyranny of the masses. People have rights as long as they do not infringe the rights of others.

Very true! Which is why I am arguing that gay people have no right to impose their desires which impose a burden upon the rest of us, without our consent.

The mass does not have the right to impose it's will when the issue is a private matter.

Again, if marriage is a public issue, then the mass does get to have a say.

Lynchmob or parliament in this instance, the concept is the same - one forcing it's will on the other by sheer force of numbers.

Some lynchmob! What gay person ever did die at the hands of the state? What black person did the same?

[Ben Kenobi]

this is only the answer if one makes a prior assumption, that this is the best homosexuals can expect. If they can change, then one ought to encourage homosexuals to do so, rather than allowing them to marry their same-sex partner. Why relegate them to a lesser position, when there is more to be hoped for?

In terms of their health they would be better off chaste. There are many dissatisfied gay men, who want out, and who cannot find help. Even Mr. Fun acknowledges this.

[Giancarlo]

The state has a right to intervene where necessary and marriage is one of these issues. Civil marriage must be granted to gay or straight couples alike.

Which is why I am arguing that gay people have no right to impose their desires which impose a burden upon the rest of us, without our consent.

Why does granting marriage to gay couples put a burden on the rest of you? Please explain your reasoning as from the way I see it, it is purely false and in accurate. And you cannot control segments of the population like little puppets.

Again, if marriage is a public issue, then the mass does get to have a say.

Then Jim Crowe laws were a public issue but if you gave people in the south a say on the issue (in the 50s for example) they would choose to keep these horribly unfair laws. It fell on the federal government and the Supreme Court to do what was right even though the population was against it. Take inter-racial marriage. Legalised in California in 1949, even though some 90% of the population was against it.

In terms of their health they would be better off chaste. There are many dissatisfied gay men, who want out, and who cannot find help. Even Mr. Fun acknowledges this.

This isn't true nor is it right. My health isn't any worse off then any straight guy out there. And there are many dissatisifed straight men too... should they become gay? Your reasoning is comical.

[Aeson]

Then single people are also discriminated against, in a similar manner.

Very true. Single people can also provide the benefits you associate with marriage.

The solution (to the marriage issue), and one which you say you would support, is to keep the government out of people's private lives. No state recognized marriage... and if the state wants to reward such things as raising children, do that seperately.

While the state recognizes heterosexual marriage, it needs to recognize homosexual marriage though. That other groups would still be discriminated against is no reason to continue discriminating against any of the others.

[Whaleboy]

You are demanding rights that do not exist. There is no right to recieve the benefits of marriage, simply a right to be married. Any gay person does not lose his right to be married, so long as he can find a nice woman to marry him, the same as anyone else. If for whatever reason you do not want to marry, that is your choice, and you should not expect to receive the same benefits as those who do choose to marry.

You seem to be equating the benefits afforded by marriage to the right to be married therein. A folly. The idea is for equal right to be married, and the benefits afforded as a consequence of that should be equal to heterosexuals and homosexuals, simply because there is no reason not to be. And surely you would not approve of a gay man marrying a heterosexual woman under false pretenses? It is not so much a question of a humans right to be married being affected by ones sexuality, rather ones right to be married to their person of choice. This argument is advocating that the notion of marriage be extended to same-sex couples.

It makes a big difference. I am not saying that gay people should be prevented from having sex. One such argument against these regulations is the one that having a law unenforced, weakens all the others. There is no way to enforce a ban on sodomy, ergo, one ought not to place a ban, since such ban would be detrimental to the rule of law.

That would seem to imply that were you to have the means to impose such a law, you would do so. I'm saying that such a law is invalid anyway, since I am an advocate of the individuals right to live by their own morality so long as it is not forced on another, and not have another moral code imposed upon them.

Fair enough. That is a consistent position, but then you are left with this question. If anything goes, why have marriage licenses at all? Why should the state be required to provide benefits to these relationships, if they have no authority to regulate?

I like the emotive attempt to put gay marriage in the same sordid box as incest and polygamy . There seems to be this "taxation" argument against gay marriage that I find curious. If the state does not want to give tax breaks or whatever to couples, then they don't have to. That should apply consistently throughout heterosexual or gay marriages. If its a childcare issue, then provide tax-breaks / benefit per child, whether naturally conceived or adopted etc. It really isn't a big issue, I don't understand why the anti-gay people are so determined to make a sticking point out of it.

The state has a responsibility to all citizens, ergo, one of their responsibilities is to stand in moral judgement. It's one thing to disagree with the moral judgement of the state, and quite another to deny the state any such role.

Wrong, the state can uphold some ethical principle, for example, that of liberty, but the state has no objective ability or functional purpose in anything but a religious fundamentalist state, be it Islamic or Catholic, to stand in moral judgement of its people, or act in some form of moral guidance. I prefer to think there is no moral right or wrong as defined by the state .

That is the purpose of the state, to regulate individual freedom, to ensure collective harmony. Complete individual freedom produces anarchy.

. So a libertarian state where certain actions are forbidden, cannot occur where it still allows for individual freedom to do anything but harm another (as the law should be in my opinion, the variable comes as ones definition of harm but you all know my views on that). In such a state individual freedom is maintained and protected by the state, not limited. You need to diffentiate between individual freedom and chaos. Nonetheless, if we are dealing with societies that are not run by an organised religion, you point has no merit.

Very true! Which is why I am arguing that gay people have no right to impose their desires which impose a burden upon the rest of us, without our consent.

There is no direct impositional burden as there is with something like assault or the imposition of a moral view of one upon another. You can make a case for there being a consequential, interpretative harm caused by public display of gay relationships to homophobes, but one will always offend anyone in all but the most mundane of pursuits so we can't find consistency there, especially since the issue of offense is with the offended, not the person who causes it (like a swimmer blaming the tide, not his error, for drowning). Now in terms of taxation, society agrees to afford certain benefits to marriage. We are not arguing for marriage to be extended to all human beings, since it already is, we are arguing for marriage to allow for same-sex couples, and I can see no reason why that should not happen, except perhaps a risk to public homosexuals from homophobes, but then that hardly constitutes a good reason . If society does not want to pay those benefits, then it neednt, but note that your argument would conclude that any marriage without the consent of the populus is imposing its burden upon the rest of us without its consent, so no dice.

Again, if marriage is a public issue, then the mass does get to have a say.

It is an issue of public recognition, not public business. It is akin to me wearing what I like in public, so thus displaying myself to all those who would look, expressing my identity, but that is none of the publics business in a proactive manner.

Some lynchmob! What gay person ever did die at the hands of the state? What black person did the same?

How many have suffered at the hands of the state? Before homosexuality was legalised in the UK, many. Afterwards and today they still face institutional discrimination as highlighted by MrFun in his post earlier.

In terms of their health they would be better off chaste. There are many dissatisfied gay men, who want out, and who cannot find help. Even Mr. Fun acknowledges this.

Ergo we must discourage homosexuality?

Fez actually makes very coherent and intelligent posts when he's with a liberal cause!

[Giancarlo]

My sexuality is not a liberal cause.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ming
And PA...
Some people seem to be able to argue against gay marriages in a reasonable and civil fashion... you aren't one of them. So enough with the bigoted crap. You are one more bigoted comment away from yet another restriction.

Would you care to point out which of his statements was bigotted? It certainly seems to me that PA has been taking a lot more **** than he has been thrown in this thread.

But I am sure it isn't your fault. I am sure that someone has complained to you about PA expressing his opinion. So, in the cause of fairness, let me make an officail complaint about the following posts (I didn't have to go far back either):

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Arsehole.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
So seeing "****s on Bikes" or a bunch of queens gets you all hot and tingly? Seeing more of it is going to turn you?

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
well then in PA`s case i would say facsist

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Heil zu unserem Führer

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Stew, you are so full of sh*t...

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Evidently that is secondary to you being a ****.

the obsessive cult is generally composed of people who seem to fear anal sex, the cause of that fear can be the subject of much enjoyable speculation, PA, I'm looking in your direction.

Anyway, I noticed no-one answered my question. The point I was making is that what is acceptable behaviour in public is subjective. There are plenty of things which 'harm no-one' which I am sure the vast majority of posters on this board would object to being done in public. PA has admitted that he is uncomfortable with some behaviour and you lot ridicule him even though you too would find certain other behaviours uncomfortable (even if not the same one). What a bunch of hypocrites

[Giancarlo]

PA just isn't right. First thing is first, I should be allowed to hold my bf's hand in public and be allowed to kiss him, if heterosexual couples are granted that. Only the bigots here are against allowing homosexual couples to do the same thing as heterosexual couples can do in public. Kissing and holding hands. That doesn't harm anybody. So the only hypocrite here is you, Rogan.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
But I am sure it isn't your fault. I am sure that someone has complained to you about PA expressing his opinion. So, in the cause of fairness, let me make an officail complaint about the following posts (I didn't have to go far back either):

Your complaint is noted, and will be given the attention it deserves...

PA has continued to be restricted and warned about his bigoted comments in the past... he is on a far shorter leash when it comes to this matter. So while you are welcome to your opinion on the subject... your opinions are based on only part of the facts...

[Monk]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
There are plenty of things which 'harm no-one' which I am sure the vast majority of posters on this board would object to being done in public. PA has admitted that he is uncomfortable with some behaviour and you lot ridicule him even though you too would find certain other behaviours uncomfortable (even if not the same one). What a bunch of hypocrites

Well, I have seen people having sex in public and I don't really mind, but that's not the point here. One point is that one thing is being uncomfortable with something, another thing is wanting to legislate accordingly.

Secondly, it's one thing to at least try to debate something and an entirely different case if all the person in question is doing is repeating hateful statements, possibly because one thinks it's cool to see people all worked-up afterwards. In conclusion, we can agree fully that people shouldn't be calling each other full-of-**** *******s, but I must say I sometimes understand exactly why they do it.