Latest gay marriage flareup

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me ask you if the following are perversions:

- Engaging in a voluntary transaction for sex
- Engaging in voluntary sex with a 15yo
- Engaging in voluntary sex with an animal

Most people are ok with discouraging these activities, on the basis that they are perversions ...

[/ QUOTE ]

(1) is clearly NOT a perversion.

(2) is not a perversion, unless you also think that mankind for most of its history was mostly perverts, in which case the term no longer has the same meaning.

(3) is a misnomer as the sex isn't voluntary both ways.

[tpir]

Re: OP, I am pretty sure only one couple got hitched.

[ QUOTE ]
Deleted

[/ QUOTE ]
When you say "perversion" do you mean "not the norm" or "morally wrong"? Would letting homosexuals have a legally binding relationship somehow encourage straight people to become gay?


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Banning gay marriage is unconstitional

[/ QUOTE ]
Should Iron be allowed to marry his mother or sister? How about his dog? Why can't corporations marry, they're legal entities?

[/ QUOTE ]
Seems like this could easily be rectified by defining marriage as between two non-familial humans. Or leaving marriage alone and giving them a comparable institution.

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what's allowed here, I'm usually debate this stuff in SMP. But I don't think you can have a proper debate without putting your cards on the table, and what I said is at the core of the debate IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
If 2 humans love each other I have no objection to them becoming married (does it affect us?). Why is it a peversion?

[/ QUOTE ]
If society was composed entirely of consenting adults, then it would be a different matter. But there are many who believe that society shouldn't recognize abnormal acts as valid.

Let me ask you if the following are perversions:

- Engaging in a voluntary transaction for sex
- Engaging in voluntary sex with a 15yo
- Engaging in voluntary sex with an animal

Most people are ok with discouraging these activities, on the basis that they are perversions that cause direct and indirect social harm (even though they're only done between two consenting parties). Why is homosexuality different?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your examples suck. I do not see the legal binding between the relationship of two consenting and loving adults as being a perversion or as being deprimental to society(in fact quite the opposite). Thus legal 'secular' marriage between 2 men/women is in my oppinion a non-issue.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people are ok with discouraging these activities, on the basis that they are perversions that cause direct and indirect social harm (even though they're only done between two consenting parties).

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the way you're using the word "discourage" instead of "forcably prevented against their will" to soften it.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]

Let me ask you if the following are perversions:

- Engaging in a voluntary transaction for sex

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
- Engaging in voluntary sex with a 15yo

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the 15yo a moral agent?

[ QUOTE ]
- Engaging in voluntary sex with an animal

[/ QUOTE ]

Who owns the animal?

[ QUOTE ]
Most people are ok with discouraging these activities, on the basis that they are perversions that cause direct and indirect social harm (even though they're only done between two consenting parties). Why is homosexuality different?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not. The fact that people like to be busybodies and tell other people what to do when it comes to activity X doesn't mean that behavior is legitimate, and doesn't justify extending it to activity Y.

The state shoudln't have any business condining or prohibiting marriage at all. But as long as it does, and as long as that state guaratees equal protection under the law (as the US does in the Constitution), restriction on gay marriage is a violation of that equal protection.

Alice is allowed to contract with Bob, but Charlie is restricted from contracting with Bob. Charlie does not have equal protection.

This particular examination kills the "polygamy" and "bestiality" slippery slope objections to allowing gay marriage, since in those cases *everyone* is *equally* limited to one simultaneous contract at a time, and everyone is equally prohibited from contracting with dogs.

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is homosexuality different?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because there is no proof whatsoever that homosexuality causes direct or indirect harm to society. Seems that outlawing homosexuality would have the more harmful effect. (Assuming you believe that dudes pop chubs at other dudes involuntarily. If you think they are all making a choice I have no idea what to say.)

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Your examples suck. I do not see the legal binding between the relationship of two consenting and loving adults as being a perversion or as being deprimental to society(in fact quite the opposite).

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't, obviously. Others do. The examples (which you didn't answer) are relevant to what is and isn't a perversion/detrimental and how we decide it. I don't see how you can be against any of the things listed if you're for gay marriage. Animals can indeed "consent" and enjoy sex and seek mating opportunities. Many 15yos are as capable of giving consent as an 18yo "adult". Who are you to restrict their freedom? And prostitution is the very definition of a willing adult transaction.

@ mosdef:
[ QUOTE ]
I like the way you're using the word "discourage" instead of "forcably prevented against their will" to soften it.

[/ QUOTE ]
prevented? They can do whatever they like. It's up to society whether or not they recognize the union of man and man. No is being forcibly prevented from anything - in fact gays pushing marriage is an attempt to force social validity for their abnormal preferences, by hijacking a traditional means of recognizing the union of a man and woman.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is homosexuality different?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because there is no proof whatsoever that homosexuality causes direct or indirect harm to society. Seems that outlawing homosexuality would have the more harmful effect. (Assuming you believe that dudes pop chubs at other dudes involuntarily. If you think they are all making a choice I have no idea what to say.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your first point. And no one is outlawing homosexuality - merely refusing to anoint a man-man love fest as marriage.

There is a great deal of choice in homosexuality. One of the most effective propaganda movements of the gay rights crowd was that homosexuality is not a choice. This is total bunk. Only 1-3% of the population are purely homosexual; the rest are bisexuals and experimenters. The "homosexual or not, by birth" is a total myth.

[PLOlover]

afaik gays can get married in any church that will do it.

main issue is they want government/corporate/contractual benefits.

I don't see the difference to be honest between this issue and say, income tax regulation reform where everyone knows there are loopholes and crazy unjust crap that makes no sense and benefits special (corporate) interests and the like. or similiar issues.

personally I think that if GLAD would just lobby for official recognition of "homosexual unions" and claim it has nothing to do with "marriage", when the effects would be identical, it would get passed no problem.

I mean think about it, when man/woman get married in a church, they still have to get the piece of paper from the government. gays can get married today everywhere, they just can't get the government paper.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Because there is no proof whatsoever that homosexuality causes direct or indirect harm to society. Seems that outlawing homosexuality would have the more harmful effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

what about diseases like AIDS and stuff?