Let's start making some sense here...

It has been mentioned a few times throughout this thread that one arguing for gay/lesbian rights is arguing from the same basis that they're arguing against, and therefore(implied) the ground of arguing for gay marriage is no more firm than arguing against. That is misleading at best, dare I say - false - at worst. This will be shown as such.

"Who or what gives you the right to say what is right or wrong?" is a question that has been used to support the idea that the ground is the same. In addition, it has also somehow fostered the idea that there is an element of hypocrisy to contend with. That kind of thinking has already devolved into name calling, chest puffing, hand waving, and the like. We must ask much better questions in order to avoid a situation where untamed egos will be offended. Emotional maturity is critical. That particular question has proven useless.

"Who or what gives one the right to say what is right or wrong for another?" is a much more pertinent question. Subsequently, we must also ask "Does your right to believe and act as you see fit include denying another the same?"

That IS exactly what is going on with the gay marriage debate.

We should not argue about how we arrive at our moral convictions and/or beliefs, because it makes no difference in and of itself - other than to be able to identify the kind of conviction or belief that it is. What constitutes sufficient reason to deny another their rights is in question here. I strongly contend that it is not a matter of how we arrive at our own sets of moral convictions/beliefs, rather, it is a matter of whether or not those beliefs impede upon another's inalienable rights, and if they do... why should it be allowed.

Let's think about the actual case at hand...

One who opposes gay marriage has the right to that belief. One who promotes gay marriage has the right to that belief. There is no blatant contradiction concerning one's inalienable rights based purely upon this. There is no argument there. One who opposes gay marriage does so based purely upon their own moral convictions and vice-versa. Again, no argument there. So where is the problem?

Based soley upon moral convictions and personal belief, those who oppose gay marriage/relationships do - in fact - wish to impose their convictions upon another in such a way that it impedes the other's pursuit of happiness and self-direction. The gay person, however, clearly does not wish to impede upon the other in the same way. Gays are not condemning straight marriages, nor straight lifestyles. Those who oppose gay lifestyles are condemning gay marriage, and in doing so are impeding upon another's own self-direction and pursuit of happiness.

So, it becomes quite clear that only one party - the opposition to gay/lesbian lifestyle/marriage - is imposing their belief/conviction. That personal conviction/belief is being used as ground to justify impeding another's self-direction and the pursuit of happiness. So while both sets of moral belief/conviction may be equal in thier self-justification, they are not being EQUALLY PUT TO USE to deny another the same. Therefore, any claim of hypocrisy has not properly taken this into consideration.

The gays are fighting for their own rights, not to deny the opposition theirs. That, my friends, is a brute fact. It offers to shed a little light upon the earlier claims of "bias" as well. Notably, the significance regarding the differences between being biased for and being biased against what is clearly a matter of equal rights. Who is going to hold that it is somehow unacceptable or otherwise 'wrong' to be biased for inalienable rights? Who then, would further argue that we should strike such a positive bias from our consideration? It would be to strike Dr. Martin Luther King's testimony from the record, simply because he was biased for equal rights?

It is an unconscionable thought. We SHOULD be positively biased for equal rights. That is what American ideology is all about. American ideology has strong philosophical influence, and therefore in order to understand the principles of American ideology, in addition to the ramifications of keeping it intact, and/or properly amending the US Constitution, one must properly understand the philosophy that gave rise to it. Anyone who would argue that a positive bias towards the equal rights of another citizen is somehow inappropriate or considers such bias to be just cause to dismiss their testimony is arguing against the American ideology that gave the claimant the ability to say such a preposterous thing to begin with. Likewise, anyone who would argue that it is ok to give equal consideration to the words and/or testimony of a person who has a clear negative bias towards the equal rights of citizens is not worth listening to.

Yeah, our knowledge and our sensibilities change and grow Pan. We now know that at that age, one's PFC has not developed enough in order to be able to contemplate their own best interest, let alone the far-reaching ramifications of entering into a marriage agreement. We also know how impressionable young women are, and therefore need to be protected from the likes of predators.

In short, when the facts/knowledge change, reasonable peoples' opinion does as well.



The REASONABLE objections are based upon knowledge/fact and are partially listed above. There are NO SUCH reasonable objections for discriminating against gays.




It is a matter of what is being used as a basis for the judgment itself, Pan.

If religion grounds an objection to gay marriage, then it is the source of the objection. To 'blame it' on the religion may not be the best way to describe what is going on. However, to equate the discrimination of gays to appropriate the age of consent and/or the mental capacity required for marriage is to neglect the reasoning which is based upon knowledge/fact.



Not true. These things have become laws because they go against American ideology, specifically... because they unnecessarily infringe upon the inalienable rights of others.



This IS a false dilemma.

You're right. Using Jesus as a sock puppet is pathetic. I'm glad you're beginning to see the light.

Especially when it is used by Christian's solely for the purpose of spreading religious bigotry, hatred, and judgments against others in the name of Jesus, and almost never used to support positive and loving ideals like I just did.

Christians seem to really take offense when someone uses the words that gospels attribute to Jesus for the purpose of supporting LOVING and CARING ideals.

That's considered to be the greatest blaspheme of all.

As just like you, they brand it "insincere".

No LOVE shall ever be associated with Jesus in the name of Christianity. That's would be blaspheme against what the religion stands for!

I agree PP. It's useless to try to even reference Jesus in the hopes of supporting anything that even remotely resembles love or compassion. It will be spat upon by the Christians instantly.

It's a religion that worships religious bigotry, and merely uses Jesus' name to support that agenda solely.

PP wrote:

BTW, calling me "PP" is an extremely lame attempt using an extremely childish reference to a penis, so PP (pathetic puppetmaster) is more fitting to yourself. Perhaps I should just say EAT ME!!!

You should have thought of that before you chose your screen name. It's a common practice on forums to shorten screen names down to this sort of abbreviation.

Besides CeriseRose goes to extra-ordinary lengths to re-cast my screen name as "Abra-CAD-Abra"

Referring to you as PP, is at least within the standard practices of Internet forums.



Does then your name mean you are good at Drafting Abra in stead of being a Magician? Shalom Miles

Miles wrote:

Does then your name mean you are good at Drafting Abra in stead of being a Magician? Shalom Miles

That's what I took it to mean.

Although it could also mean "Christ Approved Druid"

Or maybe "Charming Awesome Dude".

I'm sure if it's going to reflect something about me it's got to be divine.

How about "Certified Angel of Divinity".

I kinda like that one.

Ms. Harmony:

this argument, to me, is weak,,,,because it gives others the RIGHT to impose what they believe 'reasonable' onto others

You should have thought of that before you chose your screen name. It's a common practice on forums to shorten screen names down to this sort of abbreviation.

Besides CeriseRose goes to extra-ordinary lengths to re-cast my screen name as "Abra-CAD-Abra"

Referring to you as PP, is at least within the standard practices of Internet forums.

PP means penis?

Hmmph... I use it to mean PeterPan. Penis never entered my mind, although now that I think about it...

Now that's funny - I don't care who ya are!

PP means penis?

Hmmph... I use it to mean PeterPan. Penis never entered my mind, although now that I think about it...

Now that's funny - I don't care who ya are!

Not true. Gays are fighting for their rights, not to deny yours. Opposition to gay marriage is a fight to deny gays the rightd that they have been afforded by being citizens of the US.

Let me ask you this... Do you think that it is "reasonable" for straight couples to be denied the ability to get married based upon the opinions, belief, lifestyle, and moral convictions of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders? Would you say that that is reasonable? Would you object to such a thing?

I would hope that you would object to such a thing, and I would agree. I also do not blame gays for objecting upon those same grounds, and you by virtue of applying the same principle should not blame them either. Likewise, I would also guess that you cherish the principle of self-direction and uphold the idea that we be allowed to pursue our own happiness, as long as such a pursuit does not cause unnecessary harm to others. The age of consent for sex and/or marriage takes this into consideration. Likewise for the mentally challenged and cases of adult/child incest.

As the situation has it, those kinds of things have been rejected based upon considerations of human rights, American principles of freedom, and opinion logically grounded in knowledge/fact. There is just cause for holding fact above opinion when talking about ethical concerns. The ground for objecting to anothers freedom of action must be strong. Among other things, ethical concerns in the US involve the principles of freedom and unnecessary harm - including harming another by way of impeding one's self-direction. If it were not that way, we would still have slavery. Women would not be able to vote. The civil rights movement would have never gotten off the ground.

All this being said, I could be in error regarding your opinion on the earlier scenarios. Give me one good reason why one group of citizens should be able to deny another group the same rights/priveleges that they themselves hold, and we'll see if that reason applies to same sex marriages.

It has been said a million times in here that marriage is and has never been a human right.You can't say you are fighting for your right to get married any more than someone saying it is their right to marry their sister.Even if it wasn't legal who gives a crap?If I wanted to marry someone get your friends together and have a ceremony and get married.They used to do it that way hundreds of years ago with out any Government at all.


Gays can get legally married in the United states anyways!You can legally go to the 6 states that allow it and get married there.You don't have to live there.



I can give you several good reasons why a group of citizens can deny anyone privileges to homosexuals...


It is their right to vote on issues on who or what they deem acceptable and moral in their towns,cities,and countries.We live in a country where majority rules and if people don't want homosexuality promoted in their cities they have a voice and a vote to say they don't like it.


-Sodomy is unnatural and disgusting,and the majority of people find sodomy between two men repulsive and don't want it praised or promoted especially to children.


-Homosexuals have have much higher STD's and spread them more often.


http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msmpressrelease.html


A data analysis released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention underscores the disproportionate impact of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men in the United States.

The data, presented at CDC's 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, finds that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.

The range was 522-989 cases of new HIV diagnoses per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men and 13 per 100,000 women.

The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says. The range was 91-173 cases per 100,000 MSM vs. 2 per 100,000 other men and 1 per 100,000 women.


Homosexuals are the only group of people who insult,sue,and slander voters when they lose voting issues.Needless to say this does not go over very well with the general public.Homosexuals sue to force people to accept their lifestyle such as making speaking out against homosexuality a hate crime,teaching homosexual sex as natural in schools,and telling companies it is their right to use what ever bathroom or male or female they want to use because "they are really a woman or man deep inside".


Many people do not believe children should be raised by two men or two women and believe it is unhealthy.


Homosexuals have a higher suicide rate then others.


Homosexuals can not reproduce.



Homosexuals live a average of 20 years less then straight people

http://www.dakotavoice.com/200506/20050606_1.asp


http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm


Homosexuals account for nearly 50% of Aids cases in the United states

In 2006, more than 30,000 MSM and MSM-IDU were newly infected with HIV.
Among all MSM, whites accounted for nearly half (46%) of new HIV infections in 2006. The largest number of new infections among white MSM occurred in those aged 30–39 years, followed by those aged 40–49 years.


http://74.6.238.254/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=CDC+%25+of+homosexuals+are+affected+by+STDs&fr=yfp-t-701&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=CDC+%25+of+homosexuals+are+affected+by+STDs&d=4913202224562976&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=38f0b287,958e86ca&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=WE27qmJFqclt4sKuqUEwFQ--


MSM are the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.

MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).


One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year.The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime


Over 70% of all AIDS diagnoses in Canada in adults over the age of 15 up to June 2004 were in homosexual men (13,019 out of 19,238). 60% of all positive HIV tests are found in homosexual men. This contrasts with just over 15% of all positive HIV tests which are due to heterosexual contact. (Public Health Agency of Canada. HIV and AIDS in Canada. November 2004).


A University of Chicago study released in 2003 found that 61 percent of homosexuals in Chicago’s Shoreland area had more than 30 sexual partners

http://www.cft.org.za/articles/Children_adopt_homo.htm


Homosexual relationships are short-lived and less faithful

Even in those homosexual relationships, which the partners consider ‘committed’, the meaning of ‘committed’ typically means something radically different from marriage.

In the Triangle Project study of homosexual men in Cape Town, 47% of respondents said that they were currently in a relationship, yet only 13.3% of respondents had had only one partner in the past year. 60% of the men who were currently 'in a relationship' admitted to having had "sex" with people other than their partners in the past year.

In the book, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, the authors, two homosexual lecturers, report a study of 156 men in homosexual relationships lasting from one to 37 years. Only seven couples had a totally exclusive sexual relationship and of these, the men had all been together for less than five years. In other words, all the so-called ‘couples’ with a relationship lasting more than five years had incorporated some outside sexual activity into their relationships.
Homosexual relationships are more violent than traditional marriage

While homosexuals, particularly lesbians, propagate the idea of the lesbian or homosexual home as one of peace and equality, the truth is that homosexual relationships are far more violent than heterosexual marriages. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that married women in normal families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships. Consider these studies of homosexual relationships:

The Journal of Interpersonal Violence published an article entitled "Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships". Researchers found that 90% of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study. 31% of women in lesbian relationships reported one or more incidents of physical abuse.

A survey of 1,099 lesbians found that "slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequent forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse."

In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence, D. Island and P. Letellier report that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population."
Homosexuality and crime

A study of 4340 adults in five metropolitan areas of the USA showed that bisexuals and homosexuals (about 4% of the sample) compared to heterosexuals:

exposed themselves sexually to more different bodies (more frequently admitting to participating in orgies and reported larger numbers of sexual partners);
more frequently participated in socially disruptive sex (e.g., deliberate infection of others, cheating in marriage, making obscene phone calls);
more frequently reported engaging in socially disruptive activities (e.g., criminality, shoplifting, tax cheating); and
more frequently exposed themselves to biological hazards (e.g. fisting, bestiality, ingestion of faeces and sadomasochism).
Homosexuality and substance abuse

A study published in Nursing Research found that lesbians are three times more likely to abuse alcohol and suffer from other compulsive behaviours than heterosexual women. The study found that: Like most problem drinkers, 91% of the participants had abused other drugs as well as alcohol, and many reported compulsive difficulties with food (34%), co-dependency on people (29%), sex (11%), and money (6%)." In addition, "46% had been heavy drinkers with frequent drunkenness."

The Triangle Project survey of homosexual men in Cape Town in 2000 found that 68% of men had used at least one recreational drug in the past year. 41% had used marijuana, 40% used ecstacy, 36% used poppers and 25% used cocaine. Acid and speed were used by about a fifth of the men.

A study in Family Planning Perspective showed that male homosexuals were at greatly increased risk for alcoholism: "Among men, by far the most important risk group consisted of homosexual and bisexual men, who were more than nine times as likely as heterosexual men to have a history of problem drinking."
The Washington Blade, a homosexual newspaper, reports that "various studies on Lesbian health suggest that certain cancer risk factors occur with greater frequency in this population. These factors include higher rates of smoking, alcohol use, poor diet and being overweight."

But what if they don't want to or are incapable of seeing the opposite sex like they do the same sex? How is that fair to them? It's like you're saying: "Marriage between two humans is for all.....but only if you do it this way".

That very much IS basing a right upon preference.

Not true. Gays are fighting for their rights, not to deny yours. Opposition to gay marriage is a fight to deny gays the rightd that they have been afforded by being citizens of the US.

Let me ask you this... Do you think that it is "reasonable" for straight couples to be denied the ability to get married based upon the opinions, belief, lifestyle, and moral convictions of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders? Would you say that that is reasonable? Would you object to such a thing?

I would hope that you would object to such a thing, and I would agree. I also do not blame gays for objecting upon those same grounds, and you by virtue of applying the same principle should not blame them either. Likewise, I would also guess that you cherish the principle of self-direction and uphold the idea that we be allowed to pursue our own happiness, as long as such a pursuit does not cause unnecessary harm to others. The age of consent for sex and/or marriage takes this into consideration. Likewise for the mentally challenged and cases of adult/child incest.

As the situation has it, those kinds of things have been rejected based upon considerations of human rights, American principles of freedom, and opinion logically grounded in knowledge/fact. There is just cause for holding fact above opinion when talking about ethical concerns. The ground for objecting to anothers freedom of action must be strong. Among other things, ethical concerns in the US involve the principles of freedom and unnecessary harm - including harming another by way of impeding one's self-direction. If it were not that way, we would still have slavery. Women would not be able to vote. The civil rights movement would have never gotten off the ground.

All this being said, I could be in error regarding your opinion on the earlier scenarios. Give me one good reason why one group of citizens should be able to deny another group the same rights/priveleges that they themselves hold, and we'll see if that reason applies to same sex marriages.

but the law doesnt say marriage between two humans is for all 'couplings',,there have ALWAYS Been exceptions

like siblings
like already married couples
like minors


but it is for all people so long as they couple by the opposite sex, and are not siblings or minors

siblings(who are as free to marry the opposite sex as non siblings AS LONG as they dont have common parents)

MARRIED couples(who are as free to marry the opposite sex as LONG as they dissolve the marriage first)

minors(who are free to marry the opposite sex as long as their is parental consent or emancipation)

we all have the SAME requirement, to couple by opposite sex

Either way, it's still wrong to in effect try and force a square peg into a round hole no pun intended.