California: Prohibition on gay marriage

[Baron Max]

You know as well as I do that it isn't fair that gays can't get married.

It isn't fair to deny marriage between daughters and fathers either, but society does it.

It isn't fair to deny marriage between one man and dozens of women (or vice versa), but society does it.

In almost all boxing matches, the fighters are deemed equal, but they're seldom if ever equal. That ain't fair either.

Handsome, sexy men get more women than fat, ugly, stupid men, and that ain't fair, but it still happens!

Life sucks, don't it?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Natural is defined by nature. Homosexuality occurs in nature, therefore it is natural.

Lions on the African plains sometimes kill their own offspring, so is it okay if humans sometimes kill their own offspring? It's natural, right?

Throughout the twentieth century, as women struggled to be treated equally under the law, their womanhood was the defining attribute.

And they still aren't treated equally ..in pay or in promotions or in leadership roles in government or in ...well, in most anything. Beautiful, sexy women are treated much better than fat, ugly, unpleasant men. Taller, slim men get faster promotions than short, dumpy men.

Yes, keep repeating the point without ever addressing the counterpoint, which you have been offered at least twice and reminded of most recently only yesterday.

And you, also, keep repeating your same opinions, over and over again, using a few different words and a few different footnotes, but it's essentially the same argument over and over again ....that gays should be permitted to marry. Well, I don't think so, and I'll work and vote to prevent it.

Baron Max

 

[lcat]

Baron Max, do you just enjoy playing devil's advocate or something?

[Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, here.]

 

[Balerion]

It isn't fair to deny marriage between daughters and fathers either, but society does it.

This is what you always do. You compare homosexuality--a trait seen in every goddamn mammal on the planet--to pedophilia and incest. I can only conclude that you must really, really, really be into incest and pedophilia seeing as how you bring it up so much.

But to dumb it down for you, there is no victim in a homosexual relationship. If we allow a father and a daughter to marry, chances are that the daughter has serious mental health issues, perhaps a trauma in her childhood. And that's not even mentioning the fact that their children would most likely be retarded, with a chance of even more severe defects.

It isn't fair to deny marriage between one man and dozens of women (or vice versa), but society does it.

Actually, it's not fair. If all parties are willing, who am I to say they can't all get hitched?

 

[Baron Max]

If we allow a father and a daughter to marry, chances are that the daughter has serious mental health issues, ...

Yep, and that's exactly what some/many people think about homosexuals. And because of those serious mental health issues, gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. Thanks for giving me some extra ammo!

And that's not even mentioning the fact that their children would most likely be retarded, with a chance of even more severe defects.

Ahh, so ya' mean that marriage necessarily means having children???? Hmm, then, wait, since gays can't have children, then.......? Hmm, let me think about that a little bit, okay? More ammo you're passing my way?

This is what you always do. You compare homosexuality......

Nope, I've never made that comparison on this or any other site. You can read that into it if you want, but I've never compared them. I have, however, called all of those wierd, strange, abnormal,..., ways of enjoying sex.

Baron Max

 

[distantcube]

This is what you always do. You compare homosexuality--a trait seen in every goddamn mammal on the planet

Source?

--to pedophilia and incest.

I'm not so sure about pedophilia, but I do know that incest has been shown to occur in some mammalian species.

I can only conclude that you must really, really, really be into incest and pedophilia seeing as how you bring it up so much.

Are such blatant personal attacks allowed on sciforums? :bugeye:

But to dumb it down for you, there is no victim in a homosexual relationship.

Conjecture. It is possible to suffer in a homosexual relationship, just as it is possible to suffer in a heterosexual relationship.

If we allow a father and a daughter to marry, chances are that the daughter has serious mental health issues, perhaps a trauma in her childhood.

Who ever proposed that the daughter would be married while still a child? Why shouldn't a father be allowed to marry his fully grown daughter.

Oh, and as to the 'serious mental health issues', need I repeat: Conjecture! And mental harm can occur in homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

And that's not even mentioning the fact that their children would most likely be retarded, with a chance of even more severe defects.

So? Ever heard of birth control? All the pro-choicers love to point out how the primary purpose of sex is rarely about producing children these days, yet are unwillingly to apply this same logic to incest.

Baron Max is behaving a little obtusely, but he also manages to have a few flashes of brilliance when he points out some of the weak argumentation being offered up on this thread. This is a prime example, although he neglected to mention bestiality:

Incest? Age discriminatory laws? I think if you looked around carefully, you'd find umpty-eleven highly discriminatory laws that we live with every day and think nothing of it.

The fact of the matter is that in the cases of incest, pedophilia/ebophilia and bestality, it is possible for both parties to give implicit and/or explicit consent. Yet very few people support 'equal rights' for these interest groups. Why not? :shrug:

 

[CutsieMarie89]

It isn't fair to deny marriage between daughters and fathers either, but society does it.

It isn't fair to deny marriage between one man and dozens of women (or vice versa), but society does it.

In almost all boxing matches, the fighters are deemed equal, but they're seldom if ever equal. That ain't fair either.

Handsome, sexy men get more women than fat, ugly, stupid men, and that ain't fair, but it still happens!

Life sucks, don't it?

Baron Max

No it isn't fair. There isn't anything wrong with incestous marriages. I wouldn't marry my brother, but if other people want to do it I have no reason to tell them they can't. As long as they are both consenting adults, who aren't being coerced into anything I'm perfectly fine with it. Same goes for polygamy. I can't do anything about fat ugly men who can't get dates, but forcing someone to date them goes against my principles of forcing people into an intimate relationship they don't want to be in.

 

[James R]

Heteros don't have the need to use their sexual desires as a way of defining themselves ...

This is a bit rich, seeing as this is exactly what you, Max, do every time you rant and rave about gay sex and gay marriage and decadent gayness. While I can understand the plight of the gay minority, I'm not so sure where your insecurity comes from.

However, as you can readily see on the news, gays are constantly seeking the approval of society for their own perverted, abnormal sexual desires.

What perverted, abnormal desires?

That strange, perverted method of enjoying sex is what defines gays!

As your bigotry defines you?

The fact of the matter is that in the cases of incest, pedophilia/ebophilia and bestality, it is possible for both parties to give implicit and/or explicit consent.

Incest, yes. Pedophilia and bestiality, no.

 

[Pandaemoni]

As to discrimination, it's not such thing. A hetero male can't marry another male, a homosexual male can't marry another male. That's perfectly equal under the law. Now if gays are something other than "male", ...?

This is the worst argument ever. By that sort of reasoning forbidding the worshipping of Jesus would not be discriminatory. After all, Muslims and Hindus can't worship Jesus, and Christians can't worship Jesus. Jews and Hindus can worship any *other* deity or force or whatever, and Christians can too, as long as none of them worships Jesus. So that is total equality.

The problem of course is that if you take away the right to do something I don't want to do in the first place, that doesn't harm me. If I do want to do it, then removing the right does harm me. Harming one group and not another is the very heart of invidious discrimination.

In this case the rule does just that, it harms one set of people and leaves the other in the same position. That you can't see the discrimination in that is a failing in your ability to analyze properly.

 

[distantcube]

Incest, yes. Pedophilia and bestiality, no.

Humans under the age of eighteen can indeed give consent to engage in sexual intercourse, and marriage. Just because you don't attach the same value to underage consent as you would to an adult consent, doesn't mean that consent ceases to exist.

Some mammals can also given implicit consent. Witness the case of "Super Sam", where a horse willingly had anal sex with a man, which resulted in the mans death due to perforation of the colon.
http://www.zombiefriends.com/zlog/vwzlog.asp?zi=3080

No gun was held to the horse's head, it was not coerced. It engaged in anal sex with this man out of its own free will. I believe this equates to implicit consent, similar to when a woman spreads her legs and pushes herself onto the penis of a man.

In light of this information, why can't a human have consensual sex with a minor or an animal? And why can't they marry them? What ever happened to equal rights?

 

[Asguard]

you really have no idea what your talking about do you

Pediphilla isnt sleeping with a 16 year old. Pediphillia by DEFINITION means that the other person is PRE pubessant

 

[distantcube]

I know that, which is why I made that distinction in post #146. Both ebophilia and pedophilia involve having sex with someone who is considered a minor under the law, which is illegal in every country that I am aware of. But why? Ten year olds can give consent to sexual intercourse, as can seventeen year olds.

 

[swarm]

Let Baron have sex with goats!

 

[Baron Max]

The problem of course is that if you take away the right to do something I don't want to do in the first place, that doesn't harm me. If I do want to do it, then removing the right does harm me.

Marriage is NOT a right, it's a social and legal contract.

As to doing what you want to do, there are gazillions of things in society that we can't do!

Harming one group and not another is the very heart of invidious discrimination.

Harm? What harm?

In this case the rule does just that, it harms one set of people and leaves the other in the same position. That you can't see the discrimination in that is a failing in your ability to analyze properly.

Harm? Just remember, some people think that allowing gays to marry "harms" their society and the ideals of marriage. So talking about "harm" is going waaaaay out on a limb. Be careful.

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Let Baron have sex with goats!

And sheep! You forgot my sheep!

Baron Max

 

[swarm]

And I will back your right to marry them as soon as they ask.

 

[Giambattista]

And I will back your right to marry them as soon as they ask.

Quite possibly the shortest effective retort I've seen in this thread yet.

 

[Giambattista]

Heteros don't have the need to use their sexual desires as a way of defining themselves - nature and society and normal male-female relations do it for them. I.e., it's normal and natural.

The very words hetero or heterosexual as a description for these persons as you have used above is plainly visible proof that such persons can indeed be described by their sexual desires. Or are you claiming that heterosexual is a description of eating habits?

Notice the use of the phrase

it's normal and natural.

in an apparent defense of those persons who are NOT defined by their sexuality, but apparently are known by their sexual practices which are in accordance with nature.

Now witness:

Lions on the African plains sometimes kill their own offspring, so is it okay if humans sometimes kill their own offspring? It's natural, right?

Now "nature" is used again by the same person, but in the reverse, indicating that natural denotes something brutal and unseemly.

Natural apparently is only right when the quoted person deems it so, and decries nature when it supports something the person opposes.

I wonder how serious this person is, or whether it simply loves to ruffle feathers? What is the point it is trying to make?

 

[Repo Man]

you really have no idea what your talking about do you

Pediphilla isnt sleeping with a 16 year old. Pediphillia by DEFINITION means that the other person is PRE pubessant

Yet another word lost to popular usage. Here in the US, stupid guys who try to get with fifteen year old girls are called pedophiles. It isn't correct usage, but it's hopeless to try and correct. As though guys who want to have sex with fifteen year olds who look older are exactly the same as guys who are turned on by three year olds. So obviously ridiculous that no further comment is necessary.

 

[Nasor]

Regarding the common argument that if we allow marriage between gays why not between people and animals, one should keep in mind that in the eyes of the law marriage is a legal contract. Since animals can't enter into legal contracts, this is a non-issue.