It's in the Declaration of Independence!
- Thread starter Athelwulf
- Start date
Yeah, Athelwulf. I think your argument is GREAT. I think everyone should be legally allowed to pursue anything that makes them happy. After all, it is what the founding fathers so nebulously stated a very long time ago.
Take me for example. I want to get married to my TV set. I have had that TV for years, and I love it with all of my heart. (I am afraid it's going to blow its horizontal oscillator one day and the repairman won't let me see it until it is fixed). Unfortunately, those stupid Christian right-wingers won't let me get married to it. Damn it! My rights are being violated! I am being inhibited in my pursuit of happiness that my founding fathers granted me. I am suffering from the oppression of a cruel, heartless, senseless, evil, christian society.
Take me for example. I want to get married to my TV set. I have had that TV for years, and I love it with all of my heart. (I am afraid it's going to blow its horizontal oscillator one day and the repairman won't let me see it until it is fixed). Unfortunately, those stupid Christian right-wingers won't let me get married to it. Damn it! My rights are being violated! I am being inhibited in my pursuit of happiness that my founding fathers granted me. I am suffering from the oppression of a cruel, heartless, senseless, evil, christian society.
duckfan3816
Registered Member
Yes. You are right. Period.
RubiksMaster said:
I'm sorry, your analogy has me a bit confused. What inanimate object without legally protected and guaranteed rights not-involved in our human society are homosexuals trying to marry?
The fact is that homosexual marriage already exists. It's very much like a same-sex marriage in nearly every respect, enough that the legal considerations (such as maters dealing with taxes and joint property) afforded to same sex marriages would be just as appropriate when applied to them. Should our laws now reflect that fact?
cardiovascular_tech said:
Well that depends on which religion you're talking about. There are several protestant branches which recognize and will perform same-sex marriages.
But then who says that marriage needs to be endorsed by a Christian religion? As far as I know people of all faiths are free to marry, and even intermarry legally. Come to think of it who needs religion for legal marriage at all? Aren't agnostics and atheists allowed to marry?
If you ask me, the importance of religion in this issue is greatly exaggerated. Do remember that no one is fighting to make any religion recognize a same-sex union, or perform their ceremony, that would go rather against people's freedom of religion, if you ask me. What is happening is that people are petitioning the government to grant the same legal protections to same-sex marriages (the legal entity) as are granted to heterosexual marriages.
It was an ANALOGY. Do you know what one of those is? It means I wasn't saying that homosexuals try to marry inanimate objects. I was drawing a parallel to how I can misconstrue the meaning of the declaration of independence, just like Athelwulf did.
Somehow, I think you knew that. You just couldn't think of a better argument, so you tried to tear apart my argument by taking my analogy too literally. You thought that diminishing my argument would somehow make yours better (newsflash: it didn't).
RubiksMaster said:
Yet by your analogy you did compare a homosexual to an inanimate object.
Whether comparing gays to dogs, child molesters, or--now, in the latest twist--inanimate objects in order to make an analogy, traditionalists fail to establish the credibility of the analogy.
Of course, I do understand that something like sexual consent of a partner is utterly foreign to the more conservative viewpoint, but that's among the reasons I don't buy into the rape culture conservatives advocate.
And given the gender/identity focus of the debate itself, which tends to consider gay men more than lesbians, the inanimate object, dog, &c., becomes comparable to the female sexual partner, another hallmark of conservative thinking.
Posting rules aside, would it be decent if I compared you to a brick, or a heap of dung?
How is the homosexual partner equivalent to a television set? What makes the analogy valid, or at the very least, protects it from itself?
Muhlenberg
Registered Senior Member
Mystech...right. Religion is merely a straw man in this. There is a deep-seated natural revulsion to homosexual behavior which exists apart from any religious teachings.
Gays made a huge mistake last year. While many will in theory go along with gay marriage or ignore it, seeing the images of actual ceremonies on TV creeped out a lot of people.
Gays made a huge mistake last year. While many will in theory go along with gay marriage or ignore it, seeing the images of actual ceremonies on TV creeped out a lot of people.
Muhlenberg said:
While there are many reasons someone might be creeped out, is something so subjective really an appropriate reason to refuse someone their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights? What was the mistake in choosing to not tolerate intolerance?
I mean, it can't be something so simple as, "Homosexuals may have the law on their side, but traditionalists don't care about law and order anymore because it creeps them out," can it?
I mean, heterosexuals don't consider society that disposable, do they? They don't hold the Constitution in that kind of contempt, do they?
(I get it now: the disparate numbers in the War on Drugs showing inordinate focus on dark-skinned people, that's about the Emancipation Proclamation and interracial marriage, isn't it? Black men free to please white women ... yeah, that was kind of a mistake, wasn't it? After all, it probably creeped out a lot of people. Especially when they stopped to think their white daughters were enjoying it. Violet Ewell all over again?)
Mystech:
Maybe I should have took the extra minute to think of an analogy that didn't involve inanimate objects or marriage, and just avoided the controversy. No, you probably would have thought of a way to strike that one down, too.
Maybe you meant something else, but I was confused by your nebulous argument. . .
Tiassa:
ANyway, the topic of the thread was whether or not the Declaration of Independence is in favor of homosexual marriage. The pursuit of happiness is not grounds for it. I cannot kill someone if it makes me happy (maybe I should have said that instead of the TV thing). The truth is, the pursuit of happiness wasn't designed to let anyone do anything they want.
Only inadvertantly. It only appears to compare a homosexual to an inanimate object because that is the way you see it. You are only looking for problems. This is something I have observed in many of the leftists I know. An analogy is a parallel, not a direct comparison, and you don't seem to understand that.
Yes, if it were an analogy, and not a direct comparison. If you did what I did, and used parallel comparison, I wouldn't have a problem with it, because I realize that figures of speech are not to be taken literally. However, if you were to say "You are a pile of dung," or "You are a mere brick to me," I would have a problem because it is insulting (which I was not trying to be), and it is against forum rules.
Maybe I should have took the extra minute to think of an analogy that didn't involve inanimate objects or marriage, and just avoided the controversy. No, you probably would have thought of a way to strike that one down, too.
What?? I don't understand your argument at all. Are you trying to say that conservatives only rape people, because they don't believe in sexual consent of a partner? That is simply not true. My partner is consenting. I have never raped her, or anyone for that matter. Liberals are the ones that believe in free love. I understand that two people of the same sex can agree to have sex. I don't personally agree with it, but I do understand that it exists.
Maybe you meant something else, but I was confused by your nebulous argument. . .
Tiassa:
Constitutionally-guaranteed rights?! have you ever read the constitution? I have, more than once, in fact. There is no part of the constitution that guarantees the right to marry a person of the same sex.
ANyway, the topic of the thread was whether or not the Declaration of Independence is in favor of homosexual marriage. The pursuit of happiness is not grounds for it. I cannot kill someone if it makes me happy (maybe I should have said that instead of the TV thing). The truth is, the pursuit of happiness wasn't designed to let anyone do anything they want.
RubiksMaster said:
Guess what. Yer hypothetical love for yer TV is no parallel to the love between the members of a homosexual couple.
*Sits back and watches as analogy crumbles*
RubiksMaster said:
Killing someone can't make anyone happy. You know that, and I know that. This is yet another faulty parallel.
*Watches as parallel fails*
RubiksMaster said:
To an extent, I agree with ya.
I believe that as far as no other person is actually harmed, one may do as he wishes. Two men or two women getting married doesn't harm anyone. Therefore, it is covered by the phrase in the Declaration of Independence.
*Laughs at such unthorough, slapdash thinking*
RubiksMaster said:
Well, perhaps you don't find things like the ability to give consent relevant.
In this case, the weakness of the analogy treads directly on its intended point.
Conservative equivocation generally leaves much to be desired.
But there is a direct comparison: Who are you marrying?
Beyond that, noted for consideration.
The weakness of the analogy treads directly on its intended point.
When you have such a direct coincidence between the inaccurate (figurative) portion of the analogy and what it intends to show, there's a problem with the analogy.
I admit that response was good for a chuckle. But what does "free love" have to do with the counterpoint?
At any rate, yes, there's something else afoot that you missed.
Are you aware that sexual intercourse is a necessity to completing a marriage contract?
That is, nonconsummation is grounds for anullment (as opposed to divorce).
As it stands right now, in defining marriage between a man and a woman, a homosexual has the equal right as his or her heterosexual neighbor to enter into a contract of marriage with a person of the opposite gender. Therefore, in order to obtain the rights and acknowledgment afforded that marital status, one must consummate the marriage--e.g. have sex they don't wish to have. There is a word for compelling someone to have sex they do not wish to have, and it ain't "seduction".
What rights of yours, RubiksMaster, have the law required you to be raped before you could obtain?
It's an unsurprising coincidence in a political movement that has spent the last decade overlooking consent as a relevant part of the discussion.
That this is what the conservative argument leads to is among the several most important reasons I oppose the argument in the first place. There are many reasons I dislike conservative political assertions, but this shining example pretty much speaks to the general trend.
Then I'm sure you're familiar with the Fourteenth Amendment, and something called the Equal Protection Clause?
One's gender is not a reason to discriminate against them. Gender is entitled to equal protection under the law.
No, I don't think it would have gone over any better. Comparing same-sex unions to murder is no more decent, and perhaps considerably less.
So what else should we outlaw? Masturbation? Onanisms (coitus interruptus)? Oral sex? (Oh, wait a minute ....)
The pursuit of happiness most certainly is not license, but as was pointed out of the Supreme Court's recent refusal to hear an appeal of Massachusetts' decision to allow gay marriage, the parties bringing suit against same-sex marriage have much difficulty showing injury. Show that injury; show how the homosexuals' pursuit of happiness interferes with yours.
I mean, will it kill you if two people of the same gender are happily married?
This is an interesting argument, but I don’t think that it holds up. All people have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. The mere fact that Jane chooses not to exercise this right because she finds the process necessary to do so distasteful does not mean that she is being discriminated against on the basis of her gender – rather, she is being discriminated against on the basis of her sexual orientation since it is her sexuality (rather than gender) that prevents her from being able to exercise her right to marry someone of the opposite gender.tiassa said:
Nasor said:
That Jane cannot marry her chosen partner because she (Jane) is the wrong gender?
Or the partner. Take your pick.
Regardless of sexual orientation, no person should be held to unwanted sexual intercourse as a prerequisite for enacting one's rights.
You claim (if I’m understanding you correctly) that Jane is being discriminated against on the basis of her gender because she is unable to freely exercise her right to marry someone of the opposite gender, since she finds the required sex acts unappealing. That’s not gender discrimination – her gender is not a barrier to her exercising her right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Her sexuality is the barrier for her. It seems clear that this is discrimination against her sexuality, not her gender.tiassa said:
Since neither males not females have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, I don’t see how you could call this gender discrimination.
Nasor said:
Do you see the inherent sexism there?
• ". . . marry someone of the opposite sex."
• ". . . enter a legally binding contract with someone of the opposite sex."
• ". . . enter a legally binding contract with someone of the opposite sex."
The law cannot dictate who someone's life partner is. The law should not prohibit one's life partner from the rights and security awarded the legal contract of marriage.
The fact that you would reserve someone else's rights on the prerequisite of rape disturbs me somewhat. Rape is hardly a highlight of the sanctity of marriage.
Or is it?
I agree - not allowing homosexuals to marry is contrary to the principles of freedom and self-determination that the United States is supposed to be founded on.tiassa said:
However, you tried to build an elaborate argument that prohibiting same-sex marriages was a form of gender discrimination, which I don't believe to be the case.
Currently both men and women have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite gender, and do not have the right to marry someone of the same gender. Since the right to marry someone of the opposite gender is equally available to both men and women, and the right to marry someone of the same gender is equally not available to both men and women, both genders are being treated equally under the law and there is no gender discrimination occurring.
Now, I can see your point that homosexuals are unable to take advantage of their right to marry someone of the opposite gender because it would require them to engage in unwanted sex, and that therefore homosexuals (of both genders) are being discriminated against. But surely you see that this is a bizarre argument? Are there really a lot of homosexuals out there who are upset that they can't exercise their right to marry someone of the opposite gender?