The real gay agenda?

[Zero]

I must agree with Oki on this one.

Unless you have been married, been in a long-term relationship, or seen all the little nuances/aspects of many marriages, you really have very little data to judge others with.

I see little wisdom in ruling out marriage as 'slavery' when one has had very little experience with it.

The pot of boiling water?

Your logic is similar to "I've seen a person burn his tongue by eating hot meat, so I think I'll turn vegetarian".

Can you point out any harms to human society that were caused solely by marriage alone? By the system of monogamous marriage? Do you seriously think that society will be stabilized, and that the human race will advance significantly by getting rid of the notion of marriage?

Think carefully.

 

[Xev]

Spymoose:

Misogyny is very old and has existed in many different cultures, maybe Xev should have to argue with Oki through a male representative?

So is dueling and trial by ordeal.

Zero:

I see little wisdom in ruling out marriage as 'slavery' when one has had very little experience with it.

I didn't. Contrast is not equation.

Your logic is similar to "I've seen a person burn his tongue by eating hot meat, so I think I'll turn vegetarian".

I'm not arguing, I'm using simile to show the flaw in okinrus' argument.

It is obvious that one need not experience a thing to judge it - although experience may lend weight to judgement.
Thus, okinrus' claim that one must experience marriage to judge it is ludicious. I may as well claim that he should go down on a man before condemning homosexuality.

Can you point out any harms to human society that were caused solely by marriage alone? By the system of monogamous marriage? Do you seriously think that society will be stabilized, and that the human race will advance significantly by getting rid of the notion of marriage?

I never claimed any of this, now did I?

My position is simple - commitment ceremonies are well and good. However, I prefer a government with very, very limited powers and I do not think it ought to be involved in such matters.

 

[okinrus]

I'm not arguing, I'm using simile to show the flaw in okinrus' argument.

There's no flaw. Like I said almost no way to judge it. You could of course judge it but only on a personal subjective basis.

It is obvious that one need not experience a thing to judge it - although experience may lend weight to judgement.
Thus, okinrus' claim that one must experience marriage to judge it is ludicious. I may as well claim that he should go down on a man before condemning homosexuality.

We can judge somethings such as cocaine use just by looking at statistics but when your trying to judge marriage, the only standard is the two partner's happyness. It's therefore a bit harder to judge. We do have, however, evidence that those in long term relationships live healthier and longer lives. On the other hand moral laws use a different basis. We have moral primitives, and thereby knowing the consequences of an action, we are able to judge whether the action contradicts our morals.

 

[Xev]

okinrus:

There's no flaw. Like I said almost no way to judge it. You could of course judge it but only on a personal subjective basis.

Uhm, what other kind of judgement is there?

We can judge somethings such as cocaine use just by looking at statistics

No, you really can't. Freud was a highly functional cokehead, as are many artists and musicians.

but when your trying to judge marriage, the only standard is the two partner's happyness. It's therefore a bit harder to judge. We do have, however, evidence that those in long term relationships live healthier and longer lives.

Longer and healthier than whose? First you play "objective" now you're using all manner of fuzzy evidence.

On the other hand moral laws

Don't bloody well exist except in the demented and dead mind of Immanual Kant.

use a different basis. We have moral primitives, and thereby knowing the consequences of an action, we are able to judge whether the action contradicts our morals.

Jacob Smitz rapes five year old Kristin Smirdinov. His grieving parents point to the fact that Jacob is a convicted paedophile out on parole, and use this fact to force new legislation that imposes mandatory life sentances for those who commit such crimes. As a result, many children are saved.

Did he preform a moral act? But the consequences can be argued to be very good.

 

[okinrus]

<i>Uhm, what other kind of judgement is there?</i>
If everything was only personal and subjective you would have no need to proclaim that marriage is archaic.

<i>
No, you really can't. Freud was a highly functional cokehead, as are many artists and musicians.</i>
I'm judging the use of the substance not the people using the substance. The judgement is thus over the entire group of people doing the cocaine not the any single person.

<i>
Longer and healthier than whose? First you play "objective" now you're using all manner of fuzzy evidence.</i>
http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/brochures/Why_Promote_Brochure.pdf

http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org:/white_papers/Supporting_Marriage.pdf

<i>
Don't bloody well exist except in the demented and dead mind of Immanual Kant.</i>
You do have a moral law if only the non-existance of any other laws. From your posts on this thread you are more caged by your inability to have moral laws than I am with mine.

Jacob Smitz rapes five year old Kristin Smirdinov. His grieving parents point to the fact that Jacob is a convicted paedophile out on parole, and use this fact to force new legislation that imposes mandatory life sentances for those who commit such crimes. As a result, many children are saved.

Did he preform a moral act? But the consequences can be argued to be very good.

Your argument presumes that we do not have free will. This is a bad assumption because if we don't have free will then no one is responsible. But if we have free will then there is no way to know what exactly the parents of Kristen will do. Likewise Kristin cannot be held guilty of the rape because she exists. On other note Jesus said that if he had not performed the works and wonders infront of the people they would not have sinned. If there was no free will, Jesus would have been guilty of causing them to sin but if there is free will Jesus is not responsible for their actions.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by okinrus

We can judge somethings such as cocaine use just by looking at statistics but when your trying to judge marriage, the only standard is the two partner's happyness.

So why oppose homosexual marriages?

 

[shrubby pegasus]

i dont see the connection between not having free will and the apt analogy

 

[Mystech]

Well, shrubby pegasus, that analogy is actually sort of a post hoc reasoning. Did new laws spring up because this guy was let out of prison and ended up committing a crime, or was it enforced because a problem in the system was made apparent and then legislation was pushed for stricter laws? It's not a direct cause and effect, there is a degree of separation.

I think the free will issue comes in because as stated Xev's analogy seems like she's saying that maybe if we let bad things happen, somehow through fate or destiny it will trigger good things (As there isn't a direct correlation between the events depicted, there is that degree of separation). It makes it seem like she is trying to imply that things will always turn out for the better in the end so there is no point in trying to change the world. I realize that isn't how she meant it, but I think I understand how Oki is looking at this, and must admit it makes a sort of sense.

 

[okinrus]

<i>So why oppose homosexual marriages?</i>
Well I don't. Anyone should be able to call themselves married, dead, or whatever. I do oppose some of the benefits that would go to gay marriages recogonized but others, such as the sharing property, don't really cost the state anything. This all outlined on the pdf's listed. The most likely solution would be some sort of partnership package.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by okinrus
<i>So why oppose homosexual marriages?</i>
Well I don't. Anyone should be able to call themselves married, dead, or whatever. I do oppose some of the benefits that would go to gay marriages recogonized but others, such as the sharing property, don't really cost the state anything. This all outlined on the pdf's listed. The most likely solution would be some sort of partnership package.

What do you mean by saying that they should be able to call themselves dead? Are you insinuating something? Which benefits spacificaly would you oppose in same-sex marriages, and why? If it were to be legalized, why shouldn't it be all the way?

 

[guthrie]

"So why oppose homosexual marriages?
Well I don't."

Umm, so why are you in this thread again?

 

[SpyMoose]

Okinrus seems to be playing on that funny tactic where, after being called a bigot, and having it very rationaly pointed out to him how he is a bigot he begins to show strange divergent thought processes. he'll start saying and thinking things like "I dont think homosexuals are amoral i just dont think they should do what they do"

um... ok Oki.

 

[Mystech]

Cognative dissonance is fun. Hey it's possable to not dislike homosexuals, yet still feel that they shouldn't have equal rights. . . because ummm equal rights are only supposed to be given to all men. . . and homosexuals are barely even human, right? Problem solved, I'm not a biggot and homosexuals can't have their way.

 

[okinrus]

What do you mean by saying that they should be able to call themselves dead? Are you insinuating something? Which benefits spacificaly would you oppose in same-sex marriages, and why? If it were to be legalized, why shouldn't it be all the way?

No, I'm not insuating anything beyond the fact that insane people who call themselves dead but are alive don't get their ilfe insurance. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by legalized? Gays can and do get married in the US?

Cognative dissonance is fun. Hey it's possable to not dislike homosexuals, yet still feel that they shouldn't have equal rights. . . because ummm equal rights are only supposed to be given to all men. . . and homosexuals are barely even human, right? Problem solved, I'm not a biggot and homosexuals can't have their way.

It's not a rights issue. The benefits given to marriages is due to the facts(mentioned in the pdf's) that marriages generate revenue and improve society. Unless if you can prove that heterosexual or homosexual cohabiting relationships produce the same benefits for society, these relationships don't deserve the same return from society.

 

[shrubby pegasus]

okinrus you need to get rid of your "benefits society" or "the majority of society believes blah so blah" arguments. all of your arguments come down to subjugating the beliefs of minorities because they are incompatible with your religious specific world view. try to imagine yourself in the shoes of the minority group you are stealing rights from for once. imagine yourself trying to live your christian preaching lifestyle in place like iran or under the taliban. you would sing a different tune then.

 

[Xev]

okinrus:

You do have a moral law if only the non-existance of any other laws.

Don't tell me you're German.
This is rather like saying that I believe in unicorns - if only in nonexistant unicorns.

In any case, the benefits given to married couples are because of social tradition, not because someone has sat down and said that marriage is a good, rational thing.

Gay marriages would change this social tradition - more accurately create a new one - and in any case, the benefits to gay marriage wouldn't be any different than the benefits that existing marriages allegedly provide.

Granted, gay men might be less likely to marry each other and thus reap these alleged benefits - men* are naturally more promiscuous and probably rarely marry except to placate whatever dumb broad they want to continue fucking, but this is no real objection to extending benefits.

Mystech:

Cognative dissonance is fun. Hey it's possable to not dislike homosexuals, yet still feel that they shouldn't have equal rights. . . because ummm equal rights are only supposed to be given to all men. . . and homosexuals are barely even human, right? Problem solved, I'm not a biggot and homosexuals can't have their way.

It's fun. He's not a bigot, but he claims strict adherence to his moral laws and that anyone who does not follow them is evil. But it's not like he dislikes the evil, sinful homosexuals....





*That is, those who have not bought into current social dogma that tries to shape them into weak, overly-sensitive little pricks who want to discuss "feelings" and commune with a "soulmate".

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by okinrus
No, I'm not insuating anything beyond the fact that insane people who call themselves dead but are alive don't get their ilfe insurance.

And insane people who call themselves human beings shouldn't be entitled to the same rights granted to such?

Originally posted by okinrus
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by legalized? Gays can and do get married in the US?

Though I assume there are a number of homosexual couples who wear the rings, had a ceremony and call themselves married, in the eyes of the state they may as well just be playing make believe, or having a tea party with stuffed animals. Homosexual marriages are forbidden on a federal level, and many individual states have prohibitions of homosexual marriage, as well. As of just a few months ago it's become unlawful for the state to say homosexuals can't have sex, but they can still deny us the rights and legal considerations which legally married couples enjoy, including property rights, and that nice marriage certificate which makes accessing spouse benefits through a third party like the company you work for a hell of a lot easier. Fuck, without a marriage license there is often extreme difficult for same sex partners to be allowed to visit should one of them end up in a hospital. It's just bad business all around!

Originally posted by okinrus
It's not a rights issue.

It's very much a matter of rights, and an issue of how much power the government should hold over it's citizens.

Originally posted by okinrus
The benefits given to marriages is due to the facts(mentioned in the pdf's) that marriages generate revenue and improve society.

Well on one hand that's hardly the case, but on the other, I don't see how this is an argument against homosexual marriage. If anything it's an argument for it, if marriage generates revenue and improves society, then why should anyone be barred from it?

Originally posted by okinrus
Unless if you can prove that heterosexual or homosexual cohabiting relationships produce the same benefits for society, these relationships don't deserve the same return from society.

Well I don't think that anyone has bought up the idea of offering an official cohabiting license, or legal status, nor assuaging any special legal considerations to such an arrangement, in this thread, so I've got no idea where this comment is coming from. And again I don't see how this does anything but make the idea of allowing homosexual marriages all the more urgent, it serves to show the nature of this particular disenfranchisement.

 

[okinrus]

Don't tell me you're German.
This is rather like saying that I believe in unicorns - if only in nonexistant unicorns.

No, of course not. If you were to make a law that unicorns could not make laws it would be a law. Besides, unicorns exist depending on where you define existance. I have a book somewhere with the picture of a unicorn that says "I think therefore I am" or something like that.

In any case, the benefits given to married couples are because of social tradition, not because someone has sat down and said that marriage is a good, rational thing.

I don't think so.

Gay marriages would change this social tradition - more accurately create a new one - and in any case, the benefits to gay marriage wouldn't be any different than the benefits that existing marriages allegedly provide.

Do you have any reasearch that would support that cohabitating homosexual or heterosexual relationships produce the same benefits for the society as do heterosexual marriages?

It's fun. He's not a bigot, but he claims strict adherence to his moral laws and that anyone who does not follow them is evil. But it's not like he dislikes the evil, sinful homosexuals....

I haven't called any one evil or sinful.

And insane people who call themselves human beings shouldn't be entitled to the same rights granted to such?

You are granted the exact same rights as heterosexuals.

Though I assume there are a number of homosexual couples who wear the rings, had a ceremony and call themselves married, in the eyes of the state they may as well just be playing make believe, or having a tea party with stuffed animals.

Why? People shouldn't get married to practice their rights or to gain them.

Well on one hand that's hardly the case, but on the other, I don't see how this is an argument against homosexual marriage. If anything it's an argument for it, if marriage generates revenue and improves society, then why should anyone be barred from it?

Your no more barred from it than I am barred from. The necessity that marriage by law is between a man and a women binds me as much as it binds you. It's uncertain that homosexual marriages would generate revenue. In fact it may decrease revenue because of the increased risk of disease in the population. The trend shown by limited research is to that they are similar to cohabitating heterosexual relationships. The benefits from heterosexual marraiges may have to do with having children. Parents are therefore forced to remain more stable(commited to their marriage vows) and thus more productive than they would have been without children.

Homosexual marriages are forbidden on a federal level, and many individual states have prohibitions of homosexual marriage, as well. As of just a few months ago it's become unlawful for the state to say homosexuals can't have sex, but they can still deny us the rights and legal considerations which legally married couples enjoy, including property rights, and that nice marriage certificate which makes accessing spouse benefits through a third party like the company you work for a hell of a lot easier. Fuck, without a marriage license there is often extreme difficult for same sex partners to be allowed to visit should one of them end up in a hospital. It's just bad business all around!

Homosexuals in marriage should have property rights and be able to allowed to visit each other in the hospital because it's their property and their own lives.

 

[DeeCee]

It's uncertain that homosexual marriages would generate revenue. In fact it may decrease revenue because of the increased risk of disease in the population.

Oh and what disease would you be talking about?

Homosexuals in marriage should have property rights and be able to allowed to visit each other in the hospital

Just how small is the box you live in?

I thought I'd experienced all aspects of human stupidity.
I was wrong
Dee Cee

 

[heart]

Okin,

You are granted the exact same rights as heterosexuals

According to YOU.. but, that just isn't so, Okin

In fact it may decrease revenue because of the increased risk of disease in the population.

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOO Give me a break, Okin... You truly think if same sex marriage were legalized, that disease would increase???? You honestly think that homosexuals abstain from sex because they aren't "legally" married? If no, then HOW could disease possibly increase?? You are truly digging deep.

Parents are therefore forced to remain more stable(commited to their marriage vows) and thus more productive than they would have been without children

You know homosexuals can and do adopt..your point is???

Homosexuals in marriage should have property rights and be able to allowed to visit each other in the hospital because it's their property and their own lives

BUT we don't! So, why is it we aren't allowed this luxury? I knew a girl who was in an accident and was put on life support. Her lesbian partner (which she lived with for 7 years) didn't have any rights to keep her on it.. those rights were given to the girls mother. The mother never cared for her daughter..basically, she was pretty much worthless when it came to the "mother" dept. The mother had the life support shut off.
The one person in the injured girls life that loved her more than anything, had no say. But, the mother who was never there for her daughter 95% of the time...was the one allowed to make the decision. This sucks, Okin. and it's NOT right..

You sit there and say homosexuals should only be allowed to marry if they can only benefit society. The ONLY argument I've heard you come up with is children in a marriage. As I said before..homosexuals have avenues for having children... I ask you then, is it homosexuals that shouldn't be able to marry...or just people who do not have children? I dare you to be truthful with yourself.