Now that Gay Marriage is legal in NY.

[Father Heathen]

Indeed, I have always thought the "Defense of Marriage" argument to be extremely weak.
If your marriage is threatened by two men, or two women getting married, then your marriage has a lot more troubles than the supposed threat of "gay marriage."

Also, in the OT many marriages were polygamous and/or arranged. So what's all this nonsense about "redefining" "traditional" marriage?

Personally, I long for the day when abrahamic faiths are finally left in the dustbin of history.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The fallacy of deriving Ought from Is.

 

[Draka]

I'm still curious about getting an answer to this post of mine from page 2. Yosi, if your issue is with the "redefining" of "traditional marriage" would you like to take a stab at addressing these points or not??? Each of these points have been once considered "traditional marriage". "Traditional marriage" also seems to be dependent upon country, culture, religion of origin, age of society and more. So...take a stab at this post would you?

By what definition of "traditional marriage" are you going by?

If one was to go by the idea that "traditional marriage" was a man with wives and concubines then isn't making two-person heterosexual marriage redefining marriage to accommodate those who find "traditional marriage" distasteful?

If one takes "traditional marriage" to be the joining of two consenting adults into a loving lifetime commitment then the restricting it to only man and woman would be redefining it and allowing divorce is redefining it.

If "traditional marriage" is a "sacred union before and blessed by God" then allowing atheists and non-Abrahamic theists to marry is redefining marriage.

If "traditional marriage" is the union of two people with the goal being to procreate then allowing infertile people ("fixed", post-menopausal, or otherwise infertile) to marry would be redefining marriage.

And so on and so forth.

 

[blackout]

People like the traditions, and definitions, they like.

It's as simple as that.

Problem is, they feel the need to make it into something 'grander'.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh, I remember this game: "Kick the (assumed) bigot". No one has yet to begin to show(other than bald assertion) that homosexual actions are anything less than a conscious choice, leaving out anything resembling prohibited discrimination. A man choosing to have sex with another man is equivalent to trying to cross a crowded freeway on foot. You may feel compelled to do it, and it may be arguably your right, but the risk is all yours, and no protection should be afforded you.

First off, it could never be a matter of homosexuality alone bring a choice. If people really do decide whether to be gay or straight (not that they do, but just for argument's sake), then sexual orientation in general would be a choice. Both homosexuality AND heterosexuality would be choices.

Second, I think that the question of choice is irrelevant to whether homosexual people should receive legal rights. We afford legal protection to all sorts of things that are entirely choice-based: religious affiliation or political party membership, for instance.

If you're arguing that people shouldn't receive legal rights based on their own choices, then you're arguing against many rights besides same-sex marriage.

 

[Father Heathen]

Right. It would be irrelevant even if it was a choice because it doesn't endanger or victimize the innocent nor violate their rights in any way, shape or form.

 

[JMiller]

OK boys and girls, let's review what we've learned today.

The world is still a scary place. Not because the weird 3 year old gender confused kids exist, or some violet multi sexual relationships exist, or even the boring joining of two men or two women exist. (Please know this is sarcasm up to this point)

No, the world is a scary place because it is still full of people scared, hiding in their homes looking out at the world, judging every little thing, condemning anything they don't like.

We have to understand evolution is a beast sometimes, and people like Yosi can't seem to grasp the world and society is not dependent on what marriage means.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'd argue that growing acceptance of homosexual acts in our society is everyone's concern. Then again, a growing number just don't care.

Why exactly is it any business of mine whether specific people would rather be intimate with people of their own gender?

Any way you slice it, homosexuality is simply not deserving of disapproval.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The notion that homosexual marriage would somehow in someway affect heterosexual marriage is wacky nonsense.

Actually, I think it does affect heterosexual marriage: legalizing marriage for everyone sends a strong message that marriage is an important right that shouldn't be tampered with. Making same-sex marriage illegal sends the message that it's good and proper for the government to be ruling on who should be married and who shouldn't, and that our rights are negotiable, subject to the whims of people's aesthetic preferences.

The implicit message in banning same-sex marriage is that governments can deny people the right to marriage based on nothing more than people's personal preferences and their opinions about the people in the relationship in question. This is a threat to the institution of marriage as a whole: if marriage can be denied to same-sex couples for no good reason, then it can be denied to anyone.

With same-sex marriage legalized, the right to marriage is protected for all. With it banned, the only real protection I have for my marriage is the fact that my society doesn't generally have a problem with marriages like mine (opposite-sex couple, first marriage for both of us), however, I'm not comfortable with the idea of trusting that something as fickle as societal tastes will never change in a way that disadvantages me at some point in the future. I want my marriage protected by something more than this, but the prohibition of same-sex marriage sends a clear (IMO) message to everyone that if enough people disapprove of my relationship, then they can strip it of legal status and protection.

For selfish reasons as a heterosexual person, I find this unacceptable. I want my marriage protected regardless of whether people like it or not.

Edit: if we build our laws using the principle that a person's rights can be denied simply if he or she is disliked enough, then none of us really have any rights at all.

 

[Storm]

OK, Let's Do This: Homosexuality

 

[rockstarwife628]

To be honest, I fully support any consenting adult being married to any (and however many) other consenting adult(s) s/he so chooses.

I think part of where it starts to get complicated is in figuring out how to go about the taxation and other legalities of the relationships, but I think it would be possible to work that out, and believe that people should be allowed to marry whomever they please.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I listened to an excellent sermon regarding sexual orientation last Sunday. Here's an excerpt from it:

Ponder this, for a moment, as a heterosexual. Let’s say you are a man. You are actively precluded from interacting with women - any and all - because you're a man, and, well, they're women. Who do you suppose is receiving this coded message about your character? Do you suppose it might affect your career? Your livelihood?

What if you are a woman? What do you suppose it might be like to know that no matter what you did, you would be subjected to active restriction in the office of your interactions based upon some presumed, uncontrollable impulse you must inherently have whenever presented with someone of a particular gender?

Or even worse: Suppose, instead of this overt blocking that you might address directly, you simply get to figure out what is going on from all the weirdness evolving around you. That person you were comfortably chatting with prior to the rumor mill kicking in? They suddenly become chilly – or maybe even disappear wholesale from your social circle. Or, perhaps, someone whom you have been dealing with quite platonically inexplicably pulls you aside, and says something like this: "I need you to understand that I am not interested in you."

Despite the fact that you have no romantic interest in them – and never did (and probably never will) – you now have to deal with a relationship that has changed, and not for the better.

So you brace for the fallout.​

What people such as yosi don't yet understand is that if you are gay or bi, society has painted a massive target on your back that will not go away, unless you conceal a sizable portion of your very identity. What if our relationships had to be celebrated, consummated, or simply shared, only in front of a few "safe" number of people? What if, in your daily life, people of the opposite gender assumed that they needed to keep a distance from you, for no other reason than your sexual orientation? Do some people not realize that this is the burden that society has given some people simply because they are attracted to the same gender?

 

[Warren Clark]

"deviant behaviour" is an assumption of morality produced by specific religious affiliation and its teachings.
i think heterosexuality is immoral and deviant. So they shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Same goes for the polyamorous.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be banned.

Ok, if you'll bite, I'll illustrate to you that homosexual behavior is deviant. First question: what is the ratio of homosexuals per heterosexual in this country? Second, how do you define deviant? I await your responses.

deviant
a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm.
​

I assume this is the definition we are referring to correct?
If so, then we need to define what is "normal" ("the accepted norm").
For me, homosexuality is normal.
I can't choose who I am attracted to.
Just as you cannot control being attracted to whatever/whoever you find attractive, I assume it would be a woman, (I could be wrong).
There are millions of out of the closet gays and many more in the closet or confused.

The way homophobia comes about is the lack of understanding homosexuality.
You might be attracted to women, but lets say one day you meet this charming guy that just strikes you in an odd way and you realize this is an attraction.
Now many people will assume that this permits the choice within homosexuality.
But you would be wrong.
Dr. Alfred Kinsey realized that there was not just gay and straight in the world.
He first noticed this in insects then went into studying sexual behaviour in humans.
He found that most people were bisexual to some extent.
He then created the spectrum that people fall under. We call this the Kinsey Scale.

Now choosing to act on these attractions would be a choice, but one cannot choose who they find attractive.
You don't choose whether to be attracted to someone with "nice" feet, or a "decent" nose. These just naturally come to you.
Which naturally aligns with Darwins survival of the fittest and natural selection.
The human race is becoming over populated no doubt.
Scientists have found that when the more mice you place in a confined area, the more likely you will find mice "deviating" to homosexuality.

Oh, I remember this game: "Kick the (assumed) bigot". No one has yet to begin to show(other than bald assertion) that homosexual actions are anything less than a conscious choice, leaving out anything resembling prohibited discrimination. A man choosing to have sex with another man is equivalent to trying to cross a crowded freeway on foot. You may feel compelled to do it, and it may be arguably your right, but the risk is all yours, and no protection should be afforded you.

No one is kicking anyone.
As I have noticed, it is tradition that whether a person is a Jew or not is passed down by the mother or father, I don't remember which, pardon my ignorance/lack of recollection.
Now there are many that choose to "deviate" and call themselves secular, atheist, or agnostic.
Nobody is genetically "Jewish". Its the culture and tradition that the offspring will be raised Jewish and will be accepted as Jewish since they are a descendent of a Jew.

I do believe you were referring to disease, particularly HIV/AIDS.
To assume that choosing to act on attraction is the same as walking through a "crowded freeway" is blissful ignorance.
I am sure it makes you comfortable to believe that but the statistics show otherwise.
Male to male sex isn't what causes the spread of disease.
Its a mix of promiscuity and unprotected sex that creates the spread of disease.
Now with homosexuality the availabity of a promiscuous partner is the problem.
Men are generally more promiscuous, I mean you don't see as many woman going to strip clubs every night, and you don't hear about women picking up male prostitutes as often.
I am gay, and I advocate against unsafe promiscuous sex.
I mean its on them for having promiscuous sex, but the least they could do is wear protection.
Same with straight couples.
You wouldn't guess how many different outbreaks of STDs occured at my school because people were not wraping it up.

I would also like to add that not every homosexual is promiscuous or enjoys/takes part of the stereotype of gay sex.
I can account for myself as one of those individuals.
There are many like me, that want real true love, (many have found it), and would love to share the same right as any couple to express our love to our parner in matrimony or in the very least share the same basic rights that come with it. Is it not basic tradition to exchange rings and become one under the law?
Why shouldn't gays have these rights?
That is outright discrimination, religious discrimination at that. To impose that only some people can get married because of religious bias is unconstitutional.