A Defense of Marriage/Gay Rights Amendment

[theraidenproject]

Originally posted by shartley

Sorry, this is not correct.

Animals derive pleasure from sex and sexual stimulation too. And depending on the animal, the degrees of it vary greatly. When a dog humps your leg, it is indeed giving consent to the sexual act. I could go even further, but for the sake of class and prudence, I will not.

I think it was Howard Stern where they had this guy who talked about having sex with animals, and also a doctor {or vet?} who was telling everyone how intercourse with (some) animals can damage them due to size issues. But no one is arguing marrying animals. This is an issue of HUMAN RIGHTS.

As for children, that too is not correct. Where do you draw the line? Children of pre-teen ages have often engaged in sexual acts, alone and with others their age (or in the next age bracket). Again, where the line is drawn is what matters in discussions like this. Would it be okay to have sex with a 12 year old girl? Even though now days many of them are fully developed physically and they KNOW what sex is (and many are actively engaging in it)?

I know this varies by state, but most draw the lines of consentual sex with adults a few years older than 16. I would say if you're a minor, it would be allright.
I just don't see why people care what goes on between adults in other homes.

[shartley]

Originally posted by impostal22


actually if you go with the whole child raising argument, it's REAL easy to draw a line.

necrophelia- a dead body cannot help raise a child

pedophelia- a child cannot help raise a child

bestiality- an animal cannot help raise a child

homosexuality- two PEOPLE can raise a child

see how easy that was?

[dansim]

Originally posted by shartley

i was making an ammendment to kevmasters "thoughts"

[shartley]

Originally posted by theraidenproject

I think it was Howard Stern where they had this guy who talked about having sex with animals, and also a doctor {or vet?} who was telling everyone how intercourse with (some) animals can damage them due to size issues. But no one is arguing marrying animals. This is an issue of HUMAN RIGHTS.

For now it is. And that was the point. Lines are too easily moved.

Originally posted by theraidenproject
I know this varies by state, but most draw the lines of consentual sex with adults a few years older than 16. I would say if you're a minor, it would be allright.
I just don't see why people care what goes on between adults in other homes.

[impostal22]

<A HREF="http://www.glad.org/Publications/CivilRightProject/OP7-marriagevcu.shtml">civil unions v. marriages- what's the difference</A>

i suppose the most important difference is civil unions reward none of the federal protection and none of the federal benefits that married couples do.

[Brophog]

Originally posted by impostal22
[B
i suppose the most important difference is civil unions reward none of the federal protection and none of the federal benefits that married couples do. [/B]

Bingo. How come no one has said anything about my earlier post? Is it because it scares you? Marriage stopped being a religious and moral bond for a lot of people a long time ago. For some it still is. For others, its a legal bond with specific legal rights attached. Say what you want, by prohibiting same sex marriages in the form of a constitutional amendment, your saying something in a legal exhibition, not a moral one. It will still come down to churches and religious sects on whom can and cannot be bound under the sacrament of marriage.

We're talking about a legal status here when we talk about amending a document bound on the code of separation of religion. How come none of you are coming from this angle?

I still say that if non religious practicioners and non believers are able to hold a wedding in a church, under the sanctity of the deity that they do not believe in, and they're thereby getting married not for religious bonding, but for pure legal reasons, then why should we limit that to only heterosexuals.

Now, if you want to make all marriages a moral and spiritual affair, that's another topic. However, that's far from the case in modern day America.

[dansim]

Originally posted by Brophog


Bingo. How come no one has said anything about my earlier post? Is it because it scares you? Marriage stopped being a religious and moral bond for a lot of people a long time ago. For some it still is. For others, its a legal bond with specific legal rights attached. Say what you want, by prohibiting same sex marriages in the form of a constitutional amendment, your saying something in a legal exhibition, not a moral one. It will still come down to churches and religious sects on whom can and cannot be bound under the sacrament of marriage.

We're talking about a legal status here when we talk about amending a document bound on the code of separation of religion. How come none of you are coming from this angle?

I still say that if non religious practicioners and non believers are able to hold a wedding in a church, under the sanctity of the deity that they do not believe in, and they're thereby getting married not for religious bonding, but for pure legal reasons, then why should we limit that to only heterosexuals.

Now, if you want to make all marriages a moral and spiritual affair, that's another topic. However, that's far from the case in modern day America.

your a smart fella

[Quickling]

I strongly support gay-rights and same-sex marriage. and I have a little thought experiement.

Back on december 6th my best friend was hit by a car while crossing the street, and had to be rushed to the ICU.

Now for the first 20 hours or so only family could see him and that was for limited times.

After he was released from the hospitol he, desipte being 25, was no longer concidered his own gaurdian *after receiving a head wound* and was placed in the care of his family.

Now imagine that he was gay. His lover would not have been allowed in the hospitol during those first few hours.

Now further imagine that his parents hated his being gay and his lover.. now when he goes into his parents custody they don't let the lover see him. Love and visitation of loved is proven to help the healing process... but the denying of their visitation would add stress that would not have been healthy. Now my friend was not gay and did not thus go through this.. but it could still happen and I think that is wrong.

If that happened to me, I would be released into my wifes care.. not my families.

Plus my wedding day was one of the happiest days of my life.. on what grounds can you look into some's eyes and tell them they are not worthy of that same love and happieness that I felt that day.

[dansim]

Originally posted by Quickling
I strongly support gay-rights and same-sex marriage. and I have a little thought experiement.

Back on december 6th my best friend was hit by a car while crossing the street, and had to be rushed to the ICU.

Now for the first 20 hours or so only family could see him and that was for limited times.

After he was released from the hospitol he, desipte being 25, was no longer concidered his own gaurdian *after receiving a head wound* and was placed in the care of his family.

Now imagine that he was gay. His lover would not have been allowed in the hospitol during those first few hours.

Now further imagine that his parents hated his being gay and his lover.. now when he goes into his parents custody they don't let the lover see him. Love and visitation of loved is proven to help the healing process... but the denying of their visitation would add stress that would not have been healthy. Now my friend was not gay and did not thus go through this.. but it could still happen and I think that is wrong.

If that happened to me, I would be released into my wifes care.. not my families.

Plus my wedding day was one of the happiest days of my life.. on what grounds can you look into some's eyes and tell them they are not worthy of that same love and happieness that I felt that day.

damn man, two smart fellas right in a row!

[CaptaiN_JacK]

i totally agree with the person that said gays shouldnt be able to get the benefits of a married couple because they cant bring a member into society. noe lets take that a step up and ban ALL sterile people from getting married, because, hey, they cant produce a child either.

and while were at it, lets ban blacks from getting married and jews too, because as we all know, they just arent "natural" and arent good in a religous way.

[Restola]

Originally posted by Quickling
Now imagine that he was gay. His lover would not have been allowed in the hospitol during those first few hours.

Then the hospital may need to change its policies.

Now further imagine that his parents hated his being gay and his lover.. now when he goes into his parents custody they don't let the lover see him. Love and visitation of loved is proven to help the healing process... but the denying of their visitation would add stress that would not have been healthy. Now my friend was not gay and did not thus go through this.. but it could still happen and I think that is wrong.

How in the heck is that related to gay marriage?

Plus my wedding day was one of the happiest days of my life.. on what grounds can you look into some's eyes and tell them they are not worthy of that same love and happieness that I felt that day.

So without the government giving you a little piece of paper your marriage would be meaningless?

Smart fella? No...he's making points for the sake of making points.

[wyn1370]

The churches definition of marriage has no place in the law. If you argument has anything to do with God's definition of marriage, you might as well strike the section of seperation of church and government.
There's a reason that church and government where seperated. For some reason nobody ever wants to remember that.

[Restola]

Originally posted by wyn1370
The churches definition of marriage has no place in the law. If you argument has anything to do with God's definition of marriage, you might as well strike the section of seperation of church and government.
There's a reason that church and government where seperated. For some reason nobody ever wants to remember that.

If you are speaking to me I am as atheist as they come.

[wyn1370]

Originally posted by Restola

If you are speaking to me I am as atheist as they come.

it wasn't aimed at you, just a general statement for those who use the religious argument

[shartley]

Originally posted by spantol
Homosexual tendencies occur in nature, as a quick visit to your local zoo can demonstrate. It's hard to get more "natural" than that.

In addition, there's some evidence for a biological "cause" of homosexual tendencies: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jun/burr2.htm .