[Tristan]

	Originally Posted by ElstonGunn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Under what system of logic does it make any sense at all to assume that allowing two sentient, consenting adults to get married necessitates allowing one sentient adult the opportunity to marry an inanimate object? How is that anything other than a total non-sequitor?

Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Fifty years ago it would have been deemed absurd to even consider marriage betweem same sex couples. The liberalization and redefinition of cultural institutions has placed us on a slippery slope to the degradation and ultimate annihilation of modern society. The destruction would most likely take place in a gradual, step by step process. .... Definitions of democracy and human rights have become so distorted that they are in great danger as well.

A system of logic that allows the definitions of words to change will allow the definitions of words to change. I don't see too many non-sequitors in that.

Meh... the annihilation of society is a practical zero-possibility, and certainly wouldn't happen over something as stupid as all this. But you have to admit that words (marriage et al) and the values which give them certain meanings, do change. To wit, the slipperiness is very real, though I'd refrain from calling it a slope. My elation over the prospect of creating arbitrary marriage compacts in the future is meant to show you, in good faith, that my morals are as flexible as yours. So don't worry, be happy.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Hamburglar]

***I am a white male
I think every human is discriminated against on a daily basis.

Diversity isn't easy, and I think having open discussions about our biases helps to avert misunderstandings which cause gays to be barred from marriage, or women to be considered less intelligent or capable than they are. Sorry if I belabored the issue.

[Ray9]

	You see, Ray9, you have a logical disconnect when you go from extending equal rights to all human beings, to extending those rights to animals, and the like.

As someone pointed out earlier in this thread no one is denying anyone the right to marry. Anyone of any stripe can marry so long as they follow the historical definition of marriage and marry someone of the opposite sex. If you're going to refute me, refute me with my own words, not yours.

[Rudy]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As someone pointed out earlier in this thread no one is denying anyone the right to marry. Anyone of any stripe can marry so long as they follow the historical definition of marriage and marry someone of the opposite sex. If you're going to refute me, refute me with my own words, not yours.

Ray, that's like saying: "No one is denying anyone the right to free speech, as long as they don't say anything unacceptable."

[Ray9]

	Ray, that's like saying: "No one is denying anyone the right to free speech, as long as they don't say anything unacceptable."

Like yelling fire! in a crowded theater when there is no fire?

[Holiman]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As someone pointed out earlier in this thread no one is denying anyone the right to marry. Anyone of any stripe can marry so long as they follow the historical definition of marriage and marry someone of the opposite sex. If you're going to refute me, refute me with my own words, not yours.

I will take that challenge I doubt you have studied much history about this subject.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



Show me your historical references that back up your comment.


And I heartily suggest you read this


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Rudy]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Like yelling fire! in a crowded theater when there is no fire?

No, see, Ray, you're taking the analogy too far. The reason yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is considered by some to be unacceptable is that it causes direct and measurable harm.

Forbidding homosexual marriage would be more analogous to blasphemy laws preventing me from saying "if Jesus heard you talking like that, he'd shit his pants," for example, or taking the lord's name in vain. Some in the US would argue that making blasphemous artwork, or mocking Jesus will also lead to the downfall of this country. However, we do not limit free speech on their behalf, for the reason that such things do not cause any direct harm to others.

[ElstonGunn]

	Originally Posted by Tristan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A system of logic that allows the definitions of words to change will allow the definitions of words to change. I don't see too many non-sequitors in that.

Yes definitions do change, but there is a very clear line between a consenting legal adult who can make his own decisions and an non-sentient object or an animal or minor that cannot enter into any written agreement or give legal consent.

[Hamburglar]

Like the Puritans said to the Catholics. You have liberty to leave. America hasn't changed one bit.

[Holiman]

The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century rejected the prevailing concept of marriage along with many other Catholic doctrines. Martin Luther declared marriage to be "a worldly thing . . . that belongs to the realm of government", and a similar opinion was expressed by Calvin. The English Puritans in the 17th century even passed an Act of Parliament asserting "marriage to be no sacrament" and soon thereafter made marriage purely secular. It was no longer to be performed by a minister, but by a justice of the peace. The Restoration abolished this law and reverted to the old system, but the Puritans brought their concept of marriage to America where it survived. Luther and other Protestants also reduced the number of marriage impediments. Affinity and spiritual affinity were no longer considered obstacles, and consanguinity was interpreted much more narrowly than before.

[Nikita]

	Originally Posted by Ray9
	I agree there's a lot I don't know. Here's what I do know: Marriage is an institution in most modern, developed societies predicated on the joining of a man and a woman. The foundation of the institution is comprised of a male/female union.

The only advantage, that I can see, to male/female union is procreation. Beyond the basics of making babies, what is the value of male/female union to greater society? On the procreation front, allowing same sex unions can hardly be realistically argued to contribute to a dangerous drop in the world population as the world is overpopulated as it is. The current strain upon our resources could stand to benefit from a little less procreation, and perhaps thereby bringing about an attitude of caring for the children who do not currently have homes - children who do not know the love and support of either a mother or a father. To me, one of the greatest things about allowing same sex marriages (and concurrently allowing same sex couples to adopt children) is that unloved and unwanted children can be given the chance to experience life inside a family with two loving parents.

Even aside from the issue of children, marriage is first and foremost a representation of the love two people share for each other and a desire to spend their lives together. Why does the gender of those two people matter? Beyond procreation and the small minds of the religious right, where is the value in denying same sex union? Why do people insist on promoting hatred and intolerance over love and acceptance? We are all people. We all bleed. We all cry. We all love. We all hate. Why not embrace the highest parts of ourselves and forsake those that divide and mar our humanity? Where is the "good of society" rationality in exerting control over the love lives of consenting adults? Why do people like you feel the need to control that which is, by nature of nature, beyond your grasp and your dominion?

	While different cultures have different customs, the foundation remains the same. A developed society's institutions are the nuts and bolts that hold that society together. One sure way to bring down a civilization is to dismantle its institutions which in time will lead to collapse and chaos.

Societies have always changed over time. There was a time when perceiving the earth as flat was a foundation of societal thought. The world is round and life goes on. There was a time when pederasty was a foundation of Greek society. The practice is no longer in play, yet Greek society stands. What could be more foundational to societies than their political systems and their religions? Yet look how monarchies have fallen to democracy and how societies have fluorished, and how religions have (albeit jarringly) altered over time, yet societies stand. Polygamy was once far more prevalent than it is today as it is now outlawed in most countries, yet those former polygamist societies go on. Polygamy is the most closely related to the discussion here as it represents a former foundation of marriage. Oh look, the foundation changed, and life went on. Part of bringing societies through the ages is about embracing adaptation and progressing along on a continuum. Standing still and stagnating leads to nothing but the downfall of societies, even indirectly as the world progresses around it and it is left to the annals of history. Look at the bulk of African nations and how the inability to progress in the foundations has reaped a timeline of bloody rebellions and poverty. Contrast this to the ever-improving ways of life in America, Europe, and parts of Asia.

When I was a sophomore in high school (1962), there was a course offered called "comparative government" that opened my eyes and set me onto the path of conservatism. Sadly there is nothing in education today for students to evaluate the real world. There is only self-loathing, liberal indoctrination--we killed the indians, enslaved the blacks and all that. They actually taught us real things about how civilizations wane and die.

I can agree that liberalism gets out of hand as it is sometimes used to promote the personal agendas of seedy preachers and politicians, but conservatism likewise becomes a tool of personal propaganda. The ban on same sex marriages promotes the personal agendas of the religious right and others who share the narrow viewpoint that homosexuality is bad or wrong. People who want to ban same sex marriage seem to be intent on exerting control over other people. Homosexuality is seen as a threat to their worldviews and they want to oppress that which they don't understand. It's hard to see how aversion to same sex marriage doesn't have a religious pulpit. Religions were designed to control people by drawing up guidelines by which people are to live or face damnation for their insolence. Reality check: people are independent living beings who are not mandated to the control of the small-minded.

	The majority of the people in our society don't care who is gay or who is not. But they do know that same sex marriage will demean the real thing.

How do you know they know that? Who are you to speak for the majority of people? That isn't my view. That is simply your opinion, and nothing more.

[Ray9]

Nikita, yours is a fanciful, idealistic view of this issue and in a perfect world where everyone has the best of intentions your view would hold sway. But it's a jungle out there and the inhabitants of the jungle do not have the best interests of society as their main priority. The institutions of a modern, successful civilization form the fundamental framework that supports it against forces or influences that would corrode it in favor of true believers in selfish causes. Basic institutions exist to set limits or boundries on what is or is not acceptable for the continued success and survival of a civilization. Without time tested institutions societies become unstable and quickly degrade into chaos and anarchy. Today the institution of marriage is under attack by interlopers whose main weopon is re-definition and whose goal is to impose their will at the expense of the common good. Marriage is regarded as a special event in the minds and hearts of heterosexual men and women and the importance of this cannot be understated. Allowing gays to re-define marriage and supplant it with a same sex aspect would be interpeted by a large segment of the population as a demeaning insult to a sacred ceremony leading them to lose faith in society which would probably be the beginning of the end. In addition, once re-definition of marriage has been foisted onto the public it will unleash a scenario where "anything goes" and so give rise to all manner of perverted manifistations relegating marriage to something unrecognizable in the future.

[Tristan]

	Originally Posted by ElstonGunn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes definitions do change, but there is a very clear line between a consenting legal adult who can make his own decisions and an non-sentient object or an animal or minor that cannot enter into any written agreement or give legal consent.

Just as clear a line as used to exist between homosexuals and heterosexuals and their respective places in the universe, I imagine. My, how things change. Also, laws are not always the spitting image of what people consider reasonable. It is illegal for animals to mate within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship in California. That's one law where the officers probably have to constantly remind offenders that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Furthermore, (regarding minors) kids were married off early, girls even around 10-15 years of age back when life expectancy was lower and families were anxious to get rid of excess mouths and grab a dowry in the process. So much for "sensibilities" about minors. Let's not entertain any illusions that people a century from now will view them in the same way that we do, because our views certainly aren't timeless. Anyway, isn't the gay rights movement premised on moral relativism? Since it argues that yesterday's morals are out-of-pace or simply wrong in today's context, then a future context will demand further changes. That's the logical extension.

The bottom line is, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume, once you've "unlocked" a word's denotation to more philosophical interpretations, that the law will take unexpected turns. Best to just make the best of the situation and claim tax deductions if you can. I think I love talking through this gay rights issue so much because I despise both sides. They are both riddled with inconsistency, pettiness, and self-deceit.

[Nikita]

Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Nikita, yours is a fanciful, idealistic view of this issue and in a perfect world where everyone has the best of intentions your view would hold sway. But it's a jungle out there and the inhabitants of the jungle do not have the best interests of society as their main priority. The institutions of a modern, successful civilization form the fundamental framework that supports it against forces or influences that would corrode it in favor of true believers in selfish causes. Basic institutions exist to set limits or boundries on what is or is not acceptable for the continued success and survival of a civilization. Without time tested institutions societies become unstable and quickly degrade into chaos and anarchy. Today the institution of marriage is under attack by interlopers whose main weopon is re-definition and whose goal is to impose their will at the expense of the common good. Marriage is regarded as a special event in the minds and hearts of heterosexual men and women and the importance of this cannot be understated. Allowing gays to re-define marriage and supplant it with a same sex aspect would be interpeted by a large segment of the population as a demeaning insult to a sacred ceremony leading them to lose faith in society which would probably be the beginning of the end. In addition, once re-definition of marriage has been foisted onto the public it will unleash a scenario where "anything goes" and so give rise to all manner of perverted manifistations relegating marriage to something unrecognizable in the future.

My whole point was that previous time-tested institutions of various societies have been altered or turned on their heads with the effect that those societies managed to adapt to the changes and nevertheless progress. I'm a heterosexual female, but my view of marriage is not threatened by allowing gay marriage. In fact, the opposite occurs because I see allowing gay marriage as upholding the purest intentions of marriage: that two consenting people who love each other are able to bind their union in the eyes of the law and, for some, their gods.

Viewpoints such as the one you're espousing serve, in my mind, to cheapen and degrade marriage as a tool of control as opposed to one of loving union. The legalization of gay marriage does not usher in an "anything goes" society because the rule of adult consent still stands. "Anything goes" would, to me, involve marriage of children and animals where there is no valid possibility of mutual consent among adults. I fail to see the value in gender discrimination as to marriage. If anything, denying gay marriage works against the common good because it allows only one subset of society the right to marriage, as opposed to allowing all consenting adults the right to marry the person of their choosing.