AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

View Poll Results: Is marriage a civil right?
Yes 237 77.20%
No 70 22.80%
Voters: 307. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-10-18, 15:55   Link #101
Tsuyoshi
Disabled By Request
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Great Justice
Send a message via AIM to Tsuyoshi Send a message via MSN to Tsuyoshi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nogitsune View Post
Leviticus 18:22 - "And if a man lies with mankind as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

@Yoko Takeo:
Nice posting, by the way.
Even though a consequentialist would argue that something can be evil even if it wasn't intended to be harmful. For example, if someone believes they are saving my sould by burning me, I would still consider the act very much evil due to a failure regarding epistemic duty.
Thanks . In the example you refer to, the action is aimed directly at you regardless. A gay couple marrying isn't directed at anyone for any reason at all. The only reason people take offense from their action is because they want to. Nothing more.
Tsuyoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-18, 15:55   Link #102
Irenicus
Le fou, c'est moi
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
The bolded part being the crux of contention. You see, for someone who believes in the word of Christ, it would be negligent of him to ignore the plight of someone who is danger of causing grave spiritual harm to himself. Hence the Christian agitation against "promoting" gay lifestyles and marriage. To a Christian — and, in fact, many other people of mainstream faiths — homosexuality is a perversion of nature. They don't hate the person but the sin (admittedly, this crucial distinction is not always made clear), and they are therefore upset that modern society appears to champion such behaviour as something "normal".
If by "perversion of nature" they mean it's "unnatural," then they're flat out wrong, period. New scientific evidence shows homosexuality in nature.

And if they mean "nature is wrong," then I'm quite willing to fight their little culture wars and ask them hard questions of human, social ideologies -- why the hell are they making enemies out of harmlessness? What principles of freedom, harmony, or whatever nice word of the day demand of them this intolerance?

Quote:
It always important to remember that there is nothing intrinsically right about believing that homosexual sex is normal and that homosexuals are just people with different sexual preferences. As you've pointed out yourself, it's merely another point of view, one that has gained increasing popularity in today's "liberal" society — which is why it's not completely wrong for some Christians to claim that their views are being violently silenced by a strident pro-gay agenda. One only needs to look at the kind of verbal abuse being hurled at conservative "anti-gay" groups to see why they feel as though they are under siege.
If it's a siege, then it's an incredibly weak one. The majority of Americans are still awfully reluctant to allow something that would not harm them in the least to go on. What was Proposition 8 of California but a statement of simple intolerance, a big "fuck you" to the LGBT community?

Also, beware of selective perception. We are in animesuki -- the vast majority of our posters are younger, and I suspect many more are "liberal" than in the larger communities. If this thread is being "overwhelmed" by us who see the shitty attitude for what it is, forgive us, because once we step out of the monitor back to the real world, we go back to being the minority, seeing these so-called "besieged" Christians being the ones who walk up to us and telling us Jesus hates gay or whatever shit they have to say -- and those are the overt ones, the easy to spot ones. The silently homophobic are far more damaging.

Is my rhetoric virulent? Yes. Do I care? No. I've heard their premises, I've considered them. I find absolutely no common ground with them.

What you're asking is that we place our burden of proof with us, except that I largely consider the ones discriminating against somebody else to be the ones who need to bear the burden of proof. Do I think homosexuality is something to be celebrated, honored, etc.? No, I just think it's a sexual orientation and that's that.

Quote:
When considering debates over morality, it's critical to be aware of the different axioms that lead to the different sets of beliefs that each individual holds dear. It's as easy to attack the assumptions of the pro-gay camp as it is to ridicule the so-called "outdated" views of traditional/religious people. Or, to put it another way, why is it necessarily "progressive" to adopt a pro-gay agenda? In the view of conservative people, such an agenda would be regressive instead.
I'm aware of their axioms. I dismiss them wholesale. Fair enough?

I place them on the same category -- though not the same level of vileness -- as anti-Semitism. Before cries of Godwin's Law, let me explain myself: the centuries, even a millenia, of anti-Semitism in Europe came from a combination of factors: Jews were discriminated from owning land, and forced, often intentionally pressed into becoming moneylenders; nobles who borrow ridiculous amounts from Jewish moneylenders don't want to pay back; they encourage anti-Jew sentiments among the population; pogroms ensue, peasants get to vent their anger at their conditions at some scapegoat, nobles don't need to pay back to dead people; everybody's happy, except a few dead Jews. Sociological factors, but why were Jews discriminated in the first place? A bunch of theologians had the idea to interpret the tale of Jesus' execution in such a way that the blame is placed on "the Jews."

Same for the Sodom and Gomorrah myth. Biblical scholars debate to this day if God's problem with the two cities were with "sodomy" or with the acts of rape (forced intercourse), but the prevailing interpretation happens to be a homophobic one.

Such a weak reason to be cruel. Of course I'm angry, am I supposed to play all nice with people who are willing to be absolutely horrendous against another, innocent group of human beings? Fuck no. I'm not killing them, I'm not setting them on fire on the stake, I'm not denying them legal rights, not even to speak their minds, despite your -- devil's advocate? -- assertion that we are doing that.

Yet a century ago, Oscar Wilde died in prison because he was gay.

I would be nice, but that's murder.

Quote:
To me, the concept of "harm" lies at the heart of any debate over morality. An act of evil is something that causes harm to an individual or a group of people. Yet "harm" itself is a word that is in dire need of a stronger definition. What must happen before harm is rendered? In the eyes of the law, "harm" extends beyond just physical damage and includes intangible damage as well, such as to mental well-being or a person's reputation, to name but a few examples.

So, when homosexual people attempt to adopt traditional institutions, such as "marriage", it's not hard to see why they would inevitably offend many people. Just like how they view homosexuality to be a perversion of human nature, conservatives view the granting of marriage to same-sex couples as a perversion of a cultural tradition that sanctifies the union between a man and a woman.
Be careful how far you are willing to go with using relativism to play devil's advocate when defending attitudes diametrically opposed to relativism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nogitsune
Leviticus 18:22 - "And if a man lies with mankind as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Leviticus was more of a civil law of an ancient society than a theological treatise. Of course, it leads to the question: how are these religious groups willing to pick and choose the points they like to keep from an ancient document. We have come...so far...since those ruthless times.
Irenicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-18, 16:11   Link #103
Nogitsune
Shameless Fangirl
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo View Post
Thanks . In the example you refer to, the action is aimed directly at you regardless. A gay couple marrying isn't directed at anyone for any reason at all. The only reason people take offense from their action is because they want to. Nothing more.
Hm... all right. I have to think that over, but at the moment, it makes sense to me. xD

It really irks me that people cling so tightly to this "homosexuality is evil" thing, because really, who takes the bible literally anymore? Who can believe it's perfectly moral to offer up your "untouched" daughters to a bunch of vile people just so that your guests don't get raped instead? How many Christians believe God approved of every single word in this book and that the writers didn't add their own opinion?

I just found this on the net:
Quote:
DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately
DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27 If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
It's from a site that explains very nicely why even amongst Christians, there are many people who don't regard homosexuality to be a sin - and don't follow the teachings above.

Edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
Leviticus was more of a civil law of an ancient society than a theological treatise. Of course, it leads to the question: how are these religious groups willing to pick and choose the points they like to keep from an ancient document. We have come...so far...since those ruthless times.
Isn't Leviticus one of the books in the Old Testament?
Anyway, I agree.
__________________
"I think of the disturbance in Area 11 as a chess puzzle, set forth by Lelouch." - Clovis la Britannia
Nogitsune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-18, 16:24   Link #104
Tsuyoshi
Disabled By Request
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Great Justice
Send a message via AIM to Tsuyoshi Send a message via MSN to Tsuyoshi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nogitsune View Post
Hm... all right. I have to think that over, but at the moment, it makes sense to me. xD

It really irks me that people cling so tightly to this "homosexuality is evil" thing, because really, who takes the bible literally anymore? Who can believe it's perfectly moral to offer up your "untouched" daughters to a bunch of vile people just so that your guests don't get raped instead? How many Christians believe God approved of every single word in this book and that the writers didn't add their own opinion?

I just found this on the net:


It's from a site that explains very nicely why even amongst Christians, there are many people who don't regard homosexuality to be a sin - and don't follow the teachings above.
This proves my point that the bible was written at a time where change 2000 years later wasn't taken into account. Society is different these days, along with its values and ideas. Not to mention that it's just a point of view outnumbered by millions of others.
Tsuyoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-18, 16:36   Link #105
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
Not all conservatives oppose gay marriage either.

In fact, I'm not even left-wing at all. I'm a minarchist, a libertarian.

In my opinion, it's none of the government's fucking business who I get married to. The government has a duty to protect the individual rights of its citizens and nothing else. It's failing pretty spectacularly at this.

Individuals have rights. Organizations don't. But the government acts a hell of a lot like it does, when all it actually has are duties it's not fulfilling.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-18, 18:39   Link #106
cheyannew
PolyPerson!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Northern VA
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
In my opinion, it's none of the government's fucking business who I get married to. The government has a duty to protect the individual rights of its citizens and nothing else. It's failing pretty spectacularly at this.
Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner!
__________________
"...we are wolves in a flock of sheep. We are the hunters. We are the Alphas and we are on this Earth to conquer."

RIFT | Division | Side 7 Art Archive
cheyannew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-18, 18:54   Link #107
mg1942
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
great... now these guys are playing victims



Spoiler for full interview:



and btw Compared to other religious groups I think the LDS prefer too keep it themselves rather than branching out.
mg1942 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-18, 18:55   Link #108
LeoXiao
提倡自我工業化
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 22
I think that, like what other people said, marriage as a civil institution should not be affected by religion, and that homosexuals should not take their arguments further than the civil aspect.
However, I don't believe that homosexuals adopting children is right. I don't want to go too far into my personal convictions on this matter, but while I think that adoption by homosexuals is wrong, there should be no restrictions by the government on the adoption organizations themselves to give kids to gay couples. However, they should not be forced to "treat homosexuals equally" under the law either; if I were running an adoption program, I may not want to let those couples who come to me adopt any children that come through my organization, and the government should not force me to do so.
LeoXiao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-18, 19:27   Link #109
Nogitsune
Shameless Fangirl
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeoXiao View Post
I think that, like what other people said, marriage as a civil institution should not be affected by religion, and that homosexuals should not take their arguments further than the civil aspect.
However, I don't believe that homosexuals adopting children is right. I don't want to go too far into my personal convictions on this matter, but while I think that adoption by homosexuals is wrong, there should be no restrictions by the government on the adoption organizations themselves to give kids to gay couples. However, they should not be forced to "treat homosexuals equally" under the law either; if I were running an adoption program, I may not want to let those couples who come to me adopt any children that come through my organization, and the government should not force me to do so.
I disagree.
As far as I know, those organizations usually aren't private and receive large sums from the government. But even if that weren't the case, personal prejudices should not deceide over the life of other people - neither are you the child, nor are you the gay couple that wishes to adopt it.
If you want to prevent such an adoption and decide over other people's fate, you should be able to name a good reason for it - a morally relevant difference between the gay couple and a heterosexual one. Otherwise, they should be treated equally.
__________________
"I think of the disturbance in Area 11 as a chess puzzle, set forth by Lelouch." - Clovis la Britannia
Nogitsune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-18, 19:44   Link #110
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Social conservatives like to cherry-pick Bible passages to support their views... unfortunately, it often ends up that *all* of their cited passages are Old Testament. The New Testament has some very different opinions that apply that such folk completely ignore in their zest to "burn the witches" or punish those that come up short in their minds... funny how that works since the New Testament is where the "christian" part arrives...
__________________
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-18, 20:39   Link #111
Zu Ra
✖ ǝʇ ɯıqnɾl ☆
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mortuary : D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
The silently homophobic are far more damaging.
Good to see another person who thinks on the similar lines, mentioned that in Post 58 . Most of the real damage is done by likes of them and California was the victim .

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeoXiao
]However, they should not be forced to "treat homosexuals equally" under the law either

I am well aware what context this statement was made under .



But take a moment to realize the repercussion of this . In practicality though untrue, but Law in Theory treats everyone the same way right from Rapist to Pedophile to MassMurders . Its quite demeaning to say Queers should not be treated fairly . Someone already used this thought process way back in 30s 40s and went by the name of Himmler . Next Homophobic zealots may force queers into wearing a rainbow badges at all times for all we know .

Once again I repeat I know the contextual reasons this statement was made but the repercussions of such a clause is devastating . ...


Quote:
Originally Posted by synaesthetic View Post
In my opinion, it's none of the government's fing business who I get married to.
Shall I dare say Amen to That : D
__________________

Last edited by Zu Ra; 2009-10-18 at 20:50. Reason: quotation added
Zu Ra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-18, 20:41   Link #112
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Quote:
However, I don't believe that homosexuals adopting children is right. I don't want to go too far into my personal convictions on this matter, but while I think that adoption by homosexuals is wrong, there should be no restrictions by the government on the adoption organizations themselves to give kids to gay couples. However, they should not be forced to "treat homosexuals equally" under the law either; if I were running an adoption program, I may not want to let those couples who come to me adopt any children that come through my organization, and the government should not force me to do so.
I heard all homosexual children come from homosexual families, care to confirm or deny?
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-18, 21:18   Link #113
RadiantBeam
Test Drive
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: USA
Age: 23
Send a message via AIM to RadiantBeam Send a message via Skype™ to RadiantBeam
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
I heard all homosexual children come from homosexual families, care to confirm or deny?
I can deny. I know plenty of people who grew up in straight families and still turned out to be homosexuals, and I have met a person or two who grew up in a homosexual home (for some reason or another) and they were still straight. Just because one grows up in a homosexual family doesn't automatically mean they'll be homosexual.
__________________
RadiantBeam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-18, 21:22   Link #114
LeoXiao
提倡自我工業化
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
I heard all homosexual children come from homosexual families, care to confirm or deny?
I deny this, since there are people i know who are gay but their families aren't. I don't understand what your purpose/objective in asking this question is.

Quote:
But even if that weren't the case, personal prejudices should not deceide over the life of other people - neither are you the child, nor are you the gay couple that wishes to adopt it.
But I have my own ethical considerations. If I work for an adoption program and deny a homosexual couple a child, I'm not discriminating against the gay couples themselves, I'm just acting on my conviction that a child should be brought up by male and female parents. This choice does not excessively intrude upon the rights of others. The gay couple can find another organization, or try to convince me that they are somehow superior to any other option the child has (if I didn't already know) despite the lack of parents of both genders.
If the organization is government-run, I can see your point as being more valid.
LeoXiao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-18, 21:30   Link #115
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeoXiao View Post
I deny this, since there are people i know who are gay but their families aren't. I don't understand what your purpose/objective in asking this question is.
WK's sense of humor is burbling up on the "nature vs nurture" shard of the debate. An emoticon probably might have helped a bit. Obviously, homosexuals must spontaneously spore like mushrooms to create more
__________________
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-18, 21:39   Link #116
Sackett
Cross Game - I need more
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: I've moved around the American West. I've lived in Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Oklahoma
Age: 35
No. Marriage (meaning the legal recognition by the government of a pairing) is not a civil right. (However, living with who you wish to is a right).

This is because civil rights all derive from the three basic rights.
1: The right to life
2: The right to liberty (eg not being imprisoned)
3: The right to property.

These are three rights that are essential for freedom. If another power can kill you at their whim, then you are not free. If an outside power can imprison you without cause, you are not free. If an outside power can seize your property simply because they want it, you are not free.

This is why government is a necessary evil. Governments prevent the strong from oppressing the weak, but also there is always both the temptation and the means for the government to begin oppressing people itself. In fact such oppression is likely to be attempted.

Governmental refusal to to recognize the pairing of same sex couples does not deprive gays of life, liberty, or property. Therefore, that recognition can not be a civil right. This does not mean that governments should refuse recognition. Just that no rational claim can be made that the refusal to do so is some kind of oppressive act.

It is not oppression. Attempts to label a refusal to recognize same-sex marriage as a civil rights violation is just an attempt to shut down legitimate debate by using loaded words.

Are there some elements of marriage that impact property rights? Of course, but these are also available through legal arrangements outside of marriage. Naturally marriage is more convenient as it's a package deal, but I see no reason governments can't create non-marriage legal packages that conveniently accomplish these legal arrangements.

Rather the debate ought to focus one issue: What is the purpose of government recognition of marriages?

Historically the purpose of marriage is to protect the interests of women and children. Although marriage has occasionally been used to control women- primarily it protects them from male abandonment.

This is what traditional marriage supporters mean when they say: "It's changing the definition of marriage." To them, gender is an intrinsic element of marriage. There is a wife and there is a husband. The wife can bear children, the husband cannot. These biological facts determine the roles of the wife and the husband- as they become mother and father. Marriage is primarily about commitment and obligations, and only secondarily about love. Government recognizes marriages so that it can either enforce or promote the fulfillment of these obligations.

They simply cannot comprehend the concept of same-sex marriage at all. It has little to nothing to do with hatred of gays. The main feeling that opponents have in response to same-sex marriage is incomprehension, not hate.

Supporters of gay marriage on the other hand perceive marriage to be primarily about love. Often I will hear them say: "How can you deny marriage to two people who love each other?" Simple, opponents don't see what love has to do with it. So what if people love each other- they can't fulfill the roles and obligations mandated by marriage and therefore cannot be married. To them same-sex marriage is an oxymoron.

This dramatic difference in understanding about what marriage is all about, is the primary cause of disagreement on this issue. It is vitally important to understand this so that we don't end up hating each other, but instead can understand why the other person disagrees, and therefor not call people names like bigot and hater which only causes anger and contention.

My main point though, is that if marriage is only about the celebration of two people's love for each other- then what business is it of the government? Why should the government give a special place to that kind of relationship?

On the other hand, if the traditionalists are correct, and marriage is about obligations of men and women to each other and to their children, then indeed I can see why the government has a legitimate interest in promoting marriage as special relationship with special privileges. The carrying out of such marital obligations would be beneficial to the entire society as a whole (including the unmarried gay people).

Personally I find the arguments of traditional marriage supporters to be persuasive (if poorly articulated).

The position that the government ought to get out of the marriage business altogether I find to be rational and respectable, if less persuasive.

I find the position that the government ought to continue recognizing marriage pairings as special but should also extend that recognition to same-sex couples, to be irrational, overly emotional, and completely unpersuasive.

I understand that many gay people feel persecuted and therefor want recognition and acceptance- but I don't find that a reasonable motivation for establishing government policies that attempt to reformat a social institution that pre-exists all current governments.

Gay people are not the only people to be bullied, attacked, or mistreated. I was bullied and attacked too- at age 12 another boy tried to kill me, for no other reason than because I was smaller and weaker then him. Does that give me some special right to demand the implementation of policies to make me feel safer? No it does not.

Government policy should be made by reason. Not emotional appeals for the healing of past persecution.

I know that many here disagree with me. I hope that though we disagree you will understand my reasoning and therefor do me the respect of recognizing that I have a legitimate position- even if you disagree with it.

Please do not attempt to de-legitimize me by name-calling or accusing me of evil motives that I do not have.
Sackett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-18, 22:17   Link #117
mg1942
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sackett View Post
No. Marriage (meaning the legal recognition by the government of a pairing) is not a civil right. (However, living with who you wish to is a right).

This is because civil rights all derive from the three basic rights.
1: The right to life
2: The right to liberty (eg not being imprisoned)
3: The right to property.
that's an issue that some of them face in city/county/state gov level.
mg1942 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-18, 22:21   Link #118
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
Be careful how far you are willing to go with using relativism to play devil's advocate when defending attitudes diametrically opposed to relativism.
I might have composed a reply to that retort, but Sackett has already beaten me to it with a far better post than I could have come up with.

To quote him: "It is not oppression. Attempts to label a refusal to recognize same-sex marriage as a civil rights violation is just an attempt to shut down legitimate debate by using loaded words."

That is something that I find, from personal experience of such debates, that pro-gay groups agitating for same-sex marriage do not seriously consider. Just because there are conservative people who spew hateful remarks in opposition to homosexual lifestyles, it doesn't mean that they are all like that. Some of them do have legitimate, and rational, reasons for believing what they do.

And, yes, of course I'm playing devil's advocate. Because I dislike it when debate becomes completely one-sided. It wouldn't then be a debate — it would be a mutual-admiration party instead.

I say again, there is nothing intrinsically right in believing that homosexual behaviour and lifestyle is "normal" — that is merely a point of view that has gained increasing acceptance in modern society. To say that science has "proven" that homosexuality exists in nature (in itself a debatable issue) is also, to an extent, mere cherry-picking of evidence to support a particular point of view. Just because something comes naturally to human beings, does it necessarily mean that we should allow it? If so, what is the point of government and civilisation? There are perfectly "natural" forms of human behaviour that are deemed anti-social and damaging to the welfare of other people, that the law naturally prohibits. Is that then also a form of "oppression"?

Last edited by TinyRedLeaf; 2009-10-18 at 22:32.
TinyRedLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-18, 22:45   Link #119
Autumn Demon
~
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ithaca, NY
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sackett View Post
Rather the debate ought to focus one issue: What is the purpose of government recognition of marriages?

...

The wife can bear children, the husband cannot. These biological facts determine the roles of the wife and the husband- as they become mother and father.

...

So what if people love each other- they can't fulfill the roles and obligations mandated by marriage and therefore cannot be married.
So should the government not grant marriage licenses to infertile hetero couples?

And we are trying to create a society where the genders are equal, so gender being "an intrinsic element of marriage" goes against so much progress society has made on equality. Granted, gender today still plays a huge role in hetero marriages, but it is rightfully declining.
Autumn Demon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-18, 23:11   Link #120
Ascaloth
I don't give a damn, dude
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sackett View Post
I know that many here disagree with me. I hope that though we disagree you will understand my reasoning and therefor do me the respect of recognizing that I have a legitimate position- even if you disagree with it.

Please do not attempt to de-legitimize me by name-calling or accusing me of evil motives that I do not have.
Sure, I'll bite.

Quote:
No. Marriage (meaning the legal recognition by the government of a pairing) is not a civil right. (However, living with who you wish to is a right).

This is because civil rights all derive from the three basic rights.
1: The right to life
2: The right to liberty (eg not being imprisoned)
3: The right to property.

These are three rights that are essential for freedom. If another power can kill you at their whim, then you are not free. If an outside power can imprison you without cause, you are not free. If an outside power can seize your property simply because they want it, you are not free.

This is why government is a necessary evil. Governments prevent the strong from oppressing the weak, but also there is always both the temptation and the means for the government to begin oppressing people itself. In fact such oppression is likely to be attempted.

Governmental refusal to to recognize the pairing of same sex couples does not deprive gays of life, liberty, or property. Therefore, that recognition can not be a civil right. This does not mean that governments should refuse recognition. Just that no rational claim can be made that the refusal to do so is some kind of oppressive act.
This is most interesting. Can you point me to a credible source which supports your definition of the basis of civil rights? Additionally, can you substantially prove that your definition indeed is the universal basis of all civil rights?

To help you get started, I present the sole source I have been able to find through quick research which fits with your definition; John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, which states that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." However, seeing as you hail from the United States of America, I present as a counterargument the most famous phrase of your very own country's Declaration of Independence; "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Clearly, this does not perfectly mesh with John Locke's phrase; the downplaying of "property" in favour of "the pursuit of happiness" was supported by none other than Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Therefore, just by this, I prove that your definition of the basis of civil rights, which is largely in accordance with John Locke's definition, is not the basis of the civil rights at least in the USA; the Declaration of Independence, which is authored by the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, is.

To further support my stance, I present the 1967 civil rights case Loving vs. Virginia, which overturned all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. In this case, the Declaration of Independence was referred to by then-Chief Justice Earl Warren:

Quote:
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
This was mirrored in the final verdict of the case, which stated that:

Quote:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Therefore, since "pursuit of happiness" is judged as a basis of civil rights in the United States of America, and Loving vs. Virginia has defined marriage as an aspect of the pursuit of happiness, it therefore holds that, at least in the United States of America, marriage is indeed a civil right. And since I have proven that marriage is indeed a civil right at least in the USA, I cannot see how you can prove that your definition of the basis of civil rights is indeed universal in nature.

Quote:
It is not oppression. Attempts to label a refusal to recognize same-sex marriage as a civil rights violation is just an attempt to shut down legitimate debate by using loaded words.
Appeal to Motive. Attempting to claim ulterior motives on the part of the opposing side of the debate merely constitutes a particular form of argumentum ad hominem circumstantial, and does not support your stand.
Ascaloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
discussion, homosexuality, human rights

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 22:03.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.