Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage

[Hello:)]

I don't care, really, just don't rape me, boy or girl.

[Ym9iYnlzcTEzMzc equalsign]

And this year's WTD award goes to...

[Koopaslaya]

I wonder if the same winner will also receive the B& award.

EDIT: While we are in the midst of this time warp, do we think it's posible that jon has been reincarnated?

[Hello:)]

And this year's WTD award goes to...

Aw, shucks

[Markio]

EDIT: While we are in the midst of this time warp, do we think it's posible that jon has been reincarnated?

Yay!  As whom?

[Hello:)]

Maybe me, but I can assure you, this is my first account.

[Markio]

Returning to the topic at hand, I at least agree with the notion that consent is more important than the gender with whom one is becoming romantically involved.  That's why I never understood the argument that same-sex marriage will lead to marriage between a human and an animal: how would animals give legal consent?

[Hello:)]

More importantly, why would you think that would make people think inbreeding was okay. Heck, some people don't care about it now!

[Ym9iYnlzcTEzMzc equalsign]

More importantly, why would you think that would make people think inbreeding was okay. Heck, some people don't care about it now!

Where the heck did that come from? (and why the extra tags?)

[Hello:)]

Where the heck did that come from? (and why the extra tags?)

It just came to me, and by tags you mean italicized words, correct?

[Markio]

That's what I said when someone asked me how I knew I found men attractive.  Minus the part about tags.

[Koopaslaya]

Returning to the topic at hand, I at least agree with the notion that consent is more important than the gender with whom one is becoming romantically involved.  That's why I never understood the argument that same-sex marriage will lead to marriage between a human and an animal: how would animals give legal consent?

First of all, Markio, good to see you again!

Second, this argument is found precisely in the idea latent within the nature of same-sex mariage: namely, that attraction is sufficient grounds to establish a legal mariage contract. The principle argument is "I was born this way," or "It is not fair that I can't get married to the person whom I love." The argument is never that a two consenting adults cannot enter into this contract (for the government limits all sorts of private contracts on many grounds). The problem is not so much about consent arguments; it spills back upon the idea of attraction, and thus the slippery slope argument about what else would have to be legalized. In a word, the argument of consent is subordinated to its "why," which is the question of attraction.

Of course, this is not the best argument against same-sex unions, but that is how the claim can be made that same-sex unions could devolve into a justification for all sorts of strange "marriages."

[Sapphira]

I've been avoiding this topic for a while, but here goes. I voted for "I have mixed views."

Without going into my personal views on homosexuality, I think the whole controversy boils down to "freedom of religion," so to speak. Whether one wants to accept or disapprove of gay marriage is, ultimately, up to that individual's personal beliefs. People have the right to believe whatever they want.

If someone views gay marriage as the most repulsive, unholiest of sins, they have the right to believe that. If someone views it as the most beautiful, natural occurrence in the world, they have the right to believe that. Same for any views in between.
Likewise, if someone believes a "marriage" is invalid, they have the right to believe that. And if someone believes a marriage is indeed valid, they have the right to believe that, as well.

No one should force their views upon the other. That's freedom of religion.

If the government legalizes gay marriage, it effectively forces people to accept gay marriage as a valid marriage, whether or not they believe or agree with it. Likewise, if the government bans gay marriage, it forces people to accept gay marriage as invalid, again, whether or not they agree with it. By the government controlling marriage—essentially, a religious/personal concept—it takes away the freedom of religion.

People are always emphasizing "separation of church and state," yet the concept of marriage is inherently intertwined in both. Therein lies the problem. Marriage—the religious, personal concept—should, ideally, be completely separated from the legal concept—civil unions. Don't just call them different names, make them two different concepts.

A couple could get married without being legally united; they could be united without getting married; they could do both; they could do neither. Whatever. But the difference is that people would not be forced to accept the validity or (invalidity) of the marriage, whereas, as far as respecting/honoring legal rights, everyone must accept the civil union.

Regardless, everyone should treat others with respect, dignity, and compassion.

[Koopaslaya]

Sapph, good post.

Here's a question for you, though. What if we removed religion from the equation. It is not as if the question is only one of religious freedom (although that is certainly a component). What if somebody were able to defend heterosexual marriage in a completely separate way, divorced from any one particular religious view. A defense of heterogeneous can be made on secular argumentative grounds. And so, while I agree that the question of religious freedom is intertwined with this issue, I'm not sure that it is the lens through which we should understand the whole issue.  I think the argument needs to be moved onto terms that all people can accept.

[BP]

(This is my rebuttal to Sapph's post, which was too slow to beat Koopaslaya's... buttal?) I'll admit that to say this is a crutch, but the same thing can be said about the government forcing white people to accept black people as equals. Is that fair? Absolutely. If it's not hurting anybody why should something be illegal? This question goes for anything ever. People who don't like it can complain all they want, that's legal.

Another problem is that it's debatable whether marriage is a religious thing in the first place. Atheists can get married and no one complains. Marriage predates recorded history so no one can say for sure what it started for.

And even if "gay civil unions" were legalized and "gay marriage" were not, nobody is gonna call a specific instance a civil union, that's just absurd. "Yeah, that's my civil union buddy, we have a civil union and everything."