Jump to content

Gay vs. Animal Marriage?


Fickler

Recommended Posts

Dear Big Blue Machine,

I think Canada should oppose same sex
Sometimes I get bored with the same sex over and over again too. KK, on the othe hand...well, I think one of the K's stands for 'kinky'.

Seriously, the death penalty should be on the table for this one too. Democracy should decide by majority vote what the gov't legislates, and in Canada(and many other countries) you don't always get what you vote for. However, with some cases such as abortion and the death penalty, this country could be 51-49% on monday, and 49-51% by Friday. Luck we haven't had an election featuring a devout Pro-Capital Punishment candidate right after arrests like Paul Bernardo or Charles Ng.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I find it funny how people on the extreme right wing of this country don't understand the balance between minority rights and majority rights, nor do they even understand the principle of progress.

That they continue to invoke the sacred arguement by induction process repeatedly, and have it defeated repeatedly, yet persist in their dialectic position like a scientific communist, is a monument to the ignorant spirit of radical conservatism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homosexuality is now considered genetic. Know what else is genetic? Murderous tendencies. Actually, if you think about it, anything that isn't the result of environmental differences, is based on genetics.

The hard part comes when we try to define the limits of "normal" genetic differences. For a while, left-handed people were considered somewhat "lesser" people. Homosexuality was wrong for the greatest part of human history. Virtually every mental disorder still has its origin in genetics. Is it a defect? Or simply another variation?

Even the most terrible mental impairment could be considered simply a genetic variance. I'm not going to ask where we draw the line, because everybody on this board will have a different opinion. I simply ask everyone to consider. Anything that was different from birth, about anyone, is natural.

Whether it was meant to be like that, or whether a fairly large percentage of the human population has at least some minor "mistakes" in their genetic makeup, is what the issue is really about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, I think one of the K's stands for 'kinky'

Not sure what I said to deserve this. I will reiterate my points.

It was said by some that homo marriage was a step in the right direction.

I said (without saying whether I agreed with it or not, completely nuetral on the issue in this discussion) that by desintigrating the understanding of marriage for thousands of years (that being between a man and a woman for the purposes of starting a family with blood bonds) that it opens the door for some changes. I did not say whether the changes would be good, nor bad.

I gave some examples of people in the future being able to marry inanimate objects, pets, sisters, brothers, their own children and even themselves. When challenged on it by those who think that homo marriage is ok and that what I said is judgemental in some way they showed their closed mindedness in thinking progress or, however you would classify actions such as the above, is impossible, simply because any changes will stop after marriage between two same sex partners is legal throughout society. Such a though is arrogant, the world stops and uses the same set of rules that our generation has set forth - forever?

They pointed out that an inanimate object cannot give it's consent. I pointed out that consent is frequently not given in many societies of the world, hence, consent of a partner is not necessary and that it is quite possible in the furture that scince the 'traditional' role of marriage has been changed, that the examples I gave earlier are quite possible..

Then you said

well, I think one of the K's stands for 'kinky'

Not sure if you read what is going on and what I said so I will reserve my judgement on whether or not you are an idiot (in this matter anyways) until after you clarify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is talking about how true civilization is judged on how they treat their weakest members. That philosophical argument came out circa Plato.

That they continue to invoke the sacred arguement by induction process repeatedly, and have it defeated repeatedly, yet persist in their dialectic position like a scientific communist, is a monument to the ignorant spirit of radical conservatism.

Homosexual marriage makes sense. Two people who love each other should be recognized by society. I'm ust making an observation that the rules have been the same for thousands of years. Not even saying they were right or wrong, just that they were the same. Now, they are changing and anybody who is simple enough to think that they will stop at one rule is going to be wrong 100%. This Really big change of today is nothing to what will come tommorow. Maybe not for decades or centuries but sooner or later, they will change in a fashion that is in present day unthinkable. Just as homo marriages, not even fifty years ago were unthinkable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear KK,

well, I think one of the K's stands for 'kinky'

Not sure what I said to deserve this.

No offense intended KK, it was intended to be a small joke about your staunch defence of pornography. Mind you, that was some time ago, but please forgive me, it was facetious and not meant to be derogatory.

William Burroughs once gave a speech regarding homosexuality and society's moral structure. Specifically, the teachings of St. Paul, and how those dogmatic mores were intend for all people, for all time, and forever.

It was an interesting speech, I guess his main point was that 'that which is regarded as the functionally healthy model at one time may not be the only way, especially under different circumstances, at another time.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

S'okay, now I understand, I was in the defensive mode so I am sure you can understand my demeanor. Interesting that you should bring up that argument as it is more than fitting that my point be used for a completely different argument.

That being that the pornography issue with me was simply one of freedom. One man's devil is another's vice, and in that to a certain degree, to live with one another we have to allow the other's their freedoms. While one may wish for a non-smoking, non-pornographic world in which alcohol is prohibited, you have to understand that to some, they may be just as meaningful as your idiosycracies are to you.

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." Martin Niemoeller

In this argument it is applicable on both sides. One side wants rights with good reason and the other wishes to restrict them in order to have their beliefs upheld. The first group maintains they should not be persecuted and denied rights because of circumstances not within their control and the others feel that tradition is more important than freedom and feel the world is taking them out one special interest group at a time. Others such as myself , am concerned that while this law is not alarming, it is errosion of tradition. While not alarming in itself as tradition can simply be the culmination of the same stupid move done more than once it is the change or a long accepted tradition world wide. Not the tradition of Canadian society but the whole human race. As we are an adaptable species it will have little effect on our survival however ....... However, it is what I believe is the first step in a change, not the only step as some here have contended. Before, this was that, now, this is not that, it has been proven that it can be changed.

I should think that everybody, even homos should step back and see what has happened. Don't change it back by any means but look and see how one of the most fundemental issues of human kind has been changed here. Somethng that has been a given for over a hundred generations has been changed. The basic unit of our race, the family, or, our country one unit at a time can be demographicly changed. It is unbelieveable. And what is more unbelievable is that people are so caught up in human rights and anti gay sentiment so they do not see that this precedent can be used in conjunction with others in order to make even more changes. What will those changes be? I don't propose to know, I just know that there is a door, where before, there was a wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should think that everybody, even homos should step back and see what has happened. Don't change it back by any means but look and see how one of the most fundemental issues of human kind has been changed here. Somethng that has been a given for over a hundred generations has been changed.

So changing something means it will be changed? Well...yeah. I'm sure there were reservations concering giving women the right to vote, or giving blacks equality under the law. After all, institutional racism and sexism are also longstanding traditions. But society accepted such changes were necessary regardless of the consequenses, simply because they were the right things to do.

But we've already determined that marriage has, in western society, not been a static institution. For instance, divorce laws are a relatively new phenomenon, as are notions of marital equality (versus the formerly proprietary nature of the arraingment). The definition of marriage is not written in stone, and is subject to the changing tides of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...yeah. I'm sure there were reservations concering giving women the right to vote, or giving blacks equality under the law. After all, institutional racism and sexism are also longstanding traditions. But society accepted such changes were necessary regardless of the consequenses, simply because they were the right things to do.

A slave or a vote was never the core of the family unit, a unit that made up the larger society evrywhere. That was a poor example Black Dog.

.

So changing something means it will be changed?

Not as simple as that. Something that has been thought unchangable for millenia has been changed. My point is that to think it will stop here, with what we think today is simple mindedness. The same people who say that we must progress think that it will end here with same sex marriage. The door (or barrier) that made the family unit strictly a man and a woman has been opened to allow gays. And with it, it has set a precident that changes the core unit from being a man and woman to an open set of possibilities. I never said this was bad. Rather I say that this has set in motion changes that we cannot even fathom, changes that will make sense I am sure at the time but may be lost on us in this day and age.

But we've already determined that marriage has, in western society, not been a static institution. For instance, divorce laws are a relatively new phenomenon, as are notions of marital equality (versus the formerly proprietary nature of the arraingment).

Indeed. Good point. A man divorces a woman, yes. Now too, that has changed, now a man divorces a man or woman a woman. See, the changes have started already.

The definition of marriage is not written in stone, and is subject to the changing tides of society.

It was mentioned in the ten commandments so it was written in stone. Albeit it goes on about coveting asses and wives and does not lay out the terms of a marriage we can surely agree that up until recent history they were talking about a man and a woman as legal or accepted homo relationships are not comonplace in biblical stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A slave or a vote was never the core of the family unit, a unit that made up the larger society evrywhere. That was a poor example Black Dog.

Oh come on. There's a lot of different family structures, from polygamy to polyandry to common-law partnerships, that have made up the family unit everywhere. To assume otherwise betrays a certain ethnocentrism, not to mentionthe fact you'r eignoring th emany changes marriage has undergone already.

Not as simple as that. Something that has been thought unchangable for millenia has been changed. My point is that to think it will stop here, with what we think today is simple mindedness.

But, though you seem to keep missing this point, marrigae has changed, even over the past century.

And with it, it has set a precident that changes the core unit from being a man and woman to an open set of possibilities. I never said this was bad.

I never said you did, I just think it's specious reasoning. For instance, marriage, despite changes regarding the number of people involved and, recently, their gender, has always been between human beings. You're saying the possibilities oppened up by SSM include marriage to animals or inanimate objects. Now the arguments that apply to SSM do not apply to these other examples you've cited, so to assume SSM will be the tipping point(as opposed to, say, divorce laws, which had a far broader impact on society's view of marriage than legal gay partnerships ever could) is a bit absurd.

Indeed. Good point. A man divorces a woman, yes. Now too, that has changed, now a man divorces a man or woman a woman. See, the changes have started already.

Or a woman divorces a man (at least in our culture).

I'm having a hard time seeing what your point is. It seems you're saying "gay marriage will change marriage". That's true. But as you concede above, marriage has already undergone fundamental changes throughout history. Now, since marriage is a social construct, it is, as I said before, subject to social change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm having a hard time seeing what your point is. It seems you're saying "gay marriage will change marriage". That's true. But as you concede above, marriage has already undergone fundamental changes throughout history. Now, since marriage is a social construct, it is, as I said before, subject to social change.

Polygamy, I take it you meant a guy and ten women or was it a guy and ten guys? I could argue with some of the stuff you said above but to no real point as it is only details, you summed it up here. My point is that this has legally changed marriage and with it, socially to follow as it is accepted more and more in time to such a degree that we will see more changes than anyone today can anticipate.

The poster who started this thread metioned beastility and was riduculed for it. Think about it, if they had internet a hundred years ago and he said the same about same sex marriage he would have goten the same reception. If you think that divorce is on egual footing with same sex marriage in the scope of social changes throughout history then I would have to laugh. The whole underlying purpose of marriage has been tinkered with. That is a major event and you think it is simply a 'it was bound to happen sooner or later' type of thing. Then some exclude the possibity of further changes saying such things as consent, must be a human etc. We just radically changed the family unit and now are saying that there are rules? That's my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright so your point is that marriage is between a man (or men) and a woman (or women)?

Why?

And furthermore, so what?

Marriage is a man-made institution. It is subject to the changing mores of human society. For instance, wives are no longer considered chattel and breeeding is no longer the primary purpose of wedlock. Based on this, same sex marriage is a logical progression.

Animals, inanimate objects are not human and therefore, not allowed to participate in human institutions. That's not a rule. It's common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright so your point is that marriage is between a man (or men) and a woman (or women)?

No. My point is that scince it no longer is, it will change even more, possibly into something unrecognizable to us in the present. As the family unit is one of the basic units that make up the overall society, it too will eventually change because of this. That may seem fairly simple minded as it would change anyhow, however, this being the biggest fundemental change in millenia it will have more of an effect.

Marriage is a man-made institution. It is subject to the changing mores of human society. For instance, wives are no longer considered chattel and breeeding is no longer the primary purpose of wedlock. Based on this, same sex marriage is a logical progression.

It would seem so, makes sense to me. Once again I will reitterate my point; at present it certainly fills the needs of our time but it changes the fundemental underlying reason for marriage from procreation to simply being a loving, caring relationship. While in our society the two may be equal, now there is a division between the two. The door has been opened for further change.

Animals, inanimate objects are not human and therefore, not allowed to participate in human institutions. That's not a rule. It's common sense.

See, this is where my point is illustrated. Even you with your open mind and progressive attitudes are citing that there are hard and fast rules in this issue. Of course now we cannot marry inanimate objects. It's comon sense - now. Before, two guys or girls getting married was an out to lunch idea, why? Because the purpose of marriage was to procreate. Any fool knew that, it was common sense.

Now that has changed. To tell me that it is not going to change further I know is not correct. You can say that an object cannot give it's consent is correct but scince we don't need to have the rationale of procreation to marry now, there isn't much standing in the way of say, being the legal owner or guardian of an object or animal and being in love with it. Who is the law to stop me from being happy and making life choices for my own object or ward?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the fundemental underlying reason for marriage from procreation to simply being a loving, caring relationship.

...with legal benefits. That's the crux of this debate. Marriage affords certain priviledges that gay couples can't enjoy by virtue of not meeting the "traditional" definition of a married couple. That's discriminatory. The same doesn't apply to a man and his St. Bernard, because one can't get health benefits for one's pooch. Simply put, I don't accept that gay marriage is as a big a shift as you seem to. It tweaks the definiton, not changes it. Whereas the kind of examples you cite would require an extensive overhauls to the legal precipts of society.

You can say that an object cannot give it's consent is correct but scince we don't need to have the rationale of procreation to marry now, there isn't much standing in the way of say, being the legal owner or guardian of an object or animal and being in love with it

Consent is still the key. For a marriage to be a marriage, you need two willing partners. There are logical arguments to be made for extending the benefits of marriage to same sex couples that include such things as employment benefits, inheritances etc. that don't apply to a man and his truck.

If you can formulate some convincing arguments that could be used to support human/animal or human/object legal unions, I'd like to see them.

But, while I get what you're saying, I have a hard time arriving at the same conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it funny that those who argue the loudest that the institution of marriage should be protected from 'the queers' are always the ones cheating on their own spouses, or who are divorced.

There is seriously no legitimate arguement that can be made that homosexuals make worse parents than straight people, or that allowing same sex marriage in some way damages the institution.

Seriously, there is no such legitimate arguement to be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it funny that those who argue the loudest that the institution of marriage should be protected from 'the queers' are always the ones cheating on their own spouses, or who are divorced.

That's a sweeping generalization if ever I heard one. Not really valid.

There is seriously no legitimate arguement that can be made that homosexuals make worse parents than straight people

It depends upon how you look at it. It's a proven fact that homosexuals are far more likely to abuse drugs, contract diseases or attempt suicide than heterosexuals. They are also more likely to be violent towards their significant others. I cited the studies somewhere else in this forum.

The question is whether or not homosexuality causes these problems. I would say not. I would say that these people have some other underlying cause of their problems (for example, a very high percentage of homosexuals were sexually abused as children) of which homosexuality is a symptom, drug abuse is a symptom and so forth.

Violent, drug-abusing and self-loathing people don't make good parents. Because not all homosexuals are like that, and because heterosexuals certainly can be like that too, it makes no sense to ban homosexual parenting based just on that.

But I think an argument can be constructed. There's a logical precedent, i.e. risk assessment. Not all drunk drivers cause traffic accidents, however, we ban all the drunk drivers we can find from driving. Not all homosexuals are self-loathing, violent, excessively promiscuous and disease-ridden drug addicts either. I don't agree with this argument, but I can see that it is logical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The crux of our debate is legal benefits?

Marriage affords certain priviledges that gay couples can't enjoy by virtue of not meeting the "traditional" definition of a married couple. That's discriminatory.

So why would it not be discriminatory for the law to not allow me to marry something I love and by virtue of returned affection, obviously loves me? Like my St Bernard? Because we can’t marry animals? Heck, a year ago two guys couldn’t marry, that rule was in place for thousands of years and it changed. Who is to say what bar will be broken next.

The same doesn't apply to a man and his St. Bernard, because one can't get health benefits for one's pooch.

You can though, albeit not through the government you can pay into plans set up for that. You are confining your thinking to Western society in the here and now. I am looking at the future.

It tweaks the definiton, not changes it.

No, it fundamentally changes it to such a degree that the next change will be minor compared to this.

Consent is still the key. For a marriage to be a marriage, you need two willing partners.

We went over this, in many parts of the world it is not, throw that out the window. What if a guy came into court with a pet goat that he proves is ‘aware’ and therefore able to give consent. He proves his case by grilling the goat with math flash cards and the jury is amazed as the hoofed hottie correctly stamps out sum after correct sum. Then he gets the horned hoofer to give it’s consent, one stomp for yes, two for no. A dog in the paper the other day was reported to understand over two hundred words, I am not sure if any of them were ‘do you, Fido take Abner to be your lawfully wedded husband’ but it is quite possible. In any event, those Arab slavers in the Middle East certainly don't get the consent of their teenage brides. Neither do those dirty old polygamists in BC.

On the other hand, people with mental illness frequently get married. I imagine that some cannot reason at any level of competency yet are granted the ability to marry.

There are logical arguments to be made for extending the benefits of marriage to same sex couples that include such things as employment benefits, inheritances etc. that don't apply to a man and his truck.

If this were simply about benefits it would not be called marriage. It would have been called something like a ‘legal union’ or whatever. This is about the actual relationship, not who gets a pension so don't give me that.

If you can formulate some convincing arguments that could be used to support human/animal or human/object legal unions, I'd like to see them.

I gave one with the goat and the dog, what about an inanimate object that while not owned by the Groom, is given away with a blessigng by the owner to the Groom? Does the court system determine who is and who is not in love? If an inanimate object has no rights, it would not have the right to voice it's non-consensual argument against the marriage. As a piece of property owned by an idividual, it's default position would legally be that of the owner who, in this ridiculous example gives his consent for the object to marry. Semantics Black Dog, a reasoning game. A silly argument but you can see that it does have the possibility of having a core argument if one or two things come to pass. Have you thought about AI? How about AI when a certqain chip is installed and non AI when it is removed? That would turn an individual into an inanimate object with the flick of a switch. One second it's your husband and the next it's a fridge.

Girl gets in accident, is brain damaged severely and is in hopeless coma. Parents allow scientists to try out new computer chip to replace most functions of brain. She has no memory and her personality is that which the attending nurse programs into her through daily contact. The nurse falls in love, convinces patient she too is in love and proposes. Patient accepts as she has no other choice as prospects are slim. Parents are so happy that they give their consent for her to be married to nurse. Basically, she is a person as long as the chip is in place, take the thing out for recharging and she turns into a carrot.

Dr Phibes, the Mad Scientist takes dead wife's combined writings of the culmination of fifty years of being a Mad Scientists Babe as well as photos, favorite music and programs it into giant computer which he has also programmed with AI. Machine looks like a giant file cabinet with an apron wrapped around it. It has the ability to mimic what it thinks his wife would have been like as well as think on it's own. They fall in love and after extensive petitioning to the Government eventually has a moving company roll it into church one day using a five ton truck and four dollies.

Dr Phibes electrocutes himself trying to bring the dead to life and leaves his ‘Big Blue’ wife all alone. ‘It,’ now alone for the first time I it’s life puts an ad on the internet for a husband or wife and mistakenly puts it on a truck site. Next thing you know, CJ McCall falls in love, installs it into his Big Rig and they roll off into the sunset. Hey, that actually counters your point about the truck LOL.

Or, it internets with another ‘Big Blue’ and they go to the government and request to be married. The second Machine does not have the capability of human speech so we have to take the word of the first that consent is there, providing consent is a matter I the future.

And .... Another self aware computer does not have the power of mobility and through it’s unthinking, unreasoning probe, falls in love with a simple machine such as ......... A fire hydrant.

Far fetched? For sure, almost as far fetched as gay marriage was considered fifty years ago. You keep throwing out valid arguments why marriage can only be between humans. However, is it written anywhere that it must be between humans? Just wondering. The consent part is not a global consideration as was the union of a man and woman and I think anyhow, that the human part is an asumption rather than law.

In any case, I agree with it, just as Krusty Junior will agree with the fire hydrant hitching up with the manhole cover in a hundred years or so. I'm sure they will have valid reasons and a sound rationale whatever takes place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why would it not be discriminatory for the law to not allow me to marry something I love and by virtue of returned affection, obviously loves me? Like my St Bernard? Because we can’t marry animals? Heck, a year ago two guys couldn’t marry, that rule was in place for thousands of years and it changed. Who is to say what bar will be broken next.

The difference between an informed decision made by two consenting adults and that made by one person and imposed upon a non-huiman should be self evident. Humans have rights and obligations, the ability to make informed decisions with a clear understanding of their responsibilities and the potential consequenses of their actions. The two are completely nonanalogous.

Personally, I find the equation of the two distasteful as, in certain hands, lends itself to the notion that gays are somehow less human than the rest of us. Blech.

You can though, albeit not through the government you can pay into plans set up for that. You are confining your thinking to Western society in the here and now. I am looking at the future.

And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass hopping. The fact is, we can only use the legal and moral precedents of our society as the basis for our ideas on what the future might hold. There's precedent for gay marriage. Anything else is pure speculation.

No, it fundamentally changes it to such a degree that the next change will be minor compared to this.

From a legal standpoint, it doesn't. It simply extends marriage benefits to same sex couples.

We went over this, in many parts of the world it is not, throw that out the window.

In a discussion of whether gay marriage should be legal in North America, the discussion should really be restricted to what's practiced in this society. Societies that still consider women property have bigger issues than allowing gays to marry. So your argument is still bogus.

If this were simply about benefits it would not be called marriage. It would have been called something like a ‘legal union’ or whatever. This is about the actual relationship, not who gets a pension so don't give me that

But that's what we're talking about: changing the legal definition of marriage. Benefits are one aspect of that and have been used as the basis of successful legal challenges.

How about AI when a certqain chip is installed and non AI when it is removed? That would turn an individual into an inanimate object with the flick of a switch. One second it's your husband and the next it's a fridge.

I think you need to lay off the late night viewings of Dr. Tounge's 3D House of Horror.

:rolleyes:

I think the simplest way to look at this is to look at countries with legally sanctioned gay partnerships. Are they happily schtupping robots in Denmark (where gay couples have had marital rights sine 1989)?

There's simply no precedent for your scenarios.

However, is it written anywhere that it must be between humans? Just wondering

Look at the text of draft gay marriage bill:

1. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between an informed decision made by two consenting adults and that made by one person and imposed upon a non-huiman should be self evident. Humans have rights and obligations, the ability to make informed decisions with a clear understanding of their responsibilities and the potential consequenses of their actions. The two are completely nonanalogous.

Checked the word nonanalogous. Can’t find it. Clue me in on it please. Spelled wrong maybe? I understand what you mean, just like the word is all.

Back to the argument, you keep going on with valid points about ‘humans.’ Before, people would go on with valid points about a man and woman. Don’t you see the change? Before it was man and woman, now it is person. Next it will be whatever.

Go to PETA and tell them animals have no rights, they will think you are a nut. Talk to the scientists at any research lab in Redwood and tell them that AI cannot happen, same thing. Then tell them that marriage will only happen to people or beings with rights in this day and age and that is that and will be forever. They will look at you like you are from the sixteenth century. Tell me that human cloning will not happen and I'll laugh.

Personally, I find the equation of the two distasteful as, in certain hands, lends itself to the notion that gays are somehow less human than the rest of us. Blech.

Human.. So that is what marriage is? You are quick to exclude the possible. Does it discust you that something or somebody may hold differing beliefs than you and this will come forward in the future? Love is love, I figured that’s what marriage is, not benifits and such.

And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass hopping. The fact is, we can only use the legal and moral precedents of our society.

I am not talking about Toronto and Canadian society. Rather the whole planet. Why do you think I am bringing up nonconsensual marriage in this argument? It is part of overall human society as is this ruling. Sooner or later they will all mix much as we think it will not.

The fact is, we can only use the legal and moral precedents of our society as the basis for our ideas on what the future might hold. There's precedent for gay marriage. Anything else is pure speculation

Yes, yes and yes. You set limits though saying now there must be consent, there must be people, there must be this and that. Before it was ‘there must be man and woman’ as it was for thousands of years. Now it has changed for the first time and you think it will stop changing.

From a legal standpoint, it doesn't. It simply extends marriage benefits to same sex couples.

Your definition is

Look at the text of draft gay marriage bill:

1. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

Doesn’t sound like benefits to me. Sounds like relationships and love, fulfillment and so on with legal stuff taking the backseat. Stuff you think cannot happen to anybody but humans.

In a discussion of whether gay marriage should be legal in North America, the discussion should really be restricted to what's practiced in this society. Societies that still consider women property have bigger issues than allowing gays to marry. So your argument is still bogus.

Where did I give the impression I restricted this argument to North America? I have not and considering the world is shrinking at an ever increasing rate it is a falicy to think North America will be untouched by the rest of the world over the next two hundrred years as much as it is to think they by us. A melting pot.

But that's what we're talking about: changing the legal definition of marriage. Benefits are one aspect of that and have been used as the basis of successful legal challenges.

Legal definition yes. Like human rights in the States. You bus black kids by law in the hope that society changes. You pass laws making discrimination and quotas compulsory. Eventually it is accepted at a social level as this will be.

.I think the simplest way to look at this is to look at countries with legally sanctioned gay partnerships. Are they happily schtupping robots in Denmark (where gay couples have had marital rights sine 1989)?

There's simply no precedent for your scenarios.

Of course there is not. There is no such thing as AI and human society has not progressed to the point where animals have equal rights. Nobody has come forward to challenge the ‘marriage is a union between two people’ - YET. Maybe when some court in LA gives rights to a poodle to inherit money it will start, then move on from there. Possibly a scientist who is a #1 Geek will create the first AI computor and interact so well he considers it a lover.

I should expect the first extraterrestrial/AI /animal /inanimate object that is given love by a human and ends up in court will be faced by the argument that ‘marriage is strictly between two persons’ right? Then watch the shit fly as every person backs up the rights of the whatevers. I think the key defence to a relationship will be the ‘union between two humans /persons whatever.

Please don't get me wrong here. I am not making judgement against it as I actually agree with it for crying out loud. All I am saying is that this issue sets the foundation for far more changes than we, at this time believe. not next year, not the next decade probably but in the future. Our kids will (when some being or rights issue comes up) look at this law like we really knew what we were doing and use it as their base to make their laws. As it should be. It used to be man and woman with procreation in mind and now it is as you said 'persons' not with procreation in mind. What will it be when a machine petitions it is against their rights? A genie has been unstoped and no telling where it will go is all I am saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the argument, you keep going on with valid points about ‘humans.’ Before, people would go on with valid points about a man and woman. Don’t you see the change? Before it was man and woman, now it is person. Next it will be whatever.

Why? You're just assuming a conclusion based on a very specious line of thinking. I'll give you that your scenarios are possible. But I don't think they're very probable, based on legal precedent.

Human.. So that is what marriage is? You are quick to exclude the possible. Does it discust you that something or somebody may hold differing beliefs than you and this will come forward in the future? Love is love, I figured that’s what marriage is, not benifits and such.

But, once again, that's not what the argument is about. if someone wants to marry their parakeet, that's fine, but the law won't acknowledge the relationship as a marriage, nor would Crackers be entitled to any spousal benefits.

I am not talking about Toronto and Canadian society. Rather the whole planet. Why do you think I am bringing up nonconsensual marriage in this argument? It is part of overall human society as is this ruling. Sooner or later they will all mix much as we think it will not.

But it has nothing to do with legal gay marriage.

The practice of nonconsenusal marriage is abhorrant and not what we in the west would consider a ideal.

Gay marriage is primarily an issue in the west. There are societies that still prosecute and kill homosexuals and others where wopmen are considered property. Hopefully, we'll get to the point where these outdated practices are a thing of the past. But those practices are tangential to the argument.

You set limits though saying now there must be consent, there must be people, there must be this and that. Before it was ‘there must be man and woman’ as it was for thousands of years. Now it has changed for the first time and you think it will stop changing.

Why wouldn't it? What's to say that gay marriage won't be the end of the line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Black Dog,

I would believe that

Why wouldn't it? What's to say that gay marriage won't be the end of the line?
the unsaid answer would be that change is also 'absolute'. So, one either supports no change, or all hell will break loose. Gay marriage isn't the real issue. It is about condemning or condoning. Anyone who does not do either, has had neither exposure to the issue nor any sort of religious upbringing.

I'll go out on a limb here, and try to requalify 'homosexuality'. Some have said that 10% of people are inherently 'gay'. I must say it must be more like 9%, for more than 11% must have tried it, (and not preferred it) and at least 11% must have not tried it at all.

However, there are no limits as to how 'change' can be interpreted. For some, speculation does not stop at the ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to see the study that proves that Homesexuals were sexually abused as children, and are self-loathing abusers, who, for those reasons, wouldn't make good parents.

Sounds like Hugo ate too many Muslix for breakfast.

If anything, since homosexuals are forming families complete with kids and the house and the picket fence, doesn't it make sense to protect those families with the institution of marriage.

Why are anti-gay people so anti-family.

It's typical though. After years of going after jews, negroes and later, aboriginals, the churches need to go after and victimize another group that they find offensive.

It's pretty sad when an institution like the Catholic or some of these pagan fundamentalist 'christian' churches need to find some group to hate in order to sustain themselves.

I have an idea. Why don't fundamentalist Christians and Catholics focus in on loving god instead of hating some other group. Why don't they try doing that for a few centuries and give minorities a break? Because the way I see it, this whole marriage debate, is just hatred. You can try to justify the same way the Church justified going after negroes, jews and aboriginals, but in the end, more people turn away in disgust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I'm wondering why the push for the consentual age to be lowered to 14. I worked as a youth worker for a good number of years and I have yet to come across any 14 year old who is mature enough to make a decision that could affect the rest of their life. Under our Young Offender's Act or whatever they are calling it this week, youth's are not considered responsible for their acts until they reach the age of 18 years? Yet we have some advocates of same-sex rights pushing for the lowering of the age of consent to 14. Most of the kids I have worked with are not able to made those kinds of informed decisions at 17 & 18, never mind 14.

Where do we draw the line in the sand as to what is socially acceptable and what isn't socially acceptable, because the line keeps getting moved every time someone challenges someone's rights under the Charter. We have liberal minded judges being appointed who seem to feel the the sky is the limit as far as what is acceptable in our society. What society wants does not enter into these decisions, because society is not consulted. We have these unelected, unaccountable little god's making decision's which are drastically changing our society's norms, and nobody knows for sure what the end result is going to look like. We have victim's of crime being virtually ignored while the concern of the court seems to be focused on what is in the best interest's of the perpetrator, and whether or not their needs are being met, and that to me is simply wrong.

And let's not forget that we have a PM who stated that as far as he is concerned any decisions make by the Supreme Court are final, and not subject to challenge, even through the use of the "Notwithstanding Clause" provided in the Constitution.. That is very scary! Who knows what our society will look like in the future if some kind of constraints aren't exercised on the judiciary, and will it be too late to change it back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear JWayne625,

I'm wondering why the push for the consentual age to be lowered to 14.
I would think that there are a few factors in this besides 'informed decisions'.

Sexual physical development begins around 14, give or take, and kids are curious by nature. They will have 'sexual activity' because they want to experiment, not because they 'are mature enough to enter a loving relationship'. If they do 'experiment', at the age of 15-17, it could be considered any of a gamut of 'sexual deviance' charges, from rape to sexual interference to you name it.

There has to be an age limit, to be sure, to protect children. However, to suggest that the state make it 'illegal' for two 17 yr olds to engage in sex after prom night, well, good luck. Perhaps they could raise the age to 18, but expect it to be widely ignored. The solution lies in the home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...