Gay Marriage

I'm working on a pursuasive paper for gay marriage in English. None of the anti-gay viewpoints hold water.


Like. . .Traditional marriage has always been between one man and one woman.

Traditional Native American marriage has been between same sex couples.

So has Traditional Greek and Roman Marriage.

Unions have at one point been accepted in the Catholic and Greek Orthodox Church (I found this in multiple sorces).

And I haven't even gotten to polygamy yet.

So. . .Traditional marraige varies by culture. No one can say it has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman, because it simply hasn't.

It's unnaturall.

Homosexual behavior has been documented in 450 species of animals, including humans.

Sodamy is wrong

By YOUR religious standards. As it doesn't infringe upon anyone else civil liberties, there is no reason it should be banned.

Incidentally, certian sects of Buddhism celebrate gay unions. By banning gay marriage, the government would be infriging upon their religous freedom.

This argument came up from the Lunch table the other day:

Nick: "Sodamy is gross - I mean you POOP from there."

Me: Since men pee from their penises, I am now going lesbian, because heterosexual intercourse is just plain nasty!
Ted: Since I think mixing chese, salsa, and sour cream is disgusting, I think we should ban such a mix so I won't get grossed out anymore.

It's just WRONG.

In the 1950's, so was sharing drinking fountians with black people. It's just WRONG to pass legislation docking civil liberties for no apparent reason.

 

Well then here are some points that may help you write that paper.

You can’t really compare Native American, Greek and Roman marriages to our traditional marriages. That is, unless your point is that, traditionally, marriage has been, and not that marriage has traditionally been such and such.

Native American marriage is a much different tradition than our marriage is.

It is the same for Greek and Roman marriage.

The cultural divide between these traditions ensures that traditions are as divided. As you noted, traditions vary between cultures.

Only in a broad and very general sense, then, can the argument be made that because we have marriage, and the Native Americans have gay marriage, the Greeks and Romans accepted a whole lot more than we imagine, we, therefore, should adopt gay marriage.

The argument you want to argue against is “Traditional North American Christian
Marriage have always been between one woman and one man to the exclusion of all others”.

Your conclusion is right. But your argument needs to be stronger. When you study evolution, you can’t suggest that what is good for one species of animal is good for all. Evolution is species dependent. You simply can not say that, because it is natural in one species, it must be natural in the others.

So the argument that homosexual behavior has been documented in 450 species means nothing at all.

What you want to argue against is the position that “homosexual behavior is unnatural because the only way that the human species can reproduce itself is through heterosexual sex.”

The argument is that sodomy is wrong because it is unnatural. See the above point.

It is just wrong is not an argument. Therefore not a point you have to counter. Leave this out of your essay.

 

Not to Nit-Pick but you left out the word 'Marriage' and it reads "Anti-Gay" Viewpoints instead.

This will easily confuse many Hipforums members. Thats why I pointed out the typo is all.

Like. . .Traditional marriage has always been between one man and one woman.

This is not true.
Not to anyones documented knowledge.

Someone may have told you this, however they are basing it on social rumours and heresay.

What is this based on?
This sounds like more speculative social rumours and heresay?

Please post some source for this statement?

You could find a renegade Church or two in any denomination which has done a Union-Ceremony between Same sex couples.

This is a classic example where the 'Exception' proves the 'Rule'.

This is a tradition in some cultures in some Eras.

Traditionally most societies in the planets history have either forbidden or brought to an end the State recognition of Polygamy.

Well Im pretty sure no one is shocked to find some exceptions to what is a world-wide tradition for Centuries of Human Civilisation!

Your suggesting what?
That any precedent established anywhere in time and place should justify condoning it anywhere else for all time?

This is untrue.
At best some species show young males who simulate ALL future behaviors in play.
Pretending to attack each other.
Pretending to Hunt each other.
Pretending to 'Mount' each other.

Animals who 'Pair Bond' are NOT practicing Homosexuality anymore than me and my flat-mate are practicing homosexuality.

There is some evidence animals held in life-long captivity display abberant neurotic habits - which, using a sexual imagination could be 'imagined' as homosexulity. This is not 'Science'. This is Junk.

This 'Gay Animals' junk Science would not even be acknowledged by any Sane and legitimate Scientist if it were not so politically engineered.

It might also be considered 'Wrong' by the vast majority of Citizens.
In any case..

Sodomy is often considered 'Wrong' because, by its very nature its destructive to peoples bodies.

There are many who believe its also destructive to peoples physiology.

However... this is NOT an argument for or against Gay Marriage.
For all we know... Two Married men may have sex by using each others mouths. Exclusively.

This does not 'pour water' out of a decision to keep the current definition.

I have never heard of Buddhists who celebrate gay unions?
Please explain where you heard this Exception which proves a Rule?

[Your Opinion about 'Banning' Buddhist Gay Unions is interesting and your own I suppose]

Urine is not Feces.
The Male Genitals prevent Urine from being released during sexual intercourse.
Food is not Feces.

Further to your analogy.... As a rule Penis-in-Vagina intercourse is going to be healthy for the partners genitals.
As a rule - Penis-in-Anus intercourse is unhealthy (for at least one person)

Regardless - you are NOT making an argument For or Against Gay Marriage by discussing Anal Sex.

An entirely Falacious argument.

For starters .. THERE ARE NO CIVIL LIBERTIES BEING 'DOCKED".
There is NO RIGHT OR PRIVILAGE BEING REMOVED.

Here again you have this insane logic (which you would NEVER apply to a million other situations that didnt suit you).

Because at one time, something was disallowed... then later re-allowed.. 'therefore' anything disallowed now can be allowed at any given time??

There is no sense or logic in this type of thinking and like I say.. you would never apply that same reasoning to thousands of other things.

Should Businesses be exempt from paying taxes?
Why not?
After all.. There was a State in the USA, who during one decade had segragated water fountains in some places.. and that was not allowed ... so therefore we should raise the ban on Tax-Free big business????

 

I think what they are trying to do is counter the idea that marriage is a christian or sacred institution so that chirstian sexual norms should be binding for everyone who gets married. My old boss tried to argue that gay marriage is against god and that marriage is a sacred institution.

I think she should simply dismiss all arguments about it being "unnatural" as an evocation of the naturist fallacy.

That's right its a claim.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

No. The naturalist fallacy refers to specious attempts to argue from "is" to "ought." The apparent occurence of homosexual behavior among some animals is a perfect example. Some point to this as evidence that homosexuality is "natural" and therefore "right." However, homosexual conduct is an aberration for both humans and animals. It is clearly a deviation from the norm, both in terms of prevalence and biological function. Male-female complementarity is integral to the created order. It is not a fallacy to consider natural law/design when evaluating sexual behaviors.

 

Some animals kill their young, eat their lovers, and sleep in there own feces. Guess we should do that also.

 

Well it doesnt even work IF you compare it to Animal behavior.

I have NEVER heard of a sinle instance where any male animal used another male animals anus to masterbate into.

Im sure Ive never heard of a female animal licking another females genitals for sexual pleasure?

Of course. animals use their tongues for cleaning (well.. some types) and we dont - so its not a valid comparison.

In anycase.. some homosexual sex advocates try and trick the issue - they try and claim male bonding is 'partly homosexual'.
Its not.

Men may very well bond, hug, play-fight and develop close emotional unions and that has absolutely NOTHING to due with Homosexuality.

 

Which one person???

 

Probably both.

The reason for 'at least' is that some smarty in here will announce the 'Condom' as a mitigating factor for the one entering.
[which would in turn weakened the 'in nature' comparison]

Otherwise the one entering is (as a rule) also experiencing some results [i.e. feces in their urethra] which are definately deemed Unhealthy.

The receiver is experiencing something unhealthy with or without the condom.

So this is why many will call it Unnatural.
Not because its their 'Opinion' - but because it meets these common standards.

[I sense a lot of arguing semantics on the word 'Natural' coming lol]

 

No, not both. The reciever is at higher risk of disease.

It is labeled exit only for a reason. It wasn't just homophobic men who so labeled your anus.

Look it up.

 

Yes but both will be vulnerable to disease and infections.
The 'catch' is that some will argue that wrapping the 'giver' in latex will protect him.

In that case - the receiver is still being damaged.

If done without latex products - the 'giver' is also in an unhealthy situation. (Usually from Feces entering the Urethra)

This is saying any typical situation between two, otherwise perfectly healthy, individuals.
Male or Female Receiver

 

I let my curiosity get the best of me and click "view post" any way.

So?

Common standards aren't so common, or standard. Who are you to tell people what the can do in their bedroom with their own assholes. I can eata dozen chesse burgers, drink my liver to chirosis, and smoke my lungs black. Everyone should have the choice to express their love in a legally binding way.

 

No.
Everyone does NOT have the right to express their love in a legaly binding way.

You are NOT given the right to marry Cheeseburgers, Cigarettes and Booze.

This question is asking SOCIETY to decide to GIVE something to Homosexuals.
It is not up to the homosexual couples to decide what they will have given to them.

[As to 'SO?' - The Health comments were in response to a previous poster who argued that anal sex was natural and only deemed 'wrong' by religious opinion and therefore this justified 'gay marriages']

 

SOCIETY is not GIVING anything to homosexuals, SOCIETY has never been asked to GIVE anything to homosexuals. SOCIETY is being asked to stop taking things away.

Fuck you, Fuck you and Fuck your stupid opinions. I will never accept "lets keep the gays down, they don't deserve equal protection under the law because butt fucking is gross and I don't understand people different than me" as a rational political opinion. I don't wish you people banned from the forum, I wish you were in a different country so I wouldn't have to take shit from the ignorant backward fascist Red State "moral majority."

 

As to the completely false accusations made:

Yes. As a statement of fact - SOME Homosexuals are ASKING the rest of society to GIVE them a special right and privilage which (so far) they DO NOT GET.
This is a FACT.
It is NOT the right of every citizen in any country to enjoy the benefits of the STATE'S (as in the peoples) Sanctioned Marriage PRIVILAGE!
Period.

CLEARLY I stated that 'BUTT FUCKING' (Your Words) has NO BEARING ON WHETHER PEOPLE GRANT THEM SPECIAL RIGHTS OF MARRIAGE!

A previous member tried to suggest 'ButtFucking' (as you call it) was NATURAL and this someone made 'Gay Marriage' more acceptable.

I rebutted that particular point.

If anyone is a FASCIST ITS YOU!

Consider what you wish for - removing the majority of people because they dont tow your line!?

That is as ANTI DEMOCRATIC as you can possibly get!

 

You clearly don't know the difference between a FACT and a LIE! Equal protection is a right. Marriage is a protection straight people are allowed that gay people are not!

That's the real reason though isn't it. The idea of people with a different sexuality than you makes you uncomfortable. Sacredness is just a euphamisism for that gut feeling that you get because you people are sexually immature and homophobic.

We have a court system because MOB RULE is generally a bad thing. Think of 3 Wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner or 4 white men and a black man deciding who picks the cotton. Minority Rights in a Republic require protection, if not more protection than the rights of a majority. If something is right, or true, or whatever, it is regardless of whether one person supports it or one million. No one and no group should be allowed to take the life, liberty, and property of another aside from mutual or self defence

 

Lets make that clear difference between facts and lies then?

Fact: 'Straight people' are NO MORE or NO LESS allowed the right to marry ONE person of the OPPOSITE SEX.
Period.

'Gay People' are absolutely, 100% entitled to marry ONE person of the Opposite sex.
Period.
This is a FACT.

'Straight People' are NOT given the right to marry One Person of the same sex.
Period.
Fact.

That IS equal protection.
NO BIAS WHATSOEVER.

You WISH fear of anal sex was the problem.
This would make the whole debate very simple for you as you would not have to explain, think or account for your position.
[which, so far, you can not]

I do not know about 'Sacredness' - perhaps you are refering to a different poster?

Sexual Maturity is pretending that Anal Sex is Healthy for the human body?
Your on your own on that one.

'Homophobia' is not a real psychological condition, however it would indicate a "Fear of Mankind" if it was real.

This is all good and well, however there ARE clearly established guidelines the majority must follow which can not discriminate.
These rules have worked.
ANY Person can marry one person of the opposite sex to receive benefits from the rest of society.

Absolutely NO ONE is left out of that agreement.

 

Fuck it, I'm through with you.

I amazed you're able to post here. I would think after a lifetime of dragging your knuckles on the ground you would have trouble typing.

 

Get over it, brocktoon! The United States IS NOT A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY!
Question, guys...what ever happened to "separation of Church and state"?

 

I think that this whole topic is sad.... Even if you don't like homosexuals that doesn't give the right to make descisions for them. I personaly have nothing against them infact I have met some awesome gay people. I just think it is wrong that two people in love that happen to be the same sex cant get married, just because some asswholes are uncomfortable with it. We should just learn to accept people. Homosexuals didn't chosse chosse to be gay, that is how they were born, and if the fucking government is punishing them for the way they are, then they are, really are ignorant and need to realize they can't controle peoples lifestyle. I see it as it's not hurting anyone so who cares? And fuck that bible crap is it really in the bible anywhere that you cant be gay? It prolly referes to it but does it actually say it? It may lol I wouldn't know I never read the bible really. But I know not everything in the bible was meant to be taken literaly i think it basicaly about lessons and morals, and how you should be but no ones perfect... And if gay people want to get married they should be able to make that descion on their own, not have people tell them what to do. God made everyone different for a reason and I think everyone no matter what race, sexuality, religion, whatever...are unique and special (no matter how corny it sounds lol I mean it)