Gay Marriage

The fact that there is such a high rate of divorce at a time when homosexuality is increasingly tolerated doesn't prove anything in and of itself.

There is such a high rate of divorce at a time when more people use cellular telephones than ever.

There is such a high rate of divorce at a time when more people drive SUVs than ever.

There is such a high rate of divorce when people are more likely to use computers than to read.

If you're going to argue that the acceptance of homosexuality has contributed to a high rate of divorce, the burden of proof is on you to show some direct causal relationship between the two. Look, I flushed the toilet at this morning, and there's a good chance that somewhere in China, somebody died at that very moment. I don't think there's a connection.

 

Its the most meaningful sentence yet.

Who is the Agent for 'Homosexuals'?

I have a next question: How will Homosexuals apply and how will they be accepted?

 

I don't care how you accept them, but they are human beings, and citizens of this country. That is their "agent" (whatever the hell that is) and that is how they apply.

 

Who said they were not humans or citizens?

What does that have to do with the granting of special rights and privilages (Marriage)?

 

Agent? Apply? What the flying fuck are you talking about? Homosexuality isn't some big club or organisation, it's just how some people choose to live their lives.

The right to engage in homosexual sex or marry a member of the same sex wouldn't be granted just to homosexuals, it would be granted to everyone, it's just that only homosexuals would be likely to exercise those rights.

 

Marriage isn't a special right or priveledge. Heterosexuals have the right to marry whomever they wish, why should homosexuals be denied that right?

 

That is innaccurate.

ALL citizens (Adults the min. requ) have the same right to marry one person of the opposite sex.

This right is granted to them by the majority of OTHER citizens.

Homosexuals are NOT denied this right.

 

Where is the clear and rational explanation for ammending the constitution of the United States so that it prohibits same sex marriage?

 

That's right, and that is also the problem. If you haven't gotten wind of it, we are talking about changing the status quo here. It isn't true equality if there is a gender bias.

 

Rights are awarded to individuals but not on an individual basis.

Gays are a social group.

For a social group to be awarded a right, they must have legitimate agency.

Last time I checked, there existed no such thing as true freedom. We don’t have the right to do whatever we choose even if such actions don’t harm anyone. The Second Treatise (John Locke’s masterpiece) guaranteed that. Do you know why? Because what is included (in most cases ‘excluded’) from harm becomes the whim of some abstract group.

Knowledge can not be based on such possible or probably fundamentals.

The societal shifts that would occur (silly to think changing the definition of marriage would have ‘no’ effect) are unknown. Unfortunately, they haven’t even been theorized appropriately. Worse, theories, that allude to some effect contrary to the whim of an abstract group, are not accepted as legitimate basis for certain knowledge.

Far worse, the very notion that models of theoretical outcomes be a legitimate basis for enacting certainly known rights has been defeated by the hyper-accommodating mass.

People of this class don’t need to consider outcomes as there can be no other possible outcome than the one in the mass-mind. They were the driving forces behind the feminist and sexual revolutions and look what has happened.

This should be considered grounds for, at least, delaying constitutional amendments in either favour.

 

I should write speeches for Bush. I’d solve your problem with him.

You are wrong. There is meaning behind that single sentence. Don’t be so quick to judge.

Do not confuse this issue with one of equality. This isn’t an equality issue.

I have offered a response in another discussion we were having ... http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=636970#post636970

 

What the hell is this legitimate agency you keep talking about OSF? Do you mean something like the NAACP or something? Lobbyist organizations are not a requirement for being granted rights, they simply exist to coerce the government to get those rights granted.

Besides, the right to marry a person of the same sex wouldn't be granted just to homosexuals, it would be granted to everyone. A heterosexual could marry a person of the same gender, but I don't see why they would want to do that.

The 13th amendmet, abolishing slavery, does not say that black people cannot be forced into servitude, it says that no person may be forced into servitude. It protects white people from slavery too, even though they didn't need it. Also, there was no "legitimate agency" for the slaves, but they were granted rights anyways.

Please, explain what this mysterious "legitimate agency" you keep talking about is. The closest I can guess is that you mean a special interest group or something is required before rights can be granted, which is either profoundly stupid or tragically ignorant.

 

Page 33, post 328 and onward, of this thread.

 

So, by this logic, since not all hetero couples want to get married, marriage should be banned for all hetero couples. Because some slaves were treated well enough to not neccesarily desire freedom, we should still have slaves. Because not all women wish to vote, women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Because not all americans wish to bear arms, all arms must be outlawed.

Your logic isn't full of holes, it is totally nonexistant. You, sir, are a stupid bigot. You try to rationalize your bigotry, but you are too dumb to realize that you fall on your own face every time.

And look up agency in the dictionary you dumb fuck, it doesn't mean whatever the hell you are trying to say with it.

Reps, cause I'm a vindictive motherfucker with little tolerance for bigots with mouths bigger than their brains.

 

HEY!! That was mean.

Good readers, jesuswasamonkey just gave me a bad reputation point accompanied by the message “It's not the stupidity, it's the bigotry. The stupidity helps though. ~JWAM”.

Jwam, you must have misunderstood my position. It is not of bigotry, as is made evident in post 380 on page 38 of this thread. In that post I said, in response to a post by fulmah:

So you see that I am forced to abide by some rules that I think absurd, and that this argument is only a product from a decent understanding of how things work under the present system of government (read oppression).

Why did you not pick up on that on your first read through? Let me guess. You began reading my posts and, for some reason or another, got tired of reading and you didn’t bother to read any further into my thoughts. Instead you assumed, based on a single or couple of posts, that what was written was nothing more than the nonsensical ravings of a bigot.

That is a heck of a conclusion to jump to. I certainly hope, for your sake, that you leave such rash judgements on the Internet.

I’d be offended if you said such things to me in a face to face conversation. Not to mention, I’d probably knock you the fuck out.

I will, however, give you the benefit of the doubt, as you seem to be a fairly intelligent man. I understand that most of what is seriously written on the hipforums is of an unconscious bigotry and ignorance. I have been known to jump to conclusions myself. I understand. Namaste.

I hope we can continue our debate on the issue. I am desperately awaiting the demise of my argument.

I will do my part.

What reasonable argument is there against marriage as an institution? What reasonable argument is there for slavery? What argument can be made that reasonably suggests that women should not be considered people? Can you really tell me that a rational argument can be made with the conclusion that only the middle finger of ‘the man’ should be armed?

I wish you had read through the rest of the thread before offering this response.

There must be a rational argument contrary to the opinion (of the majority), made by the agent, held by a member of the represented. There are no rational arguments against women being people, for slavery, against the very institution of marriage. And so agency could be given in those instances.

There are, unfortunately, rational arguments against gay marriage that are held by gay people.

Thus, agency can not be granted, and upon that basis, rights should not be extended.

Go to dictionary.com. Type in “agency”. Click on “search”. Scroll down to the second agency (second bolded word in the left column). Read the definition, under this heading, labeled 2. I will quote it here for you.

Don’t be such a dick.

 

Come on guys...which is more meaningful...
a gay marriage lasting for the couple's entire lives, or Britney Spears' 55 hour wedding?

 

what does that matter?

 

Whats more meaningful?... Two Heterosexual people in love and giving the world Ghandi.... or the Gay couple down the street who's relationship ended with one slitting open the others throat?

The point is - you would NEVER use this logic to justify thousands of decisions in your own life.

 

Jesus, sorry for trying to bring a touch of humor to this thread...

 

I have to say that I disapprove of gay marriage, but i realize that it is something that people will continue to fight over. It is a fight that i will stay out of. Maybe a civil union would be fair, but the one problem I have with gay people is when they make it public and I have to know about it. Now not all, but some gay people can't shut up about being gay, and that may be what it is for them attention. So alot of these gay activists these days may just be trying to get a bit of attention. When gays get married i have to see it all the time, when it should be kept at home I truly believe, and im sure that alot of you will criticize me for it, but i truly do believe that people being gay is just someone who got very confused in the fundamental process of being a human. If you think your gay, your problem is probably that you had a strange life leading to it as a child, or your sex crazy, and only another man or woman can fill that for you. The reason men are gay and woman are clearly different. Women hate men, and men want sex im sorry that as advanced of lifeforms as we are that we still allow our senses to be confused to the point that we think we are in love with the same gender. Thats my Thought Like it or hate it thats my thought