Marriage as a fundamental right.

[Gregory Matthews]

Originally Posted By: Shane

I believe that is prison population. 10% of prisoners are estimated to be homosexual.

I believe the 10% figure popularly quoted by many supporters is a high end reference to those that are estimated to have engaged in homosexual acts.This experimentation(more prevelent in prison)does not reflect that all who engage are "gay",otherwise it could be argued that 10% of all criminals were homosexual.I don't think anyone has gone there yet.

Correct.

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane said:

Quote:

So if today we change the definition of marriage to include homosexuality, why can't we change it again tomorrow to include bestiality? Do not those that are sexually attracted to animals deserve equal treatment under the law?

Marriage laws in the U.S. of A. relate to "persons." The word "persons" is a legal term that has been defined by Statute. No marriage law in any place in the United State defines "persons" in any manner other than to humans--not animals.

[SivartM]

Obviously a lot of these people are choosing to be gay.

The population of the world is increasing. Obviously a lot of these people are choosing to be born.

[Gerr]

Gay marriages are quite obviously much closer to normal marriages than polygamy and cross-species marriages are. We are talking here about two adult human beings getting married.

Quite obviously? By what/whose reckoning? Polygamy was practised long before same sex sex was done.

Quote:

Nobody is going to legalize marrying babies or animals or appliances or more than one person just because gay marriage is legal.

And why should homosexuals get preferential treatment? If it is discriminatory to deprive homosexuals the right to marry, then it is discriminatory to deprive polygamists, bestialists (if there's such a word) and those who believe in incestuous relationships the same right.

[Dr. Shane]

Marriage laws in the U.S. of A. relate to "persons."

Laws change. Obviously. Today gays. Tomorrow... who knows what is next?

[Dr. Shane]

The population of the world is increasing. Obviously a lot of these people are choosing to be born.

We are talking about percentages. Of course as a population increase we are going to have more of every kind of behavior. The question is why a given percentage is increasing for a specific type of behavior.

[Dr. Shane]

If it is discriminatory to deprive homosexuals the right to marry, then it is discriminatory to deprive polygamists, bestialists (if there's such a word) and those who believe in incestuous relationships the same right.

More common sense. Regardless what elitist men in black robes may think, this is the kind of logic the voters can follow.

[SivartM]

We are talking about percentages. Of course as a population increase we are going to have more of every kind of behavior. The question is why a given percentage is increasing for a specific type of behavior.

I have a feeling that the actual percentages have been pretty much the same, but only now are people starting to... well... not shun/kill/condemn people who are "different".

[Bravus]

Are you guys really that unable to make simple, common-sense distinctions?

Polygamy - yep, no harm, as long as it's always between consenting adults (with the Mormons it wasn't) - so it's a parallel case.

Bestiality - animals cannot give informed consent, so it's not a parallel case.

Pedophilia - ditto for children - not a parallel case.

Incest - serious risk of reproductive harm, arguable risk of psychological harm, deep concerns about informed consent due to prior relationship - not a parallel case.

Arguing against something on the basis of false comparisons is just poor logic and poor argument.

[Bravus]

And, incidentally, God is cool with polygamy.

[Bravus]

Here are some stats for the UK. How many gay people are there in Britain? One can easily see how society's attitude impacts the behavior. Men in the lifestyle increased nearly 1% over the 90s. Women in the lifestyle increased 2%, which is more than four times what it was. Obviously a lot of these people are choosing to be gay.

Or perhaps, they were gay all along, but as the severe oppression is lifted they are able to come out?

If only 2% of the population is gay, then many of the harms, such as non-breeding, that are ascribed to gay marriage are moot: the other 98% will get on with the task of producing the next generation.

A whole lot of poor logic going on around here.

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane said:

Quote:

Obviously a lot of these people are choosing to be gay.

One is homosexual/heterosexual based upon gender preference. No one choses their gender preference. I did not chose mine. Shane did not chose his.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

And, incidentally, God is cool with polygamy.

-deleted-

[phkrause]

And, incidentally, God is cool with polygamy.

I'm not sure I agree or believe that Bravus.

[Bravus]

What saith the Scriptures?

[phkrause]

What saith the Scriptures?

I'll have to research it a little, but maybe there is someone that will be able to answer that question better than I, in the meantime let me say that he might of winked at this but he didn't say he approved either. Do you actually think that God is alright with this?

[SivartM]

Well, practically every man in the old testament had multiple wives... and nowhere does the Bible condemn it. At least that I'm aware of.

[Bravus]

I think it's not His ideal: I would always agree that that is one man and one woman. But it is never explicitly condemned. About the only thing indicating even that it's not ideal is the requirement for a deacon to be 'the husband of one wife'.

When I said 'cool with', I didn't mean 'an active advocate of'. I meant 'not strongly opposed to'. And I reckon that's pretty Biblical, but am willing to be shown otherwise.

Anyway, my overall point was that 'if we allow gay marriages we'll have to allow polygamous marriages' is not a logically strong point in opposing gay marriages.

[phkrause]

I think it's not His ideal: I would always agree that that is one man and one woman. But it is never explicitly condemned. About the only thing indicating even that it's not ideal is the requirement for a deacon to be 'the husband of one wife'.

When I said 'cool with', I didn't mean 'an active advocate of'. I meant 'not strongly opposed to'. And I reckon that's pretty Biblical, but am willing to be shown otherwise.

Anyway, my overall point was that 'if we allow gay marriages we'll have to allow polygamous marriages' is not a logically strong point in opposing gay marriages.

And I do agree, but just also thinking that could not have been what he intended.

[Bravus]

In a land with (a) pretty frequent brutal battles and ( no welfare/social safety net, polygamy was better than the alternatives: the widows of soldiers going into starvation or prostitution. Not ideal, but we still don't live in an ideal world...

[Gregory Matthews]

In a land with (a) pretty frequent brutal battles and ( no welfare/social safety net, polygamy was better than the alternatives: the widows of soldiers going into starvation or prostitution. Not ideal, but we still don't live in an ideal world...

IF you know your history, that is the reason multiple wies came into Islam.

[Gerr]

Are you guys really that unable to make simple, common-sense distinctions?

Polygamy - yep, no harm, as long as it's always between consenting adults (with the Mormons it wasn't) - so it's a parallel case.

I'm glad you agree.

Quote:

Bestiality - animals cannot give informed consent, so it's not a parallel case.

Property (slaves) are not afforded the right of consent. The master in ancient times could marry his slave with or without her consent. Pets are property without the right of consent.

Quote:

Pedophilia - ditto for children - not a parallel case.

You won't find pedophilia in my list due to the issue of consent, unless the child belongs to someone as a slave.

Quote:

Incest - serious risk of reproductive harm, arguable risk of psychological harm, deep concerns about informed consent due to prior relationship - not a parallel case.

Why should not this a parallel case since both would/could give sonsent? If your argument against incest is from reproductive and psychological harm, the same arguments could be used against same sex marriages!

[Bravus]

Since one of your arguments relies on slavery - which no longer exists, and I would certainly argue that marriage between master and slave is wrong precisely because of the issue of consent - we can put that one on the side of our plate.

The reproductive harm of a living child with severe congenital abnormalities is a completely different issue from the simple absence of a child. Many heterosexual couples cannot or choose not to have children.

And the evidence seems to show that the only psychological harm from homosexual relationships is that caused by the prejudices of others: in a free society where people were able to love whom they would without constraint, the argument from psychological harm is essentially non-existent in the case of consensual adult homosexual relationships.

My glasses seem to be working fine...

[Gordon1]

Bravus,

Modern slavery most certainly exists. An enormous global trade with more slaves at lower cost than in centuries. Disposable people.

"The merchandise of...slaves, and souls of men." Revelation 18:12,13.

http://www.disposablepeople.org/

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

Obviously a lot of these people are choosing to be gay.

Or perhaps, they were gay all along...

Not if the organizations doing the previous studies were following good methodology. These studies are not identifying only gays that are out-of-the-closet. We have to assume the methodology being used in the past was good or else those studies were never useful to begin with.