A Debate on Homosexuality

Discussion in 'Community' started by themadchemist, Jan 20, 2004.

  1. themadchemist macrumors 68030


    Jan 31, 2003
    Chi Town
    Hi everyone. I was watching the State of the Union and talking to a friend on AIM. It sparked a debate about foreign policy, homosexuality, etc. The foreign policy stuff might too quickly become political, but I thought I'd share the homosexuality side of the debate.

    Me (8:58:33 PM): oh, now, he goes and attacks gay marriage.
    Me (8:58:36 PM): how disgusting.
    Me (8:58:50 PM): on an issue of such great consequence, the voice of hte Bill of Rights must be heard.
    Me (8:58:57 PM): "The arbitrary will" of the constitution
    Me (8:59:13 PM): Our nation must defend the rights of its people, not oppress and persecute them for an inborn trait
    Me (8:59:27 PM): until we can all have democracy at home, let us not march about the world inflicting it upon others.
    Me (8:59:52 PM): We don't define things legally in the United States through the use of God's WIll and God's Eyes.
    Me (9:00:00 PM): THat's not the way the game is played.
    My Conservative Friend (9:00:03 PM): We're allowing gays to marry .... they just have to marry epople of the opposite sex just like us
    Me (9:00:23 PM): no, we're not allowing them to marry the people they love and to whom they are dedicated
    Me (9:00:40 PM): we are oppressing htem by forcing them into a social institution that they are not genetically predisposed to
    My Conservative Friend (9:00:42 PM): marriage is procreative and sacred
    Me (9:00:49 PM): marriage is a tax break
    Me (9:00:53 PM): and a government recognition
    Me (9:01:02 PM): the Church does not have to accept t.
    Me (9:01:05 PM): *it
    My Conservative Friend (9:01:10 PM): they're allowed to have sex and love other men and women
    Me (9:01:12 PM): but the government does.
    Me (9:01:21 PM): because there is nothing that is legislated that is not secular.
    Me (9:01:32 PM): Therefore you cannot look at any piece of legislation in other than a secular light.
    Me (9:01:53 PM): There is no justification for prohibiting homosexual marriage aside from religion. And the eyes of the law are blind to religion.
    Me (9:02:02 PM): They should be allowed to have sex and love other men and women.
    Me (9:02:10 PM): More laws that should never have been instated
    Me (9:02:19 PM): sodomy laws have been found unconstitutional
    My Conservative Friend (9:02:30 PM): Marriage is for raising children, and America was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and traditions.
    Me (9:02:35 PM): Perhaps it is more constitutional to tie homosexuals to the back of trucks and kill them.
    My Conservative Friend (9:02:45 PM): So even if it was a religious argument, I don't think that makes it wrong
    Me (9:02:48 PM): America was not founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and traditions.
    My Conservative Friend (9:02:56 PM): OF COURSE THEY SHOULDN"T BE KILLED
    Me (9:02:59 PM): It was founded on secular principles and universal ethics

    My Conservative Friend (9:03:01 PM): yes, yes, it was
    Me (9:03:19 PM): no, those judeo-christian ethics are shared by other religions far older
    Me (9:03:34 PM): and even if it was, it was also founded on the principles of John Locke and Socrates and Plato
    Me (9:03:45 PM): And there's that little thing called the Establishment Clause
    Me (9:03:51 PM): I don't know if you forgot it
    My Conservative Friend (9:04:00 PM): and public opinion still shows that Americans don't want gay marriage
    Me (9:04:04 PM): It means that religious arguments don't hold water in this country
    Me (9:04:09 PM): it's not about public opinion
    Me (9:04:23 PM): The Bill of Rights is meant to protect the minority from the will of the majority
    Me (9:04:33 PM): In the South, most would agree that my religion is contemptible.
    Me (9:04:40 PM): Perhaps it should be outlawed.
    My Conservative Friend (9:04:50 PM): no, that's ridiculous
    Me (9:04:58 PM): precisely
    My Conservative Friend (9:05:03 PM): it is about public opinion, that's why this is a democracy
    Me (9:05:06 PM): as is the prohibition of homsexual marriage
    Me (9:05:12 PM): no, it is not about public opinion
    My Conservative Friend (9:05:14 PM): and the right to gay marriage is not protected inthe Constiotiuion
    Me (9:05:23 PM): If it were, tehn I would not be allowed to practice my religion
    Me (9:05:48 PM): Equal protection of all citizens is provided by the constitution
    My Conservative Friend (9:05:53 PM): no, religion is protected in the Bill of Rights
  2. themadchemist thread starter macrumors 68030


    Jan 31, 2003
    Chi Town
    My Conservative Friend (9:05:57 PM): the right to marriage is not
    Me (9:06:05 PM): And the Establishement Clause protects this country from the claws of religious arguments
    My Conservative Friend (9:06:06 PM): you could still be Hindu
    Me (9:07:37 PM): How is the prohibition of homosexual marriage constitutional? It, without grounds or concerns for PUBLIC SAFETY, abridges the rights of a minority.
    Me (9:07:51 PM): That is an affront to the spirit of the Constitution of the United States.
    My Conservative Friend (9:08:18 PM): morality
    My Conservative Friend (9:08:24 PM): and it's not PROTECTED
    Me (9:08:32 PM): what does it have to do with morality?
    My Conservative Friend (9:08:37 PM): it's not that anything that is not listed is safe
    Me (9:08:41 PM): That morality can only be justified by religion
    Me (9:08:51 PM): And remember, that's off limits
    My Conservative Friend (9:08:53 PM): it's the things that are protected in writing are allowed
    Me (9:09:08 PM): oh, me wearing two different colored socks is not protected
    Me (9:09:12 PM): I should go to jail.
    Me (9:09:20 PM): No, it's about what the spirit of the constitution is.
    My Conservative Friend (9:09:22 PM): sigh
    My Conservative Friend (9:09:37 PM): and the spirt protected religon, press, speech, assembly, petition
    My Conservative Friend (9:09:43 PM): it did not protect homosexuality
    Me (9:09:53 PM): It also protected the rights of all citizens for equal protection
    Me (9:10:01 PM): Homosexuals are not being protected
    Me (9:11:11 PM): The government is using religion as evidence to defend a law that abridges the rights of homosexuals and reinforces an oppressive societal construct that prevents their liberty and happiness within this country, a liberty and happiness that could be protected without the detriment to any other.
    My Conservative Friend (9:11:39 PM): can't we just agree to disagree? :)
    Me (9:11:45 PM): No.
    Me (9:12:02 PM): Because the stakes of these debates are too high.
    My Conservative Friend (9:13:05 PM): Well, yes, but as I said, the American people do not want gay marriage, the Constitution does not give us a right to gay marriage, so there is no reason we should have it.
    Me (9:13:37 PM): The South didn't want slavery to end and there was nothing in the Constitution prohibiting it.
    Me (9:13:47 PM): I could sure use a black person to clean up my room right about now, couldn't you?
    My Conservative Friend (9:13:54 PM): and then they added something to the Constituion
    My Conservative Friend (9:14:09 PM): besides, its not the South doesn't want gay marriage, it's America doesn't want gay marriage
    Me (9:14:13 PM): well, when a group is being oppressed, maybe it's time to add something to the Constitution.
    Me (9:14:52 PM): but I thought this country was smart enough that we didn't need to fill our constitution with unnecessary specifics to get the point.
    Me (9:15:06 PM): and homosexuality is not a question of morality, it is a question of biology.
    My Conservative Friend (9:15:13 PM): it's the difference between a strict constructionist reading and a looser, more liberal reading
    Me (9:15:25 PM): most credible studies demonstrate sexuality to be a genetic manifestation
    Me (9:15:34 PM): It's the difference between a machine and a human being.
    My Conservative Friend (9:15:41 PM): I agree. I don't think people choose to be gay.
    Me (9:15:45 PM): It is the difference between having been gifted with reason and having not.
    Me (9:15:58 PM): I like to use the reason I was given. Republicans oughta try it. It's fun!
    My Conservative Friend (9:16:08 PM): hahaha
    My Conservative Friend (9:16:10 PM): :)
    Me (9:16:14 PM): If people can't choose to be gay, how can we persecute them for being gay?

    Me (9:16:29 PM): How can we torture them by forcing them to suppress natural biological motivations?
    My Conservative Friend (9:16:31 PM): we'll allow them to be GAY, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to marry
    My Conservative Friend (9:16:36 PM): sodomy is legal
    Me (9:16:44 PM): why shouldn't we allow them to marry?
    Me (9:16:52 PM): is their form of love somehow more gross, somehow less loving?
    Me (9:17:07 PM): and marriage isn't about children, because the married are not forced to have children.
    My Conservative Friend (9:17:09 PM): it does not and cannot create a child
    My Conservative Friend (9:17:13 PM): no, they're not
    Me (9:17:23 PM): so are sterile people not allowed to get married
    My Conservative Friend (9:17:28 PM): but marriage is a sacred institution, the foundation of families
    Me (9:17:32 PM): that can't create a child either
    Me (9:17:39 PM): NOthing is sacred in the United States.
    Me (9:17:45 PM): Not before the government.
    Me (9:17:51 PM): That is how we protect people's rights.
    My Conservative Friend (9:17:53 PM): I'll admit part of it is religious for me.
    My Conservative Friend (9:18:00 PM): I have gay friends.
    Me (9:18:05 PM): By leaving partisan religion out of it.
    My Conservative Friend (9:18:16 PM): But I don't think that it is good for the American society by allowing gay marriage.
    Me (9:18:23 PM): You don't have to ascribe to religion in this country. let's protect the rights of atheists by not bringing religion into the discussion.
    My Conservative Friend (9:18:25 PM): I think it devalues the instituion.
    My Conservative Friend (9:18:30 PM): fine, fair enough
    Me (9:18:33 PM): what's so bad about it?
    Me (9:18:39 PM): how does it devalue them?
    My Conservative Friend (9:18:41 PM): gay people tend to have more partners
    My Conservative Friend (9:18:43 PM): be less stable
    Me (9:18:46 PM): Your friends.
    My Conservative Friend (9:18:52 PM): no statistically
    Me (9:18:55 PM): No, they dont
    My Conservative Friend (9:18:57 PM): yes, they do
    Me (9:19:02 PM): what the hell are yo utalking about?
    Me (9:19:13 PM): you are speaking based on stereotypes
    My Conservative Friend (9:19:17 PM): statistics show that gay men on average have many more sexual partners than straight men.
    Me (9:19:32 PM): Whose statistics?
    Me (9:19:37 PM): Who funded the study?
    Me (9:19:43 PM): A conservative think-tank, no doubt.
    Me (9:19:51 PM): It doesn't even matter, anyway.
    Me (9:20:11 PM): If there is one loving, monogamous homosexual partnership, then that is enough to allow homosexual marriage.
    My Conservative Friend (9:21:00 PM): see, that's where we disagree
    My Conservative Friend (9:21:18 PM): I think the stability and morality of the American public and society is more important than one loving couple.
    Me (9:21:26 PM): my point is, though, that your stat is wrong, anyway
    Me (9:21:43 PM): And how does an unstable marriage destabilize other people's marriages?
    Me (9:21:51 PM): We better stop letting people divorce.
    My Conservative Friend (9:21:54 PM): marriage would no longer signigy anything
    My Conservative Friend (9:22:01 PM): it should be harder to get divorced, yes
    Me (9:22:12 PM): I think protecting battered wives is less important than protecting the stability of the institution of marriage.
    Me (9:22:38 PM): And you know what, it is destabilizing marriage by allowing those damn races to mix.
    My Conservative Friend (9:23:18 PM): Very funny. I get your point.
    My Conservative Friend (9:23:37 PM): could we stop arguing? I doubt you will convince me or me you.
    Me (9:23:40 PM): no really, what IS the price we pay for stability?
    My Conservative Friend (9:24:08 PM): I want marriage to mean something. That's all.
    Me (9:24:18 PM): And so do homosexuals.
    My Conservative Friend (9:24:28 PM): fine, fair enough
  3. bannedagain macrumors member

    Jan 20, 2004
    Adelaide, South Australia
    I wouldn't go as far as saying that the US proctects Human Rights.
  4. themadchemist thread starter macrumors 68030


    Jan 31, 2003
    Chi Town
    fair enough, but it ought to.
  5. Abstract macrumors Penryn


    Dec 27, 2002
    Location Location Location
    This debate is soooooo gay.

    Most of the people I talk to are for gay marriages, not against them, and yet more than half the population doesn't like it. What gives?

    Its like Britney Spears fans.......I don't know of any, and never have. Not even one single fan. Yet she has millions of fans. Strange. :confused:
  6. Independence macrumors regular

    Jan 14, 2003
    United States
    Concerning religion, this is what I posted in another forum:

    When I said "just skim-read the article," someone had posted the entire State of the Union. And even if you don't entirely agree with my post, you at least have to believe that there's some logic in what I said.
  7. scem0 macrumors 604


    Jul 16, 2002
    back in NYC!
    Bah, how will homosexual marriage detract from the stability of the US?

    That is a load of bull.

    If two people love each other, they should be together. Marriage is nothing but words, flowers, and cake. Yes, it is a glorious, grand thing, but a couple that doesn't love each other will not make it whether or not they have a wedding.

    It is what is in the heart that counts. Even though homosexuals SHOULD be able to marry, that is less important then people accepting their communion.

    I think marriage is a wonderful thing; I hope to get married some day. But I'd much rather be accepted by my family, my friends, and the population then have a wedding.

    If your gay and want to have a wedding. Then by all means, have a wedding. Who the **** cares if the government doesn't recognize it.

    My family owns a mansion in Austin where people get married every weekend. There have been homosexual marriages at the mansion, and trust me, I have more hope for the gay marriages than the straight marriages, because to gay people marriage has nothing to do with the government. I'm not saying all staight people don't love each other and just get married because the government allows it. I'm saying that marriage should be about love, and not about laws.


    edit -

    And I think all the anti-homosexual marriage arguments are purely religious and personal. Seperation of church and state is something that makes the US as strong as it is. So, if anything makes the US weaker, it is not allowing gay marriage. It promotes christian ethics as part of our government, and christian ethics don't belong in the government.

  8. denjeff macrumors member

    Jan 14, 2004
    a pen :)
    I think i you let Bush do, there will be no separation of church and state... Before every meeting he attends to, all people must say the prayers with him.

    I am pro gay marriage, I live in a country that allows it :) (guess waht country I live in :D ) If two people love eachother and they want to grow old with eachother, then what s the difference between being straight or gay?!?
  9. krimson macrumors 65816


    Oct 29, 2003
    Democratic People's Republic of Kalifornia
    I suppose Bushie will try to admend the constitution :p

    ...all people are created equal, unless you're gay...

    edit: Oh, let the gay couples get married, seriously, this isn't the 1800's anymore, and the seperation between church and state seems to be narrowing more and more.
  10. vniow macrumors G4

    Jul 18, 2002
    I accidentally my whole location.
    I'll keep it simple...

    If my marriage to another woman somehow affects yours (yours meaning hetero marriages) in any way, then the foundation in which they were built upon must not have been very strong to begin with.
  11. rueyeet macrumors 65816


    Jun 10, 2003
    The hospital, if you're denied the right to sign permissions for vital medical treatments for a lifelong partner. The insurance companies, if they don't allow "domestic partner" coverage. The IRS. A mortgage company, if you can't buy the house you want because you and your partner can't get the same rate as a married couple. Etc.

    Marriage is the legal recognition of the loving arrangement between committed partners, and as such, carries additional legal rights and responsibilities over and above what's given to "domestic partners" or co-habiting adults or anything else. And that is precisely what gay partners are being denied.

    I'm glad you're all for gay marriage, scem0....just don't lose the whole picture. :)

    /soapbox, before I get into the whole "marriage is for procreation" hogwash.
  12. Counterfit macrumors G3


    Aug 20, 2003
    sitting on your shoulder
    hehe, too bad your forgot the []'s :D
  13. bryanc macrumors 6502

    Feb 12, 2003
    Fredericton, NB Canada
    I continue to be "shocked and awed" at the bigotry, close-mindedness, xenophobia, hypocrisy and self-serving dishonesty exhibited by the president of the united states.

    Certainly makes me glad I was able to get out of the US before my beliefs brought me to the attention of the thought police.

    Bush seems to believe his actions are making the world a "better place," and it certainly is becoming a better place for American Corporations and the wealthiest 5% of American citizens, but if you're not one of that select few, the New World Order is looking like pretty bad news.

    I can only hope that the American Citizens of the United States get a clue and vote the bugger out!
  14. martin macrumors member

    Jul 24, 2002
    Gay couples could possibly use "Power Of Attorney" laws to legaly assign rights to each other.

    Now IANAL (hehehe he said "anal") but isn't it discriminatory to offer something to a married couple (like cheaper rates) that others can't get. Discrimination on the basis of marital status. Aren't there laws against that? There are here.
  15. Fukui macrumors 68000


    Jul 19, 2002
    Wow, I tried to stay away from these types of discussions..but heres my opinion.

    Why does the government even mandate what a "marriage" is...in other words, why are two people (to say nothing about gay) forced to follow what the government says is how they should be wed...I don't understand it.

    If two people live together and have children and stay together for thier whole life...what is the difference? Nothing except a piece of paper and different taxes. I don't want the gov. defining what love is, isn't that what people are for?
  16. evolu macrumors regular

    Dec 10, 2002
    LA la land...
    Bravo madchemist for a fun debate. Conservatives are so rediculous.

    There should be a progressive handbook:

    a conservative says marriage is an instution for procreation,

    ask if infirtle people should be denied the right to marry.


    But, GW keeps the USA #1, right?

    He's made us the FIRST country to every pull out of a treaty - Anti Ballistic Missle Treaty (Aug 24 2001 (before sept 11)).

    FIRST pre-emptive strike on a soverign country.

    And this could be the FIRST Constitutional Amendment to actually take away the rights of US citizens!

    We gotta get him out!
  17. martin macrumors member

    Jul 24, 2002
    I think that's what the problem is: governmental intervention. It's only recently here that de-facto marriages were recognised legally, for the purposes of superannuation and other benefits. Before that, it didn't matter if you'd lived together for 20 years and had a dozen kids - you got nothing and had no say.
  18. revenuee macrumors 68020


    Sep 13, 2003
    A place where i am supreme emporer
    Not one? .... Every other girls from 1st to 4th year like britney's "music"

    anyhow ... i have yet to here a real argument for why homosexuals should not be aloud to get married... not one ever
  19. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Dec 21, 2002
    Yahooville S.C.
    marriage has been for two thousand years between man and a woman, now you want to change the definition to suite some new age movement? wouldnt it just be easier to come up with a new civil union law then trying to rewrite and change the definition of marriage and then ramming it down the throats of 95% of the population that arent gay? marriage has never ment same sex unions but through history marriage has ment opposite sex unions so accept it.
  20. jayscheuerle macrumors 68020


    This is easy.

    If marriage is a religious institution, remove all bureaucratic benefits of marriage from it and let each religion decide whom they'd like to include into their little clubs.

    Offer the bureaucratic benefits of marriage to every couple in terms of a civil union.

    A heterosexual couple getting married in a Catholic church would receive no recognition from the state until they completed their civil union forms.

    A homosexual couple getting married in a Unitarian church would receive recognition from the state once they completed their civil union forms.

    This is basic separation of church and state and the conservatives would get their homophobic churches to refrain from blessing gay marriages if they wanted, but it wouldn't effect whether or not benefits were granted.

    Why is this so hard?
  21. vniow macrumors G4

    Jul 18, 2002
    I accidentally my whole location.
    Over my dead dyke body.
  22. Counterfit macrumors G3


    Aug 20, 2003
    sitting on your shoulder
    ROFL! well said! :D

    The movement for marriage may be somewhat new, but homosexuality is far from it. It was considered normal for a teenage boy in ancient Greece to experiment with it.
  23. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Dec 21, 2002
    Yahooville S.C.
    LoL, look i wasnt brought up in Kalifornia so a lot of these new and strange ideas arent public knowledge in the other 49 states. why is it so important for gays to have this married thing? its a pain in the neck if you ever divorce. a civil union seems easier to make and break.:cool:
  24. revenuee macrumors 68020


    Sep 13, 2003
    A place where i am supreme emporer
    Thats not an argument ... thats a faux history lesson.

    not to mention that 2000 years is a bit on the short side :rolleyes:

    Accept it? some new age movement?

    Gays have been around thousands of years, so it's not that new age.

    Definitions are changed all the time ... The Romans had their gods ... and out of know where Constantine converts to christianity after over 300 years of tradition. ... New age .. yet everyone changed

    Marriage was the union of man and women ... to express love and to procreate and continue a lineage ... a family

    Now ... more and more heterosexual couples are choosing not to procreate. This summer i read an article about this actually being a problem in France, apparently the population is declining.

    So then the marriage is solely based on the expression of love an the want for companionship ...

    how does this arrangement differ from a gay couple?

    the only difference is that the heterosexual marriage leaves for tax breaks ... and the homosexual one doesn't
  25. vniow macrumors G4

    Jul 18, 2002
    I accidentally my whole location.
    Its a pretty simple concept, having to do with civil rights and being treated as equals...

    Nah, that's too much to ask.

Share This Page