The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[FoolKiller]

Noted, but I'm still interested in the who is to define marriage, that inevitably leads to the what. @Joey D thinks it shouldn't be legal to marry a tree, for example, that means that no CEOs are going to marry one so it can have a vote on their board (the Caligula precedent I guess ). My point is that if people are each allowed to define marriage and we each have to expect that then pretty much anything will go.

Marriage as a contract must involve two consenting entities.

Marriage as a concept can involve whatever you want.

 

[A2K78]

but I'm still interested in the who is to define marriage

Again, anybody but the government. The very fact that you believe that the state should have a hand in marriage pretty much say you see the state as a moral entity when in reality its not...overall this why both sides of the argument is wrong.

 

[Daniel]

Again, anybody but the government. The very fact that you believe that the state should have a hand in marriage pretty much say you see the state as a moral entity when in reality its not...overall this why both sides of the argument is wrong.

It kinda has to be, especially in this day and age where you get a lot of legal and governmental benefits from marriage (tax, social security, insurance etc).

@FoolKiller's post simplifies this: Marriage as a concept has no definition, which is why you have some cultures having their own definitions of marriages - same sex, polyandrous, posthumous (yes, that is a thing), arranged marriage etc.

Civil marriage (i.e. the type that Kim Davis is denying to people) has to be defined by the government because it's enacted by the government.

 

[FoolKiller]

Civil marriage (i.e. the type that Kim Davis is denying to people) has to be defined by the government because it's enacted by the government.

And that goes back to his point about made up rights. Legal marriage rights don't exist in their current form without government getting to approve of marriages before they occur.

Add in taxes and other benefits granted purely for being married and not only are they creating rights, but being discriminatory in saying who can get them.

 

[GTsail]

Marriage as a contract must involve two consenting entities.

^^^^^Who says this?

Could a marriage have four consenting entities? What about ten?

A Corporation is a separate legal entity. An officer of the Corporation could give consent to a marriage contract, so can someone marry a Corporation?

Again, anybody but the government. The very fact that you believe that the state should have a hand in marriage pretty much say you see the state as a moral entity when in reality its not...overall this why both sides of the argument is wrong.

Why do you consider "anybody" a moral entity?

Can @TenEightyOne be this "anybody"?

His definition of marriage might require that a marriage contain four consenting adults (while I like to limit myself to threesomes)

I'm just repeating @TenEightyOne 's question, but in your view, who gets to define what is considered to be a "marriage"?

 

[Pupik]

Again, anybody but the government. The very fact that you believe that the state should have a hand in marriage pretty much say you see the state as a moral entity when in reality its not...overall this why both sides of the argument is wrong.

I'd expect that "The Government" would respect a homosexual marriage contract in the same manner as any other no matter who or what entity approves it in the first place. I think it's fair to say if no other local entity is going to approve it, and it's allowed by law, then why shouldn't they at this point? That's all I'd ask of it.

Otherwise the "Government Should Stay Out of Marriage" argument kind of sounds like a backpedaling cop-out: kind of like choosing between GT or Forza and saying...cantaloupe.

 

[Carlos]

Noted, but I'm still interested in the who is to define marriage, that inevitably leads to the what. @Joey D thinks it shouldn't be legal to marry a tree, for example, that means that no CEOs are going to marry one so it can have a vote on their board (the Caligula precedent I guess ). My point is that if people are each allowed to define marriage and we each have to expect that then pretty much anything will go.

You should be allowed to marry a tree, but you can't because it can't agree or disagree, since it's unable to talk.. So if two people agree to marry each other, it shouldn't be a problem. Things our gov should worry about is to make sure that person is not being forced to marry, like arranged ones we know from the east. Underage marriage too, probably more I can't think of now, but surely not worry about being gay or not.

 

[FoolKiller]

^^^^^Who says this?

You cannot, by definition, marry something by itself. And I am referring to the general definition of marry, not the relationship bonding.

Could a marriage have four consenting entities? What about ten?

Absolutely. They're called polygamists and we shouldn't discriminate against them.

A Corporation is a separate legal entity. An officer of the Corporation could give consent to a marriage contract, so can someone marry a Corporation?

To begin, it should be noted that I used the term "entity" because @TenEightyOne was introducing the ridiculous notion of things like trees. A consenting entity would need to be sentient and capable of making these kinds of decisions. And yes, I would allow for sentient trees, such as an Ent, to marry a human, as well as any kind of sentient being.

A corporation is not a single entity but a collective. You could marry into it as you would a polygamist marriage, but you are not married to one thing. You are a part of a collective. That isn't to say that you can't own more than half of the collective, but if a corporation is setup so that a single officer can consent to a legal binding that requires half the wealth to be shared then the corporation is doomed.

His definition of marriage might require that a marriage contain four consenting adults (while I like to limit myself to threesomes)

Why do you act like this should be a stumbling point? Do you have an issue with polygamy?

 

[Dennisch]

Do you have an issue with polygamy?

How can one have an issue with having different titties every day of the week!

 

[FoolKiller]

How can one have an issue with having different titties every day of the week!

 

[GTsail]

****
Absolutely. They're called polygamists and we shouldn't discriminate against them.

Why do you act like this should be a stumbling point? Do you have an issue with polygamy?

Yes, I have an issue with polygamy. In historical practice polygamy has generally resulted in a marriage of un-equals, where one partner's status/position/power/gender controls the other members of the partnership. I consider this relationship to be un-welcome and does not lead to a prosperous society, nor does it treat each member of the "marriage" in an equal fashion. I consider "marriage" to be a social construct and as such wish that its practice would enhance/advance a society and its citizens. I could be wrong but I don't consider polygamy to be a path to a better society.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Exorcet]

Yes, I have an issue with polygamy. In historical practice polygamy has generally resulted in a marriage of un-equals, where one partner's status/position/power/gender controls the other members of the partnership.

If someone wants to enter that kind of relationship, why stop them? Allowing polygamy doesn't mean that all marriages will become polygamous. There is also no guarantee that polygamous marriages will be "unfair".

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yes, I have an issue with polygamy. In historical practice polygamy has generally resulted in a marriage of un-equals, where one partner's status/position/power/gender controls the other members of the partnership. I consider this relationship to be un-welcome and does not lead to a prosperous society, nor does it treat each member of the "marriage" in an equal fashion. I consider "marriage" to be a social construct and as such wish that its practice would enhance/advance a society and its citizens. I could be wrong but I don't consider polygamy to be a path to a better society.

Respectfully,
GTsail

It depends, some matriarchal societies practice polygamy with multiple (inferior) husbands. Do you think monogamous marriages are all equal?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yes, I have an issue with polygamy. In historical practice polygamy has generally resulted in a marriage of un-equals, where one partner's status/position/power/gender controls the other members of the partnership. I consider this relationship to be un-welcome and does not lead to a prosperous society, nor does it treat each member of the "marriage" in an equal fashion. I consider "marriage" to be a social construct and as such wish that its practice would enhance/advance a society and its citizens. I could be wrong but I don't consider polygamy to be a path to a better society.

Respectfully,
GTsail

Perhaps you'd be happy then with legislation that allows any form of marriage, but in which the participants have to prove they are "equals", however that is measured. I suspect the number of legal marriages of all kinds would go down significantly after that.

 

[Dan]

Skip to about six minutes in for some Trevor Philips-level of insanity:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...tor-event-hosts-3-gop-candidates-563178051820

 

[N0t_L3fty]

As long as the same sex couples don't receive any extra benefits, as an old fart I don't care. They aren't hurting me, & therefore this issue is garbage brought forth to cause more division. Don't think homosexual is a learned behaviour, you either are or you are not. Sorry as I said I'm old, don't have time to bother with 263 pages of blather. Just my 2 cents, for what it's worth...

 

[Denur]

Skip to about six minutes in for some Trevor Philips-level of insanity:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...tor-event-hosts-3-gop-candidates-563178051820

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The spectre of the homosexual agenda has been raised again:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-...tion-into-safe-schools-program/71923747192374

The mouthpiece of the hard right is frothing loke a rabid dog.

 

[Liquid]

@prisonermonkeys Page not found.

What's the scoop?

 

[Com Fox]

@prisonermonkeys Page not found.

What's the scoop?

Guess it got deleted.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

@prisonermonkeys Page not found.

What's the scoop?

An ultra-conservative senator is calling for a review into a taxpayer-funded program that provides support to high school students with diverse sexualities, arguing that it indoctrinates them to accept diverse sexualities as being normal. It's the same sort of rhetoric that was used in California in the 1960s and 1970s.

 

[Daniel]

I don't get why people think we're trying to push our agenda. We're not trying.

We're suceeding, of course.

 

[Liquid]

I don't get why people think we're trying to push our agenda. We're not trying.

Maybe it's the word agenda they don't like. It sounds like agender, i.e. without gender, and that's really scary.

 

[squadops]

What does supporting high school students sexuality have to do with education in the first place?

 

[Liquid]

What does supporting high school students sexuality have to do with education in the first place?

Educating children that it's fine to be homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, asexual or whichever. And supporting them when other students bully them for their sexuality, perhaps.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I don't get why people think we're trying to push our agenda.

Because people like Corey Bernardi - the aforementioned rabid mouthpiece - are terrified of you.

What does supporting high school students sexuality have to do with education in the first place?

Children go to school between the hours of 9:00am and 3:30pm for five days a week. Most of their major social interaction with people their own age happens at school. This is instrumental in forming their identity; therefore, supporting students with diverse sexualities is important because gender and sexuality are key components of identity.

 

[Daniel]

What does supporting high school students sexuality have to do with education in the first place?

Not much. But high school isn't just about education. Having something like supporting various sexualities can increase their self-esteem and self-confidence which may help them succeed later in life.

 

[squadops]

What ever happened to parents and family? Besides, kids shouldn't be having sex anyway

If we need a social program to help with these type of issues I'd suggest to separate it from the school system, and use funding not from that system.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If we need a social program to help with these type of issues I'd suggest to separate it from the school system, and use funding not from that system.

Where and when would it be run? How would it be funded? And how would it address the entire cohort, given that these programmes are designed to support both students with diverse sexualities and their peers.

 

[Com Fox]

What ever happened to parents and family? Besides, kids shouldn't be having sex anyway

If we need a social program to help with these type of issues I'd suggest to separate it from the school system, and use funding not from that system.

Abusive and Over-Protective Parents and Families happened.

I think School is a pretty decent system for social activity. I wouldn't have thought about Asexuality if it wasn't for my friends I met at School.