Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Best argument against gay marriage I've seen yet.

LGBT Same sex Marriage

  • Please log in to reply
144 replies to this topic

#1 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 04:09 PM

http://www.ornery.or...04-02-15-1.html


The only part I disagreed with was that marriage is designed to withhold us from our "primal" instincts (i.e. Men would go around plugging at every hole they could find). Other than that, I think this is a good arguement.




What do you think?

#2 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 04:19 PM

Quote

In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man.

I've already stated my opinion of how disengenuous and absurd I find this argument to be.

I've always admired Orson Scott Card.  It's very disappointing to see him advancing such an intellectually dishonest argument as a smoke screen for supporting bigotry.
Posted Image

#3 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 04:20 PM

He's oversimplifying, generalizing, and basically making a rhetorical attempt at "fact" telling that sounds like a vain attempt to reinforce "social order".

I'm not saying that the point he's making is silly-- there are parts that are quite well-argued, to be sure. But the way he's making his argument really puts me off. Maybe it's because I don't agree.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#4 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 04:30 PM

^  Yeah it's one thing to argue that the courts should not be making these decisions (hell the tug of war on that score has been going on since Marbury v. Madison), but it is an entirely different thing to say that gays are not being discriminated against on the issue of marriage because they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex.  That kind of nonsense pretty much undermines any other legitimate point he may have had because it's flat out (and deliberately so imo because it's so transparant) false.
Posted Image

#5 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 04:45 PM

The best argument I've heard against gay marriages came from a friend of mine, who is very religious. She pointed out that in the Bible GOD says that "Man shall not lie with Man like he does with woman", or words to that effect.

So, if GOD doesn't permit homosexuality...then how can a gay couple marry in the eyes of GOD?

But, that's her opinion. Me, it's not something I would do. In fact, I find the very notion disgusting...But, just because I don't agree with it doesn't give me the right to tell others what they can and can't do.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#6 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 05:02 PM

The argument that marriage between a man and a woman are fundamentally a part of the building blocks of society, and that anyone who wishes to engage in that act is free to is a valid one.  The sociological argument starts from that point - NOT from the point that people are free to marry heterosexually even though they are homosexual - the argument is about the function of marriage in the larger society - as opposed to its "feel good" aspects to the two people involved.  I find it a very compelling argument.

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#7 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 05:03 PM

First of all Lil and Hawk, I agree, especially about the nonsense "homosexuals can marry as long as it is to the opposite sex"

LotS, that Bible quote talks about 'laying" not about marriage, unless one stretches that to mean marriage.  Problem with the Bible is that a lot of things get twisted in translation.  Like the work "virgin" doesn't mean a woman who hasn't had sex, it means a woman that doesn't need a man to survive and this referred to women who had children also.  So who knows how that quote was said originally and how it got interpreted.  

Another thing, the marriages taking place at City Hall are probably civil ceremonies, I don't think they include blessings from any divine being as the people performing them (like the Mayor) are not ordained to do so.  So that these folks are marrying under the eyes of a forbidding God may be a false assumption.

What about athiests, they marry without divine blessing too.
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#8 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 05:32 PM

^ And, as has been discussed to death, we aren't talking about "in the eyes of God", but in the eyes of the law.

As for the article, it's an interesting read but I've gotta join the bandwagon and express my disagreement and distaste for his views.  Especially the "gays can still marry people of the opposite sex!" B.S.  The bit about divorce and gender roles was also pretty out there.

Although, I understand his outrage that this is being decided by the courts and not the democratic process . . . but I personally feel the system was meant to work the way it is in cases like this--keeping a tyranny of the majority in check.

-Nick

#9 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 05:35 PM

'Hawk, Lil, GiGi, Nick - AGREED!!!!
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#10 ArmourMe

ArmourMe
  • Islander
  • 500 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 05:54 PM

Nick, on Feb 29 2004, 10:30 PM, said:

Although, I understand his outrage that this is being decided by the courts and not the democratic process . . . but I personally feel the system was meant to work the way it is in cases like this--keeping a tyranny of the majority in check.

-Nick
Thanks for saying that so well, Nick :)  Most minorities trying to get equal rights would still be waiting if popular vote were the only way to get those rights.

#11 imzzadi

imzzadi

    Algimsgwet aq ala'toq mesgi'g gmu'j

  • Islander
  • 293 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 06:10 PM

Handmaiden07, on Feb 29 2004, 07:00 PM, said:

The argument that marriage between a man and a woman are fundamentally a part of the building blocks of society, and that anyone who wishes to engage in that act is free to is a valid one.  The sociological argument starts from that point - NOT from the point that people are free to marry heterosexually even though they are homosexual - the argument is about the function of marriage in the larger society - as opposed to its "feel good" aspects to the two people involved.  I find it a very compelling argument.

HM07
It's nice to know that as a single woman who plans to stay that way I'm not functioning effectively in the society.  Great to know that K and R, who are active in local education campaigns, charities and are foster parents, are undermining the building blocks of society.  Oh wait, that must just be American society.  My province has made gay marriage legal.  Colour me proud to be Canadian.

On the, as Lil said, "gays are not being discriminated against on the issue of marriage because they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex" point, it's ridiculous.  It's like saying that you can be equal but only if you're willing to do something that you find physically and morally repulsive first.  And forcing yourself or being forced to go against your own nature is, IMNSHO, morally repulsive.  I wouldn't be willing to emotionally torture, deceive and hurt anyone, something I find physically and morally repulsive, in order to have the right to marry, vote, get an education etc etc.  No one should ever be asked to do so.

As to the sanctity of marriage, which hasn't been mentioned in this thread per se, I see no reason why a same sex marriage would lessen the meaning of a hetero union.  It shows me, on the other hand, that those (no one here specifically, just a rash generalization  :rolleyes: ) who complain are insecure in their own unions.  If one honestly believes that someone else's "I do"s will topple theirs then I suggest that they stop at marriage counselling on the way to the protest.

Just my two cents worth.
"Smooth tape is the sign of a fine craftsman ." - Red Green

"Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together...." - Carl Zwanzig

#12 EvilTree

EvilTree

    my silence is my pervading call

  • Islander
  • 623 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 06:58 PM

Heh. Orson Scott Card is a mormon missionary. So kinda obviously where he'd be coming from.
Loyalty, Vigilance, Excellence
-Motto of Imperial Space Marines


"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Self control is chef element in self respect. Self respect is chief element in courage."
-Thucydides

#13 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 07:14 PM

I always have said that this us not a matter for the courts to make happen. Mr.Card makes the s the point as I did that the matter is something that should be voted upon. Otherwise why let people vote for anything? I mean the state knows what we need and can make it happen just the way we( Or they) want it to come out.

#14 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 08:07 PM

Nick, on Feb 29 2004, 05:30 PM, said:

but I personally feel the system was meant to work the way it is in cases like this--keeping a tyranny of the majority in check.

-Nick
So then you're against democracy? Your reference to "tyranny of the majority" indicates that...at least that's the way it came across to me...

So, what do you propose? A Tyranny of the minority? What? The minority gets out voted, cries discrimination, bitches and moans until they get their way?

Doesn't sound like a civilation I would enjoy living in.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#15 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 08:36 PM

There is nothing I can say that would make a dent in the minds of the believers in this absurdity, concerning the sanctity of marriage.

But here is a few words and concept that turn that diatribe to the garbage it iss.

1. Human parthenogenesis

2. Multiple wives sanctioned by the bible.

3. Oxitocen (sp)

4. The divorce rate is now over 50%

5. Honor killings, prisons in many countries to protect woman from their husbands killing them, because of the perceived braking of a social taboo, or because she was a victim of a rape.

5. In many countries all a man has to do to divorce his wife, is go out in public and say that he has divorced her. No papers, no court, no judges, she’s out on her ass, with out any rights.

Sparky::

Edited by emsparks, 29 February 2004 - 09:26 PM.

Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#16 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 08:41 PM

I would also point out that this is a republic and not a democracy. I’m sorry troops you don’t have the say you think you do, cause the majority isn’t always right, and the founding fathers knew that…. For instance you don’t vote for the president, you vote for an elector that may or may not vote for the man you want.

Sparky::
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#17 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 08:48 PM

So emspark you are saying it's ok for a minority to become the tyrannt? Or should the matter be voted upon? with an agreement that if enough people think it important enough the matter may be voted upon in the future with that period to also be agreed upon.  

Meaning if a state says a matter like this may be voted upon every 4 yrs after a petition has been signed by say 10,000 people in a state.  It does not guarentee that the matter will be resolved but it does allow for the discourse nessicary for an agreement.

#18 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 09:07 PM

^^^ I am only pointing out the law. You do not live in a democracy you live in a republic. AND Yes personally I like the American Constitution.

The US and Massachusetts, constitutional amendments in defense of marriage are not going to pass, if the efforts get that far. Marriage as an institution is in no danger and the people know that. This Chicken Little, “the sky is falling, the sky is falling,” is well perceived by the American public, as what it is, a Fairy Tail.

Sparky::
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#19 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 09:20 PM

It is a well-known fact that given enough sociological pressure that respondents will lie on polls. From a sociological point of view there are few subjects that are so emotionally charged as homosexuality. Given the stigma there are damm few people in this country that will express support of the homosexual community to a stranger.  So I wouldn’t hang your hat on too many polls, you don’t have the votes you think you do. Which is why the courts are moving very carefully.

Sparky::

Edited by emsparks, 29 February 2004 - 09:21 PM.

Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#20 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 09:29 PM

So you favor the courts forcing a social experiment with out the consent to people. Becasue they are silly and foolish prone to making these choices based on their own prejustices.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Same sex Marriage

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users