Gay Marriage: Should It Be Allowed?

GRIM, that is a good viewpoint. The same can be applied with beastiality. I routinely had my grandma's dog hump my leg while I was at her house visiting... I thought about returning the favor a few times.

 

I honestly don't want to get into any type of anti gay, but to be realistic most of the points behind it being acceptable 'or why it should be' is in nature it happens. Well incest happens A LOT in nature, with that same argument shouldn't incest be accepted and allowed?

 

I aGree,n why should let eveRything possible in just bEcause...P

 

Gay marriage is open to big time fraud. Lets say you have a great benefit package at your government job and your straight friend pays you to get married. So he can get a nice benefit package.

 

That can happen with straight marriage as well.

Besides I'd personally rather make them get married than get the benefit packages they currently can get in some states just by being a couple

 

It's true that it happens with straights. But it's a lot harder to prove gay marriage fraud. In addition gay marriage will open up a whole new avenue of immigration marriage fraud.

 

But you're missing the whole point. Is your grandma's dog the same gender as yourself?

 

Actually it was you who missed the point.

 

Yup, some dogs have no shame.

One day i was walking at the beach and suddenly two male dogs started doing stuff with each other and making loud noises and running around me.
I was confused and embarassed.

And to add insult to injury, an old lady asked me
"Are those your dogs ?
"son, you better teach them some manners"

Some dogs are ...... read the first word in this thread's title.

 

So homophobes like to reference "nature" when building a case against homosexuality by saying "it's not natural" but quickly change their argument to "just because animals do it doesn't mean we should" when it is explained to them that homosexuality is not only present in the animal kingdom, But it's common.

And bogart, You aren't very good at this charade are you. You have gone from saying you oppose gay marriage because of the strain it will put on the courts to saying you are against it because "gay marriage fraud" (whatever that is) will be harder to spot and marriages for immigration reasons will go up. If you are going to be a bigot at least have the courage to come out and say what you really think. Stop hiding behind these manufactured reasons like a coward.

 

Animals and humans are two different things. I don't think we can go all the way when comparing human and animal instincts. Anyways if it was natural, why don't males have vaginas?

 

I agree that we shouldn't base our own actions on what other animals do. There are lots of things done in the animal kingdom that wouldn't be acceptable for humans to do. Infanticide, Theft, necrophilia among others. But i wasn't the one making the comparison. it was those opposed to homosexuality who made the case that it's "not natural". That was until it was pointed out that homosexuality is in fact "natural" and is prevalent among the animal kingdom. At which point they changed their argument to "well just because animals do it doesn't mean we should to".

Men don't have vagina's because it's the women who gestate the young in mammals. We could say the same thing about all sorts of sexual practices that can't result in impregnation. The thing is, sexuality and reproduction are only linked on a subconscious level. When we have sex the production of a child is rarely on our conscious mind. Think about how many times you have had sex (assuming you have) and then think about how many times your conscious goal was to reproduce. You should get an idea now how little sexuality and reproduction are linked on a conscious level.

 

I guess that makes sense.

 

I must admit I haven't read much of this 47-page thread, so if I'm chiming in on something already covered, please forgive me (and chide away).

I don't understand the issue. From my read of it, committed gay couples desire the benefits accorded by U.S. law to committed straight couples. Seems reasonable, to me. If you support such a thing, I conclude you do so because you see no substantive difference, in terms of societal good (and society deems what is law, and what isn't, presumably in an effort to redound benefits back to society), between a committed gay couple and a straight couple. If you oppose such a thing, I can only conclude you are opposed - for various reasons - to homosexuality as a lifestyle, as the only difference between a committed gay couple and a committed straight couple is that the former is gay, and the latter is straight.

Have I framed it properly?

 

Actually, I've seen a ton of excuses why homosexual marriage is a bad thing...



1. It would create "big time fraud"!

2. They should be secretive, like free masons!

3. You're not a patriot unless you're straight!

4. Think of the children!

5. There is no homosexual "love", only "urges"...

6. I love a woman, so that makes it normal, men that love men aren't people...

7. Gay people are really just animals; not people!

I hope I cleared it up for you, N.

 

Yeah, well, I'm sorry to say it - but I have come to see that increasingly Bogart doesn't depend, in my opinion, on sound logic to make his points. I base this on behavior here, for example. Distinguishing the potential for "gay fraud" as "easier" from any possible "heterosexual fraud," or somehow thinking gay marriage affects what heterosexuals choose or don't choose in their coupling arrangements - that allowing gays to ceremonialize their commitment in legal marriage will somehow bring harm to heterosexual marriage - are in line with that illogical process. Sad, really.

 

@TK, that's a hilarious synopsis of Bogart's positions.

@GRIM, I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from.

Personally, I don't think married couples are entitled to any benefits from the state. This is just more collectivist bullsh1t, where people who are married somehow get different treatment than individuals, better or worse, but either way, it's still collectivism.

So in that regard, marriage is a private contract between two consenting adults, and if gay people want to make private contracts like that between them, it really doesn't matter to me.

Does that position make any sense?

 

Not the states themselves giving benefits, such benefits as private life insurance, medical insurance, etc

BTW 'not to you' who are these homophobes who are using 'nature' ?....

 

It makes perfect sense to me. I've stated my opinion on this issue many times in this thread, and people still seem to fail to understand that, were gay couples allowed to marry, the world will not suddenly end. It doesn't matter to me if gay couples are allowed to marry - I believe they should have that option, and I fail to see how it's going to affect anyone other than the two adults consenting to a marriage.

 

I meant tax advantages etc.

I'm ok with private firms offering incentives to people with personal contracts of a marital nature. But then, that comes down to private property rights and free enterprise.

If gays are discriminated against by private business, then someone out there should be a smart entrepreneur and recognize gay civil unions. They would have the market to themselves....

I don't like that the government can make married couples more special than individuals, and then a "special interest" such as the gay community wants similar benefits through recognition by the government, by forcing regulation on private enterprise.

It's sorta why I have an issue with the 1964 Civil Rights Act like many paleo-cons. The issue was the Jim Crow laws, that public property was being used to discriminate against blacks. However, they also managed to infringe with the Act on private property.

Let me tell you, if I own my property, and I don't want whites, blacks, muslims, jews, or christians, buddhists, asians or europeans to sit in my restaurant, that is my damn right. I'll probably go out of business, and I would be an ignorant and freakish bigot, but that is also my right.

The inability to own your own property and control it, means you can not experience liberty. And that is why I think government should stay away from telling businesses who is married and who is not. The companies themselves can set their own standards, and as far as I am concerned, discriminating against gays is fine. It's bad business, but it is everyone's right to make bad decisions in the private sector.

Hope that made sense.