Same-sex marriage

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!
Post Reply

Should same-sex marriage be legal?

Yes
43
68%
No
20
32%
 
Total votes: 63

User avatar
classicalclarinet
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
Location: Anc, AK, USA

Post by classicalclarinet » Wed Jan 26, 2005 7:33 am

No, it wasn't. :)

I think that for 2 people to have civil unions they need to have a lifelong commitment towards each other. That would rule out most aromantic relationships. I agree that the symbolistic marriage should be granted by appropriate religious institutions.

User avatar
Episcopus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:57 pm

Post by Episcopus » Wed Jan 26, 2005 7:48 pm

I can't believe that so many people are accepting the apparent attraction of two similiarly charged particles it is not natural. The universe is based on electrons and imagine inner electron subshells attracted outer orbital electrons instead of repelling them? Atomic radius down a group would decrease and that would be the insane inverse world that we meet once again. If you say yes to gay marriage you are also saying yes to pink giant quark 9.11x10^31kg headed chickens and tangents of inverse proportion to constants of our days.
phpbb

User avatar
Eureka
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Eureka » Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:26 pm

Episcopus wrote:I can't believe that so many people are accepting the apparent attraction of two similiarly charged particles it is not natural...
Oppositely charged particles attract eachother, ‘tis true. However, this is only because similarly orientated electric fields have an affinity toward eachother.

To simplify, think of one dimension. Here is our electron and its field:

-----> - <-----

And our proton with its field:

<----- + ----->


The charges are only in physical contact with eachother through their electric fields. Therefore, the root cause of any attractive (or repulsive) force between them must be due to the interactions between their respective fields:

-----> - <----- <----- + ----->

Clearly therefore, the underlying physical fact here is that alike electric fields attract eachother. (Among the many consequences of this is that oppositely charged particles attract eachother.)

In this universe, it is alike things that attract (think of gravity).



Hence proof that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. :P

User avatar
mingshey
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1338
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:38 am
Location: Seoul
Contact:

Post by mingshey » Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:56 am

Dear Episcope,
You are generally right. But nature also allows electrons of same charges make a pair in some situation(extremely low temperature, to say), and bring up the extraordinary phenomenon of superconductivity -- The pair is called "Cooper's pair". It is extraordinary, but not unnatural.

User avatar
Eureka
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Eureka » Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:10 am

mingshey wrote:Dear Episcope,
You are generally right. But nature also allows electrons of same charges make a pair in some situation(extremely low temperature, to say), and bring up the extraordinary phenomenon of superconductivity -- The pair is called "Cooper's pair". It is extraordinary, but not unnatural.
Let's not forget the pairs of electrons with equal energy found in atoms, and the fact that protons will bond together.


(Not that any of this is actually relevant.) :)

User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California
Contact:

Post by benissimus » Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:17 am

Is there a gas leak in here? :shock:
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae

User avatar
Deses
Textkit Fan
Posts: 271
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 5:38 pm
Contact:

Post by Deses » Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:31 am

benissimus wrote: How can you knowingly say that homosexuals are aberrations? Homosexuals exist in many other species and are speculated to fulfill specific social roles in them (primates and canines for example). I don't see why it would be any different in humans.
Well, the funny thing is that you can make all sorts of arguments about various kinds of abnormalities claiming them to be evolutionary useful mutations. But not about homosexuality. What can be more aberrant than inability or unwillingness to procreate?
I think that the more relevant argument lies in the definition of marriage, rather than whether or not homosexuals are mutants. I have always thought of marriage as a ceremony to celebrate the love between two people, first and foremost. Some people seem to find the "union between a man and a woman" very important, but it seems rather arbitrary to me.
If by 'love' you mean doing something special with their genitals, that's understandable. Otherwise every man should marry his mother. Platonic love is not a bona fide reason for getting married. Homosexual relations, by the way, are in their biological sense strictly Platonic. Which is why I propose that they should be equated with Platonic kinship of minds between Plato and a scholar. :) It is just silly to refer to both as 'marriage.' It's not about rights and taxes. It's just pragmatic semantics. The sad fact is that semantics is being negated by the "hugs and kisses" approach to marriage in order to achieve those rights and tax breaks for homosexuals. It is nothing but a shortcut. But this shortcut only works for select groups of individuals, excluding many others.

User avatar
GlottalGreekGeek
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:37 am
Location: Mountain View

Post by GlottalGreekGeek » Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:09 am

I see marriage as a way to try to control another human being. I am not completely negative about this - if you love someone, of course it makes sense that you want to attach them to you to they do not wander elsewhere (of course, marriage is no guarantee of this). But throughout history marriages have not all been about love - it could also mean trying to control the other person's social status, money, or for other non-romantic reasons. Historically, women have gotten the rawer deal than men in losing all legal rights to their husbands. In times past in the United States a woman could even be legally forced to marry under certain cicumstances. It can work the other way too - gold-diggers looking for a rich husband for example.

Just as a marriage can exist without a special bond, so can a special bond exist without a marriage, and last just as long. I have never experienced any trauma as the child of parents who never were married, so I laugh when people talk about how marriage is essential to preserving family values - it is not.

I believe 1) that married couples should not recieve any more legal benefits than any other two people living together (including those Platonic scholars) , especially since it encourages people to get married for the sake of marriage rather than for the sake of who they are marrying and 2) homosexuals will not get much directly from being allowed to be married, but it is a symbolic struggle for homosexuals to be legally recognized as equals, and it is this latter cause which I support.

echomikeromeo
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 1:45 am
Location: California, USA

Post by echomikeromeo » Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:34 am

Marriage is an iffy thing: I'd be happy to see it done away with all together. However, the way our society works, we sort of need some sort of civil union/marriage to give families the benefits they qualify for as families. The best answer I can think of is to legally just have 'civil unions': same thing as marriage, except without the name. Then, if you want to go get *married* in a religious sense you can go do that at your church/synagogue/temple/other place of worship. They'd be two completely separate ceremonies/contracts, see.

Me, I don't want to ever get married. (Maybe at this point I should mention I'm heterosexual, and so actually have the option.) It seems to me, in my teenage perception of the world that it's much too easy for the man to start to control the woman. I don't want that ever to happen to me. I don't want to find all my will and sense of self evaporate out of supposed love for my husband. But I can understand how some people might want to get married. My parents, as one example, seem to get along fine in that situation, and it certainly helps if you want to have a family.

On a slightly different note, I don't see how you can say that a homosexual relationship is 'wrong' or 'unnatural' because it doesn't allow for procreation. I'm straight. I don't intend to have kids. I don't want a family. Does that make my sexual orientation unnatural, then? Besides, how can you say something's abnormal if it's a trait shared by 10% of the population? It may be a minority, but it's hardly a random mutation or genetic disease like Down's Syndrome. It's just like being left-handed: in fact, the same percentage of the population is gay as is left-handed. In short, I can equate the prejudice against homosexuals to a prejudice against blacks or against women. These are hard-wired traits that can't be changed, and we know now that just because someone's got dark skin doesn't mean they're immoral or unnatural. The only excuse for a prejudice against homosexuals in this modern age is ignorance and a reluctance to get with the picture!

User avatar
Eureka
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Eureka » Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:44 am

benissimus wrote:Is there a gas leak in here? :shock:
:) It's Episcopus' fault, he brought electrons into this.

Post Reply