Same-sex marriage

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!
Post Reply

Should same-sex marriage be legal?

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

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper » Mon Jan 31, 2005 12:32 am

GlottalGreekGeek wrote: At present, I am not in a relationship. Yet I am immensely curious to know how you would react if I said I was in a homosexual relationship.
Glottal - sorry to react so late to this. I apologize if I have come across as having something against gay people, I really don't - each to their own. So if you were in a homosexual relationship I'd say good for you. I just wondered whether you consider all romantic relationships oppressive, which was the impression I got from your previous post. I'm not against gay marriage, I'm not for it either.

Further I have no intention of debating this stuff any further, as no-one ever convinces anyone of anything in an internet debate, although I find it interesting to read others' opinions.
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Mon Jan 31, 2005 2:43 am

I am curious if many of the arguments used here, would also be used to defend or condemn marriage between three or more partners.
(Or between members of the same family.)

User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Post by klewlis » Mon Jan 31, 2005 4:39 am

Kasper wrote:Further I have no intention of debating this stuff any further, as no-one ever convinces anyone of anything in an internet debate, although I find it interesting to read others' opinions.
Don't be too sure. On occasion I have had my opinions swayed by internet debate. And in cases where I am not swayed, I am still enriched by the discussion--it gives me a broader viewpoint and helps me to see any possible holes in my own position. :)

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper » Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:20 am

klewlis wrote:in cases where I am not swayed, I am still enriched by the discussion--it gives me a broader viewpoint and helps me to see any possible holes in my own position. :)
I agree that this is the great value of these debates.
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

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

Post by benissimus » Mon Jan 31, 2005 10:33 am

Deses wrote:
Emma_85 wrote: As I said, I think this is not about tax breaks really... the gay population in the US is fighting for this because they think it will help them to be accepted in society.
That's a very strange aspiration. Personally, I would prefer if gay people put their minds together and solved some big problem. Achieved world peace, or something. Surely, the society would then shower them with blessings and privileges they never dreamed of. Imposing their own semantics on an established institution? Yeah, that's a real good way to gain acceptance.
Surely you realize how ridiculous this sounds. I hope you can see how this would cause offense.

Have you ever heard of an entire people being given priveleges for unified deeds of valor? Maybe all the women should have got together a hundred years ago to feed all the poor people; surely they would have been given the right to vote. Or maybe if the black people had all got together 50 years ago and brainstormed the plans for a perpetual motion machine they would have been given the privelege to eat in white diners. I don't think so. In every case the group has had to get what they wanted through more direct avenues.


I am in a homosexual relationship and it is unsettling, to say the least, that I am forbidden from ever being married because of conditions that are entirely out of my control.
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae

csentiusleontius
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:30 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Post by csentiusleontius » Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:09 am

benissimus wrote:I agree wholeheartedly, though I am at a loss as to why anyone would want the "right" to be married. :?
Benissime, I agree wholeheartedly with what you have just posted, but I am having trouble reconciling this post with your first post in this subject as quoted above.

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

Post by benissimus » Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:36 am

I was being a little sarcastic in the first post. I simply meant that I have no desire whatsoever to be married, but I may change my mind and of course I do not like to be denied what other people take for granted, whether I actually want it or not.
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae

csentiusleontius
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:30 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Post by csentiusleontius » Mon Jan 31, 2005 12:08 pm

Yes, and fair enough too. Tell me, in California would you be entitled to enquire about your partner's condition if he were hospitalized ?

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

Post by Deses » Mon Jan 31, 2005 3:10 pm

benissimus wrote: Have you ever heard of an entire people being given priveleges for unified deeds of valor? Maybe all the women should have got together a hundred years ago to feed all the poor people; surely they would have been given the right to vote. Or maybe if the black people had all got together 50 years ago and brainstormed the plans for a perpetual motion machine they would have been given the privelege to eat in white diners. I don't think so. In every case the group has had to get what they wanted through more direct avenues.
Fine job taking my words out of context. Turpissimus suggested that gay people really don't care a whole lot about marriage per se, but are simply using the issue to gain acceptance. Which seems very odd to me. If you want rights - try to get rights. If you want to achieve acceptance - try to achieve acceptance. It is very strange to assume that rights will bring acceptance. Racism is still alive and well in many areas and women still could be much better off in the workplace and on the whole. And I don't hear about minorities and women championing their cause under the banner stating: "Hey, we can vote! You should respect us!" In the framework of innate rights this just would not make sense.

User avatar
Turpissimus
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: Romford

Post by Turpissimus » Mon Jan 31, 2005 3:55 pm

Deses wrote:Fine job taking my words out of context. Turpissimus suggested that gay people really don't care a whole lot about marriage per se, but are simply using the issue to gain acceptance.
I don't believe I said that at all. Ironic, eh?
Emma85 wrote:I can totally understand why gays in the US want to have the right to marry - it's about more than just tax stuff and all, they want to be recognised.
Emma85 wrote:As I said, I think this is not about tax breaks really... the gay population in the US is fighting for this because they think it will help them to be accepted in society
I believe I did say that the tax advantages of marriage are over-estimated, but I did outline the various other benefits marriage brings - immigration, hospital, wardship etc. On the contrary, I believe marriage has a great deal of legal significance.
phpbb

Post Reply