By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Gay rights...round 3

reggin_bolas on 08 May 2015
curl-6 said:
reggin_bolas said:

Lazy Wiki quote : It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases)"

So, the case of Rome is an outlier. Most cultures protect the superior union between a man and a female and hold it conceptually and legally different from any other recognizable union. 

Doesn't matter if it's an outlier, both it and Mesopotomia disprove your false claim that every culture endorsed only heterosexual unions.

Also, do you propose banning marriage for the infertile and those who don't want kids? Because that's the logical extension of your precreation-centric view of marriage.

Marriage is legal recognition of two people's relationship. Procreation and religion aren't necessarily involved at all.

 

It does matter because in the case of Rome, there was a serious abuse of discretion by the emperor which didn't reflect the cultural consensus or the actual law. 

Has nothing to with individual capacity to bear children, it's conceptual. So, only those conceptually capable of conceiving have this privilege. When biology fundamentally changes our procreative systems then you call me and I'll recant. 

 



Around the Network
generic-user-1 on 08 May 2015
reggin_bolas said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Volterra_90 said:
Ask yourself this question: if two men/women want to get married, why can't they? I don't think anyone can deny marriage to gay people based on... nothing. It's not like gay marriage is toxic or something like that, let them do what they want ;)

This.

This whole arguement is basically saying gay people shouldn't be able to marry... just because.

There is literally no good reason presented, simply because no good reason actually exists. So if there is no reason to prevent them getting married why stand in there way when there are plenty of good reasons for allowing it.


You have that backwards. The "just cuz" reasoning is more applicable to gay rights because there is still no strong epistemological reasoning behind it. It's a leap of faith that is politically coloured.  

Marriage is not a right. Point me to a credible source that speaks in favor of marriage as an unqualified and absolute equitable right. It's a privilege that privileges two individuals, historically a man and a woman, against those outside the union. Example, the sexual monopoly of both. An outsider having no sexual claims to either the man or the wife. That's a privilege, not a right. 

 

 

 

 

ehm there is no sexual monopoly anymore.and sexual claims in the marriage, well thats called rape today. nobody has sexual claims to another beeing(not even if you paid for it, you just can get your money back)



Mr.Playstation on 08 May 2015
Skullwaker said:
This thread is actually pointless. The title should read "I want to get into an argument about something that's not relevant to me"

Same sex marriage is relevant to everyone, otherwise for example why would Ireland be having a referendum where all people can vote on whether or not marriage equality should happen. Sure it may look like a good thing and is if kept under check but it does have it's own repercussions which may hurt the human species over a long period of time.



Send a Friend Request On PSN :P

Tamron on 08 May 2015
curl-6 said:

He's made it clear in previous threads why he is really against marriage equality, he's just using a polite smokescreen now because he was banned for hate speech last time.

I hope this image of two happily married men rustles his jimmies.

Look at them, they're so happy!



Samus Aran on 08 May 2015
reggin_bolas said:
NiKKoM said:
uhm.. how about its a token of love between 2 people? why shouldn't 2 men or 2 women be allowed to express that? Why should it be a man and a woman? is their love somehow stronger? better?

Has nothing to do with love because marriage has not always been about love. Why is that virtually every culture throughout known history has allowed the practice between a man and a woman only? The answer is biological. It's a union between a man and a woman because they can produce an offspring. Therefore marriage is an institution of family and family is narrowly thus defined. 

Ancient Greeks and Romans considered sexual relationship between two males to rank higher than sexual relationship between a man and a woman.

In fact, in Ancient Sparta and other Greek City States, sexual intercourse between two males was practically institutionalised.



Around the Network
Skullwaker on 08 May 2015
Mr.Playstation said:
Same sex marriage is relevant to everyone, otherwise for example why would Ireland be having a referendum where all people can vote on whether or not marriage equality should happen. Sure it may look like a good thing and is if kept under check but it does have it's own repercussions which may hurt the human species over a long period of time.

 

Repercussions? Such as?



Official Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE Thread

                                      

llyod85 on 08 May 2015
Skullwaker said:
This thread is actually pointless. The title should read "I want to get into an argument about something that's not relevant to me"


That's what I was thinking based on the general tone.



Lafiel on 08 May 2015
Mr.Playstation said:
Skullwaker said:
This thread is actually pointless. The title should read "I want to get into an argument about something that's not relevant to me"

Same sex marriage is relevant to everyone, otherwise for example why would Ireland be having a referendum where all people can vote on whether or not marriage equality should happen. Sure it may look like a good thing and is if kept under check but it does have it's own repercussions which may hurt the human species over a long period of time.

elaborate plz



curl-6 on 08 May 2015
reggin_bolas said:
curl-6 said:

Doesn't matter if it's an outlier, both it and Mesopotomia disprove your false claim that every culture endorsed only heterosexual unions.

Also, do you propose banning marriage for the infertile and those who don't want kids? Because that's the logical extension of your precreation-centric view of marriage.

Marriage is legal recognition of two people's relationship. Procreation and religion aren't necessarily involved at all.

It does matter because in the case of Rome, there was a serious abuse of discretion by the emperor which didn't reflect the cultural consensus or the actual law. 

Has nothing to with individual capacity to bear children, it's conceptual. So, only those conceptually capable of conceiving have this privilege. When biology fundamentally changes our procreative systems then you call me and I'll recant. 

The will of the emperor was part of that cultural consensus.

And so you're basing marriage on "conceptual" grounds that have no basis in actual reality? 



Tamron on 08 May 2015
Skullwaker said:
Mr.Playstation said:
Same sex marriage is relevant to everyone, otherwise for example why would Ireland be having a referendum where all people can vote on whether or not marriage equality should happen. Sure it may look like a good thing and is if kept under check but it does have it's own repercussions which may hurt the human species over a long period of time.

 

Repercussions? Such as?

Reduced birthrate? that's something we DESPERATELY need.