Should the US Constitution ban gay marriage?

Here's my problem. You're setting grounds by which you must be held to the standards of that declaration. Therefore, if it feels good to kill someone's mother, why stop me. If it feels good to beat your wife and rape her, don't stop me. If I feel good dominating your sister and severing her, don't stop me.

Dude, calm down. Are you drinking? That's not what he meant. I think what Paavo meant was:

KEEP YOUR LEGISLATION OUT OF MY BEDROOM.

As long as you have two consenting partners, and no one is getting injured against their will, you have NO CRIME. There's no intent to injure in gay sex.

Now, go read 1984. Now!!! :D

[QUOTE=graphicsguy]As long as you have two consenting partners, and no one is getting injured against their will, you have NO CRIME. There's no intent to injure in gay sex.[/QUOTE]

Dude, I'm as calm as the ocean after a storm. But that wasn't even my point, it's not on crime. I thought that was clear enough in explaining that when standards are set, one must be held accountable to those standards. Does that make sense? I wasn't aiming at crime, bodily harm, or physical injury. That's why I stated that it wasn't my comparison in the explanation. I used those comparisos to express that it's the standard by which we hold people accountable to.

The issue brought up was "doing what feels good." And based on that, anything can feel good, even if it's violence. And if you have 2 people who say same-sex feels good, then that's fine. But when you have a nutt saying that dominating a woman violently feels good, then you have to agree as well, based on the grounds that you can "do what feels good."

So then if should just do what feels good, then that's all that matters and there are no boundaries.

So you see, at times, when defending liberties and open mindedness to that which is contrary to what is already established, we also drop our defense on the things that have always been protected.

So you can say rape is wrong, but not on the grounds that "it feels good" the the individual, because we should just do what feels good. The argument isn't that it's violent, it's just "doing what feels good."

Take the stories that unfolded out of Iraq, and the torment that the people went through. How many woman were raped by Sadaam's sons, just because they wanted to feel good. Now they weren't held accountable, because they had power. And that's in their country.

But here in the US we have those laws. Do we respect and honor them? If yes, then why challenge what is already stated for marriage? If not, then let's challenge all the laws, until we become lawless.

So these are the points. Doing what feels good isn't that simple, because of what everyone considers, as different interpretations, to feel good. I hope that's a bit more easily understood.

Cheers!

The issue brought up was "doing what feels good." And based on that, anything can feel good, even if it's violence. And if you have 2 people who say same-sex feels good, then that's fine. But when you have a nutt saying that dominating a woman violently feels good, then you have to agree as well, based on the grounds that you can "do what feels good."

That doesn't make sense... When you do violence to someone it does harm to someone, having two gay people marry eachother doesn't do harm to anyone. That is what this is about.

Here I go quoting myself again...

[QUOTE]Are you drinking?QUOTE]

What NL said.

I think I'm going to tap out of this thread. It's making me lose my hair.

- Humans are a very, very select group of species that engage in sex for pleasure and not just mating reasons.

- Screwing your shovel for pleasure is one thing (same weird level as an apple pie which lead to 3, multi-million dollar movies that most of us enjoyed watching) but RAPING another person infringes on their own rights. Don't make the comparision, it's an ignorant one.

- We are not pre-historic, uneducated bafoons. Making all these stretched remarks of "where will the line end" is just as silly. It's the same as the "what if" question. What if aliens came to earth and forced us into having sex with our chimneys??? :rolleyes:

- It's your choice to disagree, even to protest against it. But try putting the shoe on the other foot. If there is anything you believe in that is somewhat controversal, try seeing how you would feel if those rights to do whatever were revoked. I'm sure a few of you believe in a few unorthodox things. If not, think back to all those persecuted for sticking up for what they believed in. Homosexuality is not the end of the world. But the struggles they have to go through just in societys eyes is enough, let alone the finacial and emotional stress they face when not being able to form a legal union. Try adding that to the own weight us "straight" people carry on our own shoulders day to day. Life isn't easy, why make it harder?

NL and Spectra,

I see your points. But I'm not saying that being homosexual is violent. I'm stating that if we choose to agree with certain issues based on feelings or emotions of what is good for us or feels good to us, then that's a standard. Is it not?

So then if you have an interpretation of what you percieve things to be, then you cannot correct or call for what is right, when another person has taken that perception and twisted it. That's the point.

For instance if you have a son and a daughter. You might feel a bit more comfortable with your son being out past midnight, than your daughter being out past midnight. But the day your daughter comes home at midnight, you scold her, and her defense is that you let your son do it.

So if people, or a minority can challenge a law, then why not challenge them all, and why not allow all minorities to challenge all laws and change them for the majority?

So I'm not comparing rape to being gay. I'm comparing the setting of standards to having to have to live by them when they come back to bite you in the rear. Of course raping is not the same as gay. But apparently my points aren't coming across although I've stated it several times in this post. I have yet to compare gay marriage to anything violence, the analogies were made based on interpretations of standards.

My point is about what standards are, and what should be considered when they are changed, or challenged.

Now when I state "where will the line end?" I'm not considering anyone an uneducated bafoon. It's a simple question. Where will it end? Which is why I brought up marriage to inanimate objects, because that's how far it can go.

Let's consider beastiality, people have had sex with animals...I never thought of doing that, but if it's out there, why not marry your dog?

It's like someone stated earlier that if gays are not granted the ability to marry, it won't stop them from being together. If marrying your dog is never allowed, people will still have sex with animals. My point, on this aspect, is that it's out there, so everyone can challenge the law on that, and no one can say anything about it. Who is in favor of changing the laws for any group that wants to change things.

Spectra, you state that it's my choice to agree or disagree. And indeed it is my choice. But I have yet to say if I disagree. Now that's an assumption you've made and a conclusion you've arrived to based on inferred reasoning from what you've read. But you might need to go back to my initial post (and I forgot what page it's on) to see the major points brought up. Most of them consisted on the issue of love.

So my apologies of I have not been too clear on some statements, but really, I'm not saying gay couples lead to violence. But this thread is rather interesting and leading to some good discussion. So it's all good for that matter.

Cheers!

[QUOTE=zerimar3]
Spectra, you state that it's my choice to agree or disagree. And indeed it is my choice. But I have yet to say if I disagree. Now that's an assumption you've made and a conclusion you've arrived to based on inferred reasoning from what you've read. But you might need to go back to my initial post (and I forgot what page it's on) to see the major points brought up. Most of them consisted on the issue of love.
[/QUOTE]

I wasn't assuming anything about you. I wasn't even directing that to you. It was general comments I was making towards the thread. If I am going to direct things at you, I would have said your name or quoted something, just like this.

Spectra,

My apologies man, I fell prey to my own assumptions. Good eye there.

Cheers

Well zerimar3, by what you've said in your later replies (can't even remember the first ones by you) -- you do come off as being against the whole matter. "Where will it lead? We'll be marrying dogs!!!!!11" <-- am I ignorant to come to the conclusion you're not in favor of gay marriage? :p

And as for my last reply, the whole "feels good" thing;
I was talking about sex, and that sex isn't always about having babies popping out nine months after doing it. I was refering to replies that went on about how wrong gay sex is because it's not natural and doesn't produce babies.

So you can say rape is wrong, but not on the grounds that "it feels good" the the individual, because we should just do what feels good. The argument isn't that it's violent, it's just "doing what feels good."

Rape will always be wrong, don't worry. Gay sex has nothing to do with this. It's just sex between two adults, both being willing...just like when we're doing it with our missuses.
And what's with the animal sex comparison? I smell panic and childish fear. Even if gay people could never get married in the US, they will be having sex with each other.

As telemakhos said, I'm shocked that people are even discussing this like we are. It's like taking the timemachine way back when the earth was flat.

I couldn't hold it anymore...this is what I thought of when I first saw this post...there were no answers in it yet....

my oppinion is that men should be allowed to screw men legally - I mean lawyers do it all the time - with true disregard as to gender, age, religion...and so on:D

I'm not enjoying much seeing two men kissing eachother..not to say about ehm...the nether...lands (sorry NL hihi) but that's just prejudice on my behalf I'm sure....and I promised myself the first time I will meet a gay guy face to face I will try not to let my prejudices prevent me from shaking his hand....Strange thing prejudices....I have absolutely nothing against seeing two women kissing eachother...or even doing more serious stuff:D

umm - here's a link to the site I took the pic from - http://shop.store.yahoo.com/buyinprivate/benorfor4ozt.html - didn't mean no disrespect or anything...it just seemed to go well with the thread...and funny

EDIT=
I know that this is besides the point but it really got to me!

By Telemachos: An inanimate object or an animal is incapable of consenting to the love and reciprocating.

Hah! - you never owned a pet did you? Or just not an animal lover....? I'm telling you my dog has more love for me than many of my relatives. And the dumb beast never really expects anything in return - no diamond ring - no better job or better house - just a scratch between the ears and maybe a doggie biscuit from time to time - but I'm getting the best of the deal - I get more love than I'm investing and if you say that an animal doesn't reciprocate to love you're badly mistaking.

EDIT No2= I read my post againg and just realized that the whole time I was thinking the issue was about gay men. - This just goes to prove how prejudiced I really am...Never considered gay women a problem....hmmm - I must attend some social integration classes or something - I blame it on my lack of social life - and too much surfing the wrong channels:D