Want to tell us about your experiences using The Mix and be in with a chance of winning a £200 Amazon Voucher? Click here to go to our survey!
We are now trialing a points system in an effort to be clearer about the consequences for breaking community guidelines. Head over to this thread to find out more and give your feedback :)

Should gay marriage be made legal?

124

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    OK Crescendo - so you're saying that because of how the human anatomy has evolved, two men or two women should not marry?

    It's irrelevant! It might have something to do with the fact gay men and women cannot pass on their genes conveniently, and so speciation led to physiology being most convenient to reproduce for the heterosexual majority.

    And what relevance does this have to whether two people in love should get married? People are made of skin and bones. You can assume that people are SUPPOSED to have sex in heterosexual relations but the fact of the matter is some do not and some cannot do this.

    So the way forwards for the world is to continue to discriminate against, exclude and differentiate people on the basis of the way they were born????

    Your attitude to it is all wrong, it's not about what fits best where. You seem to be frightened of anything different by the way you call things unnatural - and what do you want gay people to do about it if they are "unnatural"? Accept social exclusion from the rights the rest of the world take for granted?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's typical that a discussion on homosexuality always comes back to this.

    Actually yes, it's perfectly fair.

    I think it's ridiculous to compare them they are not the same thing.
    For one thing, homosexuality is legal. Therefore it should be legally integrated with marriage.

    When the other two become legal then maybe I would say yes, it's discriminatory. And there are reasons why the your examples are illegal:

    A sexual relationship with a child or an animal is not mutual, and there is no guarantee of consent with either. That's what the issue is.

    A relationship with an animal is wrong because as somebody said there's no guarantee it can consent or express pain.

    A child is not physically, and in most cases, old enough to consent. They may agree to sex but not understand the implications. The dangers of pregnancy with a child are also a serious risk to the mother and baby.

    Homosexuality doesn't hurt anybody else. It's an example of a healthy sexuality, which I think bestiality and paedophilia are not. You may not be able to prove a child or animal does not want to get married or have sex - but on the other hand you can't prove it does want to.

    What I'm putting across to you is - there is no reason to discriminate against two male/females getting married.

    And if it's discriminatory for animals and adults, and children and adults then there's reasons for it.

    - Edited for typo!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
    surely marriage also discriminates against those interested in paedophilia and bestiality alan. is that fair?

    It shows a poor debating stye to use examples of irrelevant illegal practices when trying to handle the current topic - Gay Marriage.

    Your reasoning for and against should have at least something to do with homosexuality and why it should/shouldn't be allowed? :)

    I don't see the connection. Open a new thread promoting paedophilia or bestiality if you must.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by crescendo
    What do you mean 'designed by who?' I don't know who. Some people say God, some people say evolution, and others have their own theories. The point is that we are designed the way we are.

    E.g. the function of the nose is to smell. I can try eating through my nose, but thats not whats its designed for is it? Some people may actually be able to eat through their nose, but its not the natural way to eat is it?
    A guy can fuck another guy up the arse, but then again, he can also drill a hole in the wall and fuck the wall, he can also fuck his dog up the arse, he can also also shove his dick between two cussions and fuck the cussions. The list goes on.
    Sorry about the graphical detail.
    You know and I know that the only natural form of copulating involves a penis and a vagina. Simple as. Anything else is unnatural.

    :rolleyes:

    oh look, the point is over there
    >
    :rolleyes:

    I ask again - what do you mean by "designed"? What do you mean by "unnatural"? Why does it bother you so much anyway? Who cares what people get up to in private, its fuck all to do with anyone else.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    Oh, and the bit you are missing is the bit where you are focussing on consent alone. Take a leap outside of the box and assume that it was possible to prove that an animal had consented to sex. What is it now which makes it wrong?

    Pointless argument though innit? You can't prove an animal consented as animals are not self aware enough to even know what consent is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
    surely marriage also discriminates against those interested in paedophilia and bestiality alan. is that fair?

    Oh for fucks sake, not this again. :rolleyes:

    Consent you fool, consent. :crazyeyes
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    *loses the will to live*

    CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT CONSENT

    :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
    please don't call me a fool - i am no such thing, and being abusive isn't making the discussion go anywhere.

    alan, my point is not irrelevant in the slightest. it was considered for many years that homosexuality was a perversion on a par with bestiality and paedophilia. if you can't see the connection then i can't help you.

    Bestiality has nothing to do with homosexuality. One is legal in society and one is not.
    You can compare them, but they are not considered equally "perverse". And my point is there's REASONS why one is legal and one is not.

    Seeing as homosexuality is legal - then that proves it's harming nobody, so why not legalise the marriage too?

    Having sex with animals - humans tend to be larger than animals, and you could cause severe pain to an animal by having sex with it, so NO it should not be legalised even IF you could prove it consented. Then you have matters of which species should be acceptable and which should not. Tests would need to be carried out to look at what implications this could potentially have on the creature.
    And also freak pregnancies can occur between two species of the same gene pool - like a horse and a donkey which I think make mules. That too would need to be considered, alongside which diseases could be transmitted from an animal to the human, and vice versa and how these would affect society if an epidemic were to break out.

    It's TOTALLY different.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Also, Girl With Sharp Teeth - my point is still valid about this being on the subject of homosexuality.

    You cannot seriously suggest the implications are the same of legalising marriage to animals as marriage between two men or two women.

    Why not defend your line of argument by making references to homosexuality and why you feel gay marriage is not right (if that is your stance)

    - or are you incapable?

    What moral issues are raised by Gay Marriage etc that you feel justify not allowing it to be legalised?

    WITHOUT comparing it to bestiality because this has nothing to do with f***ing animals!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
    would a marriage between a man and a....sheep, harm anyone else? the union would be just as fruitful as a gay marriage, could be as loving etc. etc.

    Its about mutual consent. Why do you refuse to see that?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
    i don't think i have ever suggested that gays should not be allowed to marry, or that humans and animals should.

    the implications in some respects would be very similar - a major argument of pro-gay marriage supporters seems to be "it's not harming anyone else" - would a marriage between a man and a....sheep, harm anyone else? the union would be just as fruitful as a gay marriage, could be as loving etc. etc.

    you don't need to blank letters out with stars you know - guessing words is one of my many talents.

    Firstly, blatantly swearing is quite a cheap way to emphasise a point so I starred it out.

    Since when can a sheep enter a legal binding marriage, give vows, or fully understand what it is entering itself into?

    It can't even sign the marriage papers!


    And, by once again going back to bestiality, when I offered you the chance to extend the discussion to actually valid, relevant reasons why people of the same gender can't get married, you've proven that the only way you can defend your opinion is to make sick comparisons to something that is cruel, inhumane and let's not forget ILLEGAL.

    The only link between homosexuality and bestiality is that both used to be considered perversions. One still is, and one isn't.
    So there is now no link between the two?

    So what's your point? Do you actually... have any line of argument here?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
    *burst out laughing*

    i agree, a sheep cannot enter into a legally binding marriage - neither can two men. what's your point?

    My point is that a sheep is physcially and mentally incapable of ever doing this.
    Two men are capable of understanding what it means and could potentially enter a marriage just like a heterosexual couple.
    and as for the swearing thing - it looks more cheap imho, to star some of the obcenity out. people know what the word is, so why bother?

    Um, is it really that important to you whether I star it out or not?


    Do you have any other reasons why marriage between people of the same gender is wrong? Apart from being discriminatory to sheep. :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    OK, children may be able to say yes or no, but they're incapable of carrying children without a heightened risk of birth defects and damage to themselves.
    In which case the law is there for their own good.
    A marriage may also interfere with emotional development of a child.


    What reasons can you give for not allowing gay marriage?
    Don't forget that gays are also discriminated in these friend and sibling arrangements, and that, by ONLY providing them with this, it doesn't change their legal status.
    They're still socially and legally excluded from heterosexual equivalents.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
    *burst out laughing*

    i agree, a sheep cannot enter into a legally binding marriage - neither can two men. what's your point?

    What are you on? There is no comparison - men can give consent, sheep can't. End of story. Why are you refusing to acknowlege that point?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
    why are you fixating on that point?

    'cos its the crux of the matter. And you consistently ignore it. Why?
    Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
    and furthermore, i think you could be a little more respectful in the expression of your opinions - i've noticed several threads where your posts have been, lets say "robust" to be kind, shall we? people will take more notice of you if you stop acting as though you're in the playground.

    *yawn*

    If you consistently post crap, then I'm gonna tell you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Blagsta
    'cos its the crux of the matter. And you consistently ignore it. Why?

    So, to summarise, you are saying that the only reason why sex with children or animals should be illegal is due to consent?

    No other reason at all?


    Which takes me back to the under 16s issue. Why can't a 15 year old equally give consent as a 16 y-o? GWST pointed out earlier that a 30-y-o with the mental capacity of 5 can leaglly consent, so what is the difference?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    So, to summarise, you are saying that the only reason why sex with children or animals should be illegal is due to consent?

    No other reason at all?

    OK, you got me there a little I must admit :o

    But it is a major part I think. Animals can't give informed consent. Children can't either. Ultimately its about the power relations between people. An adult can wield a lot of power over a child without the child necessarily being aware of it.
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    Which takes me back to the under 16s issue. Why can't a 15 year old equally give consent as a 16 y-o? GWST pointed out earlier that a 30-y-o with the mental capacity of 5 can leaglly consent, so what is the difference?

    A 15 year old consenting to sex with a 16 year old would probably be OK. A 15 year old consenting with a 40 year old might not. There is a difference in the power dynamic. And I'm not sure if a 30 year old with the mental age of a 5 year old can legally consent. There are often court cases about adults with severe learning disabilities being raped in care because it is deemed that they cannot legally give informed consent.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Blagsta
    But it is a major part I think.

    I don't think that either GWST or I would disagree with you on that point.

    What we have been asking is for the consent issue to be put to one side and for the other aspects to be considered.
    A 15 year old consenting to sex with a 16 year old would probably be OK. A 15 year old consenting with a 40 year old might not. There is a difference in the power dynamic.

    Is there? I'm not so sure, certainly when you consider peer pressure...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    I don't think that either GWST or I would disagree with you on that point.

    What we have been asking is for the consent issue to be put to one side and for the other aspects to be considered.

    What other aspects?
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    Is there? I'm not so sure, certainly when you consider peer pressure...

    I think 15/16 would be more equal than 15/40. Don't you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Blagsta
    What other aspects?

    :confused:

    Isn't that what I was asking you?

    What is it, other than the ability to consent, which offends us about bestiality and/or paedophilia?

    Is it, as crescendo seems to think, that we just aren't "designed" to act like that, or is it just a matter of consent?
    I think 15/16 would be more equal than 15/40. Don't you?

    In terms of comparative age, yes. But if a 15-y-o cannot give informed consent to having sex with a 40-y-o then how can they with a 16-y-o who probably knows about as much as they do. At least the 40 is likely to have a little more experience and understanding of the potential implications of the sexual act.

    Additionally, isn't peer pressure actually on of the biggest things affecting teenagers? The "everyone else is doing it, so why aren't we" approach to seduction...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    :confused:

    Isn't that what I was asking you?

    What is it, other than the ability to consent, which offends us about bestiality and/or paedophilia?

    Is it, as crescendo seems to think, that we just aren't "designed" to act like that, or is it just a matter of consent?

    Good question. I'd be inclined to think it is all about consent actually. I don't care what people get up to in private, as long as its consenting.
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    In terms of comparative age, yes. But if a 15-y-o cannot give informed consent to having sex with a 40-y-o then how can they with a 16-y-o who probably knows about as much as they do. At least the 40 is likely to have a little more experience and understanding of the potential implications of the sexual act.

    Additionally, isn't peer pressure actually on of the biggest things affecting teenagers? The "everyone else is doing it, so why aren't we" approach to seduction...

    I agree its not a perfect situation, people mature at different rates etc, but it maybe the best solution we've got.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    *despairs*

    About consent- consent is not something that is obtained beforehand, it is something that is imlicitly given whilst performing the act- the lack fo consent is the issue in sexual abuse cases, not the having of consent. So, why cannot a male animal consent to having sex with a human female- it gets hard, it penetrates, it orgasms. I dont see the animal complaining.

    But consent is not the issue. It is about what is socially acceptable. We shall assume children and animals can give informed consent, because it was believed for a long time that homosexual men were possessed by devils and so were not of sound mind to consent to sex.

    Homosexuality was socially unacceptable for a very long time, witness Oscar Wilde, so I do believe the point trying to be made is what exactly makes something socially unacceptable.

    Oh, and Blagsta, the rules on this message board are that there is no flaming. It would be appreciated if you could follow this rule, as a matter of courtesy as much as anything. Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean that they are wrong- thats the sort of thing Mr Dubya believes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Blagsta
    Good question. I'd be inclined to think it is all about consent actually. I don't care what people get up to in private, as long as its consenting.

    So if the dog consents to sleep with the woman its perfectly OK?
Sign In or Register to comment.