Should two people of the same gender be allowed to marry in New Mexico?
(Update: I might not have made this clear. You’re supposed to click on the link above and vote. Not that I mind having votes left in the comments, but that wasn’t really the purpose.))
Yes
Has anyone ever given a good reason as to why not?
The closest thing I have ever heard to a half decent reason is the fear that friends and roommates would marry for tax/immigration purposes. This is pretty ridiculous though. How many hetrosexual men would really enter a same sex marriage to save a couple of hundred dollars on their taxes.
Darren and other parent,
That is exactly the problem with our society: We do things because in our small minds we don’t find a reason not to do it.
The problem we have is eros: the society is govered by our “desires” (hedonism). Everybody acts according to their desires and not for the common good. Eros is the root of all evil.
Homosexuality is an abnormality and treating it as normal is being unfair to those sufferring from it because it gives them the impression they are okay.
Can you give me a reason why suicide should be discouraged? If not should we encourage it?
There are ultimately only two choices in life: You either conform the truth to your desire, or you conform your desire to the truth.
If you find yourself always twisting the truth to fit your desires, then you are in an eros prison. With a false sense of self-confidence, no self examination, not bothering about the feelings of others, feeling that you have to be right all the time, always seeking your own agenda, can not be bothered by the problems of others so long as it doesn’t concern you.
On the contrary if you always try to change your desires to align yourself to the truth, you will grow and mature to a better human being.
“That is exactly the problem with our society: We do things because in our small minds we don’t find a reason not to do it.”
The problem with our society is freedom? I mean, isn’t that what freedom, in the context of government, is? ie: “do what you will, unless we make a law against it because a sufficient reason has been found for why you shouldn’t do it.”
Also, homosexuality is only abnormal in the sense that it’s not as common as heterosexuality. People with red hair are said to be at around 4% of the population – this would then make them “abnormal” too. Should we go about trying to “fix” redheads, too?
Finally,
“The problem we have is eros: the society is govered by our “desires” (hedonism). Everybody acts according to their desires and not for the common good. Eros is the root of all evil.”
I hope this means you’re anti-capitalist too, since that’s also the root of capitalism: self-interest. Otherwise, you need to find some consistency, my friend…
“Also, homosexuality is only abnormal in the sense that it’s not as common as heterosexuality. People with red hair are said to be at around 4% of the population – this would then make them “abnormal” too. Should we go about trying to “fix” redheads, too?”
Are you trying to imply that homosexuality has a genetic origin the same way as redheads? Or are you thinking about it as a genetic disorder similar to Hemophilia, Sickle cell anemia etc. If it is not a genetic then how do you even begin to compare it with redheads? Are you saying that we shouldn’t try to treat these other abnormalities (hemophilia, etc) just because they are fewer people sufferring from it?
Have you been decieved by those trying to twist the truth to their desires that homosexuality is in the genes? A casual look at genetics and micro-evolution will tell you straightway that a gene that disfavours reproduction will not survive a few hundred generations in any species.
“hope this means you’re anti-capitalist too, since that’s also the root of capitalism: self-interest. Otherwise, you need to find some consistency, my friend…”
Is there anything in my statement that implied I endorsed capitalism in its present form? Or, Is there something wrong with not endorsing capitalism? That is another problem with our society today. We accept things based on political correctness — so that we make look good in the eyes of others that have accepted them as well (peer pressure), which is also a manifestation of eros.
Minkwe –
First, posting anonymously – not having the courage to identify onesself when espousing prejudice against others – is cowardly.
Substantively, if by “abnormal” we mean what the dictionary and common language means – simply different from the norm – then your argument gets us nowhere. Lots of behaviors that are different from society’s normative behavior are permitted, even ignored. A listing of examples illustrates how silly the argument from abnormality is – coloring ones hair purple is, by this definition (and your argument above) “abnormal” (and not genetic) but we don’t punish those who do it. What one has to argue is that the difference to the norm is somehow harmful to the common weal. The only people harmed by a gay marriage are those people who are offended by it. That’s rather like arguing that Jewish people shouldn’t be allowed to move into Minkwe’s neighborhood because Minkwe is offended by it. We should be beyond that.
A pernicious example: For generations in this country interracial marriage was generally acknowledged by a majority of people to be “abnormal”, and was outlawed. The arguments against it were essentially the same as those made today against gay marriage – it just kinda seemed “abormal”, and therefore wrong. We did get beyond that.
John,
Will all due respect. Please if you re-read my comments you will notice that I have not been prejudiced against gay individuals. Can you identify one prejudice in my statements.
I think you and others piping this “equality” thing, or this “freedom” thing have missed the whole point.
Think about this: Should AIDS patients should have the freedom to have unprotected sex without revealing their conditions? Should people have the freedom to kill each other? Should people have the freedom to kill themselves? My point being that one’s freedom only goes so far as the common good permits.
You can’t even begin to compare gay marriages with interracial marriages. From a purely scientific perspective, how can a “variation” (since you think “abnormal” is prejudice) in a species that does not reproduce be normal when it is not for the common good of the species, let alone its kind.
If homosexuality is a normal genetic trait, then we have no reason to worry about it because it will dissappear from the gene pool soon enough. The only way a genetic trait can survive is through reproduction. So unless we can develop human cloning very fast, it won’t survive.
If you don’t agree with the last paragraph then you must (if you are intellectually honest) agree that homosexuality is not a genetic trait but a behavioral “variance”.
So if I say Cancer is an abnormality, it means I am prejudiced against cancer patients, if I say that AIDS is abnormal, it means I am prejudiced agianst AIDS patients. Is that what you are saying? Otherwise how do you justify the use of the “freedom” bandwagon.
Comparing interracial marriages to gay marriages is a fallacy. Scientifically, the former favours the survival of the species but the latter disfavours it. And I’ve not even started on the spiritual argument.
“First, posting anonymously – not having the courage to identify onesself when espousing prejudice against others – is cowardly.”
You are entitled to your opinion. Me knowing your name or e-mail address has not affected the discussion. Or would you have argued better had you known my real name and e-mail address? I don’t think so. So anonymity or not is not relevant to this discussion.
Or should I be prejudiced against because I choose to be anonymous? I’m sure you have my IP.No and can trace me if you really need to. Or better you can just ask and if I’m convinced that you need it, I’ll give it.
BTW it was nice of you to have this discussion. It won’t be a discussion if it was just encouragement of your position or the opossite position.
“Should AIDS patients should have the freedom to have unprotected sex without revealing their conditions? Should people have the freedom to kill each other? Should people have the freedom to kill themselves? My point being that one’s freedom only goes so far as the common good permits.”
Right, but that is my point exactly. In each of the cases you cite – the spread of AIDS, murder, suicide – there is demonstrable harm to the common good from the prohibited activity you cite. But I do not understand what is the demonstrable harm to the common good if my friends get married.
As for your anonymity, it’s not about me knowing who you are. It’s about being accountable to all for your words.