Mass. Hysteria

[bean19]

The Daily Show had this video (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=156317&title=mitt-drops-out) up last night (and today) about the results of Massachusetts legalizing same-sex marriage.

This is very timely because Romney just stopped his campaign for the Presidency with a hate speech against homosexuals and he is the former governor of Massachusetts. Another big highlight in Romney's speech is when he shared the extremely polarizing remark that he felt that people who vote for Democrats are surrendering to terrorists.

I could understand if Huckabee was being this big of an asshole because he was trying to energize the Republican base to get out and vote, but to make these kinds of hate statements with no political gain means he may really be this big of an asshole and not just playing one to get votes. I guess he could be positioning for a 2012 run, but he isn't going to get the ultra-religious (to the point of being hateful) Republican base to vote for him anyway. He belongs to what Christians believe is a cult, and every minister across the country would tell people to not vote for him when it came down to it.

The link should take you to the very funny "Mass Hysteria" video, but if it just takes you to today's show, then you can find it very easily in the list below the video.

[Wraith]

How much harder it is for these kids to succeed in school and in life. A nation built on the principles of the founding fathers cannot long stand when its children are raised without fathers in the home.

The development of a child is enhanced by having a mother and a father. Such a family is the ideal for the future of the child and for the strength of the nation.

I wonder how it is that unelected judges, like some in my state of Massachusetts, are so unaware of this reality, so oblivious to the millennia of recorded history.

It's time for the people of America to fortify marriage through a constitutional amendment, so that liberal judges cannot continue to attack it.Today we are a nation at war. And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror: They would retreat, declare defeat.

And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that would make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child's play. About this, I have no doubt.

...

... I want you to know, I've given this a lot of thought -- I'd forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I'd make it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win.

Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.Transcript (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/us/politics/08romney-transcript.html)

I disagree that the above is "hate speech."

[Dr.Finger]

The only hysteria I see is in the original post.

[Achilles]

This is very timely because Romney just stopped his campaign for the Presidency with a hate speech against homosexuals and he is the former governor of Massachusetts.I missed most of the Romney speech (what I heard didn't have anything about homosexuals), what would you say are the most hateful anti-gay sound bytes?

[jeffbax]

Romney is a gigantic douchebag, I think we knew this already. The only one up to his standards is probably Giuliani and Huckabee, but Huckabee has this strangely friendly demeanor.

[mr. murphy]

That video links to the Romney video, this (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=156320&title=mass.-hysteria) one is the Mass Hysteria.

[bean19]

Transcript (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/us/politics/08romney-transcript.html)

I disagree that the above is "hate speech."

He implies that homosexuals marrying will destroy our society and then says that people who vote for Democrats are giving in to terrorists. How is that not hate speech? If you replace homosexuals and Democrats with "jews" then you would definitely see it as hate speech.

You can't see the dagger for the cloak.

Have you EVER heard Clinton or Obama single out a group for legislation to reduce their liberties or state that that group has a negative impact on society? Romney treats homosexuals like they are criminals in the way that he speaks about them. Likewise, have you ever heard Obama or Clinton state that people who vote for a Republican candidate would be giving in to terrorists?

You never see it because you have to be an incredibly hateful asshole to say shit like that.

[Banacek]

Two things:

1. Heterosexuals have already destroyed the sacrament of marriage. There is nothing sacred about it at this point;
2. Paul's teachings have more in common with Islam then they do with the teachings of Jesus. Stop using them as an excuse for bigotry.

I'm going to get yelled at, but honestly, as someone that studied the Bible, there really is nothing wrong with the teachings of Jesus. In fact, it's a pretty good set of guidelines to follow in life. The problem is that modern Christianity has become so far removed from those teachings that they barely line up anymore.

[LongStepMantis]

Two things:

1. Heterosexuals have already destroyed the sacrament of marriage. There is nothing sacred about it at this point;
2. Paul's teachings have more in common with Islam then they do with the teachings of Jesus. Stop using them as an excuse for bigotry.

I'm going to get yelled at, but honestly, as someone that studied the Bible, there really is nothing wrong with the teachings of Jesus. In fact, it's a pretty good set of guidelines to follow in life. The problem is that modern Christianity has become so far removed from those teachings that they barely line up anymore.

I have to ask, although I shouldn't...Are those 2 numbered things both your opinion?
I'm not poking fun, I just want to know where you stand.

And don't take offense if they are, but I've always found the idea that gay marriage could hurt anything to be doubtful.

[asimonk]

Transcript (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/us/politics/08romney-transcript.html)

I disagree that the above is "hate speech."

How's "fear mongering strike" you?

[Ancalagon]

He implies that homosexuals marrying will destroy our society and then says that people who vote for Democrats are giving in to terrorists. How is that not hate speech? If you replace homosexuals and Democrats with "jews" then you would definitely see it as hate speech.

You can't see the dagger for the cloak.

Have you EVER heard Clinton or Obama single out a group for legislation to reduce their liberties or state that that group has a negative impact on society? Romney treats homosexuals like they are criminals in the way that he speaks about them. Likewise, have you ever heard Obama or Clinton state that people who vote for a Republican candidate would be giving in to terrorists?

You never see it because you have to be an incredibly hateful asshole to say shit like that.

Dude you really are reading into his speech way too much. I just read the transcript - he doesnt ever mention homosexuals, what he does mention is that its not good for children to be born out of wedlock.

he celebrates conservatives, but doesnt attack democrats.

although I'm often slightly liberal, some of his sentiments I was surprised to find myself agreeing with.

[Telefrog]

I'm going to get yelled at, but honestly, as someone that studied the Bible, there really is nothing wrong with the teachings of Jesus. In fact, it's a pretty good set of guidelines to follow in life. The problem is that modern Christianity has become so far removed from those teachings that they barely line up anymore.

I've said this before, but I like repeating it so people will get their panties in a twist. Even though I am agnostic, I prefer that most of my elected officials have a solid religious upbringing. I don't particularly care which religion. In my view they're all pretty similar as far as the general moral lessons. I just like my government representatives to have a sense of what's right and wrong beyond what's legal.

It's when people get carried away and start drifitng into weird overbearing waters that I get turned off.

[NationalKato]

I disagree that the above is "hate speech."

You're right, it's not. It is, however, wrong.

[Schnoogs]

The only hysteria I see is in the original post.

Quoted for truth

[Schnoogs]

If you replace homosexuals and Democrats with "jews" then you would definitely see it as hate speech..

Good to know that the choosing a political party or deciding to get married is the same thing as being BORN into an ethnic/racial group.

Polygamy is also against the law...some think it destroys society. Is that hate speech?

Being against Gays and being against Gay marriage are two TOTALLY different things.

Liberal FUD for the win.

[snubber]

Dude you really are reading into his speech way too much. I just read the transcript - he doesnt ever mention homosexuals, what he does mention is that its not good for children to be born out of wedlock.

Wrong. He's clearly talking about the same constitutional amedement Bush supports, one that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. He's certainly not proposing a constitutional amendment making it illegal to have a child out of wedlock or anything.

It is always amusing -- in a horribly depressing way -- how conservatists (well, those that are opposed to gays) are so very concerned about what other people are doing, people who are just trying to live their lives, people who aren't even bothering them, who might not even be around them or near them. Especially when their own house is in such discord.

[NationalKato]

...what he does mention is that its not good for children to be born out of wedlock.

No he doesn't. He isn't talking about wedlock...he's talking about hetero marriage, hence mentioning a male and female parent. If he was concerned about wedlock, he'd be in support of having married gay parents. Read it again.

[Wraith]

It is always amusing -- in a horribly depressing way -- how conservatists (well, those that are opposed to gays) are so very concerned about what other people are doing, people who are just trying to live their lives, people who aren't even bothering them, who might not even be around them or near them.Being against Gays and being against Gay marriage are two TOTALLY different things.too short...

[Typical_Michael]

I thought this was going to be about dogs and cats living together.

Sorely disappointed.

[Achilles]

Have you EVER heard Clinton or Obama single out a group for legislation to reduce their liberties or state that that group has a negative impact on society? Romney treats homosexuals like they are criminals in the way that he speaks about them.Not really, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, nobody can be arrested for entering into a 'marriage' between two men or two women, so it's not criminal, it just isn't recognized as a real marriage under the law. And it's not a matter of reducing their liberties, they can get married to a member of the opposite sex if they want, as the law was defined. So the only thing that gay marriage is about is the addition of the ability for people of the same sex to marry eachother. Presently they have exactly the same rights as every one else under the law, but like with poligamy, which actually is illegal, it doesn't accommodate their desire to enter into a different sort of marriage than what it's presently defined as.

And from the transcript it looks like he's just suggesting that the best environment to raise a child is with a man and a woman as parents. It's like saying the best place to raise a child is in a stable, loving family, or with the husband and wife still together rather than separated. Not really anti-gay hate speech, more of a difference of opinion between you and him about the impact of allowing people to marry folks of the same sex. You think it would have a positive impact, he doesn't. Saying it's hate speech would mean what he said is actually inciting people to violence against homosexuals wouldn't it?

It is always amusing -- in a horribly depressing way -- how conservatists (well, those that are opposed to gays) are so very concerned about what other people are doing, people who are just trying to live their lives, people who aren't even bothering them, who might not even be around them or near them. Especially when their own house is in such discord.Um, my house is fine. And just because you don't think gays should marry doesn't mean you're opposed to gays. There are gays that are opposed to gay marriage for the same social reasons as straights are.

I should say that I don't really oppose gay marriage, I don't support it either. If there were a vote I'd abstain.

[NationalKato]

...it just isn't recognized as a real marriage under the law. And it's not a matter of reducing their liberties, they can get married to a member of the opposite sex if they want, as the law was defined.

Huh? If a marriage isn't recognized by law, how do they get the same legal benefits?

[Schnoogs]

Huh? If a marriage isn't recognized by law, how do they get the same legal benefits?

Legal benefits does not equal liberties.

Nice try...you use that word to make it sound like guys like Romney are wanting to round them up and send them to death camps.

"They're being denied their liberties!!!!"

No...they just don't qualify for many of the tax benefits, etc that are designed to help families.

You act like they're being denied free speech, etc.

More FUD for the win.

[Oxonian]

Likewise, have you ever heard Obama or Clinton state that people who vote for a Republican candidate would be giving in to terrorists?
No, Clinton only accuses Republicans of acting like slave-owners (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/17/clinton.plantation/index.html). That's much better.

[Mr. Lake]

Are there any other Christians like me who are actually in favor of gay marriage? If there are, I don't think I've seen them. I'm not saying I campaign for thier rights or anything, but I support equality. As I see it, the only way gays and lesbians can ruin marrige now is if they drive the divorce rates higher.

[NationalKato]

Schnoogs: I didn't use the word 'liberties,' so I'm not sure what your hyperbole is about. But I took Achilles statement to mean married gay couples don't lose out on anything that hetero couple do, which is simply not true in a legal sense.

[Schnoogs]

Are there any other Christians like me who are actually in favor of gay marriage? If there are, I don't think I've seen them. I'm not saying I campaign for thier rights or anything, but I support equality. As I see it, the only way gays and lesbians can ruin marrige now is if they drive the divorce rates higher.

I'm an atheist against Gay marriage but I'm also against the persecution of Gays.

I don't quite understand what religion has to do with it. I see marriage as something other than a "seal of approval" by society for lifestyles. That's why I'm against marriage but not against being Gay.

The act of two consenting adults is far different than the legal, tax benefits of marriage.

[NationalKato]

No...they just don't qualify for many of the tax benefits, etc that are designed to help families.


You act like that's no big deal.

[Schnoogs]

Schnoogs: I didn't use the word 'liberties,' so I'm not sure what your hyperbole is about. But I took Achilles statement to mean married gay couples don't lose out on anything that hetero couple do, which is simply not true in a legal sense.


My bad...I got two different posts mixed up.

[mr. murphy]

I'm an atheist against Gay marriage but I'm also against the persecution of Gays.

I don't quite understand what religion has to do with it. I see marriage as something other than a "seal of approval" by society for lifestyles. That's why I'm against marriage but not against being Gay.

The act of two consenting adults is far different than the legal, tax benefits of marriage.

Why are you opposed to gay marriage?

[Heretic Machine]

If gay people can't marry each other, straight people shouldn't be able to either. It isn't fair to give one sexual orientation a legal benefit over the other. I say the legal institution of marriage should be dissolved.

[Beelzebud]

I'm opposed to all marriage. :D

Seriously though. Romney can go fuck himself for suggesting a vote for Democrats is a vote for "surrendering to terrorists". Did he lift that line right out of Dick Cheney's diary?

[Banacek]

I have to ask, although I shouldn't...Are those 2 numbered things both your opinion?
I'm not poking fun, I just want to know where you stand.

And don't take offense if they are, but I've always found the idea that gay marriage could hurt anything to be doubtful.

Yes, 100% my opinion. I don't get the point though. I'm all for gay marriage :)

[Lima Beans]

Are there any other Christians like me who are actually in favor of gay marriage? If there are, I don't think I've seen them.

There are a lot of Christians in favor it ( I guess thats relative though ), and I know around here at least there are several Christian churches that publically support it and actively campaign for their rights. They even marched in the gay pride parade this year.

[Rifter]

He implies that homosexuals marrying will destroy our society and then says that people who vote for Democrats are giving in to terrorists. How is that not hate speech? If you replace homosexuals and Democrats with "jews" then you would definitely see it as hate speech.


You can't replace Democrats with Jews though... they are entirely different. I think you are stretching to say jews = homosexuals.

It is not hate speech, you are just trying to be self-righteous.

[NationalKato]

My bad...I got two different posts mixed up.

So I get a 'Liberal FUD' mark taken off my record? Joy! :rolleyes:

[Schnoogs]

You act like that's no big deal.

I'm not saying it's not a big deal...but one must recognize that it isn't a coincidence that marriage happens to be defined between those that can reproduce.

Many of those legal and tax benefits are built around the notion of a family and children. Marriage is a societal recognition of reproduction and procreation...it's not about recognizing "love" or some other flowery interpretation.

Obviously when Gays adopt that is analogous to a heterosexual couple reproducing. I'm not saying this is an easy topic...I for one don't see the need for providing those benefits to couples that can't even accomplish the basic act for which marriage was first created.

Reproducing and raising children.

It's not that I'm flat out against the idea...I just don't see the point of recognizing. What next? Benefits for friendships?

[Rifter]

I'm an atheist against Gay marriage but I'm also against the persecution of Gays.

I don't quite understand what religion has to do with it. I see marriage as something other than a "seal of approval" by society for lifestyles. That's why I'm against marriage but not against being Gay.

The act of two consenting adults is far different than the legal, tax benefits of marriage.

See, I think that a "gay couple" deserves to the same rights and liabilities that a "straight couple" can get. That is a marriage license. Though, I don't think our governement should be in the marraige business at all. The government should issue a legal co-habitation license. That is basically a marriage license. If you want to get married, you go to the church of your choice to get married. If the church won't wed 2 gays, that is the church's choice. The homosexual couple already has all the rights of a straight married couple.

[Schnoogs]

It isn't fair to give one sexual orientation a legal benefit over the other. .

I'll grab a sign...you can get some markers.

"STOP PERSECUTING POLYGAMISTS!!!" :p

[Beelzebud]

I'm not saying it's not a big deal...but one must recognize that it isn't a coincidence that marriage happens to be defined between those that can reproduce.

Many of those legal and tax benefits are built around the notion of a family and children. Marriage is a societal recognition of reproduction and procreation...it's not about recognizing "love" or some other flowery interpretation.

Obviously when Gays adopt that is analogous to a heterosexual couple reproducing. I'm not saying this is an easy topic...I for one don't see the need for providing those benefits to couples that can't even accomplish the basic act for which marriage was first created.

Reproducing and raising children.

It's not that I'm flat out against the idea...I just don't see the point of recognizing. What next? Benefits for friendships?

Should couples who can't reproduce be barred from marriage then?

[Rifter]

It's not that I'm flat out against the idea...I just don't see the point of recognizing. What next? Benefits for friendships?
Here is the issue, that most people really don't get.

You get tax benifits, that I agree, go back to the reproduction aspect of marriage.

You also can go visit your spouse in a hospital. If you are hurt badly, and can't ok the people you see, your family has the right.... and that means your parents usually... not your "spouse" so if your family is not happy with your gay lifestile, your partner can be kept out, which is really wrong.

A spouse can plead the 5th, along with their partner.

All sorts of tax/inhertence laws. I.E. if you die, your stuff goes to your spouse.

I know there are more, but those are some pretty major ones, where homosexuals get SCREWED, by our laws. I completely understand your view of unintended consequences... but, I think it is just a travesty not to give them equal benifits, under the law.

[Lima Beans]

What next? Benefits for friendships?

Ah your true colors shine through here in your last line.

[Schnoogs]

See, I think that a "gay couple" deserves to the same rights and liabilities that a "straight couple" can get. That is a marriage license. Though, I don't think our governement should be in the marraige business at all. The government should issue a legal co-habitation license. That is basically a marriage license. If you want to get married, you go to the church of your choice to get married. If the church won't wed 2 gays, that is the church's choice. The homosexual couple already has all the rights of a straight married couple.

Sounds to me like you're one of the many millions of Americans who simply see this as "Group A is being denied something that Group B has".

It's like you've reversed it in your head...instead of seeing it as Group B being given special considerations you see it as Group A being denied some basic right. As a single male I don't sit around protesting that I don't receive the tax breaks that married people get or people with children. I'm not being denied something...they're simply receiving special consideration because as a society we understand that they have special needs. They spend their money on diapers and I spend mine on video games...who needs the tax break more??? Hmmmm....

It's all about entitlement to some people. To me it's about understanding why for thousands of years humans have recognized heterosexual marriage and provided benefits for them. Might have something to do with reproduction but perhaps that's just a HUGE coincidence.

[mr. murphy]

I'm not saying it's not a big deal...but one must recognize that it isn't a coincidence that marriage happens to be defined between those that can reproduce.

Many of those legal and tax benefits are built around the notion of a family and children. Marriage is a societal recognition of reproduction and procreation...it's not about recognizing "love" or some other flowery interpretation.

Obviously when Gays adopt that is analogous to a heterosexual couple reproducing. I'm not saying this is an easy topic...I for one don't see the need for providing those benefits to couples that can't even accomplish the basic act for which marriage was first created.

Reproducing and raising children.

It's not that I'm flat out against the idea...I just don't see the point of recognizing. What next? Benefits for friendships?

Marriage benefits aren't just given to married couples because they could have children. Lots of married couples never have kids. A family can be two people that love each other, and our country recognizes family with tax benefits and the like. The ability to raise children has nothing to do with marriage benefits - having a child nets you its own, completely separate, tax benefits.

I will reiterate - the legal repercussions of marriage have nothing to do with having children, so that part of your reasoning is flawed.

Please correct me if I've misunderstood your logic.

[Schnoogs]

Ah your true colors shine through here in your last line.

This probably seemed a lot more deep and meaningful before you typed it...

[Achilles]

Huh? If a marriage isn't recognized by law, how do they get the same legal benefits?I see where you're coming from, but what I'm saying is that in most states marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, and gays can get married to a member of the opposite gender just the same as anyone else can. In fact some do, and try to lead their life like that. They are as equally able to marry someone of the opposite gender as anyone else in the country. The conflict comes in the same area as polygamists, where marrying one person of a different gender isn't what they want. Now the difference is polygamy, and in some states marrying a relative, is actually illegal. Whereas gay marriage, though not recognized, isn’t something that’ll get you locked up.

[Schnoogs]

The ability to raise children has nothing to do with marriage benefits .

Yeah...it's just a coincidence that marriage happens to coincide with those that can reproduce in every society in history.

"This marriage thing is great...lucky for us it happens to line up with our ability to reproduce".

Do you really think that? :confused:

[Rifter]

It's all about entitlement to some people. To me it's about understanding why for thousands of years humans have recognized heterosexual marriage and provided benefits for them. Might have something to do with reproduction but perhaps that's just a HUGE coincidence.
Actually, I used to believe like you did, until I heard about the other legal ramifications, as I discussed (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1251112&postcount=40).

[mr. murphy]

Yeah...it's just a coincidence that marriage happens to coincide with those that can reproduce in every society in history.

"This marriage thing is great...lucky for us it happens to line up with our ability to reproduce".

Do you really think that? :confused:

It's not coincidence, but it's not the reason marriage was made a legal entity either. Correlation is not causation.

[Beelzebud]

So if a woman can't have children, or a man can't produce sperm, should they be disqualified from marriage?

[Rifter]

So if a woman can't have children, or a man can't produce sperm, should they be disqualified from marriage?

Yes, they are useless to the species, and should be put down, as such.

[NationalKato]

"STOP PERSECUTING POLYGAMISTS!!!" :p

I've written this in other threads, but I've already solved the polygamy, bestiality, pedophile threat for all the conservatives and anti-gay marriage proponents: define marriage as a legal union between two adults.

There. Easy. Done. Can we move on from that tired meme? Please?

[mr. murphy]

Schnoogs, I'm not even saying I disagree with you, I just think your reasoning is flawed. I wouldn't mind a concise answer to the question "Why are you opposed to gay marriage?" and the answer "Because marriage isn't gay!" doesn't really cut it. We're talking about why things should or should not be changed, and "because that's the way it's always been" is not an acceptable defense.

[Schnoogs]

So if a woman can't have children, or a man can't produce sperm, should they be disqualified from marriage?

Sigh...I guess when you're intelligent enough to recognize the historical origins of marriage you have to put up with this crap from those who are to dense to figure it out on their own.

[Achilles]

All sorts of tax/inhertence laws. I.E. if you die, your stuff goes to your spouse.

I know there are more, but those are some pretty major ones, where homosexuals get SCREWED, by our laws. I completely understand your view of unintended consequences... but, I think it is just a travesty not to give them equal benifits, under the law.Because of this specifically I'm in favor of some kind of civil union arrangement, and not only for gays. Say you have a friend that you've known for 60 years and lived with, you could very well be closer to that person than they are to their family.

[Beelzebud]

Yes, they are useless to the species, and should be put down, as such.

It's going to be hard to break this to my grandma that just married a wonderful man that makes her happier than she's been since grandpa died.

[Schnoogs]

I've written this in other threads, but I've already solved the polygamy, bestiality, pedophile threat for all the conservatives and anti-gay marriage proponents: define marriage as a legal union between two adults.

There. Easy. Done. Can we move on from that tired meme? Please?

Way to discriminate against 3 adults. Way to deny them their liberties. :p

[Beelzebud]

Sigh...I guess when you're intelligent enough to recognize the historical origins of marriage you have to put up with this crap from those who are to dense to figure it out on their own.

Yeah how dare people expect logical consistency.

[mr. murphy]

Sigh...I guess when you're intelligent enough to recognize the historical origins of marriage you have to put up with this crap from those who are to dense to figure it out on their own.

Once again "because that's the way it always has been!" is not a valid reason to keep things the same. We're looking for a reason, here.

[Schnoogs]

It's not coincidence, but it's not the reason marriage was made a legal entity either. Correlation is not causation.

Only in this case it does...

[Schnoogs]

Once again "because that's the way it always has been!" is not a valid reason to keep things the same. We're looking for a reason, here.

On the flip side simply pointing out something that hasn't changed isn't reason enough to change it.

What's a compelling reason other than "they're being denied their liberties"?

Make the case...

[Telefrog]

I'm not saying it's not a big deal...but one must recognize that it isn't a coincidence that marriage happens to be defined between those that can reproduce.

Many of those legal and tax benefits are built around the notion of a family and children. Marriage is a societal recognition of reproduction and procreation...it's not about recognizing "love" or some other flowery interpretation.

Obviously when Gays adopt that is analogous to a heterosexual couple reproducing. I'm not saying this is an easy topic...I for one don't see the need for providing those benefits to couples that can't even accomplish the basic act for which marriage was first created.

Reproducing and raising children.

It's not that I'm flat out against the idea...I just don't see the point of recognizing. What next? Benefits for friendships?

Hmm. I'm not sure if I agree with your assessment that marriage was invented entirely to support having and raising kids. I mean, if that were the case, wouldn't polygamy or harems be the more efficient way to encourage childbirth and rearing?

I was always under the impression that marriage was exactly invented as a direct testament to love and commitment in the direct opposition to the instinctual male desire to spread their seed and have mutliple sexual partners. It's the female, or childraising partner that really benefits from marriage.

The fact that there are economic inducements stretching back to doweries and feudal alliances without regard to specific feeling of love, even in "biblical" times - IE in 'arranged' marriages, seem to point to the idea that the marriage covenant is entirely artificial and goes against our nature.

[mr. murphy]

Only in this case it does...

I bet you scored a lot of points for your debate team in high school with excellent replies like that.

[NationalKato]

Last wedding I went to, the priest didn't mention "havin' teh babies" in his succession of vows. There was a bunch about love, commitment, etc....

[Schnoogs]

Yeah how dare people expect logical consistency.

I guess that would make sense if there had been any inconsistancy.

[Achilles]

I've written this in other threads, but I've already solved the polygamy, bestiality, pedophile threat for all the conservatives and anti-gay marriage proponents: define marriage as a legal union between two adults.

There. Easy. Done. Can we move on from that tired meme? Please?How is that fair to the cultures that practice polygamy (a significant part of the world)? You're putting marrying more than one man or woman on par with people who like to screw dogs and horses. That's messed up. Just because it's uncomfortable for you perhaps, doesn't mean anything more than gay marriage being uncomfortable for its opponents.

Fact is what we have now works; the states decide. Some have it, some don't. An amendment to the constitution over this issue would never pass.

[Rifter]

Because of this specifically I'm in favor of some kind of civil union arrangement, and not only for gays. Say you have a friend that you've known for 60 years and lived with, you could very well be closer to that person than they are to their family.

I have to say NO to friends. Honestly, no. Not a damn chance in hell. If you are a couple, you are a couple. Friends are still something else. Truely, when in love, and as part of a marriage unit, you should have your partner's interests in mind, at all times. Friends are not going to go that far.

I found this of interest:

1996 General Accounting Office study found that federal statutes and regulations confer 1,096 rights and benefits to married couples. It has been estimated that state laws confer approximately 300 additional rights and responsibilities on spouses. Many of these rights and responsibilities (such as the right to sue for wrongful death, the right to family medical leave, and the spousal privilege against testifying in court) cannot be obtained through private contract; rather, they are available only through the state's grant of a marriage license.

Found that here: http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/same_sex_marriage.html

So, about 1400 legal rights are extended by a marriage license. That is the problem, with how our laws are.

[Schnoogs]

I bet you scored a lot of points for your debate team in high school with excellent replies like that.

There's something ironic about the above post...hypcrasy for the win.

[Beelzebud]

On the flip side simply pointing out something that hasn't changed isn't reason enough to change it.

What's a compelling reason other than "they're being denied their liberties"?

Make the case...

How about this: Because our laws should be fair and equal for all. If one couple can get the tax benefits of a marriage, or civil union, or whatever name you want to call it, then why shouldn't all couples share those rights?

It's more than just taxes too. Take this example:

A gay couple have been living together for years. One of them is the bread winner. He/She dies, and doesn't have a will made. The state won't recognize the other person as their legal partner, and the property/assets will not go to them.

[Heretic Machine]

Sigh...I guess when you're intelligent enough to recognize the historical origins of marriage you have to put up with this crap from those who are to dense to figure it out on their own.

I think we should bring back slavery, because if it was good enough for our ancestors, it is good enough for us.

Fuck progress.

[NationalKato]

How is that fair to the cultures that practice polygamy (a significant part of the world)?

Last I checked, our Constitution didn't apply to other countries. C'mon man, keep up. We're talking about the U.S.A. Besides, if you read my post, you'll see I'm for same-sex marriage, and against the idiots who compare it to polygamy and bestiality. Seriously, confusion reigns supreme on this thread today.

[Schnoogs]

Last wedding I went to, the priest didn't mention "havin' teh babies" in his succession of vows. There was a bunch about love, commitment, etc....

You're 100% right...it's really just a fortunate coincidence.

Thousands of years ago they pretty much flipped a coin. Heads marriage is between a man and a woman....tails its between the same sex.

Phew...thank god it came up heads...mankind dodged a logistical bullet there. :rolleyes:

[mr. murphy]

On the flip side simply pointing out something that hasn't changed isn't reason enough to change it.

What's a compelling reason other than "they're being denied their liberties"?

Make the case...

I don't need one other than that. I believe in equal rights and I see this as non-equality. A non-married gay person cannot adopt a kid, adoption agencies only adopt to couples. A non-married gay couple lives their life exactly the same as the straight married couple, but is denied the tax benefits we give the straight couple. To me that is unfair, and all the reason I need to change things. Two people who want to be married should be able to be married, I see no reason why not, and a lot of reason why they should - simple fairness being the most basic. Giving gays the right to the legal benefits of marriage takes absolutely nothing away from anyone else, but denying them those legal benefits robs an entire community of their position in society.

Asking me why I think gays should be allowed to marry made me feel like I was being asked why blacks and women should be allowed to vote. They are a part of our country and our society and shouldn't be treated any differently than the rest of us.

[Inspector Fowler]

The real question is, how the hell did a Republican get voted in as the governor of Mass?

[Achilles]

I have to say NO to friends. Honestly, no. Not a damn chance in hell. If you are a couple, you are a couple. Friends are still something else. Truely, when in love, and as part of a marriage unit, you should have your partner's interests in mind, at all times. Friends are not going to go that far.I disagree that you need to be in love, however you'd like to define that (say a gay couple broke up and no longer cared for eachother but they were still legaly married, they'd still have the same benefits), in order to be able to see a sick friend in the hospital or inherit his stuff, or open a joint bank account. Again, you could be closer to that person than your family. So we disagree on the friends issue.

[Schnoogs]

I think we should bring back slavery, because if it was good enough for our ancestors, it is good enough for us.

Fuck progress.

So the oppression of an entire race is analogous to recognizing proceation with the notion of marriage. :p

[Rifter]

Fact is what we have now works; the states decide. Some have it, some don't. An amendment to the constitution over this issue would never pass.
The problem with THAT view, is that each state has to recognize legal contracts made in other states... and some states are just plain against homosexual marriage... but the state is legally bound to follow the contracts made in another state, that says that a homosexual marriage is legal. It is actually an odd quagmire, that in this issue, creates a LOT of problems.

[LongStepMantis]

If anything we should give credit to gay couples simply because we need less people, so they can handle the depopulation.

We haven't reached a breaking point in overpopulation, I don't think, but it will happen eventually...I'm looking at you, China.

But I don't care if gays get married, let em. They can have the same chances to be miserable like the rest of us ;)

[Citizen Philip]

If they are adults - no matter how many of them and regardless of their orientation and their intention is not to commit fraud or limit the freedoms of others, why should I care what they are doing? Permaculture.

[Beelzebud]

The real question is, how the hell did a Republican get voted in as the governor of Mass?

Thats easy.

Because Romney flip-flops so much he makes John Kerry look like a man of principle.

As governor he was a fairly liberal man.

[NationalKato]

You're 100% right...it's really just a fortunate coincidence.

Hey, I'm not the one saying it had nothing to do with love. C'mon, Schnoogs, as soon as I develop my time machine, I'll let you go back 1,400 years if it'll make you happy.

[Schnoogs]

I don't need one other than that. I believe in equal rights and I see this as non-equality. A non-married gay person cannot adopt a kid, adoption agencies only adopt to couples. A non-married gay couple lives their life exactly the same as the straight married couple, but is denied the tax benefits we give the straight couple. To me that is unfair, and all the reason I need to change things. Two people who want to be married should be able to be married, I see no reason why not, and a lot of reason why they should - simple fairness being the most basic. Giving gays the right to the legal benefits of marriage takes absolutely nothing away from anyone else, but denying them those legal benefits robs an entire community of their position in society.

Asking me why I think gays should be allowed to marry made me feel like I was being asked why blacks and women should be allowed to vote. They are a part of our country and our society and shouldn't be treated any differently than the rest of us.

Again...it's hard to have a conversation with someone who thinks marriage is on par with being able to vote.

As a single person I don't receive the benefits of marriage...boo hoo for me. Life really isn't about TOTAL EQUALITY.

Why do I get this mental image of you sitting in a room full of "Participation Trophies"

[Heretic Machine]

So the oppression of an entire race is analogous to recognizing proceation with the notion of marriage. :p

Hey, you're the one that thinks that the whole world is a museum, and all of our laws should be based on the traditions of the past. While we're at it, lets bring back that whole Christians-Lions thing, I was down with that.

[Rifter]

What's a compelling reason other than "they're being denied their liberties"?


In my opinion, that is reason enough.

Have you ever been married Schnoogs? Could you imagine being denied access to your spouse in a hospital, because her parents said you could not be there?

To me, it boils down to that. I DO believe that the love between 2 homosexuals can be just as strong as between a straight couple. And having something like this occur, would be TERRIBLE.

As I said, amend the law so that gays and straights get the same legal rights, but the goverment does not issue marriage license. The only entity that can "wed" people, is churches. I think that is the win-win scenerio.

[Oxonian]

Murph: I think I might understand what Schnoogs is getting at here, although I don't take a particularly strong stance on gay marriage one way or another. The current tax and other legal benefits of marriage are potentially justifiable as a basis for encouraging heterosexual romantic couples, who tend to produce offspring, to stay together and raise their children together. There's historically been a significant problem of heterosexual men fathering children and abandoning them. Until fairly recently, this could spell death for the new mother and child, and even now, it can be pretty tough financially and emotionally for them. So the marriage benefits are supposed to provide a material incentive for would-be cads.

Homosexuals, obviously, do not usually beget children, and they almost never do so on a whim or accidentally. If homosexuals choose to adopt or artificially conceive, they presumably intend to stay together and raise the child together. So there's less need to provide them with an incentive to do so.

As you point out, a lot of heterosexual couples do not have children. And perhaps in an ideal world we would not extend marriage benefits to them. But it's tough to figure out beforehand which couples will have kids and which won't, especially since we're especially concerned about accidental conception. So we extend the marriage benefits to all married heterosexual couples and accept there's inevitably going to be some waste.

[mr. murphy]

There's something ironic about the above post...hypcrasy for the win.

I think if you go back and count the number of thought-out attempts to clearly explain my point of view, and count the number of one-liner "clever" responses you made that didn't actually explain or answer anything... well, you'll see why I hardly consider this a conversation worth having.

I play devil's advocate because it opens me up to new points of view. I want you to change my mind here. You're just... not being very clear or logical. Two or three times now, instead of responding with an opinion or a statement, you've simply turned someone elses response around and thrown it back at them. If you were on a debate team, they would kick you off for that. If I was having a conversation with you, I would end it for that. You're obviously not interested in learning anything new, reconsidering your opinions, or applying logic to your beliefs, so I'm kindof done with this.

I enjoy forums because it gives me an opportunity to put my ideas out there, on the record, for all to see. I feel my posts defend my position in this conversation very well, and I think when other people read this thread in the future, your failure to support your point of view will garner more support for gay marriage than detriment.

No hard feelings, I hope, but I won't devolve to one-line "No, you're wrong" back-and-forth posting.

[Heretic Machine]

Murph: I think I might understand what Schnoogs is getting at here, although I don't take a particularly strong stance on gay marriage one way or another. The current tax and other legal benefits of marriage are potentially justifiable as a basis for encouraging heterosexual romantic couples, who tend to produce offspring, to stay together and raise their children together. There's historically been a significant problem of heterosexual men fathering children and abandoning them. Until fairly recently, this could spell death for the new mother and child, and even now, it can be pretty tough financially and emotionally for them. So the marriage benefits are supposed to provide a material incentive for would-be cads.

In what universe will a crappy tax break be the deciding factor between dead-beat-dad and stand-up-guy?

[Beelzebud]

In what universe will a crappy tax break be the deciding factor between dead-beat-dad and stand-up-guy?

Not this one, thats for sure.

[NationalKato]

And shouldn't we encourage adoption, Oxonian?

[Rifter]

From a tax point of view, I want to point out, that there is a Marriage Penalty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty)... that may increase tax revenues....

[mr. murphy]

Murph: I think I might understand what Schnoogs is getting at here, although I don't take a particularly strong stance on gay marriage one way or another. The current tax and other legal benefits of marriage are potentially justifiable as a basis for encouraging heterosexual romantic couples, who tend to produce offspring, to stay together and raise their children together. There's historically been a significant problem of heterosexual men fathering children and abandoning them. Until fairly recently, this could spell death for the new mother and child, and even now, it can be pretty tough financially and emotionally for them. So the marriage benefits are supposed to provide a material incentive for would-be cads.

Homosexuals, obviously, do not usually beget children, and they almost never do so on a whim or accidentally. If homosexuals choose to adopt or artificially conceive, they presumably intend to stay together and raise the child together. So there's less need to provide them with an incentive to do so.

As you point out, a lot of heterosexual couples do not have children. And perhaps in an ideal world we would not extend marriage benefits to them. But it's tough to figure out beforehand which couples will have kids and which won't, especially since we're especially concerned about accidental conception. So we extend the marriage benefits to all married heterosexual couples and accept there's inevitably going to be some waste.

This! This is the kindof response I was hoping for. You raise some good points, and I did understand that these are the kind of things Schnoogs was vaguely waving at, but even this concept raises certain other issues - for example, in this day and age of overpopulation and underfunding, is having more children really worth rewarding? We already have some countries in the world providing you with legal benefits for NOT having children.

That aside, if the benefits of marriage are in place in order to encourage families to stay together, wouldn't expanding those benefits to include gays just create more families? It is hard for a gay man to adopt a child, nearly impossible if he's single. If the adoption agencies could recognize the union of two people of the same sex as a legal family, wouldn't it lead to more children with homes? And isn't that the point of all these marriage benefits?

[IrishWhiskey]

Murph: I think I might understand what Schnoogs is getting at here, although I don't take a particularly strong stance on gay marriage one way or another. The current tax and other legal benefits of marriage are potentially justifiable as a basis for encouraging heterosexual romantic couples, who tend to produce offspring, to stay together and raise their children togetherIts odd that when the discussion of gay marriage comes up, it seems like its proponents talk more about social justice and legal issues crossing state lines, like custodianship, medical care, parents' rights, wills etc, where those who aren't (whether opposed or undecided) often mention the tax issue. I don't think gay people are fighting for marriage rights because they want a bigger refund. Its just strange to me to have that line of discussion when it seems to be one of the less important factors.

[Rifter]

This! This is the kindof response I was hoping for. You raise some good points, and I did understand that these are the kind of things Schnoogs was vaguely waving at, but even this concept raises certain other issues - for example, in this day and age of overpopulation and underfunding, is having more children really worth rewarding? We already have some countries in the world providing you with legal benefits for NOT having children.

Sorry, I can't go along with China's ideal of 1 couple, 1 child. And making children a penalty, is a BAD thing.


That aside, if the benefits of marriage are in place in order to encourage families to stay together, wouldn't expanding those benefits to include gays just create more families? It is hard for a gay man to adopt a child, nearly impossible if he's single. If the adoption agencies could recognize the union of two people of the same sex as a legal family, wouldn't it lead to more children with homes? And isn't that the point of all these marriage benefits?
As it is, there are not enough children to adopt. Now, there are some in foster care, that are older... yes. But, that different. Honestly, I still think precedence for babies, should go to heterosexual couples, to raise a child in a "normal" family setting.

[IrishWhiskey]

As it is, there are not enough children to adopt. Now, there are some in foster care, that are older... yes. But, that different. Honestly, I still think precedence for babies, should go to heterosexual couples, to raise a child in a "normal" family setting.Any other definitions of "normal" we should use to keep kids from couples?

[Rifter]

Its odd that when the discussion of gay marriage comes up, it seems like its proponents talk more about social justice and legal issues crossing state lines, like custodianship, medical care, parents' rights, wills etc, where those who aren't (whether opposed or undecided) often mention the tax issue. I don't think gay people are fighting for marriage rights because they want a bigger refund. Its just strange to me to have that line of discussion when it seems to be one of the less important factors.

I tend to agree with you in this. One of my good friends, is gay, and he is getting "married" later this year. QUITE honestly, it does weird me out... that whole lifestyle kind of weirds me out, but I am still good friends with him, and his partner. I look at the societal impacts that marriage gives to them, and couldn't imagine having those things denied to each other.

[Heretic Machine]

Sorry, I can't go along with China's ideal of 1 couple, 1 child. And making children a penalty, is a BAD thing.


As it is, there are not enough children to adopt. Now, there are some in foster care, that are older... yes. But, that different. Honestly, I still think precedence for babies, should go to heterosexual couples, to raise a child in a "normal" family setting.

No, there aren't enough babies to adopt. If you're a toddler or older, and an orphan, you're fucked. But I doubt that'd be changed either way with gay marriage... no body wants to deal with a kid someone else has already screwed up, they want to make their own little clone.

[Beelzebud]

Anyone dumb enough to want to get married should be allowed.

:D

[Rifter]

Any other definitions of "normal" we should use to keep kids from couples?

Normal means a Nuclear Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family).

[mr. murphy]

Again...it's hard to have a conversation with someone who thinks marriage is on par with being able to vote.

As a single person I don't receive the benefits of marriage...boo hoo for me. Life really isn't about TOTAL EQUALITY.

Why do I get this mental image of you sitting in a room full of "Participation Trophies"

Marriage is not on par with being able to vote.

Being denied the ability to get married IS on par with being denied the ability to vote. It's the denial that is key.

If you are a straight single person, you are equal to the straight married folks, because you could get married. A gay person can't "just marry a straight person like anyone else" anymore than you could enter a homosexual relationship if you were straight. Equality doesn't mean everyone has the same benefits, but it does mean everyone has the ability to aqcuire those benefits if the situation is appropriate.

I can hear your straw man argument now: "So you're saying I should have the same benefits as a handicapped person because otherwise we're not equal!" But if you became handicapped, you WOULD get those benefits. That's the difference here. A gay couple can get married in name and in heart, but they don't get the same thing as their straight neighbor if they do - and there's no actual reason for that, other than that's the way it always has been.

I'm honestly surprised when this doesn't seem wrong to people. I'm not saying everyone should have the same benefits. But this is America, where we're all supposed to have the same opportunities.

[Heretic Machine]

Normal means a Nuclear Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family).

What the fuck are you doing here? Bitch, normal men don't play video games, they man-up, get a job, eat a terrible dinner prepared by a wife that hates them, and then they go to bed to repeat it the next day. Hobbies are for weirdos. I better not hear about you having kids either, I'll sick the county on you, they don't need your dirty abnormal gamer shit rubbing off on them.

[mr. murphy]

Its odd that when the discussion of gay marriage comes up, it seems like its proponents talk more about social justice and legal issues crossing state lines, like custodianship, medical care, parents' rights, wills etc, where those who aren't (whether opposed or undecided) often mention the tax issue. I don't think gay people are fighting for marriage rights because they want a bigger refund. Its just strange to me to have that line of discussion when it seems to be one of the less important factors.

I've been using the phrase legal benefits, meaning the right to visit your spouse in the hospital, share legal status, receive insurance, that kind of thing. Those laws are in place so that a couple in love can declare themselves together in a way that will be recognized by the government, the courts, the hospitals, and the schools. It has nothing to do with sex or procreation, and therefor there is no reason to deny those benefits to a couple just because they happen to have the same naughty bits.

[Oxonian]

In what universe will a crappy tax break be the deciding factor between dead-beat-dad and stand-up-guy?
People do amazing things for money. And we're talking about a fair amount of money: many married couples get a tax break of over $1000 a year, plus survivorship benefits, tax-free inheritance, tax-free health insurance, and a host of other benefits. Is it really that inconceivable that, for some men, this might help tip the balance into staying?

Heck, we had a thread around here last week in which a bunch of people whined that they didn't want to get married because they might get divorced and they might get screwed in the divorce settlement. And I doubt any of those people had $100,000 in total assets. It might sound like paltry figures to you or me, but people will dive into filthy gutters to snag a quarter.

And shouldn't we encourage adoption, Oxonian?
Sure, although I'm not quite sure what that has to do with gay marriage. Most (http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/a/gaycoupleadopt.htm) states permit gay adoption, even though they do not permit gay marriage.

[IrishWhiskey]

Normal means a Nuclear Family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family).From your link: The term nuclear family developed in the western world to distinguish the family group consisting of parents (usually a father and mother) and their children, from what is known as an extended family.
So any reason why two mommies aren't acceptable parents?

[Heretic Machine]

People do amazing things for money. And we're talking about a fair amount of money: many married couples get a tax break of over $1000 a year, plus survivorship benefits, tax-free inheritance, tax-free health insurance, and a host of other benefits. Is it really that inconceivable that, for some men, this might help tip the balance into staying?

Considering the cost and trouble of maintaining a child, and dealing with a wife which (under these circumstances) you probably don't want to be around... yes, I think that $1000 wouldn't be enough to convince a person to stay. I also don't think that the dead-beat-dad would even consider this to begin with.

[Beelzebud]

People do amazing things for money. And we're talking about a fair amount of money: many married couples get a tax break of over $1000 a year, plus survivorship benefits, tax-free inheritance, tax-free health insurance, and a host of other benefits. Is it really that inconceivable that, for some men, this might help tip the balance into staying?

Given the statistics on dead-beat dads, yeah it does seem a bit inconceivable.

[Rifter]

Heck, we had a thread around here last week in which a bunch of people whined that they didn't want to get married because they might get divorced and they might get screwed in the divorce settlement. And I doubt any of those people had $100,000 in total assets.

You know, $100k may not sound much to you, but to someone that makes $25k a year... that is a lot of money. I don't nearly have $100k in assets, but when my ex-wife left me, she took a lot of stuff that I still have not replaced, with her. It really does suck. But, if you are THAT concerned about your stuff, get a prenup. *shrug* I know, when I got married, that I didn't think my ex would EVER leave me. BOY was *I* wrong. :-)

[Rifter]

From your link:
So any reason why two mommies aren't acceptable parents?

It is the whole yin-yang thing. a mommie and a daddie provide balance to the child. Two mommies or two daddies do not provide the balance. Human beings really are about the balance of the two. 2 parents, 2 arms, 2 legs, 2 eyes, 2 ears. We are a species set in duality.

I am not saying a same sex couple can NOT raise a good kid, just that it is easier with parents of 2 sexes. Earlier today, I was talking to a woman I work with... she said she built forts and played GI-Joe with her son... and kind of rolled her eyes up... I REMEMBER building forts, and playing with GI-Joes when his age... I totally get it... I think being of the opposite sex, you loose some subtletis there.

[Lima Beans]

Earlier today, I was talking to a woman I work with... she said she built forts and played GI-Joe with her son... and kind of rolled her eyes up... I REMEMBER building forts, and playing with GI-Joes when his age... I totally get it... I think being of the opposite sex, you loose some subtletis there.

So its important so we can continue to propagate gender specific stereotypes.. Ok, gotcha.

[Oxonian]

for example, in this day and age of overpopulation and underfunding, is having more children really worth rewarding? We already have some countries in the world providing you with legal benefits for NOT having children.
I would strongly disagree that the world is overpopulated, and I'd be even more skeptical that the U.S. is overpopulated. I'm not sure which countries you're referring to, but France, Russia, and Australia are considering or have offered large cash bonuses to families that have large families.

If the adoption agencies could recognize the union of two people of the same sex as a legal family, wouldn't it lead to more children with homes?
Maybe. But that's an argument for changing the adoption agency policy, not for extending the same tax benefits to gay couples. Adoption agencies do not slavishly follow the local jurisdiction's marriage laws in determining where to place kids. Simply declaring that gay couples could get legally married wouldn't persuade Catholic adoption agencies to place kids with gay families.

And Irish: I think you make an excellent point. I don't think the tax issue is really what gets anyone fired up. Otherwise, civil unions would be a fully acceptable solution.

Ultimately, the gay marriage issue is mostly about symbolism: gay people want the symbolism of the word "marriage," and lots of straight people don't want to give it to them.

[Oxonian]

Given the statistics on dead-beat dads, yeah it does seem a bit inconceivable.
What statistics are you talking about?

[Lima Beans]

I would strongly disagree that the world is overpopulated, and I'd be even more skeptical that the U.S. is overpopulated. I'm not sure which countries you're referring to, but France, Russia, and Australia are considering or have offered large cash bonuses to families that have large families.

Have to agree with Oxonian.. I dont really think the overpopulation argument is a good one, especially when speaking of the US, if anything seems to be more of an immigration type discussion.

[Rifter]

So its important so we can continue to propagate gender specific stereotypes.. Ok, gotcha.

You do realize that those sterotypes EVOLVED for a reason. Men and women are not the same. I am not sure HOW to break this to you, but they are not. We think different, we precieve the world differently, and we act differently. We have a different chromosome mix. WE ARE DIFFERENT... Jeeze, I will NEVER get how people think that having gender "roles" is a bad thing. They evolved in our specieis, because 1/2 of our species is good at doing one thing, and the other half the other. There are cross-overs, but honestly, not all that much.

[IrishWhiskey]

It is the whole yin-yang thing. a mommie and a daddie provide balance to the child. Two mommies or two daddies do not provide the balance. Human beings really are about the balance of the two. 2 parents, 2 arms, 2 legs, 2 eyes, 2 ears. We are a species set in duality.Worth pointing out that a lesbian couple still has 2 arms each. And they are two parents.

I am not saying a same sex couple can NOT raise a good kid, just that it is easier with parents of 2 sexes. Earlier today, I was talking to a woman I work with... she said she built forts and played GI-Joe with her son... and kind of rolled her eyes up... I REMEMBER building forts, and playing with GI-Joes when his age... I totally get it... I think being of the opposite sex, you loose some subtletis there.So the reason why gay couples aren't as good at parenting is because they don't act according to certain gender roles? What is one of the gay dads is totally into shopping for dresses and ponies, or the lesbian mom likes GI Joe, does that balance it out?

And more importantly, why require these standards for gay couples, making assumptions about there interests and parenting skills, but not require that straight couples are similarly "balanced" and complement each other in interests?

[mr. murphy]

Have to agree with Oxonian.. I dont really think the overpopulation argument is a good one, especially when speaking of the US, if anything seems to be more of an immigration type discussion.

It was brought up in response to somebody who claimed that marriage benefits were created to encourage families to have children.

In fact, the marriage benefits that gays are fighting for are things like the right to hold power of attorney if the other partner gets sick, or the right to have life insurance pay out to your partner.

[Rifter]

And more importantly, why require these standards for gay couples, making assumptions about there interests and parenting skills, but not require that straight couples are similarly "balanced" and complement each other in interests?

Honestly, I said preference should go to straight couples, not that homosexual couples should not be able to adopt. Women tend to be the ones that hold families together, not the men. Men tend to be the protectors of the family. There are gender roles out there that have come to us through thousands of years of evolution. Almost every species of animal, has "gender roles" in the rearing of children.

[IrishWhiskey]

You do realize that those sterotypes EVOLVED for a reason. Men and women are not the same. I am not sure HOW to break this to you, but they are not. We think different, we precieve the world differently, and we act differently. We have a different chromosome mix. WE ARE DIFFERENT... Jeeze, I will NEVER get how people think that having gender "roles" is a bad thing. They evolved in our specieis, because 1/2 of our species is good at doing one thing, and the other half the other. There are cross-overs, but honestly, not all that much.Some gender roles are biological, most are socially constructed. And many of them are negative assumptions that we should be trying to break out of (guys can't appreciate ballet, girls are bad at math etc). Or as you said, girls don't like forts.

Its just not true that "1/2 of our species is good at doing one thing, and the other half the other" Thats wrong (except for literal biology like childbirth). You could argue that overall there is a statistical predisposition in some areas that isn't necessarily the case with individuals, but even then, that doesn't assume its correct that should be the case, and that changing it is wrong.

[Oxonian]

In fact, the marriage benefits that gays are fighting for are things like the right to hold power of attorney if the other partner gets sick, or the right to have life insurance pay out to your partner.
These aren't such great examples, because non-spouses can hold power of attorney or be insurance beneficiaries. Better to use examples that are confined to legal spouses, like the testimonial privilege.

Although I'm not sure the testimonial privilege is such a good one to persuade Middle America. "I need to marry my boyfriend so I can prevent the government from calling him as a witness in my criminal prosecution!" Maybe the intestacy argument might be better.

[Rifter]

Some gender roles are biological, most are socially constructed. And many of them are negative assumptions that we should be trying to break out of (guys can't appreciate ballet, girls are bad at math etc). Or as you said, girls don't like forts.


I am talking about the nurturing roles that women have. The bread-winning, protection roles men have... these are more biological based, and based on thousands of years of evolution. I am not talking about ballet and math here.


Its just not true that "1/2 of our species is good at doing one thing, and the other half the other" Thats wrong (except for literal biology like childbirth). You could argue that overall there is a statistical predisposition in some areas that isn't necessarily the case with individuals, but even then, that doesn't assume its correct that should be the case, and that changing it is wrong.

I am nto talking specific numbers, I AM talking about a statistical predisposition. But, I am not saying 1/2 of the women in the world are bad at math. I WOULD say, that women, have a tendency to shy away from mathematics, and have a tendency to go to child rearing roles, like daycare. If you do a statistical analysis, you would find I am right.

[mr. murphy]

I am talking about the nurturing roles that women have. The bread-winning, protection roles men have... these are more biological based, and based on thousands of years of evolution. I am not talking about ballet and math here.



I am nto talking specific numbers, I AM talking about a statistical predisposition. But, I am not saying 1/2 of the women in the world are bad at math. I WOULD say, that women, have a tendency to shy away from mathematics, and have a tendency to go to child rearing roles, like daycare. If you do a statistical analysis, you would find I am right.

True, but there's ample evidence that those gender tendencies are formed by societal structure, which is what we're trying to change, not biology.

[Dukefrukem]

From your link:
So any reason why two mommies aren't acceptable parents?

Because people are scared of it. Its ridiculous. It won't affect anyone else's lives but people are somehow against it.

[IrishWhiskey]

I am talking about the nurturing roles that women have. The bread-winning, protection roles men have... these are more biological based, and based on thousands of years of evolution. I am not talking about ballet and math here.
I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific than that. If we are going to judge women and say they can't be as good at bread-winning, there's got to be a reason. And your example of a woman not being able to relate to her son as well because she doesn't like forts sounds just like the sort of 'ballet/math' example. Just substitute math for fort, or ballet with a dad.
I am nto talking specific numbers, I AM talking about a statistical predisposition. But, I am not saying 1/2 of the women in the world are bad at math. I WOULD say, that women, have a tendency to shy away from mathematics, and have a tendency to go to child rearing roles, like daycare. If you do a statistical analysis, you would find I am right. I know. Thats exactly what I just said. However should we also used these statistical preferences for raising happy kids to discriminate based on race? Religion? Nationality? And if we are talking about gay couples adopting, then are those statistics true for them as well. I'm guessing theres more gay men who know about fashion than in the general population of men. Wouldn't that compensate for statistical likelihood of gender roles? And again, considering that most heterosexual couples don't perfectly compliment each others skill-sets, I'm not sure why we should create a bias against gay couples because they might not be good as certain things we code as masculine or feminine (whatever that may be).

[Johan]

This thread is gay, and I want a divorce from it. :D

Before I take my leave of this 'marriage.' (http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html)

[Rifter]

True, but there's ample evidence that those gender tendencies are formed by societal structure, which is what we're trying to change, not biology.

There is probably more evidence that the evoloved social structures evolved over time because of biology. Look at the natural world, they have many similiar structures. I think it is MORE that coincidence.

[Pious Augustus]

Last I checked, our Constitution didn't apply to other countries. C'mon man, keep up. We're talking about the U.S.A.
Last I checked, there's more than a few cultures in the U.S.A.

Besides, if you read my post, you'll see I'm for same-sex marriage, and against the idiots who compare it to polygamy and bestiality.
Um, exactly. What's your basis for discriminating against three adults but not two adults? How exactly is polygamy on the same level as someone who fucks sheep and horses?

Seriously, confusion reigns supreme on this thread today.
Says the confused.

[NationalKato]

Last I checked, there's a more than a few cultures in the U.S.A.

That's not what I was referring to. Go back and read it, including the original quoted post.

What's your basis for discriminating against three adults but not two adults? How exactly is polygamy on the same level as someone who goes and fucks sheep and horses?

Again, not my words but the words of the people I was making fun of. Or do you think 'idiots' is a term of endearment?

Says the confused.

Nope, you're still missing. Swing a little higher.

[IrishWhiskey]

Um, exactly. What's your basis for discriminating against three adults but not two adults?Heterosexuality isn't inherent to everyone. But jealousy is. The point of a marriage is to commit to another person, something that you can't do, to two people. Which is why polygamous marriages almost always end up hierarchical and unequal, and polyamourus relationships don't last.

[Pious Augustus]

That's not what I was referring to. Go back and read it, including the original quoted post.
So are you trying to deny that we have immigrants from cultures that practice polygamy, or what? How is it fair that we regulate their culture on such a personal level?

Again, not my words but the words of the people I was making fun of. Or do you think 'idiots' is a term of endearment?
:facepalm: Let's put this in simpler terms that you might understand.

So why do you believe that people who compare same-sex marriage to polygamy are idiots? Why do you believe it's wrong to deny the former of liberties but right to deny the latter?

This time answer the questions, or be a hypocrite. Your choice.

Heterosexuality isn't inherent to everyone. But jealousy is. The point of a marriage is to commit to another person, something that you can't do, to two people. Which is why polygamous marriages almost always end up hierarchical and unequal, and polyamourus relationships don't last.
"Potential for jealousy" is a pretty shit reason.

If three people think they can and at least want to try committing to each other, why should they be locked up for it? If we made everything illegal that "almost always ends up hierarchical and unequal," we wouldn't have marriage at all.

[Johan]

If three people think they can and at least want to try committing to each other, why should they be locked up for it? If we made everything illegal that "almost always ends up hierarchical and unequal," we wouldn't have marriage at all.

You won't get an answer, because there isn't one. There is no logical basis, when you move the parameters for marriage away from the historical, universal definition of a man and a woman to something else, to exclude polygamy.

People who argue for gay marriage are disingenuous to exclude other equally legitimate, but equally excluded, interested parties such as polygamists. In effect, gay marriage proponents are saying that "it is an arbitrary and unfair rejection of our right to the benefits and protections of marriage to exclude us from the institution" while simultaneously being either unwilling to advocate for polygamists (because it would complicate their own goal), or worse than unwilling, actively oppositional toward polygamists...in their own arbitrary rejection of polygamists' right to the benefits and protections of marriage.

It's relativism at its best, and it stinks of horseshit.

[NationalKato]

Why do you believe it's wrong to deny the former of liberties but right to deny the latter?


I don't. See, this is why you've been missing my point since the start - you haven't understood me yet, but that hasn't stopped you from being a prick about it.

Turn on a TV or read the opinions of the far-right when you bring up same-sex marriage and you get them comparing gay marriage to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia. The whole 'slippery slope' argument. As if, by allowing two men or women who love each other to legally marry will lead to kids being raped and dogs marrying humans. Hence, why I call them 'idiots.'

So, my original solution was for them to advocate a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between two adults. But they won't, because they don't want gays to marry. Their issue is with homosexuals and always has been. And they're willing to use fear, hyperbole and plain nonsense to rationalize it.

IMO, if three adults want to live together and love each other, go right ahead.

[IrishWhiskey]

People who argue for gay marriage are disingenuous to exclude other equally legitimate, but equally excluded, interested parties such as polygamists. In effect, gay marriage proponents are saying that "it is an arbitrary and unfair rejection of our right to the benefits and protections of marriage to exclude us from the institution" while simultaneously being either unwilling to advocate for polygamists (because it would complicate their own goal), or worse than unwilling, actively oppositional toward polygamists...in their own arbitrary rejection of polygamists' right to the benefits and protections of marriage.

It's relativism at its best, and it stinks of horseshit.Oh I see. So when you define marriage as only acceptable between a man and woman, thats just the way things are meant to be. But when others define it as a union between two loving people, thats just relativism and horseshit. Charming.

Your argument is just "It is what it is" without feeling the need to objectively defend why it can't be anything else. Marriage has undoubtedly changed a great deal over the centuries, including the disappearance of once common restrictions on interracial marriage, or that women were subject to men, but in its current form its ineffable and immutable. And if anyone else has a different definition, then they have to defend all other possible definitions or be hypocrites.

"or worse than unwilling, actively oppositional toward polygamists...in their own arbitrary rejection of polygamists' right to the benefits and protections of marriage."If you want to provide an explanation for why polygamy should be legal, I'd love to hear it.

[Johan]

As I said, Pious Augustus: You won't get an answer to your question, because there isn't one. There is no logical basis, when you move the parameters for marriage away from the historical, universal definition of a man and a woman to something else, to exclude polygamy.

If marriage isn't defined as a union between a man and woman, there is no logical reason to exclude polygamy...except that advocates of homosexual marriage know admitting as much will merely complicate their goal of redefining marriage to include themselves, and as a result they actively oppose it or ignore the issue entirely.

Good luck getting a liberal advocate of gay marriage to admit as much. The reality is if marriage is not what it has always been, throughout human history, then there is no basis for remaking it as "man-woman OR man-man OR woman-woman" without including polygamy...except for relativism and moving the supposedly unjust line of exclusion just a little, only just enough so that one group can enter while another is kept out.

Which is horseshit, but who expects people to follow the logic of their positions to its logical conclusion? I surely don't.

[Oxonian]

The whole 'slippery slope' argument. As if, by allowing two men or women who love each other to legally marry will lead to kids being raped and dogs marrying humans. Hence, why I call them 'idiots.'
I suspect that, if courts agree that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, sooner or later some judge somewhere will extend that ruling to bestiality or polygamy. And crazier theories have stood up on appeal before. While I don't think that would cause the Earth to crash into the Sun -- I'm not sure whether I would even really care all that much -- that's my prediction about what judges will do. Are you calling me an idiot?

[Heretic Machine]

I suspect that, if courts agree that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, sooner or later some judge somewhere will extend that ruling to bestiality or polygamy. And crazier theories have stood up on appeal before. While I don't think that would cause the Earth to crash into the Sun -- I'm not sure whether I would even really care all that much -- that's my prediction about what judges will do. Are you calling me an idiot?

Do you want to know how much I care about whether or not some guy can marry a dog?

Preemptive Answer: I don't.

Do you want to know how much I care about whether or not men and women can submit to polygamous marriages?

Preemptive Answer: I don't.

[NationalKato]

Are you calling me an idiot?

Yes, because with adults, you have consent.

[Oxonian]

If you want to provide an explanation for why polygamy should be legal, I'd love to hear it.
These guys (http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0051) are happy to provide such an explanation.

The above link is for entertainment purposes only. Oxonian and Oxonian subsidiaries do not endorse polygamy or Pro-Polygamy.com. Oxonian and Oxonian subsidiaries are not affiliated with Pro-Polygamy.com or other pro-polygamy websites. No warranties express or implied. All rights reserved.

[IrishWhiskey]

There is no logical basis, when you move the parameters for marriage away from the historical, universal definition of a man and a woman to something else, to exclude polygamy.

The reality is if marriage is not what it has always been, throughout human history, then there is no basis for remaking it as "man-woman OR man-man OR woman-woman" without including polygamy...except for relativism.You keep saying "historical, universal definition" as if its never changed. There are plenty of aspects of marriage that have changed over the centuries, including the ones I mentioned previously about women's rights and banning interracial marriage. I'm sure people made the same arguments in those times to perpetuate discrimination and bigotry as well. If you are making an argument for why it cannot change, there has to be a rational defense of why marriage can't include gay people. Other than misunderstanding history.Good luck getting a liberal advocate of gay marriage to admit as much. Yes, because Lord knows anti-gay fundamentalists are very open-minded.


These guys (http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0051) are happy to provide such an explanation.

The above link is for entertainment purposes only. Oxonian and Oxonian subsidiaries do not endorse polygamy or Pro-Polygamy.com. Oxonian and Oxonian subsidiaries are not affiliated with Pro-Polygamy.com or other pro-polygamy websites. No warranties express or implied. All rights reserved.For some reason that link is primarily about gun control. Possibly they intend to convince us of the value of polygamy through superior firepower.

[Bad_Buddha]

Good luck getting a liberal advocate of gay marriage to admit as much. The reality is if marriage is not what it has always been, throughout human history, then there is no basis for remaking it as "man-woman OR man-man OR woman-woman" without including polygamy...except for relativism.
How about the changing the definition to a relationship between two people. No polygamy, no sex bias, just two people that love each other. How is that so difficult?

My wife and I have many gay friends and it's frustrating to see the second-rate position that their relationships have been relegated to. Several of these relationships have lasted longer than many of the marriages of our hetero friends.

[Oxonian]

Do you want to know how much I care about whether or not some guy can marry a dog?

Preemptive Answer: I don't.
You are entirely accurate. I don't want to know how much you care about whether or not some guy can marry a dog.

Yes, because with adults, you have consent.
And that makes my prediction wrong... how?

[Pious Augustus]

Fair enough, Kato, I misunderstood. In my defense I still don't think "For same-sex marriage, against idiots comparing it to polygamy" was clear, idiots seemingly referring to someone trying to justify polygamy through same-sex marriage.

As I said, Pious Augustus: You won't get an answer to your question, because there isn't one.
Yeah, I didn't expect one, that was the point I was trying to make. You do realize it was IrishWhiskey that responded to you, not me? Just wondering why this is addressed at me.

[donkeydrop]

He implies that homosexuals marrying will destroy our society

How do you get that out of him saying that marriage and having two parents is a good thing? You might as well say it is a racist comment directed at black women. The accuracy of those comments is neither debatable, nor in any way controversial.

btw I dislike Romney and would never vote for him, but what I dislike even more is people who interpret even the simplest statement according to their own twisted view of reality.

[Telefrog]

You are entirely accurate. I don't want to know how much you care about whether or not some guy can marry a dog.


I would go to a dog marriage ceremony. The reception has got to be bitchin'.

[Achilles]

How about the changing the definition to a relationship between two people. No polygamy, no sex bias, just two people that love each other. How is that so difficult?Do they have to love each other or can they have marriages of money, convenience and power like heterosexuals do?

People always say ‘they love eachother they should be able to get married.’ But love isn’t really a requirement when you think about it.

[EternalGamer]

I always try to read these threads as an attempt to be more tolerant of dissenting views. And to learn how to approach argumentation in a more level headed manner. But I'm so personally insulted by the bigotry that it makes me feel a deep resentment for people that I otherwise respect.

I imagine the feeling I have is similar to what black intellectuals felt like in the pre-civil war era when people would tell them they aren't really citizens and should not be allowed to vote. After all the definition of citizen becomes arbititrary if you remove it from the historical president of "white male." Even monkeys and dogs would be allowed to vote if we allowed blacks to vote.

You can be as nice as you want about that line of argument but what it basically boils down to is a big "fuck you" to black people and an implicit declaration of white superiority. The arguments presented in this thread against gay marriage are of a similar vein and I find myself personally insulted to the point where I need to go for walk just to cool down.

It's easy to stay emotionally removed from a discussion when the subject doesn't directly apply to you. It's easy to dismiss identity politics as bullshit until its your identity that is being delegitimated. But most white heterosexual males will never know what that is like because there view is normative. But even if I could wouldn't I wish it upon them. It's not exactly a pleasant thing to encounter.

.

[Bad_Buddha]

Do they have to love each other or can they have marriages of money, convenience and power like heterosexuals do?

People always say ‘they love eachother they should be able to get married.’ But love isn’t really a requirement when you think about it.

Now you're just being difficult.

As I stated, the definition could be changed to support relationships between TWO PEOPLE. You'll note that this was the part that I had in bold in the previous post. The additional text was my explanation of my wording and the reasoning behind my choice of those two words.

Fine... Gays should have the right to abuse the state of marriage the same way that heteros do.

[NationalKato]

And that makes my prediction wrong... how?

Because beasts can't consent. I noticed you left pedophilia out of your prophecy. Why? Do you also foresee a judge extending his ruling to that extent? I don't.

[Oxonian]

Because beasts can't consent.
Adult polygamists can. And judges generally don't think an animal's inability to consent constrains us too much. After all, I'm allowed to kill a cow or compel a horse to work. So while you might think a valid distinction can be drawn between gay marriage and bestiality, I'm not certain every judge would agree.

And, just to repeat myself, the consent argument has precisely zero force in distinguishing between polygamy and gay marriage.

I noticed you left pedophilia out of your prophecy. Why? Do you also foresee a judge extending his ruling to that extent? I don't.
I agree. Am I still an idiot?

[NationalKato]

EternalGamer: I'm too close to it as well. I have a family member who is homosexual and would like to 'marry.' Not the religious definition, but the legal one. I realize internet forums are anonymous and that people say things, in many cases, just to get a rise out of people - or just to play devil's advocate. But it still offends me. Your comparison rings true, and that always brings me back. In time, people with these mindsets will be on the fringe.

[Achilles]

Now you're just being difficult.

As I stated, the definition could be changed to support relationships between TWO PEOPLE. You'll note that this was the part that I had in bold in the previous post. The additional text was my explanation of my wording and the reasoning behind my choice of those two words.

Fine... Gays should have the right to abuse the state of marriage the same way that heteros do.Yes, yes I was. And if they can marry they should be able to marry for all the crappy reasons that straights are able to marry for. :p

[EternalGamer]

Thanks to Oxonian for proving to us all that bigotry is an intellectually defendable position. If his posts aren't evidence of the moral bankruptcy of pure ratiocination, I don't know what is.

[Craggle]

People who argue for gay marriage are disingenuous to exclude other equally legitimate, but equally excluded, interested parties such as polygamists.

This is not always the case (http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16163prs19990716.html).

[EternalGamer]

EternalGamer: I'm too close to it as well. I have a family member who is homosexual and would like to 'marry.' Not the religious definition, but the legal one. I realize internet forums are anonymous and that people say things, in many cases, just to get a rise out of people - or just to play devil's advocate. But it still offends me. Your comparison rings true, and that always brings me back. In time, people with these mindsets will be on the fringe.

Perhaps my last post is evidence that I should leave the discussion to those that aren't so close to the issue, but on the other hand, I'm not sure anyone has more right to be involved with the discussion than those that the issue directly effects.

[EL CABONG]

The only hysteria I see is in the original post.

Yeah the OP is the one with crazy views.

Take a pill buddy. People on the far wings of their party tend to be nut jobs.
Take a step or two towards the middle.

[NationalKato]

Ox, in your future world same-sex couples get the legal right to marry and then people start marrying horses and cows and lizards. Dental benefits extend to the animal spouses and we have scared, caring barnyard animals waiting in hospitals to hear if their loved ones are going to be alright.

In mine, common sense prevails and two consenting, same-sex adult humans fall in love and enjoy legal rights. I know the law doesn't always fall on the side of common sense, but I can hope.

I'm exaggerating, obviously. But I think you understand my ideal - and I don't think I'm naive or out of line hoping for this ideal. I don't even expect everyone to think it makes sense or think it rational. Obviously, many on this forum don't. But there it is, nonetheless.

As for you being an idiot? I don't think you are. But in the context of associating same-sex marriage with bestiality or grouping yourself with those that extend that to include the threat of pedophilia - as long as you subscribe to those views, yes.

[Oxonian]

But I think you understand my ideal - and I don't think I'm naive or out of line hoping for this ideal.
Neither do I. But you also say that "the law doesn't always fall on the side of common sense". You are optimistic that, in this case, the law will be commonsensical and not extend to very odd sexual preferences.

Good for you. I'm more pessimistic. I guess you think anyone who is pessimistic is an idiot.

But look at what I'm saying. I'm not saying gay people are bad, or that gay marriage is bad. I'm not even saying that polygamy is bad (you mentioned polygamy way back when, but you don't seem to find it interesting anymore). For all I know, permitting polygamy would be the best thing that ever happened to this country. All I'm saying is that the argument used to support gay marriage -- that consenting adults who love each other should be allowed to do what they want -- can be used to support polygamy. Indeed, this argument is somewhat persuasive to me, and that's why I'm willing to try to overcome my instinctive revulsion at polygamy and try to be a little more broad-minded about it.

Apparently, EternalGamer thinks this makes me a bigot. I guess I don't know what that word means anymore.

[EternalGamer]

There is a rational argument for why slavery should have been allowed to continue in the South. There were reasonable concerns about what its abolition would do to Southern economies. In my mind, that still didn't make anyone who defended the instituition any less of a bigot. They were clearly putting those concerns about the economies ahead of the concerns of blacks as human beings, something they wouldn't do if the question were about whites.

This situition obviously isn't as dramatic. But in my mind the principle is the same. When you defend a prejudicial position, even on supposedly logical grounds, you are still defending prejudice.

[NationalKato]

Good for you. I'm more pessimistic. I guess you think anyone who is pessimistic is an idiot.

Nah, not pessimistic. Just the ones who use extremes to rationalize discrimination.

As for polygamy, I only stopped talking about it because I thought my previous statement of opinion on the subject was clear. I don't presume to think I'm right on the topic, but then I'm likely not right on a lot of things. :)

I think we understand each other now.

[Oxonian]

In my mind, that still didn't make anyone who defended the instituition any less of a bigot.
So... this guy was also a bigot?

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

I feel a lot less insulted now.

EDIT: Also, EG, you're wrong about how I would react to straight people. If I thought there was a significant advantage to be gained from prohibiting straight marriage, I would at least consider the argument. Indeed, the fact that we currently permit straight marriage seems to be leading this country toward legalizing gay marriage, which (as I've already argued) might lead this country to legalizing polygamy and even possibly bestiality. Lots of people think this is a good argument for abandoning the legal institution of marriage altogether, and I can see the argument. Frankly, the main reason I don't throw my weight behind those people entirely is simply because I don't think it would be so horrible to let everyone marry everyone else.

[torrefaction]

Irish already convinced me on gay marriage. I've changed my position on it. There is no reason for the government to discriminate, for purposes of adoption, marriage, taxes, etc, against any class of people, regardless of tradition.

It's wrong.

[Johan]

You keep saying "historical, universal definition" as if its never changed. There are plenty of aspects of marriage that have changed over the centuries

Hahahaha!

Just not the fundamental definition of marriage.

Nice obfuscation. :rolleyes:

When you defend a prejudicial position, even on supposedly logical grounds, you are still defending prejudice.

NAMBLA says the same thing. Those who oppose them are prejudiced and bigoted.

What a ridiculous insult to people who disagree with you. Really.

The onus for persuading society as to the definition of marriage is not upon those who hold the traditional view that has been held throughout human history. The onus is upon those who would change it, and it would behoove them to explain why the line should only be moved to include them and not others such as polygamists.

But logic doesn't allow that. Only bigotry and prejudice, I suppose, which is why those who advocate gay marriage avoid it entirely.

[torrefaction]

Hahahaha!

Just not the fundamental definition of marriage.

Nice obfuscation. :rolleyes:

Hahahahahah!

Wrong!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

[EternalGamer]

Yes, great thinkers and great historical figures can still be bigots. Many were.

And you can feel better about that position all you want. But if you were black and read that statement you would probably be less enthusiastic about associating with that position. You wouldn't be flattered by abstract intentions of "good will" towards you as continued to work on the cotton plantation without a choice to do otherwise. Because in the real world, that person is doing nothing but furthering a mindset that allows your plight to continue.

[Johan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

I'm sorry, but an argument that relies upon linking to one site, and Wikipedia no less, is dead upon arrival!

Hahahahaha yourself! :D

There is no reason for the government to discriminate, for purposes of adoption, marriage, taxes, etc, against any class of people, regardless of tradition.

It's wrong.

I agree. Henceforth, I will demand that pedophiles be allowed to adopt (we can't discriminate), anyone be allowed to marry anyone or anything, tax rates cannot discriminate based upon one's income level, and on and on.

Phew. Glad to join that train of logic!

[Oxonian]

Johan's right, torrefaction. I demand that you support your argument with three dozen links to websites I have never heard of before and which are nearly covered in flashing banner ads.

[torrefaction]

That's more like the crazy train of logic. The two are not the same. One is a group of people that violates others rights, and the other is two mutually attracted people being held apart by the state.

If you want to get into tradition and marriage and pedophilia, you'll be on much weaker ground. Historically, once a girl had her period, she was considered to be of the age to marry. That could be as young as EIGHT YEARS OLD.

But yeah, let's just stick with traditions, because clearly that's the right thing to do.

What a stupid argument. And if you're ignorant enough to not look at the Wiki as a good compilation of knowledge, and realized the events described are historically recorded, you're a worthless fool.

Just sayin'.

[Lima Beans]

I'm sorry, but an argument that relies upon linking to one site, and Wikipedia no less, is dead upon arrival!

good idea not to trust anything just randomly written on wikipedia, but it is a good place to get a collection of related references.

[torrefaction]

I like Johan's method of arguing, where you ignore tons of evidence based on your statement (With no links at all, and nothing to corroborate the statement) that marriage has never changed.

From now on, I'll pretend all proof presented that blows holes in my arguments doesn't exist. Then I can always win.

What fun we'll have.

[Banacek]

I like Johan's method of arguing, where you ignore tons of evidence based on your statement (With no links at all, and nothing to corroborate the statement) that marriage has never changed.

From now on, I'll pretend all proof presented that blows holes in my arguments doesn't exist. Then I can always win.

What fun we'll have.

Have you not debated anything with Johan before? :)

[Johan]

I like Johan's method of arguing...

I prefer yours, where you simply post a link and assume, 'nuff said!' :rolleyes:

I'd post more, but I'm busy with the rest of the backyard bigots, working them slaves weeez all gots heeuh. :D

See...the guvmint kaent discrimmmnate 'gainst me for discrimmmnating 'gainst others.

No discrimination is allowed. Playboy better stop hiring women to get naked and start hiring men (and NOT for Playgirl, either. That's discrimination). No discrimination at all! :D

[torrefaction]

I'm going to list the logical fallacies Johan's used already:

Fallacy of Accident - Generalizing discrimination without regard for exceptions.
Appeal to Authority - Marriage has always been this way, therefore it's right.
Fallacy of the Consequent - If we don't allow any discrimination, we have to allow for pedophilia!

I bet there's more.

[Johan]

I'm going to list the logical fallacies Johan's used already:

Oh, what fun. Let's go right ahead. :D

Fallacy of Accident - Generalizing discrimination without regard for exceptions.

You did that! :D Seriously, do you have a clue?

There is no reason for the government to discriminate, for purposes of adoption, marriage, taxes, etc, against any class of people, regardless of tradition.

It's wrong.

Moving right along...

Appeal to Authority - Marriage has always been this way, therefore it's right.

I never said "it's always been this way, therefore it's right." You can't read! I did say that marriage is an institution which has been defined throughout human history in primarily one way, and that the onus for changing that is not upon those who hold the traditional view, but rather those who do not.

You will also need to provide a reason for discriminating against other groups that want to be included in this new definition of marriage. Why else would you exclude them, you bigoted, prejudiced person!! "There is no reason for the government to discriminate" after all!

Also, you appealed to an authority yourself: Wikipedia. That's a weak-ass authority! :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Right there. Appeal to authority.

Fallacy of the Consequent - If we don't allow any discrimination, we have to allow for pedophilia!

That is not what I said. You stated discrimination was wrong. I pointed out an instance of discrimination. It is, after all, discrimination to not allow pedophiles to adopt.

In other words, idiot, some discrimination is NOT ONLY SANCTIONED, but it is RIGHT! According to you, however,

There is no reason for the government to discriminate, for purposes of adoption, marriage, taxes, etc, against any class of people, regardless of tradition.

It's wrong.

You're a fool and a tool. A tree with weak roots is easily blown about by any breeze. You're doing a bunch of floating and flying.

[Wslove]

But look at what I'm saying. I'm not saying gay people are bad, or that gay marriage is bad. I'm not even saying that polygamy is bad (you mentioned polygamy way back when, but you don't seem to find it interesting anymore). For all I know, permitting polygamy would be the best thing that ever happened to this country. All I'm saying is that the argument used to support gay marriage -- that consenting adults who love each other should be allowed to do what they want -- can be used to support polygamy. Indeed, this argument is somewhat persuasive to me, and that's why I'm willing to try to overcome my instinctive revulsion at polygamy and try to be a little more broad-minded about it.


Actually there is a good reason for keeping polygamy illegal from a biological and social engineering standpoint and that is since the ratio of men to women within a given population tends to be about even you would disenfranchise a lot of men from being able to seek and obtain a mate. Wealthier men with more resources could support more wives which, after factoring in men who are gay and other factors, would still leave a lot of young able bodied men without the possibility of passing on their seed which is a fundamental biological urge. This would create tension within the society it is practiced and lead, eventually, to a fundamental breakdown unless there is some external pressure to release the disenfranchise to.

This is why the middle east is fucked up. A lot of polygamy is still practiced there and have created an unequal ratio of available women to men. Thus you have a significantly larger group of disenfranchised males looking for an outlet. 72 virgins for killing the great enemy doesn't begin to sound too bad. I'm surprised China isn't going through the same experience, but I'm inclined to give it time before something breaks down due to their uneven ratio of men to women.

So you see polygamy is outlawed because it is a detriment to a working society and government above a tribal level and values individual freedoms. On top of that the idea is barbaric one that regulates females to a more property role then marriage does, marriage having somewhat evolved and romanticized it's way away from it's 'women as property' roots.

[torrefaction]

You're saying I'm arguing without exception by ignoring the rest of my sentence. There is reason for the government to discriminate against those who violate the will and rights of others. Do I need to dumb that down for you more? Probably...but oh well.

I did not appeal to an authority. I referenced a source which clearly contradicted your blind statement.

As a teacher, I would've expected you to have reading comprehension skills. I would have also expected you to look at the referenced sources in the Wiki article, if you're so sure they're wrong. As I teacher, I'd expect you to educate yourself. My expectations are way too high.

[JoyOfJoys]

Adult polygamists can. And judges generally don't think an animal's inability to consent constrains us too much. After all, I'm allowed to kill a cow or compel a horse to work. So while you might think a valid distinction can be drawn between gay marriage and bestiality, I'm not certain every judge would agree.



Beasts cannot enter into a contract, just like those who are not of sound mind.

Equalising marriage to include same-sex couples still maintains the number of people involved in the structure. The fact that there are people who are not allowed to enter into this legal, state-recognised contract based purely on the gender make up of each party says to me that there is gender discrimination going on by the state. Within a fair, equal and secular government this is something that should be removed. (Priests can continue to refuse same-sex like they can refuse inter-religious couples and such, whatever floats their stupid boat)

Polygamy would probably require a different or modified set-up not currently supported in many western countries that I know of, there is no direct gender discrimination going on that I can see. (Although it would have to include some sort of same sex bonding, so I would say gay marriage would be a prerequisite to polygamy).

[bean19]

Not really, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, nobody can be arrested for entering into a 'marriage' between two men or two women, so it's not criminal, it just isn't recognized as a real marriage under the law. And it's not a matter of reducing their liberties, they can get married to a member of the opposite sex if they want, as the law was defined. So the only thing that gay marriage is about is the addition of the ability for people of the same sex to marry eachother. Presently they have exactly the same rights as every one else under the law, but like with poligamy, which actually is illegal, it doesn't accommodate their desire to enter into a different sort of marriage than what it's presently defined as.

People used similar arguments to justify slavery and then to later justify segregation.

I think my age group (lower 20's) is getting this though. When we get in our 40's and 50's, I think there will be enough of us in power that gay rights laws will pass around the nation instead of just in a few states. You guys that support prejudice towards them will be like the dinosaurs that still support hateful laws against black people.

[bean19]

No, Clinton only accuses Republicans of acting like slave-owners (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/17/clinton.plantation/index.html). That's much better.

She says that about Republican LEADERS. She does not say that about Republican voters.

As you know from other discussions, I do not necessarily vote for Democrats. I'm socially liberal, but economically libertarian (small government, fiscal responsibility), and I'm honestly more interested in economics than social issues (I'd like to see equal rights for gays, but I'm not gay, so -selfishly- it is more important to me that I can find work). The problem that I'm having is that all of these bullshit Republicans in the neo-conservative movement are not doing what the party has traditionally been about. They aren't about tax-and-spend like the Democrats. . . instead they are like junior high girls let loose with daddy's credit card in the shopping mall who then go out and by new wardrobes for all their friends.

So I'm not going to vote for Republicans in every election, but McCain has a chance of getting my vote if he makes promises for election reform during his administration, and to make the government fiscally responsible again - even with an ongoing war.

[Blade]

Romney's remarks about the dangers of not having a mother/father in the home are unwarranted.

Everybody knows that in most gay relationships, one person assumes the role of the male and the other the female. It shouldn't be much of a factor.

Very confusing to a younger child, but overall? Not an issue.

[bean19]

Yeah...it's just a coincidence that marriage happens to coincide with those that can reproduce in every society in history.

This isn't true. Marriage isn't always a concept people have in societies. Additionally, same sex couples are often given the same benefits as heterosexual copies (both in history and in present day).

[bean19]

Everybody knows that in most gay relationships, one person assumes the role of the male and the other the female. It shouldn't be much of a factor.

Wow. You are kidding? I know a lot of gay people and this is one of the funniest and most joked about myths.

In every relationship, there is usually a member who is more dominant. Often in heterosexual relationships, this is the male, but that isn't always the case. There is usually someone who "wears the pants". This is universal to all couples regardless of gender.

[EternalGamer]

You're saying I'm arguing without exception by ignoring the rest of my sentence. There is reason for the government to discriminate against those who violate the will and rights of others.

It does not matter how you justify it, you are arguing for discrimination! You said the government was allowed to discriminate! Apparently YOU lack reading comprehension skills!


Do I need to dumb that down for you more? Probably...but oh well.


Attack ad hominem! Boy you sure are logical!:D


I did not appeal to an authority. I referenced a source which clearly contradicted your blind statement.


You cited information from an author as authoritative! And an anonymous author on Wikipedia nonetheless! Who is blind now! :eek:You and your blind appeal to authority that is who!:D


As a teacher, I would've expected you to have reading comprehension skills.

I do have reading comprehension skills. My comprehension has shown me that you cited Wikipedia as an appeal to authority. As, an EvAv poster, I would expect more of you. :cool:;):D

I would have also expected you to look

I am looking. Looking at the fact that you referenced wikipedia as an appeal to authority! :eek:

at the referenced sources in the Wiki article

See, you did it again! You just called wikipedia a referenced source. Who is appealling to authority now! This is fun, I could do this all day. :D:D:D

As I teacher, I'd expect you to educate yourself.

I have already educated myself. That is why I am a teacher. But I didn't do so by appealing to wikipedia. [/quote]

My expectations are way too high.

If you think wikipedia is a credible source, then it is not just your expectations that are high!:eek:;):D

[bean19]

Wikipedia should not just be dismissed as false. It provides excellent summaries of issues and links to more meaty articles. You can't take it as absolute truth, but you can certainly do more research of the quoted references.

I'm not sure what torrefaction's point was, but the article-link that Johan quoted seems to be well-documented historical research AND it is well known and clearly established truth. Ask any history professor or sociologist and they'll tell you that same-sex unions have been around forever.

[torrefaction]

I'm not sure if Eternal was tearing into me, or mocking Johan.

Seeing as his post was completely out of character, I'm going to go for the latter.

[Johan]

If the summation of your point is that "gays have always been around" (a big DUH to that one), and that "those who oppose gay marriage are the modern equivalent of slave-holders" then all I can say is fuck you, you hypocritical bigoted ass. :D

You wouldn't be flattered by abstract intentions of "good will" towards you as continued to work on the cotton plantation without a choice to do otherwise.

You're in fine company. Bigot. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/17/clinton.plantation/index.html)

Seeing as his post was completely out of character, I'm going to go for the latter.

I'm sure it was. Of course, coming from the same person that equates people who oppose gay marriage with slave-holders, I'm not surprised.

He's an idiot and a bigot. He, and others here, mock people, insult them, and then have the temerity to say that their stance is the logical, rational one. He fits right in here.

[torrefaction]

Seems to me you're the one that consistently flings insults Johan. Anytime someone disagrees with you, it turns into you calling them idiots, tools, or fools. Or changing their name in a way drastically similar to third grade playground bullshit (Beelzepoopie...really?) And then you throw the term bigot at someone defending the rights of another group. Hilarious.

And the arguments are similar. You want separate rights for a group of people based on who they are. To compare that to Clinton's reference of the House is reaching, at best.

And to talk about insults and mocking? You're the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen. I talked about discriminating being wrong, and you call me a tool and a fool. You try and make an argument that I never made. Because unlike you, my views on the world are nuanced, and not seen in black and white.

Enjoy your attacks ad hominem on Eternal, while everyone views you for what you clearly are.

[TrackZero]

Someone was actually listening to Romney speeches? *rollseyes* Wow. Well at least he's officially gone now and I can even give less of a shit about him. Frankly right now I like the lineup of candidates on both sides (McCain + Huckabee/Clinton + Obama). I'd take any of them over Bush. But honestly they'd each be interesting to see in power for different reasons.

[TrackZero]

Ah, and it looks like you guys have been having fun with Johan throughout this thread. Who could have guessed? Well, I don't need to state my opinion on gay marriage since, well, I'm Canadian. That's all water under the bridge and our society didn't crumble, or even budge in the slightest. So take from that what you will.

[OUX]

In all honesty I don't think it matters who is going to be the next president. The current Admin will leave things in such a tattered state of affairs that in 4 years whoever is elected will be viewed as worse than Bush because of all the clean up they are going to have to do. We will need at the very least one term to separate us from Bush before anyone but a janitor can be elected.

[Johan]

Seems to me you're the one that consistently flings insults Johan. .

I give what I receive. It was not always so, but this place is so full of retarded flamethrowers that I do what I need to do; two-way street, with YOU GUYS establishing the ground rules for newer folks such as myself.


Anytime someone disagrees with you, it turns into you calling them idiots, tools, or fools. Or changing their name in a way drastically similar to third grade playground bullshit (Beelzepoopie...really?) .
Any time? Not so…when they insult me, I toss it back. And the best you can do is a silly/joking change of a name? Really now…after the insult he threw my way, unprovoked, I thought that was being pretty tongue-in-cheek myself.


And then you throw the term bigot at someone defending the rights of another group. Hilarious.

When it fits, I sure do…

You wouldn't be flattered by abstract intentions of "good will" towards you as continued to work on the cotton plantation without a choice to do otherwise.

BTW:


You're the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen.

Woops! Um…didn't you say that...

Seems to me you're the one that consistently flings insults Johan.

Hmmm…might want to reread yourself.

I talked about discriminating being wrong, and you call me a tool and a fool. You try and make an argument that I never made. Because unlike you, my views on the world are nuanced, and not seen in black and white.

This:


There is no reason for the government to discriminate, for purposes of adoption, marriage, taxes, etc, against any class of people, regardless of tradition.

It's wrong.

Is a nuanced position? :confused:

Enjoy your attacks ad hominem on Eternal, while everyone views you for what you clearly are.

Yes…it’s all about how mean I am. I’m such a meanie…I mean, I said gay people are evil, didn't I? Oh...I didn't. I said the laws should penalize them for their lifestyle, didn't I? Oh...I didn't. However, I am apparently a slaveholding bigot, since my view on gay marriage differs from yours, hence...

You wouldn't be flattered by abstract intentions of "good will" towards you as continued to work on the cotton plantation without a choice to do otherwise.

Seriously...fuck you, and anyone else who deals the same hypocritical cards on a daily basis here. You and many others dish this shit out CONSTANTLY, and then when I dish it back, you're SHOCKED!

Fuck you and those like you.

Ah, and it looks like you guys have been having fun with Johan throughout this thread.

At least you're honest. People here just like dicking around with others, insulting them and just instigating flame wars. I'm merely along for the ride, and dishing what I've been served since I've been here.

Don't blame ME for following YOUR COOKBOOK. Long after I've left, you'll be following the same retarded recipes...

[OUX]

Hmm reading back through the thread it appears there has been a lot said about gay marriage. As far as institutions go thinking that marriage is a sacred thing between a man and a woman is an outmoded paradigm. If you honestly think something that has a %50 failure rate is sacred you better be posting via a 28k modem because you are way back in the past. Actually you should probably be sending a wire, or rather yet, writing a letter.

[torrefaction]

That's hilarious. It's my fault you insulted me? Take a look at my post history, and the number of times I've really insulted people. With rare exceptions, I only retaliate, not fire first.

Your reading comprehension is still drastically lacking. I stated caveats to my statements in the initial post, and then even clarified more. So, yes, my views are nuanced. In addition, I never called you a slave holding bigot, and that really isn't the intention of the comparison. It's not an insult to compare argument tactics to other groups to repress rights. It's supposed to help enlighten, to see that maybe the position you hold isn't all that great in terms of human rights.

By arguing against gay marriage, and the legal federally endowed benefits that go along with it, you are arguing for a penalization of their lifestyle. That's fine if it's your position, but don't try and hide it from what it is.

My saying you fling insults is not an insult. It's a statement of fact. You called me a fool and a tool for my positions, with no provocation on my part. You say when they insult you, you toss back. But my very first post on the subject resulted in an insult from you.

And newer folks? You've posted significantly more than I have, and I wasn't a member for that long before you. Welcome to reality.

Unlike you, I post here to expand and enlighten my viewpoints. Not beat others in the head with them. For instance, my position on gay marriage changed the last time a thread like this came around?

Why? Because I realized in many ways holding those views was hypocritical. So I modified my views to be in line with my overall base tenets. A belief in freedom, a belief in justice, and a belief in the right of people to live their lives as equals.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

To me it's about understanding why for thousands of years humans have recognized heterosexual marriage and provided benefits for them. Might have something to do with reproduction but perhaps that's just a HUGE coincidence.


Society has evolved. Many people no longer get married solely for money/property and a means to pass it on and keep it in their bloodline - the main reason people used to get married of course.

Seriously, the "tradition" argument is flimsy at best. There are a lot of practices that were in vogue for thousands of years that society no longer supports - slavery is a great example.

These kinds of arguments just disgust me. Discrimination against same-sex marriage is discrimination, period. Comparing it to polygamy or bestiality doesn't reinforce any arguments either.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Sigh...I guess when you're intelligent enough to recognize the historical origins of marriage you have to put up with this crap from those who are to dense to figure it out on their own.


I'm going to post this one more time for emphasis, because I think it is a very important point:


"Because that's the way it's always been done!" is a very flawed argument.

[Rifter]

"Because that's the way it's always been done!" is a very flawed argument.
Actually, the law of unintended concequences, says it is not a flawed argument at all. There have been several social institutions, that have been hurt by "progressive" laws. I will have to find this article I read about it a while back. It REALLY opened my eyes.

Most social institutions, we have, that are based on "that is the way it has always been", is that way for SOME reason. We then legislate a change, overnight, and BREAK that institution accidently, creating a ripple affect that tears down other institutions. Marriage is a GREAT example. Marriage is probably the BEST example. There was social tinkering done on marriage, years ago... back when the divorce rate was like 1/3 or 1/4 of what it is now. The article talked about the changes wroght by legislation. I really need to find that article, it is an amazing eye opening item. Most major ramifications, can not be thought of. That is the scary part.

Hmm reading back through the thread it appears there has been a lot said about gay marriage. As far as institutions go thinking that marriage is a sacred thing between a man and a woman is an outmoded paradigm. If you honestly think something that has a %50 failure rate is sacred you better be posting via a 28k modem because you are way back in the past. Actually you should probably be sending a wire, or rather yet, writing a letter.
You fail to understand the difference between scientific achivement, and social engineering. 50% fialure rate in marriage has nothing to do with modems. Drastic, scary comparison, but utterly and completely useless. It is kind of like comparing apples to video games.

As for the 50% failure rate, what I find funny, is everyone just ACCEPTS it, as is... they don't realize every time we change our social laws, and try to "fix" society, in a progressive manner, we break things worse.

The problem with the gay marriage issue, is that because of our countries laws, we make it UNFAIR for a segment of our society. As I have stated before, I honestly don't think gay marriage is right for our government to get into... I think our government should ALSO get out the marriage item all together. So, they should not endorse straight marriage. They should create a domestic partnership certificate. As others have pointed out. It is between 2 consenting adults. It confers ALL legal rights that a marriage certificate confers today.

Now, if you want to get MARRIED, you go to a church, and have a priest perform a marriage. Marriage is, honestly, a religious institution.

I honeslty think this is going to open up a WHOLE pandoras box, but the problem, is that as a society, and how our laws are set up, we have to do it, to create equality among couples.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Rifter - Of course if there is good reason to keep an older practice, then go ahead. However, those reasons need to be spelled out. Simply saying "because that's the way it's always been done" is silly - that argument doesn't apply everywhere, and can easily be torn down. There are plenty of long-standing traditions and practices that society today generally agrees are bad.

I also have to wonder if the higher divorce rate is always such a bad thing. Divorce can be a good thing - if two people are unhappy together, then they should probably separate. If a man is beating his wife, shouldn't she be entitled to a divorce? Of course you do have a lot of couples entering into hasty marriages (see Britney Spears) and then getting fast divorces - these people give marriage in general a bad name. However, I just don't think that a higher divorce rate is always a bad thing.

[EternalGamer]

Seriously...fuck you, and anyone else who deals the same hypocritical cards on a daily basis here. You and many others dish this shit out CONSTANTLY, and then when I dish it back, you're SHOCKED!

Fuck you and those like you.




Hey, I was just trying to save you a bit of time and embarassment.

[OUX]

Actually, the law of unintended concequences, says it is not a flawed argument at all. There have been several social institutions, that have been hurt by "progressive" laws. I will have to find this article I read about it a while back. It REALLY opened my eyes.

Most social institutions, we have, that are based on "that is the way it has always been", is that way for SOME reason. We then legislate a change, overnight, and BREAK that institution accidently, creating a ripple affect that tears down other institutions. Marriage is a GREAT example. Marriage is probably the BEST example. There was social tinkering done on marriage, years ago... back when the divorce rate was like 1/3 or 1/4 of what it is now. The article talked about the changes wroght by legislation. I really need to find that article, it is an amazing eye opening item. Most major ramifications, can not be thought of. That is the scary part.
Yes and women should not be able to vote or own property. Also why we are at it I shouldn't be able to vote because I don't own property. Hmmm we need to get a monarch going too. Let's make Bush king, I mean being a good king or not has never mattered as long as we make assassination an acceptable form of political change. Yes, yes this has lots of potential. Of course I won't be around to see it since I am an atheist and will be tortured until I both submit to the church and confess my sins to it. Then thankfully they will kill me (probably painfully) and put me out of my misery. This retro social movement needs a good kick off though so I am going to go uptown right now and start asking the women where they got their shoes and why are they out of the kitchen. And if any of them talk back I will get their husbands to imprison them because I am part of the men's club and women aren't suppose to talk back. Once we reinstate the cult of true womanhood it will be smooth sailing until the next official crusade and we can indiscriminately butcher those jack asses in Jerusalem for not believing in the Christian God.

Of course there were reasons for social institutions, that does not mean that they were good reasons.

Jack ass.

[Schnoogs]

I'm going to post this one more time for emphasis, because I think it is a very important point:


"Because that's the way it's always been done!" is a very flawed argument.

I'm going to post this one more time for emphasis, because I think it is a very important point:

"Things that haven't changed since the beginning of recorded time should be changed for the sake of change" is a very flawed argument.

[Rifter]

I also have to wonder if the higher divorce rate is always such a bad thing. Divorce can be a good thing - if two people are unhappy together, then they should probably separate. If a man is beating his wife, shouldn't she be entitled to a divorce? Of course you do have a lot of couples entering into hasty marriages (see Britney Spears) and then getting fast divorces - these people give marriage in general a bad name. However, I just don't think that a higher divorce rate is always a bad thing.

Plain and simple, a high divorce rate is HORRIBLE for a society. The rate of abuse in relationships is WAY lower than 50%. Before the laws changed, abuse was already a reason for divorce. Once again, your reasons are completely flawed. When people talk about a bad 50% divorce rate, they are talking about the tragedy of so many "GOOD" marriages going south. For MANY generations, if a woman was beaten, she had no problem getting a divorce... so, why, in the past 20 years, has the divorce rate SKYROCKETED? How is that GOOD, how is it even REMOTELY good?

Here is an example, how bad things are. When I got my divorce last year, I had to go through a parenting class. I figure there was 70-90 people in the class. Each one was 1/2 of a failed marriage, AND was going through a lawyer for the divorce. So, the judge said our class was small. Usually, they were about 130-150 people. They have 2-4 of these per week. Now, these divorces were ONLY for people with kids. That number is mindnumbingly high. Take into consideration, the county I live in, only has 360k people. Anyone that discounts a 50% divorce rate as no big deal, is nuts. If they say it may be good, that is just WRONG.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Plain and simple, a high divorce rate is HORRIBLE for a society. The rate of abuse in relationships is WAY lower than 50%. Before the laws changed, abuse was already a reason for divorce. Once again, your reasons are completely flawed. When people talk about a bad 50% divorce rate, they are talking about the tragedy of so many "GOOD" marriages going south. For MANY generations, if a woman was beaten, she had no problem getting a divorce... so, why, in the past 20 years, has the divorce rate SKYROCKETED? How is that GOOD, how is it even REMOTELY good?

Here is an example, how bad things are. When I got my divorce last year, I had to go through a parenting class. I figure there was 70-90 people in the class. Each one was 1/2 of a failed marriage, AND was going through a lawyer for the divorce. So, the judge said our class was small. Usually, they were about 130-150 people. They have 2-4 of these per week. Now, these divorces were ONLY for people with kids. That number is mindnumbingly high. Take into consideration, the county I live in, only has 360k people. Anyone that discounts a 50% divorce rate as no big deal, is nuts. If they say it may be good, that is just WRONG.


Oh, my last post should have been more clear. The divorce rate is ridiculous, and it is a poor reflection on society that it is so high. I just hear a lot of people decry divorce period, but I see a lot of good reasons for divorce. I agree that it is really tragic when good marriages fall apart. My parents marriage was great when I was younger, but it fell apart slowly during my teenage years.

Divorce in general is kind of a touchy subject with me. My parents went through a long and bitter divorce a couple of years ago. I thought it was over, but I just found out yesterday that my dad is taking my mom back to court for custody. :(

[Rifter]

Of course there were reasons for social institutions, that does not mean that they were good reasons.

Jack ass.
Glad you are SO good at trying to take a realistic argument, and blowing it all out of proportions.. like of like apples and video games, yet again. Why not back down on your rhetoric and name calling, and try to have a real discussion? I DO realize it is easier to devlove into name calling, but it doesn't cut it.

We are discussion marriage, here. Not the women's suffarge movement. Catch up, you are about 80 years behind in this discussion.

Breaking social structures, just to break them, is moronic. You have to have a MUCH more compelling reason to break it, than to keep the status quo.

Divorce in general is kind of a touchy subject with me. My parents went through a long and bitter divorce a couple of years ago.

I am sorry.

[OUX]

You were discussing social institutions. Everything I listed was a previously acceptable social institution. Also there is no such thing as a religious institution as all religion is a social construct and therefore a social institution. I only resorted to ad hominem in light of the fact that you actually have no argument to attack. You were just being a jack ass, jack ass.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Schnoogs and Rifter - I'm not arguing change for the sake of change. I do think that is stupid. However, I fully believe that letting same sex couples get married is a GOOD change that has many benefits - for gay people (obviously) as well as society as a whole.

Gay people are often decried as immoral, promiscuous, hedonistic, etc. Wouldn't allowing gay people to get married help to alleviate this? A lot of the problems in gay culture are born out of their mistreatment by society as a whole.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

You were discussing social institutions. Everything I listed was a perilously acceptable social institution. Also there is no such thing as a religious institution as all religion is a social construct and therefore a social institution. I only resorted to ad hominem in light of the fact that you actually have no argument to attack. You were just being a jack ass, jack ass.

Come on man, I can see your point here, but let's drop the name calling. It doesn't help ANY discussion after elementary school.

[EternalGamer]

And to talk about insults and mocking? You're the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen. I talked about discriminating being wrong, and you call me a tool and a fool. You try and make an argument that I never made. Because unlike you, my views on the world are nuanced, and not seen in black and white.



For someone to be a hypocrite they first have to establish a coherant position from which they can deviate. I have yet to see Johan be guilty of such.

In all honestly, my post was a little mean, but Johan attitude of being so cocksure and incoherant at the same time makes it hard to resist. I can take it easy on someone who has less than stellar argumentative skills and is humble, or someone that is somewhat obnoxious but sound in their thinking. But the particular mix that Johan frequently demonstrates makes him a target hard to resist.

Still it doesn't make my response any more mature or productive. So, I apologize for it. I also owe Oxonian an apology as well for what I implied yesterday. I still profoundly disagree with the notion that someone who is an apologist for policy that promotes discrimination should be given a pass just because they personally don't promote the concept of discrimination. Most of the people that drive injustice in our society are not twirling mustaches while they tie damsels to railroad tracks. Most of them have rather good intentions and sometimes even sound ideology at the basis of those intentions. That doesn't make the real influence that results from their thinking any more agreeable. Still they probably deserve more than a short hand implication of being associated with bigotry.

[Johan]

Actually, the law of unintended concequences, says it is not a flawed argument at all.

You're probably looking for something like this. (http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html)

Also, the precautionary principle applies:

If a policy or action could cause public harm, in the absence of empirical evidence that harm would necessarily result, the burden of proof rests upon those who advocate action/change.

But really...people who oppose gay marriage are slave-holding bigots. That's all.

In all honestly, my post was a little mean, but Johan attitude of being so cocksure and incoherant at the same time makes it hard to resist.

What a load of horseshit. I've posted my opinion, AND several times have linked to a fuller explanation of why I believe as I do (link above).

The only incoherence is in calling others racists, acting a two-year-old when others disagree with your idea, and then spinning if off as the other person's problem. My ideas are clear. My reasoning is clear. You may not like it, but tough shit.

And fuck off for the insults. :D You and a few others slobber and foam at the mouth about how horrible my posts are, all the while I've posted my position multiple times quite clearly.

[OUX]

Come on man, I can see your point here, but let's drop the name calling. It doesn't help ANY discussion after elementary school.

I'm sorry, my brother is gay and I draw a hard line against anyone who doesn't think that he deserves the same rights and privileges as them because he is different from them.

[Johan]

I'm sorry, my brother is gay and I draw a hard line against anyone who doesn't think that he deserves the same rights and privileges as them because he is different from them.

I have yet to hear someone explain why the marital "circle" (if you will) should be expanded to include homosexuals while simultaneously, and subjectively, keeping out polygamists or others.

Additionally, in many cultures, the structure of marriage is extremely different even at its most basic and commonly understood frame (of a man and woman); women have far different rights and roles in other cultures; very restricted rights and roles within marriage, which men from other cultures (and EVEN WOMEN) believe in and want to practice here.

How do you subjectively change the definition merely to suit your own interests, while simultaneously ignoring those of others who continue outside of the marital circle?

The answer? You cannot logically defend it. Expanding and changing the definition of marriage, while keeping out groups and their cultural marital parameters, is arbitrary, subjective, unfair, unequal, and illogical.

Moving the line at all moves it, if only people had some logic here, quite far indeed. There's no logical basis to stop it for quite some distance.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

I'm sorry, my brother is gay


Really, is he cute? :D


Can we end this thread now?

[Magnanimous Gnome]

I have yet to hear someone explain why the marital "circle" (if you will) should be expanded to include homosexuals while simultaneously, and subjectively, keeping out polygamists or others.



Well then why not include polygamists as well? You seem so gung-ho on they not being treated unequally, so why not let them get married?

[Schnoogs]

I'm sorry, my brother is gay and I draw a hard line against anyone who doesn't think that he deserves the same rights and privileges as them because he is different from them.

Do you even know what those "rights and priviledges" are and why they even exist?

OR are you just another person who has reduced this to Group B doesn't get the same treatment as Group A therefore it's discrimination.

News flash for you...everyone in society has different rights and legal benefits. This is called common sense not discrimination.

[Rifter]

I'm sorry, my brother is gay and I draw a hard line against anyone who doesn't think that he deserves the same rights and privileges as them because he is different from them.

Do me a HUGE favor here... and point out where *I* have said I don't think there should be some sort of gay marriage? I am about 99% sure, that EVERY note I have posted, has been along the lines, of giving homosexuals the same LEGAL rights of marriage, and I even go a step further, saying our government should abolish marriage licenses even for straight couples, and move "true" marriage to the religious institutions. If the Catholic church does not believe in "gay" marriage, that is THEIR view, another church will not have a problem. The thing is, "marriage" becomes a title, that in a church, may hold water, but in LEGAL proceedings, means nothing. What matters, is the domestic partnership license, that gives a homosexual the FULL rights, heterosexual couples now get.

What really pisses me off, is you posting rhetoric, and calling me names and you didn't even read ONE post I have made!!!

[Johan]

Well then why not include polygamists as well? You seem so gung-ho on they not being treated unequally, so why not let them get married?

That's been my point this entire time. Who decides where to place this arbitrary new line for what "is" and what "is not" marriage? There's no logical basis to put it anywhere, frankly. If I can argue that the definition of marriage is too limited, I can successfully argue that your new definition is too limited as well.

And then? See my previous link. The law of unintended consequences...

of course, to others, I'm just totally incoherent. I can't be understood. I'm mean. I hate gays. Right?

Wrong on all counts.

Edit: Actually, I am mean. Comfortably numb...

[Rifter]

You're probably looking for something like this. (http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html)


Actually, that WAS the article. :-)

[Schnoogs]

Well then why not include polygamists as well? You seem so gung-ho on they not being treated unequally, so why not let them get married?

I for one think they should be able to...why should't 3 consenting adults be able to form a marriage? Why shouldn't a man be able to mate with two women at a time seeing as it's not onyl physically possible but historically quite common.

At least then you're acknowledging the traditional purpose of marriage which is a recognition of procreation....something that gay men can't do on their own. Seems silly to exclude polygomy but include homsexuality.

Oh wait...they're a protected class.

[OUX]

I have yet to hear someone explain why the marital "circle" (if you will) should be expanded to include homosexuals while simultaneously, and subjectively, keeping out polygamists or others.

Additionally, in many cultures, the structure of marriage is extremely different even at its most basic and commonly understood frame (of a man and woman); women have far different rights and roles in other cultures; very restricted rights and roles, which men from other cultures (and EVEN WOMEN) believe in and want to practice here.

How do you subjectively change the definition merely to suit your own interests, while simultaneously ignoring those of others who continue outside of the marital circle?

The answer? You cannot logically defend it. Expanding and changing the definition of marriage, while keeping out groups and their cultural marital parameters, is arbitrary, subjective, unfair, unequal, and illogical.

Moving the line at all moves it, if only people had some logic here, quite far indeed. There's no logical basis to stop it for quite some distance.
I never said that we shouldn't allow polygamists the right to marry. Now gay polygamists that is stretching it too far. ;) As for the slippery slope argument about bestiality it is a matter of consent. The animal cannot give informed consent so marriage isn't even an issue. The only reason people are against these kinds of marriages is because (and this is entirely my opinion) they are outside of their comfort zone. I wouldn't presume to tell people what color to paint their living rooms and I won't presume to tell people how to live their lives if they are only attempting to find their own happiness.

EDIT: I think a distinction needs to be made that the marriage I am talking about is the legal marriage. I don't give a rat's ass if an old guy in Rome thinks that men shouldn't marry but when I had to go into a voting both and vote on whether or not my brother could be legally equal to a straight couple in a union it really pissed me off.

[Johan]

As for the slippery slope argument about bestiality it is a matter of consent.

I haven't mentioned that issue (bestiality) once, and I'm not concerned that it will go mainstream any time soon...if ever.

Just an FYI.

[OUX]

What really pisses me off, is you posting rhetoric, and calling me names and you didn't even read ONE post I have made!!!

Your posts all seem to be making the point that the government shouldn't be involved and that amending laws will cause more problems.

A plan or opinion of inaction is an action against social change.

[OUX]

I haven't mentioned that issue (bestiality) once, and I'm not concerned that it will go mainstream any time soon...if ever.

Just an FYI.

I understand that but I figured that I would cover all of my bases. ;)

[Gilius Thunderhead]

I haven't mentioned that issue (bestiality) once


Now you have! 0_o

A plan or opinion of inaction is an action against social change.

Sometimes social change isn't good?

That said, I don't really see what the big deal is. People are like, "Marriage is sacred!" and go on like that, but how sacred is marriage with divorce rates what they are? Should we start banning couples of certain demographics from marrying because it's likely to become anything but sacred, with divorce and all that jazz? Probably not, so why don't we go ahead and let the gays marry as they wish. It's not like stopping their marriages will stop their homosexuality--that's the part that the religious faction fears, methinks--nor will it hide it very well. Hell, if we just went ahead and allowed gay marriage, we'd probably stop hearing about it regularly, and the exposure to all that gayness would probably shrink, which is probably something the crazies would enjoy.

Still, it's sounding like you're saying that society can only be good if it's totally fluid, which isn't exactly true. You want gays to have marriage; what if we remove marriage entirely? It's just another chain--one that's been around our necks for thousands of years! Ditch that and we'll really turn shit upside down, make it right. Oh, wait. You probably like marriage, and think it's a good way to go--it's something you'd like to keep around. When you don't object to that concept, feel free to continue talking about how constant societal change is ideal.

[OUX]

Do you even know what those "rights and priviledges" are and why they even exist?

OR are you just another person who has reduced this to Group B doesn't get the same treatment as Group A therefore it's discrimination.

News flash for you...everyone in society has different rights and legal benefits. This is called common sense not discrimination.

That doesn't make it right and the grounds on which people are judged make a difference. Should people in different financial situations be eligible for the same kind of financial aid for school? Of course not. Should the eligibility be determined because on person has a partner of the same sex? Of course not.

[OUX]

Now you have! 0_o



Sometimes social change isn't good?

That said, I don't really see what the big deal is. People are like, "Marriage is sacred!" and go on like that, but how sacred is marriage with divorce rates what they are? Should we start banning couples of certain demographics from marrying because it's likely to become anything but sacred, with divorce and all that jazz? Probably not, so why don't we go ahead and let the gays marry as they wish. It's not like stopping their marriages will stop their homosexuality--that's the part that the religious faction fears, methinks--nor will it hide it very well. Hell, if we just went ahead and allowed gay marriage, we'd probably stop hearing about it regularly, and the exposure to all that gayness would probably shrink, which is probably something the crazies would enjoy.

Still, it's sounding like you're saying that society can only be good if it's totally fluid, which isn't exactly true. You want gays to have marriage; what if we remove marriage entirely? It's just another chain--one that's been around our necks for thousands of years! Ditch that and we'll really turn shit upside down, make it right. Oh, wait. You probably like marriage, and think it's a good way to go--it's something you'd like to keep around. When you don't object to that concept, feel free to continue talking about how constant societal change is ideal.

Again is is about the legality of the situation. If a same sex couple were to live together for 10 years and a partner was to die suddenly they get absolutely nothing unless the family is extremely understanding and giving. Societies as a rule are not fluid nor should they be. All change is difficult and hard to come by and it should be. I personally think that this is a change that is worth working for and will make lives better.

[Rifter]

Your posts all seem to be making the point that the government shouldn't be involved and that amending laws will cause more problems.

A plan or opinion of inaction is an action against social change.

In that ASPECT, I was more arguing against the concept that saying something has always been that way, is not an argument. If you read what I have said, all along, is that homosexual couples DESERVE the same rights married couples get. I was saying that LONG before you started the conversation. Please go back and read what I have said. I go from the thought that if you are responding to my posts, you are responding to all I have written in the thread, not having a knee-jerk reaction to a comment I make about one aspect of the discussion.

What I hate, is people saying change is good, because it is change... or those that say, homosexuals deserve marriage, as a knee-jerk reaction, without giving any thought to WHY they are disallowed as it stands, and what may change, if they are allowed. Saying your brother is gay, is NOT an argument, either. I have STATED why I tihnk homosexuals deserve to be able to be "married". And, it was, cuz someone I know is gay.

Again is is about the legality of the situation. If a same sex couple were to live together for 10 years and a partner was to die suddenly they get absolutely nothing unless the family is extremely understanding and giving. Societies as a rule are not fluid nor should they be. All change is difficult and hard to come by and it should be. I personally think that this is a change that is worth working for and will make lives better.
This is the first post you have made, that I can think of, that goes into reasons to allow gay marriage. Which is also similiar to one of my early posts.

[OUX]

Ok so I have gone back and read your posts and I apologize for my knee jerk reaction and for calling you a jack ass. It was completely a knee jerk to an aspect of the conversation that was not in the context of the conversation.
http://formel1saison.de/php/ecards/grusskarte_sorry.jpg

[Gilius Thunderhead]

Again is is about the legality of the situation. If a same sex couple were to live together for 10 years and a partner was to die suddenly they get absolutely nothing unless the family is extremely understanding and giving. Societies as a rule are not fluid nor should they be. All change is difficult and hard to come by and it should be. I personally think that this is a change that is worth working for and will make lives better.

When I said that I didn't see what the big deal was, I was talking about the big deal with the opposition; I was saying that I can't understand why they're so opposed to it (probably because I'm an atheist). Not that I didn't see why people care at all about gay marriage. That's why I started talking about the anti-gay marriage stances, and not about the reasons people shouldn't care about the gay marriage thing one way or another.

Oh, and post more cute animals. I'm in a strange mood today. I think about things, and muse, and feel disconnected--like I am, for some reason, the man on the outside. I need cute things. Cute things will bring me back.

[OUX]

I will get right on that.
http://www.animalport.com/img/cute-animal-pictures/big-pic/Cute-Animal-31.jpg

[Gilius Thunderhead]

I will get right on that.
http://www.animalport.com/img/cute-animal-pictures/big-pic/Cute-Animal-31.jpg

Keep 'em coming. I feel my heart growing.

[bean19]

Most social institutions, we have, that are based on "that is the way it has always been", is that way for SOME reason. We then legislate a change, overnight, and BREAK that institution accidently, creating a ripple affect that tears down other institutions. Marriage is a GREAT example. Marriage is probably the BEST example. There was social tinkering done on marriage, years ago... back when the divorce rate was like 1/3 or 1/4 of what it is now. The article talked about the changes wroght by legislation. I really need to find that article, it is an amazing eye opening item. Most major ramifications, can not be thought of. That is the scary part.

The divorce rate increased as women gained power - first by gaining the rights to vote and hold property and later gaining the ability to work for a living. Marriage was often as scary and messed up a century ago as we find it to be in Middle Eastern culture today.

There are a lot of crazy fundamentalists that make arguments like the one you made above. That there will be some sort of unintended consequence that will ruin our culture. The problem with this speculative argument is that it can be proven to be bullshit. The culture in Canada, Europe, and Massachusetts (among MANY other places) has not gone down the crapper because they allowed same-sex marriages.

The entire nation will have them in the future, and everyone who was against them will correctly be seen as the same kind of bigots who came up with all kinds of reasons (that we now see as completely retarded) for mistreating black people. History is repeating itself.

Luckily, I can't think of any other group that we allow prejudice towards in the United States. We may be seeing the last real equal rights movement. . . well, until we get mutants with super powers. Then I'm sure you'll come up with a bunch of reasons why it is necessary to "Kill all Muties" too.

[bean19]

But really...people who oppose gay marriage are slave-holding bigots. That's all.

Johan - You are very loud and inflammatory, but your points are often disregarded because they are unreasoned. Volume is meaningless. Often chickens will cluck as if they've laid an asteroid over the most common egg.

How can you defend denying equal rights to gay people and then say that you are not a bigot to do so? We are not being ugly by calling you a bigot. We are pointing out that your unsupported decision to show prejudice towards a specific group is bigotry.

[bean19]

That's been my point this entire time. Who decides where to place this arbitrary new line for what "is" and what "is not" marriage? There's no logical basis to put it anywhere, frankly. If I can argue that the definition of marriage is too limited, I can successfully argue that your new definition is too limited as well.

Here is the logic that people use in making a decision to support equal rights for gays:

Homosexuals allowed to marry - no one is harmed, gays gain the same rights and privileges as straight couples including insurance benefits, privileges at hospitals, parental rights, inheritance, etc.

Homosexuals not allowed to marry - gays are harmed by being denied the benefits of marriage.

Why not expand marriage further to polygamy and bestiality? Well, let's look at that the same way:

Polygamists allowed to marry - studies have shown that polygamist families are almost always controlling of women and are frequently incestuous as well as exploitative of young girls. Harm is done by polygamists.

Polygamists not allowed to marry - those few polygamists that are not hurting anyone are denied medical benefits on a single family policy but due to the large size of their group they can obtain a large discount anyhow.

Bestiality is obviously morally wrong on it's face as the animals are not willing participants and I think we can logically draw a line saying that marriage is between two humans.

If this is a religious argument for you, would you oppose granting equal rights to gays if it were only the legal rights and the union was called a "union" instead of marriage?

[Lint of Death]

Keep 'em coming. I feel my heart growing.

Feel your troubles melt away... (http://www.cuteoverload.com/)

[Rifter]

Bestiality is obviously morally wrong on it's face as the animals are not willing participants and I think we can logically draw a line saying that marriage is between two humans.


Quite honestly, you say it is morally wrong now, when, in 30 years, everything is has been allowed, are you going to say... what the hell, I can't stop a man from being carnally involved with a chihuahua. 50 years ago, the thought of gay marriage would have been "morally wrong", as well. As views change, what is moral and immoral does, as well.

[Rifter]

How can you defend denying equal rights to gay people and then say that you are not a bigot to do so? We are not being ugly by calling you a bigot. We are pointing out that your unsupported decision to show prejudice towards a specific group is bigotry.

Honestly, I don't see it as bigoted. It is a religious stance, the same way that pro-life is a more religious stance. This stance is in an instittution that has ALWAYS viewed by western culture as a man and woman. You are asking a LOT of people to change their sociatal views, in a VERY small amount of time. Do you honestly think that is fair, or realistic? Calling people names, is not the answer. You just get those people that are feeling defensive that their beliefs are being attacked, to dig in deeper. Because they are basing their ideals on thousands of years of societal evolotion, does not make them wrong, and quite honestly, gives them a pretty strong backing. If our governemnt didn't give us hundreds of rights, bestowed by marriage... I would be against gay marriage. I honestly think attacking marriage is wrong, but our government, how they have issued laws, have made it that "marriage" needs to be all inclusive.

[Gilius Thunderhead]

Feel your troubles melt away... (http://www.cuteoverload.com/)

That was really cute! I'm high on life, guys! Come look at me! I'm hugging kittens! Oh, they're ADORABLE!

[Johan]

The entire nation will have them in the future, and everyone who was against them will correctly be seen as the same kind of bigots who came up with all kinds of reasons (that we now see as completely retarded) for mistreating black people. History is repeating itself.

How can you defend denying equal rights to gay people and then say that you are not a bigot to do so? We are not being ugly by calling you a bigot. We are pointing out that your unsupported decision to show prejudice towards a specific group is bigotry.

bean19: "People who disagree with me are bigoted retards and obviously the equivalent of racist slaveholders. I'm just calling it like it is."

Followed by:

Johan - You are very loud and inflammatory

That's rich! You fit in well here!

Polygamists allowed to marry - studies have shown that polygamist families are almost always controlling of women and are frequently incestuous as well as exploitative of young girls. Harm is done by polygamists.

What a load of horseshit. "studies have shown."

You are arbitrarily bigoted toward Islamic and other religions/cultures in which polygamy is welcomed by both genders.

You need a mirror. Your logic is shit, and your words are inflammatory insults with nothing but your own weak-minded opinion to back them up.

There is absolutely no logical basis to extend the marital "circle" out to homosexuals while denying an extension for others. Except, of course, bigotry.

[IrishWhiskey]

You are arbitrarily bigoted toward Islamic +999 Irony Damage!


Also:
There is absolutely no logical basis to extend the marital "circle" out to homosexuals while denying an extension for others. Except, of course, bigotry. "If you aren't a bigot like me, you must be a bigot to polygamists!"
You need a mirror. Your logic is shit, and your words are inflammatory insults with nothing but your own weak-minded opinion to back them up.Oh, you have fallen so far.....

[TrackZero]

I'm going to post this one more time for emphasis, because I think it is a very important point:

"Things that haven't changed since the beginning of recorded time should be changed for the sake of change" is a very flawed argument.

Quite true. Unfortunately, America's societal treatment of homosexuality is not "the beginning of recorded time". Ask the Romans what they did, guess what, it ain't what the states does. FAIL.

[TrackZero]

I for one think they should be able to...why should't 3 consenting adults be able to form a marriage? Why shouldn't a man be able to mate with two women at a time seeing as it's not onyl physically possible but historically quite common.

At least then you're acknowledging the traditional purpose of marriage which is a recognition of procreation....something that gay men can't do on their own. Seems silly to exclude polygomy but include homsexuality.

Oh wait...they're a protected class.

Now who's being sexist? Why can't it be one woman with 10 husbands? ;)

[Dukefrukem]

+999 Irony Damage!


Also: "If you aren't a bigot like me, you must be a bigot to polygamists!"
Oh, you have fallen so far.....

I laughed so hard at work... this is great. I can't believe I missed Johan's meltdown.

[Johan]

You guys crack me up. You have absolutely no answer to the central logical conundrum you are faced with when you state that you wish to redefine marriage to include homosexuals, as there is no logical basis for redefining it to include homosexuals and yet arbitrarily exclude the billion+ people who live within cultures that accept polygamy, or the two billion+ people who live within cultures where the roles and rights of those within marriage are extremely different from our own.

So, rather than face the illogical, bigoted subjectivity of your own position (include group A because you like the idea, but exclude B, C and D....just because), you lash out and make insulting statements.

I expect no different here. You've got nothing...empty rhetoric and a hilarious lack of logic or support for your arbitrary and bigoted stance.

Be intellectually honest with yourself. Some of you want to include homosexuals within marriage only because it suits you, and those left on the outside still can just be damned...no logical basis to it; merely an arbitrary redefinition of the institution.

Or...keep flinging feces like a retarded monkey. :D

[TrackZero]

You guys crack me up. You have absolutely no answer to the central logical conundrum you are faced with when you state that you wish to redefine marriage to include homosexuals, as there is no logical basis for redefining it to include homosexuals and yet arbitrarily exclude the billion+ people who live within cultures that accept polygamy, or the two billion+ people who live within cultures where the roles and rights of those within marriage are extremely different from our own.

So, rather than face the illogical, bigoted subjectivity of your own position (include group A because you like the idea, but exclude B, C and D....just because), you lash out and make insulting statements.

I expect no different here. You've got nothing...empty rhetoric and a hilarious lack of logic or support for your arbitrary and bigoted stance.

And I expect nothing more than a "haw! you've all got no argument, which I can show by not quoting in response!". Treating them like fellow humans is the only reason we need.

Edit: Also, good morning dude!

[Dukefrukem]

You guys crack me up. You have absolutely no answer to the central logical conundrum you are faced with when you state that you wish to redefine marriage to include homosexuals, as there is no logical basis for redefining it to include homosexuals and yet arbitrarily exclude the billion+ people who live within cultures that accept polygamy, or the two billion+ people who live within cultures where the roles and rights of those within marriage are extremely different from our own.

So, rather than face the illogical, bigoted subjectivity of your own position (include group A because you like the idea, but exclude B, C and D....just because), you lash out and make insulting statements.

I expect no different here. You've got nothing...empty rhetoric and a hilarious lack of logic or support for your arbitrary and bigoted stance.


http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/8090/1184040522276lb8.jpg

[Johan]

^^^That sums it up.

No logical basis for moving the marital "circle" outward to include homosexuals, yet continue to exclude others. None.

So...more stupidity. Well done! :D

And I expect nothing more than a "haw! you've all got no argument, which I can show by not quoting in response!". Treating them like fellow humans is the only reason we need.

Edit: Also, good morning dude!

Good morning!

"Treating them like fellow humans" doesn't cut it for those you arbitrarily leave outside your slightly expanded definition of marriage.

It's arbitrary. It's insupportable. It's bigoted.

[Dukefrukem]

^^^That sums it up.

No logical basis for moving the marital "circle" outward to include homosexuals, yet continue to exclude others. None.

So...more stupidity. Well done! :D

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r59/sRdennyCrane/facepalmpicardo.jpg

[Johan]

^^^That one is better. It provides a much more compelling argument for your position! :D

[Dukefrukem]

^^^That one is better. It provides a much more compelling argument for your position! :D

http://img322.imageshack.us/img322/4671/aceddr6ox.gif

[OUX]

^^^That sums it up.

No logical basis for moving the marital "circle" outward to include homosexuals, yet continue to exclude others. None.

So...more stupidity. Well done! :D



Good morning!

"Treating them like fellow humans" doesn't cut it for those you arbitrarily leave outside your slightly expanded definition of marriage.

It's arbitrary. It's insupportable. It's bigoted.

eh? But your argument is arbitrary, insupportable and bigoted as well by that logic.

[Johan]

eh? But your argument is arbitrary, insupportable and bigoted as well by that logic.

No, mine is quite logical. You don't take an institution as entrenched and significant to society as marriage and change it without actually considering how you will change it. Proponents of homosexual marriage couch their ideas in those of tolerance, humanity, equality, and the like. Fine. What about the billions of people, many of whom end up moving here, who would like to have a different structure to marriage as well? Why are they arbitrarily left out when they agree as independent parties to submit to their own definition of marriage? Why is the definition arbitrarily stopped with only including gay marriage? Why not polygamists? Why not Islamic customs within marriage, including the definitions they follow for female and male rights, which they mutually agree to?

There's no logic to STOP the redefinition of marriage. Unless someone can provide a plausible, logical reason for where the expanding redefinition of marriage will STOP, then it's arbitrary and bigoted to stop it on your own with just homosexual unions.

But feel free to dance around it and sling insults, instead, folks. I'm used to it. :D

You want to redefine it? Provide a FULL, LOGICAL redefinition, with the new boundaries you would apply. And WHY you exclude those left out.

[Dukefrukem]

No, mine is quite logical. You don't take an institution as entrenched and significant to society as marriage and change it without actually considering how you will change it. Proponents of homosexual marriage couch their ideas in those of tolerance, humanity, equality, and the like. Fine. What about the billions of people, many of whom end up moving here, who would like to have a different structure to marriage as well? Why are they arbitrarily left out when they agree as independent parties to submit to their own definition of marriage? Why is the definition arbitrarily stopped with only including gay marriage? Why not polygamists? Why not Islamic customs within marriage, including the definitions they follow for female and male rights, which they mutually agree to?

There's no logic to STOP the redefinition of marriage. Unless someone can provide a plausible, logical reason for where the expanding redefinition of marriage will STOP, then it's arbitrary and bigoted to stop it on your own with just homosexual unions.

But feel free to dance around it and sling insults, instead, folks. I'm used to it. :D

You want to redefine it? Provide a FULL, LOGICAL redefinition, with the new boundaries you would apply. And WHY you exclude those left out.

Your only reason why they shouldn't get married is because you don't think there would be an end to the redefine. Thats not a good reason. Polygamists are not accepted as a respectful way of living.

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/6677/vadergoat2ro5iz.gif

[Johan]

Your only reason why they shouldn't get married is because you don't think there would be an end to the redefine.

No. My reason is that nobody can provide a logical, clear explanation of what new definition will replace the old. The reason for that is there is NO logical basis for excluding some groups once you expand the definition beyond its present widespread and commonly accepted (by majorities in virtually every culture) definition of man and woman (possibly plural).

Polygamists are not accepted as a respectful way of living.

That's arbitrary, insupportable, illogical, and rejects a way of life accepted by a billion + people.

What a bigoted view.

[OUX]

No, mine is quite logical. You don't take an institution as entrenched and significant to society as marriage and change it without actually considering how you will change it. Proponents of homosexual marriage couch their ideas in those of tolerance, humanity, equality, and the like. Fine. What about the billions of people, many of whom end up moving here, who would like to have a different structure to marriage as well? Why are they arbitrarily left out when they agree as independent parties to submit to their own definition of marriage? Why is the definition arbitrarily stopped with only including gay marriage? Why not polygamists? Why not Islamic customs within marriage, including the definitions they follow for female and male rights, which they mutually agree to?

There's no logic to STOP the redefinition of marriage. Unless someone can provide a plausible, logical reason for where the expanding redefinition of marriage will STOP, then it's arbitrary and bigoted to stop it on your own with just homosexual unions.

But feel free to dance around it and sling insults, instead, folks. I'm used to it. :D

You want to redefine it? Provide a FULL, LOGICAL redefinition, with the new boundaries you would apply. And WHY you exclude those left out.
First I didn't sling anything at you. Second the Islamic is a poor arguement because we are talking about marriage in the United States and you can never have your rights revoked (unless you are a felon), they are perfectly capable of pretending that women have fewer rights if they so choose but they are never gone. Third I never said we should exclude polygamists. The history of polygamists is skewed at best because it is socially unacceptable and illegal practice so anyone that practices it is immediately an outlaw. Left in their camps and reservations it is no wonder that they have many cases of abuse. Since we turned our back to them there are few repercussions to their actions. I am not defending this abuse obviously but there has not been a control group to say that polygamists are like that because they are polygamists.

[Dukefrukem]

No. My reason is that nobody can provide a logical, clear explanation of what new definition will replace the old. The reason for that is there is NO logical basis for excluding some groups once you expand the definition beyond its present widespread and commonly accepted (by majorities in virtually every culture) definition of man and woman (possibly plural).

Yeh I heard you the first time.


That's arbitrary, insupportable, illogical, and rejects a way of life accepted by a billion + people.

What a bigoted view.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y42/GilGrissomCSI/LOLLEVATOR.gif

[Johan]

First I didn't sling anything at you.

Thank you.

Second the Islamic is a poor arguement because we are talking about marriage in the United States

There are millions of Muslims in the United States, many of whom mutually agree, within their own relationships, to support polygamy and/or different rights/roles for the genders in marriage. It's arbitrary to shun them "just because."

The history of polygamists is skewed at best because it is socially unacceptable and illegal practice so anyone that practices it is immediately an outlaw.

The history of homosexual marriage is skewed at best because it is socially unacceptable and an illegal practice (some exclusions apply), so anyone that practices it is immediately an outlaw.

See that?

Someone provide a clear, compelling, logical explanation of who will be included and excluded from this "new" definition of marriage. Can anyone?

I don't think so. It's bigoted to keep people out "just because" right?