PDA

View Full Version : What motivates people to vote other people's rights away


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Wesley Clark
11-04-2009, 12:59 AM
Leading question. And I'm 99.999% certain this issue has never been discussed here either.

But even though all precints in Maine haven't reported in yet, the repeals seem to be winning 52-48. Supposedly there have been 30 previous ballot initiatives designed to take rights away from LGBT citizens all over the US, and there was hope Maine would be the first popular vote that upheld those rights. But looks like Maine may make the record 0-31 for popular support for LGBT rights.

My question is, I can understand if people who do not like gay marriage, but why vote to have people's rights to marry taken away? I really don't get that. I am for gay marriage, but even if I was against it I would not go out and try to ban it. I am opposed to religion, but I have not tried to have any churches shut down. I also do not like diet coke (I prefer diet mt. dew) but I have never tried to get diet coke pulled from the market just because I don't like it.

Why do opponents of gay equality feel they have to actually deny people those rights rather than just voice their displeasure like I'm sure they do with food choices? I do not understand that. If you oppose gay marriage, then don't get one. Like I said earlier, I'm sure the anti-gay marriage group has various foods and restaurants they hate. I'm sure some hate eating at Taco Bell. But they do not en masse try to have Taco Bell shut down. They just avoid eating there.

What seperates this issue from others where people not only oppose gay rights, but actually try to strip them? In most other areas of life people have a more live and let live attitude.

Only about 20-25% of the nation is right wing authoritarian and want to impose their morality on everyone else via force. I do not get where the other 30-40% of the public who support these bans are coming from.

Sage Rat
11-04-2009, 01:26 AM
You don't try to stop religion now, but what if they were sacrificing babies on their altars? It's just a matter of abhorrence.

The other thing with gay marriage is that it "lessens" straight marriage. It's like giving everyone a trophy. "Marriage" is about love and commitment, intending to start a family and raise children. Gay people just buttfuck one another and here people are telling them that they're "married".

^ A summary of the idea, not an endorsement.

Captain Amazing
11-04-2009, 01:28 AM
A lot of people think that gays are inferior to straights, and so they get insulted by the idea that somebody who's inferior would be treated like an equal. If there's gay marriage, then that's saying to straight married couples that their relationships are no better than what gays do together.

BrainGlutton
11-04-2009, 01:30 AM
What motivates people to vote other people's rights away

I dunno, but it's been going on for a very, very, very long time.

Wesley Clark
11-04-2009, 01:36 AM
I dunno, but it's been going on for a very, very, very long time.

But my understanding is only about 20-25% of the country is right wing authoritarian. I expect them to vote other people's rights away (the deep south under Jim Crow for example).

However gay marriage opponents are winning in liberal states like California and Maine (barely winning, but still winning). This is not Louisiana or Mississippi, this is California and Maine we are talking about. You cannot blame it on right wing authoritarianism. Something is making people who generally seem to have a live and let live attitude want to strip civil rights away from other members of society. Something I'd doubt they'd do in other areas of life.

I really don't know where it is coming from. Do people just think they are voting to express opposition to gays, or do they actually understand they are voting to take away civil rights from a certain group of citizens? Do these people not understand the civil rights that come along with marriage, or what?

Would these same people in Maine or California vote 52-48 or 51-49 to make it illegal for bookstores to sell books on wiccan religions or atheism? I seriously doubt it. I don't know where this opposition is coming from.

Captain Amazing
11-04-2009, 01:41 AM
The attitude is like the song by the South African singer,Johannes Kerkorrel

I know I'm addicted to drink
I'm overdrawn at the bank
My daughter is a Boere punk
But thank God at least I'm white

Wesley Clark
11-04-2009, 01:44 AM
George Lakoff once said that these issues are framed as a referendum on gay sex, and that is a bad thing. So you basically end up framing the issue of 'do you support or oppose gay sex' and when you do that, you get 51% in places like California or Maine voting 'no'.

Maybe that is why. Maybe people are voting because they feel they are expressing opposition to gay sex, not because they understand the civil and legal rights they are stripping other people of.

A better frame is 'should government and mob rule be able to strip citizens of their constitutional rights'.

Aspidistra
11-04-2009, 01:50 AM
Well, how long did gay people actually have the right to marry in these places? A year? A couple of years? (srious question - I have no idea, but I'm sure it's a fairly short time)

I doubt if most people voting for this repeal think of it as "taking people's rights away" because gay marriage hasn't been around long enough for it to really percolate into people's consciousness as " a right people have".

People are innately conservative (especially older people). They're trying to get things back to the status quo. It's not even necessarily that they don't like gay people (though doubt there's a fair amount of "well I'm not gay so it's not going to hurt ME). They just don't like change.

Sage Rat
11-04-2009, 01:56 AM
However gay marriage opponents are winning in liberal states like California and Maine (barely winning, but still winning).

The liberal party isn't primarily made up of Straight Dope style liberals. It's mostly made up of poor folk who want government care. For instance, most black people vote democratic but are also highly homophobic. The parties are more formed by economic issues than moral ones.

Interestingly, I'd bet that the Republican party is similar and most of the intellectuals at the top are probably alright with or approve of gay marriage. But unlike liberal politicians, they basically keep this to themselves because the poorest Republicans are with them based on moral issues. With neither an economic nor moral platform for this group, the Republicans voting base would disappear.

Der Trihs
11-04-2009, 02:08 AM
My question is, I can understand if people who do not like gay marriage, but why vote to have people's rights to marry taken away?Because they can't legally get away with having them rounded up into camps. This is a matter of bigotry; and SSM opponents are simply taking the opportunity to hurt the people they regard as "sinful" or "icky". Not even our government would let them get away with taking away homosexuals right to vote or tossing them all into prison, so the bigots can't do that; but they CAN prevent SS couples from having marriage.

And yes; I do believe that the great majority of the people who voted to forbid SS couples marriage would also vote to have them rounded up and put into camps, complete with pink triangles if they were ever given the chance.

Wesley Clark
11-04-2009, 02:24 AM
The liberal party isn't primarily made up of Straight Dope style liberals. It's mostly made up of poor folk who want government care. For instance, most black people vote democratic but are also highly homophobic. The parties are more formed by economic issues than moral ones.

Interestingly, I'd bet that the Republican party is similar and most of the intellectuals at the top are probably alright with or approve of gay marriage. But unlike liberal politicians, they basically keep this to themselves because the poorest Republicans are with them based on moral issues. With neither an economic nor moral platform for this group, the Republicans voting base would disappear.

Yeah, true.

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=949

Liberals make up 19% of the electorate, but conservative democrats and disaffected democrats make up 25% combined.

I do think at the top ranks of the GOP are a large number of cynical people (Guiliani, Cheney, Rove, Gingrich) who reject the religious and social standards of the GOP but play along to placate the base. However there are also tons of true believers a the highest levels too.

Sophistry and Illusion
11-04-2009, 02:34 AM
Ironically (and yet nevertheless truly) I came across this thread while taking a break from reading Chapter 1 of Mill's On Liberty.
The likings and dislikings of society, or of some powerful portion of it, are thus the main thing which has practically determined the rules laid down for general observance, under the penalties of law or opinion. And in general, those who have been in advance of society in thought and feeling, have left this condition of things unassailed in principle, however they may have come into conflict with it in some of its details. They have occupied themselves rather in inquiring what things society ought to like or dislike, than in questioning whether its likings or dislikings should be a law to individuals.
...
The disposition of mankind, whether as rulers or as fellow-citizens, to impose their own opinions and inclinations as a rule of conduct on others, is so energetically supported by some of the best and by some of the worst feelings incident to human nature, that it is hardly ever kept under restraint by anything but want of power.
The problem is certainly not a new one.

aruvqan
11-04-2009, 04:50 AM
You don't try to stop religion now, but what if they were sacrificing babies on their altars? It's just a matter of abhorrence.

The other thing with gay marriage is that it "lessens" straight marriage. It's like giving everyone a trophy. "Marriage" is about love and commitment, intending to start a family and raise children. Gay people just buttfuck one another and here people are telling them that they're "married".

^ A summary of the idea, not an endorsement.

False argument, I have never been able to carry a child to term, so by that intend to start a family and raise children is total bullshit. By those arguments I can never be married. Fuck that. A gay male couple can adopt, and a gay female couple can artificially inseminate and pop out a sprog.

madmonk28
11-04-2009, 06:13 AM
It is bigotry, plain and simple.

What the .... ?!?!
11-04-2009, 06:27 AM
I dunno, but it's been going on for a very, very, very long time.

Excellent point......... it's almost as if it never was a right. Hmmm.... maybe it isn't.

Just because legislatures and governors create "rights" doesn't mean that the people have to support them.

Sage Rat
11-04-2009, 06:28 AM
False argument, I have never been able to carry a child to term, so by that intend to start a family and raise children is total bullshit. By those arguments I can never be married. Fuck that. A gay male couple can adopt, and a gay female couple can artificially inseminate and pop out a sprog.

Argument by reality requires people hear it and pay attention.

Der Trihs
11-04-2009, 06:43 AM
Excellent point......... it's almost as if it never was a right. Hmmm.... maybe it isn't.

Just because legislatures and governors create "rights" doesn't mean that the people have to support them.And would you say the same thing about segregation?

UltraVires
11-04-2009, 07:10 AM
And yes; I do believe that the great majority of the people who voted to forbid SS couples marriage would also vote to have them rounded up and put into camps, complete with pink triangles if they were ever given the chance.

Utter, complete insanity. Absolute nonsense. Even you know that this isn't true.

How come 50-100 years ago when they was no real debate about homosexuality; when it was agreed that they were sick, filthy degenerates, was there no movement to put them in camps if even today the "great majority" of those opposing SSM would vote to round them up Hitler style?

There's never any shades of gray in your world, is there?

Sophistry and Illusion
11-04-2009, 07:17 AM
Excellent point......... it's almost as if it never was a right. Hmmm.... maybe it isn't.

Just because legislatures and governors create "rights" doesn't mean that the people have to support them.

So people only have the rights the government sees fit to grant them?

That's a lovely view. On that view, there is no such thing as tyranny of the majority--if the majority is oppressing you, it's not really oppression, because if they say you don't have rights, then you in fact don't have any, and ergo cannot have any of your rights violated!

Der Trihs
11-04-2009, 07:24 AM
How come 50-100 years ago when they was no real debate about homosexuality; when it was agreed that they were sick, filthy degenerates, was there no movement to put them in camps if even today the "great majority" of those opposing SSM would vote to round them up Hitler style?Because they were typically in hiding, that's why. And in fact Hitler DID round them up; and they weren't treated at all well by the Allies when they found out what the pink triangle meant. Put right back in the camps for a while, in fact IIRC. And Alan Turing was tossed into prison and driven to suicide. And lesbians were often raped in order to "convert them", much as often happens in South Africa today. And so on.

How exactly DID you think they were treated "50-100 years ago"?

Thudlow Boink
11-04-2009, 09:03 AM
So people only have the rights the government sees fit to grant them?

That's a lovely view. On that view, there is no such thing as tyranny of the majority--if the majority is oppressing you, it's not really oppression, because if they say you don't have rights, then you in fact don't have any, and ergo cannot have any of your rights violated!Well, that's one view on what "rights" are: they're whatever the law/Constitution/government says we have a right to.

Another view is that rights are things that people have naturally ("endowed by their Creator") until somebody infringes upon them. SSM opponents who think this way would simply say that there is no natural right to marry someone of one's own sex.

What's your definition of what makes something a "right"?

Thudlow Boink
11-04-2009, 09:07 AM
Well, how long did gay people actually have the right to marry in these places? A year? A couple of years? (srious question - I have no idea, but I'm sure it's a fairly short time)

I doubt if most people voting for this repeal think of it as "taking people's rights away" because gay marriage hasn't been around long enough for it to really percolate into people's consciousness as " a right people have".

People are innately conservative (especially older people). They're trying to get things back to the status quo. It's not even necessarily that they don't like gay people (though doubt there's a fair amount of "well I'm not gay so it's not going to hurt ME). They just don't like change.Quoted for truth. I think this is a big part of it. People who vote against same-sex marriage don't think of what they're doing as taking people's rights away, but as upholding traditional values. In their mental image of "the way things ought to be," men don't marry other men, and women don't marry other women.

mswas
11-04-2009, 10:16 AM
Well, that's one view on what "rights" are: they're whatever the law/Constitution/government says we have a right to.

Another view is that rights are things that people have naturally ("endowed by their Creator") until somebody infringes upon them. SSM opponents who think this way would simply say that there is no natural right to marry someone of one's own sex.

What's your definition of what makes something a "right"?

It's kind of funny how many atheists are proponents of the religious assertion of 'inalienable rights'.

LilyoftheValley
11-04-2009, 10:36 AM
Living in NH, I will tell you what I've heard from some people: they think they are going to lose their "rights" to "protect their kids" from hearing about same-sex marriage in public schools. See this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FijVUbUlV3s


(...which is why, as a hetero married mom of a kindergartener in public schools, I wrote to thank my legislator for voting in support of SSM here in NH, because those vocal people do not speak for me.)

Polycarp
11-04-2009, 10:38 AM
It's kind of funny how many atheists are proponents of the religious assertion of 'inalienable rights'.

A slight distinguo, friend -- while "inalienable rights" is generally classed as a Deist belief that has percolated into an American value, it's not strictly religious but philosophical, metaphysical. Whether or not they are "endowed by their Creator" (Christian God or otherwise) with them, the conception is that rights inhere in the individual, and the role of governments is not to deny or disparage them, but guarantee and protect them. In other words, the belief in pre-existent abstract "natural rights" is not inimical to a religious belief, but it is not dependent on it.

Polycarp
11-04-2009, 10:46 AM
Let me pose, as a hypothetical that is nearly trolling, but with the intention of exploring this concept apart from any issues related to homosexuality and its morality, a proposition.

In a state that is solidly Democratic, the legislature enacts the following: "Be it enacted, that on and after January the first next after passage of this act, the agencies and courts of this state shall not give recognition to any claim to be married advanced by any person who is a member of the Republican Party."

It doesn't deny anyone the right to marry the willing unwed unrelated adult partner of their choice' it merely means that any such marriages will not be legally recognized if a partner to that marriage insists on remaining a Republican.

Why or why not would this law be valid? Would it be constitutional? Why or why not?

It's my opinion that when you have a consistent rationale for the answer you give to that question, you will see claims to the right to marry someone of the same sex in a different light.

Martin Hyde
11-04-2009, 10:50 AM
But my understanding is only about 20-25% of the country is right wing authoritarian. I expect them to vote other people's rights away (the deep south under Jim Crow for example).

However gay marriage opponents are winning in liberal states like California and Maine (barely winning, but still winning). This is not Louisiana or Mississippi, this is California and Maine we are talking about. You cannot blame it on right wing authoritarianism. Something is making people who generally seem to have a live and let live attitude want to strip civil rights away from other members of society. Something I'd doubt they'd do in other areas of life.

I really don't know where it is coming from. Do people just think they are voting to express opposition to gays, or do they actually understand they are voting to take away civil rights from a certain group of citizens? Do these people not understand the civil rights that come along with marriage, or what?

Would these same people in Maine or California vote 52-48 or 51-49 to make it illegal for bookstores to sell books on wiccan religions or atheism? I seriously doubt it. I don't know where this opposition is coming from.

By and large the Deep South under Jim Crow wasn't an example of "Right Wing Authoritarians", most of the people were actually quite opposite of authoritarian in the context of the larger national politics of the time. It was just a simple example of blatant discrimination and racism against a particular group, period.

A right wing authoritarian is someone who believes in extremely high government power and government intrusion in day to day life, the whites who supported Jim Crow really didn't believe in that, they just believed in discriminating against blacks.

Edit: Also, "right wing authoritarian" is a very specific type of political leaning and not one I've usually seen as being extremely popular in the United States, is there any actual cite that 25% of Americans would categorize themselves in such a way?

Bricker
11-04-2009, 10:57 AM
It's my opinion that when you have a consistent rationale for the answer you give to that question, you will see claims to the right to marry someone of the same sex in a different light.

Not constitutional.

Because the right to marry a person without regard to their political affliation is a concept "deeply rooted in our nation's history."

And the right to marry a person of the same sex is not.

I'm a proponent of legal same-sex marriage, but you cannot make this argument unchallenged, Polycarp. I support SSM, but acknowledge it as a change from the status quo. But one of the tests for due process protection is that a particular practice is deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the nation. Forbidding marriage based on political affiliation has no basis at all in our history. Forbidding marriage to a partner of the same sex does. And that test is one that's enshrined in law.

jayjay
11-04-2009, 11:19 AM
How come 50-100 years ago when they was no real debate about homosexuality; when it was agreed that they were sick, filthy degenerates, was there no movement to put them in camps if even today the "great majority" of those opposing SSM would vote to round them up Hitler style?

Because it wasn't necessary, as the homosexuals who weren't hiding their orientation for fear of their life were most likely in jail. Or in an institution, having their body hooked up to a generator twice a day.

It's only since about 25-30 years ago (here in the US) that we degenerates have been allowed to live and love openly without being beaten to death by a mob or tossed into jail or locked up as insane.

aruvqan
11-04-2009, 11:26 AM
Utter, complete insanity. Absolute nonsense. Even you know that this isn't true.

How come 50-100 years ago when they was no real debate about homosexuality; when it was agreed that they were sick, filthy degenerates, was there no movement to put them in camps if even today the "great majority" of those opposing SSM would vote to round them up Hitler style?

There's never any shades of gray in your world, is there?

They didn't put them into camps, they put them into lunatic asylums and jails though.

kopek
11-04-2009, 11:28 AM
My question is, I can understand if people who do not like gay marriage, but why vote to have people's rights to marry taken away? I really don't get that. I am for gay marriage, but even if I was against it I would not go out and try to ban it. I am opposed to religion, but I have not tried to have any churches shut down. I also do not like diet coke (I prefer diet mt. dew) but I have never tried to get diet coke pulled from the market just because I don't like it.



But in some ways you are an exceptional individual. People rant to have products they don't like or approve of removed every day. People vote the rights of others away on a regular basis; ask anyone who owns a firearm.

It mostly comes down to you and your own personal life. If you see something as not coming under your roof, affecting your own life, its easy to vote against it. Especially when some of those against it are so loud and relentless; that still can sway the average voter.

Shodan
11-04-2009, 11:35 AM
Utter, complete insanity. Absolute nonsense. Even you know that this isn't true.The first two phrases are correct, but that last isn't.

He really does believe this shit, which is why he vomits it up twice a week and dumps it on the SDMB. It might be better in some ways if he were trolling, but he isn't.

It is not all that uncommon to assume that other people think the way I do. If I think in terms of hate, I assume other people do too.

Regards,
Shodan

ElvisL1ves
11-04-2009, 11:47 AM
Not constitutional.

Because the right to marry a person without regard to their political affliation is a concept "deeply rooted in our nation's history."

And the right to marry a person of the same sex is not.But the right to equal protection of the laws IS.

We've been over this many times.

Jimmy Chitwood
11-04-2009, 11:52 AM
Not constitutional.

Because the right to marry a person without regard to their political affliation is a concept "deeply rooted in our nation's history."

And the right to marry a person of the same sex is not.

This is a Scalian, which is to say unfairly narrow, framing of the debate. You may as well call it a "right to homosexual sodomy," the way Scalia did, and then it will sound even more ridiculous. How about a right to marry, period?

What the .... ?!?!
11-04-2009, 11:55 AM
And would you say the same thing about segregation?
Nope. I wouldn't.

You aren't equating blacks and slavery and reconstruction with gay marriage are you? If I were black I'd be very offended.

John Mace
11-04-2009, 11:55 AM
It's hard to say for sure, but a lot of people think homosexuality is simply wrong. Some people may not think it isn't necessarily wrong, but don't want the state to endorse it. Some people just don't like the idea of having to explain it to their kids, and they don't want it in the public sphere.

It was not too long ago that SSM was simply unthinkable for the vast majority of people in the US. It shouldn't be a surprise that it's going to take time for people to change. Blacks fought for decades for civil rights. We literally had riots in the streets, the National Guard at schools, etc.

Implementing SSM is a change, and people have to be convinced that the change is good. Sadly, that just takes time.

Lobohan
11-04-2009, 12:01 PM
Nope. I wouldn't.

You aren't equating blacks and slavery and reconstruction with gay marriage are you? If I were black I'd be very offended.Gay marriage isn't the same as slavery. It is however exactly the same as anti-miscegenation laws that kept whites and blacks from intermarrying.

Ají de Gallina
11-04-2009, 12:06 PM
(I'm not a US citizen)
I think the key, as many have noted, is that they don't see any rights being taken away, because there is no real history of gay marriage in the US or anywhere in the world. Doesn't make it right per se, but IT IS a change and people would rather that change not happen.

ALso, the proponents have to be able to offer olive branches to many people who like me don't want SSM but recognise that there are SS couples who need legal benefits and protection and think something could be worked out. I'm sure it's not the ideal for them and sure it takes being a better person than I possibly am, but I can imagine intermediate solutions and incremental steps making the transition much easier for both sides.

Bricker
11-04-2009, 12:11 PM
This is a Scalian, which is to say unfairly narrow, framing of the debate. You may as well call it a "right to homosexual sodomy," the way Scalia did, and then it will sound even more ridiculous. How about a right to marry, period?

How about it?

Several state courts have found such a right grounded in their state constitutions. In some of them, the electorate has subsequently approved an amendment advising the courts that their interpretation was mistaken. In three, the ruling has survived: Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa. Two other states have SSM by legislative action as opposed to court ruling.

In forty-five states and the federal system, there is no "right to marry, period."

So you tell me: how about it? You may assert that such a right exists all you want, but I'm telling you that there is no such national recognition of that method of analysis.

Bricker
11-04-2009, 12:14 PM
Implementing SSM is a change, and people have to be convinced that the change is good. Sadly, that just takes time.

This is quoted for truth, and to point out that when SSM comes about by judicial rule, it's acceptance is tenuous and may well be voted down by the electorate. Indeed, to date the electorate has NEVER accepted an SSM bill... exactly the state of affairs that has prompted this thread.

I have been thrilled to see New Hampshire and Vermont take action by their legislatures, which are (or supposed to be) the voice of the people. This is the way change should come, for practical and ideological reasons.

Whack-a-Mole
11-04-2009, 12:44 PM
I have been thrilled to see New Hampshire and Vermont take action by their legislatures, which are (or supposed to be) the voice of the people. This is the way change should come, for practical and ideological reasons.

Preferable sure but always so? Should things like miscegenation and separate but equal been better to leave for the voters to get around to? Even if the chances are excellent there'd still be some places which would practice those things?

Jimmy Chitwood
11-04-2009, 12:44 PM
How about it?

Several state courts have found such a right grounded in their state constitutions. In some of them, the electorate has subsequently approved an amendment advising the courts that their interpretation was mistaken. In three, the ruling has survived: Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa. Two other states have SSM by legislative action as opposed to court ruling.

In forty-five states and the federal system, there is no "right to marry, period."

So you tell me: how about it? You may assert that such a right exists all you want, but I'm telling you that there is no such national recognition of that method of analysis.

I'm aware of the world in which I am currently living, thanks. If there was a nationwide recognition of the right for everyone to marry a partner of his or her choosing, I wouldn't be having this conversation, would I?

And feigned ignorance does not become you.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." There you go. A right to marry. I supplied the period.

John Mace
11-04-2009, 12:49 PM
Preferable sure but always so? Should things like miscegenation and separate but equal been better to leave for the voters to get around to? Even if the chances are excellent there'd still be some places which would practice those things?
Just remember, though, that SbE was endorsed by the SCOTUS and it took 50 or 60 years to overturn that.

yorick73
11-04-2009, 01:03 PM
But the right to equal protection of the laws IS.

We've been over this many times.


There is equal protection. Gays DO have the right to marry...just as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.

Whack-a-Mole
11-04-2009, 01:07 PM
Just remember, though, that SbE was endorsed by the SCOTUS and it took 50 or 60 years to overturn that.

Well, I think that is what Bricker is advocating (correct me if I am wrong). That it is better to have the legislature do these things and not the courts. Clearly in many cases legislatures will not do this so some 50 years later the court did it for them.

Is that a bad result? Should the courts stay out of it?

ElvisL1ves
11-04-2009, 01:09 PM
There is equal protection. Gays DO have the right to marry...just as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.I have a sneaking suspicion you meant that seriously. Did you?

Lobohan
11-04-2009, 01:09 PM
There is equal protection. Gays DO have the right to marry...just as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.And in the 60s blacks had the right to marry whoever they wanted. As long as they were black.

Your argument is worthless.

yorick73
11-04-2009, 01:11 PM
I think that the majority of heterosexuals (and almost all christians) believe that opposite sex marriage should be considered something sacred and exclusive. I certainly believe this. Opening the door for gay marriage (or polygamy, polyandry, etc) cheapens the institution. There are many heteros (myself included) who oppose gay marriage but have no problem with a civil union arrangement of some type that provides all the benefits of marriage without calling it marriage. This is not enough for many gays and it makes me wonder if there is another agenda at work.

yorick73
11-04-2009, 01:13 PM
I have a sneaking suspicion you meant that seriously. Did you?

Yes.

ElvisL1ves
11-04-2009, 01:17 PM
Yes.

Oh, dear ... OK, time for the "What if it were you?" approach, then. Assume you're a straight male. What would you think of a law that would let you marry another guy, but not the woman you loved and wanted to share your life with? Would you consider that you had equal protection of the law?

Opening the door for gay marriage (or polygamy, polyandry, etc) cheapens the institution.Better explain that. Are gays "cheaper" persons than you?

almost all ChristiansBullshit. :rolleyes:

This is not enough for many gays and it makes me wonder if there is another agenda at work. There is, and you don't need to wonder. It's called equal rights.

Jimmy Chitwood
11-04-2009, 01:18 PM
There is equal protection. Gays DO have the right to marry...just as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.

"Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race."

This is an old argument that's been trotted out for decades upon decades -- the application of the laws is formally symmetrical, therefore nothing could possibly be wrong with it. Blacks can't marry whites, but they can marry blacks. Whites can't marry blacks, but they can marry whites. Equality!

We already know how this story turns out in the end.

yorick73
11-04-2009, 01:19 PM
And in the 60s blacks had the right to marry whoever they wanted. As long as they were black.

Your argument is worthless.

This is nonsense. Race here is a subcategory that was used to put restrictions on opposite sex marriage. The two are not the same.

Whack-a-Mole
11-04-2009, 01:22 PM
I think that the majority of heterosexuals (and almost all christians) believe that opposite sex marriage should be considered something sacred and exclusive. I certainly believe this. Opening the door for gay marriage (or polygamy, polyandry, etc) cheapens the institution. There are many heteros (myself included) who oppose gay marriage but have no problem with a civil union arrangement of some type that provides all the benefits of marriage without calling it marriage. This is not enough for many gays and it makes me wonder if there is another agenda at work.

Where is the hangup for you then? Just the word "marriage"? It is a word, no more, no less that means two people have joined as partners. How does letting SSM cheapen that?

There is a distinction here. There is the legal aspects to marriage and all that entails and there is the religious aspect. A church (or whatever) is not obligated to marry anyone. They can pick and choose as they like. The State however should recognize equal rights for all consenting adults who wish to hitch their wagons together regardless of sex or religion or color or anything else.

yorick73
11-04-2009, 01:25 PM
Oh, dear ... OK, time for the "What if it were you?" approach, then. Assume you're a straight male. What would you think of a law that would let you marry another guy, but not the woman you loved and wanted to share your life with? Would you consider that you had equal protection of the law?


Wouldn't bother me. I would want the ability to form a civil union with all the benefits but I don't give a damn if it is called marriage.

Better explain that. Are gays "cheaper" persons than you?

Nope. But if you consider marriage between a man and a woman to be the natural order of things then it makes sense that many heteros are opposed to opening the door to groups who do not agree with them.

yorick73
11-04-2009, 01:28 PM
Where is the hangup for you then? Just the word "marriage"? It is a word, no more, no less that means two people have joined as partners. How does letting SSM cheapen that?

There is a distinction here. There is the legal aspects to marriage and all that entails and there is the religious aspect. A church (or whatever) is not obligated to marry anyone. They can pick and choose as they like. The State however should recognize equal rights for all consenting adults who wish to hitch their wagons together regardless of sex or religion or color or anything else.

I agree with you completely. I don't think the state should be in the business of "marrying" anyone. I would be fine with states giving anyone a civil union and leave the term "marriage" to the churches.

Lobohan
11-04-2009, 01:29 PM
This is nonsense. Race here is a subcategory that was used to put restrictions on opposite sex marriage. The two are not the same.Sure they are. In the 60s bigoted assholes enforced the notion that two consenting adults who wanted to get married couldn't. Because it (miscegenation) challenged their notions of decency.

Today bigoted assholes enforce the notion that two consenting adults that want to get married can't. Because it (buttsecks) challenges their notions of decency. It's a clear analogy of the issue.

You have the right to marry someone you are sexually attracted to. A gay person does not.

ElvisL1ves
11-04-2009, 01:29 PM
Right, there's all this pious talk about marriage being sacred and exclusive, and in danger of being cheapened by extending it. Yet he's quite happy to give up all the substance there is in this sacred institution. The "cheapening" he speaks of, the thing he is not willing to do, comes with the word, not the substance.

"It makes me wonder if there's another agenda at work", to coin a phrase. Where the objection comes only from using a word that entails recognition of equal status and equal worth to another human being based on a fact of birth, well, there's a word for that.

ElvisL1ves
11-04-2009, 01:30 PM
I agree with you completely. I don't think the state should be in the business of "marrying" anyone. I would be fine with states giving anyone a civil union and leave the term "marriage" to the churches.
What was all that crap about a sacred institution, then? You'd rather throw this "sacred" thing out entirely than let the fudgepackers share it with you?

Lobohan
11-04-2009, 01:40 PM
I agree with you completely. I don't think the state should be in the business of "marrying" anyone. I would be fine with states giving anyone a civil union and leave the term "marriage" to the churches.There are churches that will marry same sex couples. Are you okay with that? Or do only the churches that agree with you get to have their religious rights?

lissener
11-04-2009, 01:40 PM
I agree with you completely. I don't think the state should be in the business of "marrying" anyone. I would be fine with states giving anyone a civil union and leave the term "marriage" to the churches.

This, my friend, is bullshit. You're hiding behind this as a dishonest cover for discrimination against gays. If this were really the main issue for you, you would focus on getting the state of of the marriage business for everyone, but meanwhile agreeing that the status quo should apply to everyone. To suggest that you would vote against gays having equal rights to marry because you don't think ANYone should "marry" is bigotry disguised as libertarianism.

Your vote still amounts to an act of discrimination, and no political justification can change that.

Meanwhile, I'd like to ask, have the civil rights of any other group ever been handed over to the popular vote for resolution? Isn't that one of the central philosophies behind the Bill of Rights--the protection of the minority from the "tyranny of the majority"?

If racial civil rights had been put to a popular vote in the 60s, wouldn't the outcome have likely been different?

What gives?

Rights are rights, not privileges condescendingly bestowed by the good will of the majority.

ElvisL1ves
11-04-2009, 01:45 PM
But if you consider marriage between a man and a woman to be the natural order of things then it makes sense that many heteros are opposed to opening the door to groups who do not agree with them.

From Wiki on Loving v. Virginia:The trial judge in the case, Leon Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, proclaimed that

“ Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Marriage only within a race was "considered to be the natural order of things" not very long ago. Now we know how ignorant and hateful that attitude was.

kanicbird
11-04-2009, 01:52 PM
It is a new right creation, not a right taken away in the case of the OP. But you can't stop people from marrying (without physically restraining them in some way), just state recognition of that marriage. Some people get additional power/rights/freedoms/choices from restricting others rights.

As for the case of gay marriage, is it truly a marriage at all - I do believe so, which is a spiritual union, which God does allow to happen, so why should man try to stop it? Where is the love and where is the hate on the issue.


You don't try to stop religion now, but what if they were sacrificing babies on their altars? It's just a matter of abhorrence.

I was thinking about the comparison to abortion in regards to this issue of one class of people taking away another class of people's rights, Then I read the second post. :eek:

Lemur866
11-04-2009, 01:54 PM
I agree with you completely. I don't think the state should be in the business of "marrying" anyone. I would be fine with states giving anyone a civil union and leave the term "marriage" to the churches.

I'm an atheist. Are you saying that if you were in charge I wouldn't be allowed to be married, because I don't belong to any church? That I'm not really married in your eyes?

This is silly semantics. The state already does what you want. It does not conduct any religious ceremonies. The state gives everyone civil unions, and it happens that these civil unions are called "marriages". If you want to pretend that people who weren't married under your particular religious rites aren't really married but only pretending, then feel free. But the rest of us don't have to go along with that sort of nonsense.

Guinastasia
11-04-2009, 01:56 PM
Wait...did I read that correctly or did Kanicbird just state that he supports gay marriage? :eek:

MEBuckner
11-04-2009, 01:59 PM
I think that the majority of heterosexuals (and almost all christians) believe that opposite sex marriage should be considered something sacred and exclusive.
I agree with you completely. I don't think the state should be in the business of "marrying" anyone. I would be fine with states giving anyone a civil union and leave the term "marriage" to the churches.
Absolutely. Since marriage is an exclusively Christian institution, invented by learned Christian theologians (who were no doubt inspired by the Holy Spirit), secular humanists like me have no business telling Christians how they should or should not define their sacramental institution, anymore than we would have the right to tell Christians whether they should sprinkle babies or dunk teenagers.

It does kind of astonish me how all those non-Judeo-Christians through history managed to keep their civilizations going without the sacred institution of marriage that the Christians invented. All those poor pre-Christian pagans and unenlightened heathens around the world (before the missionaries got there), never knowing the sacred and exclusive institution of marriage! The men and women of Babylon and Egypt, the ancient Greeks, Imperial Rome, the mighty civilizations of the East--I guess none of them could invent anything as lofty and sublime as "marriage", seeing as how none of them was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Gangster Octopus
11-04-2009, 02:00 PM
I agree with you completely. I don't think the state should be in the business of "marrying" anyone. I would be fine with states giving anyone a civil union and leave the term "marriage" to the churches.

Another this argument is ridiculous is because it is not going to happen , not today, not tomorrow, not ever. So we can figure out was is the correct practical solution or hide behind a purity canard. The correct practical position is that SSM should be legalized not necessarily because of a rights issue (although I think that is the case) but because there is no state interest in not allowing it. Period. Now why do people vote for to disallow it? Because they are confused about the proper role of government, and this is waht I truly believe.

Captain Amazing
11-04-2009, 02:07 PM
There is equal protection. Gays DO have the right to marry...just as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."-Anatole France

MaxTheVool
11-04-2009, 02:08 PM
Opening the door for gay marriage (or polygamy, polyandry, etc) cheapens the institution.

Please be more specific as to what precisely this means. I'm a fairly-newly-married straight man. I have two coworkers (both, comically, named Dave) who are a gay couple. How does it in any way affect my marriage, its value, its "specialness", if they are legally allowed to marry?


This is not enough for many gays and it makes me wonder if there is another agenda at work.
Again, please be more specific. What possible "other agenda" could there be?

jayjay
11-04-2009, 02:12 PM
Here's a real test of whether the anti-gay-marriage people are actually anti-gay-marriage because they fear that traditional marriage will be destroyed:

Are they fighting as hard for an end to divorce-on-demand? Are they fighting as hard for adultery to become an actual crime again?

If those two questions are answered "No", then they don't really care all that much about marriage as an institution. They just want to push some fag faces in.

cosmosdan
11-04-2009, 02:21 PM
I think that the majority of heterosexuals (and almost all christians) believe that opposite sex marriage should be considered something sacred and exclusive. I certainly believe this. Opening the door for gay marriage (or polygamy, polyandry, etc) cheapens the institution. There are many heteros (myself included) who oppose gay marriage but have no problem with a civil union arrangement of some type that provides all the benefits of marriage without calling it marriage. This is not enough for many gays and it makes me wonder if there is another agenda at work.

I spent some time this morning reading the comments on the Bangor Daily News site. For quite a few it was a triumph of God's will over the evil corruption of our moral fiber. Some felt it was protecting children in some way. :rolleyes: For quite a few others it was something like what you've described. Some people feel for reasons that don't make sense to me, that legalizing SSM somehow cheapens the institution as a whole.

It's an odd trick of the mind and heart as far as I can see. How does a SSM cheapen the institution any more than the high divorce rate. How does an abusive relationship accross the street define your marriage as something less? It simply doesn't and can't possibly.
If marriage has any sacred or holy qualities they are carried in the quality of love and committment in the individuals involved, period. The idea that gays should have all the same rights but use a different word is another trick of the mind and emotions. Perhaps gays shouldn't be allowed to use the word love,or committment or family because that will somehow dimish your use of those words? Does interracial marriage somehow sully same race marriage? People used to think so.
The suggestion of civil unions rather than marriage is equality only if all couples get civil unions reflecting legal rights from the state and marriage from the church of their choice. It's all so a ludicrious waste of time and resources that only serves to cater to unfounded unreasonble fear and prejudice.
It's like saying to someone, I'm going to give you something very similar to equal rights that isn't really equal rights , and you should be satisfied with that. It doesn't take much imagination to understand why that ultimately isn't acceptable.
Over and over again in the BDN comments people ranted about the gay agenda being forced on them. Nobody is forcing anything on them, but rather asking for equal rights , while they are actively denying those rights to others.

Wesley Clark
11-04-2009, 02:23 PM
Let me pose, as a hypothetical that is nearly trolling, but with the intention of exploring this concept apart from any issues related to homosexuality and its morality, a proposition.

In a state that is solidly Democratic, the legislature enacts the following: "Be it enacted, that on and after January the first next after passage of this act, the agencies and courts of this state shall not give recognition to any claim to be married advanced by any person who is a member of the Republican Party."

It doesn't deny anyone the right to marry the willing unwed unrelated adult partner of their choice' it merely means that any such marriages will not be legally recognized if a partner to that marriage insists on remaining a Republican.

Why or why not would this law be valid? Would it be constitutional? Why or why not?

It's my opinion that when you have a consistent rationale for the answer you give to that question, you will see claims to the right to marry someone of the same sex in a different light.

Marriage and civil unions bestow a variety of legal rights on people. They let people share health care, pensions, visit each other in the hospital, etc.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

Banning gay marriage is not the same as banning gay sex or gay cohabitation. Several decades ago engaging in gay relationships was still a crime. Now you can do that, but the government will not legally recognize the union.

Bans on marriage seem to violate the 14th amendment of the federal constitution, while they also violate various state constitutions which is why the courts in California, Iowa, Mass, CT, and other states have overturned public on the issues. So there is already a strong precedent for bans on gay marriage being unconstitutional.

A ban on republican marriage would be just as unconstitutional.

Chronos
11-04-2009, 02:25 PM
My dad's one of what you might call the right wing base. His opposition to homosexuality is based on the premise that homosexuals don't want to raise families like good, God-fearing folks do, but just want to have promiscuous, consequence-free sex. The reason they're homosexual, the reasoning goes, is that sex is fun no matter whom you're having it with, but gay sex removes the possibility of reproduction, so these degenerates who don't want to be fruitful and multiply choose to be gay so as to avoid doing the will of God.

But then, gays organize and lobby to try to get their marriages recognized by the state. Clearly, this goes against the very foundation of someone like my dad's beliefs. If he were to acknowledge that most gay folks, like most straight folks, really do want to start families, that would imply that he's wrong. And he can't accept the idea that he's wrong, so he therefore can't accept the idea of gay marriage.

villa
11-04-2009, 02:27 PM
I think that the majority of heterosexuals (and almost all christians) believe that opposite sex marriage should be considered something sacred and exclusive. I certainly believe this. Opening the door for gay marriage (or polygamy, polyandry, etc) cheapens the institution. There are many heteros (myself included) who oppose gay marriage but have no problem with a civil union arrangement of some type that provides all the benefits of marriage without calling it marriage. This is not enough for many gays and it makes me wonder if there is another agenda at work.

Take your back of the bus and cram it where the sun don't shine. I want my gay friends and family up the front of the bus with me. If that cheapens your marriage, then your marriage is worthless.

John Mace
11-04-2009, 02:51 PM
Might I suggest less hostility towards yorick and more, well, persuasive debating? I don't see that vilifying him/her is productive.

Yorick: Do you understand that gay people don't choose to be gay, and that they can't just choose to love someone of the opposite sex any more than you could choose to love someone of the same sex? We've learned a lot since the 1960s, when homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. It's not. Gays are just like you, except they happen to be attracted to the same sex.

Expanding marriage to gays doesn't in any way cheapen it. MA is the same as it always was, except that it's more accepting of gays. The thing is, no matter how you try to create a separate category for gays (ie, civil unions), it simply cannot make it equal to marriage without calling it marriage.

Ask yourself seriously, what do you have to lose by allowing two adults who love each other to get married?

ElvisL1ves
11-04-2009, 02:55 PM
It's damned hard to reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

elfkin477
11-04-2009, 02:58 PM
While I think voting away people's right is a dick move, every time one of these laws is overturned by voters I can't help but wonder how much the ways the laws were enacted in the first place encourages it. Why don't they ever put gay marriage to the voters first, rather than pass the laws and then allow people to vote on whether or not to keep them?

It seems to me, anyway, by enacting the law before getting the people's imput is asking for it to be repealed. Not only do you face opposition from people who things that God hates fags, you also face opposition from people who feel resentful that their government forced the law upon them without asking for their imput.

Is it really any better to force a law through for a year or two and then suffer the heartbreak of having it overturned than to put it to voters in the first place? They're definitely not winning over any bigots the way they're going, so maybe a new tactic is needed.

I'm afraid that this is going to keep happening, and that it's only a matter of time before voters in my state do the same thing. I hope they don't because I want my best friend from high school and his SO to move back home, but I don't blame them for assuming that the law isn't going to last. sigh.

John Mace
11-04-2009, 03:00 PM
It's damned hard to reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

True. I think a lot of people react emotionally to SSM rather than intellectually. But if someone has at least gotten to the point of accepting Civil Unions for gays, it really is only a small step to get to being OK with calling it marriage. Accepting yorick's posts at face value, he/she is at the Civil Union phase. That's almost there.

John Mace
11-04-2009, 03:02 PM
While I think voting away people's right is a dick move, every time one of these laws is overturned by voters I can't help but wonder how much the ways the laws were enacted in the first place encourages it. Why don't they ever put gay marriage to the voters first, rather than pass the laws and then allow people to vote on whether or not to keep them?

It seems to me, anyway, by enacting the law before getting the people's imput is asking for it to be repealed. Not only do you face opposition from people who things that God hates fags, you also face opposition from people who feel resentful that their government forced the law upon them without asking for their imput.

Is it really any better to force a law through for a year or two and then suffer the heartbreak of having it overturned than to put it to voters in the first place? They're definitely not winning over any bigots the way they're going, so maybe a new tactic is needed.

I'm afraid that this is going to keep happening, and that it's only a matter of time before voters in my state do the same thing. I hope they don't because I want my best friend from high school and his SO to move back home, but I don't blame them for assuming that the law isn't going to last. sigh.

Well, we do elect them specifically to enact laws, so where do you draw the line? Is it OK to enact tax increases? How about speed limit laws?

villa
11-04-2009, 03:03 PM
While I think voting away people's right is a dick move, every time one of these laws is overturned by voters I can't help but wonder how much the ways the laws were enacted in the first place encourages it. Why don't they ever put gay marriage to the voters first, rather than pass the laws and then allow people to vote on whether or not to keep them?


This is crazy. After all the time of telling people not to "impose" gay marriage by judicial fiat, and to do it through legislative action, the cry is now don't do it through the legislature, do it through referendum?

What other laws do you think this should be done for? Gay marriage is different because there are bigots out there who hate it?

Should interracial marriage have waited for referenda? Desegregated schools? Decriminalization of sodomy? The right to use contraceptives?

Whack-a-Mole
11-04-2009, 03:03 PM
It's damned hard to reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

I dunno.

It won't happen in one thread but ideas have a way of percolating in the back of our head and can lead to slow changes over time (for the intellectually honest anyway).

villa
11-04-2009, 03:05 PM
True. I think a lot of people react emotionally to SSM rather than intellectually. But if someone has at least gotten to the point of accepting Civil Unions for gays, it really is only a small step to get to being OK with calling it marriage. Accepting yorick's posts at face value, he/she is at the Civil Union phase. That's almost there.

Given the state of legislation out there (DOMA), civil unions are a meaningless step that people profess to support to avoid feeling bigoted while denying equal rights to gays.

gonzomax
11-04-2009, 03:07 PM
You don't try to stop religion now, but what if they were sacrificing babies on their altars? It's just a matter of abhorrence.

The other thing with gay marriage is that it "lessens" straight marriage. It's like giving everyone a trophy. "Marriage" is about love and commitment, intending to start a family and raise children. Gay people just buttfuck one another and here people are telling them that they're "married".

^ A summary of the idea, not an endorsement.

Marriage is about love? Ok. It is actually a legal and binding contract that deals with the transfer of wealth to the wife and descendants. I doubt you will see love mentioned in a marriage license.

jayjay
11-04-2009, 03:08 PM
Washington's R-71 proves this point. It basically says that domestic partnerships (an already-existing institution in the state) are, in all characteristics besides name, absolutely equivalent to marriages.

Now, R-71 passed last night, but the wingnuts were still out in force against it for the last few months, which proves to me that they don't mean a damn thing when they say they're for civil unions and only want to preserve the meaning of the word "marriage".

John Mace
11-04-2009, 03:08 PM
Given the state of legislation out there (DOMA), civil unions are a meaningless step that people profess to support to avoid feeling bigoted while denying equal rights to gays.
I don't accept that. I don't think that most people really spend all that much time thinking this through. I don't really remember my own evolution on this subject, but I'm certain that at some point in the past I would have opposed SSM, but mostly because I hadn't really given much thought about gay people or what it means to be gay.

Whack-a-Mole
11-04-2009, 03:08 PM
I'm afraid that this is going to keep happening, and that it's only a matter of time before voters in my state do the same thing. I hope they don't because I want my best friend from high school and his SO to move back home, but I don't blame them for assuming that the law isn't going to last. sigh.

I think the timing on the Maine law was unfortunate. Not even a midterm election it was a mid-mid term election. One would expect very low turnout. Those who do turn out tend to be the elderly and not the young which are conservative and not liberal.

The vote was pretty close as is. I suspect had this vote happened a year ago it would have passed.

John Mace
11-04-2009, 03:10 PM
Washington's R-71 proves this point. It basically says that domestic partnerships (an already-existing institution in the state) are, in all characteristics besides name, absolutely equivalent to marriages.

Now, R-71 passed last night, but the wingnuts were still out in force against it for the last few months, which proves to me that they don't mean a damn thing when they say they're for civil unions and only want to preserve the meaning of the word "marriage".

What? When I think of "wingnuts", I think of people who are very likely to oppose any acceptance of gays, and wouldn't support Civil Unions.

Bricker
11-04-2009, 03:10 PM
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." There you go. A right to marry. I supplied the period.

But it's that very period that confounds us. Because while there is a fundamental right to marry, it is not without limitation. We may not marry father to daughters, or sons to mothers, or brothers to sisters.

It's not an absolute right. It's a right that society constrains. Where the 'period' goes is important.

villa
11-04-2009, 03:16 PM
I don't accept that. I don't think that most people really spend all that much time thinking this through. I don't really remember my own evolution on this subject, but I'm certain that at some point in the past I would have opposed SSM, but mostly because I hadn't really given much thought about gay people or what it means to be gay.

A civil union gives people next to nothing. People who say they can support civil unions not equal marriage rights tend to say that there is something special about marriage. Do you think they will sign on to a system whereby civil unions have every single right of marriage except for using the word? If so, what will be left about marriage that is "special"?

If not, if you accept those in favor of civil unions rather than marriage want it to be more limited than marriage, which rights of married couples are you willing to sacrifice on behalf of my favorite cousin? Because I am not willing to make that choice for her.

Each time this happens, I get more strident. It really is all or nothing now. It has got to the stage that decent minds can no longer differ on this. I am at a loss today as to how to behave towards my friends (the couple of them) who still oppose gay marriage. I don't know, but my heart is telling me it is time to treat them as I would a friend who was in open opposition to interracial marriage, that is to cut them out of my life.

Jimmy Chitwood
11-04-2009, 03:20 PM
But it's that very period that confounds us. Because while there is a fundamental right to marry, it is not without limitation. We may not marry father to daughters, or sons to mothers, or brothers to sisters.

It's not an absolute right. It's a right that society constrains. Where the 'period' goes is important.

Then you ought to have said that to begin with, rather than pretending you had never heard of such a right, n'est ce pas? So there is a fundamental right to marry.

Now, justify taking it away from gay people. The right is fundamental, remember. You said so yourself.

On edit: actually, just for the sake of conversation, let's just use rational basis as a starting point, since I don't even know what the state's interest here really is.

John Mace
11-04-2009, 03:22 PM
A civil union gives people next to nothing. People who say they can support civil unions not equal marriage rights tend to say that there is something special about marriage. Do you think they will sign on to a system whereby civil unions have every single right of marriage except for using the word? If so, what will be left about marriage that is "special"?

If not, if you accept those in favor of civil unions rather than marriage want it to be more limited than marriage, which rights of married couples are you willing to sacrifice on behalf of my favorite cousin? Because I am not willing to make that choice for her.

Each time this happens, I get more strident. It really is all or nothing now. It has got to the stage that decent minds can no longer differ on this. I am at a loss today as to how to behave towards my friends (the couple of them) who still oppose gay marriage. I don't know, but my heart is telling me it is time to treat them as I would a friend who was in open opposition to interracial marriage, that is to cut them out of my life.
I disagree. Civil Unions might be an important step in many state (like CA, where I live) towards the process of legalizing SSM. There are many state-level benefits that gays get from Civil Unions, and I think it helps some people get used to the idea that gays aren't some exotic, perverted group of people.

elfkin477
11-04-2009, 03:25 PM
This is crazy. After all the time of telling people not to "impose" gay marriage by judicial fiat, and to do it through legislative action, the cry is now don't do it through the legislature, do it through referendum?If they're eventually going to put it to voters, what is the advantage of not doing so first?

Superhal
11-04-2009, 03:27 PM
I didn't read the intervening posts, but here's my take on the situation:

All people are born (or raised, depending on which side of that argument you're on) with a fundamental view of other people: people are generally good, or people are generally evil. If your world view is that people are fundamentally evil (The Hobbes view,) you want to take away their rights because they might hurt themselves or others by abusing it. If you feel people are fundamentally good (The Locke view,) you want everybody to have lots and lots of rights, and that you trust them to use those rights responsibly.

The big problem in the US today though is that people think they're with Locke, but in actuality they are with Hobbes. It's rather obvious with the gay rights debate, but the example I like to use comes from education.

Currently, the education debate is overwhelmed by the idea that children are evil and stupid, therefore, they need to be told what classes to take, when to take them, how much to study, what to study, what to read, what not to read, good/bad music, good/bad TV shows, etc. If we truly thought humans are good, we would allow children to choose their own classes starting from 1st grade, listen/watch/do whatever they wanted, and trust them to do what is good for themselves.

So imagine this: you tell a teenager to do whatever they want without asking. Do you think the outcome will be good or bad?

Scary thought? You aren't alone. However, the studies support the "humans are good" theory. One famous study took two groups of babies. One group was given an "expert" made, carefully monitored diet where they were given specific food in specific amounts at specific times. The second group was given an array of baby foods, and they could choose whichever foods they wanted and which foods they would eat at any time in any amount. The free choice group was healthier, had a higher weight, etc. etc. etc.

Imho, humans have a tendency to create psychological "walls," and anything inside the wall (including themselves) they view as "good," while anything outside the wall (strangers, foreigners, etc.) are automatically bad. Therefore, for the majority of Americans, gays are outside of the wall.

villa
11-04-2009, 03:29 PM
If they're eventually going to put it to voters, what is the advantage of not doing so first?

You are the one supporting changing the standard way that changes are made. Up to you to tell me why bigots should enforce this change.

Personally I don't think it should go to the voters. I don't believe in government by referenda. Elect people, let them make decisions, if you don't like their decisions then vote them out next time. If we want direct democracy, we should have it on all issues, not just a few, and we should live in anarchistic communes. I wouldn't have a major issue with this, but I am not in favor of letting the hatemongers cherrypick which issues should go to direct votes.

Captain Amazing
11-04-2009, 03:38 PM
Here's a real test of whether the anti-gay-marriage people are actually anti-gay-marriage because they fear that traditional marriage will be destroyed:

Are they fighting as hard for an end to divorce-on-demand? Are they fighting as hard for adultery to become an actual crime again?

If those two questions are answered "No", then they don't really care all that much about marriage as an institution. They just want to push some fag faces in.

I don't know if that's actually a good test. Somebody in that position might figure that the divorce and adultery issues are already settled, and that those are losing battles to fight.

StoutHearted
11-04-2009, 03:49 PM
You don't try to stop religion now, but what if they were sacrificing babies on their altars? It's just a matter of abhorrence.

I wouldn't say that's an apt analogy because with baby sacrifice, someone's getting hurt. With gay marriage, no one is getting hurt. With the latter, there's fear of the unknown, (the "what if...", the anticipation that your own lifestyle will decrease in quality somehow) but that's not comparable to actual murder or death. The consequences of baby sacrifice are concrete, consequences of gay marriage are merely speculative.

In light of this, it does seem to me that there's a curious, fanatical obsession with interfering in a lifestyle that causes no physical harm. Fear is a powerful motivator: fear of change, fear of the unknown, fear of making God mad. Just like it's hard to convince a frightened child that there's no monster under the bed, it's difficult to convince someone against gay marriage that legalization will not affect their personal life at all. It's hard to argue against the intangible "what if."

alphaboi867
11-04-2009, 03:53 PM
I think the timing on the Maine law was unfortunate. Not even a midterm election it was a mid-mid term election. One would expect very low turnout. Those who do turn out tend to be the elderly and not the young which are conservative and not liberal.

The vote was pretty close as is. I suspect had this vote happened a year ago it would have passed.

Turnout is this off-year election was about twice what was expected. Higher than usual turnout was supposed to be a good sign for No on 1. Maybe the only reason why the vote was so close was because of the high turnout; normal levels of turnout might have produced a more lopsided victory for Yes.

This is crazy. After all the time of telling people not to "impose" gay marriage by judicial fiat, and to do it through legislative action, the cry is now don't do it through the legislature, do it through referendum?...

First it was activist judges violating the seperation of powers and usurping the legislature now it's out of control lawmakers. When (not if) we finally win a referendum it'll be the "liberal media" manipulating the voters. Or money and resources coming in from outside the state.

yorick73
11-04-2009, 03:58 PM
Sure they are. In the 60s bigoted assholes enforced the notion that two consenting adults who wanted to get married couldn't. Because it (miscegenation) challenged their notions of decency.

Today bigoted assholes enforce the notion that two consenting adults that want to get married can't. Because it (buttsecks) challenges their notions of decency. It's a clear analogy of the issue.

You have the right to marry someone you are sexually attracted to. A gay person does not.

Nonsense. Miscegenation laws were discrimination against people, not actions. In other words, two people were not allowed to perform an act that others were allowed to perform
because of the race of the two people. Banning gay marriage is discrimiation against actions as opposed to people.

Bricker
11-04-2009, 03:59 PM
Then you ought to have said that to begin with, rather than pretending you had never heard of such a right, n'est ce pas? So there is a fundamental right to marry.

I wasn't pretending anything. A right is that for which denial of it has a legal remedy. When I said, "In forty-five states and the federal system, there is no 'right to marry, period,'" it didn't mean I had never heard the phrase. It meant I was denying that there was a legally cognizable right to do what you were describing.


Now, justify taking it away from gay people. The right is fundamental, remember. You said so yourself.

On edit: actually, just for the sake of conversation, let's just use rational basis as a starting point, since I don't even know what the state's interest here really is.

Under the law of what jurisdiction?

jayjay
11-04-2009, 04:09 PM
Nonsense. Miscegenation laws were discrimination against people, not actions. In other words, two people were not allowed to perform an act that others were allowed to perform
because of the race of the two people. Banning gay marriage is discrimiation against actions as opposed to people.

Gays and lesbians aren't people? What actions are gays and lesbians doing that are any different from what a mixed-sex couple do?

yorick73
11-04-2009, 04:09 PM
This, my friend, is bullshit. You're hiding behind this as a dishonest cover for discrimination against gays. If this were really the main issue for you, you would focus on getting the state of of the marriage business for everyone, but meanwhile agreeing that the status quo should apply to everyone. To suggest that you would vote against gays having equal rights to marry because you don't think ANYone should "marry" is bigotry disguised as libertarianism.

Yeah..you caught me. I secretly want to burn all fags at the stake :rolleyes:

Your vote still amounts to an act of discrimination, and no political justification can change that.

Meanwhile, I'd like to ask, have the civil rights of any other group ever been handed over to the popular vote for resolution? Isn't that one of the central philosophies behind the Bill of Rights--the protection of the minority from the "tyranny of the majority"?

If racial civil rights had been put to a popular vote in the 60s, wouldn't the outcome have likely been different?

What gives?

Rights are rights, not privileges condescendingly bestowed by the good will of the majority.


Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a set of legal obligations. The state has a vested interest in one man marrying one woman (at a time) and producing children. This is why the state is involved at all.

jayjay
11-04-2009, 04:13 PM
The state has a vested interest in one man marrying one woman (at a time) and producing children. This is why the state is involved at all.

Aside: What makes this subject so hard is that we have to go through 300 pages arguing against this every fucking time it comes up because nobody on the homophobe side ever bothers to read the threads we've done on it before.

To yorick73: So...do we need to start establishing fertility before we allow a man and a woman to marry? Can women over the age of menopause get married or not? Can women who've had hysterectomies or tubal ligations or IUDs or men who've had vasectomies marry? If a couple doesn't produce a child within, say, two years of the wedding, will they be forced to divorce?

alphaboi867
11-04-2009, 04:14 PM
Nonsense. Miscegenation laws were discrimination against people, not actions. In other words, two people were not allowed to perform an act that others were allowed to perform
because of the race of the two people. Banning gay marriage is discrimiation against actions as opposed to people.

A white person and a black person are not allowed to marry while two white people or two black people are and this is discrimination against people. Two men or two women are not allowed to marry while a man and a woman can and this is discrimination. :dubious:

I don't know if that's actually a good test. Somebody in that position might figure that the divorce and adultery issues are already settled, and that those are losing battles to fight.

I almost wanted to vomit listening to a Catholic bishop try to justify going after same-sex marriage instead of divorce. He just went on and on about how divorce is bad and they counseling programs to try and help young couples, yet didn't say a single word about lobbying legislatures to ban or make divorce harder. Also apparenly in every county that's legalized SSM the marriage rate as gone down as a result and people are delaying marriage until their 30s. Newsflash Your Excellency that trend started long before before gays started getting married.

John Mace
11-04-2009, 04:17 PM
Nonsense. Miscegenation laws were discrimination against people, not actions. In other words, two people were not allowed to perform an act that others were allowed to perform
because of the race of the two people. Banning gay marriage is discrimiation against actions as opposed to people.

This is very confusing. In both cases, you're banning the marriage of certain people. Why is it an "action" one time and "people" the other?

Whack-a-Mole
11-04-2009, 04:17 PM
Nonsense. Miscegenation laws were discrimination against people, not actions. In other words, two people were not allowed to perform an act that others were allowed to perform
because of the race of the two people. Banning gay marriage is discrimiation against actions as opposed to people.

Err...huh?

Miscegenation: White person you cannot marry black person.

Anti-SSM: Gay person you cannot marry gay person (of the same sex).

I am missing your distinction.

woodstockbirdybird
11-04-2009, 04:18 PM
Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a set of legal obligations. The state has a vested interest in one man marrying one woman (at a time) and producing children. This is why the state is involved at all.

Why is this the state's "vested interest"? Is the state going to start requiring all married couples to have kids now? As far as I know, the state considers (opposite sex) marriage valid whether there are children involved or not, and always has. I honestly don't understand your interpretation.

Gangster Octopus
11-04-2009, 04:20 PM
The reason you are getting confused by yorick73 is because he thinks being gay is about how you act and not who you are. So by his reasoning you could make a law prohibiting Catholics from marrying Muslims.

villa
11-04-2009, 04:21 PM
Yeah..you caught me. I secretly want to burn all fags at the stake :rolleyes:



No, you just want to deny people a basic fundamental right. So I should be fucking grateful you don't want to kill them as well?

yorick73
11-04-2009, 04:28 PM
Might I suggest less hostility towards yorick and more, well, persuasive debating? I don't see that vilifying him/her is productive.

First, thanks for being civil. Some people are so quick to call those who disagree with them racists, bigots, etc.


Yorick: Do you understand that gay people don't choose to be gay, and that they can't just choose to love someone of the opposite sex any more than you could choose to love someone of the same sex? We've learned a lot since the 1960s, when homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. It's not. Gays are just like you, except they happen to be attracted to the same sex.

Of course I understand that. Perhaps polygamists don't choose their lifestyle either but I don't think marriage should be available to these relationships either. Society has defined marriage throught history as one man and one woman, and marriage is a recognition of this particular union.

yorick73
11-04-2009, 04:31 PM
Gays and lesbians aren't people? What actions are gays and lesbians doing that are any different from what a mixed-sex couple do?

What? The ban on same-sex marriage is discrimination against an action, not against people. As I stated earlier gays can get married to members of the opposite sex. Also I, as a straight male, cannot marry another male.

alphaboi867
11-04-2009, 04:32 PM
...Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a set of legal obligations. The state has a vested interest in one man marrying one woman (at a time) and producing children. This is why the state is involved at all.

True, I still remember all when the Commonwealth informed my aunt & uncle that their marriage was being disolved for failure to produce children within the official time limit. My aunt was so upset when the judge told her she'd never be able to remarry since she'd passed menopause.

Whack-a-Mole
11-04-2009, 04:33 PM
Of course I understand that. Perhaps polygamists don't choose their lifestyle either but I don't think marriage should be available to these relationships either. Society has defined marriage throught history as one man and one woman, and marriage is a recognition of this particular union.

Actually polygamy (or more usually polygyny) has been practiced throughout history by many cultures and is still practiced in many countries even today (much of Islam for instance).

Gangster Octopus
11-04-2009, 04:34 PM
Of course I understand that. Perhaps polygamists don't choose their lifestyle either but I don't think marriage should be available to these relationships either. Society has defined marriage throught history as one man and one woman, and marriage is a recognition of this particular union.

That last sentence is so circular it has been nominated for the Round Hall of Fame.

John Mace
11-04-2009, 04:35 PM
First, thanks for being civil. Some people are so quick to call those who disagree with them racists, bigots, etc.
No problem.

Of course I understand that. Perhaps polygamists don't choose their lifestyle either but I don't think marriage should be available to these relationships either. Society has defined marriage throught history as one man and one woman, and marriage is a recognition of this particular union.
Actually, society often condoned polygamy. Many societies still do. Our society changed, and decided that polygamy was not to be sanctioned. Personally, I'm OK with polygamy, but I understand why most people in the West don't accept it.

And yes, SSM is something new to this society, mainly because we used to view gays as sick. We know that isn't so anymore, and so it makes sense to change to reflect that new knowledge. "It's always been that way" is very poor reason to keep doing something when you look at all the things we've changed over the years. Plus, no one is being harmed. We're not doing some social experiment here-- gays are out and living together openly. All they want is to have the same legal recognition as straight people.

steadierfooting
11-04-2009, 04:42 PM
[quote]
I think that the majority of heterosexuals (and almost all christians) believe that opposite sex marriage should be considered something sacred and exclusive. I certainly believe this. Opening the door for gay marriage (or polygamy, polyandry, etc) cheapens the institution. There are many heteros (myself included) who oppose gay marriage but have no problem with a civil union arrangement of some type that provides all the benefits of marriage without calling it marriage. This is not enough for many gays and it makes me wonder if there is another agenda at work.
[quote]

Agreed.

However, in discussing this briefly with some of my friends, we are all in agreement that we would also support any decision that would get people to STFU about the topic. We are hetero, we are overall indifferent to the topic since it doesn't affect us. Just do whatever it takes to have it not be an issue.

Der Trihs
11-04-2009, 04:45 PM
True. I think a lot of people react emotionally to SSM rather than intellectually. But if someone has at least gotten to the point of accepting Civil Unions for gays, it really is only a small step to get to being OK with calling it marriage. Accepting yorick's posts at face value, he/she is at the Civil Union phase. That's almost there.No, it's not. No more than segregation was a "just a small step" from equality. Civil unions and such are, just like segregation an attempt to legislate bigotry into law. To stop progress towards equality and force the despised group into a ghetto. Civil unions are an attempt to restrict SS couples to a ghetto version of marriage, and by doing so prevent them from ever getting the real thing. A separate legal institution, which can be progressively be hemmed in, made ever more degraded and limited - without touching real marriage.

Really; we KNOW from history what "separate but equal" really means.

The state has a vested interest in one man marrying one woman (at a time) and producing children. This is why the state is involved at all.A ridiculous claim, as has been often pointed out. Infertile couples get married all the time; unmarried people have children. Marriage is NOT about having children.

magellan01
11-04-2009, 04:48 PM
I don't have much time, so let me leave aside the arguments countering the miscegenation/racial analogies, which causes many of the pro SSM crowd in this thread to plug their fingers in their ears and pose one simple question: Why is it so strange to you that society might want to recognize with special significance an institution that celebrates the natural coming together of man and woman in a way that best benefits society? Why is it so hard to understand that we might want to recognize the type of union that is responsible for each and every one of us being here?

Okay, that was two questions. But really, I just don't get it. There certainly are similarities between loving SS and OS couples, but that does not mean they are identical. A cat and a dog are quite similar, but we still have names for each one. Man and woman are largely similar, yet we still acknowledge that there is a difference.

As far as the "tyranny of the majority" argument, is tyranny of the minority better?

Okay, three questions.

villa
11-04-2009, 04:49 PM
First, thanks for being civil. Some people are so quick to call those who disagree with them racists, bigots, etc.


I don't think people who oppose gay marriage are (necessarily) racists or etc. Pretty clear there is one thing they are, though...

But you want civility? Earn it. How on earth is denying basic rights to my friends and family civil? How on earth is claiming that my cousin's marriage cheapens your marriage civil?

People have been civil on this long enough.

magellan01
11-04-2009, 04:52 PM
ridiculous claim, as has been often pointed out. Infertile couples get married all the time; unmarried people have children. Marriage is NOT about having children.

This goes too far. Marriage has been and is largely about having children. There is not a one-to-one relationship, but the two are very tightly associated. Now you may think that it needn't be that way, but you're wrong to make the claim you did.

Der Trihs
11-04-2009, 04:54 PM
As far as the "tyranny of the majority" argument, is tyranny of the minority better? :rolleyes:

And in what way is people wanting to marry tyranny? This is typical of the Right; they regard being unable to oppress others as oppression. In other words, they define freedom as tyranny; very Orwellian.

magellan01
11-04-2009, 04:54 PM
I don't think people who oppose gay marriage are (necessarily) racists or etc. Pretty clear there is one thing they are, though...

But you want civility? Earn it. How on earth is denying basic rights to my friends and family civil? How on earth is claiming that my cousin's marriage cheapens your marriage civil?

Following your logic, you and I'd be morally bound to grant polygamists the right to marry, too, right? Or be characterized as uncivil?

Der Trihs
11-04-2009, 04:56 PM
This goes too far. Marriage has been and is largely about having children. There is not a one-to-one relationship, but the two are very tightly associated.
No, they are not. There are no restrictions on infertile people marrying, nor are married people required to have children, nor are people with children required to get married.

B. Serum
11-04-2009, 04:57 PM
The people who are against gay marriage think "being gay" is a sex act (and a depraved one at that), rather than realizing it is an orientation. I'm sure they view legalization of gay marriage is tacit approval of deviant sex acts.

So depressing.

villa
11-04-2009, 04:58 PM
Following your logic, you and I'd be morally bound to grant polygamists the right to marry, too, right? Or be characterized as uncivil?

No. There is an strong link between polygamy and abuse. That gives the government a compelling interest in preventing it. Which sucks for the non-abusive poly people out there (not that you cannot find other compelling government interests at work). There is no compelling government interest served in preventing same sex marriage.

magellan01
11-04-2009, 05:00 PM
:rolleyes:

And in what way is people wanting to marry tyranny? This is typical of the Right; they regard being unable to oppress others as oppression. In other words, they define freedom as tyranny; very Orwellian.

I don't thing their desires are tyrannical. The point is that their will disagreements in which route a society should take. When their is, we vote. Not everyone winds up happy, but it works. And, for the record, I didn't bring up the concept of tyranny. But let me ask you since when is wanting to grant people equal legal status while preserving an important institution (which is my position) "tyrannical"?

Whack-a-Mole
11-04-2009, 05:01 PM
I don't have much time, so let me leave aside the arguments countering the miscegenation/racial analogies, which causes many of the pro SSM crowd in this thread to plug their fingers in their ears...

They plug their ears because it is a hugely inconvenient argument for them to face. It is rare but this is one of those times where the analogy is basically spot on and illuminates the issue quite well.


Why is it so strange to you that society might want to recognize with special significance an institution that celebrates the natural coming together of man and woman in a way that best benefits society? Why is it so hard to understand that we might want to recognize the type of union that is responsible for each and every one of us being here?

I was born to an unwed mother. Lots and lots of people are.

Further, there is nothing in the legal aspects of marriage that demands procreation. The state has nothing to say about that. At all.


As far as the "tyranny of the majority" argument, is tyranny of the minority better?

Handled better than I would have just above.

Lobohan
11-04-2009, 05:01 PM
This goes too far. Marriage has been and is largely about having children. There is not a one-to-one relationship, but the two are very tightly associated. Now you may think that it needn't be that way, but you're wrong to make the claim you did.You're wrong. There is precisely zero onus on a married couple to have children.

magellan01
11-04-2009, 05:01 PM
No, they are not. There are no restrictions on infertile people marrying, nor are married people required to have children, nor are people with children required to get married.

That's not what you said. And what you did say does not follow from this.

Gangster Octopus
11-04-2009, 05:03 PM
Why is it so hard to understand that we might want to recognize the type of union that is responsible for each and every one of us being here?


You can recognize it any way you damn well please. But the government should not be making these distinctions, anymore than they should be doing it babsed on the color of someones skin or whether someone is right or left handed. The governement is not out in the "recognizing" business, they are in the law business, and there is NO state purpose to disallow SSM. It just doesn't exist.

Lobohan
11-04-2009, 05:04 PM
while preserving an important institution (which is my position) "tyrannical"?Your position is false. It is a childish made up bogey story. SSM has no effect on your marriage. It's frankly a stupid argument and no smart person would make it honestly.

Jimmy Chitwood
11-04-2009, 05:04 PM
I wasn't pretending anything. A right is that for which denial of it has a legal remedy. When I said, "In forty-five states and the federal system, there is no 'right to marry, period,'" it didn't mean I had never heard the phrase. It meant I was denying that there was a legally cognizable right to do what you were describing.

I'm still not sure we're on the same page. I'm confused as to what exactly you're challenging with your explanation of what a right is. There is, isn't there, a legally cognizable right to marry, for which legal redress is available in the event of a violation? That's all I'm describing. When the state of Virginia passes a Racial Integrity Act, that act abridges a certain right of the citizens of Virginia to form legal marriages.

All I'm saying is that people have the right to get married; you I think have already agreed with that statement. I believe that you are choosing to interpret my saying "period" as an indication that what I am talking about is some kind of absolute right, free of any possible curtailment, but let me assure you again that that isn't what I'm saying. There's obviously no such thing. We can put to rest all of our (mutual, I promise, and very reasonable) fears of men marrying chickens and women marrying chocolates and babies marrying anthropomorphic tools.

I'm talking about a right to marry in the same way we talk about any right. What is it that I'm misunderstanding?

Under the law of what jurisdiction?

For the justification? Your choice. It's an honest question, and I think it really has to be the very first one answered.

Der Trihs
11-04-2009, 05:06 PM
I don't thing their desires are tyrannical. The point is that their will disagreements in which route a society should take. When their is, we vote. Not everyone winds up happy, but it works. And, for the record, I didn't bring up the concept of tyranny. But let me ask you since when is wanting to grant people equal legal status while preserving an important institution (which is my position) "tyrannical"?Since that entire premise is nonsense? Preventing SS couples from marriage isn't about "preserving an important institution". And shoving them off into a ghetto version of marriage isn't about giving them equal status; it's about keeping them from having equal status.

That's not what you said. And what you did say does not follow from this.That is what I said, and it does follow.

magellan01
11-04-2009, 05:07 PM
You're wrong. There is precisely zero onus on a married couple to have children.

I'm not wrong in the least. Try rereading the exchange.

Raygun99
11-04-2009, 05:07 PM
If they're eventually going to put it to voters, what is the advantage of not doing so first?

An important clarification: This was a citizen referendum. The legislature didn't pass their gay marriage bill, then say, "OK, public, now it's your time to have a say!"

alphaboi867
11-04-2009, 05:08 PM
What? The ban on same-sex marriage is discrimination against an action, not against people. As I stated earlier gays can get married to members of the opposite sex. Also I, as a straight male, cannot marry another male.

And Mildred Jeter could get married to any willing black man she chose. She chose a white man, Richard Loving. What's your point?

Lobohan
11-04-2009, 05:11 PM
I'm not wrong in the least. Try rereading the exchange.I suggest you should do the same. Your suggestion that somehow marriage can't be allowed to homosexuals because of child rearing, is an argument that does not follow. It's ignorant handwaving.

Leaper
11-04-2009, 05:12 PM
In that case, elfkin's point may well have been, "if they're eventually going to put it to the voters because some conservative will stir up enough signatures to put it on the ballot (and you know they will), why not do the vote first to 'head them off at the pass' and not waste time"?

magellan01
11-04-2009, 05:12 PM
Your position is false. It is a childish made up bogey story. SSM has no effect on your marriage. It's frankly a stupid argument and no smart person would make it honestly.

Are you able to debate without attempting to ascribe motives are nesting in oblique ad hominems? If so, please demonstrate this new found ability. If not, I hope you have an enjoyable evening.

Lobohan
11-04-2009, 05:14 PM
Are you able to debate without attempting to ascribe motives are nesting in oblique ad hominems? If so, please demonstrate this new found ability. If not, I hope you have an enjoyable evening.Explain in detail how marriage is damaged by allowing homosexuals you don't even know to marry.

I await your reasoned response. What I expect you to give is more handwaving.

magellan01
11-04-2009, 05:17 PM
I suggest you should do the same. Your suggestion that somehow marriage can't be allowed to homosexuals because of child rearing, is an argument that does not follow. It's ignorant handwaving.

Since you typed this before my last request I will respond.

A) There are no legal requirements for married people to have children.
B) "Marriage is not about having children."

A does not equal B. Claiming that the institution of marriage is not associated—tightly with children, and family, displays a very poor grasp of both history and the world we live in.

Algorithm
11-04-2009, 05:17 PM
Why is it so hard to understand that we might want to recognize the type of union that is responsible for each and every one of us being here?

Because the way in which you want to do this marginalizes a sizable minority of the country, and benefits nobody.

Also, "marriage" isn't responsible for each and every one of us being here.

Lobohan
11-04-2009, 05:22 PM
Since you typed this before my last request I will respond.

A) There are no legal requirements for married people to have children.
B) "Marriage is not about having children."

A does not equal B. Claiming that the institution of marriage is not associated—tightly with children, and family, displays a very poor grasp of both history and the world we live in.So couples who cannot have children can get married. Unless the couple is of the same sex.

Why?

magellan01
11-04-2009, 05:25 PM
Explain in detail how marriage is damaged by allowing homosexuals you don't even know to marry.

I await your reasoned response. What I expect you to give is more handwaving.

It dilutes the meaning of the word. It makes it less special, and thereby, less likely that people who fit the traditional description will enter into it. As I've stated in other threads, I view this to not be a good thing, as I see value in the institution and it's close association with the begetting and raising of children. I know you don't agree with my conclusion, and that's fine. But that the meaning of the word will be diluted and altered is simply a fact. Maybe for good, maybe for ill, but a fact.

I'm not going to get into the usual long debate— I don't have the time or fortitude right now to go through it yet again—but I did want to give you an answer.

Whack-a-Mole
11-04-2009, 05:29 PM
A does not equal B. Claiming that the institution of marriage is not associated—tightly with children, and family, displays a very poor grasp of both history and the world we live in.

Many, many, many homosexual couples would like to have children. They can do so via surrogate/artificial insemination means or adoption (if that was allowed).

Even childless I would call them a family. They share their ups and downs and basically do everything a hetero couple would do. They love their parents and siblings same as anyone else (or not but basically the same spectrum you find in any other family will be represented).

villa
11-04-2009, 05:30 PM
It dilutes the meaning of the word. It makes it less special, and thereby, less likely that people who fit the traditional description will enter into it. As I've stated in other threads, I view this to not be a good thing, as I see value in the institution and it's close association with the begetting and raising of children.

So to alter things slightly, and to see if you are actually consistent on this, were a state, in the past, to have required fertility tests in order to marry, you would not support the removal of that requirement? Note it is a different question to the one of whether you think infertile people should be allowed to marry...

By the way, have you given up on the specious comparison of polygamy to gay marriage?

Whack-a-Mole
11-04-2009, 05:31 PM
It dilutes the meaning of the word. It makes it less special, and thereby, less likely that people who fit the traditional description will enter into it. As I've stated in other threads, I view this to not be a good thing, as I see value in the institution and it's close association with the begetting and raising of children.

Do you have any basis for this assumption or is it just a "gut" feeling?

Countries where SSM is allowed have had not had the experience you describe here.

ETA: SSM is allowed in Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. Has the institution of marriage been harmed in those places?

magellan01
11-04-2009, 05:32 PM
Because the way in which you want to do this marginalizes a sizable minority of the country, and benefits nobody.

Also, "marriage" isn't responsible for each and every one of us being here.

The latter part first. I was referring to man and woman coming together to produce children.

The first part: the way I want to do it marginalizes no one. It extends to ALL committed coupoles the legal benefits and privileges now reserved for heterosexual married couples. It, at the same time, preserves what I view is a beneficial institution. I see it as all upside, with no downside. Except for those who care less about the legal benefits than they do about using the term and the institution to gain some degree of psychological parity.

magellan01
11-04-2009, 05:34 PM
Many, many, many homosexual couples would like to have children. They can do so via surrogate/artificial insemination means or adoption (if that was allowed).

Even childless I would call them a family. They share their ups and downs and basically do everything a hetero couple would do. They love their parents and siblings same as anyone else (or not but basically the same spectrum you find in any other family will be represented).

I agree. I am also in favor of gay adoption. I'm in favor of extending to SSC ALL the legal benefits. Just not the word. Let them call it something else.

Lobohan
11-04-2009, 05:38 PM
It dilutes the meaning of the word. It makes it less special, and thereby, less likely that people who fit the traditional description will enter into it. As I've stated in other threads, I view this to not be a good thing, as I see value in the institution and it's close association with the begetting and raising of children. I know you don't agree with my conclusion, and that's fine. But that the meaning of the word will be diluted and altered is simply a fact. Maybe for good, maybe for ill, but a fact.

I'm not going to get into the usual long debate— I don't have the time or fortitude right now to go through it yet again—but I did want to give you an answer.

Impassioned, but simply gibberish. You assume that marriage has meant one thing for time immemorial. If you think that you are simply ignorant of history. Marriage has meant everything from servitude to political alliances to a form of welfare for elderly widows. These things have changed and the current most common meaning of marriage is fixated on romantic love. But marriage currently includes much more than that, including marriages for money, companionship and other things.

Are you suggesting that homosexuals can't experience romantic love?

Also dilution requires that you adulterate a material with something undesirable. You dilute wine with worthless water. Why do you think homosexual marriages are worth less than heterosexual marriages?

You are talking circles to justify your prejudices.

magellan01
11-04-2009, 05:41 PM
So to alter things slightly, and to see if you are actually consistent on this, were a state, in the past, to have required fertility tests in order to marry, you would not support the removal of that requirement? Note it is a different question to the one of whether you think infertile people should be allowed to marry...

Interesting question. To answer quickly, if there had been a federal requirement, meaning that the two things, marriage and children, were nearly inextricably linked, barring some new information, I would not support the removal of the requirement.

By the way, have you given up on the specious comparison of polygamy to gay marriage?

No. Marriage means X. One group wants to expand that to include Y, another Z. I thinkj there are good arguments in favor of doing either. But they both still fail for me.

boytyperanma
11-04-2009, 05:41 PM
There is nothing to be gained in arguing with Maggellan01 Anything you say to him has already been covered in previous gay marriage threads. He firmly believes the word 'marriage' is too special to allow anyone else to use it.

He is a bigot. Do not waste your time.

sqweels
11-04-2009, 05:42 PM
Marriage is about love? Ok. It is actually a legal and binding contract that deals with the transfer of wealth to the wife and descendants. I doubt you will see love mentioned in a marriage license.
There's more to it than that. For example, the law exempts a wife from testifying in court against her husband (and vice-versa). This has nothing to do with wealth but rather it acknowledges that there is a strong bond between the couple, that their relationship is very important to them and such testimony would harm it.

SSM acknowledges that gay couples are just as capable of forming such a strong romantic bond. It's not "civil", it's not "domestic", it romantic.

The law deals with the practical issues that stem from such a bond, as formalized by the marriage license, but at it's core it's emotional.

If gays feel the same way about their partners, and they've made the same kind of commitment, then how does the same word--in the absence of any other word--not apply?

Der Trihs
11-04-2009, 05:44 PM
It dilutes the meaning of the word. It makes it less special, and thereby, less likely that people who fit the traditional description will enter into it.
No. It is forbidding marriage to same sex couples that cheapens the institution. Just as slapping a "Whites Only" sign on a water fountain turns it from a simple machine into a symbol of oppression.

The first part: the way I want to do it marginalizes no one. It extends to ALL committed coupoles the legal benefits and privileges now reserved for heterosexual married couples. Never happen; it can't be done, and won't even be tried. Any more than separate but equal was ever anything but an exercise in oppression when applied to race.

villa
11-04-2009, 05:45 PM
Interesting question. To answer quickly, if there had been a federal requirement, meaning that the two things, marriage and children, were nearly inextricably linked, barring some new information, I would not support the removal of the requirement.

Interesting you would pick a federal requirement, when marriage law is state based.



No. Marriage means X. One group wants to expand that to include Y, another Z. I thinkj there are good arguments in favor of doing either. But they both still fail for me.

But you asked if my logic meant that someone opposing legalization of polygamy was being uncivil. I showed you why there is a legitimate government interest in preventing polygamy. You have yet to demonstrate a cognizable government interest in protecting opposite sex only marriage. Probably because there isn't one.

Lobohan
11-04-2009, 05:46 PM
I agree. I am also in favor of gay adoption. I'm in favor of extending to SSC ALL the legal benefits. Just not the word. Let them call it something else.I assume you would be okay with interracial marriages being called "Miscegenation-Unions", right? Because that's what you're suggesting.

When black people were allowed to marry white people, did your marriage become that much weaker? Did it make marriage mean less to you? Did it destroy the specialness some little bit?

Your stance is irrational and utterly without merit. You can't defend it, so you just repeat yourself.

magellan01
11-04-2009, 05:51 PM
Do you have any basis for this assumption or is it just a "gut" feeling?

Countries where SSM is allowed have had not had the experience you describe here.

ETA: SSM is allowed in Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. Has the institution of marriage been harmed in those places?

It is a gut feeling, informed by the fact of dilution of the word, which I already explained. The countries you cite have had it only for a few years, the earliest being 2003. The change I'm talking about is deeply cultural, something that I don;t thing we'd see for a generation, probably two. Enough time where people would be born into a world where that was the norm (in their country).

And on that note, I need to go. Thank you, some of you, for the discussion.

cosmosdan
11-04-2009, 05:54 PM
True. I think a lot of people react emotionally to SSM rather than intellectually. But if someone has at least gotten to the point of accepting Civil Unions for gays, it really is only a small step to get to being OK with calling it marriage. Accepting yorick's posts at face value, he/she is at the Civil Union phase. That's almost there.

I think they react emotionally to but in Maine there was a long and serious campaign to inform people and deal with the standard BS arguments. People still somehow chose to believe their gut reaction was better than actual information. Sad. People were concerned that accepting gay marriage would somehow harm children.

"What do I tell my kids if they see a SS couple kissing in public?"

Tell them the truth.

"if gays marry then someone my own marriage and family will be diminished in some way"


Do you know any married couples who have an alcoholic in the family?
Do you know any married couples who cheat on each other?
Do you know a couple who seems to have a better relationship than you have?
Do thier actions diminish the quality of love and committment you bring to your marriage? Can the act of comparison make your marriage more or less?
No it can't.

Der Trihs
11-04-2009, 05:55 PM
It is a gut feeling, informed by the fact of dilution of the word, which I already explained. In other words, you think gays are icky, you want to ghettoize them, and you have latched onto one of silliest excuses for oppressing people I've run across. To preserve the "specialness" of a word? :rolleyes:

Lobohan
11-04-2009, 05:56 PM
It is a gut feeling, informed by the fact of dilution of the word, which I already explained. The countries you cite have had it only for a few years, the earliest being 2003. The change I'm talking about is deeply cultural, something that I don;t thing we'd see for a generation, probably two. Enough time where people would be born into a world where that was the norm (in their country).

And on that note, I need to go. Thank you, some of you, for the discussion.

I would like to point out that the reason for Magellan wanting to prevent a segment of the population from enjoying a basic human right is: A gut feeling, that the dilution of the word, may in a generation or two cause some problem that he cannot foresee.

If Magellan were king of the world, I would assume that by those criteria no one would be able to do anything ever. :rolleyes:

cosmosdan
11-04-2009, 05:59 PM
It is a gut feeling, informed by the fact of dilution of the word, which I already explained. The countries you cite have had it only for a few years, the earliest being 2003. The change I'm talking about is deeply cultural, something that I don;t thing we'd see for a generation, probably two. Enough time where people would be born into a world where that was the norm (in their country).

And on that note, I need to go. Thank you, some of you, for the discussion.

So because of a gut feeling with 0 data to back it up, and in the face of historic facts concerning similar gut feelings about other civil rights that proved to be completely wrong, you think it's best to create a new word for SS couple unions that grant them equal legal rights but not the title of married?

Can they still use the words love, committment, and family?

Der Trihs
11-04-2009, 06:05 PM
Can they still use the words love, committment, and family?
Of course not; we wouldn't want homo-cooties all over such important words, now would we?

Whack-a-Mole
11-04-2009, 06:09 PM
So because of a gut feeling with 0 data to back it up, and in the face of historic facts concerning similar gut feelings about other civil rights that proved to be completely wrong...

I think that bears repeating. I know he does not like the comparison to miscegenation but it is very germane to this discussion.

There were doomsayers back then chanting much of the same mantra we are hearing here to oppose anti-miscegenation laws/SSM. Some 60 years on from Loving none of the doomsayers fears have been born out.

None.

Not one.

So, on the basis of zero evidence that it can have a deleterious effect and abundant evidence to the contrary that it will not negatively impact society people want to restrict other people's rights.

Makes lots of sense. :rolleyes:

Lemur866
11-04-2009, 06:21 PM
So are you in favor of allowing atheists to marry? Or do we just get all the rights of marriage, but shouldn't be allowed to use the word "marriage"?

You'll give in on everything, except the word marriage. Except, you can't restrict how people use the English language. So if everyone has civil unions, and state laws make no reference to "marriage", people won't start saying "Jill and I got unioned last year". They're still going to say "Jill and I got married last year."

And when Adam and Steve get a civil union, how are you going to stop them from saying "Steve and I got married last year"? Are you going to point out that only churches can marry two people, not governments? What if Adam and Steve got married in a church that allows gays to marry each other? Can people in heathen China and India get married? If a Japanese guy tells you that he married his wife in a Shinto ceremony, will you correct him and tell him that only Christians get married, and that pagan Shinto ritual was just a civil union?

Der Trihs
11-04-2009, 06:25 PM
There were doomsayers back then chanting much of the same mantra we are hearing here to oppose anti-miscegenation laws/SSM. Some 60 years on from Loving none of the doomsayers fears have been born out.

None.

Not one.Well, I don't think that's quite true. The fears that came true were the desirable ones. More tolerance towards interracial relationships, more blurring between the races; a decline in concern over racial purity.

And that sort of thing is one of the opponents of SSMs biggest fears, IMHO. Not that society will collapse or that words or marriage will be degraded; but that after a few decades of same sex people being married, most people just won't care anymore. That it will just become...normal.

Gangster Octopus
11-04-2009, 06:36 PM
And that sort of thing is one of the opponents of SSMs biggest fears, IMHO. Not that society will collapse or that words or marriage will be degraded; but that after a few decades of same sex people being married, most people just won't care anymore. That it will just become...normal.

Absolutely this.

tomndebb
11-04-2009, 06:49 PM
He is a bigot. Do not waste your time.Do not post personal insults against other posters in Great Debates.

[ /Moderating ]

aldiboronti
11-04-2009, 06:51 PM
The question posed in the OP had nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the issue but wondered at the motivation of those who oppose gay marriage.

I don't think there's any mystery here. Many Christians regard homosexual acts as an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. Such has been the traditional teaching of the Churches (and still obtains with many).

Couple that with the fact that marriage is one of the Sacraments of the Church and it's small wonder that some Christians are going to find this hard if not impossible to stomach. It matters not a jot that it's the right to state-sanctioned marriage that is being sought, this is all about perception and the word marriage itself.

I understand and sympathize with the frustration and impatience of gays but should it really be cause for surprise that the teachings of two thousand years are going to take longer than two or three decades to be overcome?

Ají de Gallina
11-04-2009, 07:15 PM
Anti-miscegenation laws like those in the US in the 19th and 20th centuries are a historical rarity. No gay marriage has been a historical constant.
I know that "it's always been like that" is not a good argument, but compaing both is nor historically accurate. We could point out hundreds of other discriminatory laws that don't, by themselves, justify anything else.

Der Trihs
11-04-2009, 07:17 PM
Anti-miscegenation laws like those in the US in the 19th and 20th centuries are a historical rarity. No gay marriage has been a historical constant.
I know that "it's always been like that" is not a good argument, but compaing both is nor historically accurate. Yes, it is. They are both the same kind of practice; how old one is doesn't matter.

Lobohan
11-04-2009, 07:24 PM
Anti-miscegenation laws like those in the US in the 19th and 20th centuries are a historical rarity. No gay marriage has been a historical constant.
I know that "it's always been like that" is not a good argument, but compaing both is nor historically accurate. We could point out hundreds of other discriminatory laws that don't, by themselves, justify anything else.Marriage has shifted and changed throughout human history. What is being argued is that the opposition to SSM is fruit of the same prejudice tree.

cn8of10
11-04-2009, 07:30 PM
Only about 20-25% of the nation is right wing authoritarian and want to impose their morality on everyone else via force. I do not get where the other 30-40% of the public who support these bans are coming from.

The other 30-40% are the followers, disciples, children, etc of the right-wing authoritarian 20-25%. These folks are not authoritarian in a vacuum. They are community leaders, "pious" church leaders, "core Conservatives", "Blue Dogs" etc. They start the meme, justify it with fear (of going to hell, of corrupting children, etc), spread it with inflammatory lies (the "Loving God" HATES a homosexual, 'destroying the sanctity of marriage', etc) and then quiet the unrest of the conscience with the "opiate" of group prayer ("God, give us the strength and wisdom to <enter offensive action here>")

A better frame is 'should government and mob rule be able to strip citizens of their constitutional rights'.

This is an excellent way to frame the question. When you do, it is easy to compare it to the fight against 'mob rule' that culminated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Which, in my opinion, speaks to the best, and just, solution to this mess: Make this a Federal Civil Rights issue and solve it in Congress.

I do think at the top ranks of the GOP are a large number of cynical people (Guiliani, Cheney, Rove, Gingrich) who reject the religious and social standards of the GOP but play along to placate the base.

Absolutely. We have all seen the most "creative" justifications for immoral activities (i.e. "a just War") come from the elites in this group.

Bricker
11-04-2009, 07:54 PM
Under the law of what jurisdiction?
For the justification? Your choice. It's an honest question, and I think it really has to be the very first one answered.

Maryland.

1. It's not a suspect class, and its equal protection claims are reviewed under rational basis: The actual controversy here, therefore, is what level of
constitutional scrutiny should be applied to a statute that tre ats citizens differently on that basis (i.e., whether sexual orientation constitutes a suspect or quasi-suspect class, thereby triggering one of the heightene d levels of scrutiny iterated above). Hernandez, 855 N.E.2d at 11. We find that sexual orientation is neither a suspect no r quasi-susp ect class, and Family Law § 2-201 therefore is subject to rational basis review.

Conaway v. Deane, 401 Md. 219, 932 A.2d 571 (2007).

And:

As the Supreme Court stated, “y extending constitutional protection to an asserted right or liberty interest, we, to a great extent, place the matter outside the arena of public debate and legislative action. We must therefore ‘exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field,’. . . lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed into the policy preferences of the members of this Court.

Id., quoting Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S . 115, 125, 1 12 S. Ct.
1061, 1068, 117 L. Ed. 2d 261 (1992).

So rational basis review: ...does [not] authorize ‘the judiciary [to] sit
as a superlegislature to judge the wisdom or desirability of legislative policy determinations made in areas that neither affect fundamental rights nor proceed along suspect lines.
.
.
.
As stated earlier in this opinion, marriage enjoys its fundamental status due, in large part, to its link to procreation. Loving, 388 U.S . at 12, 87 S. C t. at 1823, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”)
.
.
.
This “inextricable link” between marriage and procreation reasonably could support the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman only, because it is that relationship that is capable of producing biological offspring of both members (advances in reproductive technologies notwithstanding).


And to negate the various howls of outrage asking if opposite-sex marriages are to be invalidated if they don't lead to procreation:

Appellees urge in response, quite convincingly, that Family Law § 2-201 is not related rationally to the governmental objective of fostering optima l relationships for procreation because it is at once over-inclusive and under-inclusive. Appellees argue that it is over-inclusive because children may be born into same-sex relationships through alternative methods of con ception , including surrogacy, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and adoption. The statute is also under-inclusive, according to Appellees, because not all opposite-sex couples choose to bear children, or are able to do so because of infertility or otherwise. Lastly, Appellees posit that the marriage statute is not linked sufficiently to the interests in procreatio n because allowing same-sex couples to m arry will not imp act interests in procreation in that “[o]pposite-sex couples will continue to bring children into their families through ‘traditional’ procreation regardless of whether same-sex couples are permitted to marry.”
.
.
.

A legislative enactment reviewed under a rational basis standard of constitutional
review need not be drawn with mathematical exactitude, and may contain imperfections that result in some degree of inequality. Piscatelli v. Bd. of Liquor License Comm’rs, 378 Md. 623, 644-45, 837 A.2d 931, 944 (2003) (“[ A] state do es not violate the Equal Protection Clause merely becau se the classific ations mad e by its laws are im perfect. If the classification has some ‘reasonable basis,’ it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification ‘is not mad e with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.’”) (citations om itted); Whiting-Turner, 304 Md. at 352, 499 A.2d at 185 (“[A]
classification [subject to rational basis review] having some reasonable basis need not be made with mathematical nicety and may result in some inequality”). Looking beyond the fact that any inquiry into the ability or willingness of a couple actually to bear a child during marriage would v iolate the fundamental right to marital privacy recognized in Griswold, 381 U.S. at 484-86, 493, 85 S. Ct. at 1681, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510, the fundamental right to marriage and its ensuing benefits are conferred on opposite-sex couples not because of a distinction between whether various opposite-sex couples actually procreate, but rather because of the
[b]possibility of procreation. In such a situation, so long as the Leg islature has not acted wholly unreasonably in granting recognition to the only relationship capable of bearing children traditionally within the m arital unit, we may not “substitute [our] social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies . . . . “ Md. Aggregates A ss’n, Inc. v. State, 337 Md. 658, 655 A.2d 886 (1995); see also Heller, 509 U.S. at 321, 113 S. Ct. at 2643, 125 L. Ed.
2d 257 (“[C ]ourts are compelled under rational-based review to a ccept a legislature’s generalizations even when there is an imperfect fit between means and en ds. A classification does not fail rationa l-basis review because it ‘is not made w ith mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.”) (quoting Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 485, 90 S. Ct. 1153, 1161, 25 L. Ed. 2d 491 (1970)). In light of the deference owed to the General Assembly under rational basis review, we shall not declare Family Law § 2-201
unconstitutional, even though it may be under- or over-inclusive, or otherwise create a distinction based on imperfectly drawn criteria.

Xotan
11-04-2009, 07:55 PM
I think that the majority of heterosexuals (and almost all christians) believe that opposite sex marriage should be considered something sacred and exclusive. I certainly believe this.

So you think that divorce should be absolutely banned, then?

Europe looks on in awe at the merry march back into the middle ages as the Mormons seem to have had quite a hand in the California fiasco. So roll on theocracy as well.

Wasn't it Mencken who said that when fascism comes to America it will come carrying the cross and wrapped in the flag? Or words to that intent.

Quite simply, what gays want are the rights that are taken for granted by heterosexuals. I have lived with the same man for 36 years. We are now advancing in years and have to face the fact that one of us could die in the not so distant future. Put the case that one of us is in hospital long term: in America the partner would not have visitation rights and could be barred from his other half's bedside. Wills would be a nightmare, and family could exclude one from the funeral of one's life partner. Is this just? Yet all of this has already happened. I am not just engaging in special pleading.

So why is it so wrong to want the same level of human treatment as heterosexuals? Are we not human beings too, with feelings and emotions? Have we no entitlement to dignity and consideration? Does the state not take gays' taxes and deny us the rights and benefits that heterosexual partners have?

Entering old age, my partner and I are increasingly anxious about what future is left to us. But our prospects are far brighter than they would be in America. We feel that some of the attitudes on this thread are utterly lacking in an appreciation that gays are human beings, and that hurting or chastening them on the irrational altar of heterosexual fear is quite ok. And it is fine to blank out that gays are sentient creatures, who have spent 1500 years hiding their true selves from even family for fear of the demonisation, scapegoating and punishment that would result - something that should be alien to modern society. But is still very much alive. I say two words: Matthew Sheppard. We fear for gays in America as a backlash seems to be gathering impetus; and that the days of persecution - yes, that's what it was! - could return.

Europe, happily, is advancing equal rights to gays. It seems America is incapable of it.

I am proud to say that in mid 2010 my partner and I will be going to our home country (we live elsewhere) to become legal partners - 36 year late. We are no longer the young, handsome and sprightly men we were back in 1973. And friends and family members, especially parents, have died - people would have wanted with us to enhance and share in our joy. But better late than never. (Are these thoughts much different to what heterosexuals have?) There is a bitter-sweetness about it, though. The years when we were denied a mutual existence can never be regained. So we have lost a large part of our lives by what is effectively forced legal separation. Still, when the big day comes, I think our happiness and the love and support of family and friends will help to efface the bitter past - at least for that special day.

Ají de Gallina
11-04-2009, 08:27 PM
Yes, it is. They are both the same kind of practice; how old one is doesn't matter.

Even if I were to believe your statement as to the equality of practice, age does matter. In ten years not having internet access will be considered denial of a basic right which 10 years ago wasn't. The fight for gay rights isn't 50 years old, you have got to be kidding me to not see a difference.

Marriage has shifted and changed throughout human history. What is being argued is that the opposition to SSM is fruit of the same prejudice tree.

No it isn't. Thr arguments are simply different.

Jimmy Chitwood
11-04-2009, 08:32 PM
Bricker, I'll argue against that particular court's interpretation, if you like, but that's not really what I consider to be the important point. Again, I'm aware of the state of the law. I am aware that if I try to go and get myself married to a dude in Maryland, it's not going to happen.

I'm asking you. Do you think marriage in general is actually not a fundamental right and thus not entitled to strict scrutiny? Do you think there's only a right to marriage at all because of an inextricable link to the possibility of procreation? I'm not asking if you think that's what Loving said, I'm asking what you think about marriage. Do you think that's compelling, that in 2009 every straight marriage is perfectly legitimate and no gay marriage could ever be, because of the "possibility of procreation?" Is that what's important about this issue to you? Because I find it absurd, but it is immensely helpful to me to understand exactly what is at stake.

Bricker
11-04-2009, 08:52 PM
Bricker, I'll argue against that particular court's interpretation, if you like, but that's not really what I consider to be the important point. Again, I'm aware of the state of the law. I am aware that if I try to go and get myself married to a dude in Maryland, it's not going to happen.

I'm asking you. Do you think marriage in general is actually not a fundamental right and thus not entitled to strict scrutiny? Do you think there's only a right to marriage at all because of an inextricable link to the possibility of procreation? I'm not asking if you think that's what Loving said, I'm asking what you think about marriage. Do you think that's compelling, that in 2009 every straight marriage is perfectly legitimate and no gay marriage could ever be, because of the "possibility of procreation?" Is that what's important about this issue to you? Because I find it absurd, but it is immensely helpful to me to understand exactly what is at stake.


Same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right entitled to strict scrutiny. Opposite-sex marriage is.

The reasons for that have nothing to do with what marriage is, and everything to do with what the role of the judicary should be. As a king, I would impose same-sex marriage laws on my subjects. As a legislator, I would propose them and vote in favor of them. As an executive, I would sign them into law and enforce them.

As a judge, I would NOT find that they are deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions, or that they were entitled to strict scrutiny.

You ask a ridiculous question: "Do you think that's compelling, that in 2009 every straight marriage is perfectly legitimate and no gay marriage could ever be, because of the "possibility of procreation?"

That's not thew question confronting a court. The court is not charged with diving wise social policy. They are not a council of learned philosopher-kings, overruling the mistakes of the legislature with benign wisdom. They can and should make the legislature conform to the constitution. But this passage is right on the money: As the Supreme Court stated, “[b]y extending constitutional protection to an asserted right or liberty interest, we, to a great extent, place the matter outside the arena of public debate and legislative action. We must therefore ‘exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field,’. . . lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed into the policy preferences of the members of this Court.

The court should not make policy. When new gorund must be broken if our notion of self-governance is to mean anything, it must come from the legislature.

THAT is what I believe.

(That said, I think there's stronger argument for intermediate scrutiny anyway).

jayjay
11-04-2009, 08:54 PM
It should be noted (because I was there when it happened, so to speak) that Bricker IS in favor of same-sex marriage, one of the few times I've seen actual threads in GD change someone's mind from an original opinion to a new one on something quite this fundamental. Bricker only disagrees on HOW SSM should be implemented...most of us are fine with judicial decisions, but he thinks it should be implemented by the legislatures.

Jimmy Chitwood
11-04-2009, 08:59 PM
Bricker, I don't mean this to sound flippant, and I'm sure it will, but I'm not a member of the judiciary, and neither, to my knowledge, are you. I keep asking you not to worry about what the court's role is, because I'm trying to have a conversation. Here on this message board, I'm charging myself with divining wise social policy. The fact that you brought up a court's decision as a justification for a particular social policy does not restrict me to playing by the same rules the court played by. This is the internet, not a state courthouse. It's a thread about a piece of legislation that concerns gay marriage, which I'm trying to talk about. So what exactly does the "question concerning the court" in a case you brought up yourself have to do with anything?

But I mean, the question I ask is a ridiculous one. Then I'll stop wasting your time, I guess. My apologies.

Antinor01
11-04-2009, 09:03 PM
There are many heteros (myself included) who oppose gay marriage but have no problem with a civil union arrangement of some type that provides all the benefits of marriage without calling it marriage. This is not enough for many gays and it makes me wonder if there is another agenda at work.

The agenda is very simple, to obtain equal rights for same sex couples as are enjoyed by opposite sex couples.

Let me explain my point of view in two ways;

1. philosophically, I agree that an arrangement that gave same sex couples the exact rights would be acceptable regardless of name. Call it a civil union, domestic partnership, go directly to hell do not collect $200 pairing, etc. If this arrangement were guaranteed to be viewed by all government entities as exactly equal to marriage I would have no issue with it.

2. Practically speaking, #1 will never happen. I am already in a domestic partnership that grants me essentially married status, but only within the borders of California. It also has zero recognition from the federal government. The word marriage has legal meaning in all 50 states and at the federal level and as far as I've been able to tell, the only chance same sex couples have of obtaining those rights is through marriage. (along with federal DOMA being repealed)

The above paragraph is why 'civil unions' or other arrangements aren't enough to us, because they do not give us the rights that marriage does.

boytyperanma
11-04-2009, 09:07 PM
Do not post personal insults against other posters in Great Debates.

[ /Moderating ]

I apologize.

I believe people who think as Magellon01 does to be bigoted.

Lobohan
11-04-2009, 09:13 PM
Even if I were to believe your statement as to the equality of practice, age does matter. In ten years not having internet access will be considered denial of a basic right which 10 years ago wasn't. The fight for gay rights isn't 50 years old, you have got to be kidding me to not see a difference.The internet is new and isn't being denied any group of people that can afford it. Marriage is thousands of years old and is specifically being denied some percentage of the population.

In 1919 were women being oppressed because they couldn't vote?
In 1959 were blacks being oppressed because they were being turned away from polls? In each instance the practice of oppression was long standing. The disenfranchisement of blacks was only a few hundred years old though. Was that then more acceptable than that of women?

Somehow in your mind you've come to the conclusion that gays don't deserve a right because we, as a people, were so culturally inured to the everyday wholesale oppression of homosexuals that they deserve to get married just yet?

No it isn't. Thr arguments are simply different.Yes it is. And pretending it's not doesn't make you seem more rational.

tomndebb
11-04-2009, 09:18 PM
Why is it so strange to you that society might want to recognize with special significance an institution that celebrates the natural coming together of man and woman in a way that best benefits society? Why is it so hard to understand that we might want to recognize the type of union that is responsible for each and every one of us being here?

Okay, that was two questions. But really, I just don't get it. There certainly are similarities between loving SS and OS couples, but that does not mean they are identical. A cat and a dog are quite similar, but we still have names for each one. Man and woman are largely similar, yet we still acknowledge that there is a difference.I don't think that it is "strange." I just think that it is irrelevant; it is a holdover from a different time before significant changes in science and culture removed the cultural barriers and the biological impetus for recognizing only opposite sex marriage. I see no significant difference between celebrating the natural coming together of a man and a woman from that of a man and a man or a woman or a woman. I can think of numerous benefits to society from recognizing such a natural coming together, regardless of the sexes of those joining, so I see no point in making a useless distinction. Given that many marriages produce no offspring, many offspring are produced without marriage, and we now have the ability to produce offspring wihout copulation, I find that appeal to be less than useful, as well.

Dogs and cats are different: they are biologically distinct species with significantly different behaviors. Marriage is the same act uniting persons of the same species. Men and women are biologically distinct, but the expression of love that is distinct from blood kindred or distinct from friendship without physical intimacy is pretty much the same. Your analogy fails.

Thudlow Boink
11-04-2009, 09:19 PM
The agenda is very simple, to obtain equal rights for same sex couples as are enjoyed by opposite sex couples.For what it's worth, this is the first time it's even occured to me to think of rights as something couples can have, as opposed to something individuals can have.

tomndebb
11-04-2009, 09:20 PM
I believe people who think as Magellon01 does to be bigoted.Then describe the thoughts or actions that you believe are bigoted and leave the names of other posters out of the discussion.

Antinor01
11-04-2009, 09:21 PM
For what it's worth, this is the first time it's even occured to me to think of rights as something couples can have, as opposed to something individuals can have.

It is an odd thought, but that's what marriage gives; rights to couples, or in the event of children to families.

elfkin477
11-04-2009, 09:37 PM
In that case, elfkin's point may well have been, "if they're eventually going to put it to the voters because some conservative will stir up enough signatures to put it on the ballot (and you know they will), why not do the vote first to 'head them off at the pass' and not waste time"? That is my point. If enough voters could be found to band together and force the issue onto the ballot in CA of all places, it's practically inevitable that it will happen almost anywhere, and nothing seems to be gained by waiting for that to happen rather than proactively putting it to a vote in the first place.

alphaboi867
11-04-2009, 09:45 PM
That is my point. If enough voters could be found to band together and force the issue onto the ballot in CA of all places,...

Speaking of CA, I wonder how the effort to repeal Prop 8 going? I know they missed the deadline for the June primary and the deadline for the Nov general is coming?

yorick73
11-04-2009, 09:51 PM
This is very confusing. In both cases, you're banning the marriage of certain people. Why is it an "action" one time and "people" the other?

The act is marriage to a person of the same sex. Both straight and gay people are forbidden from marrying someone of the same sex. Both are free to marry someone of the other sex. Compare this to stating that a person of a certain race CAN marry a person of another sex but not another race. This is discrimination of people as opposed to an act.

yorick73
11-04-2009, 09:56 PM
A ridiculous claim, as has been often pointed out. Infertile couples get married all the time; unmarried people have children. Marriage is NOT about having children.

This completely misses the point. Government works to foster the creation of stable relationships and the production of children by encouraging male-female pairing. Government does not single out individuals who cannot reproduce and the overall goal is to encourage stable family units.

Magiver
11-04-2009, 10:00 PM
There is nothing to be gained in arguing with Maggellan01 Anything you say to him has already been covered in previous gay marriage threads. He firmly believes the word 'marriage' is too special to allow anyone else to use it.

He is a bigot. Do not waste your time. Marriage is the codification of a specific relationship. In this instance, it is the normal relationship between a man and a woman. Changing that disolves the meaning of the word just as assigning the word "gay" to mean anything sexually abnormal.

The legal ramifications of the this codification is a streamlinging of property rights and the connection between parent and child. All of that can be done through the court system without altering the meaning of marriage.

Lobohan
11-04-2009, 10:07 PM
The act is marriage to a person of the same sex. Both straight and gay people are forbidden from marrying someone of the same sex. Both are free to marry someone of the other sex. Compare this to stating that a person of a certain race CAN marry a person of another sex but not another race. This is discrimination of people as opposed to an act.Your distinction is rubbish. Under your silly version of the universe, both Blacks and Whites are free to marry someone of their own race so there is no discrimination.

You're simply wrong and your attempt and rationalizing this is laughable.

alphaboi867
11-04-2009, 10:08 PM
The act is marriage to a person of the same sex. Both straight and gay people are forbidden from marrying someone of the same sex. Both are free to marry someone of the other sex. Compare this to stating that a person of a certain race CAN marry a person of another sex but not another race. This is discrimination of people as opposed to an act.

The act is marriage to a person of the opposite race. Both blacks and whites are forbidden from marrying someone of the opposite race. Both are free to marry some of the same race. Compare this to stating that a person of a certain sex CAN marry a person of the same race but not the not the same sex. This is discrimination of people as opposed to an act.

jayjay
11-04-2009, 10:09 PM
The legal ramifications of the this codification is a streamlinging of property rights and the connection between parent and child. All of that can be done through the court system without altering the meaning of marriage.

If it costs more by a factor of at least 10, and those painstaking legal measures aren't as airtight as marriage against post-mortem or post-hospitalization court challenges, then it's not equal. Period. That's not even to mention the states whose recently-adopted anti-gay-marriage statutes or amendments act to prevent ANY facsimile of marriage rights for same-sex partners.

You're trying to foist off an inferior product on what you obviously consider to be an inferior class of people. It's not like the wingnuts are trying to help us to get something that's just like marriage but with a different name. They're actively trying to prevent us from legally stabilizing our relationships against outside forces (family, state, church).

not_alice
11-04-2009, 10:10 PM
> Would these same people in Maine or California vote 52-48 or 51-49 to make it illegal for bookstores to sell books on wiccan religions or atheism? I seriously doubt it

Yes, probably. Both have large backwater populations. I know - ex-bay area, now in the worst part of the very large backwater, part of the state. Where bookstores are already 30 miles apart if you are lucky, 130 miles apart if you are not. If they can get by with no books here, why should you have them? is the way the thinking would go.

Lobohan
11-04-2009, 10:10 PM
This completely misses the point. Government works to foster the creation of stable relationships and the production of children by encouraging male-female pairing. Government does not single out individuals who cannot reproduce and the overall goal is to encourage stable family units.Homosexuals can have and raise children. So your objection is completely spurious and poorly considered.

Deeg
11-04-2009, 10:12 PM
I'm jumping in a bit late but everybody is willing to vote away other people's "rights". Some are willing to vote away property rights and take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Some are willing to vote away the right to take narcotics for recreation. At issue is that people disagree on the importance of different rights.

Lobohan
11-04-2009, 10:14 PM
Marriage is the codification of a specific relationship. In this instance, it is the normal relationship between a man and a woman. Changing that disolves the meaning of the word just as assigning the word "gay" to mean anything sexually abnormal.

The legal ramifications of the this codification is a streamlinging of property rights and the connection between parent and child. All of that can be done through the court system without altering the meaning of marriage.It enhances the meaning of the word. Marriage used to mean "a union of a man and a woman of the same race." True or false?

Was the word marriage damaged by allowing blacks and whites to marry?

If your marriage is damaged because society calls a homosexual union marriage, isn't that a sign that you are defective and prejudiced?

jayjay
11-04-2009, 10:14 PM
Homosexuals can have and raise children. So your objection is completely spurious and poorly considered.

This also puts the "think of the childreeeeeeeen!" argument to rest. There already ARE offspring involved in many gay relationships. Their parent's relationship (often the custody household) is inherently unstable because of the lack of legal protections. Even the piecemeal POAs and wills can't make the non-biological parent of children capable of adopting or caring for those children if the biological parent dies. And these people who are so supposedly concerned about the emotional health of the children are actively trying to make sure that not only remains the case, but that places where it is not now the case revert to it.

Lobohan
11-04-2009, 10:19 PM
I'm jumping in a bit late but everybody is willing to vote away other people's "rights". Some are willing to vote away property rights and take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Some are willing to vote away the right to take narcotics for recreation. At issue is that people disagree on the importance of different rights.Marriage isn't the same as taxes. All Americans are taxed at the same rate. If a black race car driver makes 200k a year he's charged as much in taxes as a Native American professional skier who makes 200k a year. Taxes aren't levied based on who you are. They are levied based on what you have.

Also, all Americans are bound by the same drug laws.

Some Americans however, are unable to marry the person they love. Do you see how that isn't the same?

Deeg
11-04-2009, 10:31 PM
Marriage isn't the same as taxes.
That is your opinion and a reasonable one but other reasonable people disagree. Personally I'd rather keep my money and live in a non-official marriage than have my union blessed by the government that takes, say, 50% of my income.

yorick73
11-04-2009, 10:32 PM
Your distinction is rubbish. Under your silly version of the universe, both Blacks and Whites are free to marry someone of their own race so there is no discrimination.

You're simply wrong and your attempt and rationalizing this is laughable.

You don't read very well. If marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman then any man and any woman can marry...regardless of sexual orientation. But, stating that the male-female union is not permissible due to the race of the participants is discrimination of the people involved.

yorick73
11-04-2009, 10:40 PM
Homosexuals can have and raise children. So your objection is completely spurious and poorly considered.

So homosexuals can procreate with same-sex partners? I don't think it's hard to understand that the special relationship between man and woman is the natural order that gave us all life and to give it some exalted status is not unreasonable.

yorick73
11-04-2009, 10:43 PM
So you think that divorce should be absolutely banned, then?

No, but I do think it should be much more difficult.

yorick73
11-04-2009, 10:45 PM
The agenda is very simple, to obtain equal rights for same sex couples as are enjoyed by opposite sex couples.

Let me explain my point of view in two ways;

1. philosophically, I agree that an arrangement that gave same sex couples the exact rights would be acceptable regardless of name. Call it a civil union, domestic partnership, go directly to hell do not collect $200 pairing, etc. If this arrangement were guaranteed to be viewed by all government entities as exactly equal to marriage I would have no issue with it.

2. Practically speaking, #1 will never happen. I am already in a domestic partnership that grants me essentially married status, but only within the borders of California. It also has zero recognition from the federal government. The word marriage has legal meaning in all 50 states and at the federal level and as far as I've been able to tell, the only chance same sex couples have of obtaining those rights is through marriage. (along with federal DOMA being repealed)

The above paragraph is why 'civil unions' or other arrangements aren't enough to us, because they do not give us the rights that marriage does.

You make a very good point. It is unfortunate that civil unions are not recognized in all states.

Magiver
11-04-2009, 10:49 PM
It enhances the meaning of the word. Marriage used to mean "a union of a man and a woman of the same race." True or false?false.

Was the word marriage damaged by allowing blacks and whites to marry? No, that is a normal relationship.

If your marriage is damaged because society calls a homosexual union marriage, isn't that a sign that you are defective and prejudiced? No, society has always held the ability to hold prejudice and codify that which is normal. Without such codification, anything could be defined as marriage.

Lobohan
11-04-2009, 10:51 PM
So homosexuals can procreate with same-sex partners? I don't think it's hard to understand that the special relationship between man and woman is the natural order that gave us all life and to give it some exalted status is not unreasonable.How is it made unexalted by allowing homosexuals to partake of the institution?

You'll let the elderly get married. Or a woman with a hysterectomy. Or a man who has through accident lost his testicles. But not homosexuals. That would be gross. That would be a turd floating in your swimming pool.

Explain to me again, why in the country club we call marriage you aren't allowing homosexuals to join? They want membership, why do you say no?

jayjay
11-04-2009, 10:53 PM
false.


Really? In the US, prior to Loving v. Virginia, marriage was defined (outside of a few exceptions) as possibly consisting of interracial marriages between European-descended and African-descended people?

Lobohan
11-04-2009, 10:55 PM
false. Ah, I see the problem. You're profoundly ignorant. I tell you what, read up on the history of marriage and race in America and get back to us, kay?

No, that is a normal relationship.Not in the 1950s it wasn't. That's when bigoted people ran the show. Like the bigoted people who deny SS couples the right to marry now.

No, society has always held the ability to hold prejudice and codify that which is normal. Without such codification, anything could be defined as marriage.Ah the slippery slope argument. I can see you have no rational arguments and must devolve into handwaving and childishness. Ooga booga, indeed.

Come back and bring an argument that doesn't involve a man marrying a wheel barrow. :D

Der Trihs
11-04-2009, 11:06 PM
The act is marriage to a person of the same sex. Both straight and gay people are forbidden from marrying someone of the same sex. Both are free to marry someone of the other sex. Compare this to stating that a person of a certain race CAN marry a person of another sex but not another race. This is discrimination of people as opposed to an act.Garbage. They are exactly the same. Two people want to marry, and bigots want to stop them out of bigotry. That is what this entire dispute is really about, and nothing more.

This completely misses the point. Government works to foster the creation of stable relationships and the production of children by encouraging male-female pairing. Government does not single out individuals who cannot reproduce and the overall goal is to encourage stable family units.Garbage again. People who cannot have children can and do get married. Married people can and do have themselves sterilized. And same sex couples can adopt, become pregnant and father children. And those who oppose SSM do their best to eliminate THOSE "stable family units". This has nothing to do with any concern for children.

As far as I am concerned, there is one, and only one reason people oppose SSM. Bigotry. I simply don't believe people who claim other motives.

Magiver
11-04-2009, 11:18 PM
Ah, I see the problem. You're profoundly ignorant. What kind of response are you looking for here? If you can’t be civil then we’re done.

I tell you what, read up on the history of marriage and race in America and get back to us, kay? Read what I said and stop trying to use out-of-date laws to make your point.

Not in the 1950s it wasn't. That's when bigoted people ran the show. Like the bigoted people who deny SS couples the right to marry now. You cannot make the case that homosexuality is normal. It is not. Humans are a heterosexual species.

Der Trihs
11-04-2009, 11:22 PM
You cannot make the case that homosexuality is normal. It is not. Humans are a heterosexual species.Don't be silly; it's a natural human variation. It's just as "normal" as having blue eyes - something else only a minority of people are born with. Not that there's any good reason we should care if it's "normal" or not.

Magiver
11-04-2009, 11:37 PM
Don't be silly; it's a natural human variation. It's just as "normal" as having blue eyes - something else only a minority of people are born with. You're equating a normal human trait to one involving abnormal behavior.

cosmosdan
11-04-2009, 11:38 PM
Don't be silly; it's a natural human variation. It's just as "normal" as having blue eyes - something else only a minority of people are born with. Not that there's any good reason we should care if it's "normal" or not.

this.


It is perfectly normal for a percentage of the population just as other variables are.

Chronos
11-04-2009, 11:39 PM
Quoth Der Trihs:As far as I am concerned, there is one, and only one reason people oppose SSM. Bigotry. I simply don't believe people who claim other motives. I don't think that this is quite correct, in that I don't think that bigotry is one and only one reason. One person might oppose same-sex marriage because he believes that God has set down a law against it, and he doesn't want to go against what God says, while another might oppose it because he doesn't believe that homosexuality genuinely exists, and thinks that gays who try to marry are just deluding themselves, while yet another might just think that homosexual sex is gross and not give it any further thought. All three are bigoted, and yet they have three completely different reasons for their bigotry.

Der Trihs
11-04-2009, 11:41 PM
You're equating a normal human trait to one involving abnormal behavior.Being homosexual is just as normal as having blue eyes, so yes I equate them.

Are you going to argue that left handed people shouldn't be allowed marriage too?

Chronos
11-04-2009, 11:41 PM
You're equating a normal human trait to one involving abnormal behavior. One might just as well say that he's equating the normal human trait of homosexuality with one involving abnormal pigmentation. Homosexuality is not a behavior: A gay person can abstain from sex or have sex with a person of the opposite gender, and a straight person can have sex with someone of the same gender, without changing the fact that those people are gay and straight respectively.

Lobohan
11-04-2009, 11:42 PM
Quoth Der Trihs:I don't think that this is quite correct, in that I don't think that bigotry is one and only one reason. One person might oppose same-sex marriage because he believes that God has set down a law against it, and he doesn't want to go against what God says, while another might oppose it because he doesn't believe that homosexuality genuinely exists, and thinks that gays who try to marry are just deluding themselves, while yet another might just think that homosexual sex is gross and not give it any further thought. All three are bigoted, and yet they have three completely different reasons for their bigotry.One thing. Does it matter if your priest tells you to hate blacks or your father does? Both are ways to learn bigotry. Who cares if it's the result of religious indoctrination or an angry father at the dinner table? The end result is exactly the same.

cosmosdan
11-04-2009, 11:48 PM
So homosexuals can procreate with same-sex partners? I don't think it's hard to understand that the special relationship between man and woman is the natural order that gave us all life and to give it some exalted status is not unreasonable.



why yes, we can easily see that anyone willing and able to procreate automatically become superior human beings by virtue of this special ability and the act of parenthood itself.

No friend, the physical ability and act does not merit any exalted status and humans have demonstrated that over and over. It is the quality of love and committment that exists within the heart that exalts us. SS couples have this ability in equal measure to straights. Homosexuals can be excellent parents or bad parents the same as straights. The technicality of how they arrive at parenthood is secondary. Do hetero couples who cannot have children deserve to be denied a marriage license? Is their marriage less than sanctified or exhalted because of the inability to bear children? If they adopt or choose some other path to have a child is their love and parenthood in question.

These type of arguments have no solid foundation whatever yet they keep being repeated as if they do.

yorick73
11-04-2009, 11:52 PM
Garbage. They are exactly the same. Two people want to marry, and bigots want to stop them out of bigotry. That is what this entire dispute is really about, and nothing more.

No. This is not about two people marrying. It is about two people of the same sex marrying. As I've stated straights and gays have the same rights. But, the state does also limit opposite sex marriage. Polygamy is not allowed. Brother and sister cannot marry. Parent and child cannot marry. Are these people being discriminated against?

Garbage again. People who cannot have children can and do get married. Married people can and do have themselves sterilized. And same sex couples can adopt, become pregnant and father children. And those who oppose SSM do their best to eliminate THOSE "stable family units". This has nothing to do with any concern for children.

As far as I am concerned, there is one, and only one reason people oppose SSM. Bigotry. I simply don't believe people who claim other motives.

Re-read post #188

cosmosdan
11-04-2009, 11:53 PM
You don't read very well. If marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman then any man and any woman can marry...regardless of sexual orientation. But, stating that the male-female union is not permissible due to the race of the participants is discrimination of the people involved.

The problem is that

If marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman is every bit as discriminatory as

if marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman of the same race when the majority decides to limit the rights of the minority by setting the definition.

Lobohan
11-04-2009, 11:57 PM
No. This is not about two people marrying. It is about two people of the same sex marrying. As I've stated straights and gays have the same rights. But, the state does also limit opposite sex marriage. Polygamy is not allowed. Brother and sister cannot marry. Parent and child cannot marry. Are these people being discriminated against?Parents and children and brothers and sisters are separate issues. Stay on topic.

What we are talking about is an of age couple not being able to marry because of bigotry. SS couples do not have the sames rights as an opposite sex couple. Because a heterosexual can marry someone they're sexually attracted to. A homosexual cannot.

I'm surprised that you aren't able to understand that. Read it a couple more times, maybe it will sink in.

cosmosdan
11-04-2009, 11:57 PM
This completely misses the point. Government works to foster the creation of stable relationships and the production of children by encouraging male-female pairing. Government does not single out individuals who cannot reproduce and the overall goal is to encourage stable family units.

you completely made this up or borrowed it from some anti SSM gibberish. It has no basis in reality.

Der Trihs
11-05-2009, 12:11 AM
No. This is not about two people marrying. It is about two people of the same sex marrying. As I've stated straights and gays have the same rights. No, they don't; such an argument is ridiculous to the point of parody.

But, the state does also limit opposite sex marriage. Polygamy is not allowed. Brother and sister cannot marry. Parent and child cannot marry. Meaningless. All of those have non-bigoted reasons to make them illegal. Opposition to SSM is purely a matter of bigotry.

Re-read post #188Garbage that I already answered.

yorick73
11-05-2009, 12:14 AM
Parents and children and brothers and sisters are separate issues. Stay on topic.

What we are talking about is an of age couple not being able to marry because of bigotry. SS couples do not have the sames rights as an opposite sex couple. Because a heterosexual can marry someone they're sexually attracted to. A homosexual cannot.

I'm surprised that you aren't able to understand that. Read it a couple more times, maybe it will sink in.

How are they different. If love and sexual attraction are the only requirements for marriage then these poor souls are being discriminated against. Incest couples do not have the same rights as non-incest couples.

Der Trihs
11-05-2009, 12:18 AM
How are they different. If love and sexual attraction are the only requirements for marriage then these poor souls are being discriminated against. Incest couples do not have the same rights as non-incest couples.
But they are very seldom consenting adults. And there are also genetic issues with children, and the moral issues involved with telling them not to have children. All of which are reasonable arguments for making it illegal. The opposition to SSM lacks any such reasonable arguments.

Magiver
11-05-2009, 12:20 AM
this.


It is perfectly normal for a percentage of the population just as other variables are. No, it is normal in the same sense that webbed fingers or spina bifida exist as a percentage of the population. We fix those physical abnormalities. This is different in that it affects behavior. there are many behavioral abnormalities that we endeavor to correct as a society. But the criteria for this has been limited to behavior that bring direct harm to individuals or other members of society. While a case can be made that certain practices are harmful within the gay community the behavior itself is not deemed harmful. That does not make it normal, it just means it's not harmful.

The legal ramifications of this is that for the most part, laws regarding homosexual activity have been set aside. As such, public support for privacy is high. But what motivates people to vote to retain the definition of marriage is the underlying idea that it represents a specific (normal) relationship.

yorick73
11-05-2009, 12:24 AM
But they are very seldom consenting adults. And there are also genetic issues with children, and the moral issues involved with telling them not to have children. All of which are reasonable arguments for making it illegal. The opposition to SSM lacks any such reasonable arguments.

This is nonsense. They don't need to be married to have children. And NOW it's about the children?!? What if they were sterile?

Der Trihs
11-05-2009, 12:25 AM
No, it is normal in the same sense that webbed fingers or spina bifida exist as a percentage of the population. Ah. And your evidence that homosexuality is a defect? And even if it IS a defect, we let people with genetic defects marry.

But what motivates people to vote to retain the definition of marriage is the underlying idea that it represents a specific (normal) relationship.So, in other words it was just fine for people to oppose interracial marriage. That too was "normal" at one time.

Der Trihs
11-05-2009, 12:29 AM
This is nonsense. They don't need to be married to have childrenIncestuous sex is, however a requirement ( barring technological intervention ), and that is illegal.

And NOW it's about the children?!?Yes, because NOW the children in question are at risk of genetic defects. And because in the case of opposing SSM, children are only harmed, not helped.

magellan01
11-05-2009, 01:27 AM
Parents and children and brothers and sisters are separate issues. Stay on topic.

It is on topic. Look to what he was replying to. Society does make restrictions on marriage. It's a fact, albeit an uncomfortable one for you.

What we are talking about is an of age couple not being able to marry because of bigotry. SS couples do not have the sames rights as an opposite sex couple. Because a heterosexual can marry someone they're sexually attracted to. A homosexual cannot.

Beg the question much? The discussion is about the motivations of those of us who oppose SSM. Bigotry is but one possibility. You don't get to frame the debate with the conclusion you're trying to support. Sorry, chum.

magellan01
11-05-2009, 01:52 AM
I don't think that it is "strange." I just think that it is irrelevant; it is a holdover from a different time before significant changes in science and culture removed the cultural barriers and the biological impetus for recognizing only opposite sex marriage. I see no significant difference between celebrating the natural coming together of a man and a woman from that of a man and a man or a woman or a woman.

I think that a bit odd, but can you see that some people might see the man/woman coupling more aligned with the natural order in the world? I understand that you and others might feel that that is now irrelevant, for the reasons you gave, but that sidesteps my question.

Dogs and cats are different: they are biologically distinct species with significantly different behaviors. Marriage is the same act uniting persons of the same species. Men and women are biologically distinct, but the expression of love that is distinct from blood kindred or distinct from friendship without physical intimacy is pretty much the same. Your analogy fails.

Analogies needn't be, and usually aren't, exact duplications of what they are trying to shed light on. The point was/is that things can be very,very similar and still be worthy of separate classification. Man and woman are every bit as similar as SSM is to OSM, yet we still use "man" and "woman". We even use "man" when referring to people of both genders at times, but we've not done away with "woman". And that is helpful when we want a word describing the gender with the breasts and the shoe fetish. By allowing gays to "marry" you not only dilute the word, you strip the language of a descriptor for the very institution that has been so fundamental to society for centuries and, specifically, this very country.

magellan01
11-05-2009, 01:55 AM
Here's a question I have for those who favor SSM and bring up the fact that not all married couples have or raise children: IF marriage had been restricted by law to only those people who would have an raise children, would you be okay with a civil union instead of "marriage"?

Crown Prince of Irony
11-05-2009, 02:14 AM
So homosexuals can procreate with same-sex partners? I don't think it's hard to understand that the special relationship between man and woman is the natural order that gave us all life and to give it some exalted status is not unreasonable.

I think that a bit odd, but can you see that some people might see the man/woman coupling more aligned with the natural order in the world? I understand that you and others might feel that that is now irrelevant, for the reasons you gave, but that sidesteps my question.

Oh, bull-pucky - I am sick and tired of this argument.

By extension, cancer is the natural order of things. Should we stop treating cancer patients and searching for a cure, because this flies in the face of the natural order?

Living in cave, dressed in a loincloth and catching your food with a pointed stick is the natural order of things. Should we all ditch our comfy domiciles, with our central air and refrigerated food?

News flash - that was the natural order of things. Species evolve - and part of this evolution from an anthropological standpoint is that the old ways give way to the new, in response to shifting cultural, intellectual, and environmental factors. And IMO, part of this evolutionary process is recognizing that love can come in more forms than the predominant religious community is willing to accept.

So we search for cancer cures, build comfortable homes and drive shiny cars, and hopefully learn to tolerate that with which we aren't comfortable.

And all this equating homosexuality with incest and polygamy? It smacks of the same arguments that folks used against legalizing integration and interracial marriage 40 years ago. Every time I hear that argument, in my mind's eye I see George Wallace and Orval Faubus - it really does your argument no good whatsoever.

But then again, I doubt the good ol' boys down South cared about such things back then either - not as long as they had the scared white Christian vote. Now we're just replacing "scared" with "straight" - you all must be proud of yourselves.

Crown Prince of Irony
11-05-2009, 02:25 AM
Here's a question I have for those who favor SSM and bring up the fact that not all married couples have or raise children: IF marriage had been restricted by law to only those people who would have an raise children, would you be okay with a civil union instead of "marriage"?

No. Marriage between two legally consenting adults should be a fundamental right. Someone's idea of the religious definition of marriage should have no bearing.

Algorithm
11-05-2009, 02:25 AM
Here's a question I have for those who favor SSM and bring up the fact that not all married couples have or raise children: IF marriage had been restricted by law to only those people who would have an raise children, would you be okay with a civil union instead of "marriage"?

No, then you'd be marginalizing an even greater segment of the population.

There's nothing special about couples that have or plan to bear children that make them better than other couples.

Crown Prince of Irony
11-05-2009, 02:27 AM
. . .not as long as they had the scared white Christian vote. Now we're just replacing "scared" with "straight" - you all must be proud of yourselves.

Oops, I meant to say 'now we're just replacing "white" with "straight". . .' I botched my punchline.

Magiver
11-05-2009, 02:36 AM
Ah. And your evidence that homosexuality is a defect? And even if it IS a defect, [I][B] You're comparing a physical defect to a physically driven behavioral abnormality.

So, in other words it was just fine for people to oppose interracial marriage. That too was "normal" at one time. No, the fact that a law that was struck down existed is not an argument that it was a good law.

Lobohan
11-05-2009, 02:43 AM
It is on topic. Look to what he was replying to. Society does make restrictions on marriage. It's a fact, albeit an uncomfortable one for you.Not uncomfortable for me. I'm not the one embracing irrational stupidity to validate my personal prejudices.

Why is incest a separate issue? Because the homosexuals who want to get married aren't related maybe?

Beg the question much? The discussion is about the motivations of those of us who oppose SSM. Bigotry is but one possibility. You don't get to frame the debate with the conclusion you're trying to support. Sorry, chum.Opposing SSM is bigotry silly. I don't care how you try to sell it to yourself, chum. :D

Algorithm
11-05-2009, 02:51 AM
So, in other words it was just fine for people to oppose interracial marriage. That too was "normal" at one time. No, the fact that a law that was struck down existed is not an argument that it was a good law.

Der Trihs was not arguing that it was a good law. He's saying that your argument against SSM based on "normalcy" is flawed, because that same argument could have also been used to defend keeping interracial marriage illegal in the past.

Magiver
11-05-2009, 03:15 AM
Der Trihs was not arguing that it was a good law. He's saying that your argument against SSM based on "normalcy" is flawed, because that same argument could have also been used to defend keeping interracial marriage illegal in the past. Bad laws have always made their way onto the books. That is not an argument.

The op asked what motivates people to keep the definition of marriage as it stands. The answer is that the word has meaning and the vast majority of people do not want to change that meaning.

Der Trihs
11-05-2009, 03:23 AM
I think that a bit odd, but can you see that some people might see the man/woman coupling more aligned with the natural order in the world?Certainly - if that's the way they choose to excuse their bigotry. But it is still bigotry, just like the people who said separation between the races was the natural order were just excusing bigotry.

By allowing gays to "marry" you not only dilute the word, you strip the language of a descriptor for the very institution that has been so fundamental to society for centuries and, specifically, this very country.Garbage. Again; if there is any "dilution" of the word going on, it's by people who oppose SSM, and by doing so smear the institution of marriage with bigotry. And your claim that the word would lose it's meaning is ridiculous.

Here's a question I have for those who favor SSM and bring up the fact that not all married couples have or raise children: IF marriage had been restricted by law to only those people who would have an raise children, would you be okay with a civil union instead of "marriage"?No. I'd just be demanding the right to childless couples to marry.

You're comparing a physical defect to a physically driven behavioral abnormality. Like being left handed? Guess we'd better keep them from getting married too! :rolleyes:

The op asked what motivates people to keep the definition of marriage as it stands. The answer is that the word has meaning and the vast majority of people do not want to change that meaning.And allowing SSM won't change the meaning at all; that's a ridiculous claim. Everyone will still know what "Bill and Jane are married" means.

And all these empty, silly reasons being given for opposing SSM really underline the truth of my claim that the real reason is always bigotry. Opponents can't come up with good arguments, because there are none. And they can't ( at least on a board like this ) come right out and admit that it's because they or their god hates homosexuals without being rhetorically torn apart. So all they can do is throw out one ridiculous rationalization after another, because their real reasons won't fly.

Magiver
11-05-2009, 03:27 AM
And allowing SSM won't change the meaning at all; except that it does.

Lobohan
11-05-2009, 03:29 AM
except that it does.It will change it as much as allowing blacks to marry whites. That is to say, not to any extent that intelligent or non-bigoted people would find upsetting.

Magiver
11-05-2009, 03:39 AM
It will change it as much as allowing blacks to marry whites. That is to say, not to any extent that intelligent or non-bigoted people would find upsetting. It will not change as long as people wish the word to describe a normal sexual relationship.

tomndebb
11-05-2009, 03:45 AM
TWEEEET!!!!

The words "bigot" and "bigotry" are now off limits in this thread.

It is little more than name-calling and a way to simply dismiss one's opponents without actually addressing the issues.

If you really think that the only reason to oppose SSM is "bigotry," then you can rest, well assured that your point has been successfully presented in this thread and there is no longer any reason to keep repeating the same tired phrase in the hopes that you can simply overwhelm your opponents with mindless chants.

[ /Moderating ]

Algorithm
11-05-2009, 03:55 AM
Bad laws have always made their way onto the books. That is not an argument.
Really, you don't understand this? The same reasoning you are using to argue against SSM has been used in the past to justify banning interracial marriage. This is pure logic.

Magiver believes A is true.
A can be used to support B.
If you don't agree with B, you must either abandon A or condone B.

So, you either support banning interracial marriage (or would have supported retaining its illegal status, in the past), or you concede that the social definition of "normal" should have no bearing on whether or not a specific type of relationship is legally recognized.

Magiver
11-05-2009, 04:14 AM
Really, you don't understand this? The same reasoning you are using to argue against SSM has been used in the past to justify banning interracial marriage. This is pure logic.

Magiver believes A is true.
A can be used to support B.
If you don't agree with B, you must either abandon A or condone B.

So, you either support banning interracial marriage (or would have supported retaining its illegal status, in the past), or you concede that the social definition of "normal" should have no bearing on whether or not a specific type of relationship is legally recognized. You're premise that I have to agree with a former law in order to agree with a current law does not make sense.

Lobohan
11-05-2009, 04:17 AM
It will not change as long as people wish the word to describe a normal sexual relationship.People use marriage to describe an almost infinite array of relationships. Your opinion on what is acceptable is just that.

People made the same arguments about inter-racial marriage and you are just as wrong. No amount of fiat handwaving by you will change that.

Lobohan
11-05-2009, 04:19 AM
TWEEEET!!!!

The words "bigot" and "bigotry" are now off limits in this thread.

It is little more than name-calling and a way to simply dismiss one's opponents without actually addressing the issues.

If you really think that the only reason to oppose SSM is "bigotry," then you can rest, well assured that your point has been successfully presented in this thread and there is no longer any reason to keep repeating the same tired phrase in the hopes that you can simply overwhelm your opponents with mindless chants.

[ /Moderating ]I beg to differ, but I submit most humbly to your enmoddening. :D

Magiver
11-05-2009, 04:26 AM
People use marriage to describe an almost infinite array of relationships. Your opinion on what is acceptable is just that. The law is not my opinion. The reason people oppose changing the definition of marriage as ascribed by law (the question of this thread) is my opinion.

Lobohan
11-05-2009, 04:30 AM
You're premise that I have to agree with a former law in order to agree with a current law does not make sense.The premise, which you seem to misunderstand, is that normal was different in the 60s. If any deviation from normal is bad, as you seem to be suggesting, than ending miscegenation laws was bad.

But that assumes that your notion of their being a normal has any meaning whatsoever. It doesn't. Normal means many different things and has meant different things throughout history. From chattel, to political leverage, to citizenship, to help raising a child, to romantic love, there are an infinite number of reasons to marry. And your deciding that one or the other isn't a good enough reason is hardly compelling.