Well.
You are clearly not worth responding to.
This is true, but you seem to missing the actual point of the argument, here. Religion is the very first protected group named in the Constitution. And it is a group based entirely in voluntarily held beliefs. This is significant, because it counters the idea that a characteristic necessarily must be inborn in order to have legal protections.
It remains true that there is no constitutional protection for sexual orientation. But this remains true even if it could be conclusively proven to be the result of a genetic or congenital condition beyond the control of the person in question. Something being an inborn trait is also, by itself, not sufficient to warrant constitutional protection. Only those traits specifically listed in the amendments get that. Sexual orientation should, IMO, be added to that, and the fact that the vast majority of homosexuals (Ms. Nixon aside) report that their orientation is inborn, and not a choice, can be a persuasive argument that it should be added to the list of protected traits. But it is not, in and of itself, a necessary component to the equal rights argument.
Why does it offend YOU so greatly when I have a different view of marriage than you do?
Some people say that it’s all about loving consenting adults but I don’t believe them when they turn around and say “oh, but not THOSE consenting adults, they are clearly not worthy as we are.” (Also where my view that homosexuals want special treatment is coming from.) ONLY homosexuality is worthy of elevation to that cultural celebration. Others need not apply, we really didn’t mean “Marriage Equality For All.” Next Up, gays argue no duty to speak up for others, even though in some cases they speak out against them. Yet If I do not agree with gays I have some duty to support them and I’m a hater if I don’t.
I could come up with a thousand posts off Straight Dope alone saying there is absolutely no difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples or their sex act. If there’s no difference, then you’re saying these are equivalents. But it doesn’t behoove those arguing for “equality” to point out differences; the argument is stronger when there are major similarities and minor differences. The truth here is minor similarities and major differences.
I’m not holding my breath waiting on you are MILLER to say there are major differences between gay sex and heterosexual sex. Of course, “frothy mix” isn’t your words when describing it. That’s the words of others.
You do realize that I was playing devil’s advocate to my own opinions when I gave this advice? In the best interest of gay marriage, it is a better argument that gays are born that way, assuming any evidence.
This is also, for the umpteenth time, a mischaracterization of the beliefs and goals of the mainstream gay rights movement.
The gay rights movement takes as its focus the treatment of homosexuals in society, and works on addressing those concerns. The fact that it focuses on that issue should not (and, by most rational people, is not) taken as a disparagement of any other group. That the gay rights movement does not agitate for polygamous marriage rights does not mean that the gay rights movement is opposed to polygamous marriage. It means that the gay rights movement has recognized that polygamous marriage is not a gay rights issue, and is outside of their remit.
The gay people whom I know personally, without exception, have no objection to the idea of legal polygamy. However, among that group, the consensus tends to be that:
A) The injustice of no polygamous marriage is not as great as the injustice of no gay marriage - this is also the opinion of the majority of polygamous queers I know.
B) The justifications for legalizing gay marriage are not identical to the justifications for legalizing polygamous marriage, as are the arguments against legalization, and both need to be dealt with separately.
C) Realistically, there’s only so much change the mainstream is willing to encompass at a time, and pushing strong for both at the same time increases the chances of us ending up with neither.
No, we don’t. This is another mischaracterization.
Our relationships are already the equivalent of yours. We’re just trying to get the law to match the reality.
Because your definition causes immediate and material harm to other people. Marley’s does not.
This is wildly inaccurate, from top to bottom. The last sentence in particular, because the bulk of the negative reaction to you does not stem merely from your stance on gay marriage, but from the terms in which you frame the debate, such as reducing gay relationships to nothing more than the messy byproduct of a particular sex act that is neither unique nor universal to gay couples.
This may be the first accurate thing you’ve ever said on these boards about homosexuals and the gay rights movement.
This, on other hand, is simply incoherent.
A) Gays are special! gays first!
B) Equal Marriage Rights For All! I thought that was the popular gay marriage slogan. Turns out its not about consenting adults, there are still differneces here to distinguish ourgayselves from thes OTHERS. Meanwhile, there are no differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
C) Me first! But I’m not special! I’m exactly the same as heterosexuals but distinguished from those OTHERS. ME FIRST! We can’t afford THEIR rights at this time.
But the answer I tend to hear publically is that “NO, gay marriage will not lead to these other kinds of marriages.”
The whole problem is gays have to rely on all the arguments that they say don’t count when applied to them in order to avoid saying, “yes, there are a bunch of other alternative lifestyles that come under my argument too.”
You don’t have a duty to support them, and the gay rights activists tend to disparge them, saying we can deny them. If I say I stand for heterosexuality alone and can deny all others, you call me a bigot and a hater.
There you go essentially saying the shit on your dick is the equivalent of my son.
The usual tactic when you start feeling desperate. When you start claiming you can’t read, that means I’m leaving the debate. Adios!
Seriously?
That’s a non-answer. I think your viewpoint doesn’t make sense, and your reasoning is bizarre.
That’s not special treatment. It’s asking for the same kind of treatment other people are getting.
Again, you have a lot of opinions on what gays and gay marriage advocates are doing and saying - or should be doing and saying - but your opinions have little do with what’s actually being argued. You seem very offended by the arguments you imagine they’re making, but they aren’t making them.
No difference in what sense? Morally? Physically? And again, there is no “their sex act.” There is no sex act that is unique to gay couples.
I think the main question is “Who the fuck cares?” That’s not the issue here. We’re not talking about the physiology of how people fuck, we’re talking about marriages and relationships.
That’s a gross distortion of what I said. Gays are not special compared to polygamists, we are more vulnerable. As I said, this is also the opinion of virtually all queer polygamists I know: which is to say, people who have first hand experience with social disapproval of gay relationships and poly relationships. Which is one more category than I have direct experience with, and two more categories than you have direct experience with.
There’s also the simple fact that there really isn’t a major national movement for recognition of polygamous relationships. There could be all sorts of reasons for that, including me simply being ignorant, but my suspicion is that it’s because polygamists just aren’t as concerned about overturning anti-polygamy laws as gays are about overturning anti-SSM laws. If they want my help, they can ask, and I’ll do what I can. Not many of them are asking. In fact, the only real force out there the regularly brings up the issue of polygamous marriage are people who are arguing against gay marriage. Rather than regularly let the discussion of SSM be hijacked by the polygamy issue (oops!), its smarter to clearly delineate that the SSM movement is not the same as the (largely nonexistent) polygamy movement.
So far, I’ve not yet met any polygamists who have a problem with this: just homophobes ineffectually reaching for a “gotcha!”
Yes, the fact that there are no significant differences between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships is a major part of the argument for gay marriage. The fact that these two groups are not significantly different does not oblige one to act as if they are identical to every other group out there. For example, the lack of significant differences between gays and straights does not imply that there must, therefore, also be a lack of significant differences between gays and polygamists, or gays and Rotarians, or gays and ax murderers. Claims of differentation between any two groups must be examined on their own merits.
In the case of gay marriage, on argument in favor is that the roles in a gay marriage are almost identical to the roles in a straight marriage. We can look at how a gay couple communicates with each other, how they treat each other, how they fight with each other, how they make up afterwards, how they raise their kids, how they socialize with friends, and on and on, and we can see that there is very little difference in how these relationships work.
On the other hand, any polygamist will tell you, just for starters, that maintaining a polygamous relationship takes a great deal more effort than a monogamous one. There are a wide variety of different arrangements that are covered under the umbrella of “polygamous,” and very few of them map well to our traditional conception of marriage, if for no other reason than you’ve got at least one extra person floating around who doesn’t have a corresponding position in the traditional marriage. This doesn’t mean that polygamy is bad, or less “special,”
but it does mean that we can’t port over as much of our cultural and legal traditions surrounding marriage and just paste them over polygamy, and expect them to work.
Well, yeah, to a certain extent. I do place a higher priority on people not treating me like shit, than I do on people not treating someone else like shit. That seems like a very human prioritization. I wouldn’t be upset if a polygamist rights group favored legal polygamy over SSM. But it’s a fact that we’re a lot closer to SSM than we are to polygamy in this country, and it’s a fact that the only people trying to inject polygamy into the cultural debate in this country are people who are opposed to both polygamy and SSM. Trying to tie the two issues together is only going to hold back SSM, without doing much to buoy up polygamy, so why not separate them? The polygamists don’t seem to be complaining.
And it’s true. There’s no reason we have to allow any other sort of relationship, if we allow gay marriage. Just as allowing straight marriage didn’t force us to recognize gay marriage. Saying that gay marriage won’t lead to polygamy is not the same as saying we’re opposed to polygamy. The argument for polygamy may be just as strong, or stronger, as the argument for SSM. But it is still a different argument, and the success of one is not dependent on the success of the other.
No, there aren’t. There are some arguments for gay marriage that apply equally to some other romantic arrangements. There are some arguments for gay marriage that don’t apply to any other romantic arrangements. And there are some arguments for other romantic arrangements that don’t apply to gay marriage.
That’s not why people call you a bigot and a hater.
I am not saying your son is the equivalent of the shit on my dick. You, on the other hand, are saying that my entire relationship with my boyfriend is the equivalent of a shitty dick.
And then you have the absolute, unmitigated gall to pretend like you are the insulted party here.
Some how, I doubt this is your last post in this thread. But if that’s really all it take to make you go away, I’ll try to make a point of bringing it up sooner in the debate next time.
Wait…this was about polygamy?! Seriously?
Heh…I thought I had a bit of a reputation here. Guess I *was *away for too long!
Please, don’t speak for me again, sweetcheeks. Adding additional *numbers *of people to default marriage contracts is a whole different kettle of fish when compared to deleting gender references on marriage licenses. We’ll get there, but it’s going to take a lot more thought and deliberation. I’m happy to wait, as are the vast majority of poly people I know. Well, maybe not happy, but we realize we can’t ride on the coattails of gay marriage, because it’s a completely different set of legal issues. When it comes, it’s going to look a whole lot more like corporate law than family law.
(You mean him, not me, right?)
Absolutely. 
I see you’ve played ranty-arguey before.
“That’s nawt an argument! THIS is an argument:”
Way to form a much more persuasive argument!
Whew!
But if you ever decide to tell this poly girl that her relationships aren’t worth exactly the same as your santorum…well, then, buddy… 
(I mean, seriously…is this dude for real? I’d pit him, but it seems redundant.)
I’m sorry I didn’t say what you want me to say, but deliberately falsifying what I said will not get your posts read. I said her opinion is meaningless to others and the general issue at all. This will go much easier for you if you stick to what people are actually posting rather than what you wish they had posted so you could play “gotcha.”
You must be a fan, I gather.
It’s meaningless outside of how it impacts her personally. Why did you think it was meaningful to twist what I said?
The next time you try to twist my words to say what you want me to have said, you will no longer be read.
What I posted was completely clear - the whole purpose of the OP of this thread was with respect to how one person’s opinion about her own sexuality impacted the larger issue of nature versus nurture in human sexuality. Recall the title, right at the top of the fucking page: “Cynthia Nixon states she’s “gay by choice”. Does this harm the LGBT community?” The whole OP is silly and the criticisms in here of what I posted are bizarre and contrived. Let me explain this to those of you who have difficulty with science:
-
The OP reads “Cynthia Nixon states she’s “gay by choice”. Does this harm the LGBT community?” - fact
-
Cynthia Nixon has no special credentials whatsoever in this field outside of her own experience. She is not a researcher, sociologist, or really anything except an actress with respect to this issue. This is also a fact.
-
Attempts to play “gotcha” by deliberately and purposefully twisting what I posted here ought to against the rules, but they aren’t. It’s sad that people can’t just acknowledge that her opinions are her own and that what she has to say has no factual basis outside of her own experience. But then I don’t have to bother with this any more because what I said was clear and I’ve had more than my share of experiences with oppositional-defiant posters who are posting just to fuck around with me.