I think society has the option of extending or withholding rights as it sees fit. For instance, we restrict people under 21 from drinking alcohol. But I think “rights” can be a confusing word. On the one hand it refers to those things constitutional protected. On the other, things we assume we can do because there are no laws specifically prohibiting them. I have a right to walk down the street. I have the right to practice the religion of my choosing. I have the right to drive a car. I have the right to burn the flag. I have the right to marry who I want. I have the right to confront my accuser. IANAL, but I don’t think those “rights” are all equal. I don’t think the right to marry is a legally protected right. And even if it is, society can restrict that right to a group if they so desire. In fact, society has an obligation to restrict those rights to groups if they think that granting them will be detrimental to society. I point to the drinking age, for instance.
Well, you’re improving your technique. You use to compare gays to pedophiles. Now we’re just comparable to underage drinkers. We’re moving up in your world. Sort of. I think. Tell me though, when will gays hit your level of equal rights? Ever? Not on your things-to-do list?
Are you kidding me? Have you read this thread? Or the other one? I’ve probably a 50-100 posts speaking to the issue.
You accused me of circular reasoning when it should have been very clear that it wasn’t. Not to mention you decided to become one of the crowd. A place where IQ points drop and cowards and the weak turn into Hulks. (As long as the crowd stick around.)
If only everyone in this thread understood this.
I feel good about my position regardless of yours. And I’m not demonizing you by calling you what you are. In fact, it is you who is demonizing me, and misrepresenting my position as more extreme than it is, so that you can feel good about going off on me. It’s certainly easier than self-reflection.
Huh? I showed you where you illustrated that you felt that gays were deviant and their relationships inferior. Those are YOUR WORDS. You are the one who is trying to weasel out of the implications of what you’ve said. That’s your problem, not mine. And the value judgments? Also yours.
“I have gay friends” does not absolve you of homophobia. So no, it’s not “taken care of.” I also find it hard to believe that your gay friends are appreciative of you voting for Prop 8. I’m sure that you will claim that they are fine with it, but I haven’t spoken to one single gay person who is happy about it or happy with those who voted for it, so… yeah.
It’s not diluted by the addition of gays. It’s expanded, and I think made stronger by including all people who love each other and want to make a lifetime commitment. So yes, it is “arguable” that it’s a dilution. It’s only a dilution if you choose to see it that way. Yes, it is a choice on your part to see it that way, it’s not a fact. It is, in fact, a rationalization on your part to describe it that way, as a justification for treating gays differently. The fact that you say it is inarguable, while participating in two 10+ page threads arguing about it, shows that you are the one who lacks a firm grasp on the meanings of the words you use.
WTF? Incapable of providing a definition? I can cut and paste a dictionary definition off a website juuuuust fine, but that’s hardly probative of YOUR attitude, which is at issue here. No, YOUR WORDS are required to prove that you feel that gays are deviant.
So you admit it. You think gays are deviant. Thank you.
Because it deviates from WHAT? Answer me that. Your own definition backs up my stance that what it deviates from is… the norm. What’s normal? No surprise that I disagree with that word being applied to gays. Darwin would likely agree with me, since homosexuality is entirely natural and normal, happens in the animal kingdom all the time… and as I said before, the other animals accept it and don’t give a crap because it doesn’t affect them. In that sense, they are superior to you. You, with your fears for the preservation of your social constructs and your contorted value judgments, have decided to privilege the way YOU are as “normal” and people who are different from you as “deviant,” no matter how normal and healthy and natural the other folks are. You think this is fine behavior. I think it’s homophobic.
Oh, I feel I’ve amply demonstrated that it’s you who’s dishonest. For someone who admits that he feels that gay unions are inferior to straight ones, and that gays are deviant, and that he’s afraid of what gay marriage will do to society and the children, you sure are flailing around a lot not to see what that means. You scream, you shriek, you contort yourself, you call me and others names, rather than admit what it adds up to: you’re homophobic. I’m sorry this causes you to question your ideas about yourself, that you’re such a nice guy, so magnanimous towards the gays. But the truth is here, in your own words. Don’t get mad at me for pointing it out.
And I think that is because you are limited and close-minded.
I never said you were stupid, or evil. You can put words in my mouth, demonize me, if that makes you feel better about your behavior. You are lashing out at me, calling me names and implying that I am stupid, because you don’t want to question yourself, to examine the possibility that your position is not as noble and righteous as you think it is. And that is too bad. I think that you are afraid, and I think you have some wrong ideas about gays. I wish that you could let go of your fears and realize that society will not be harmed by expanding marriage to include gays, and neither will children. Life will go on as it was, for you. For gays, it will be greatly improved. You have very little to lose and they have so much to gain. Think about it.
While you wax philosophical on the topic, someone is crying themself to sleep because our legal system, and the votes that empowered parts of it two weeks ago, is making them feel no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence. Does your chest swell with pride at the thought of that? Would you gleefully tell your grandchildren what you’ve supported? Taking our thumb off of them, and allowing them what is rightfully theirs - to ascend to our level - is detrimental to society how? What do you mean when you point to the drinking age? Are you afraid homosexuals are going to drive into you on the interstate if they are allowed to marry?
No, you’ve got 50-100 posts of evasion, name calling, and ad hominem attacks.
Be glad that I dignified it by referring to it as “reasoning.”
Being the lone dissenter doesn’t always mean something positive. Just sayin’
With a single, outstanding exception, they do.
Even one of the smarter posters on your side of the debate explained this to you. So you choose to be, persist to be, insist on being, ignorant and wrong. Congratulations. Your effort is paying off in spades.
As soon as the law grants them. Today, if I had my way. As far as marriage, though, sorry. Marriage equals and should equal one man and one woman. Not one man and a lawn mower, not one man and a fish, not one man and a rose bush, not one man and an easel, not one man and a man—one man and one woman.
Is it really that difficult to grasp this position? Well over half the population seems to be able to do so.
Many of them, unlike you, are honest enough to admit that they hate or fear gays and don’t want them to be equal. Why you would choose to lump yourself in with them is something for you to puzzle out.
Wrong. A simple review should reveal the truth of that. Granted, some of them include the diversions you refer to (however well-deserved they be), but there are plenty that are purely substantive. So you are either wrong or lying. Your response to this will show which.
:rolleyes: Talk about evasion.
Now you’re just holding up a neon sign saying “IDIOT”. Why would you do that. I mean that’s ju—never mind. i see that I answered my own question.
If you decide to reply, bring answers and substance or better insults. You’re boring me.
Really? My efforts to make you a hateful civil rights taking away mother fucker paid off? Gosh, I’m good.
You simply MUST believe that I must hate gays. You may choose to believe that. If facts don’t stop you I don’t know, or care, what will.
Have a safe, nice, neat, close-minded little life.
You know who was really good at the stinging one-liner? Wilde, Twain, Mencken, Churchill, Rogers. You remind me of them. You remind me of the portion of the humor spectrum their skill occupies be occupying the opposite end yourself. Man, you’re pathetic. You make me want to hold a telethon for you.
That would be progress. Just leave me alone and give me the same rights you have, and we’ll call it even.
Try some reading comprehension, please. I don’t believe you hate gays. I think you fear them, though, and you’ve admitted as much. I think a large portion of the majority who voted for Prop 8 DO hate gays and would admit it. You are pointing to them and saying, “THEY grasp my ideas about marriage, why don’t you people?” I’m saying-- do you really want to point to them to support your point? They hate gays. You don’t. But you and they have the same goal here, and you are aligning yourself with them and maligning us. If that’s the company you want to keep, don’t be shocked and appalled when you are judged by it.
So I’ll metaphorically wait when “his” metaphorical crowd tries to metaphorically trample me. I metaphorically want them to try.
…and please tell your friends not to start again with geometry…I’ll de-rail this thread so fast we’ll be discussing pre-Roman carpentry in Andorra before you know it
I disagree. And not for the reason you probably think.
All rights exist, and all rights may be regulated. But not “as [society] sees fit.” Rather than writing a long essay on subjects I’m not completely competent to explain, I’ll ask you to look up “strict scrutiny”, “intermediate scrutiny”, and “time, place, and manner” on something dedicated to explaining legal concepts. Bottom line is: government may regulate rights, including depriving some of rights enjoyed by others, when and only when it meets certain specific conditions. Such restrictions are specifically barred from being “arbitrary or capricious.”
Now, if you are willing to continue the discussion after that, I’d like to have a clear understanding of this “ideal” of marriage you’ve mentioned, including exactly how permitting gay or same-sex marriage harms or dilutes it. (I’m not sure of your exact reason for objecting, so substitute the proper verb in that last clause, please.)
Personally, I’d like to hear magellan01 describe and defend his ideal, but don’t necessarily want to hijack an already shark-jumped thread that should probably be taken out back and shot.
Shall we discuss it here or open a new thread?
Get out of my head, Polycarp! It is dangerous in there…
Please, be our guest. You already tried once and looked quite the fool. If everybody else enjoyed that half as much as me then we’ll all welcome a second attempt.
Ah yes, you’re right. Point taken. I pulled most of the points from that thread and got these two confused. Given that, I asked Revenant Threshold who instigated this discussion if we could narrow it down to Prop. 8 for the purposes of this discussion. My posts will be addressing that topic.
Ah, OK. So there are 9 benefits that are different. Could these 9 benefits be litigated to match marriages?
So if a gay couple got married in Massachusetts, would they enjoy the benefits of marriage in California?
Reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder. It is generally agreed upon by the community.
Yes, I read the article.
Why? What would happen if they did?
You’re right. Someone else pointed it out.
But more than that, they don’t seem to share the same ideas about how to go about attaining their goals. I would think that would lead to fragmentation of effort.
I’m not flouncing off in a huff. I just don’t consider much of what you’re doing to be debate.
That’s one gigantic hand wave there.
If a heterosexual couple prefers something to be on their marriage license and they don’t get it because of the impact from same-sex marriage, you surely can’t say that there’s no impact to the heterosexual community. That was my point. And more than a few people have said that there would be no impact. . .none at all.
Do you feel badly for the person that didn’t get to have bride/groom on their marriage license?
But it just took away at least one couple’s desire to have the certificate read as it did traditionally. You mean, nothing is being taken away of significance besides this? That was only one example.
I wasn’t trying to make an analogy. I was just pointing out that the impact of the legal detriment wasn’t very big. It was just to say that obtaining a license in another state is an inconvenience, not a huge legal burden.
And I’m guessing they’re not impressed with your claim that gay couples should be married.
It may be minor harm in your mind, but it’s not no harm.
Why? Has this already happened in areas where domestic partnership laws have been applied?
Yes, that seems to be your main argument–portability. But it seems to me that the portability issue has more to do with other states and the federal government than it has to do with Prop. 8.
Thanks for pointing that out, but since I’ve paying attention to the best of my ability, I’m finding it superfluous.
No. Those are enforcement issues, not law-related ones. I’d sue the police and store owner if I were a Christian, which I’m personally not, btw.
Gads! Is this an endurance test? 3 arguments for and against? Does it have a purpose?
Are you analogizing to gay marriage? Are you saying that gays can choose to have a straight marriage or a gay one? I don’t see the significance to the topic at hand.
They should weigh the pros and cons of their decision and choose accordingly, like every other life decision that everyone else makes.
Because there may be some people who don’t enforce the laws as they should?
You both intersect at 2. California closest fits with scenario 2. If you’re implying that California is closer to 3 or 1, please clarify.