Somebody get this man a tab of ecstasy!
I don’t kill because I’m empathic to others, not because I fear retaliation. Obviously we’re very different people.
You mischaracterize both me and my arguments. It is not in my economic self interest to support feeding the hungery or providing food and shelter to the poor and homeless (ie homeless shelters, earned income credits, New Orleans relief, tsunami relief, etc. ) but I do support those things. To equate opposing to gay marriage on self interested economic grounds to being a heartless sociopath is completely unwarranted, unsubstantiated and illogical on your part.
Understood, and understandable. May I offer for your consideration, though, that we who interact with you on this board “know” (connaitre) you only insofar as we “know” (savoir) your offerings by way of posting here. Former member Joe Cool was a far different person IRL than his “posting persona”; I counted him a friend, though we had significantly differing value systems and religious and political opinions. From what you’d said, it was a reasonable conclusion. From what you’ve now said, it is no longer one.
It wasn’t coy. It was an unwillingness to be accused of creating strawman arguments. If I’m on this side of a debate, it’s not for me to manufacture my opponent’s arguments and then rebut them. I can certainly offer the rational-basis arguments, and I can certainly show why each of them can be addressed in a better, wiser way than by prohibiting state recognition of same-sex marriage. But since I wish to prove that prohibiting state recognition of same-sex marriage is unwise, it’s not my place to advance the contrary position only to then rebut it. It’s for the proponent of the proposition to show why his position is the best choice.
There has to be justification for changing marriage laws.
I guess that depends on whether there is a right to marriage. And yes they are beliefs because I’m not aware of any studies, but if studies were available would you accept it as a reasonable argument?
Which is a justification for marriage that involves children.
cite?
Good for him so perhaps adopted and stepchildren can be equally attached to their new parents as to their biological ones.
I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion you did. Yes I have heard of them. I’ll give you two examples: gays who think Bush is evil and the worst thing to happen to America and people who voted solely on gay marriage during the election thinking Kerry was a better choice than Bush. I knew a gay guy in school who disavowed his libertarian views to support Kerry for president and believed marriage laws had nothing to do with children. Real rational! I do not consider all gay proponents or all gays to be radicals.
Perhaps it is the primary form of sex between gay men?
Mass. court rules incest okay for stepparents
I think it will lead to marriage between minors and majors, both biological and legal incest and for people who are mentally deficient. It’s your side that says marriage laws have been constantly changing. So is gay marriage the final ideal or will marriage continue to be more inclusive?
Because we need to know what causes homosexuality to decide if there is justification for same sex marriage.
I guess that depends on the women. I think the Britney and Madonna kiss was disgusting. Usually what I find interesting is if there is a hot girl involved I would like to be in the place of the other person.
Okay, spit out what you really wanted to say.
Still one of the parents is a step or adopted parent. Does the child favor the biological parent?
I have heard of The Byrds and Crosby, Stills & Nash.
Why?
Then why don’t you support gay marriage? The cost to you would be negligble: far less than tsumani relief or taking care of New Orleans refugees. The cost to you may in fact be non-exsistant, as gay couples are going to have to pay the same increased taxes as any married couple. Since you have no problem with paying money to help others even when it provides no direct benefit to yourself, I have trouble believing that your opposition to gay marriage is purely on economic grounds.
OK. Let’s see how well you can do this.
We could as well ask what’s in it for you to pass a prohibition against rape, since you are very unlikely to be the victim of rape. Or to make it even more specific, we could prohibit only rape of males. That would not affect your self-interest at all… yet I hope you can see why it would be an unwise legislature that followed this route?
We see from this that the question you’ve asked is not precisely the right one: a legislature must ask itself what is wise as a matter of public policy, not simply what provisions may benefit each member.
If that’s the case, then I contend there is a better way to address the problem: make divorce courts self-sustaining by changing the fee structure. That solves the problem of public subsidy without impacting you.
We need to know why there is homosexuality so people are just making up new forms of marriage for the hell of it.
Perhaps most men have a biological repulsion to it.
cite?
cite?
I agree it was for political reasons, I think the true Bush is more socially liberal than he claims to be. 1/4 of the gay vote still went to him.
This is being heraled as a great movie for gay rights where lust is more important than family. And another point about the movie, just because someone is killed for who they are doesn’t make their beliefs right it just makes the killer wrong.
No, but read this. And why should I? I’m not interested in watching gay sex and they use two lame arguments for why I should support their cause.
Do you really think a marriage law could be passed allowing lesbians to marry, but not gay men? On an unrelated note I like watching her talk show.
True, but the vagina is meant for the penis, your ass isn’t.
cite?
I responsed to this in my previous thread to Polycarp.
Just because I believe in charity doesn’t mean I believe in gay marriage. There is no connection between them that I can see. There is no cognitive dissonence (sp) in believing in one and not the other. If you can’t believe that I can believe that, I can live with that.
I greatly appreciate the kind words, Polycarp.
I didn’t realize that it was incumbent upon me to present my bona fides as a nice person before being allowed to oppose gay marriage.
The justifications for allowing gays to marry are exactly the same as the ones for allowing straights to marry. Every reason to heterosexuals would want to marry applies in exact measure to why two homosexuals would want to marry.
Studies about what?
No, it’s a justification for legalizing gay adoption and recognizing parental rights of gay parents. It has very little to do with marriage.
Here’s one. I can find more, if you want.
This is even a question for you? It’s never even occured to me to wonder if adopted children love their adopted parents. Why would you think they wouldn’t?
What conclusion?
And this proves what, exactly? Sure, there are some gays who rabidly hate Bush. There are some gays who are Bush supporters. There are some straights who rabidly hate Bush. There are some straights who are Bush supporters. What does any of this have to do with wether or not gays should be allowed to marry?
What’s irrational about that, specifically?
It’s not. But so what if it is? Why are you so intently interested in what gay guys do in bed? Why does it have any bearing on allowing them to marry?
And this has what to do with gay marriage? Just because it happened in Massachusetts, it’s automatically fallout from allowing gays to marry? You’ll have to do better than that. Here’s a map of states that allow cousins to marry. Note the overlap with states that have ammended their constitutions to forbid gay marriage. Clearly, banning gay marriage encourages incest!
And your reason for thinking any of this will come to pass is what, exactly?
Why? What possible difference could it make?
Actually, no. It doesn’t work that way. The burden is on you to show why a group should be excluded from receiving state privileges and benefits offered to others. “Why there is homosexuality” is an irrelevant question. The question is why should people not be allowed to marry a person of his or her own gender. The causes of sexual orientation don’t enter into it.
Cite and relevance?
The movie is about love, not lust. It doesn’t say that "lust is more imortant than family’ (what an ignorant characterization that is. have you SEEN the movie or are you afraid you’ll catch the gay?). No one is “heralding” the movie for saying any such thing. At most, some people are hoping that it may inspire empathy but obviously some people are incapable of seeing past their own personal bigotry.
Homosexuality is not a “belief.” Belief does not enter into it.
One semi-literate post on a message board is enough to make you think you’re informed about the movie? Whoever posted that is wrong. It doesn’t show gay people as “not being moral.” That’s an incredibly simplistic view of the movie but, of course, it’s what you want to hear.
The film doesn’t show “gay sex” btw, nor does it offer any “arguments” (lame or otherwise) as to “why you should support their cause.” The movie is not political and it has no “cause.” If you don’t want to see the movie, fine. Nobody cares. Just don’t go around acting like you’re informed about it or like you know what it says because you don’t have a clue.
Cite?
It’s impossible to be a nice person and want to deprive others of basic civil rights.
Do you drink cow’s milk, Serket? Do you cook your food? Ever taken antibiotics? Worn shoes? Done your banking over the internet? Driven a car?
If so, how do you know you’re “meant” to do any of those things?
I’d like to see proof that anything biological is “meant” for anything.
Okay, lay this out for me. Say we find tomorrow precisely what causes homosexuality. What cause would invalidate the idea of gay marriage, in your mind? What cause would validate it?
Cite?
So then why are you whining about “radical gays” as some sort of perverse excuse for opposing equal rights for homosexuals?
The movie doesn’t present adultery as a good thing at all: the movie is a tragedy, and the adultery is part of that tragedy.
Maybe you should actually watch the film before you pronounce what it’s about?
Wow! That semi-literate internet rant about the movie really changed my whole outlook on gay marriage!
Seriously: what the hell is that supposed to prove? And how do you know what arguments the movie uses when you haven’t even seen the damned thing?
No, I don’t think it could, nor do I think it should be passed. I was trying to illustrate that banning all gay marriage because some gay guys like anal sex is really intensely stupid.
Says who?
Incidentally, I was mistaken about the number of gay voters who went for Bush in 2000. My bad.
Well I also dont kill said because it would be unneccesary effort, because I have no reason to hurt said person.
Are you empathetic to others or do you just think your empathetic to others and its actually for selfish reasons you dont kill people?
(note: Im not saying that every single act ever is from selfish purposes, that would be unverifiable statement that I do not have the knowledge to make, I can not even say that most or many acts are based on selfish purposes, but I can say that within my range of observation many acts appear to be based on selfish reasons, so I choose to embrace it and act in a manner of rational selfishness.)
Very briefly, if a statute involves a fundamental right or a suspect classification are the only times anything other than the rational basis test is applied. As to the fundamental right issue, I have argued repeatedly, based on Loving and Zablocki, that marriage is a fundamental right. The counter argument is that, marriage may be a fundamental right if it is between a man and a woman, the right for gay people to marry is not one that is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty or deeply rooted in tradition or history. Since same sex marriage is not traditional, it is not a fundamental right, thus rational basis test applies.
As to the equal protection argument, the ban on SSM does not involve a suspect classification. Homosexuality is not a suspect classification, so rational basis applies. In addition, the ban on SSM does not discriminate on the basis of gender and does not have a disparate impact on either gender. Personally, I agree with this sentiment. The ban on SSM discriminates against homosexuals, not against one gender or the other. And, thus far, homosexuality is not a suspect classification. Thus, rational basis applies.
The Massachusettes case did not rule on the level of scrutiny: the majority said the legislation could not survive even the rational basis test, so they did not rule on the other issues. Other courts have accepted the argument that, since same sex marriage is not deeply rooted in tradition or history, it is not a fundamental right. I have yet to hear a persuasive argument that why marriage is a fundamental right for straight people, but not for gay people, or how the right to marry can be divided like that to exclude the exact group being discriminated against. Maybe Bricker can help you out.
I don’t see a connection between them, either. Gay marriage isn’t an issue of charity, it’s an issue of simple human decency. But you stated that you were opposed to gay marriage because A) it doesn’t benefit you directly, and B) it would cost you money. However, you can say exactly the same thing about tsunami relief. It doesn’t benefit you directly, and it costs you money. This leads me to suspect that there is some additional, unstated reason why you oppose gay marriage than pure mercenary self-interest.
“It’s the right thing” is enough.
What does that have to do with anything ? Do you think Clinton haters should be forbidden marriage ?
More so than oral sex and mutual masturbation ? What about lesbians ? Why do you care, anyway ?
Why would it do that any more than old style marriage ?
Why ? Nature, nurture or purple goblins, why does the origin matter ?
< on preview >
There has been homosexuality since before there have been humans. Do you think Og and Ook the Neaderthals shacked up together just to screw with 21st century American politics ? What about homosexual animals; all they all motivated by a desire to corrupt marriage ?
Irrelevant, even if true - and if it was, it would always be reviled, in all societies.