NationStates Jolt Archive

"Maine Senate passes same-sex marriage bill"

"Maine's Senate passed a bill on Thursday that could make the northeastern U.S. state the fifth in the country to allow gay marriage, but the lower chamber and governor have yet to approve it.

The legislation, which will go to a vote in the state House of Representatives next week, seeks to redefine marriage as the legal union of two people rather than between a man and a women. It passed the Senate by a 20-15 margin."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090501/us_nm/us_gaymarriage_maine

Unstoppable groundswell, or too much, too soon?

Let's go unstoppable groundswell!

Yay for gay lobsters, I suppose? Who the fuck else lives in Maine?

"Maine Senate passes same-sex marriage bill"



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090501/us_nm/us_gaymarriage_maine

Unstoppable groundswell, or too much, too soon?

The continuing evolution of a nation founded on an ideal as it progresses toward that ideal.

The continuing evolution of a nation founded on an ideal as it progresses toward that ideal.

Yea, but you know the religious fundies will pop back up sooner or later. :(

this is what happens when you let outastaters move in. my father would be .... well the same taciturn man he always was... if he were alive to see this!

I think it's great that so many states are jumping on the gay marriage bandwagon. I mean hell, who cares? Now gay couples can be just as miserable as the rest of us, haha.

My thought is that, if too many states 'legalize' too quickly, the movement runs out of steam, and the opponents of gay marriage get to crush the nascent groundswell. Kind of like California... and we might end up with a dozen or so states, see-sawing back and forth between legal and illegal... or, even worse, a momentum that carries a federal ban through.

It worries me - because, interpreting the Constitution strictly, it seems pretty clear cut.

Like it or not, gay marriage is here to stay. That's what, four asskickings for the Republicans on this issue since Obama took office? At this rate, the whole country will come over before Obama runs out a second term (presuming, of course that he doesn't somehow screw up his reelection chances).

This is obviously contrary to the will of the people of Maine. How dare the senate pass bills without a public vote!

Yay for gay lobsters, I suppose? Who the fuck else lives in Maine?

1.3 million people, for a start.

Shame on you (http://www.maine.gov/portal/facts_history/facts.html) for your generalization. :p

Perhaps Maine will suffer the same fate as Iowa:

For Gay Couple, Fulfilling Lifelong Dream Of Marriage Not Worth Moving To Iowa (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/for_gay_couple_fulfilling?utm_source=slate_rss_1)

NEW YORK—Having their sworn commitment to each other and all related rights therein recognized by the highest court of a sovereign U.S. state is ultimately not worth the hassle of moving to Iowa, longtime partners Danny Mindlin and Alex Small determined Monday. "Alex and I want to grow old together, but we'd have to drive six hours just to get a mezzaluna at Restoration Hardware," said Mindlin, who claimed he "couldn't survive" without a strawberry frosted cupcake from Amy's Bread after yoga every Thursday. "And where would we summer? Dubuque? I think we'll just buy a townhouse and live in an unrecognized union with beautiful granite countertops instead." The couple told reporters that their plans to adopt also weighed heavily in the decision, since they want to raise a child who is healthy, balanced, and "not tacky."

So much for "liberal" California.

Perhaps Maine will suffer the same fate as Iowa:

The source is exactly what I expected. I approve.

This is obviously contrary to the will of the people of Maine. How dare the senate pass bills without a public vote!
Activist jud.....!

Activist jud.....!

The senators must all be judges! :eek2:

Yay for gay lobsters, I suppose?

Okay, that WAS funny. :p

1.3 million people, for a start.

Shame on you (http://www.maine.gov/portal/facts_history/facts.html) for your generalization. :p

Well, at least he's consistant. I live in a jungle, only lobsters live in Maine, and so on. :p

Go Maine! Freedom and equality are on the march!

Go Maine! Freedom and equality are on the march!

Let's just hope these marchers actually pay attention to where they're going. The last bunch of freedom and equality marchers to come through here walked all over me. :(

Yay! And another one they can't blame on the activist judges!

Yay! And another one they can't blame on the activist judges!

Well, they can, they'll just be wrong.

Not that such a trivial matter will stop them.

What I don't understand is why people would even want to get married under the current governmental conditions. Is it not enough to love each other in their own privacy? Gays don't even care about getting married- they just want to spite heterosexuals.

What I don't understand is why people would even want to get married under the current governmental conditions. Is it not enough to love each other in their own privacy? Gays don't even care about getting married- they just want to spite heterosexuals.

Yeah, equality is so spiteful. :p

Usually I'd not waste such a move on a two-post wonder, but today you find me bored.

***Come, you spirits of times past and future! Travel through the mists and remember my opponent, in other times, from the then, from the now and from the hereafter! I bid time! Return, and walk on!***

***TIME STREAM!!!***

Gays don't even care about getting married- they just want to spite heterosexuals.

Blacks don't even care about civil rights- they just want to spite whites.

Jews don't even care about not going to concentration camps- they just want to spite Aryans.

Women don't even care about voting- they just want to spite men.

Heretics don't even care about not being burned- they just want to spite Christians.

Christians don't even care about not being thrown to lions- they just want to spite Romans.

Through time, you existed. Through time, you said this. And in the future...

Atheists don't even care about retaining their civil rights- they just want to spite the religious.

And so it goes.

Is it not enough to love each other in their own privacy?

If that's the way you feel, then start demanding every straight couple you see making out in the park to get a room at some sleazy motel. :p

I believe that the above post by Heikoku 2 warrants the following:


OOOOOH SNAP!

I believe that the above post by Heikoku 2 warrants the following:


OOOOOH SNAP!

I concur. :)

I believe that the above post by Heikoku 2 warrants the following:


OOOOOH SNAP!

I concur. :)

Laudari a bonis! I'm praised by the good! Thank you, Bottle and Milks. :D

Yay for gay lobsters, I suppose? Who the fuck else lives in Maine?

I did mate, for quite a long time in fact!

Well, at least he's consistant. I live in a jungle, only lobsters live in Maine, and so on. :p
Don't be doubting my logic. :wink:
Okay, that WAS funny. :p
:tongue:
1.3 million people, for a start.

Shame on you (http://www.maine.gov/portal/facts_history/facts.html) for your generalization. :p
Duly noted, however, your appeal to emotion is dismissed as lobster propaganda.

Duly noted, however, your appeal to emotion is dismissed as lobster propaganda.

Lobsters are invading? *sniffs* Is that melted butter I smell? Are you thinking what I'm thinking? :D

I did mate, for quite a long time in fact!
Tragic. So young and already fallen prey to the lobster-false consciousness. You will be avenged.

*snip*

That post goes beyond /thread, or even epic win.

Heikoku 2, that was a Crowning Moment of Awesome (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/SugarWiki/CrowningMomentOfAwesome?from=Main.CrowningMomentOfAwesome).

:hail:

That post goes beyond /thread, or even epic win.

Heikoku 2, that was a Crowning Moment of Awesome (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/SugarWiki/CrowningMomentOfAwesome?from=Main.CrowningMomentOfAwesome).

:hail:

Awww! I feel all warm and fuzzy inside! :D

Interesting how the sparsely populated states, traditionally stodgy individualist states are the ones that are doing it first... ;) *

*through legislative means.

Awww! I feel all warm and fuzzy inside! :D

No you don't, you feel a headache coming on because your ego is over-inflating again.

I did mate, for quite a long time in fact!

Ah, but can you prove you're not a gay lobster? :p

"Maine Senate passes same-sex marriage bill"



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090501/us_nm/us_gaymarriage_maine

Unstoppable groundswell, or too much, too soon?

The lower chamber should pass it. The senate is normally the conservative body. Though this might be different for Maine. Governor signing it who knows. This is the prefer way to get the majority of Gay marraige rights passed.

The lower chamber should pass it. The senate is normally the conservative body. Though this might be different for Maine. Governor signing it who knows. This is the prefer way to get the majority of Gay marraige rights passed.

There is a better way: an amendment to a state constitution.

Yea, but you know the religious fundies will pop back up sooner or later. :(

Why is it that anybody with an objection to same-sex marriage is automatically a "religious fundamentalist"? And what's wrong with being religious anyway?

There are a lot of reasons why a reasonable person might be opposed to legalized same-sex marriage, that doesn't make them a Nazi.

Why is it that anybody with an objection to same-sex marriage is automatically a "religious fundamentalist"?
Because most of them are...
And what's wrong with being religious anyway?
Nothing, "religious fundamentalist" on the other hand...
There are a lot of reasons why a reasonable person might be opposed to legalized same-sex marriage, that doesn't make them a Nazi.
Really? Name some.

There are a lot of reasons why a reasonable person might be opposed to legalized same-sex marriage

Name ONE.

Name ONE.

Because they're a bigot? Oh wait...

There are a lot of reasons why a reasonable person might be opposed to legalized same-sex marriage

Name TWO.

OK. Many people feel that legalizing same-sex marriage would be legitimizing a lifestyle that they feel is inappropriate.

Because they're a bigot? Oh wait...

Ah yes...the traditional "agree with me or you're a bigot/racist/Nazi" argument...that didn't take long. It's nice to see the people arguing for tolerance and acceptance being so tolerant and accepting themselves.

OK. Many people feel that legalizing same-sex marriage would be legitimizing a lifestyle that they feel is inappropriate.

And who are they (i.e. probably you) to refuse equal rights to anyone?

Ah yes...the traditional "agree with me or you're a bigot/racist/Nazi" argument...that didn't take long. It's nice to see the people arguing for tolerance and acceptance being so tolerant and accepting themselves.

You want to keep a segment of the population from having the same rights as you. Name one reason why that should be tolerated.

And who are they (i.e. probably you) to refuse equal rights to anyone?

Every single law that we have refuses equal rights to one group or another. When we make child-molestation illegal, we discriminate against people who want to molest children. Society has a right to decide (via the democratic process) what sorts of behavior it wants to allow.

I want to be clear that I'm not trying to put same-sex couples who want to get married in the same category as child-molesters. I'm simply trying to make the point that society regulates behavior.

Ah yes...the traditional "agree with me or you're a bigot/racist/Nazi" argument...that didn't take long. It's nice to see the people arguing for tolerance and acceptance being so tolerant and accepting themselves.

Ahh yes...the traditional "you're intolerant of my intolerance" argument...that didn't take long. There's a difference between tolerance and acceptance; a difference you would do well to learn. My tolerance for your bigotry extends solely to not seeking to have your ability to voice your intolerance silenced. Tolerating you holding such noxious opinions does not in any way mandate that I accept your opinions as anything other than bigotted ramblings, and tolerance does not require me to be silent in my opposition to your view points. Learn the difference; then you might not trot out such tired and utterly defeated arguments.

For Gay Couple, Fulfilling Lifelong Dream Of Marriage Not Worth Moving To Iowa

NEW YORK—Having their sworn commitment to each other and all related rights therein recognized by the highest court of a sovereign U.S. state is ultimately not worth the hassle of moving to Iowa, longtime partners Danny Mindlin and Alex Small determined Monday. "Alex and I want to grow old together, but we'd have to drive six hours just to get a mezzaluna at Restoration Hardware," said Mindlin, who claimed he "couldn't survive" without a strawberry frosted cupcake from Amy's Bread after yoga every Thursday. "And where would we summer? Dubuque? I think we'll just buy a townhouse and live in an unrecognized union with beautiful granite countertops instead." The couple told reporters that their plans to adopt also weighed heavily in the decision, since they want to raise a child who is healthy, balanced, and "not tacky."


We Iowans let gay marriage be passed, and they are calling us tacky?

We always rank on the top 10 for education, and a lot of people I know from New York are dicks. There is also a lot of room to exercise, and wrestling is predominate. We started the mock trial program right at drake university, and were a politicaly active state.

Ya, if your weighing where you raise your kids on a cupcake after yoga, I can see how you could be messed up.

We Iowans let gay marriage be passed, and they are calling us tacky?

We always rank on the top 10 for education, and a lot of people I know from New York are dicks. There is also a lot of room to exercise, and wrestling is predominate. We started the mock trial program right at drake university, and were a politicaly active state.

Ya, if your weighing where you raise your kids on a cupcake after yoga, I can see how you could be messed up.

Check out the source of the article before you hop on the outrage train.

You want to keep a segment of the population from having the same rights as you. Name one reason why that should be tolerated.

First of all, no one has a "right" to get married, homosexual OR heterosexual. As far as I can tell, there is no "right" to marriage written into either the US Constitution or the California Constitution.

And FYI, I actually support legal same-sex marriage. But I also support the right of people to disagree, and I recognize that they have their own reasons. Once we start labeling them as "religious fundies" we become just as intolerant as we accuse them of being.

Lastly, "tolerance" is not the same thing as "approval". I agree that same-sex couples should be free to live their lives, I do not agree that they have the right to force other people to accept their choices.

What I don't understand is why people would even want to get married under the current governmental conditions. Is it not enough to love each other in their own privacy? Gays don't even care about getting married- they just want to spite heterosexuals.

Clearly...it could have nothing about the legal right to share medical benefits, file taxes together, next of kin rights, or any other rights and responsibilities afforded by marriage. Queers are just pissed because they never got to lay the captain of the football team back in high school.

We Iowans let gay marriage be passed, and they are calling us tacky?

We always rank on the top 10 for education, and a lot of people I know from New York are dicks. There is also a lot of room to exercise, and wrestling is predominate. We started the mock trial program right at drake university, and were a politicaly active state.

Ya, if your weighing where you raise your kids on a cupcake after yoga, I can see how you could be messed up.

http://www.ugotbling.com/images/comments/cute/laughing-elmo.gif

Honestly, though, why should society regulate consensual behavior? How can you call someone in favor of such a thing "reasonable"?

Ahh yes...the traditional "you're intolerant of my intolerance" argument...that didn't take long. There's a difference between tolerance and acceptance; a difference you would do well to learn. My tolerance for your bigotry extends solely to not seeking to have your ability to voice your intolerance silenced. Tolerating you holding such noxious opinions does not in any way mandate that I accept your opinions as anything other than bigotted ramblings, and tolerance does not require me to be silent in my opposition to your view points. Learn the difference; then you might not trot out such tired and utterly defeated arguments.

My friend, YOU'RE the one who's name-calling here.

Furthermore, simply saying that you find my opinions distasteful or my arguments tired is not the same thing as defeating them logically. You are essentially saying "You are wrong, because your opinions are bad."

And, please note, I manage to respond without making personal attacks.

First of all, no one has a "right" to get married, homosexual OR heterosexual. As far as I can tell, there is no "right" to marriage written into either the US Constitution or the California Constitution.
Which is why we have the 9th amendment. Just because it is not specifically mentioned does not mean it does not exist.
And FYI, I actually support legal same-sex marriage. But I also support the right of people to disagree, and I recognize that they have their own reasons. Once we start labeling them as "religious fundies" we become just as intolerant as we accuse them of being.
They can disagree. It just makes them a bigot. I tolerate their right to disagree, I don't agree with it, and see no problem being vocal about that.

And about those reasons a rational person could be against gay marriage? What are those exactly?
Lastly, "tolerance" is not the same thing as "approval". I agree that same-sex couples should be free to live their lives, I do not agree that they have the right to force other people to accept their choices.

How does gay marriage force any other person to accept their choices?

What I don't understand is why people would even want to get married under the current governmental conditions. Is it not enough to love each other in their own privacy? Gays don't even care about getting married- they just want to spite heterosexuals.

Heterosexuals don't care about getting married, they just want to spite homosexuals.

Actually, for some... I think that's true. :(

Clearly...it could have nothing about the legal right to share medical benefits, file taxes together, next of kin rights, or any other rights and responsibilities afforded by marriage. Queers are just pissed because they never got to lay the captain of the football team back in high school.

Actually, same-sex couples already have these rights under the existing California "domestic partnership" laws. They just can't be legally called "marriages".

As for the actual thread, New England continues to make me more and more proud, in that we can actually demonstrate some level of rationality. So far, of the 6, we have Connecticut, Vermont, and Massachusetts...with New Hampshire and Maine preparing to join. Both CT and MA went through the courts, but both defeated measures to amend their constitutions, showing that the courts not only acted justly, but carried out the will of the people.

Now, lets go, Rhode Island.

OK. Many people feel that legalizing same-sex marriage would be legitimizing a lifestyle that they feel is inappropriate.

That's not a reason.

My friend, YOU'RE the one who's name-calling here.

Furthermore, simply saying that you find my opinions distasteful or my arguments tired is not the same thing as defeating them logically. You are essentially saying "You are wrong, because your opinions are bad."

And, please note, I manage to respond without making personal attacks.

I called no one any names. If you feel I've violated the rules of the forum, feel free to report me in the Moderation forum, but if you do not wish to be labelled as a bigot, then you should refrain from expressing opinions that can easily be defined as bigotted.

I did not address your bigotted opinions towards homosexual marriage. I merely defeated your absurd argument that disagreeing with your bigotted opinions was in and of itself intolerant. Intolerance would be something akin to enshrining laws that prevented your ability to express your bigotry, either in this forum or in the real world. As far as I am aware, I am not in any way attempting to silence you; merely disagreeing with what I find to be a totally repugnant and disgraceful opinion. I do not accept your bigotry, but I certainly tolerate it.

Why should society regulate consensual behavior?

First off, we have China that regulated births in their country due to the fact that they might starve to death if they don't.

Second, We have the fact of relating to each other as a country. I believe in being progressive like this, I'm ok with gays having a civil unionship, but I don't believe we should push it ahead of half the people in the state reject it. An amendment will eventually be required for this law.

It's all about the situation pretty much. If Iowa had a gay parade, it would consist of a single guy on a lawn mower (as john stewert quiet accurately described). A big gay event would be a few bands playing at a gathering. We also have a lot of people still against it because of religious and moral reasons as well.

Actually, same-sex couples already have these rights under the existing California "domestic partnership" laws. They just can't be legally called "marriages".

except for the federal rights granted. They have the state rights. Additionally, civil unions may or may not be recognized by other nations/states. Marriages are recognized much more widely recognized and recieve more consistant benefits.

Which is why we have the 9th amendment. Just because it is not specifically mentioned does not mean it does not exist.

They can disagree. It just makes them a bigot. I tolerate their right to disagree, I don't agree with it, and see no problem being vocal about that.

And about those reasons a rational person could be against gay marriage? What are those exactly?


How does gay marriage force any other person to accept their choices?

The 9th Ammendment gives States the right to create rights, however, California has not done so, so yes, the fact that they are not specifically mentioned DOES mean that they don't exist.

People disagree with you, and that makes them bigots. You disagree with them, does that make you a bigot too?

Actually, same-sex couples already have these rights under the existing California "domestic partnership" laws. They just can't be legally called "marriages".

People that oppose same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed to be called 'human'.

They should still get all the same rights, but they should be called 'scum'.

After all, it's just a matter of the name. Everything else about it is the same.

People that oppose same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed to be called 'human'.

They should still get all the same rights, but they should be called 'scum'.

After all, it's just a matter of the name. Everything else about it is the same.

No true scotsman would make a good point like this one!

There are a lot of reasons why a reasonable person might be opposed to legalized same-sex marriage, that doesn't make them a Nazi.

There are no good reasons why a reasonable person would oppose same-sex marriage.

Actually, same-sex couples already have these rights under the existing California "domestic partnership" laws. They just can't be legally called "marriages".

Separate but equal isn't equal.

First of all, no one has a "right" to get married, homosexual OR heterosexual. As far as I can tell, there is no "right" to marriage written into either the US Constitution or the California Constitution.

And FYI, I actually support legal same-sex marriage. But I also support the right of people to disagree, and I recognize that they have their own reasons. Once we start labeling them as "religious fundies" we become just as intolerant as we accuse them of being.

Lastly, "tolerance" is not the same thing as "approval". I agree that same-sex couples should be free to live their lives, I do not agree that they have the right to force other people to accept their choices.
See \/ this \/
First of all, no one has a "right" to get married, homosexual OR heterosexual. As far as I can tell, there is no "right" to marriage written into either the US Constitution or the California Constitution.Which is why we have the 9th amendment. Just because it is not specifically mentioned does not mean it does not exist.
And FYI, I actually support legal same-sex marriage. But I also support the right of people to disagree, and I recognize that they have their own reasons. Once we start labeling them as "religious fundies" we become just as intolerant as we accuse them of being.
They can disagree. It just makes them a bigot. I tolerate their right to disagree, I don't agree with it, and see no problem being vocal about that.

And about those reasons a rational person could be against gay marriage? What are those exactly?

Lastly, "tolerance" is not the same thing as "approval". I agree that same-sex couples should be free to live their lives, I do not agree that they have the right to force other people to accept their choices.
How does gay marriage force any other person to accept their choices?

OK. Many people feel that legalizing same-sex marriage would be legitimizing a lifestyle that they feel is inappropriate.

Neither a good reason, nor a reasonable one - since there is nothing reasonable about depriving rights to others simply because you don't approve of their choices.

So - I stand by my assessment.

I called no one any names. If you feel I've violated the rules of the forum, feel free to report me in the Moderation forum, but if you do not wish to be labelled as a bigot, then you should refrain from expressing opinions that can easily be defined as bigotted.

I did not address your bigotted opinions towards homosexual marriage. I merely defeated your absurd argument that disagreeing with your bigotted opinions was in and of itself intolerant. Intolerance would be something akin to enshrining laws that prevented your ability to express your bigotry, either in this forum or in the real world. As far as I am aware, I am not in any way attempting to silence you; merely disagreeing with what I find to be a totally repugnant and disgraceful opinion. I do not accept your bigotry, but I certainly tolerate it.

Fine. I find your opinions to be judgmental and close-minded. You refuse to even consider opinions which differ from yours, and you dismiss anybody who disagrees with you as a bigot. It must be nice to always be right.

Neither a good reason, nor a reasonable one - since there is nothing reasonable about depriving rights to others simply because you don't approve of their choices.

So - I stand by my assessment.

Then we should immediately release all criminals from prison. After all, there is nothing reasonable about depriving people of their right to liberty simply because we don't approve of their choices, is there?

Then we should immediately release all criminals from prison. After all, there is nothing reasonable about depriving people of their right to liberty simply because we don't approve of their choices, is there?

You honestly don't see the difference? Obviously you are either an idiot or you are being intentionally obtuse. So, which is it?

Then we should immediately release all criminals from prison. After all, there is nothing reasonable about depriving people of their right to liberty simply because we don't approve of their choices, is there?

Are you calling homosexuality a crime?

You are confusing something which is totally consensual with violent acts that harm others against their will.

The 9th Ammendment gives States the right to create rights, however, California has not done so, so yes, the fact that they are not specifically mentioned DOES mean that they don't exist.
Actually, you're wrong. The text of the 9th amendment reads thusly:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Quite literally, it says that "just because we didn't create an exhaustive list does not mean that we can take away the rights we did not list". The 10th allows undistributed powers to the states, but the states must abide by the 14th amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Ergo, just because marriage is not specifically enumerated within the constitution, it is still considered a right.

While we are at it, here are some other rights that are not enumerated within the constitution, but are still upheld:
the right to travel, the right to privacy, the right to autonomy, the right to dignity, the right to have an abortion. All of these have been upheld by supreme court decision, despite not being specifically mentioned.
People disagree with you, and that makes them bigots. You disagree with them, does that make you a bigot too?
They are not bigots because they disagree with me. They are bigots because they approve of, support, and encourage denying rights to a certain group of citizens, and, moreover, have made the specific move to remove these rights after they have been granted (prop8 was successful, but similar moves were made in MA and CT).

When your position specifically involves withholding and eliminating the rights of consenting adults, you are a bigot.


And again, what are those rational, logical reasons to oppose gay marriage? Any at all.

Fine. I find your opinions to be judgmental and close-minded. You refuse to even consider opinions which differ from yours, and you dismiss anybody who disagrees with you as a bigot. It must be nice to always be right.

That's an awfully big strawman you're building there. Do you have a plan for it? I never said I was always right, no matter how much that might help your argument.

You mistakenly believe that just because I refuse to even consider the same tired arguments I've heard a thousand times just because it's you presenting them now, that I refuse to consider opinions that differ from mine. I've considered all the arguments that the anti-gay rights side have presented, and they've yet to convince me in any way that legalizing gay marriage infringes upon their rights in any way, shape, or form. There are literally zero rational arguments for maintaining a gay marriage ban. They are all predicated upon religious or personal opinions, neither of which have any place enshrined into law.

I don't dismiss anyone who disagrees with me as a bigot. I dismiss anyone who expressed bigotted opinions as a bigot. Arguing that gays should not be allowed the same rights as straights for no rational reason is the dictionary definition of bigotry.

You honestly don't see the difference? Obviously you are either an idiot or you are being intentionally obtuse. So, which is it?

<sigh> Again with the name-calling...

Of course there's a difference, but it's a difference of degree. Some peoples choices are more obviously offensive to society then others, which is why we lock up murderers and only ticket jaywalkers. But in both these cases we are depriving someone of their rights (liberty and property respectively) in order to discourage behavior that we dislike.

Because same-sex couples cause no obvious harm to society, we don't fine or imprison them.

However, it is widely-believed that traditional marriage is good for society, and so we encourage that behavior by granting additional benefits.

Denying same-sex couples extra benefits is not the same thing as depriving them of basic rights.

First of all, no one has a "right" to get married, homosexual OR heterosexual. As far as I can tell, there is no "right" to marriage written into either the US Constitution or the California Constitution.


I'm glad you said "as far as I can tell", because it means that I don't have to tell you you're wrong - you just don't know. You have had the protected right to get married since, at least, 1868.

Article 14

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Emphasis mine.

Churches do not make marriages, according to American law. If you have the church ceremony, but DON'T get the license (which is issued by local government) then you are not legally married.

Which means that marriage is contractual, while the ceremony may be religious.

As such, the 14th Amendment guarantees 'equal protection of the laws', that States shall not 'deprive any person of... liberty', and that no State shall 'abridge... privileges'.

In 3 different, but complimentary ways, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is very clear cut on the issue.

Then we should immediately release all criminals from prison. After all, there is nothing reasonable about depriving people of their right to liberty simply because we don't approve of their choices, is there?

That rather depends. If the choices cause harm to (possibly, themselves or) others, then it is the HARM that is the criminal act, not the choice.

<sigh> Again with the name-calling...

Of course there's a difference, but it's a difference of degree. Some peoples choices are more obviously offensive to society then others, which is why we lock up murderers and only ticket jaywalkers. But in both these cases we are depriving someone of their rights (liberty and property respectively) in order to discourage behavior that we dislike.

Because same-sex couples cause no obvious harm to society, we don't fine or imprison them.

However, it is widely-believed that traditional marriage is good for society, and so we encourage that behavior by granting additional benefits.

Denying same-sex couples extra benefits is not the same thing as depriving them of basic rights.

Um, yes, it is, it's depriving them of the same rights heterosexual couples have. Also (Only God knows why I'm asking this), can you explain why heterosexual marriage has any different effect on society than same-sex marriage?

OK. Many people feel that legalizing same-sex marriage would be legitimizing a lifestyle that they feel is inappropriate.

Fortunately, those people don't have to live that lifestyle if they choose not to.

<sigh> Again with the name-calling...
I gave you two options... Not my fault that you prefer the insulting one.
Of course there's a difference, but it's a difference of degree. Some peoples choices are more obviously offensive to society then others, which is why we lock up murderers and only ticket jaywalkers. But in both these cases we are depriving someone of their rights (liberty and property respectively) in order to discourage behavior that we dislike.
:rolleyes: Again, are you an idiot or are you being intentionally obtuse?
How does someone being homosexual harm anyone else?
Because same-sex couples cause no harm to society, we don't fine or imprison them.
fixed
However, it is widely-believed that traditional marriage is good for society, and so we encourage that behavior by granting additional benefits.
...
Denying same-sex couples extra benefits is not the same thing as depriving them of basic rights.
Yes it is.
Marriage is a basic right.

Actually, you're wrong. The text of the 9th amendment reads thusly:

Quite literally, it says that "just because we didn't create an exhaustive list does not mean that we can take away the rights we did not list". The 10th allows undistributed powers to the states, but the states must abide by the 14th amendment:


Ergo, just because marriage is not specifically enumerated within the constitution, it is still considered a right.

They are not bigots because they disagree with me. They are bigots because they approve of, support, and encourage denying rights to a certain group of citizens, and, moreover, have made the specific move to remove these rights after they have been granted (prop8 was successful, but similar moves were made in MA and CT).

When your position specifically involves withholding and eliminating the rights of consenting adults, you are a bigot.


And again, what are those rational, logical reasons to oppose gay marriage? Any at all.

Whoops! You got me on the Constitution. I got my amendments mixed-up.

There was never a specific right for same-sex couples to get married in the State of California until 2008, when the State Supreme Court "found" the right when they overturned Proposition 22, which had been passed (63% majority) in 2000. Essentially, activist judges not only overturned a legal democratic election, but also created a "right" out of thin air.

I have already stated some reasons why a reasonable person might oppose same-sex marriage. The general consensus was "those aren't good reasons". How about that? I can play that game too. There ARE good reasons! There ARE! Infinity! So there! :)

Oh lord, we have the activist judges propaganda piece too. I mean, how DARE they do their jobs?

You have not given a good reason because you have repeatedly compared homosexuality to criminal behaviour. Criminals are deprived of some of their rights to protect society from harm. Homosexual marriage causes no harm.

Capice?

I have already stated some reasons why a reasonable person might oppose same-sex marriage. The general consensus was "those aren't good reasons". How about that? I can play that game too. There ARE good reasons! There ARE! Infinity! So there! :)

You are confused.

What is meant by 'those aren't good reasons' is - you have to have a good argument as for why the Constitution should be abridged. The clear INTENT of the Constitution is to protect freedoms and guarantee equal rights. In other words - a 'good' argument, would be one that can take on the Constitution, and give a Constitution-grade reason for why the Constitution should be amended.

'I don't like it' and 'nuh uh' are hardly Constitution grade.

There was never a specific right for same-sex couples to get married in the State of California until 2008, when the State Supreme Court "found" the right when they overturned Proposition 22, which had been passed (63% majority) in 2000. Essentially, activist judges not only overturned a legal democratic election, but also created a "right" out of thin air.
Fail
*points down*
I'm glad you said "as far as I can tell", because it means that I don't have to tell you you're wrong - you just don't know. You have had the protected right to get married since, at least, 1868.

Article 14
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Emphasis mine.

Churches do not make marriages, according to American law. If you have the church ceremony, but DON'T get the license (which is issued by local government) then you are not legally married.

Which means that marriage is contractual, while the ceremony may be religious.

As such, the 14th Amendment guarantees 'equal protection of the laws', that States shall not 'deprive any person of... liberty', and that no State shall 'abridge... privileges'.

In 3 different, but complimentary ways, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is very clear cut on the issue.
I have already stated some reasons why a reasonable person might oppose same-sex marriage. The general consensus was "those aren't good reasons". How about that? I can play that game too. There ARE good reasons! There ARE! Infinity! So there! :)
No, you have stated reasons why an unreasonable/bigoted person would oppose same-sex marriage.

I love reading through these... It's so feel-good! One person tries to be anti-gay (even if they are playing the devils advocate) and they get ripped apart (obviously not literally, that would make a terrible mess) by all the forum vets. YAY!

There was never a specific right for same-sex couples to get married in the State of California until 2008, when the State Supreme Court "found" the right when they overturned Proposition 22, which had been passed (63% majority) in 2000. Essentially, activist judges not only overturned a legal democratic election, but also created a "right" out of thin air.
Actually, the right of homosexual marriage is the exact same right as heterosexual marriage. Why? Because we are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Legal democratic decisions can be overturned by judges (note: not activist judges, as it is popular to call them) to prevent tyranny of the majority. Just because the people say "we shouldn't give minority X the same rights as others" does nto mean that it is justifiable. What the court did was determine that a) a right to marriage exists. b) current laws specifically target one minority group, denying them specific rights granted to others. This is not activism. This is against the concept of equal protection under the law.
I have already stated some reasons why a reasonable person might oppose same-sex marriage. The general consensus was "those aren't good reasons". How about that? I can play that game too. There ARE good reasons! There ARE! Infinity! So there! :)
Your reason that I saw: society benefits from heterosexual marriage.
And yet, divorce is legal. People can have children without being married legally. So if we are going to "promote" heterosexual marriage, then we damn well better get rid of those two other things first.

another reason I think you gave: some people are morally opposed to it or uncomfortable with it.
Tough. They don't have to get married to someone of the same sex if they don't want to. They don't have to perform the ceremony. No church will be legally required to do it. I find bigotry a morally disgusting position, but allow people to exercise their given rights without interference. It isn't an issue: I don't act in a bigoted manner because I don't choose to. They don't want a gay wedding? Then they probably shouldn't get one. Doesn't justify others not being permitted to get them if they so choose.
Any other reasons?


As for marriage not being a right, I direct you to Loving v. Virginia, in which the court found "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

The first sentence refutes your claim that it is not a right. Supreme court decision is constitutional law.

I love reading through these... It's so feel-good! One person tries to be anti-gay (even if they are playing the devils advocate) and they get ripped apart (obviously not literally, that would make a terrible mess) by all the forum vets. YAY!

I know. The same thing happens to posters who suggest segregation be re-introduced to schools; it is terrible that we cannot consider and respect an opinion differing from our own.

I love reading through these... It's so feel-good! One person tries to be anti-gay (even if they are playing the devils advocate) and they get ripped apart (obviously not literally, that would make a terrible mess) by all the forum vets. YAY!

Well, we have seen all of his bigoted arguments before...
(and regardless of what he says I don't believe that he's playing devil's advocate)

Well, we have seen all of his bigoted arguments before...
(and regardless of what he says I don't believe that he's playing devil's advocate)

Yeah, posters who play the DA do not talk that way. If I was playing the DA on slavery, I would not say: "It is possible white persons feel that blacks are apes, and should be doing all the work."

Yeah, posters who play the DA do not talk that way. If I was playing the DA on slavery, I would not say: "It is possible white persons feel that blacks are apes, and should be doing all the work."

Well, that doesn't really prove anything... Who talks like you anyways... :p

Well, he did say he was a supporter of same sex marriage. It just seems you started quibbling over the constitution and then started throwing things. Oh, and for what it's worth, he has a point, if a weak one: Everyone has a right to say things, even if we don't like it, and we can't label them bigots just becuase we don't agree. It's really only because they are an ever shrinking minority these days that people call them bigots.

Well, that doesn't really prove anything...

Actually, it does. :D

Who talks like you anyways... :p

Ignorant pricks who like to feign expertise.

Well, he did say he was a supporter of same sex marriage. It just seems you started quibbling over the constitution and then started throwing things. Oh, and for what it's worth, he has a point, if a weak one: Everyone has a right to say things, even if we don't like it, and we can't label them bigots just becuase we don't agree. It's really only because they are an ever shrinking minority these days that people call them bigots.

They are not a minority, not even close.

OK...I have to get on the road soon to avoid rush-hour traffic, so I'm going to have to wrap up my contributions to this debate:

I consider myself to be both a Christian and a Conservative (although not a Conservative Christian...there's a difference), and I actually SUPPORT legalized same-sex marriage. But I also recognize that there are others who are opposed to it. They have their own reasons, and they have a right to express those opinions via the democratic process. My objection is to those of you who instantly label them as "religious fundies", "bigots", etc. I think this sort of name-calling stems from an arrogant assumption that "we are right, and anyone who disagrees with us is a jerk who deserves whatever names he gets called."

If we're so quick to say that there is no "good" reason to object to legalized same-sex marriage, then let me ask you this: Is there any good reason to SUPPORT it? I'm not asking someone to simply repeat the "It's good because everybody should be equal" argument. That's a tautology. We are we so darned convinced that WE'RE in the right?

Well, he did say he was a supporter of same sex marriage. It just seems you started quibbling over the constitution and then started throwing things. Oh, and for what it's worth, he has a point, if a weak one: Everyone has a right to say things, even if we don't like it, and we can't label them bigots just becuase we don't agree. It's really only because they are an ever shrinking minority these days that people call them bigots.
No, we can't call everyone who disagrees with us over anything a bigot, as that waters down the word.

I believe that women are equal to men. If you disagree with me, you are a bigot (specifically, sexist).
I believe that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals. If you disagree with me, you are a bigot.
I believe that blacks are equal to whites. If you disagree with me, you are a bigot.

None of these are because you disagree with me specifically, but because you believe that one set of human beings are lower than another. And that is pretty much the dictionary definition of bigotry (a person who is intolerant)

Every single law that we have refuses equal rights to one group or another. When we make child-molestation illegal, we discriminate against people who want to molest children.

This is one of the silliest arguments I've ever seen. "Discrimination" in a legal context means that one class of people is denied something given to another class of people. No one has the right to rape anyone else. There is no discrimination involved. Everyone has the exact same right not to be raped. Try again.


Society has a right to decide (via the democratic process) what sorts of behavior it wants to allow.

To an extent, yes. However, we have this thing called the Constitution which specifies that there are some things that the democratic process doesn't get to touch. We call these things "rights." That's...kinda the whole point.

My objection is to those of you who instantly label them as... "bigots",


Labelling a bigot as a bigot is not name-calling.


If we're so quick to say that there is no "good" reason to object to legalized same-sex marriage, then let me ask you this: Is there any good reason to SUPPORT it?

The Constitution isn't a good reason?

I know. The same thing happens to posters who suggest segregation be re-introduced to schools; it is terrible that we cannot consider and respect an opinion differing from our own.

Oh come on! No one is suggesting that homosexuals be segregated from society!

OK...I have to get on the road soon to avoid rush-hour traffic, so I'm going to have to wrap up my contributions to this debate:

I consider myself to be both a Christian and a Conservative (although not a Conservative Christian...there's a difference), and I actually SUPPORT legalized same-sex marriage. But I also recognize that there are others who are opposed to it. They have their own reasons, and they have a right to express those opinions via the democratic process. My objection is to those of you who instantly label them as "religious fundies", "bigots", etc. I think this sort of name-calling stems from an arrogant assumption that "we are right, and anyone who disagrees with us is a jerk who deserves whatever names he gets called."
Bigot:
A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset

People who seek to withhold rights from a group of citizens because they have a different lifestyle are, in fact, the dictionary definition of bigot. It isn't name calling, it is saying exactly what they are.

If we're so quick to say that there is no "good" reason to object to legalized same-sex marriage, then let me ask you this: Is there any good reason to SUPPORT it? I'm not asking someone to simply repeat the "It's good because everybody should be equal" argument. That's a tautology. We are we so darned convinced that WE'RE in the right?
Because withholding rights from two consenting adults is bad? Because two other people demonstrating their love and receiving their due rights and responsibilities has absolutly no impact upon my life, and therefore, there is no reason it should be restricted? Because homosexuals exist, and to deny that is assinine? Because we allow our citizens the right to choose their course in life? Because we established ourselves as a tolerant society which allows people the right to self-determination?

I consider myself to be both a Christian and a Conservative (although not a Conservative Christian...there's a difference), and I actually SUPPORT legalized same-sex marriage.
You can repeat that as many times as you like, still don't believe you.
But I also recognize that there are others who are opposed to it.
As do I
They have their own reasons,
Yes, and they all boil down to the fact that they are bigots.
[QUOTE=Mustoria;14759156]and they have a right to express those opinions via the democratic process. My objection is to those of you who instantly label them as "religious fundies", "bigots", etc. I think this sort of name-calling stems from an arrogant assumption that "we are right, and anyone who disagrees with us is a jerk who deserves whatever names he gets called."
Voice bigoted opinions and you will be called a bigot.
If we're so quick to say that there is no "good" reason to object to legalized same-sex marriage, then let me ask you this: Is there any good reason to SUPPORT it? I'm not asking someone to simply repeat the "It's good because everybody should be equal" argument. That's a tautology. We are we so darned convinced that WE'RE in the right?
The reason to support it is because, by the constitution they should already have the right, and only people being bigoted asses has kept them from exercising said right.

No, we can't call everyone who disagrees with us over anything a bigot, as that waters down the word.

I believe that women are equal to men. If you disagree with me, you are a bigot (specifically, sexist).
I believe that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals. If you disagree with me, you are a bigot.
I believe that blacks are equal to whites. If you disagree with me, you are a bigot.

None of these are because you disagree with me specifically, but because you believe that one set of human beings are lower than another. And that is pretty much the dictionary definition of bigotry (a person who is intolerant)

I think what I'm trying to say is (I'm not too sure, tbh) is that they weren't bigots when they were in the majority. At least, the yweren't percived as bigots. I was just making a comment on how what was mainstream is now bigotry because Religious extremeists and extreme right wing people IN THE WEST are an ever shrinking minority. As it happens, something like 68% or americans support gay marriage.
It's interesting how quickly something becomes acceptable and unacceptable, isn't it? Liberals 50 years ago are equivlent to extremeists now

This is one of the silliest arguments I've ever seen. "Discrimination" in a legal context means that one class of people is denied something given to another class of people. No one has the right to rape anyone else. There is no discrimination involved. Everyone has the exact same right not to be raped. Try again.



To an extent, yes. However, we have this thing called the Constitution which specifies that there are some things that the democratic process doesn't get to touch. We call these things "rights." That's...kinda the whole point.

The Constitution also protects freedom of religion. That hasn't stopped society from banning manger scenes and school-prayer or arguing that the Pledge of Allegiance should be banned because of the line "...one nation, under God".

If it's OK for secularists to limit public displays of religiosity on the grounds that not everybody is a Christian, why isn't it OK for society to limit public support of homosexuality on the grounds that not everybody agrees with or supports that lifestyle?

OK...I have to get on the road soon to avoid rush-hour traffic, so I'm going to have to wrap up my contributions to this debate:

I consider myself to be both a Christian and a Conservative (although not a Conservative Christian...there's a difference), and I actually SUPPORT legalized same-sex marriage. But I also recognize that there are others who are opposed to it. They have their own reasons, and they have a right to express those opinions via the democratic process. My objection is to those of you who instantly label them as "religious fundies", "bigots", etc. I think this sort of name-calling stems from an arrogant assumption that "we are right, and anyone who disagrees with us is a jerk who deserves whatever names he gets called."

Saying someone's views are bigoted is not "name-calling." Saying "anyone who thinks that men are superior to women is a poopy-face" is name-calling. Saying "anyone who thinks that men are superior to women is a sexist" is a statement of fact, because that is what "sexist" means. If someone believes that one class of people is inferior and does not deserve equal rights, that person is a bigot. That is the definition of the word. If they do not like having accurate terms applied to them, perhaps they should take steps to make those terms no longer accurate, i.e. stop being a bigot.


If we're so quick to say that there is no "good" reason to object to legalized same-sex marriage, then let me ask you this: Is there any good reason to SUPPORT it? I'm not asking someone to simply repeat the "It's good because everybody should be equal" argument. That's a tautology. We are we so darned convinced that WE'RE in the right?

Among other things, because the Constitution - specifically, the 14th Amendment - says as much. If we want to abide by our own Constitution, denying rights to one class of people isn't how we do it. Now, you can argue in favor of scrapping the whole Constitution and founding some new country, but when we are talking about legalizing gay marriage in this one, you'd be hard-pressed to claim that the 14th Amendment isn't a strong argument in favor.

The Constitution also protects freedom of religion. That hasn't stopped society from banning manger scenes and school-prayer or arguing that the Pledge of Allegiance should be banned because of the line "...one nation, under God".

If it's OK for secularists to limit public displays of religiosity on the grounds that not everybody is a Christian, why isn't it OK for society to limit public support of homosexuality on the grounds that not everybody agrees with or supports that lifestyle?

You really don't understand anything in the constitution, do you?

OK...I have to get on the road soon to avoid rush-hour traffic, so I'm going to have to wrap up my contributions to this debate:

I consider myself to be both a Christian and a Conservative (although not a Conservative Christian...there's a difference), and I actually SUPPORT legalized same-sex marriage. But I also recognize that there are others who are opposed to it. They have their own reasons, and they have a right to express those opinions via the democratic process. My objection is to those of you who instantly label them as "religious fundies", "bigots", etc. I think this sort of name-calling stems from an arrogant assumption that "we are right, and anyone who disagrees with us is a jerk who deserves whatever names he gets called."

If you do not believe in equality before the law for certain segments of society, that is bigotry.

Your argument is no different from somebody saying "disagreeing that blacks should be allowed to vote doesn't make you a bigot." Certain opinions are bigoted. It's not because they disagree with me-- there are plenty of people who disagree with me on certain issues that are not bigots.


If we're so quick to say that there is no "good" reason to object to legalized same-sex marriage, then let me ask you this: Is there any good reason to SUPPORT it? I'm not asking someone to simply repeat the "It's good because everybody should be equal" argument. That's a tautology. We are we so darned convinced that WE'RE in the right?

Um, equality isn't a good reason for you?
"Give me ONE good reason why black people should be allowed to vote, but don't use equality to support your argument!"

Oh come on! No one is suggesting that homosexuals be segregated from society!

No, just that they shouldn't have the same civil rights that everybody else has.

Maine and their Gay Hippie Commune, :p

I think what I'm trying to say is (I'm not too sure, tbh) is that they weren't bigots when they were in the majority. At least, the yweren't percived as bigots. I was just making a comment on how what was mainstream is now bigotry because Religious extremeists and extreme right wing people IN THE WEST are an ever shrinking minority. As it happens, something like 68% or americans support gay marriage.
It's interesting how quickly something becomes acceptable and unacceptable, isn't it? Liberals 50 years ago are equivlent to extremeists now

they were still bigots. Same as people who owned slaves and supported discrimination were bigots. They may not have been called bigots, but they still were. To call them that to their face may sting, but not nearly as much as them removing my right to marry whomever I choose.


And as it stands, the most recent CBS poll I can find, which asked "Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR, There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship", results were as follows:
Legal marriage: 30%
Civil union: 28%
No recognition: 36%
Unsure: 6%

The Constitution also protects freedom of religion. That hasn't stopped society from banning manger scenes and school-prayer or arguing that the Pledge of Allegiance should be banned because of the line "...one nation, under God".

If it's OK for secularists to limit public displays of religiosity on the grounds that not everybody is a Christian, why isn't it OK for society to limit public support of homosexuality on the grounds that not everybody agrees with or supports that lifestyle?

If you want to put a manger scene in your yard, that's fine. However, the moment the city puts one up, it is endorsing Christianity above other religions (and nonreligion).
If you want to pray in a public school, that's fine. However, the moment the school leads you in prayer, it is endorsing a specific religion or group of religions above others.
If you want to say the Pledge of Allegiance (even with the "under God" modification), that's fine. But the moment the school has you say it with "under God," then the state is endorsing monotheism above other theistic and nontheistic beliefs.

However, by granting gays the right to marry, the state is not endorsing homosexuality. It's not saying "hey, you, go get a gay marriage" anymore than legalizing inter-racial marriage told people they had to marry somebody of a different race. It is merely providing for equality under the law.

I don't dismiss anyone who disagrees with me as a bigot. I dismiss anyone who expressed bigotted opinions as a bigot. Arguing that gays should not be allowed the same rights as straights for no rational reason is the dictionary definition of bigotry.

You can call him a bigot. And he can "technically" call you a racist. After all using an ethnic slur such as "bigot" to describe someone else's intolerance is simply one of the amusing hypocrisies of modern language. From a purely scholastic point of view, calling someone a bigot for being intolerant is the same as calling someone a "jew" for being stingy with money.


; Bigot is a latin corruption of the term "Visigoth" which were a Germanic tribe that sacked Rome. Due to the Visigoths very insular nature (i.e unlike the Romans who integrated people they conquered or merged with) the Visigoths were very intolerant of any people marginally different from themselves. They viewed themselves as vastly superior, and the sensibilities of the Romans were often insulted due to the fact that Visigoths refused to congregate with Romans. ;


Of course that is the way language evolves. Same the word "retard," these days tends to imply a personal of normal cognitive function who is merely acting thick or plain dumb. It no longer is a word to neutrally describe mentally handicapped. And since there are no more Visigoths as a distinct ethnic grouping left alive today to raise hell with the anti-defamation league the word stuck in the vocabulary. But long point short, if he wants to split hairs to an extreme, he wouldn't "technically" be wrong in labelling you a racist. But then you open the debate if the actual term has a new meaning now, and one should disregard it's history as a racist ethnic slur. Who knows, maybe 1,000 years from now the word "American" will be synonymous with overweight. i.e "Stop eating so much, you'll get American." Alas, it's sadly the way languages evolve.




PS: Another prominent example is the word "Vandal." The Romans had a certain dislike towards their German northern neighbors. Leading to the Vandals also having a modern reference. Much like Visigoth has the black mark of meaning "intolerance," in todays language. Vandal has the meaning of pointless destruction and property damage.

Labelling a bigot as a bigot is not name-calling.



The Constitution isn't a good reason?

So it's OK to call people who disagree with you "bigots" because - in your opinion - that's an accurate description? Fine. Just don't expect much sympathy from me when they label you a "deviant".

The Constitution - as we have already discussed - makes no specific mention to the right of marriage. As you have pointed out, various court cases have upheld that the right of marriage is IMPLIED in other Constitutional amendments. But the problem with interpreting the Constitution is that you can twist it one way or another to support almost any agenda. True, the recent trend is for courts to "discover" a "right" to same-sex marriage in the Constitution, but before that many states had various laws limiting homosexual behavior, in some cases criminalizing it. Those laws were (until recently) upheld by the same courts that you now turn to for your argument.

My point here is this: Public opinion changes. Things that used to be unacceptable are becoming more acceptable. But there is no "right" or "wrong" side here. There are two different opinions, each backed up by their own beliefs. When one side claims moral superiority by demeaning the other side (ex: racists, bigots, homophobes, deviants, perverts, etc.) then debate stops and name-calling and rock-throwing begin.

The Constitution also protects freedom of religion. That hasn't stopped society from banning manger scenes and school-prayer or arguing that the Pledge of Allegiance should be banned because of the line "...one nation, under God".Freedom of religion, in that the US government will not support nor denigrate any religion more than any other. Manger scenes are banned from public grounds because they are PUBLIC. They demonstrate state approval of a specific religion. School prayer does the same, as does "one nation under God"

If it's OK for secularists to limit public displays of religiosity on the grounds that not everybody is a Christian, why isn't it OK for society to limit public support of homosexuality on the grounds that not everybody agrees with or supports that lifestyle?

Because marriage is a right. As is freedom of religion without interference of the state (note: interference is both negative and positive. The state can do neither).

You essentially just asked "why is it okay for the state to say 'no, you can't have your manger scene on publicly owned property', but not okay for the state to say 'no, you can't privately declare you are married to your husband". One is a public statement, one is private. No one stops you from worshipping in your own chosen way, so long as it does not involve state sanctioned events.

The Constitution also protects freedom of religion. That hasn't stopped society from banning manger scenes and school-prayer or arguing that the Pledge of Allegiance should be banned because of the line "...one nation, under God".

Please show me any school, anywhere, where prayer is banned. I rather doubt you can. What has been banned is school-led prayer, which constitutes an endorsement of one particular religion. The 1st Amendment protects everyone's right to worship - or not - as they see fit, without government interference in either direction. That means the government can neither act against a particular religion nor for it.

If it's OK for secularists to limit public displays of religiosity on the grounds that not everybody is a Christian, why isn't it OK for society to limit public support of homosexuality on the grounds that not everybody agrees with or supports that lifestyle?

"Public displays of religiosity" are entirely legal. I have never heard anyone, ever, argue that people should not be able to stand on streetcorners saying "yay Jesus," or "yay Yahweh" or "yay Allah" or "yay Vishnu" or "yay Buddha" as much as their little hearts desire. The GOVERNMENT is not allowed to do such things, because the 1st Amendment explicitly forbids it. So, no, you can't put up a giant cross in a taxpayer-funded park, but you use your own money to buy as many crosses as you like and cover your house with them, and the government has no right to interfere. As soon as two chicks getting married is an act of Congress and involves your tax dollars, you'll have the beginnings of a point - not much of one, still, seeing as the 1st Amendment says nothing about government non-interference in romantic relationships, but at least you'll be less utterly wrong. In the meantime, this is nonsense.

You really don't understand anything in the constitution, do you?

Wow...that really put me in my place. Dyakovo disagrees with me, I MUST be wrong!

OK...I have to get on the road soon to avoid rush-hour traffic, so I'm going to have to wrap up my contributions to this debate:

I consider myself to be both a Christian and a Conservative (although not a Conservative Christian...there's a difference), and I actually SUPPORT legalized same-sex marriage.
Good for you.
But I also recognize that there are others who are opposed to it. They have their own reasons, and they have a right to express those opinions via the democratic process.
Of course. But whatever their reasons they don't get to democratically restrict the rights of people for no other reason than because those people fuck members of their own sex.
My objection is to those of you who instantly label them as "religious fundies", "bigots", etc. I think this sort of name-calling stems from an arrogant assumption that "we are right, and anyone who disagrees with us is a jerk who deserves whatever names he gets called."
You think wrong. Calling such people bigots is simply calling a spade a spade. They are voicing bigoted opinions and attempting to have them enshrined in law. It's no more objectionable to call them bigots than to call someone a Man Utd. supporter if you see him running through the streets in a Utd. jersey yelling about how Utd. are the dogs bollocks.

If we're so quick to say that there is no "good" reason to object to legalized same-sex marriage, then let me ask you this: Is there any good reason to SUPPORT it?
Aside from the obvious, which you seem to think isn't sufficent.
I'm not asking someone to simply repeat the "It's good because everybody should be equal" argument.
Well how about the fact that a significant portion of the population is gay and wants to get married and harms nobody by doing so. And no, causing bigots to get their knickers in a twist is not harm.

If you want to put a manger scene in your yard, that's fine. However, the moment the city puts one up, it is endorsing Christianity above other religions (and nonreligion).
If you want to pray in a public school, that's fine. However, the moment the school leads you in prayer, it is endorsing a specific religion or group of religions above others.
If you want to say the Pledge of Allegiance (even with the "under God" modification), that's fine. But the moment the school has you say it with "under God," then the state is endorsing monotheism above other theistic and nontheistic beliefs.

However, by granting gays the right to marry, the state is not endorsing homosexuality. It's not saying "hey, you, go get a gay marriage" anymore than legalizing inter-racial marriage told people they had to marry somebody of a different race. It is merely providing for equality under the law.

If you want to support same-sex marriage, go ahead. However, when society legalizes it that is endorsing that viewpoint over the other.

So it's OK to call people who disagree with you "bigots" because - in your opinion - that's an accurate description? Fine. Just don't expect much sympathy from me when they label you a "deviant".If my actions break cultural norms, they are more than welcome to call me a deviant all they want. Hell, even if my actions don't. Freedom of speech and what not.

The Constitution - as we have already discussed - makes no specific mention to the right of marriage. As you have pointed out, various court cases have upheld that the right of marriage is IMPLIED in other Constitutional amendments. But the problem with interpreting the Constitution is that you can twist it one way or another to support almost any agenda. True, the recent trend is for courts to "discover" a "right" to same-sex marriage in the Constitution, but before that many states had various laws limiting homosexual behavior, in some cases criminalizing it. Those laws were (until recently) upheld by the same courts that you now turn to for your argument.
Those laws were also bigoted. As it stands, there is currently a specific right to marriage as mentioned in Loving v. Virginia. It doesn't have a number, but as SCOTUS decision is constitiutional law, it exists. And, given equal protection, must be granted to all citizens. They haven't "discovered" a new right, only extended it to all citizens.
Those laws have also been overturned.

My point here is this: Public opinion changes. Things that used to be unacceptable are becoming more acceptable. But there is no "right" or "wrong" side here. There are two different opinions, each backed up by their own beliefs. When one side claims moral superiority by demeaning the other side (ex: racists, bigots, homophobes, deviants, perverts, etc.) then debate stops and name-calling and rock-throwing begin.
When they can present a single rational, logical argument as to why my boyfriend and I should not be allowed to marry, then the debate can begin. Untill then, there is no debate.

That was all I was trying to say - a comment of the fast moving moral zeitgeist. and that's 58% to 36% in favour, looks quite good to me

The Constitution also protects freedom of religion. That hasn't stopped society from banning manger scenes and school-prayer or arguing that the Pledge of Allegiance should be banned because of the line "...one nation, under God".
Cute, but wrong. Society has done no such thing. The very same line that protects the freedom of religion prohibits government endorsement of religion. School-led prayers and publicly funded religious displays are just that.

If it's OK for secularists to limit public displays of religiosity on the grounds that not everybody is a Christian, why isn't it OK for society to limit public support of homosexuality on the grounds that not everybody agrees with or supports that lifestyle?

Neither of those things are ok.

Wow, this thread is moving FAST

Good for you.

Of course. But whatever their reasons they don't get to democratically restrict the rights of people for no other reason than because those people fuck members of their own sex.

You think wrong. Calling such people bigots is simply calling a spade a spade. They are voicing bigoted opinions and attempting to have them enshrined in law. It's no more objectionable to call them bigots than to call someone a Man Utd. supporter if you see him running through the streets in a Utd. jersey yelling about how Utd. are the dogs bollocks.


Aside from the obvious, which you seem to think isn't sufficent.

Well how about the fact that a significant portion of the population is gay and wants to get married and harms nobody by doing so. And no, causing bigots to get their knickers in a twist is not harm.

The anti-same-sex-marriage people that I have talked to believe that same-sex marriage DOES harm society, by corrupting its morals and standards.

NAMBLA members would love for it to be legal for old men to marry young boys. Obviously, the rest of society disagrees, and so this practice is made illegal.

If you want to support same-sex marriage, go ahead. However, when society legalizes it that is endorsing that viewpoint over the other.

No, it's not. It is entirely legal for me to run around my yard wearing a clown wig and yelling, "BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA." That does not constitute an endorsement on the part of the government for wearing clown wigs and yelling "BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA."

If you want to support same-sex marriage, go ahead. However, when society legalizes it that is endorsing that viewpoint over the other.

Not at all. It doesn't tell people who are against same-sex marriage that they have to get married to somebody of the same sex, just that they can't deny people their legal rights.

By your argument, if enough people vote to reinstate segregation, we should do it.

If you want to support same-sex marriage, go ahead. However, when society legalizes it that is endorsing that viewpoint over the other.

It certainly is. Like how we endorse the viewpoint that it isn't ok to go about killing ugly people, over the viewpoint that only beautiful people have the right to live.



Not that I'm aware of anyone thinking such things, but whatever, it'll do as an example.

That was all I was trying to say - a comment of the fast moving moral zeitgeist. and that's 58% to 36% in favour, looks quite good to me

Sorry if I come off as attacking you...I'm not. Sarky just got his feathers ruffled a bit at work today.

I'm liking how society is moving...particularly in states that have legalized marriage. Society hasn't collapsed, the devil hasn't taken over, there isn't widespread death, destruction, and strife...the world has continued with little to no change, and people are noticing this and saying "wait...what were we so damn scared of?"

So it's OK to call people who disagree with you "bigots" because - in your opinion - that's an accurate description?


No - I don't call anyone a bigot for disagreeing with me.

But, it IS okay to label someone a bigot for being a bigot. That's not a question of like or dislike, agree or disagree - that's a question of the definition of the word.


Fine. Just don't expect much sympathy from me when they label you a "deviant".


Why would they label me a deviant?


The Constitution - as we have already discussed - makes no specific mention to the right of marriage.


Half right. It makes specific mention of upholding ALL such contractual laws and rights equally.


As you have pointed out, various court cases have upheld that the right of marriage is IMPLIED in other Constitutional amendments.


I didn't point that out. I haven't mentioned court cases.

It's not IMPLIED in amendments - it is a legal contract, and thus is SPECIFICALLY protected under the 14th amendment.


But there is no "right" or "wrong" side here.


I'm afraid there really are right and wrong sides, here - and those who oppose same-sex marriage are on the 'wrong' side.


When one side claims moral superiority by demeaning the other side (ex: racists, bigots, homophobes, deviants, perverts, etc.) then debate stops and name-calling and rock-throwing begin.

Calling someone who is a racist, a racist isn't an attempt to demean them - any more than calling a cucumber a cucumber is demeaning it.

If you don't want to be labelled as a bigot, don't conform to the definition.

The anti-same-sex-marriage people that I have talked to believe that same-sex marriage DOES harm society, by corrupting its morals and standards.

NAMBLA members would love for it to be legal for old men to marry young boys. Obviously, the rest of society disagrees, and so this practice is made illegal.

No, it is illegal to have the relationships NAMBLA would seek, because children are incapable of consent.

There is no parallel with the mainstream same-sex marriage issue, because it is not being advocated that marriage be between non-consenting adults.

The anti-same-sex-marriage people that I have talked to believe that same-sex marriage DOES harm society, by corrupting its morals and standards. Clearly. Because if you close your eyes tight enough, and can't see that homosexuality still exists regardless of the gay marriage issue, then it must not.

If any harm is to be done, it has already been done. Homosexuality is nothing new.

NAMBLA members would love for it to be legal for old men to marry young boys. Obviously, the rest of society disagrees, and so this practice is made illegal.

NAMBLA, aside from having one of the most fun to say acronyms ever, advocates sexual relationships with people who are not of an age to be able to mke a logical, rational decision, and therefore, cannot consent. My boyfriend can consent to me perfectly well.

The anti-same-sex-marriage people that I have talked to believe that same-sex marriage DOES harm society, by corrupting its morals and standards.

They believe that, but it is not the business of the government to force people to act morally. It is, however, the business of the government to ensure that everybody's rights are protected.


NAMBLA members would love for it to be legal for old men to marry young boys. Obviously, the rest of society disagrees, and so this practice is made illegal.

Sexual relationships with children are illegal because children cannot consent. We have a word for sex without consent...

Wow...that really put me in my place. Dyakovo disagrees with me, I MUST be wrong!

Glad you realize it now.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As Poli has already pointed out, manger scenes on government property and school-led prayer are a no-no because it indicates that the government is promoting christianity over other religions, something which it is not allowed to do.
Around christmas time I see plenty of manger scenes, just not on government property. Again, because the First Amendment protects peoples right to erect them if they want, while at the same time preventing them from being erected on government property.

If you want to support same-sex marriage, go ahead. However, when society legalizes it that is endorsing that viewpoint over the other.

And it should, just as Integration should be endorsed over segregation...

Segregating segments of the populace is wrong, regardless of what group supports it...

The anti-same-sex-marriage people that I have talked to believe that same-sex marriage DOES harm society, by corrupting its morals and standards.
I'm sure they do. But their morals and standards are not the basis for the law in our society.

NAMBLA members would love for it to be legal for old men to marry young boys. Obviously, the rest of society disagrees, and so this practice is made illegal.

Not because we think it is immoral for old men to marry young boys(though most of us do), nor because we think that would harm society. It is illegal because it harms those young boys. Duh.

If you want to support same-sex marriage, go ahead. However, when society legalizes it that is endorsing that viewpoint over the other.

Oh noes, not everyone should have the same rights!!!! :rolleyes:

Oh noes, not everyone should have the same rights!!!! :rolleyes:

Stop endorsing a viewpoint of equality over one of inequality!

No, it's not. It is entirely legal for me to run around my yard wearing a clown wig and yelling, "BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA." That does not constitute an endorsement on the part of the government for wearing clown wigs and yelling "BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA."

*endorses Poli's right to wear clown wigs and yell "BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA."*

Oh noes, not everyone should have the same rights!!!! :rolleyes:

I think it should be illegal for black people to go to the police after being raped.


STOP CALLING ME A BIGOT IT'S JUST MY OPINION THAT THOSE N*GGERS DESERVE TO BE RAPED!!!!

*endorses Poli's right to wear clown wigs and yell "BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA."*
*forms religion around said actions*
*has public displays of said actions*
*...?*
*profit!*

*has public displays of said actions*


So, basically, you're just saying that LG continues to exist? :p

The anti-same-sex-marriage people that I have talked to believe that same-sex marriage DOES harm society, by corrupting its morals and standards.

And how would it do so? Where's the proof that gays harm society?

Besides, just because they believe that doesnt mean its valid, you know they used to believe letting blacks and whites into the same schools would harm society, and corrupt its morals and standards...

same for them getting married....

guess what, those bigoted viewpoints were wrong...

NAMBLA members would love for it to be legal for old men to marry young boys. Obviously, the rest of society disagrees, and so this practice is made illegal.
Thats because there's this thing called the "Age of Consent"...

Im not seeing how two Consenting Adults wanting to get married are disobeying this law...

so, whats your point?

The anti-same-sex-marriage people that I have talked to believe that same-sex marriage DOES harm society, by corrupting its morals and standards.
And I should care because...

NAMBLA members would love for it to be legal for old men to marry young boys. Obviously, the rest of society disagrees, and so this practice is made illegal.
consensual sex ≠ non-consensual sex

Why would they label me a deviant?

Do you really need to ask? ;)

Originally Posted by Mustoria
If you want to support same-sex marriage, go ahead. However, when society legalizes it that is endorsing that viewpoint over the other.

But DENEYING the right to same sex marriage is saying that religion trumps law, and a religion that not everyone follows, too

So, basically, you're just saying that LG continues to exist? :p

mas o menos. *nods*

consensual sex ≠ non-consensual sex

Allow me to explain.

Sex with kids == Squick
Gay sex == Squick
Therefore, Sex with kids == Gay sex

See, its perfectly logical bigotry.


>.>
<.<

Allow me to explain.

Sex with kids == Squick
Gay sex == Squick
Therefore, Sex with kids == Gay sex

See, its perfectly logical bigotry.


>.>
<.<

lol

So, basically, you're just saying that LG continues to exist? :p

mas o menos. *nods*

Yay! :D

Do you really need to ask? ;)

Well, I can think of several reasons, but I'm pretty sure Mustoria don't know me that well....

:D

Well, I must be off. Gotta beat that traffic. Before I go...

My primary complaint with this forum is the use of loaded terms such as "bigot" to describe anybody who disagrees with same-sex marriage.

No one has offered any proof as to why legalizing same-sex marriage is the right thing to do. They simply keep repeating "because everybody should have equal rights".

My feeling is that supporting same-sex marriage is simply the popular public opinion right now. That's fine. But keep in mind that - during the middle ages - supporting the Catholic church was the popular thing to do. Anyone who disagreed with them was labeled a "heretic" and persecuted. Here, we label anyone who disagrees with us a "homophobe" and we sue them.

Like it or not, both sides have to live with each other. We can agree to disagree, and to vote accordingly. If same-sex marriage becomes legalized (as a result of the democratic process, not judicial activism) then the anti-same-sex-marriage people will have to learn to live with it. But the reverse is also true. If the vote comes in and the majority OPPOSES legalized same-sex marriage, then WE will simply have to learn to live with THAT (until the next election cycle anyway; then we can try again).

It's fine to try to convince the other side to see your point. But I think that when you start tossing out the negative terms such as "bigot" you immediately lose any chance of a productive dialogue or debate.

And finally, if you're unsuccessful in trying to change the other side's mind, it is wrong to use the courts to force it down their throats. You're free to keep trying to convince them, of course, but to bypass the democratic process to enforce your agenda sets a dangerous precedent.

True, the courts ended segregation in this country, which I agree was a good idea :). But in the end that decision was supported by the majority, given that we DIDN'T recall all of our Congressmen and then elect a new legislature full of white-supremacists and immediately begin to try and bring segregation back. So I believe that ending segregation was a good thing because it truly represented the will of the people, who had been convinced by Martin Luther King's words.

Same-sex marriage advocates have not yet managed to convince the majority to support them. Granted, that may be changing, and perhaps that will be the majority viewpoint in the near future. But until then it seems rather arrogant of us to start name-calling or dismissing their views.

Are we really so certain of our own moral infallibility that we're willing to believe that everybody who disagrees with us is a horrible, gay-hating idiot? There's absolutely no chance that they're people - just like us - who have their own opinions - equally valid - which happen to disagree with ours?

If we're so obviously right, then why does anybody disagree with us? They can't ALL be brainwashed can they?

Which brings me back to the whole reason that I posted in this forum to begin with: I resented the other side being referred to as "religious fundies". It's insulting to religious people (like myself), and it dismisses a sizeable portion of our population as being brainwashed idiots.

Lastly, my faith DOES repeatedly condemn homosexual behavior as a sin (please note that the Bible specifically condemns gay SEX as sinful, not simply BEING gay. Theoretically, if you were a celibate gay person you'd be just fine with the church). Now, I don't know why it's a sin. It makes no sense to me. I don't see how it hurts anybody. But then again we're not supposed to just pick and choose which rules we want to follow either. Some people say that Christianity was just made up by a bunch of grumpy old men who wanted to control everybody, and that the rules are meaningless. Maybe that's true. Others say that the rules came directly from God Himself, and that it's not our place to question His will. And of course there are all kinds of theories somewhere in-between.

And so I have wrestled with this issue for years. I'm trying to do what I think is morally right, but I'm not 100% sure what that is. But when someone else dismisses my faith out of hand, or calls me a bigot, my natural response is "Oh yeah? Says who?"

You see where that road leads.

Chances are religion is a load of crap, and god buggered off to the pub to get wasted after creating the universe and neither notices nor cares about our prayers and sins, whatever those are. Aren't we a little arrogant to say that of all the billions upon trillions of planets out there, of the myriads of types of life there probably is, WE are special, WE were creted by god, WE are the ones he listens to when we mutter in the night?

Well, I must be off. Gotta beat that traffic. Before I go...

My primary complaint with this forum is the use of loaded terms such as "bigot" to describe anybody who disagrees with same-sex marriage.

No one has offered any proof as to why legalizing same-sex marriage is the right thing to do. They simply keep repeating "because everybody should have equal rights".

My feeling is that supporting same-sex marriage is simply the popular public opinion right now. That's fine. But keep in mind that - during the middle ages - supporting the Catholic church was the popular thing to do. Anyone who disagreed with them was labeled a "heretic" and persecuted. Here, we label anyone who disagrees with us a "homophobe" and we sue them.

Like it or not, both sides have to live with each other. We can agree to disagree, and to vote accordingly. If same-sex marriage becomes legalized (as a result of the democratic process, not judicial activism) then the anti-same-sex-marriage people will have to learn to live with it. But the reverse is also true. If the vote comes in and the majority OPPOSES legalized same-sex marriage, then WE will simply have to learn to live with THAT (until the next election cycle anyway; then we can try again).

It's fine to try to convince the other side to see your point. But I think that when you start tossing out the negative terms such as "bigot" you immediately lose any chance of a productive dialogue or debate.

And finally, if you're unsuccessful in trying to change the other side's mind, it is wrong to use the courts to force it down their throats. You're free to keep trying to convince them, of course, but to bypass the democratic process to enforce your agenda sets a dangerous precedent.

True, the courts ended segregation in this country, which I agree was a good idea :). But in the end that decision was supported by the majority, given that we DIDN'T recall all of our Congressmen and then elect a new legislature full of white-supremacists and immediately begin to try and bring segregation back. So I believe that ending segregation was a good thing because it truly represented the will of the people, who had been convinced by Martin Luther King's words.

Same-sex marriage advocates have not yet managed to convince the majority to support them. Granted, that may be changing, and perhaps that will be the majority viewpoint in the near future. But until then it seems rather arrogant of us to start name-calling or dismissing their views.

Are we really so certain of our own moral infallibility that we're willing to believe that everybody who disagrees with us is a horrible, gay-hating idiot? There's absolutely no chance that they're people - just like us - who have their own opinions - equally valid - which happen to disagree with ours?

If we're so obviously right, then why does anybody disagree with us? They can't ALL be brainwashed can they?

Which brings me back to the whole reason that I posted in this forum to begin with: I resented the other side being referred to as "religious fundies". It's insulting to religious people (like myself), and it dismisses a sizeable portion of our population as being brainwashed idiots.

Lastly, my faith DOES repeatedly condemn homosexual behavior as a sin (please note that the Bible specifically condemns gay SEX as sinful, not simply BEING gay. Theoretically, if you were a celibate gay person you'd be just fine with the church). Now, I don't know why it's a sin. It makes no sense to me. I don't see how it hurts anybody. But then again we're not supposed to just pick and choose which rules we want to follow either. Some people say that Christianity was just made up by a bunch of grumpy old men who wanted to control everybody, and that the rules are meaningless. Maybe that's true. Others say that the rules came directly from God Himself, and that it's not our place to question His will. And of course there are all kinds of theories somewhere in-between.

And so I have wrestled with this issue for years. I'm trying to do what I think is morally right, but I'm not 100% sure what that is. But when someone else dismisses my faith out of hand, or calls me a bigot, my natural response is "Oh yeah? Says who?"

You see where that road leads.

If it will make you feel better, I will flex my vast Goofballian authority to guarantee that anybody that doesn't believe in homosexuality does not have to practice it(barring rape of course) and in addition, I will grant heterosexuals who are against marrying a person of the same gender the right to marry someone of the opposite gender.

People who don't get to enforce their opinions are not the injured party because their belief that they have the right to decide other people's rights isn't being respected. The injured party here are the people without equal rights. No amount of misdirection will change that.

Like it or not, both sides have to live with each other. We can agree to disagree, and to vote accordingly. If same-sex marriage becomes legalized (as a result of the democratic process, not judicial activism) then the anti-same-sex-marriage people will have to learn to live with it. But the reverse is also true. If the vote comes in and the majority OPPOSES legalized same-sex marriage, then WE will simply have to learn to live with THAT (until the next election cycle anyway; then we can try again).



Imll have to stop you there, because this is simply not true, if Anybody knows this is not true, its someone from Mississippi...

The place where, for decades, the majority held down segments of the population, and in a Majority Vote, time and again, the segments stayed held down, they elected politicians, purely because they wanted to hold these people down, because it was the majority viewpoint that allowing these people equal rights would "corrupt the moral values" or whatever...

The fact is, that Segregation, regardless of the form, or the support, is wrong...

Fortunately, I believe in the Constitution, and just like those things were struck down in my State, eventually, Gay Rights will be recognized...

My primary complaint with this forum is the use of loaded terms such as "bigot" to describe anybody who disagrees with same-sex marriage.


Missing the point, or just dishonest?

People are being referred to as 'bigots' when they are 'bigots' - it's nothing to do with 'agreeing' or 'disagreeing'.


No one has offered any proof as to why legalizing same-sex marriage is the right thing to do. They simply keep repeating "because everybody should have equal rights".


This also is not true - I've shown you (for example) that it's not about 'everyone should have equal rights', it's about the fact that the 14th amendment specifically guarantees that such institutions MUST be protected by the government for ALL people, because of their legal contractual nature.


And finally, if you're unsuccessful in trying to change the other side's mind, it is wrong to use the courts to force it down their throats.


No, it isn't.

If you can't get justice through convincing your opponents, you absolutely should use the courts.


If we're so obviously right, then why does anybody disagree with us? They can't ALL be brainwashed can they?


Sure.


please note that the Bible specifically condemns gay SEX as sinful, not simply BEING gay.


But it never once condemns gay marriage.


And so I have wrestled with this issue for years. I'm trying to do what I think is morally right, but I'm not 100% sure what that is. But when someone else dismisses my faith out of hand, or calls me a bigot, my natural response is "Oh yeah? Says who?"


I take your 'being offended' and I weigh it against literally millions of Americans being denied equal rights under the Constitution, and I can't bring myself to give a fuck.

Good gracious, I never realized so much arguing could come from defining a word.

Good gracious, I never realized so much arguing could come from defining a word.

This is NSG, we can argue about anything, most especially the definition of words... :D

This is NSG, we can argue about anything, most especially the definition of words... :D

No we cant!

No we cant!

Cant? Or Can't?

What exactly do you mean by that?

Define "Mass Pedantism" please?

Lol at Gays.

They can't have children unless they adopt or have a sperm donor. What the fuck is the point of that? Oh and don't get me started on Transgenders...they are CREEPY as hell.

Define "Mass Pedantism" please?

That's too easy...

NSG

Define "Mass Pedantism" please?

See: NSG.

Lol at Gays.

They can't have children unless they adopt or have a sperm donor. What the fuck is the point of that? Oh and don't get me started on Transgenders...they are CREEPY as hell.

Guess what your kids are gonna be? :D

*completes voodoo curse*

Lol at Gays.

They can't have children unless they adopt or have a sperm donor. What the fuck is the point of that? Oh and don't get me started on Transgenders...they are CREEPY as hell.

Because clearly everyone wants to have kids. And clearly, of those, every single person wants kids that are a genetic combination of them and their chosen partner.

Wonder how you feel about those who are infertile...

Well, I must be off. Gotta beat that traffic. Before I go...

My primary complaint with this forum is the use of loaded terms such as "bigot" to describe anybody who disagrees with same-sex marriage.
If we ever encountered people putting forth reasons to ban same sex marriage that weren't bigoted we might not use the term.

No one has offered any proof as to why legalizing same-sex marriage is the right thing to do. They simply keep repeating "because everybody should have equal rights".
It is the right thing to do precisely because one of the fundamental principles of our society is that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. Marriage is a matter of law, thus we cannot deny people the right to it based on the sexual orientation.

My feeling is that supporting same-sex marriage is simply the popular public opinion right now. That's fine. But keep in mind that - during the middle ages - supporting the Catholic church was the popular thing to do. Anyone who disagreed with them was labeled a "heretic" and persecuted. Here, we label anyone who disagrees with us a "homophobe" and we sue them.
Steaming piles of bullshit. When has anyone ever been sued for opposing gay marriage?

Oh, and your attempt to associate the pro-gay rights movement with the oppression of dissent from the Catholic church is just fucking pointless. Seriously, what are you even trying to achieve here? So what if some people are just jumping on the bandwagon, what does that have to do with anything?


Like it or not, both sides have to live with each other. We can agree to disagree, and to vote accordingly. If same-sex marriage becomes legalized (as a result of the democratic process, not judicial activism)
Would you rather have inactive judges that don't do their jobs?
then the anti-same-sex-marriage people will have to learn to live with it. But the reverse is also true. If the vote comes in and the majority OPPOSES legalized same-sex marriage, then WE will simply have to learn to live with THAT (until the next election cycle anyway; then we can try again).
Except we don't have to live with it really. That suggest we just sit there and take it. If gays aren't granted rights now then people can and will campaign until they are. Kind of like they did when black people and women were fighting for their rights.

It's fine to try to convince the other side to see your point. But I think that when you start tossing out the negative terms such as "bigot" you immediately lose any chance of a productive dialogue or debate.
No, the hope of productive dialogue or debate was gone when someone started saying something bigoted, which obviously comes before someone calling them a bigot.

And finally, if you're unsuccessful in trying to change the other side's mind, it is wrong to use the courts to force it down their throats. You're free to keep trying to convince them, of course, but to bypass the democratic process to enforce your agenda sets a dangerous precedent.
It isn't wrong at all to use the court to have your legal rights legally recognised. That isn't equivalent to forcing your opinion down peoples' throats.

True, the courts ended segregation in this country, which I agree was a good idea :). But in the end that decision was supported by the majority, given that we DIDN'T recall all of our Congressmen and then elect a new legislature full of white-supremacists and immediately begin to try and bring segregation back. So I believe that ending segregation was a good thing because it truly represented the will of the people, who had been convinced by Martin Luther King's words.
The courts have the power to do these things specifically because some things aren't and shouldn't be subject to the whims of the majority. Like which groups of law abiding people are granted rights.

Same-sex marriage advocates have not yet managed to convince the majority to support them. Granted, that may be changing, and perhaps that will be the majority viewpoint in the near future. But until then it seems rather arrogant of us to start name-calling or dismissing their views.
Not at all. I like to think I wouldn't have waited until the majority opposed segregation to tell people who support it that they're a bunch of racists. Much like Martin Luther King didn't, by the way.

Are we really so certain of our own moral infallibility that we're willing to believe that everybody who disagrees with us is a horrible, gay-hating idiot?
The problem is that there are quite a few people just like that, and people are sometimes quick to make generalisations. People on both sides.
There's absolutely no chance that they're people - just like us - who have their own opinions - equally valid - which happen to disagree with ours?
Not all opinions are equally valid. Their validity is determined by their basis and the reasoning used to form them.The opinion that the sky is blue because of magical fairies painting it that colour is not valid.

If we're so obviously right, then why does anybody disagree with us? They can't ALL be brainwashed can they?
Actually they can, in a sense. One way or another a whole hell of a lot of people have got it into their heads that homosexuality is morally wrong. Generally they use religion to justify this, or sometimes argue that it just isn't natural(which is demonstrably false). If you want to think of that as brainwashing.

Which brings me back to the whole reason that I posted in this forum to begin with: I resented the other side being referred to as "religious fundies". It's insulting to religious people (like myself), and it dismisses a sizeable portion of our population as being brainwashed idiots.
If you had said this in the first place instead of playing devil's advocate for the anti-gay rights crowd this thread would be a lot shorter.

Lastly, my faith DOES repeatedly condemn homosexual behavior as a sin (please note that the Bible specifically condemns gay SEX as sinful, not simply BEING gay. Theoretically, if you were a celibate gay person you'd be just fine with the church). Now, I don't know why it's a sin. It makes no sense to me. I don't see how it hurts anybody. But then again we're not supposed to just pick and choose which rules we want to follow either.
Sounds pretty silly to me. You have no problem with gays, but a book you've read does. And you like most(I assume) of what this book says. So you're gonna go along with all of it, even though you don't really agree with it. Whatever, I don't really care what you consider a sin anyway.
Some people say that Christianity was just made up by a bunch of grumpy old men who wanted to control everybody, and that the rules are meaningless. Maybe that's true. Others say that the rules came directly from God Himself, and that it's not our place to question His will. And of course there are all kinds of theories somewhere in-between.
Its your faith. Figure it out yourself without just relying on an old book.

Cant? Or Can't?

What exactly do you mean by that?

It was a misspelling of Kant. No better way to resolve a disagreement:

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/GetFuzzyKantReason.jpg

:)

Guess what your kids are gonna be? :D

*completes voodoo curse*

Gay?

Lol at Gays.
Lol at ignorant bigots
They can't have children unless they adopt or have a sperm donor.
wrong, but even if it was true, so what?
What the fuck is the point of that?
What is the point of what? Not having children? Not being able to have children? Sperm Donors? Adopting?
Oh and don't get me started on Transgenders...they are CREEPY as hell.
Noted, you find transgenders to be creepy, not sure what that has to do with the discussion though.

Gay?

And Republican. Double whammy. :D

Lol at Gays.

They can't have children unless they adopt or have a sperm donor. What the fuck is the point of that? Oh and don't get me started on Transgenders...they are CREEPY as hell.

Lots of people that are 'straight' can't have children unless they adopt of have a sperm donor.

Fortunately, children aren't necessary for a marriage to be considered legitimate.

Oh, and don't get me started on people that say transgenders are creepy, those people are CREEPY as hell.

Define "Mass Pedantism" please?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mass

Im going to use this Definition:

A large quantity; a sum

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pedantry

and this Definition:

an overly ambitious display of learning.

to come up with this: "A large, overly ambitious display of learning"

*throws Wikipedia servers at Skallvia* Shoooo!
As it happens, I want kids :(

to come up with this: "A large, overly ambitious display of learning"
Mine was better


*throws Wikipedia servers at Skallvia* Shoooo!
As it happens, I want kids :(
*offers up the neighbors kids*

And Republican. Double whammy. :D

I never knew you were such a vengeful deity...

*throws Wikipedia servers at Skallvia* Shoooo!
As it happens, I want kids :(

OW!!! :mad:...IM SORRY IM SORRY! :p

Mine was better



*offers up the neighbors kids*

Mmmm....Tasty Neighbor kids, lol...

I never knew you were such a vengeful deity...

Sometimes I am, sometimes I'm not. Such is my nature. :)

Sometimes I am, sometimes I'm not. Such is my nature. :)

And by his nature we eat Tacos, *nods* :p

Sometimes I am, sometimes I'm not. Such is my nature. :)

*resumes construction of moat*

Damnation! I had a shitty day at work, didn't look at NSG all day, and I missed the party!! Stupid job. I wanted to stomp the homophobe and his worthless, shallow talking points. :mad:

EDIT: Oh, and, uh, yeah -- yay, Maine. :)

*offers up the neighbors kids*
Wow, I'm touched. But I'm 14. And - wait, is that a scorch mark? Did you try and make a burnt offering of your neighbours?
again?

Damnation! I had a shitty day at work, didn't look at NSG all day, and I missed the party!! Stupid job. I wanted to stomp the homophobe and his worthless, shallow talking points. :mad:

EDIT: Oh, and, uh, yeah -- yay, Maine. :)

*blows kisses*

Thanks. You made my day.

Damnation! I had a shitty day at work, didn't look at NSG all day, and I missed the party!! Stupid job. I wanted to stomp the homophobe and his worthless, shallow talking points. :mad:

EDIT: Oh, and, uh, yeah -- yay, Maine. :)

I wanted to avoid it with a hippie joke......But I got sucked in anyway...

Its like those Damned Bug Zappers, just cant stay way, :p

Wow, I'm touched. But I'm 14.
So, they're younger than you...
And - wait, is that a scorch mark? Did you try and make a burnt offering of your neighbours?
*hides torch*
again?
shhhhh

1.3 million people, for a start.

Shame on you (http://www.maine.gov/portal/facts_history/facts.html) for your generalization. :p

So, a few more than San Jose.

So, they're younger than you...

A 14 year old with repsonsiblity? The world will end

*resumes construction of moat*

Why do they always build moats? :(

So, a few more than San Jose.

Who lost. Just sayin' :p

A 14 year old with repsonsiblity? The world will end

I had responsibility over lots of kids at 18 and 19, how much worse can it be? :p

Why do they always build moats? :(

Because they have inside information that mud distracts goofballs.

I had responsibility over lots of kids at 18 and 19, how much worse can it be?

You have NO idea :D I mangage to muck up everything I touch *pokes Skallvia, Sarkhaan, Zac Efron* Teh jinx! TEH JINX!

Why do they always build moats? :(

Needst thou to rally up the mobs, my liege?

http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-smiley_happymob.gif

the Goofball Inquisition could make short work of those moats, if you desire.......

Because they have inside information that mud distracts goofballs.

When I find out who leaked that information, I'm tossing him right into the mud. *nod*

Needst thou to rally up the mobs, my liege?

http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-smiley_happymob.gif

the Goofball Inquisition could make short work of those moats, if you desire.......

That's okay. Moats can also keep em from getting away. *nod*

You have NO idea :D I mangage to muck up everything I touch *pokes Skallvia, Sarkhaan, Zac Efron* Teh jinx! TEH JINX!
Oh, like I need a jinx to mess things up.
When I find out who leaked that information, I'm tossing him right into the mud. *nod*
*points at Straughn* :p
That's okay. Moats can also keep em from getting away. *nod*

Only because they, too, have an affinity for mud

That's okay. Moats can also keep em from getting away. *nod*

*le sigh*...

Alright boys pack it up! http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-whip.gifWe'll get em next time...

.

Darn it! Got stuck in traffic anyway :op But while I was there, another thought occurred to me :)

The Second Amendment guarantees everyone the right to bear arms. Period. No mention is made of assault weapons or waiting periods, age, criminal record, etc. In theory, anyone - including children and convicted felons - has the right to walk around with a grenade launcher.

Obviously, we don't live in that kind of society. For various reasons we have decided to limit the right to own and carry weapons in many different ways.

On some issues, there is very little debate, because we all generally agree. This is why - as far as I know - children and convicted felons are not allowed to own or carry weapons in any of the 50 states. I have never heard anybody put forth a serious argument to overturn these limitations.

But on other issues, debate rages hot and heavy. What about assault weapons? Just because you can own a gun, does that mean you can carry it too?

There is no obvious "right" or "wrong" answer to these questions. Merely opinions. These debates have been answered in different ways by different courts at different times, with the result that the gun control laws in this country are not universal. In some states I have a right to carry a gun, and in others I do not. We make these rules up as we go, and will continue to do so until eventually we reach a sort of "happy medium" that we can all live with (if not necessarily agree with).

So here we have a fundamental, Constitutionally-protected right. And yet there is a great deal of debate over to what extent it should be observed.

But when one side decides to dismiss the views of the other by calling them names, debate breaks down. Positions polarize. Each side is convinced that they are OBVIOUSLY right, and that the other side's reasons are "no good", that their arguments are "tired", and who cares what THOSE PEOPLE think anyway? Everyone KNOWS that they're all just a bunch of <insert demeaning label here>.

This results in controversial court-cases, obnoxious protests, and long, angry Internet flame-wars :)

See how quickly I was attacked when I simply asked what was wrong with being opposed to gay marriage? How many people posting here even made an attempt to see things from my point of view? Seems to me just a lot of people repeating "I call you a bigot, because you're a bigot. If you don't want to be called a bigot, stop acting like a bigot". Circular logic if I ever saw it.

Seems to me just a lot of people repeating "I call you a bigot, because you're a bigot. If you don't want to be called a bigot, stop acting like a bigot". Circular logic if I ever saw it.

Evidently you have never seen it before.

Darn it! Got stuck in traffic anyway :op But while I was there, another thought occurred to me :)

The Second Amendment guarantees everyone the right to bear arms. Period. No mention is made of assault weapons or waiting periods, age, criminal record, etc. In theory, anyone - including children and convicted felons - has the right to walk around with a grenade launcher.


Please - read the whole second amendment.

Mustoria sweety darling? *stuffs gym socks in Mustorias mouth* MUCH better. Anywhy, I need to go now, it's almost 2 am and I need to get up at 6am. Night all! I had fun, and it's quite nice to know that some of the world still has it's sanity

Why do the intolerant always expect the tolerant to tolerate their intolerance? :confused:

Darn it! Got stuck in traffic anyway :op But while I was there, another thought occurred to me :)

The Second Amendment guarantees everyone the right to bear arms. Period. No mention is made of assault weapons or waiting periods, age, criminal record, etc. In theory, anyone - including children and convicted felons - has the right to walk around with a grenade launcher.

Obviously, we don't live in that kind of society. For various reasons we have decided to limit the right to own and carry weapons in many different ways.

On some issues, there is very little debate, because we all generally agree. This is why - as far as I know - children and convicted felons are not allowed to own or carry weapons in any of the 50 states. I have never heard anybody put forth a serious argument to overturn these limitations.

Well, someone's confusing Marriage and Guns...

First, the 2nd Amendment was written before the invention of Assault Weapons and Grenade Launchers, therefore, asking the Authors of said Amendment to legislate on them, would be alot like asking George Washington to rule if Pirating Music is a constitutionally protected right...


Beyond that, itd be different if we were denying the rights of Gays, Women, Minorities, Religions, etc...to own guns, to date we do not do so...

However, Children havent yet become Adults, and Felons have proven themselves not responsible enough to own a firearm...

It would be entirely different if only White, Male, Heterosexual, Christians were able to own guns, to date, this is not the case....

I also disagree with the "If you deny people equal rights, then you're wrong" argument. We deny people equal rights all the time. For example: 16-year-olds can drive, but they don't have any other "adult" rights. 18-year-olds can vote, smoke, buy pornography, have sex, and enlist in the Army, but they can't drink. You can't get a senior citizen's discount until you're 55. In all these cases privileges have been extended to certain groups of the adult population, while being denied to others. In this case, these privileges are awarded/denied based on age.

Convicted felons forfeit the right to vote, practice law, or own weapons. While one parole, felons may be searched without a warrant. Al Queda sympathizers are barred from employment in sensitive Government jobs. In these cases people are awarded/denied privileges based on behavior.

I could go on and on, but the point is that there are very few universal rights recognized by our legal system. Or any legal system, for that matter. This is simply because people have different opinions on what is "right" and what is "wrong". In these cases we usually let the majority decide on a case-by-case basis (or a jury of your peers, which is supposed to represent society as a whole).

We all agree that allowing 40-year-old men to have sex with children is wrong, because it harms society, right? But how do we define "children"? In America, it's anyone under the age of 18. But other countries have different ages of consent. So are they "wrong" or are we "wrong"? Are they a bunch of sicko perverts or are we a bunch of stuck-up prudes?

Why do the intolerant always expect the tolerant to tolerate their intolerance? :confused:

Because they secretly suspect that we really are better than them? And expect us to act in a way they can't?

Please - read the whole second amendment.

Not sure where you're going with this one.

Sideways

Why do the intolerant always expect the tolerant to tolerate their intolerance? :confused:

Why do people always assume that they're in the right, and that everyone else is "intolerant"? If Christians objecting to same-sex marriage are "intolerant" to homosexuals, then aren't homosexuals who insist on same-sex marriage "intolerant" to Christians?

I also disagree with the "If you deny people equal rights, then you're wrong" argument.

You mean - the argument that you keep transforming the ACTUAL argument into?

That's called a strawman, and it's a logical fallacy.

The argument you're being presented with, is the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law - you keep reading THAT as 'if you don't agree, you're wrong'.

Not sure where you're going with this one.

Feel free to read the second amendment. It's pretty explicit.

Darn it! Got stuck in traffic anyway :op But while I was there, another thought occurred to me :)

The Second Amendment guarantees everyone the right to bear arms. Period. No mention is made of assault weapons or waiting periods, age, criminal record, etc. In theory, anyone - including children and convicted felons - has the right to walk around with a grenade launcher.A) there is much more to the second amendment than what you imply.
b) the right to bear arms does not inherently include all arms. c) restriction of rights is justifiable as punishment for crime.



There is no obvious "right" or "wrong" answer to these questions. Merely opinions. These debates have been answered in different ways by different courts at different times, with the result that the gun control laws in this country are not universal. In some states I have a right to carry a gun, and in others I do not. We make these rules up as we go, and will continue to do so until eventually we reach a sort of "happy medium" that we can all live with (if not necessarily agree with).

So here we have a fundamental, Constitutionally-protected right. And yet there is a great deal of debate over to what extent it should be observed.There is a significant difference between saying "All people can own guns, but only certain guns" and "Certain people can get married to the person of their choice"

But when one side decides to dismiss the views of the other by calling them names, debate breaks down. Positions polarize. Each side is convinced that they are OBVIOUSLY right, and that the other side's reasons are "no good", that their arguments are "tired", and who cares what THOSE PEOPLE think anyway? Everyone KNOWS that they're all just a bunch of <insert demeaning label here>.Actually, their arguments are pretty tired. They are thus far entirely based upon personal moral and personal objections. We don't base law upon personal moral issues. When someone can come up with a single rational, logical reason why gay marriage should not be permitted, then we can debate. Untill then, it is nothing more than "Nu uh, you're wrong".



See how quickly I was attacked when I simply asked what was wrong with being opposed to gay marriage? How many people posting here even made an attempt to see things from my point of view? Seems to me just a lot of people repeating "I call you a bigot, because you're a bigot. If you don't want to be called a bigot, stop acting like a bigot". Circular logic if I ever saw it.
The issue with being opposed to gay marriage is that one strives to deny basic rights afforded to other citizens from a certain minority group. That is bigotry.

Same as how if I say "No woman may work outside of the house, but men can" or "All blacks may no longer vote, but whites can" or "All Jews must register with the government, but Christians don't need to" or "Irish need not apply, all others welcome" or "Gays may not marry the person of their choice, but heterosexuals may". It isn't name calling. Their opinion is bigoted. One who holds a bigoted opinion is a bigot. Ergo, I called that person a bigot because they are, in fact, a bigot. Same as how I call my roommate "Dickbag". He is, in fact, a bag of dicks.

Why do people always assume that they're in the right, and that everyone else is "intolerant"? If Christians objecting to same-sex marriage are "intolerant" to homosexuals, then aren't homosexuals who insist on same-sex marriage "intolerant" to Christians?

Homosexuals aren't trying to have heterosexual marriage made illegal.

Epic fail.

Why do people always assume that they're in the right, and that everyone else is "intolerant"? If Christians objecting to same-sex marriage are "intolerant" to homosexuals, then aren't homosexuals who insist on same-sex marriage "intolerant" to Christians?

No, because they aren't opposing opposite-sex marriage. Only one of these two groups is attempting to enforce their opinion on the other. Or more specifically, only one of these groups oppose the idea that the other group be granted the same rights that group already has.

I don't believe in collective rights; rather, I believe in individual rights. State-Marriage should be abolished, for it is based on aggression, sexism, and racism.

See how quickly I was attacked when I simply asked what was wrong with being opposed to gay marriage? How many people posting here even made an attempt to see things from my point of view? Seems to me just a lot of people repeating "I call you a bigot, because you're a bigot. If you don't want to be called a bigot, stop acting like a bigot". Circular logic if I ever saw it.

I can sort of see where you're coming from, but it's kind of inevitable that by opposing gay marriage you'll be labelled a bigot. The only reasons for opposing it are because you want to deny homosexuals rights or because you don't want to legitimise an 'illegitimate' lifestyle. There are a couple of other reasons but they're minor and I've never seen them used.

Maybe you don't actually oppose gay marriage, but by defending the viewpoint held by many anti-gay campaigners, you will be interpreted as belonging to 'that side'.

Edit: oh god what? I swear I was on the last page of the thread! Did everyone just make fifty posts before I managed to finish mine, or am I blind?
Edit: Dang, I'm just blind. :(

You mean - the argument that you keep transforming the ACTUAL argument into?

That's called a strawman, and it's a logical fallacy.

The argument you're being presented with, is the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law - you keep reading THAT as 'if you don't agree, you're wrong'.

The basic reasons that have been given for why same-sex marriage should be allowed have been (basically) "Because the Constitution says so" and "because denying people equal rights is wrong".

The Constitution does not say so. It has been interpreted as saying so. It was not always interpreted this way, and there is no guarantee that it will continue to be interpreted this way in the future. At one time homosexual behavior was criminalized in many parts of the country, and these laws were upheld as being Constitutional. Opinions have changed, and those decisions have been overturned. But opinions could change again and the pendulum could swing back, or even go off in an entirely new direction. Just because an opinion is popular right now doesn't logically prove your point.

And "denying equal rights is wrong" is a tautology, which is ALSO a logical fallacy. It is simply an argument stated as a fact, without any supporting evidence.

Darn it! Got stuck in traffic anyway :op But while I was there, another thought occurred to me :)
Oh good! You're back. *rolls up sleeves*

The Second Amendment guarantees everyone the right to bear arms. Period. No mention is made of assault weapons or waiting periods, age, criminal record, etc. In theory, anyone - including children and convicted felons - has the right to walk around with a grenade launcher.
False (as well as insultingly juvenile and shallow). The 2nd Amendment specifically place the right to bear arms in the context of public service, i.e., the need to maintain a "well regulated militia." Inasmuch as the right to bear arms is viewed in the context of a purpose for doing so, everything you say above is just self-serving BS.

<snip for length>

So here we have a fundamental, Constitutionally-protected right. And yet there is a great deal of debate over to what extent it should be observed.
The debate about gun control revolves around claimed harms and benefits to society related to controlled or uncontrolled or variously controlled gun ownership and gun trading. The various harms and benefits can be demonstrated by factual citations of observable and recorded events. Both sides have some right answers and some wrong answers.

In order to have a legitimate debate about whether gays should be to marry, you would have to be able to show demonstrable and observable harms to society of letting gay people marry.

People who support gay marriage can show the overall benefits, historically, of applying rights equally to all segments of society, of promoting stable households (social, legal, and financial benefits to a nation), and of providing legal protections for such things as property ownership, end-of-life decisions, child custody, etc. They can also show societal harms that stem from not doing such things for all, as well as societal harms from promoting inequality in general.

People who oppose gay marriage show no affect on society at all, either good or bad. They show us only an affect on themselves, i.e. that they won't like it. That is hardly persuasive to those of us who are not them, especially when we balance it against the arguments of the pro-gay-marriage side.

So, when one side has answers for both the pro and con sides of the issue, and the other side has no answers to any questions at all, that does not add up to a debate. It adds up to the latter side being wrong.

But when one side decides to dismiss the views of the other by calling them names, debate breaks down. Positions polarize. Each side is convinced that they are OBVIOUSLY right, and that the other side's reasons are "no good", that their arguments are "tired", and who cares what THOSE PEOPLE think anyway? Everyone KNOWS that they're all just a bunch of <insert demeaning label here>.
And apparently, one side having no real answers or arguments also adds up to them complaining that the only reason they can't carry their point is because others are big meanies who won't just let them have their way in the interest of ... um... letting them have their way.

This results in controversial court-cases,
Which decide in favor of gay marriage.

obnoxious protests,
Only obnoxious to people who know they are going to lose the argument in the end.

and long, angry Internet flame-wars :)
Pointing to a word and yelling "Fire!" does not amount to a flame war. The only person going on and on about flaming here is you. Would you like to be directed to the moderation forum, if you really think you're being flamed?

See how quickly I was attacked when I simply asked what was wrong with being opposed to gay marriage? How many people posting here even made an attempt to see things from my point of view? Seems to me just a lot of people repeating "I call you a bigot, because you're a bigot. If you don't want to be called a bigot, stop acting like a bigot". Circular logic if I ever saw it.
False, as well as self-pitying.

1) You were not attacked. Your statements were characterized correctly, at a very basic, definitional level, and you didn't like it. Like many people who espouse views that are bigoted, you don't enjoy the word "bigot," but that is hardly any concern of ours, now is it?

2) As for seeing things from your point of view, we read your posts, understand the words, consider the logic, and conclude that they are an example of bigotry. Then what are we supposed to do? Tie ourselves in knots the way you do to try to find some excuse to call bigotry by some other name? Well, just as a rose is a rose is a rose, there is no way out for you. You espoused those arguments, and they by any other name, would stink as bad.

Feel free to read the second amendment. It's pretty explicit.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Still don't see where you're going with this one.

I also disagree with the "If you deny people equal rights, then you're wrong" argument. We deny people equal rights all the time. For example: 16-year-olds can drive, but they don't have any other "adult" rights. 18-year-olds can vote, smoke, buy pornography, have sex, and enlist in the Army, but they can't drink. You can't get a senior citizen's discount until you're 55. In all these cases privileges have been extended to certain groups of the adult population, while being denied to others. In this case, these privileges are awarded/denied based on age.
Driving is not a right. It is a privilege (hence why you must pass a test). Children are also not consenting adults. They lack the background knowledge, logic, and rationale to be one. Senior discount is something given by some businesses at their discression. That is not a right. You are not entitled to a senior discount because you are 55.
Convicted felons forfeit the right to vote, practice law, or own weapons. While one parole, felons may be searched without a warrant. Al Queda sympathizers are barred from employment in sensitive Government jobs. In these cases people are awarded/denied privileges based on behavior.
Yes. People who wrong society are punished. Far different from two law-abiding men wanting marriage.


We all agree that allowing 40-year-old men to have sex with children is wrong, because it harms society, right? No. We agree because children are incapable of giving informed consent.
But how do we define "children"? In America, it's anyone under the age of 18. But other countries have different ages of consent. So are they "wrong" or are we "wrong"? Are they a bunch of sicko perverts or are we a bunch of stuck-up prudes?
Yes. People disagree. We understand that. but the difference is "When are humans capable of giving informed consent" and "Do we allow two humans who can give informed consent their basic rights"

Why do people always assume that they're in the right, and that everyone else is "intolerant"? If Christians objecting to same-sex marriage are "intolerant" to homosexuals, then aren't homosexuals who insist on same-sex marriage "intolerant" to Christians?
Again, intolerance is not allowing all law-abiding citizens their rights. Homosexuals are not forcings Christians to get gay marriages. They are not forcing Christians to attend gay weddings. They are not forcing Christians to perform gay marriages. See the difference? One says "Because we don't like this, you can't have it". The other says "Okay, we get that you don't like it. So we won't make you perform them. But we'll still have them without impacting you."
Huge difference.

The basic reasons that have been given for why same-sex marriage should be allowed have been (basically) "Because the Constitution says so" and "because denying people equal rights is wrong".

The Constitution does not say so. It has been interpreted as saying so. It was not always interpreted this way, and there is no guarantee that it will continue to be interpreted this way in the future. At one time homosexual behavior was criminalized in many parts of the country, and these laws were upheld as being Constitutional. Opinions have changed, and those decisions have been overturned. But opinions could change again and the pendulum could swing back, or even go off in an entirely new direction. Just because an opinion is popular right now doesn't logically prove your point.

And "denying equal rights is wrong" is a tautology, which is ALSO a logical fallacy. It is simply an argument stated as a fact, without any supporting evidence.

And maybe women and blacks will be denied the right to vote again. Won't that be grand?

No, because they aren't opposing opposite-sex marriage. Only one of these two groups is attempting to enforce their opinion on the other. Or more specifically, only one of these groups oppose the idea that the other group be granted the same rights that group already has.

I would argue that BOTH sides are attempting to enforce their view of what's right or wrong on the other. I would further argue that there IS NO OBJECTIVE "right" answer to this question.

Unless God Himself decides to show up and weigh in on this question, we're left to figure out what to do ourselves. I can't think of a better way to do that then a democratic vote, can you?

The basic reasons that have been given for why same-sex marriage should be allowed have been (basically) "Because the Constitution says so" and "because denying people equal rights is wrong".

The Constitution does not say so. It has been interpreted as saying so. It was not always interpreted this way, and there is no guarantee that it will continue to be interpreted this way in the future. At one time homosexual behavior was criminalized in many parts of the country, and these laws were upheld as being Constitutional. Opinions have changed, and those decisions have been overturned. But opinions could change again and the pendulum could swing back, or even go off in an entirely new direction. Just because an opinion is popular right now doesn't logically prove your point.

And "denying equal rights is wrong" is a tautology, which is ALSO a logical fallacy. It is simply an argument stated as a fact, without any supporting evidence.

That to deny someone equal rights without a practical reason is morally wrong should be patently obvious. We could have an argument about it, but frankly I'd hope that it wasn't necessary.

All your examples have been along the lines of "we don't allow 10 year olds to fly planes", but this is absurd because while there are plenty of perfectly reasonable points that could be made for not allowing them to fly planes, we have not been able to find any good reason for denying the right of marriage to homosexuals. There is no practical difference between a homosexual marriage and a heterosexual marriage.

Whoops! You got me on the Constitution. I got my amendments mixed-up.

There was never a specific right for same-sex couples to get married in the State of California until 2008, when the State Supreme Court "found" the right when they overturned Proposition 22, which had been passed (63% majority) in 2000. Essentially, activist judges not only overturned a legal democratic election, but also created a "right" out of thin air.

I have already stated some reasons why a reasonable person might oppose same-sex marriage. The general consensus was "those aren't good reasons". How about that? I can play that game too. There ARE good reasons! There ARE! Infinity! So there! :)

Again, you argue that rights must be enumerated to exist, completely ignoring the very amendment you cited.

California's constitution, in reality, had no provision BARRING marriage between consenting adults until 2008. Essentially, activist zealots not only rigged a democratic election by pumping in out-of-state money to buy votes, they also eliminated the rights of thousands of people throughout the state.

You gave ONE "reason" why someone might oppose such unions: because they don't think it's moral. That is not many, it is one, and I'm unsure as to how you would like us to critique "because some people don't like it."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Still don't see where you're going with this one.

Children are not eligible to serve in a well-regulated militia. Criminals are not (necessarily) eligible to serve in a well regulated militia... although you could make special argument for it, depending on the crime.

You're argument was based on the idea that it somehow opposes the Second Amendment to forbid children and criminals from bearing arms - it doesn't. The purpose of the Second Amendment is explicit, and intrinsic to the right to bear arms. If it doesn't serve the purpose of 'a well regulated militia', there is no Constitutional reason to keep or bear arms.

I would argue that BOTH sides are attempting to enforce their view of what's right or wrong on the other. I would further argue that there IS NO OBJECTIVE "right" answer to this question.

Unless God Himself decides to show up and weigh in on this question, we're left to figure out what to do ourselves. I can't think of a better way to do that then a democratic vote, can you?

Except that one group is telling the other, "We don't want to do this, and we don't want you to do it, either."

I can think of a much way, but it involves the constitution, and I know how that upsets people who want to believe we're a pure democracy.

mmm.... word play...what if gay marriages were legal...had all the same benefits as a regular marriage, but just had a different name.. I think that would solve alot of problems. Can we think of a name?

And maybe women and blacks will be denied the right to vote again. Won't that be grand?

Now THAT'S a straw-man argument.

mmm.... word play...what if gay marriages were legal...had all the same benefits as a regular marriage, but just had a different name.. I think that would solve alot of problems. Can we think of a name?

We don't need to. It's called marriage.

I would argue that BOTH sides are attempting to enforce their view of what's right or wrong on the other. I would further argue that there IS NO OBJECTIVE "right" answer to this question.

Unless God Himself decides to show up and weigh in on this question, we're left to figure out what to do ourselves. I can't think of a better way to do that then a democratic vote, can you?

No. Gay marriage has absolutly zero impact upon those who oppose it.

You don't want gay marriage. You vote that way and win. Your enforcement means that I cannot marry my boyfriend.

I want gay marriage. I vote that way and win. My enforcement means that I can marry my boyfriend. It does not, however, at all imply that you must approve of my marriage, attend the wedding, perform the ceremony, or have one yourself.

Your stops me from doing what I want. Mine allows me to do what I want while having absolutly zero impact upon you.

And maybe women and blacks will be denied the right to vote again. Won't that be grand?
I notice that Mustoria is pretty consistent in ignoring all questions of other cases of rights denied to competent adults, such as blacks and women. He prefers instead to make claims about "denying" rights to people not able to exercise them and protect their own interests in doing so (and by the way, the "denial" of rights to children is not a true denial, as those rights are ceded to them progressively as they age), and about denying rights to those who have temporarily forfeited them by commission of crimes against society.

Apparently, he wants to argue that, if some people are denied rights, that means that it's right, good, and proper to deny rights to people, so we may as well deny them to the group he wishes to target as well.

But he cannot even construct such an argument except by citing false examples of rights that are not actually being denied in the way he claims they are.

When asked to address true examples of rights being denied, he remains silent.

The basic reasons that have been given for why same-sex marriage should be allowed have been (basically) "Because the Constitution says so"


This is the best argument, and one you can't really touch - which is why you keep aiming for lesser ones.


The Constitution does not say so. It has been interpreted as saying so.


Not at all - it explicitly protects the class of legal contractual arrangement that marriage is part of.

It's not a matter of interpretation - and you simply repeating that over and over will not make it so.


At one time homosexual behavior was criminalized in many parts of the country, and these laws were upheld as being Constitutional.


Really? Show me.

I would argue that BOTH sides are attempting to enforce their view of what's right or wrong on the other. I would further argue that there IS NO OBJECTIVE "right" answer to this question.

Unless God Himself decides to show up and weigh in on this question, we're left to figure out what to do ourselves. I can't think of a better way to do that then a democratic vote, can you?

That would depend on the vote. The majority doesn't have the right to discriminate against the minority just because they vote themselves the right to.

When this nation was founded, it was founded on an ideal that it didn't measure up to. That Ideal is preserved in the Constitution. Since then, the nation has been taking step by step(with the occasional backstep) toward that ideal. The idea that two consenting adults can marry regardless of gender is merely one more step. The majority has interfered in that step. It's happened before throughout American History and throughout that history, the majority has eventually been denied the ability to interfere any more. That's the power of the Ideal.

oh yeah ...a name that doesn't include marriage somehow...

Now THAT'S a straw-man argument.

"You keep using that word. I don't think means what you think it means." -Inigo Montoya

mmm.... word play...what if gay marriages were legal...had all the same benefits as a regular marriage, but just had a different name.. I think that would solve alot of problems. Can we think of a name?
Yes. That name is "segregation." The Supreme Court has already ruled that one out. Separate-but-equal is not equal. Why? Because the law says so.

mmm.... word play...what if gay marriages were legal...had all the same benefits as a regular marriage, but just had a different name.. I think that would solve alot of problems. Can we think of a name?

Separate but Equal isn't equal.

I would argue that BOTH sides are attempting to enforce their view of what's right or wrong on the other.


Which, even if true, would be irrelavant.

I would further argue that there IS NO OBJECTIVE "right" answer to this question.


You're wrong. The 'objective' measure of what is constitutionally, legal, is the constitution. It is entirely objective.


Unless God Himself decides to show up and weigh in on this question, we're left to figure out what to do ourselves.


God is irrelavant.

We are not a theocracy, and it's the Constitution that defines our laws. In this case - God is subordinate to a piece of paper.


I can't think of a better way to do that then a democratic vote, can you?

I can. Democratic votes are good for finding out what most people support - which isn't the same as doing what is Constitutional.

oh yeah ...a name that doesn't include marriage somehow...

Why? We already have the word marriage. Marriage is a legal instution provided by the state, wedding consenting adults.

It isn't my fault the proper word makes some people feel all icky. Same as it isn't my fault that one is properly labled a "bigot".

Now THAT'S a straw-man argument.

If homosexuals don't have the right to marry, do they have the right to vote? To hold jobs? There's no constitutional protection for sexual orientation.

If homosexuals don't have the right to marry, do they have the right to vote? To hold jobs? There's no constitutional protection for sexual orientation.

Let the free market decide.

Let's go unstoppable groundswell!

Get on board, little children
Get on board, little children
Get on board, little children
There's room for many a more

The fare is cheap and all can go
The rich and poor are there
No second class on board this train
No difference in the fare
Oh get on board, get on board, get on board
There's room for many a more

She's there and now the station
Or better don't be late
But come and get your ticket
And be ready for this train
Oh get on board, get on board, get on board
There's room for many a more

Get on board, little children
Get on board, little children
Get on board, little children
Get on board, little children
There's room for many a more

Let the free market decide.

Once it gets off governmental life-support.

Let the free market decide.
The market, free or not, can decide how much a gay wedding costs, but not whether the law will allow gay marriages to happen.

Again, you argue that rights must be enumerated to exist, completely ignoring the very amendment you cited.

California's constitution, in reality, had no provision BARRING marriage between consenting adults until 2008. Essentially, activist zealots not only rigged a democratic election by pumping in out-of-state money to buy votes, they also eliminated the rights of thousands of people throughout the state.

You gave ONE "reason" why someone might oppose such unions: because they don't think it's moral. That is not many, it is one, and I'm unsure as to how you would like us to critique "because some people don't like it."

In 2000, California passed Proposition 22, which rewrote the California Family Code to restrict the term "marriage" to heterosexual marriages.

Prior to this, you are correct, there was no legislation barring anyone from getting married.

Prop 22 was overturned by the California Supreme Court in 2008 by a vote of 4 to 3. Prop 22 was ruled as being unconstitutional. At the same time homosexuals were SPECIFICALLY granted the right to get married.

Therefore, Prop 8 was passed in late 2008, rewriting the Constitution.

I don't really feel that it's necessary to restrict the term "marriage" to heterosexuals (please keep in mind that homosexual domestic partnerships retain all the legal and financial benefits of a marriage).

Personally, I believe that a reasonable solution would be to simply remove the word "marriage" from the laws. Everybody under the law could be a "domestic partner", gay, straight, threesome, whatever the state chooses to legitimize. Then if religious people choose to have a ceremony in a church (which would have no legal standing) they can call themselves "married" or whatever other term they choose to describe themselves. Likewise, gay people (as they are - in fact - already doing) could also have whatever form of ceremony that they wished and call themselves whatever they wanted. That way each group could have equal status under the law. Religious people might look at a gay couple and say "They're not REALLY married" if that makes them feel better, but you can't stop someone from calling themselves anything they want.

The fact that gay couples currently have all the same rights as straight couples, yet they continue to get worked up about the term "marriage" is what gives me pause. If all someone wants is equal rights, then what does it matter if their rights have a different name? All races have equal rights, that doesn't stop us from identifying ourselves as "Caucasian" or "African American" or whatever. Should a white man have the "right" to be regarded as "African American" under the law? Is this even something worth getting worked up about?

The fact that gay activist groups are so determined to be described as "married" under the law makes me wonder if what they're really after is not equal rights, but equal PERCEPTION. I simply don't think it's right to force any group of people to recognize another as being legitimate. To me, it would be like a group of Christians demanding the "right" to be called Muslims.

If homosexuals don't have the right to marry, do they have the right to vote? To hold jobs? There's no constitutional protection for sexual orientation.
Voting is protected, holding a job is not. I know in Texas you can be passed up for a job based on your sexual orientation without any legal ramifications.

I also disagree with the "If you deny people equal rights, then you're wrong" argument. We deny people equal rights all the time. For example: 16-year-olds can drive, but they don't have any other "adult" rights. 18-year-olds can vote, smoke, buy pornography, have sex, and enlist in the Army, but they can't drink. You can't get a senior citizen's discount until you're 55. In all these cases privileges have been extended to certain groups of the adult population, while being denied to others. In this case, these privileges are awarded/denied based on age.

Convicted felons forfeit the right to vote, practice law, or own weapons. While one parole, felons may be searched without a warrant. Al Queda sympathizers are barred from employment in sensitive Government jobs. In these cases people are awarded/denied privileges based on behavior.

I could go on and on, but the point is that there are very few universal rights recognized by our legal system. Or any legal system, for that matter. This is simply because people have different opinions on what is "right" and what is "wrong". In these cases we usually let the majority decide on a case-by-case basis (or a jury of your peers, which is supposed to represent society as a whole).

We all agree that allowing 40-year-old men to have sex with children is wrong, because it harms society, right? But how do we define "children"? In America, it's anyone under the age of 18. But other countries have different ages of consent. So are they "wrong" or are we "wrong"? Are they a bunch of sicko perverts or are we a bunch of stuck-up prudes?
Explain how any of this has anything to do with same sex marriage, because you seem to be going off on a wild tangent about the nature of legal rights.
The basic reasons that have been given for why same-sex marriage should be allowed have been (basically) "Because the Constitution says so" and "because denying people equal rights is wrong".

The Constitution does not say so. It has been interpreted as saying so. It was not always interpreted this way, and there is no guarantee that it will continue to be interpreted this way in the future. At one time homosexual behavior was criminalized in many parts of the country, and these laws were upheld as being Constitutional.
They have? Really?
Opinions have changed, and those decisions have been overturned. But opinions could change again and the pendulum could swing back, or even go off in an entirely new direction. Just because an opinion is popular right now doesn't logically prove your point.
Nobody is suggesting it does. In fact, you are the one who wants the legality of same sex marriage to be decided democratically.

And "denying equal rights is wrong" is a tautology, which is ALSO a logical fallacy. It is simply an argument stated as a fact, without any supporting evidence.

You are quite mistaken as to what a tautology is.

Voting is protected, holding a job is not. I know in Texas you can be passed up for a job based on your sexual orientation without any legal ramifications.
That's actually a kind of legal mirage. It is true that in many states, employers can get away with doing that, but that is typically because most employment is "at will" so no reasons need be given for not hiring someone or for firing someone. Without evidence that the decision was motivated by prejudice, it is almost impossible to make a discrmination case. But if a person CAN make such a case, then they can appeal to federal labor law, which Texas has to follow just like all the other states -- bizarre claims from their governor notwithstanding.

Alot of people associate the word "marriage" with religion or heterosexual marriage, maybe they see same sex "marriage" as a affront to religion or the natural order of things.

I don't really feel that it's necessary to restrict the term "marriage" to heterosexuals (please keep in mind that homosexual domestic partnerships retain all the legal and financial benefits of a marriage).

The fact that gay activist groups are so determined to be described as "married" under the law makes me wonder if what they're really after is not equal rights, but equal PERCEPTION. I simply don't think it's right to force any group of people to recognize another as being legitimate. To me, it would be like a group of Christians demanding the "right" to be called Muslims.

You can keep it in mind all you like, but domestic partnerships DON'T grant all the same rights as heterosexual marriages, and saying it three times doesn't make it so.

No, it would be like a group of Muslims demanding that Christians recognize them as human beings, and not "heathens". The Christian right only thinks it invented marriage.

Alot of people associate the word "marriage" with religion or heterosexual marriage, maybe they see same sex "marriage" as a affront to religion or the natural order of things.

A lot of people don't.

Alot of people associate the word "marriage" with religion or heterosexual marriage, maybe they see same sex "marriage" as a affront to religion or the natural order of things.

That is their own fault. Marriage is first and foremost a legal contract. Their associations with the word are not my fault nor problem.