NationStates Jolt Archive

snip

tl; dr version:
If you're reasonable and rational with people who think homosexuals are inherently inferior you might get somewhere.
If you fight too hard for rights you feel you deserve, people will fight back hard too and it'll be unpleasant. Better to try asking nicely for them.
Gay couples are immoral, but if they're not actually married, just in a civil union, it's ok.

Considering you're so in favour of rational and constructive discourse, you haven't done much here that's constructive. If there are arguments to be made for banning gay marriage beyond it just being immoral in your opinion then I'm sure I won't be alone in taking them seriously.

tl; dr version:
If you're reasonable and rational with people who think homosexuals are inherently inferior you might get somewhere.
If you fight too hard for rights you feel you deserve, people will fight back hard too and it'll be unpleasant. Better to try asking nicely for them.
Gay couples are immoral, but if they're not actually married, just in a civil union, it's ok.

If I had to grade your reading comprehension based on that summary I'd give you a C- at best. If it's too long to read then don't read it.

But I'm not mad at ya, you did help me by illustrating this point:

I haven't yet seen anybody around here actually listen to a Prop 8 supporter raise their points without responding derisively and with posts that show they weren't really listening, they were quote mining.

But I'm not mad at ya, you did help me by illustrating this point:

If you're holding yourself up as the prop 8 supporter here then I'm still waiting for you to raise your points. Or is your point just that you object to a legal union identical to marriage, except between two members of the same sex, being called marriage?

Supporting Proposition 8 does not make someone a homophobe.

That's where I stopped reading, because if you can manage to be so utterly wrong in the very beginning sentences of your post, then that wall of text is bound to be full of additional, waste-of-time poppycock, and judging by Ifreann's nice summary, that's just what was the case. Here's a newsflash - discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals = homophobia. When you indulge in it, you are a homophobe. So, whom do you think you are kidding? That is apart from yourself...

And also probably in Second Life.
These rights elsewhere are irrelevant. Since when can the rest of the world set standards for America? US doesn't even use the metric system.

So you don't understand what the word "nobody" means.

I've said this before but it's been a while so I think it bears repeating.

Supporting Proposition 8 does not make someone a homophobe.

Give me one single rational reason to oppose equal marriage rights for homosexual couples that is not based on fear or deception. Just one.

So you don't understand what the word "nobody" means.
So you don't understand why these forums have such a nice function that allows you to trace back the conversation by quotes?

The phrase was a reply to:
[...] in your analogy, the minority is demanding a right that nobody has. In my analogy, the minority is demanding a right the majority has and is being denied them [...]
- I.e. to a post and a conversation that were specifically concerning the situation in the states that ban gay marriage, where, indeed, nobody has the right to a marriage that is not between 1 man and 1 woman.

Since this is starting to drift into "blame the Mormons" mode...

Let's get something straight here, shall we?

Groups from all over the country on both sides flocked to CA to get involved. Mormons from Utah went? B.F.D. So did gay rights groups and activists from everywhere else. I guess you don't mind that when they're on your side, hmm?

And speaking of those groups: It's a fact that the side OPPOSING Prop 8 actually raised more dollars than the side supporting it. Yet the referendum passed. I guess it wasn't all that money after all, was it?

Not that it matters. People are using this as an excuse to gripe about Mormons. Well here's another newsflash for ya: Mormons were only the biggest of a LARGE group of different groups supporting Prop 8.

I guess it's just easier to throw a tantrum and pick and choose the facts that make it easy to blame somebody.

Here's the reality: The majority of the people of California don't want gay marriage. Groups from both sides of the issue from all over the country stuck their noses in it. You can dish out all the excuses and lopsided analyses you want to try and avoid accepting that reality, but that doesn't mean you have a point, it just makes you bitter and irrelevant.

So, let's say, for some reason, a movement emerged to amend the constitution so that women could not vote. Some church, say, the Catholic Church, started donating heavily in support of the amendment. A bunch of people ended up supporting this, and the constitution was amended. Would you criticize the Catholic Church for this, even if they were not the only ones involved and even if other organizations campaigned hard to keep the right of women to vote?

I'd like to think you would. You may be in favor of discrimination against gay people, but I don't take you for one who would deny suffrage to women.


I've said this before but it's been a while so I think it bears repeating.

Supporting Proposition 8 does not make someone a homophobe. I know it's sort of an easy cheap shot to try and take and all that, but if you want to be intellectually honest, then you must understand this: Supporting Proposition 8 does not make someone a homophobe.

Yeah. And being against allowing black people t o marry doesn't make me a racist either, right?


Would a genuine homophobe support Proposition 8? Yeah I would assume they would, but to expand that to include ALL those who support/vote for the measure is a logical fallacy and I like to think most people around here are smart enough to understand that. The problem is it can be oh, so emotionally satisfying to try and hobble a person's credibility by relegating them to the homophobe pigeonhole and leave it at that.

It may or may not be the best strategic decision, but the label is accurate. If you want to discriminate against a racial minority, then you are a racist. I don't think you would disagree with that. The same reasoning applies to discrimination against other groups, including homosexuals.


To be honest, I don't find it particularly constructive to use that sort of labeling even when dealing with a genuine homophobe. It's certainly not going to open their mind to your point of view and once someone's been put on the defensive in any debate that way then no further useful discussion can come of it.

"Well if a person is being homophobic then they deserve to be ridiculed!"

Says you. Frankly if someone disagreed with me on an issue like that I'd much rather try to warm them to my point of view by having a reasonable discussion. That way, even if they don't change their minds at least I can get them thinking about it and who knows where that might lead later on?

Again, strategically, it might not be the best decision in all cases-- but some people are a lost cause and will never support equality. But if we, as society, call people out on bigotry and assign that bigotry a negative label, then other people, who grow up in that society, will be less likely to hold bigoted beliefs. If we have a pejorative label for people who are against equality, children will see that and be influenced by it.


"Easy for you to say, everybody knows you're a religious zealot and therefore, a homophobe."

Yeah sure I am. I'll tell you what, if you ask the gay people with whom I associate in my real life if I'm a homophobe they'll probably laugh in your face. Given that they know me a lot better than any of you ever will, I assure you if you want to think of me that way I won't be losing any sleep over it. I have had two people come out to me before their parents even knew. (One is my brother, the other is a friend who is still in the closet as far as his family is concerned.) I've got nothing to prove to you.

What, you're calling me a racist just because I say black people should not be allowed to vote?! Well guess what, I have black friends! Oh, what now?


"Then why are you bothering to post this if you sleep so well?"

Because I'm trying to help, believe it or not. I think this whole issue would be much better dealt with if people on both sides quit trying to rip each other and actually talk about it like the rational adults everybody claims to be.

I do give rational reasons for my support of Gay marriage. But that doesn't mean I should be dishonest and say that people who are pro-discrimination are anything but bigots, just because I might hurt their feelings. Dr. King wasn't afraid to call people racist because it might hurt their feelings.


"Well Prop 8 supporters aren't rational. They just hate."

I haven't yet seen anybody around here actually listen to a Prop 8 supporter raise their points without responding derisively and with posts that show they weren't really listening, they were quote mining.

Have we been reading the same thread?
When somebody claimed that "marriage has always been between a man and a woman," others have pointed to cases in history where that was not so, and how the definition of marriage has always changed with the times.

The problem is, most people who are against gay equality don't make rational points, the just say something like "fags are immoral, and we shouldn't support immoral faggotry."


Now, I'm not saying all of those representing that side have necessarily done a very good job of expressing their point of view, and I won't say there haven't been any genuine homophobes trying to, either. I do think, however, it behooves you to try and actually gain a genuine and honest understanding of where they're coming from. (By "they" I mean those who aren't homophobic.) It's what you expect of them, and you owe them the same courtesy in return.

Again, you insist that you can be for legal discrimination against minorities, but not prejudiced against them. But if that's the case, it should apply to things like race and gender as well.


"Bullcrap, Neo B. People who favor Prop 8 are no different from segregationists. Would you want to hear a segregationist out?"

Well first of all I don't accept the idea that Prop 8 = segregation in the way you're thinking of it, but that's beside the point. Frankly if I were debating a segregationist on some race related issue I would hear them out, of for no other reason than to set the stage to get them to hear me out in return. If they do, then a constructive dialog has taken place. If they don't, well their loss, not mine, if they refuse to hear me in return. That gives me the moral high ground anyway. What's not to like? At least I can say I approached the subject reasonably, rather than patting myself on the back for being a jackass to somebody whose point of view I don't like.

Well, no, technically Prop 8 isn't like Jim Crow style segregation, because segregation was about using different public facilities. It's more like banning interracial marriage.


"Well we've heard all the Prop 8 arguments before, Neo B. Why should we listen to them again?"

Well, for the same reason you demand that they listen to yours again. You think the "Prop 8 yes" haven't heard your arguments before? You really think you're that clever or that original? Especially on this forum those arguments have been seen ad nauseam. Maybe what's needed is a fresh perspective.
]
Sure, I'll hear the arguments out again, but I'll just post the same rebuttals to them, and then the pro-discrimination side will probably respond by just reposting the arguments or by saying "well it's my belief, I don't need to defend it, because it's my opinion."


People of good conscience generally have valid reasons for believing in what they do, and if not, then a little honest and courteous dialogue might just give them something new to think about. Now, if you really want to take the position that all people who are pro-Prop 8 are people of BAD conscience then you're being just as intellectually lazy as calling them all homophobes. You won't gain any ground that way, and on this issue you ain't exactly in the lead.

I could not disagree more. Plenty of decent people don't have good reasons for all their opinions. People tend to not think all their positions through or carefully examine the rational basis for their positions, because for most people, it's just too much effort. They'd prefer to relax and watch the game. Further, most people have difficulty admitting that their first judgment is wrong. Once they come to an opinion it is extremely difficult to change it. Doesn't mean they're bad people.


"Well Prop 8 was only a temporary setback. Sooner or later change will come everywhere."

The evidence indicates that this is the case.
Nate Silver had an excellent analysis (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html) a while back on when each state is likely to legalize gay marriage.


That may be, but the harder you attack your opponents on this matter the harder they will fight you, and you only make the whole thing a much harder ordeal than it has to be.

Yeah. We should do what finally worked for getting black people equal legal rights: politely ask until the pro-discrimination say yes.
Oh, wait..


"You almost sound like you agree that it's inevitable. Are you conceding that?"

Sort of. Obviously we live in a culture now where gay couples are commonplace. While I do not support this morally, I acknowledge that it's there. You'd be surprised at how many people who support Prop 8 would be perfectly fine with some kind of legally equivalent civil union.

"Bullshit."

No, you really would be surprised. I actually LISTEN to what the religious right says and I am telling you as part of the religious right. Civil Unions aren't nearly as much a problem as you think for us. If you'd been willing to compromise on that you'd have won in California.

Would you be okay with it if Mormons could only get civil unions, but Mormon marriage was illegal?


"We shouldn't have to compromise! We want our rights!!!"

Yeah? How well did that work for ya in the most populous state in the union? The fact is you have to be mature about this. You forget that your beliefs on this matter are just that - your beliefs. Other people have their own beliefs that may not be compatible with yours. Trying to belittle them and force them aside like a bull in a china shop is no way to achieve social change. Difficult as it is to imagine, their beliefs actually count as much as yours do, so you have to deal with that. Several states have put this matter up for referendum and most of those have come out int heir favor, not yours.

So the people voted against full equality. For a long time, people were for compromising on black equality, saying we should accept the "separate but equal" compromise. I know your church once taught (still teaches? I must admit I'm ignorant on what the LDS Church's official position on this teaching is. Do they think they were mistaken when they taught it previously?) that black people are only black because they were unfaithful to God during Lucifer's rebellion, but I'm sure you're anti-segregation.


"Yeah well that's tyranny by the majority!"

Bull. What you're trying to accomplish is tyranny by the minority. How about trying something new: open dialog. Talk, don't shout. Discuss, don't demand, and quit trying to take cheap shots with labels. It's not helping. It might be emotionally satisfying, but you're actually damaging your own cause by galvanizing your opponents.

No, it's not tyranny by the minority. If Gay marriage is legal, nobody will be forced to have one. Straight marriage will not be made illegal. Churches who want to discriminate against gay people will be allowed to. Gay marriage will not deny anybody any rights, nor will it impact anybody except for gay people in any way whatsoever. (Well, it will impact people like me who would want to attend my gay friends' weddings, but it won't impact anti-gay people in any way.)


You could have civil unions in all 50 states and I think that's something both sides can live with. Let the extremists on either side complain.

But why should we compromise? The only justification any body ever offers is religion, and we have a legal separation of church and state. I know you oppose this important Constitutional protection, but it's still there, and good luck amending the US Constitution to get rid of it.

Give me one single rational reason to oppose equal marriage rights for homosexual couples that is not based on fear or deception. Just one.

I'd be interested in hearing this as well. so far, I have yet to hear one, despite asking many people.

I'd be interested in hearing this as well. so far, I have yet to hear one, despite asking many people.'Course, techinically speaking, NB is right insofar supporting Prop 8 doesn't make someone a homophobe, much like having sex with someone of your own doesn't make you gay (or bi).

'Course, techinically speaking, NB is right insofar supporting Prop 8 doesn't make someone a homophobe, much like having sex with someone of your own doesn't make you gay (or bi).

It's only gay if you look down.

It's only gay if you look down.

It's only gay if the balls touch.

It's only gay if the balls touch.

http://holycrapthatsfunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/balsa.jpeg

It's only gay if you look down.

It's only gay if the balls touch.

:eek: oops.

Well, no, technically Prop 8 isn't like Jim Crow style segregation, because segregation was about using different public facilities. It's more like banning interracial marriage.
Yes. If we allow interracial marriage, the black men will grab all the white women, because the white men have no penis.

The only justification any body ever offers is religion,
Not exactly. People being offended by homosexuality also comes to play, a similar reason to those supporting laws against indecent exposure or public nudity.

The evidence indicates that this is the case.
I'm afraid it might not be. 1998-2008 has been the time of a major backlash against gay marriage and it being actively banned in most states.

Here's a brief history of this very successful effort: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_in_the_United_States#Efforts_to_define_marriage_by_constitutional_amendment

The most of that backlash came in 2004, perhaps as a response to the 2003 SCOTUS ruling against the laws that punished anal sex as a felony offense, punishable in some states by 15 to life in prison. BTW, often including heterosexual, so many people on this board are actually felons who just weren't caught.
This sidenote was for non-Americans who don't quite realize just how anti-gay US is.

Also, one might notice that Proposition 8 is not only not unique, but also mild compared to some laws. Virginia, for instance, forbids any private contracts that merely have any similarity to any effect of marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall-Newman_Amendment). How's that for a good measure.

It's only gay if you look down.

It's only gay if the balls touch.

Nah, guys. For instance, I'm homophobic, but I don't engage in homophobia. Conversely, you don't need to be homophobic if you do engage in homophobia. You might just be a jerk that likes making other people miserable.

(Incidentally, this doesn't apply to smoking, since it's irrelevant whether a smoker feels they should be smoking or not)

Not exactly. People being offended by homosexuality also comes to play, a similar reason to those supporting laws against indecent exposure or public nudity.

Since when does one's right to not be offended trump the right of someone else to have the same rights as the rest of the population?

I actually don't recall reading anywhere in the Bill of Rights, the rest of the Amendments or Constitution that one has the right to live non-offended.

It's only gay if the balls touch.

Damn, I thought it was only gay if you swallow.

Since when does one's right to not be offended trump the right of someone else to have the same rights as the rest of the population?

I actually don't recall reading anywhere in the Bill of Rights, the rest of the Amendments or Constitution that one has the right to live non-offended.

Tsk, you're clearly not looking properly, it's there as a footnote to the whole 'freedom of speech thing'

I actually don't recall reading anywhere in the Bill of Rights, the rest of the Amendments or Constitution that one has the right to live non-offended.
Exactly. Yet the laws, based on no other reason that someone finds something offensive, are successfully used to suppress people's rights.

Nah, guys. For instance, I'm homophobic, but I don't engage in homophobia. Conversely, you don't need to be homophobic if you do engage in homophobia. You might just be...
...You might just be homophobicurious.

That's where I stopped reading, because if you can manage to be so utterly wrong in the very beginning sentences of your post, then that wall of text is bound to be full of additional, waste-of-time poppycock, and judging by Ifreann's nice summary, that's just what was the case. Here's a newsflash - discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals = homophobia. When you indulge in it, you are a homophobe. So, whom do you think you are kidding? That is apart from yourself...

It's one thing to be completely ignorant of the other person's point of view. It's quite another to put it up on display and then call it a virtue.

Just sayin'.

You don't know me, champ, so don't presume to act like you're in my head. You just admitted that you refused to read the post, not only proving my point but giving this discussion nowhere to go.

Give me one single rational reason to oppose equal marriage rights for homosexual couples that is not based on fear or deception. Just one.

i c what u dud thar.

*Hits LG with the pie as promised.*

I like you, LG but unless I'm misunderstanding your approach, you set that question up to pigeonhole any answer someone might give into one of the categories you created: irrational, fear or deception.

But I'll answer lest someone accuse me of evading the question.

Religion is a big part of it. No need to elaborate on that I think everybody prettymuch has their thoughts entrenched on it.

For me, another big part of it is that I see value in maintaining certain traditions unless and until I have reason to believe that changing them will produce a positive outcome for society at large. See, I hear a lot about how our culture is somehow backward and flawed if it doesn't acknowledge gay marriages yet I don't see where it's broken. Gay couples have cohabitated for as long as there's been human history and only now is there a push for official status.

The legal reasoning I've already conceded but there's ways to equalize that without stomping over values and traditions that people believe in. Maybe in some future date there will be total acceptance of Gay marriage (it could happen) but until that happens, it's wrong to push such a change and then start screaming discrimination at anybody who doesn't just fall in line.

And finally, I'm not convinced that children are not missing out by not having parents of both sexes raising them, offering their differing perspectives, adding their unique points of view to the upbringing of a child.

I have a gay friend who disagrees with me on that, but he does agree that guys are guys regardless of their sexual attraction, and for that reason I think a child raised by two men is missing out on the benefits of having a mom, just as a kid raised by two women is missing out on having a dad. And yes, I think that's important.

There. You asked for one, I gave you three. I hope you'll prove me wrong about the pigeonholing thing.

Supporting Proposition 8 does not make someone a homophobe.

Yes, it does. Or, at least, it means that either they are simply homophobic or they are very confused about what legalizing same-sex marriage actually constitutes, a confusion that is generally the result of homophobic propaganda.

You haven't actually given any kind of reason at all why a non-homophobe would support Prop. 8, so I don't see the need to offer a response more extensive than that.

Frankly if someone disagreed with me on an issue like that I'd much rather try to warm them to my point of view by having a reasonable discussion.

Actually, I agree. At least if they are inclined to be reasonable back to me.

But you're departing from the point a bit, aren't you? This has nothing to do with whether or not support for Prop. 8 is based on homophobia. It may be sometimes worthwhile to argue reasonably with bigots: this is really a tactical argument, not a moral one, though not one I'd necessarily endorse as strongly as you do. But that does not establish any non-bigoted justification for supporting it. Nor does it mean that we should, in our own thinking, take their bigoted arguments seriously.

"Easy for you to say, everybody knows you're a religious zealot and therefore, a homophobe."

Actually, I wouldn't say this. I'd say, "Easy for you to say: you're straight."

Because when you're not, while you might say it anyway: it's not easy. To make nice to people who want to deny you what you're rightfully entitled to, who deny your equality and the legitimacy of your relationships, who want to codify their perception of your inferiority into the law... that's inherently a degrading conversation, because it is one that lacks mutual respect.

I'll tell you what, if you ask the gay people with whom I associate in my real life if I'm a homophobe they'll probably laugh in your face.

This is a pathetically poor argument that you should be ashamed of. Not only do you speak for your gay associates (which if any of my straight friends did would not please me at all), but you insist that anecdotal examples of "gay people" with whom you have had personal relations are the best ones to judge your bigotry or lack of such.

I am always suspicious of anyone who is inclined to claim that he or she is not bigoted: it suggests, usually enough, that they are. Not, generally, because they are defensive (though that can sometimes be the case), but because they are so convinced that they are immune that they do not bother to examine themselves honestly.

When people add to arguments like yours loud protestations of their non-bigotry, I am even more suspicious.

I haven't yet seen anybody around here actually listen to a Prop 8 supporter raise their points without responding derisively and with posts that show they weren't really listening, they were quote mining.

I can't speak for your sight, and, I'd bet, nobody else can either. But if NSG is more derisive toward supporters of Prop. 8 than in general it is only because their arguments are so laughably bad.

I do think, however, it behooves you to try and actually gain a genuine and honest understanding of where they're coming from.

Um, it may surprise you, but plenty of us have made this attempt. We've just come to a different conclusion than you about the merits of what we have genuinely and honestly understood.

You think the "Prop 8 yes" haven't heard your arguments before?

Actually, possibly yes. In a culture that is willing to hear the arguments out reasonably, same-sex marriage pretty much always wins: this is why its ultimate victory is inevitable, and this is why its opponents must resort to tactics that appeal through deception and propaganda to people's deepest fears.

Plenty of opponents are simply not aware, for example, that civil marriage equality has no effect whatsoever on the free exercise of religion.

That may be, but the harder you attack your opponents on this matter the harder they will fight you,

Religiously-motivated people have been attacking gay people with incredible savagery for about a millennium and a half, a period during which for the most part there was no substantive or effective resistance and no threat at all from a gay civil rights movement. The only progress we've made in stopping them has come from fighting back.

If you'd been willing to compromise on that you'd have won in California.

Um. It may be surprise you... but by this standard we've already won in California, because California even before In re Marriage Cases had domestic partnership laws that granted equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples. We didn't have to compromise.

The same is true in New Jersey, New Hampshire, Vermont, and many of the other states that have recently passed or are considering same-sex marriage legislation (the exception being New York, I think, where polls indicate something between an even split to majority support for same-sex marriage, so....).

Yeah? How well did that work for ya in the most populous state in the union?

...rather well, actually, considering that the margin of victory was far lower than that of the comparable Prop. 22 in 2000, that California has domestic partnership laws (that the recent decision explicitly gave constitutional protection to despite Prop. 8), and that there are now more than 18,000 same-sex marriages in California.

Bull. What you're trying to accomplish is tyranny by the minority.

No, it isn't. There are principles by which liberal democratic societies function. One of them is equal protection under the law. That is all advocates of same-sex marriage demand, and that has never been up to majority whim.

You could have civil unions in all 50 states

Um, no, we couldn't. Not now anyway. Maybe in ten years, and over that period we'll try to get exactly that. But, then, in twenty-five we could get equal marriage... and when we can have victories now there, why wait?

Religion is a big part of it. No need to elaborate on that I think everybody prettymuch has their thoughts entrenched on it.

Religion is not a valid reason to infringe upon the rights of another person, unless you're willing to accept that my religion dictates that I keep slaves.


For me, another big part of it is that I see value in maintaining certain traditions unless and until I have reason to believe that changing them will produce a positive outcome for society at large. See, I hear a lot about how our culture is somehow backward and flawed if it doesn't acknowledge gay marriages yet I don't see where it's broken. Gay couples have cohabitated for as long as there's been human history and only now is there a push for official status.

What traditions are we maintaining? Marriage was redefined within the last hundred years to allow interracial couples to wed.


The legal reasoning I've already conceded but there's ways to equalize that without stomping over values and traditions that people believe in. Maybe in some future date there will be total acceptance of Gay marriage (it could happen) but until that happens, it's wrong to push such a change and then start screaming discrimination at anybody who doesn't just fall in line.

Why is it wrong to call discrimination discrimination? Are you equally opposed to calling houses houses, or should we come up with an equivalent but not equal word for houses too? If two dudes get married, that is not stomping over anyone's values or traditions, unless the business of random dudes is imperative to your values or traditions. Do your values or traditions demand that everyone else in the world adhere to them the same as you do?


And finally, I'm not convinced that children are not missing out by not having parents of both sexes raising them, offering their differing perspectives, adding their unique points of view to the upbringing of a child.

I have a gay friend who disagrees with me on that, but he does agree that guys are guys regardless of their sexual attraction, and for that reason I think a child raised by two men is missing out on the benefits of having a mom, just as a kid raised by two women is missing out on having a dad. And yes, I think that's important.

So you're opposed to single parent households? Should we get around to forced marriages if a kid is conceived out of wedlock? What about widowers? Should they be forced to remarry if they have a kid?


There. You asked for one, I gave you three. I hope you'll prove me wrong about the pigeonholing thing.

To be fair, you gave three bad reasons, and not a single valid reason, why another person's rights should be impeded because you find it distasteful. I find bigotry excused by 'religion' distasteful, but you do not see me demanding the abolishment of religion. 'Values' and 'traditions' and 'religion' are not valid reasons to deny gays rights, any more than they were valid reasons to continue slavery.

So, let's say, for some reason, a movement emerged to amend the constitution so that women could not vote. Some church, say, the Catholic Church, started donating heavily in support of the amendment. A bunch of people ended up supporting this, and the constitution was amended. Would you criticize the Catholic Church for this, even if they were not the only ones involved and even if other organizations campaigned hard to keep the right of women to vote?

I'd like to think you would. You may be in favor of discrimination against gay people, but I don't take you for one who would deny suffrage to women.

Yes, but let me qualify that. If that scenario ever came up I would already have had criticism for the Catholic Church for being sexist in the first place, and the idea of their donating money to a cause like that would come as no surprise.

Having said that, if I wanted to point the finger I'd point it right at the voters where the blame belongs. Blaming and railing against the Church would be a waste of my time because they're only doing what's in their agenda to do. Attacking them only galvanizes them and strengthens their support.

You want change, do what they did. Reach out to the voters. Oh, and don't give me any excuses like "Well the Catholic Church has a metric buttload of money!!!" In the case of Prop 8, the Prop 8-NO side actually raised more total dollars than the Prop 8-YES people did, even with all the church member donations.


Yeah. And being against allowing black people t o marry doesn't make me a racist either, right?

I reject that analogy. People who support Prop 8 are talking about basic family units being built from a man and wife. Gay marriage is a new concept in terms of human society. There have always been gay couples... but marriage? Not so much. Interracial couples is nothing new to human society. It didn't represent any unprecedented change nor did it go against any religious teachings (despite a bunch of bullshit rhetoric to the contrary from both sides.)

And that's my response for each time you used that analogy in your reply, so for the sake of brevity I won't re-copy it.


Again, strategically, it might not be the best decision in all cases-- but some people are a lost cause and will never support equality. But if we, as society, call people out on bigotry and assign that bigotry a negative label, then other people, who grow up in that society, will be less likely to hold bigoted beliefs. If we have a pejorative label for people who are against equality, children will see that and be influenced by it.

YOU see it as bigotry. Keep in mind your perspective on this isn't universal. The logic you're using there could as easily be used by the other side to create labels for those on yours, justifying it in the exact same way.

That ain't constructive. You want people to base their opinions and beliefs on labels, not rational arguments or a positive example. No thanks.


I do give rational reasons for my support of Gay marriage. But that doesn't mean I should be dishonest and say that people who are pro-discrimination are anything but bigots, just because I might hurt their feelings. Dr. King wasn't afraid to call people racist because it might hurt their feelings.


Dr. King also reached out in friendship, not confrontation. He disarmed his opponents by being polite and gracious even when his opponents didn't deserve such consideration.


Have we been reading the same thread?
When somebody claimed that "marriage has always been between a man and a woman," others have pointed to cases in history where that was not so, and how the definition of marriage has always changed with the times.

Yeah those cases strike me as being a bit hard to rely upon. After all, for the last 20 years I've been hearing all sorts of historical pundits trying to push their agenda by redefining history. If such claims are to be believed, Lincoln, Washington, Napoleon, Charlemagne, etc etc etc were all gay. You gotta be careful with that stuff, dude.


The problem is, most people who are against gay equality don't make rational points, the just say something like "fags are immoral, and we shouldn't support immoral faggotry."

Arguments like that irritate me too. Somebody who chooses to express their argument in such terms are no better than the people I'm criticizing in my post here, but at the same time I'd rather have such people speaking in the open rather than in secret.

But I'd like to see you back up the claim that it's what "most people who are against gay [marriage]" say.


Sure, I'll hear the arguments out again, but I'll just post the same rebuttals to them, and then the pro-discrimination side will probably respond by just reposting the arguments or by saying "well it's my belief, I don't need to defend it, because it's my opinion."

You have to admit on some level they're entitled to that just as you are.


I could not disagree more. Plenty of decent people don't have good reasons for all their opinions. People tend to not think all their positions through or carefully examine the rational basis for their positions, because for most people, it's just too much effort. They'd prefer to relax and watch the game. Further, most people have difficulty admitting that their first judgment is wrong. Once they come to an opinion it is extremely difficult to change it. Doesn't mean they're bad people.

I hope you're not suggesting only one side of this discussion is guilty of that.


The evidence indicates that this is the case.
Nate Silver had an excellent analysis (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html) a while back on when each state is likely to legalize gay marriage.

Fine. I already conceded that it could happen in the very post you're quoting me from.


Would you be okay with it if Mormons could only get civil unions, but Mormon marriage was illegal?

Funny you raise that particular analogy, as it's already happened, in a way. Polygamy, anyone?

Frankly if the law were changed so that *NO* marriages were officially recognized by the Government but all were treated equally as civil unions, I'd be perfectly fine with that.


So the people voted against full equality. For a long time, people were for compromising on black equality, saying we should accept the "separate but equal" compromise. I know your church once taught (still teaches? I must admit I'm ignorant on what the LDS Church's official position on this teaching is. Do they think they were mistaken when they taught it previously?) that black people are only black because they were unfaithful to God during Lucifer's rebellion, but I'm sure you're anti-segregation.

No that was never taught by the church. Some individuals believed something like that as they struggled to reconcile why black people were denied the priesthood for a long time. Just by way of clarification, Mormon theology teaches that ALL humans on Earth were faithful to God during that rebellion, otherwise they wouldn't be here. Those who joined with Lucifer became demons, not Africans ;) )

And yes, that was an error. Joseph Smith himself baptized and ordained black people, setting the correct example but some time after that it got changed and I believe that was an error that took a long time to rectify.


No, it's not tyranny by the minority. If Gay marriage is legal, nobody will be forced to have one. Straight marriage will not be made illegal. Churches who want to discriminate against gay people will be allowed to. Gay marriage will not deny anybody any rights, nor will it impact anybody except for gay people in any way whatsoever. (Well, it will impact people like me who would want to attend my gay friends' weddings, but it won't impact anti-gay people in any way.)

I'm not convinced of this at all. There are already examples of people trying to push legislation to revoke the ability for ministers to marry couples if they refuse to also do it for gay couples. Sure, such legislation hasn't passed... yet.


But why should we compromise?


Because that's how things get done.


The only justification any body ever offers is religion, and we have a legal separation of church and state. I know you oppose this important Constitutional protection, but it's still there, and good luck amending the US Constitution to get rid of it.

Yeah thanks for the cheap shot there, sport. Your assertions there aren't even accurate.

Lets not forget that gender and sex are anything but concrete. How are we defining sex? How are we defining gender? If we call "XX" female, and "XY" male, what do we do about the rare XX male and XY female? Or XXY males? What about transexuals? Do we define "male" and "female" strictly by what is between the legs? If so, then what about transexuals?

Presently, it depends on the state. There have actually been cases in which a transwoman was recognized as female in one state and married. Then, when she and her husband moved to another state, the marriage was considered annulled because the only classification that state recognized was chromosomal.

So you're opposed to single parent households?
IDK about him, but I personally am strongly opposed to them.
On gay households rising children, I lean strongly towards okay, unless we get evidence of them bringing bad results. A single-parent household, however, deprives the child not just of different gender perspectives, but, more importantly, of witnessing communication between people. Parent-child communication is not the same, as it's extremely one-sided and on a "downgraded" level.

The only reason these things have to remain allowed is that we don't have the capability to provide every child with a family, and the alternatives we can provide are even worse than single-parent households. Probably. Although if I saw a conclusive study, my opinion on this might change.

You don't know me, champ

You're a mormon. Enough said.

Religion is a big part of it.

I don't see how this is a non-homophobic reason. Imagine my religion says (or is so interpreted to say) "Jews should not have equal rights." Would you not call me an anti-Semite?

See, I hear a lot about how our culture is somehow backward and flawed if it doesn't acknowledge gay marriages yet I don't see where it's broken.

It's "broken" because people are denied equal protection under the law: same-sex relationships, in no sense relevantly different from those of opposite-sex couples, are denied equal rights and benefits, or equal legal status. A law that connotes the inferiority of a given group of people is an illegitimate law.

The legal reasoning I've already conceded but there's ways to equalize that without stomping over values and traditions that people believe in.

No, there isn't. There never is. When inequality is socially-sanctioned, as most enduring inequality is, to break with it is always to break with traditional culture. But we do not have the right to preserve culture at the price of inequality: part of the meaning of the idea of a republic is that the laws that govern our lives are not a matter of necessarily fitting my or your picture of how we would like the world to be, but of deciding what laws justly treat the citizenry. To have a different attitude is to treat the state not as a common authority needing public justifications, but as a personal fiefdom.

And finally, I'm not convinced that children are not missing out by not having parents of both sexes raising them, offering their differing perspectives, adding their unique points of view to the upbringing of a child.

It's funny how social conservatives, so keen on keeping the state out of child-raising when it comes to matters like sex education, suddenly become perfectionists when it comes to state intervention to enforce their particular preferred form of family life.

You know what? You may be right. There probably are some significant differences between being raised by two same-sex parents versus two opposite-sex parents. Some of those differences may be disadvantageous. Some of them may be advantageous, too.

There are differences between being raised by my parents and being raised by your parents, too. There are differences between being raised by Mormon parents and being raised by Catholic parents. If you want to talk about "diversity"... well, there are certainly differences between being raised by an interracial couple versus not.

Now, for all the positive rhetoric we give about difference, it's probably implausible that all these cases are perfect ties: that the various differences between couples are always or even ever irrelevant with respect to the well-being of children. Of course they aren't. But you'll note that for the most part the government doesn't concern themselves with them. We don't have child licenses, and adoption agencies don't do exhaustive research on the private behavior of each couple seeking to adopt a child.

Why? Because we know that whatever differences there may be between couples, positive or negative, they don't impact the truly important thing, that children live in stable homes with loving, attentive parents, that they form a functional family that is capable of dealing with whatever problems may arise--as problems will arise, in any family. Family life is not about maximum optimality.

But we find, for some reason, that when this particular difference comes up social conservatives get all offended, demanding that same-sex couples not be allowed to raise children (even when all else is not equal and they are the best choice for the child)--even despite the utter lack of empirical evidence supporting claims of harm, even despite the general social acceptance of a wide range of other differences in couples and in child-raising strategies.

Why? Because they are homophobic. There is no other reason.

But you know what? None of this is relevant. Marriage in our society, both legally and socially, is not about raising children. Plenty of childless couples are married: couples who don't have children, couples who have no intention of having children, couples who will actively prevent themselves from having children, couples who are infertile and can't have children. Nobody seriously proposes denying those couples marriage rights. So even if we were to go so far as to deny same-sex couples the opportunity to raise children, we still have no reason whatsoever to deny them equal marriage rights.

And, of course, when we do offer them said opportunity--as California does--that is all the more reason to offer them equal marriage rights, to better recognize and protect their families.

NO ONE should get to define marriage for anybody except themselves and their spouse(s).
NO ONE should have the right to enforce their definition of marriage on the rest of us.

My position is that the government should get out of the marriage entirely. Instead, what is now known as marriage should be performed by the means of a contract.

The government should rather create a proper legal framework to allow such contracts to carry all the functions necessary to be able to work like the existing marriages. Grandfather the old ones, but do not register any new marriages, homo, heterosexual, or any others. Just let the contracts work.

So your argument is that we should retain government recognized marriage with all the existing protections, just under a different, more generic, name? Oh, and that we should make the process to get one more complicated?

Why, exactly?

Give me one single rational reason to oppose equal marriage rights for homosexual couples that is not based on fear or deception. Just one.

If we let the gays marry, people will start marrying their pets!

Wait....er......

The gays will turn our children gay!

Wait.....er....

Gay people who commit to monogamous relationships spread AIDS!

Wait....er.....

It just ain't right, cuz I say so!

Ah, that was scary. Had trouble with that one.

Religion is a big part of it. No need to elaborate on that I think everybody prettymuch has their thoughts entrenched on it.

Religion could equally be a big part of someone pushing for gay marriage. This is why we tend to steer away from enshrining particular religious views in our law.

For me, another big part of it is that I see value in maintaining certain traditions unless and until I have reason to believe that changing them will produce a positive outcome for society at large. See, I hear a lot about how our culture is somehow backward and flawed if it doesn't acknowledge gay marriages yet I don't see where it's broken. Gay couples have cohabitated for as long as there's been human history and only now is there a push for official status.

Well, up until fairly recently, they probably would have been killed if they even openly cohabitated. It's a little hard to push for your rights when people still believe that it's ok to beat you up or even kill you just for living your life.

But it's also important to note that those cohabitating couples have suffered for that lack of recognition as long as they have cohabitated. They have seen their homes pulled out from under them by the family of their partners or by the need to pay taxes on their "inheritance." They have seen their children taken to other families because they weren't family. They have been unable to find out of their partner was harmed or killed in an accident before it is reported on the news. They have, at times, been unable to see the person they built a life with as that person lay dying in a hospital. And so on....

The legal reasoning I've already conceded but there's ways to equalize that without stomping over values and traditions that people believe in.

Not really. There are ways to get close, while still treating them as second-class citizens. But the only way to truly equalize it is to recognize that, since they are in the same situation as their heterosexual counterparts, they are entitled to the same protections under the same legal framework.

And finally, I'm not convinced that children are not missing out by not having parents of both sexes raising them, offering their differing perspectives, adding their unique points of view to the upbringing of a child.

There are plenty of single-parent households. Should we do something legally to prevent that, too? Is it impossible for two men or two women to have differing perspectives and unique points of view? Is it impossible for a couple to include other adults in the lives of their children?

Meanwhile, this isn't really an argument against same-sex marriage recognition. At best, it's an argument either for taking the children of gay parents away from them or for banning them from adopting children.

By preventing marital recognition, the situation for children of gay parents is actually much worse than it would be with said recognition. Those children are less protected, as there are legal bonds that cannot be forged. A child of married heterosexual parents (even if one is not a biological parent) can benefit from both parents sharing custody, from health insurance provided by either parent, from implied inheritance from either parent, continued care even if the parents separate, and so on. Unless you also think we should ban homosexuals from being parents, you are relegating their children to essentially being in single-parent households, even when another willing parent is present. Even if you do believe that a household in which both a mother and father are present is ideal, is it really better to have one with a mother or father, plus someone else who legally cannot share the responsibilities of child-rearing?

Edit: Wow, you got lots of responses to that post. Yikes!

Supporting Proposition 8 does not make someone a homophobe. I know it's sort of an easy cheap shot to try and take and all that, but if you want to be intellectually honest, then you must understand this: Supporting Proposition 8 does not make someone a homophobe.Support of Proposition 8 inherently means that one believes that gays and lesbians are not entitled to identical rights as heterosexuals. Restated, supporting Proposition 8 supports identifying homosexuals as a seperate class of citizens. And as always, seperate inherently is not equal.
How is that not homophobic?

To be honest, I don't find it particularly constructive to use that sort of labeling even when dealing with a genuine homophobe. It's certainly not going to open their mind to your point of view and once someone's been put on the defensive in any debate that way then no further useful discussion can come of it. To be honest, I don't particularly care if they come to agree with my point of view or not. Because, at least in the US, we have the 9th and 14th amendments, along with SCOTUS precident that supports my view point. Human rights aren't an issue of winning over hearts and minds.


Says you. Frankly if someone disagreed with me on an issue like that I'd much rather try to warm them to my point of view by having a reasonable discussion. That way, even if they don't change their minds at least I can get them thinking about it and who knows where that might lead later on?
I don't personally think anyone on this thread has not been reasonable. It's an NSG debate, and sticks pretty well to our standard level of warm fuzzies. If we think someone is wrong, it is dishonest to say "Well, I see your point, but...". No. I don't see your point. Why? Because you're wrong. And here's why.

Yeah sure I am. I'll tell you what, if you ask the gay people with whom I associate in my real life if I'm a homophobe they'll probably laugh in your face. Given that they know me a lot better than any of you ever will, I assure you if you want to think of me that way I won't be losing any sleep over it. I have had two people come out to me before their parents even knew. (One is my brother, the other is a friend who is still in the closet as far as his family is concerned.) I've got nothing to prove to you.
"I can't be a homophobe! I have gay friends!"

That doesn't mean that your stances don't reduce your brother and friend to second class citizens.

Because I'm trying to help, believe it or not. I think this whole issue would be much better dealt with if people on both sides quit trying to rip each other and actually talk about it like the rational adults everybody claims to be. Again, we've been pretty rational on here.

I haven't yet seen anybody around here actually listen to a Prop 8 supporter raise their points without responding derisively and with posts that show they weren't really listening, they were quote mining. Really? Because in every one of these threads, I've seen actual debate occur. Mostly coming from a new person who supports prop 8 and tragically wanders in to NSG. They make their case, and we make ours. It's debate. And it's glorious.

Now, I'm not saying all of those representing that side have necessarily done a very good job of expressing their point of view, and I won't say there haven't been any genuine homophobes trying to, either. I do think, however, it behooves you to try and actually gain a genuine and honest understanding of where they're coming from. (By "they" I mean those who aren't homophobic.) It's what you expect of them, and you owe them the same courtesy in return.
I know where they are coming from. Because I, like you, have friends. And I've discussed it with them. And when I simply say "So...you think of me as a friend, but you're okay with stripping me of my rights?", they tend to get very quiet. Because suddenly, they actually have to think...not all queers are flamboyant. Some are wicked into hockey and football. Some drink beer like champs. Not all gays are "icky". And yes, those who continue to think I deserve to be a second class citizen are homophobes (in the truest sense...they have had their view challenged and chose to maintain it).

Well first of all I don't accept the idea that Prop 8 = segregation in the way you're thinking of it, but that's beside the point. Frankly if I were debating a segregationist on some race related issue I would hear them out, of for no other reason than to set the stage to get them to hear me out in return. If they do, then a constructive dialog has taken place. If they don't, well their loss, not mine, if they refuse to hear me in return. That gives me the moral high ground anyway. What's not to like? At least I can say I approached the subject reasonably, rather than patting myself on the back for being a jackass to somebody whose point of view I don't like.
The very fact that I can recite the exact course these threads will take shows that, at least once, I was listening. Once, it was all shiny and new and I had never heard it before. Which brings us to here:
"Well we've heard all the Prop 8 arguments before, Neo B. Why should we listen to them again?"I do continue to listen to theirs. It's like playing an old video game. Sometimes, just to keep your skills up and for a little entertainment, you play the classics. Just because I know what facts and figures I'll have to use doesn't mean that I don't have to pay attention to whats going on around me. Who knows, maybe they'll surprise me with some ground breaking study.

Well, for the same reason you demand that they listen to yours again. You think the "Prop 8 yes" haven't heard your arguments before? You really think you're that clever or that original? Especially on this forum those arguments have been seen ad nauseam. Maybe what's needed is a fresh perspective.
They likely never saw the Boston Globe article I posted, as that was only published a few days ago. So yes, for as static as this debate is, there is still new information introduced every now and again.

People of good conscience generally have valid reasons for believing in what they do, and if not, then a little honest and courteous dialogue might just give them something new to think about. Now, if you really want to take the position that all people who are pro-Prop 8 are people of BAD conscience then you're being just as intellectually lazy as calling them all homophobes. You won't gain any ground that way, and on this issue you ain't exactly in the lead.
No, but I will say that generally, it is a distinct lack of understanding or personal discomfort that leads to support of prop 8...neither of which are good enough reasons to create second class citizens.

That may be, but the harder you attack your opponents on this matter the harder they will fight you, and you only make the whole thing a much harder ordeal than it has to be.They can fight all they want. The fact of the matter is, this is about human rights. In the same way that we don't say "Everyone can say anything they want...except people named Chris. Those perverts", we should not say "Everyone can marry whomever they want....except gays. Those perverts". And ultimatly, debate doesn't matter. Either our Constitution will live up to its standard of equal protection under the law and privacy rights for all citizens, or it will not.


Sort of. Obviously we live in a culture now where gay couples are commonplace. While I do not support this morally, I acknowledge that it's there. You'd be surprised at how many people who support Prop 8 would be perfectly fine with some kind of legally equivalent civil union.
Which is not the equivalent of marriage. Hell, in this very thread, we have shown that gay MARRIAGE, let alone civil unions, are not equal to heterosexual MARRIAGE, despite using the same term.


No, you really would be surprised. I actually LISTEN to what the religious right says and I am telling you as part of the religious right. Civil Unions aren't nearly as much a problem as you think for us. If you'd been willing to compromise on that you'd have won in California.
Actually, I know that for a fact. Why? Because I read the paper. Because I've seen the statistics from surveys and studys and polls that demonstrate what you say to be true. But here's the thing...and it's a big one. I'm not willing to compromise. My buddy, one of the 18,000 people who did get married, was not willing to compromise. The other 18,000 people who got married are not willing to compromise. Because to compromise is to say "you're right. We aren't as good as you. We do deserve to be treated differently. We don't have the same rights as you". And frankly, I'm not willing to debase myself to protect someone elses traditions and someone elses sense of morality.
"We shouldn't have to compromise! We want our rights!!!"
Bingo.
Yeah? How well did that work for ya in the most populous state in the union?Not so well. And yet, it is working soaringly well in New England. If the 6 in '12 goal is achieved, an area with a population of just under Florida's (making it the 5th largest) will have gay marriage. As if population means anything to this debate.
The fact is you have to be mature about this. I have to be mature as people state to my face that I'm somehow below them? No, I don't. The fact of the matter is I choose to be quite mature in that I don't scream at them, berate them, or hit them. I also don't sugarcoat anything I say, mince words, or cottle their feelings to make sure they keep an open mind. I quickly and soundly defeat their points within a debate.
You forget that your beliefs on this matter are just that - your beliefs. Other people have their own beliefs that may not be compatible with yours. Trying to belittle them and force them aside like a bull in a china shop is no way to achieve social change. Difficult as it is to imagine, their beliefs actually count as much as yours do, so you have to deal with that. Their ideas that gays are a seperate class do not hold as much weight as mine. Not all opinions, not all ideas, not all concepts are created equal.

You could have civil unions in all 50 states and I think that's something both sides can live with. Let the extremists on either side complain.No, sorry. I can't live with treating full fledged citizens as a seperate class before the law. I can't live with giving group A rights X Y and Z, but only giving group B rights X and Y. It isn't good enough.

I like you, LG but unless I'm misunderstanding your approach, you set that question up to pigeonhole any answer someone might give into one of the categories you created: irrational, fear or deception.

But I'll answer lest someone accuse me of evading the question.

Religion is a big part of it. No need to elaborate on that I think everybody prettymuch has their thoughts entrenched on it.

For me, another big part of it is that I see value in maintaining certain traditions unless and until I have reason to believe that changing them will produce a positive outcome for society at large. Like gay marriage? Here we go (http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/relationships/articles/2009/05/24/for_gay_couples_married_matters/). Gay marriage produces stronger relationships between the partners, and thus a stronger family unit. A positive outcome for society at large.
See, I hear a lot about how our culture is somehow backward and flawed if it doesn't acknowledge gay marriages yet I don't see where it's broken. Gay couples have cohabitated for as long as there's been human history and only now is there a push for official status.
Because it was only 40 years ago that the Stonewall Riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots) occured. Because it was only 40 years ago that gays were fighting to be able to have jobs, regardless of who they slept with. Because for the last few centuries, being gay was a good reason to fire someone, or beat them up, or vandalize their property. Because it was only within the last 40 years that gays have collectively said "Enough. We live in a nation that promises equality for all. Now we are going to demand it."
Women have existed since the dawn of man, yet it was only in the early part of the last century that they demanded their right to vote. Why? Because before that, there were bigger battles to face.
Gay marriage is one of the last legal hurdles homosexuals have left. Why are we only now demanding it? Because we've only now cleared the last 100 others.

So...your first reason is because you don't see it as being a positive for society? You now have evidence to the contrary. Ergo, this stance was due to unintended ignorance. You were uninformed (as most were and still are...gay marriage hasn't been around long, and there hasn't been tons of research), and now you have a resource to inform yourself.
The legal reasoning I've already conceded but there's ways to equalize that without stomping over values and traditions that people believe in. Maybe in some future date there will be total acceptance of Gay marriage (it could happen) but until that happens, it's wrong to push such a change and then start screaming discrimination at anybody who doesn't just fall in line.No. It isn't good enough. That same article demonstrates that there is a sociological benefit to the term "marriage". The very word carries weight and meaning. "I am married" vs. "I have a civil union". One is a state of being, the other a posession. "This is my husband" vs. "This is my partner". One is a full fledge, legally bound person. The other is what you have when you play tennis, or go into business. Words matter. And as I've argued before, compromise on this issue isn't good enough. Is there good reason backing why you feel that compromise is "good enough"?

Society rarely changes without some kind of push.

And finally, I'm not convinced that children are not missing out by not having parents of both sexes raising them, offering their differing perspectives, adding their unique points of view to the upbringing of a child.Then make single parenting illegal. And foster homes. And parental death.
The fact is, I can have a female influence my son. Say my boy and I have a child. He will be exposed to my mother, his mother, my sister, his sister. Does it present different challenges? Sure. Does every family have challenges? Yep. So why this one? Why is this an issue?

I have a gay friend who disagrees with me on that, but he does agree that guys are guys regardless of their sexual attraction, and for that reason I think a child raised by two men is missing out on the benefits of having a mom, just as a kid raised by two women is missing out on having a dad. And yes, I think that's important.
And I'd agree that it is important to have a strong female and strong male role model in every childs life. But as is so often the case in the world we live in, that doesn't have to be the parent.

Well, that's me told then. Your intricate debate skills and cunning linguistics have completely refuted my arguments and left me without a rhetorical leg to stand on. I'm going to have to rethink my entire weltanschauung now.

What did you expect? It was nosense. It was bullshit.

You didn't actually deal with the subject of tactics at all - you dealt with winning and losing, which isn't necessarily defined by the tactics, in any way.

Perfect tactics, and sufficient weight of numbers in opposition? Doesn't matter how good the tactics are, eventually, you lose.

Prefect tactics, but your battle plan is upset by a surprise attack from the other side? You still lose, no matter how good your tactics were.

I've said this before but it's been a while so I think it bears repeating.

Supporting Proposition 8 does not make someone a homophobe.

I was going to read the whole thing, but when you START by trying to explain how removing rights from someone based purely on their gender orientation ISN'T prejudice, I realise you have nothing weorth listening to.

NO ONE should get to define marriage for anybody except themselves and their spouse(s).
NO ONE should have the right to enforce their definition of marriage on the rest of us.


My position is that the government should get out of the marriage entirely. Instead, what is now known as marriage should be performed by the means of a contract.


Marriage is a contract.

The government's involvement is deciding how those contracts can be written up, which IS a legitimate function of government.

What you and I agree on, is that those contracts shouldn't be defined by ideologues enforcing their will on others, which is a good reason for a secular progressive government to be involved.

Yes, it does. Or, at least, it means that either they are simply homophobic or they are very confused about what legalizing same-sex marriage actually constitutes, a confusion that is generally the result of homophobic propaganda.

Dude I think you're basing that on a faulty set of assumptions.


You haven't actually given any kind of reason at all why a non-homophobe would support Prop. 8, so I don't see the need to offer a response more extensive than that.

Why would I need to? Take a look at Fass. Here's a guy who excused himself from actually engaging in a reasonable debate on the grounds of a few preconceived assumptions which could easily be viewed as a form of bigotry as well. If you're doing the same thing but in a gentler tone, it still doesn't mean you're open to the discussion.


Actually, I agree. At least if they are inclined to be reasonable back to me.

But you're departing from the point a bit, aren't you? This has nothing to do with whether or not support for Prop. 8 is based on homophobia. It may be sometimes worthwhile to argue reasonably with bigots: this is really a tactical argument, not a moral one, though not one I'd necessarily endorse as strongly as you do. But that does not establish any non-bigoted justification for supporting it. Nor does it mean that we should, in our own thinking, take their bigoted arguments seriously.

That's the thing... There's a lot of pigeonholing going on. People tend to insulate themselves form having to listen by assigning preconceived categories to every argument they've heard before. "Oh this is religious zealotry" or "that just proves you hate." I don't think people even consider the sides anymore. You've provided me with a couple of examples right here, and I'll point them out as we go.


Actually, I wouldn't say this. I'd say, "Easy for you to say: you're straight."

Because when you're not, while you might say it anyway: it's not easy. To make nice to people who want to deny you what you're rightfully entitled to, who deny your equality and the legitimacy of your relationships, who want to codify their perception of your inferiority into the law... that's inherently a degrading conversation, because it is one that lacks mutual respect.


You're basing this on two faulty assumptions about the opposing perspective:

1)That they're seeking to deny you a right. You have to understand that as far as they're concerned, you're trying to assert a right out of thin air. If they do not see this right as even existing, how can they evaluate whether you're entitled to it or not?

2)That it has anything to do with inferiority. I'm not saying nobody out there thinks that way, but most of the people I've talked to do not, and they're the only ones I can speak for. To say that people are viewing you as inferior is to play the martyr.

I can say a great many people wouldn't bother if they DID see you as inherently inferior.


This is a pathetically poor argument that you should be ashamed of. Not only do you speak for your gay associates (which if any of my straight friends did would not please me at all), but you insist that anecdotal examples of "gay people" with whom you have had personal relations are the best ones to judge your bigotry or lack of such.

Excuse me but I know them, you do not. You seem to be assuming that you know their minds better than they do just because you happen to have the same sexual attractions. Not only is that ridiculous but it supports my point in that I see them as individual people who are my friends and family. You see them as a collection of gay people who aren't being honest with me.

The last time this sort of thing came up with another NSG poster I went back one of my gay buddies and told him that evidently some nameless, faceless Internet user knew him better than I did and that he should be secretly resenting me and hiding his true thoughts on the grounds that I'm a Mormon and must therefore be a homophobe. He though that was hilarious.

So, my friend, when I say my gay friends would laugh in your face for saying what you did then I'm not speaking for them, I'm relating an anecdote.


I am always suspicious of anyone who is inclined to claim that he or she is not bigoted: it suggests, usually enough, that they are. Not, generally, because they are defensive (though that can sometimes be the case), but because they are so convinced that they are immune that they do not bother to examine themselves honestly.

When people add to arguments like yours loud protestations of their non-bigotry, I am even more suspicious.


Hey at the end of the day if you feel the need to see me as a homophobe then have at it. It doesn't hurt me any. The people who matter to me know me so knock yourself out if it makes you happy. I do get defensive of people being labeled as homophobes in general because I DO think it's unfair that their arguments and points of view tend to get ignored in favor of a bunch of bullshit semantic labeling meant to obscure the argument, not persuade.


I can't speak for your sight, and, I'd bet, nobody else can either. But if NSG is more derisive toward supporters of Prop. 8 than in general it is only because their arguments are so laughably bad.


Oh come on man, you can't tell me it has nothing to do with the overwhelming left tendency of this forum.


Um, it may surprise you, but plenty of us have made this attempt. We've just come to a different conclusion than you about the merits of what we have genuinely and honestly understood.

Or maybe you're lumping everybody into the same category.


Actually, possibly yes. In a culture that is willing to hear the arguments out reasonably, same-sex marriage pretty much always wins: this is why its ultimate victory is inevitable, and this is why its opponents must resort to tactics that appeal through deception and propaganda to people's deepest fears.

The same has been said about your side.

Plenty of opponents are simply not aware, for example, that civil marriage equality has no effect whatsoever on the free exercise of religion.
[/quote]

I wish that were so. If it were, I'd step away from the debate.


Religiously-motivated people have been attacking gay people with incredible savagery for about a millennium and a half, a period during which for the most part there was no substantive or effective resistance and no threat at all from a gay civil rights movement. The only progress we've made in stopping them has come from fighting back.


Does that include times when someone is trying to engage you in a civil discussion? One would think so, from watching the debate thus far.


Um. It may be surprise you... but by this standard we've already won in California, because California even before In re Marriage Cases had domestic partnership laws that granted equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples. We didn't have to compromise.


Then what's the problem? What was Prop 8 about then? If things were already peachy and Prop 8 has put them back to where they were (civil unions are still perfectly valid in CA) then what do you have to complain about?


The same is true in New Jersey, New Hampshire, Vermont, and many of the other states that have recently passed or are considering same-sex marriage legislation (the exception being New York, I think, where polls indicate something between an even split to majority support for same-sex marriage, so....).


The list of states that have outlawed same sex marriage through referendum is a good bit longer than that, my friend.


...rather well, actually, considering that the margin of victory was far lower than that of the comparable Prop. 22 in 2000, that California has domestic partnership laws (that the recent decision explicitly gave constitutional protection to despite Prop. 8), and that there are now more than 18,000 same-sex marriages in California.

You seem to be missing the fact that Prop 8 wasn't about civil unions, which is what I've been saying regarding how willing the political right is to compromise and not argue that point.


No, it isn't. There are principles by which liberal democratic societies function. One of them is equal protection under the law. That is all advocates of same-sex marriage demand, and that has never been up to majority whim.


Except that you're claiming a right that hasn't been universally accepted to exist, and villifying anyone who dares to disagree with you. That's bullying to get your way.


Um, no, we couldn't. Not now anyway. Maybe in ten years, and over that period we'll try to get exactly that. But, then, in twenty-five we could get equal marriage... and when we can have victories now there, why wait?

Doesn't matter to you at all how anybody else sees it, does it? And yet you're ready to demonize anyone who does that to you. "Won't see things my way? You're a HOMOPHOBE!"

Religion is a big part of it. No need to elaborate on that I think everybody prettymuch has their thoughts entrenched on it.
My religion says gay marriage is a-ok.

For me, another big part of it is that I see value in maintaining certain traditions unless and until I have reason to believe that changing them will produce a positive outcome for society at large. See, I hear a lot about how our culture is somehow backward and flawed if it doesn't acknowledge gay marriages yet I don't see where it's broken.
That's easy. Gay couples are denied the benefits of marriage that straight couples enjoy(when they're married, obviously). Gays would like to be treated equally, please.
Gay couples have cohabitated for as long as there's been human history and only now is there a push for official status.
Therefore......what? We should keep it that way?

The legal reasoning I've already conceded but there's ways to equalize that without stomping over values and traditions that people believe in.
Ah, problem. Not granting gay people the right to have gay marriages stomps all over the values of other people. Whose take priority?
Maybe in some future date there will be total acceptance of Gay marriage (it could happen) but until that happens, it's wrong to push such a change and then start screaming discrimination at anybody who doesn't just fall in line.
That's hardly fair. Gay people have to be wait until they're totally accepted to be officially treated like they're fundamentally the same as anyone else. Women and blacks didn't wait that long, why should gays?
And finally, I'm not convinced that children are not missing out by not having parents of both sexes raising them, offering their differing perspectives, adding their unique points of view to the upbringing of a child.I have a gay friend who disagrees with me on that, but he does agree that guys are guys regardless of their sexual attraction, and for that reason I think a child raised by two men is missing out on the benefits of having a mom, just as a kid raised by two women is missing out on having a dad. And yes, I think that's important.
This is an argument against allowing gays to raise children, not against allowing them to marry.

Religion is not a valid reason to infringe upon the rights of another person, unless you're willing to accept that my religion dictates that I keep slaves.

I don't expect anyone here to accept the religious argument, which is why I did not make it.


What traditions are we maintaining? Marriage was redefined within the last hundred years to allow interracial couples to wed.

No it wasn't. Interracial couples are nothing new to human civilization. It may have been a recent issue in U.S. History but the United States hardly represents world history at large.


Why is it wrong to call discrimination discrimination? Are you equally opposed to calling houses houses, or should we come up with an equivalent but not equal word for houses too? If two dudes get married, that is not stomping over anyone's values or traditions, unless the business of random dudes is imperative to your values or traditions. Do your values or traditions demand that everyone else in the world adhere to them the same as you do?


Your question assumes I agree that it's discriminatory.


So you're opposed to single parent households? Should we get around to forced marriages if a kid is conceived out of wedlock? What about widowers? Should they be forced to remarry if they have a kid?


Do I see a single parent household as the ideal? No. Am I morally opposed to deliberately becoming a single parent, for the reasons I stated? Yes. The best environment for a child is with a mom and a dad. This is why it's BAD when a parent dies. This is why divorce is a bad thing. Does it happen? Sure. Does that mean taking kids away? Of course not. That's quite different from creating the situation on purpose and then pretending it's the ideal.


To be fair, you gave three bad reasons, and not a single valid reason, why another person's rights should be impeded because you find it distasteful. I find bigotry excused by 'religion' distasteful, but you do not see me demanding the abolishment of religion. 'Values' and 'traditions' and 'religion' are not valid reasons to deny gays rights, any more than they were valid reasons to continue slavery.

Your opinion is duly noted.

It's one thing to be completely ignorant of the other person's point of view. It's quite another to put it up on display and then call it a virtue.


They use the word 'irony' much, down your way?


Religion is a big part of it.


Your religion is not a good reason to affect the laws of the entire land.

My religion says that Mormons aren't human, and thus can be disposed of according to preference. Torturing Mormons to death is okay, if you want.

I assume you are okay with the rules of my religion being made the law of the land?


For me, another big part of it is that I see value in maintaining certain traditions unless and until I have reason to believe that changing them will produce a positive outcome for society at large.


Blacks were the minority when the abolitionists won their right to freedom.

Given the increased costs of production, etc - it was a negative outcome for the society at large, for those peoeple to be allowed the same rights as everyone else.

You think we should have NOT abolished slavery?

Or - is it possible that 'the outcome for society' can be defined by as nebulous a concept as satisfying the (theoretical) Constitutional entitlement to equality?


And finally, I'm not convinced that children are not missing out by not having parents of both sexes raising them, offering their differing perspectives, adding their unique points of view to the upbringing of a child.


Parents aren't the only adults in a child's life.

By your 'logic', if your wife dies, your children should be taken from you till you replace her, yes?

1)That they're seeking to deny you a right.

They are.

There is no HONEST argument about that.

The Constitution does not discriminate... and when the laws of the land DO discriminate, they are eventually brought into compliance with the Constitution - see amendments that grant equality for blacks, equality for women, voting rights, etc.

If marriage of any kind is a 'right' (and you can make strong argument that it is covered, while not specifically enumerated) then discriminating in it's application is unconstitutional.

Based on history - that means it is inevitable that gay marriage will become the law of the land, most likely, by being enshrined in our Constitution - as those other historical precedents have been.

I don't see how this is a non-homophobic reason. Imagine my religion says (or is so interpreted to say) "Jews should not have equal rights." Would you not call me an anti-Semite?


No, I'd call you a radical Muslim.
It's a joke, people don't freak out.

No, I'd start by wanting to know where that came from and what other things it had to say about Jews. You want me to make a snap judgment on a single phrase? Come on man.


It's "broken" because people are denied equal protection under the law: same-sex relationships, in no sense relevantly different from those of opposite-sex couples, are denied equal rights and benefits, or equal legal status. A law that connotes the inferiority of a given group of people is an illegitimate law.


The bolded part is where the disagreement lies. There ARE relevant differences.

It would be extremely convenient for all if there weren't, but there are. Your side tends to downplay them, a lot of people on mine tend to overemphasize them, but they exist and that's the crux of the issue.


No, there isn't. There never is. When inequality is socially-sanctioned, as most enduring inequality is, to break with it is always to break with traditional culture. But we do not have the right to preserve culture at the price of inequality: part of the meaning of the idea of a republic is that the laws that govern our lives are not a matter of necessarily fitting my or your picture of how we would like the world to be, but of deciding what laws justly treat the citizenry. To have a different attitude is to treat the state not as a common authority needing public justifications, but as a personal fiefdom.


You're blurring the line between advocates for the argument and the State. You're proceeding from the assumption that your side is the only one with a point of view and that anyone who opposes it is just junk to be swept aside. I object to this, because being in a republic, since you brought it up, is also about finding common ground with people who don't share your beliefs.


It's funny how social conservatives, so keen on keeping the state out of child-raising when it comes to matters like sex education, suddenly become perfectionists when it comes to state intervention to enforce their particular preferred form of family life.


Actually I think it's more like you're the ones who want the state to come in and force your issue. Think about it.


You know what? You may be right. There probably are some significant differences between being raised by two same-sex parents versus two opposite-sex parents. Some of those differences may be disadvantageous. Some of them may be advantageous, too.

Maybe so, but the situation is too recent, too new to know for sure. Meanwhile people are agitating everywhere for gay couples to be able to adopt, all the while assuming it's fine for the kid. Maybe it is, maybe it's not, but I'm tired of hearing people vilified for wanting to know for sure before making these changes.


There are differences between being raised by my parents and being raised by your parents, too. There are differences between being raised by Mormon parents and being raised by Catholic parents. If you want to talk about "diversity"... well, there are certainly differences between being raised by an interracial couple versus not.

That's true, but issues like personal style and religion are products of culture, not biology. If there's a biological/psychological need that is filled by having parents of both sexes, then religion and parenting style are not nearly as relevant issues.


Now, for all the positive rhetoric we give about difference, it's probably implausible that all these cases are perfect ties: that the various differences between couples are always or even ever irrelevant with respect to the well-being of children. Of course they aren't. But you'll note that for the most part the government doesn't concern themselves with them. We don't have child licenses, and adoption agencies don't do exhaustive research on the private behavior of each couple seeking to adopt a child.


Actually, adoption agencies do, just FYI.

But you're right that we don't require licensing to have kids. It's one of seeming contradictions about our culture that it's harder to adopt a cat than it is to become a parent to a human being, and would make for an interesting discussion sometimes.

Note: I don't support any sort of licensing to have kids, btw.


Why? Because we know that whatever differences there may be between couples, positive or negative, they don't impact the truly important thing, that children live in stable homes with loving, attentive parents, that they form a functional family that is capable of dealing with whatever problems may arise--as problems will arise, in any family. Family life is not about maximum optimality.

But we find, for some reason, that when this particular difference comes up social conservatives get all offended, demanding that same-sex couples not be allowed to raise children (even when all else is not equal and they are the best choice for the child)--even despite the utter lack of empirical evidence supporting claims of harm, even despite the general social acceptance of a wide range of other differences in couples and in child-raising strategies.

Why? Because they are homophobic. There is no other reason.

Wrong. I was with you up until that last line.

Suppose, just hypothetically, that there potentially is some kind of psychological impact from being raised by same sex parents. (I'm not saying there is or that there isn't, just bear with me so I can make this point) Is it homophobia to want to hold off on having gay couples adopt, at least until a useful amount of objective research can be done? If people are concerned about the child, is that so unreasonable?

Now, you might argue that the fact that the question is even raised in the first place is the result of homophobic thinking, I would respond by reminding you that this is new ground in our culture in terms of widespread acceptance, and that doesn't make it homophobic, especially when people are trying to be objective.


But you know what? None of this is relevant. Marriage in our society, both legally and socially, is not about raising children. Plenty of childless couples are married: couples who don't have children, couples who have no intention of having children, couples who will actively prevent themselves from having children, couples who are infertile and can't have children. Nobody seriously proposes denying those couples marriage rights. So even if we were to go so far as to deny same-sex couples the opportunity to raise children, we still have no reason whatsoever to deny them equal marriage rights.

And, of course, when we do offer them said opportunity--as California does--that is all the more reason to offer them equal marriage rights, to better recognize and protect their families.

Heterosexual couples who choose not to have kids (or who are unable) are completely irrelevant because they're still operating within the existing social construct. They're not pushing to change society, nor would they need to.

Lets not forget that gender and sex are anything but concrete. How are we defining sex? How are we defining gender? If we call "XX" female, and "XY" male, what do we do about the rare XX male and XY female? Or XXY males? What about transexuals? Do we define "male" and "female" strictly by what is between the legs? If so, then what about transexuals?
Can you tell me what happens in California if a male and a female get married, and one of them has a sex change?


And also probably in Second Life.
These rights elsewhere are irrelevant. Since when can the rest of the world set standards for America? US doesn't even use the metric system.

We're talking about US here. And California in particular.
So as Fass said, you really don't know the meaning of the word "nobody". Especially since you choose to ignore the rest of the US while ranting about how rights elsewhere is irrelevant.

But I guess ignorance is bliss, and the fact that the right actually exists elsewhere is better left unsaid. Wouldn't want facts to get in the way of your "argument".

Why does our music suck so much?
Simple question really. It's because you're drunk in your Saunas all the time ;)

For me, another big part of it is that I see value in maintaining certain traditions unless and until I have reason to believe that changing them will produce a positive outcome for society at large. See, I hear a lot about how our culture is somehow backward and flawed if it doesn't acknowledge gay marriages yet I don't see where it's broken. Gay couples have cohabitated for as long as there's been human history and only now is there a push for official status.
You don't see how it's backward when it's not moving forward with the times? When we live in a time where we secure and safeguard the rights of individuals like never before, but choose not to include one group of people based only on their sexuality?

And the status quo is a good thing why? How will this not produce a positive outcome?

Is it really OK to treat people as second-class citizens just because they've survived with an unofficial status for a long time? I have a strong urge to invoke jews and black people here...


The legal reasoning I've already conceded but there's ways to equalize that without stomping over values and traditions that people believe in.
Why should values and traditions that deprive consenting adults of rights be respected?

Maybe in some future date there will be total acceptance of Gay marriage (it could happen) but until that happens, it's wrong to push such a change and then start screaming discrimination at anybody who doesn't just fall in line.
...even when they are discriminating?

And finally, I'm not convinced that children are not missing out by not having parents of both sexes raising them, offering their differing perspectives, adding their unique points of view to the upbringing of a child.
And I'm convinced that a lot of children would be much, much better off living with loving homosexual parents than abusive heterosexual parents.

Besides, disregarding that angle, your point of view is... odd. I could mention that there is no formal prerequisites to becoming a parent today, and no guarantee that these differing perspectives would be shared.

I could also mention that this has got little to do with marriage, but Ifreann's beaten me to that punch.

So your argument is that we should retain government recognized marriage with all the existing protections, just under a different, more generic, name? Oh, and that we should make the process to get one more complicated?
No. You've misunderstood it.

The government should not be the party to register and manage the citzens' marriages.

Instead, the marriages should be replaced by contracts. What these contracts contain is up to the spouses - they can be written to resemble the existing marital law, or to differ from it in radical ways.

The only duty the government has is to recognize those contracts. Just that.
Unfortunately, fully replicating a marriage with a contract isn't possible within the current legal framework. I'll let the NSG resident lawyers to go into details of the spousal rights that can't be achieved by contract (crucial rights, not just tax benefits).

A private contract instead of a state-governed marriage is nothing like a simple name change. It completely changes the way the matters are handled.
For instance, divorce changes from an exhausting and bankrupting series of trials into a matter of looking into the "Termination" paragraph. You agree on the conditions before the 'marriage' (or however you like to call it).
You decide how your marriage should work, not some bureaucrat you have never seen nor would ever want to see.

Religion could equally be a big part of someone pushing for gay marriage. This is why we tend to steer away from enshrining particular religious views in our law.


I know.


Well, up until fairly recently, they probably would have been killed if they even openly cohabitated. It's a little hard to push for your rights when people still believe that it's ok to beat you up or even kill you just for living your life.

But it's also important to note that those cohabitating couples have suffered for that lack of recognition as long as they have cohabitated. They have seen their homes pulled out from under them by the family of their partners or by the need to pay taxes on their "inheritance." They have seen their children taken to other families because they weren't family. They have been unable to find out of their partner was harmed or killed in an accident before it is reported on the news. They have, at times, been unable to see the person they built a life with as that person lay dying in a hospital. And so on....


I know that too, which is why I have no problem with legal protections against such things.


Not really. There are ways to get close, while still treating them as second-class citizens. But the only way to truly equalize it is to recognize that, since they are in the same situation as their heterosexual counterparts, they are entitled to the same protections under the same legal framework.


That's where we differ, as it gets back to the basic purpose for marriage as I talked about before.


There are plenty of single-parent households. Should we do something legally to prevent that, too? Is it impossible for two men or two women to have differing perspectives and unique points of view? Is it impossible for a couple to include other adults in the lives of their children?

Meanwhile, this isn't really an argument against same-sex marriage recognition. At best, it's an argument either for taking the children of gay parents away from them or for banning them from adopting children.


Please see my last reply to Soheran on that. I have a lot of posts to answer and not much time to do it so I hope you don't mind being referred ;)


By preventing marital recognition, the situation for children of gay parents is actually much worse than it would be with said recognition. Those children are less protected, as there are legal bonds that cannot be forged. A child of married heterosexual parents (even if one is not a biological parent) can benefit from both parents sharing custody, from health insurance provided by either parent, from implied inheritance from either parent, continued care even if the parents separate, and so on. Unless you also think we should ban homosexuals from being parents, you are relegating their children to essentially being in single-parent households, even when another willing parent is present. Even if you do believe that a household in which both a mother and father are present is ideal, is it really better to have one with a mother or father, plus someone else who legally cannot share the responsibilities of child-rearing?


I don't know if it's better or not, but I remain unconvinced that there's a benefit to codifying that in law.


Edit: Wow, you got lots of responses to that post. Yikes!

Yeah tell me about it! And there's no way I'll be able to reply to all of them but I feel like the main point I was trying to make has been made as best I can so it's no biggie if I can't keep responding.

But I guess ignorance is bliss, and the fact that the right actually exists elsewhere is better left unsaid.
We all know it exists in some states, and one doesn't need to mention it in every post.

It's just irrelevant.

If people in one state have a certain right and people in another state don't - it isn't discrimination. It's a difference in state laws. The only thing that matters, discrimination-wise, is the difference of rights between individuals within a single legislature.

No it wasn't. Interracial couples are nothing new to human civilization. It may have been a recent issue in U.S. History but the United States hardly represents world history at large.

And gay couples have roots back to ancient Greece, the foundation of Western Civilization. What's your point?


Your question assumes I agree that it's discriminatory.

What's to disagree about? One set of standards for one set of people, a different set of standards for a different set of people. That's the definition of discrimination.


Do I see a single parent household as the ideal? No. Am I morally opposed to deliberately becoming a single parent, for the reasons I stated? Yes. The best environment for a child is with a mom and a dad. This is why it's BAD when a parent dies. This is why divorce is a bad thing. Does it happen? Sure. Does that mean taking kids away? Of course not. That's quite different from creating the situation on purpose and then pretending it's the ideal.

So you support a ban on divorce? Divorce is certainly "creating the situation on purpose" if "the situation" is single parent households. Logical consistency demands that you suppport outlawing all acts that could potentially create this unideal environment.


Your opinion is duly noted.

My "opinion"? Tell me, do you believe that the tradition of slavery in the South in the United States was valid reason to continue the practice?

...You might just be homophobicurious.
I've settled with "closet homophobe" for now.
Your question assumes I agree that it's discriminatory.How is your agreement relevant? It is discrimination, whether you agree or not. That it is discrimination isn't up for debate, since a certain behavior is forbidden to one group and allowed for another. Whether this discrimination is justified (such as in the case of sending convicted murderers to prison while letting innocent bystanders go free) is up for debate. Whether it's discrimination most certainly isn't.

Simple question really. It's because you're drunk in your Saunas all the time ;)


We're only half the time in saunas. And about 75% drunk. :)

No it wasn't. Interracial couples are nothing new to human civilization. It may have been a recent issue in U.S. History but the United States hardly represents world history at large.

Neither are, by your own admission, homosexual couples.

Your question assumes I agree that it's discriminatory.
No...because "discriminatory" has a set definition, and if your stance falls within that definition, then it is, in fact, discriminatory. Regardless of your own opinion.


Do I see a single parent household as the ideal? No. Am I morally opposed to deliberately becoming a single parent, for the reasons I stated? Yes. The best environment for a child is with a mom and a dad. This is why it's BAD when a parent dies. This is why divorce is a bad thing. Does it happen? Sure. Does that mean taking kids away? Of course not. That's quite different from creating the situation on purpose and then pretending it's the ideal.
And yet, the one thing that has done more to "redefine" marriage was the creation of no-fault divorce. If you want to protect the "sanctity" of marriage, defend the institution from devalument, then I would suggest starting there.

btw, did you miss my post, or ignoring it? Since I responded to quite a bit from you...

We all know it exists in some states, and one doesn't need to mention it in every post.
Hence why you chose to use a word that strongly implied that you actually didn't know.

It's just irrelevant.
Not really, no.

If people in one state have a certain right and people in another state don't - it isn't discrimination. It's a difference in state laws. The only thing that matters, discrimination-wise, is the difference of rights between individuals within a single legislature.

Except, of course, that some rights transcends State boundries. For example, if one were to say that the lack of that right were unconstitutional...

Support of Proposition 8 inherently means that one believes that gays and lesbians are not entitled to identical rights as heterosexuals. Restated, supporting Proposition 8 supports identifying homosexuals as a seperate class of citizens. And as always, seperate inherently is not equal.
How is that not homophobic?

Because it's not about denying a right. It's about whether or not that right exists.


To be honest, I don't particularly care if they come to agree with my point of view or not. Because, at least in the US, we have the 9th and 14th amendments, along with SCOTUS precident that supports my view point. Human rights aren't an issue of winning over hearts and minds.


Assuming it's a human rights issue, of which I remain unconvinced.


I don't personally think anyone on this thread has not been reasonable. It's an NSG debate, and sticks pretty well to our standard level of warm fuzzies. If we think someone is wrong, it is dishonest to say "Well, I see your point, but...". No. I don't see your point. Why? Because you're wrong. And here's why.


Dude, if that was how it went, that would be awesome. The example you just posed was direct but not derisive or insulting. This, I'm afraid, doesn't represent the reality well.


"I can't be a homophobe! I have gay friends!"

That doesn't mean that your stances don't reduce your brother and friend to second class citizens.

My opinions don't reduce anybody to anything. They're my opinions. If I were the King of the land where my opinions had some kind of force that would be different.


Again, we've been pretty rational on here.

So far, in this thread, people have been very reasonable to me compared to what I see as the norm, and I appreciate it greatly. It makes the discussion much more enjoyable. Hasn't always been the case though.


Really? Because in every one of these threads, I've seen actual debate occur. Mostly coming from a new person who supports prop 8 and tragically wanders in to NSG. They make their case, and we make ours. It's debate. And it's glorious.


You should see it from my point of view ;)


I know where they are coming from. Because I, like you, have friends. And I've discussed it with them. And when I simply say "So...you think of me as a friend, but you're okay with stripping me of my rights?", they tend to get very quiet. Because suddenly, they actually have to think...not all queers are flamboyant. Some are wicked into hockey and football. Some drink beer like champs. Not all gays are "icky". And yes, those who continue to think I deserve to be a second class citizen are homophobes (in the truest sense...they have had their view challenged and chose to maintain it).


When I get that from my gay friends/family I don't need to get quiet. We talk about it. They know my position just fine. One of them *is* a Mormon. I think if your friends are afraid to discuss it with you openly then they're either being cowardly or maybe you're not as easy to talk with as you might think. I don't know.


The very fact that I can recite the exact course these threads will take shows that, at least once, I was listening. Once, it was all shiny and new and I had never heard it before. Which brings us to here:
I do continue to listen to theirs. It's like playing an old video game. Sometimes, just to keep your skills up and for a little entertainment, you play the classics. Just because I know what facts and figures I'll have to use doesn't mean that I don't have to pay attention to whats going on around me. Who knows, maybe they'll surprise me with some ground breaking study.


The problem is that tends to bring a lot of old baggage to the discussion. It's one of the reasons I rarely debate certain subjects on here anymore... I can't be objective because of past discussions and I know it so I stay away until I can be objective again.


They likely never saw the Boston Globe article I posted, as that was only published a few days ago. So yes, for as static as this debate is, there is still new information introduced every now and again.

No, but I will say that generally, it is a distinct lack of understanding or personal discomfort that leads to support of prop 8...neither of which are good enough reasons to create second class citizens.


That's a pretty broad assumption you're making there.


They can fight all they want. The fact of the matter is, this is about human rights. In the same way that we don't say "Everyone can say anything they want...except people named Chris. Those perverts", we should not say "Everyone can marry whomever they want....except gays. Those perverts". And ultimatly, debate doesn't matter. Either our Constitution will live up to its standard of equal protection under the law and privacy rights for all citizens, or it will not.

Hey... my name is Chris... what are you sayin?:mad:

Let me stop you there... you're injecting a lot of your own assumptions here as well. I didn't use the word "pervert" nor are any of my opinions based on the idea of it being perverted.


Which is not the equivalent of marriage. Hell, in this very thread, we have shown that gay MARRIAGE, let alone civil unions, are not equal to heterosexual MARRIAGE, despite using the same term.


Are you saying such equality is impossible?


Actually, I know that for a fact. Why? Because I read the paper. Because I've seen the statistics from surveys and studys and polls that demonstrate what you say to be true. But here's the thing...and it's a big one. I'm not willing to compromise. My buddy, one of the 18,000 people who did get married, was not willing to compromise. The other 18,000 people who got married are not willing to compromise. Because to compromise is to say "you're right. We aren't as good as you. We do deserve to be treated differently. We don't have the same rights as you". And frankly, I'm not willing to debase myself to protect someone elses traditions and someone elses sense of morality.

Actually, a compromise needn't say any such thing, and to look at it that way undermines rational discussing because, again, it assumes certain things about your opponents' point of view that aren't accurate.

A compromise would be more like "We want the same advantages you get, but we understand that the terminology and approach can cause a conflict for you, so we're willing to call it something different and leave room for you to view it differently if you're willing to stay out oft he way."

How hideous.


Not so well. And yet, it is working soaringly well in New England. If the 6 in '12 goal is achieved, an area with a population of just under Florida's (making it the 5th largest) will have gay marriage. As if population means anything to this debate.

The confrontational approach and refusal to meet in the middle accomplished that?


I have to be mature as people state to my face that I'm somehow below them? No, I don't. The fact of the matter is I choose to be quite mature in that I don't scream at them, berate them, or hit them. I also don't sugarcoat anything I say, mince words, or cottle their feelings to make sure they keep an open mind. I quickly and soundly defeat their points within a debate.
Their ideas that gays are a seperate class do not hold as much weight as mine. Not all opinions, not all ideas, not all concepts are created equal.


Dude you're the ones putting gays in a separate class, not the conservatives. Inherent to the idea of "equal protection" is the concept that you're trying to stand up for a separate class.

How is demanding equal rights for all citizens tyranny? We are not taking away anyones rights. We are not relegating 10% of the population to having to be treated differently, simply because of who they are. That is not tyranny. That is equality.

No, sorry. I can't live with treating full fledged citizens as a seperate class before the law. I can't live with giving group A rights X Y and Z, but only giving group B rights X and Y. It isn't good enough.

See, here's where there's a failure in that logic. If you're gay, nothing is stopping you from marrying someone of the opposite sex. Just because you don't want to doesn't mean that you're entitled to special treatment. If marriage is about building a structure for birthing and raising children, as conservatives believe it to be, then it just doesn't make sense to demand to be able to codify into law the ability to marry someone with whom it is biologically impossible to have children with, when the only real goal here is to achieve legal equality, which conservatives generally do NOT have a problem with.


Like gay marriage? Here we go (http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/relationships/articles/2009/05/24/for_gay_couples_married_matters/). Gay marriage produces stronger relationships between the partners, and thus a stronger family unit. A positive outcome for society at large.

Making a few leaps of logic there, brother.


Because it was only 40 years ago that the Stonewall Riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots) occured. Because it was only 40 years ago that gays were fighting to be able to have jobs, regardless of who they slept with. Because for the last few centuries, being gay was a good reason to fire someone, or beat them up, or vandalize their property. Because it was only within the last 40 years that gays have collectively said "Enough. We live in a nation that promises equality for all. Now we are going to demand it."


See, in this you're citing a flaw in society that didn't apply to gay people alone. Society has had to learn to be tolerant and not to make issues out of things like who somebody sleeps with or who they voted for (something else that has gotten people ostracized). Doesn't mean the solution is to redefine the basic unit of society just to gain a few tax breaks.


Women have existed since the dawn of man, yet it was only in the early part of the last century that they demanded their right to vote. Why? Because before that, there were bigger battles to face.
Gay marriage is one of the last legal hurdles homosexuals have left. Why are we only now demanding it? Because we've only now cleared the last 100 others.

No dude you can't equate women's sufferage to gay marriage (or the lack therof). That's another apples and oranges argument. You say gays have had to clear 100 other hurdles? What has that got to do with voting rights? As far as I know there's never been a law that says you can't vote if you're gay. (Although if I'm wrong on that, I'd be pleased to know that's been done away with)


So...your first reason is because you don't see it as being a positive for society? You now have evidence to the contrary. Ergo, this stance was due to unintended ignorance. You were uninformed (as most were and still are...gay marriage hasn't been around long, and there hasn't been tons of research), and now you have a resource to inform yourself.

I appreciate you sharing that information but I had seen it before. It's like you said, there hasn't been a lot of research on the matter.


No. It isn't good enough. That same article demonstrates that there is a sociological benefit to the term "marriage". The very word carries weight and meaning. "I am married" vs. "I have a civil union". One is a state of being, the other a posession. "This is my husband" vs. "This is my partner". One is a full fledge, legally bound person. The other is what you have when you play tennis, or go into business. Words matter. And as I've argued before, compromise on this issue isn't good enough. Is there good reason backing why you feel that compromise is "good enough"?

Because it would protect the rights of both sides.

Yeah, I said both. I've heard of a number of places in which there has been a movement to compel churches to marry gay couples or risk losing their official right to perform marriages at all. The same goes for religious-based adoption agencies. People like to dismiss that argument as being paranoid but it's easy to do when you personally may have no intention of pushing something like that. There are those who do, and who will, and the more normalized the concept of gay marriage becomes, the more momentum such movements would gain.


Society rarely changes without some kind of push.


Pushing is one thing. Bullying is another.


Then make single parenting illegal. And foster homes. And parental death.
The fact is, I can have a female influence my son. Say my boy and I have a child. He will be exposed to my mother, his mother, my sister, his sister. Does it present different challenges? Sure. Does every family have challenges? Yep. So why this one? Why is this an issue?


Please refer to my last set of comments to Soheran for details on my position on this. :)


And I'd agree that it is important to have a strong female and strong male role model in every childs life. But as is so often the case in the world we live in, that doesn't have to be the parent.

But that's hardly the ideal, is it? Sure, we have mechanisms in our social structure for handling situations where a parent dies, or takes off, or becomes a deadbeat or whatever, but we don't seek out those conditions. These mechanisms are contingencies. To press for gay adoption is to seek out a circumstance that is not ideal.

My religion says gay marriage is a-ok.


Good for you.


That's easy. Gay couples are denied the benefits of marriage that straight couples enjoy(when they're married, obviously). Gays would like to be treated equally, please.


They are treated equally. Name one right I have that a gay man does not.


Therefore......what? We should keep it that way?


Show me a convincing reason to change it. Other than "They really want to!"


Ah, problem. Not granting gay people the right to have gay marriages stomps all over the values of other people. Whose take priority?


You tell me. You're the one favoring making changes to our culture.


This is an argument against allowing gays to raise children, not against allowing them to marry.

The one follows naturally from the other, bro.

You don't see how it's backward when it's not moving forward with the times? When we live in a time where we secure and safeguard the rights of individuals like never before, but choose not to include one group of people based only on their sexuality?
And the status quo is a good thing why? How will this not produce a positive outcome?

Is it really OK to treat people as second-class citizens just because they've survived with an unofficial status for a long time? I have a strong urge to invoke jews and black people here...

Why should values and traditions that deprive consenting adults of rights be respected?

What right do I posses that a gay man does not?


...even when they are discriminating?

That's your opinion, not a fact, my friend.


And I'm convinced that a lot of children would be much, much better off living with loving homosexual parents than abusive heterosexual parents.

Maybe they would be, but we just don't know because there hasn't been sufficient study and research. Meanwhile if I take the cautious approach on this I'm to be labeled a homophobe? Yah, that's useful.


Besides, disregarding that angle, your point of view is... odd. I could mention that there is no formal prerequisites to becoming a parent today, and no guarantee that these differing perspectives would be shared.


True, there's no such guarantee. So why is the solution to just disregard the need altogether?

What right do I posses that a gay man does not?

I'm totally going to copy-paste Neo Art on this:

Let's do a little thought experiment. Let's take three people. Alice, Bob, and Carol. All mentally competent, unmarried adults.

So, let's think. Can Alice legally marry Bob? Yes, no law prevents it. Can Carol marry Bob? Yes, no law prevents it. Are Alice and Carol equal in regards to their legal rights to marry Bob, if Bob wishes? Yes, both of them can. They are equal. The law treats them the same, in that it grants BOTH of them the right to do so.

Now, can Bob marry Alice? Yes, no law prevents. Can Carol marry Alice? No, that's a same sex marriage. Are Bob and Carol equal in regards to their legal rights to marry Alice, if Alice wishes? NO. Carol can not. They are unequal. The law grants Bob the legal right to do something that Carol can not.

And gay couples have roots back to ancient Greece, the foundation of Western Civilization. What's your point?


That they weren't calling themselves "married."


What's to disagree about? One set of standards for one set of people, a different set of standards for a different set of people. That's the definition of discrimination.


Actually what I'm talking about is a single standard for everyone. You're the third person I'm going to ask this question of: What right do I have that a gay man lacks?


So you support a ban on divorce? Divorce is certainly "creating the situation on purpose" if "the situation" is single parent households. Logical consistency demands that you suppport outlawing all acts that could potentially create this unideal environment.


No, only the ones that seek to codify those environments on purpose. Sadly, divorce has been around almost as long as marriage itself.

But please don't put words in my mouth. It doesn't help.


My "opinion"? Tell me, do you believe that the tradition of slavery in the South in the United States was valid reason to continue the practice?

Yes, "your opinion." You said my reasons were bad. That's your opinion.

What that has to do with slavery is beyond me.

They are treated equally. Name one right I have that a gay man does not.
This old shtick again? I suppose black people were being treated equally when they were only allowed to marry within their own race, eh?



Show me a convincing reason to change it. Other than "They really want to!"
The same reason women can vote. The same reason blacks are acknowledged as human beings. The same reason interracial couples can get married. Because gay couples deserve the same rights as straight couples, women the same as men, blacks the same as whites, interracial couples the same as intraracial couples. What more reason could you possibly want? Is the pursuit of equality among humans not a lofty enough goal to strive towards?


You tell me. You're the one favoring making changes to our culture.
It's quite obvious to me, but I asked what you think.


The one follows naturally from the other, bro.

It can, but not necessarily. Plenty of people marry without the intention of having kids. Plenty of people marry without the ability to have kids. Further, plenty of people marry and have kids and do a piss poor job of being parents.

I'm totally going to copy-paste Neo Art on this:

Let's do a little thought experiment. Let's take three people. Alice, Bob, and Carol. All mentally competent, unmarried adults.

So, let's think. Can Alice legally marry Bob? Yes, no law prevents it. Can Carol marry Bob? Yes, no law prevents it. Are Alice and Carol equal in regards to their legal rights to marry Bob, if Bob wishes? Yes, both of them can. They are equal. The law treats them the same, in that it grants BOTH of them the right to do so.

Now, can Bob marry Alice? Yes, no law prevents. Can Carol marry Alice? No, that's a same sex marriage. Are Bob and Carol equal in regards to their legal rights to marry Alice, if Alice wishes? NO. Carol can not. They are unequal. The law grants Bob the legal right to do something that Carol can not.

As long as neither Alice, Bob or Carol are siblings (I'm sure that would have been part of the disclaimer had you thought of it). See, that little disclaimer when the three people are first listed is the key to making this point work, but it's also what makes it fail.

I have a thought experiment of my own.

Take Jeff, Sally and Joe.
Jeff and Sally are in love. They're both consenting adults. Problem is that Jeff is married to someone else. Sally can marry Joe. No problem. Can Sally marry Jeff? newp. Polygamy ain't legal in these here United States. is it discrimination?

If yes, then it's a necessary form of discrimination and thus the word loses its bad connotations. If no, then my point is made.

"But wait, Neo B. Jeff can get divorced and then he can marry Sally! Ok, still discrimination though until he does, by your definition.

You will note, I hope, that I'm avoiding using the analogy of them being siblings. I'm trying to make a point without confusing the issue with the "let gays marry and eventually we'll be letting siblings marry" argument, which I am not making.

(Still, somebody will call me on it as if I did. Watch.)

i c what u dud thar.

*Hits LG with the pie as promised.*

I like you, LG but unless I'm misunderstanding your approach, you set that question up to pigeonhole any answer someone might give into one of the categories you created: irrational, fear or deception.

But I'll answer lest someone accuse me of evading the question.

Religion is a big part of it. No need to elaborate on that I think everybody prettymuch has their thoughts entrenched on it.

For me, another big part of it is that I see value in maintaining certain traditions unless and until I have reason to believe that changing them will produce a positive outcome for society at large. See, I hear a lot about how our culture is somehow backward and flawed if it doesn't acknowledge gay marriages yet I don't see where it's broken. Gay couples have cohabitated for as long as there's been human history and only now is there a push for official status.

The legal reasoning I've already conceded but there's ways to equalize that without stomping over values and traditions that people believe in. Maybe in some future date there will be total acceptance of Gay marriage (it could happen) but until that happens, it's wrong to push such a change and then start screaming discrimination at anybody who doesn't just fall in line.

And finally, I'm not convinced that children are not missing out by not having parents of both sexes raising them, offering their differing perspectives, adding their unique points of view to the upbringing of a child.

I have a gay friend who disagrees with me on that, but he does agree that guys are guys regardless of their sexual attraction, and for that reason I think a child raised by two men is missing out on the benefits of having a mom, just as a kid raised by two women is missing out on having a dad. And yes, I think that's important.

There. You asked for one, I gave you three. I hope you'll prove me wrong about the pigeonholing thing.

*is pied* Yay! :D

That won't save you.

3 reasons. If I understand them, they are:

Religion, Tradition and The Children.

I won't pigeonhole them. I promise. If my argument works as intended, you will. :)

That argument is simple. The short verson is; Nothing will change.

Consider that you have two sets of people, Group A and Group B. Group A is a diverse group of (mostly) heterosexual couples. Many of them are religious, have deep traditions and children. A considerable number are married. This group has been around for a while and they aren't going anywhere any time soon.

Group B is a much smaller group, between 5% and 10% the size of Group A. They consist of (mostly) Homosexual couples. Many of them are religious, have deep traditions and children(fewer children, but there are some). They are not allowed to marry. This group has also been around for a while and are not going anywhere any time soon.

Now, if Group A has always existed, been married, observed religious traditions and reproduced and if Group B has also always existed, observed religious traditions and reproduced, then if Group B is given the right to marry, how will that in any way alter the Religion, Tradition and Children of Group A? Group B has always been here just as Group A has been. Both groups have always lived together, worshipped together, observed children together and raised the next generation of children together. The only thing that will change is an improperly deprived right will finally be given to Group B.

Group B isn't going to suddenly triple in size. Half of Group A isn't going to decide, "You know, fuck religion and tradition! I want a mate that can play rugby with me!". It's just not gonna happen. The populations are already here. The people are already here, Neo B. The only thing that will change is the deprived right. Your religion, tradition or children will no more be affected by this than when Halley's Comet flew by. In fact, I bet Global Warming will affect you more than Gay Marriage will.

You will note, I hope, that I'm avoiding using the analogy of them being siblings. I'm trying to make a point without confusing the issue with the "let gays marry and eventually we'll be letting siblings marry" argument, which I am not making.

(Still, somebody will call me on it as if I did. Watch.)

Fuck all, I truncated it because the last parts you hadn't brought up yet, and I didn't want to muddle the issue. Now I have to copy-paste the whole thing. This is all your fault, you know, and I totally blame you. I'm going to make some mud pies and launch them at your direction.

Sigh:

Let's do a little thought experiment. Let's take three people. Alice, Bob, and Carol. All mentally competent, unmarried adults.

So, let's think. Can Alice legally marry Bob? Yes, no law prevents it. Can Carol marry Bob? Yes, no law prevents it. Are Alice and Carol equal in regards to their legal rights to marry Bob, if Bob wishes? Yes, both of them can. They are equal. The law treats them the same, in that it grants BOTH of them the right to do so.

Now, can Bob marry Alice? Yes, no law prevents. Can Carol marry Alice? No, that's a same sex marriage. Are Bob and Carol equal in regards to their legal rights to marry Alice, if Alice wishes? NO. Carol can not. They are unequal. The law grants Bob the legal right to do something that Carol can not.

But what about the polygamists and child rapers? Well, let's move on with this, shall we? Let's also add in Dan. Dan is a happily married man. And then let's add Elizabeth. Elizabeth is a 10 year old girl.

Can Alice marry Dan? No, that's bigamy. Can Bob marry Dan? No, that's bigamy. Can Carol marry Dan? No, that's bigamy. Are Alice Bob and Carol equal in regards to their legal rights to marry Dan? YES. None of them can, thus they are equal.

Can Alice marry Elizabeth? No, Elizabeth is under age. Can Bob marry Elizabeth? No, Elizabeth is under age. Can Carol marry Elizabeth? No, Elizabeth is under age. Are Alice, Bob and Carol equal in regards to their legal rights to marry Elizabeth? YES. None of them can, thus they are equal.

Legalizing same sex marriage would allow Carol the legal right to do what Bob can already do. Marry Alice. It will NOT suddenly allow Carol to be a bigamist (since NOBODY can be a bigamist, and in that regards they're already equal). It will NOT suddenly allow Carol to marry a child (since NOBODY can marry a child, and in that regards they're already equal).

It will simply allow Carol to do what Bob already can do. Marry Alice.

As long as neither Alice, Bob or Carol are siblings (I'm sure that would have been part of the disclaimer had you thought of it). See, that little disclaimer when the three people are first listed is the key to making this point work, but it's also what makes it fail.

I have a thought experiment of my own.

Take Jeff, Sally and Joe.
Jeff and Sally are in love. They're both consenting adults. Problem is that Jeff is married to someone else. Sally can marry Joe. No problem. Can Sally marry Jeff? newp. Polygamy ain't legal in these here United States. is it discrimination?

If yes, then it's a necessary form of discrimination and thus the word loses its bad connotations. If no, then my point is made.

"But wait, Neo B. Jeff can get divorced and then he can marry Sally! Ok, still discrimination though until he does, by your definition.

You will note, I hope, that I'm avoiding using the analogy of them being siblings. I'm trying to make a point without confusing the issue with the "let gays marry and eventually we'll be letting siblings marry" argument, which I am not making.

(Still, somebody will call me on it as if I did. Watch.)

So, your argument is we should legalize polygamy?

I agree.

As long as neither Alice, Bob or Carol are siblings (I'm sure that would have been part of the disclaimer had you thought of it). See, that little disclaimer when the three people are first listed is the key to making this point work, but it's also what makes it fail.

I have a thought experiment of my own.

Take Jeff, Sally and Joe.
Jeff and Sally are in love. They're both consenting adults. Problem is that Jeff is married to someone else. Sally can marry Joe. No problem. Can Sally marry Jeff? newp. Polygamy ain't legal in these here United States. is it discrimination?

If yes, then it's a necessary form of discrimination and thus the word loses its bad connotations. If no, then my point is made.

"But wait, Neo B. Jeff can get divorced and then he can marry Sally! Ok, still discrimination though until he does, by your definition.

You will note, I hope, that I'm avoiding using the analogy of them being siblings. I'm trying to make a point without confusing the issue with the "let gays marry and eventually we'll be letting siblings marry" argument, which I am not making.

(Still, somebody will call me on it as if I did. Watch.)

Are you saying that is is necessary to prevent gays from marrying? I don't understand why this would be so.
It will simply allow Carol to do what Bob already can do. Marry Alice.
Alice? Who the fuck is Alice? :tongue:

So, your argument is we should legalize polygamy?

I agree.

I do too, but don't muddle it now.

This old shtick again? I suppose black people were being treated equally when they were only allowed to marry within their own race, eh?


You guys really like that gay = black analogy.

(My answer is no, as I could have married a white woman and a black man could not, despite there being historical precedents for it.)


The same reason women can vote. The same reason blacks are acknowledged as human beings. The same reason interracial couples can get married.

Which is?

Because gay couples deserve the same rights as straight couples,

Well that's the issue, ain't it?


women the same as men, blacks the same as whites, interracial couples the same as intraracial couples. What more reason could you possibly want? Is the pursuit of equality among humans not a lofty enough goal to strive towards?

Please refer to my earlier posts for why those analogies fail, IMHO.


It's quite obvious to me, but I asked what you think.


The ones who are being told to change or get labeled as bigots/homophobes/whatever.


It can, but not necessarily. Plenty of people marry without the intention of having kids. Plenty of people marry without the ability to have kids. Further, plenty of people marry and have kids and do a piss poor job of being parents.

But they do so without demanding fundamental changes to society.

I do too, but don't muddle it now.

Gawd would you really want multiple sets of in-laws?
:eek:

I do too, but don't muddle it now.

Well, Neo's 'argument' seems to be "if we legalize gay marriage, we'll have to legalize multiple marriage".

I'm like... okay.

I don't agree with the logic that led him there (if any), but I think polygamy would be a small price to pay for equality.

Gawd would you really want multiple sets of in-laws?
:eek:

Polygamy has its own punishment - multiple mothers-in-law. The state need not interfere.

You guys really like that gay = black analogy.

(My answer is no, as I could have married a white woman and a black man could not, despite there being historical precedents for it.)


People really like that argument because it's a good argument.

The arguments that are being made against allowing people to marry across a gender-orientation barrier, are the same arguments that were made against allowing people to marry across a racial barrier.

And we've already seen this argument triumph. Why throw away an argument that has a proven track record?

Supporting Proposition 8 does not make someone a homophobe.
Yes it does. I am not enamored of the word "homophobe" (which suggests that the motive is always fear, and I don't think that's always accurate), but it has become the standard term for this particular discrimination. People who opposed miscegenation often denied they were "racist" too, but: they were.

Yeah sure I am. I'll tell you what, if you ask the gay people with whom I associate in my real life if I'm a homophobe they'll probably laugh in your face.
I don't necessarily believe anymore that your "gay friends" actually exist; I don't necessarily believe that you even have a brother, or that you've ever been married at all, let alone twice, or that you really have any kids. Those things might be true, but I have seen your glib willingness to say utterly false things too many times to take the truthfulness of anything you say for granted.

People of good conscience generally have valid reasons for believing in what they do, and if not, then a little honest and courteous dialogue might just give them something new to think about.
This is why I am not willing to believe that you are in good conscience. You don't give any good reasons, you just keep insisting on the bad ones, no matter how often their blatant falsity is pointed out to you.

I actually LISTEN to what the religious right says and I am telling you as part of the religious right. Civil Unions aren't nearly as much a problem as you think for us....
You could have civil unions in all 50 states and I think that's something both sides can live with. Let the extremists on either side complain.
For one thing, this turns out not to be true: the discrepancies between polls and actual voting behavior show that while there are a number of people on the religious right who will SAY that they would be OK with civil unions, the number of those who are honest is vanishingly small.
And for another, it is just not acceptable to offer us "most" of equality, as long as we are still tagged as different and inferior.

I like you, LG but unless I'm misunderstanding your approach, you set that question up to pigeonhole any answer someone might give into one of the categories you created: irrational, fear or deception.

But I'll answer lest someone accuse me of evading the question.

Religion is a big part of it. No need to elaborate on that I think everybody prettymuch has their thoughts entrenched on it.
It would be hard for you to deny that religion has a large element of the "irrational" to it; you may call it "faith" and perceive it as a virtue, but pure reason it is indisputably not. I would also say that religion often has a large element of fear to it, and in the case of religions founded by con-men, of deception as well (I don't want to veer off too far into discussions of Joseph Smith, but you know my opinion of him is very low).
For me, another big part of it is that I see value in maintaining certain traditions
But allowing some people to lead their own lives has nothing to do with whether other people can continue to do what they have been doing. People are allowed to get married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas, which is not a long-standing tradition, and yet this does not interfere in any way with people who wish to get married under a kippah using the verbatim liturgy from Orthodox Jews of over a thousand years ago. The only tradition that you are worried about is the tradition of Christians pushing other people around, and no, we are not going to allow that tradition to continue; it is not right, no matter how long it has gone in.
Gay couples have cohabitated for as long as there's been human history
Not in the Christian West, not if they valued their lives and safety. As recently as the 1950's, Alan Turing thought he could get away with having his lover live in his house, since after all he had done more than any other single human to defeat the Axis Powers; he was chemically castrated and subjected to electroshock until he committed suicide.
And finally, I'm not convinced that children are not missing out by not having parents of both sexes raising them
This is just dishonesty. It is an empirical question of fact, and so if that were genuinely a concern of yours, you could look at the results from those who have studied the matter.

Frankly if the law were changed so that *NO* marriages were officially recognized by the Government but all were treated equally as civil unions, I'd be perfectly fine with that.
The legal WORD for it is "marriage". Churches are not entitled to steal that word; it belongs to the law. If the churches need there to be different words for the legal and the religious institutions, YOU have to change your terminology; call them "weddings" or whatever, any word that is not embedded in the law.

No that was never taught by the church. Some individuals believed something like that as they struggled to reconcile why black people were denied the priesthood for a long time. Just by way of clarification, Mormon theology teaches that ALL humans on Earth were faithful to God during that rebellion, otherwise they wouldn't be here. Those who joined with Lucifer became demons, not Africans ;) )
This is a prime example of your glib willingness to speak the direct opposite of truth:

"There were three divisions of mankind in the pre-existence, and when you are born into this life, you are born into one of these three divisions of people. There is an imposed judgment placed upon everyone who leaves the Spirit World just the same as there will be when they leave this life and go into one of three places. When they left the Spirit World, they had already been judged by what they had done in the Spirit World and in their previous life. From what judgment is determined how they shall be born in this life? When you understand that, you know that God is not unjust to cause a righteous spirit to be born as a CURSED member of the BLACK RACE or to be CURSED as one of the other people who have been CURSED. Everything is in order. The procreation of man is orderly and in accordance with the plan of life and salvation. In keeping with this thought, when Noah went into the Ark, here again he took with him his three sons—one representing the CURSED LINEAGE.... Those who have been cursed in the pre-existence were born through this lineage of Ham. I suppose, and you may have often heard missionaries say it or have asked the question: Why is a Negro a Negro? And, you have heard this answer. 'Well, they must have been neutral in the pre-existence or they must have straddled the fence.' That is the most common saying—they were neither hot nor cold, so the Lord made them Negroes. This, of course, is not true. The reason that spirits are born into Negro bodies is because those spirits rejected the Priesthood of God in the pre-existence. This is the reason why you have Negroes upon the earth. You will observe that when Cain was influenced by the power of Lucifer to follow him...Cain rejected the counsel of God. He rejected again the Priesthood as his forebearers had done in the pre-existence. Therefore, the curse of the pre-existence was made institute through the loins of Cain. Consequently, you have the beginning of the race of men and women into which would be born those in the pre-existence who had rejected the Priesthood of God....Ham reinstated the curse of the pre-existence when he rejected the Priesthood of Noah, and in consequence of that he preserved the curse on the earth. Therefore, the Negroes to be born thereafter, or those who were to become Negroes, were to be born through the loins of Ham. All of this is according to a well worked-out plan, that these millions and billions of spirits awaiting birth in the pre-existence would be born through a channel or race of people. Consequently, the cursed were to be born through Ham.... The cursed people are the descendants of Ham. The chosen people are the descendants of Shem... Through these lineages the spirits that compare with their station are born in this life. This is why you have colored people, why you have dark people and why you have white people.... I don't know whether the knowledge or the revelation of these things will have an effect upon you as a missionary, but I know that it has an effect upon me,...the day will come when you know who you are, because you are a person of nobility. You may not fully know that now, but you were a person of nobility in the pre-existence. " The Mormon God and Skin Color (http://www.realmormonhistory.com/god&skin.htm)

You're basing this on two faulty assumptions about the opposing perspective:

1)That they're seeking to deny you a right. You have to understand that as far as they're concerned, you're trying to assert a right out of thin air. If they do not see this right as even existing, how can they evaluate whether you're entitled to it or not?
OF COURSE the right to marry exists already. YOU have it. You TAKE IT FOR GRANTED that you have it. The sole question is whether you are allowed to deny it to others.
Plenty of opponents are simply not aware, for example, that civil marriage equality has no effect whatsoever on the free exercise of religion.


I wish that were so. If it were, I'd step away from the debate.

It IS so, and you know it. The California Supreme Court granted marriage equality on this very explicit condition:


Finally, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (California Supreme Court, In re Marriage Cases, p. 117)

At various points, in an effort to sound reasonable, you claim that if only you got an explicit guarantee that same-sex marriage will not interfere with religion, that you would no longer be opposed. But evidently, this is utterly false: you will NEVER drop your opposition, under ANY circumstances; and this is why talking to you has come to seem an utter waste of time. If you seriously do want some "civil discussion", you need to start being honest.
Your question assumes I agree that it's discriminatory.
No, it's not a matter of whether YOU agree: it IS discriminatory. That is what the word "discriminatory" means, the making of distinctions. Now, not all discrimination is bad: someone who can distinguish good wine from bad has a "discriminating" palate, for example; but you aren't even arguing about whether you have a right to make distinctions in this case, you are apparently wanting to pretend that you aren't making them. Refusing even to allow the proper words to be used is just being obstructionist to any effort to discuss.
The best environment for a child is with a mom and a dad. This is why it's BAD when a parent dies. This is why divorce is a bad thing. Does it happen? Sure. Does that mean taking kids away? Of course not.
Except in our cases, when, of course, it does.

Because it's not about denying a right. It's about whether or not that right exists.The right to choice exists. The right to marry the person of your choice exists. The right to privacy exists. The right to equal protection under the law exists. All of these are denied by denying a homosexual the right to wed the person of their choice.



Assuming it's a human rights issue, of which I remain unconvinced.
See above.


Dude, if that was how it went, that would be awesome. The example you just posed was direct but not derisive or insulting. This, I'm afraid, doesn't represent the reality well.I have no problem calling peoples viewpoints bigoted. In fact, it is a part of what I said. "You're wrong. your viewpoint is bigoted. Here's why".



My opinions don't reduce anybody to anything. They're my opinions. If I were the King of the land where my opinions had some kind of force that would be different.And your opinion (and similar ones) did precisely that in California. They voted to remove rights that existed, thereby creating second class citizens. And yes, your individual view point does that as well. Just not in the eyes of the law. It is the "us vs. them" mentality that creates second class citizens.


When I get that from my gay friends/family I don't need to get quiet. We talk about it. They know my position just fine. One of them *is* a Mormon. I think if your friends are afraid to discuss it with you openly then they're either being cowardly or maybe you're not as easy to talk with as you might think. I don't know.We talk about it too. I am not one of the bisexual people who feels the need to "come out". But when it becomes a relevant discussion point, then I say it. The ones who hold homophobic and bigoted view points are suddenly confronted with a person who contradicts their image of "gay man". And that causes a reason to pause and consider.



The problem is that tends to bring a lot of old baggage to the discussion. It's one of the reasons I rarely debate certain subjects on here anymore... I can't be objective because of past discussions and I know it so I stay away until I can be objective again.
I feel that even in debates that I could do in my sleep, I am still objective. I still learn something.


That's a pretty broad assumption you're making there.

elaborate...

Hey... my name is Chris... what are you sayin?:mad:

Let me stop you there... you're injecting a lot of your own assumptions here as well. I didn't use the word "pervert" nor are any of my opinions based on the idea of it being perverted.
Even if you drop out the word pervert, it is still the same. "Anyone can marry the person of their choosing. Except gays. "


Are you saying such equality is impossible?
What I'm saying is a) there is still a huge battle to be fought and b) seperate terms are even MORE unequal than the inequality presented within the current state of gay marriage.


Actually, a compromise needn't say any such thing, and to look at it that way undermines rational discussing because, again, it assumes certain things about your opponents' point of view that aren't accurate.
Actually, it does inherently say such a thing. Part of marriage goes beyond the legal structure and into the social structure. That sociological benefit is part of the institution of marriage. It is one of the advantages of being married.
A compromise would be more like "We want the same advantages you get, but we understand that the terminology and approach can cause a conflict for you, so we're willing to call it something different and leave room for you to view it differently if you're willing to stay out oft he way."

How hideous.

Actually, it is pretty hideous. I agree with the Connecticut Supreme Court decision that stated full-benefit providing civil unions were not, in fact, equal to marriage. Despite all of the legal benefits being there, it was inherently unequal because our society does have certain concepts related to marriage that simply are not present with civil unions. The very structure of our speech highlights it, as I said before. "I'm getting married" vs. "I'm getting a civil union". The word, in and of itself, carries value and power. To restrict a certain segment of the population from access to this value and power is discriminatory.

The confrontational approach and refusal to meet in the middle accomplished that?Did a pretty good job in MA and CT.



Dude you're the ones putting gays in a separate class, not the conservatives. Inherent to the idea of "equal protection" is the concept that you're trying to stand up for a separate class.
The separate class already existed. Gays have long been a minority class that has been discriminated against. Inherent in the idea of "equal protection" is a realization that gays don't currently hold it, and are therefore a seperate class. Those against gay marriage seek to continue this divide, while those for gay marriage seek to close it.


See, here's where there's a failure in that logic. If you're gay, nothing is stopping you from marrying someone of the opposite sex. Here's the failure in your logic. You, as a heterosexual, can marry the person you choose. I, as a bisexual, and my boy, as a gay male, cannot.
Just because you don't want to doesn't mean that you're entitled to special treatment. There is no "special treatment". The right to marriage is the right to wed the consenting adult of your choice.
If marriage is about building a structure for birthing and raising children, as conservatives believe it to be, then it just doesn't make sense to demand to be able to codify into law the ability to marry someone with whom it is biologically impossible to have children with, when the only real goal here is to achieve legal equality, which conservatives generally do NOT have a problem with.They may believe that is the sole purpose of marriage, but they would be wrong in that belife. Hence our old standby of the fact that sterile couples can wed. Elderly couples can wed. Couples that never want children and have every intent of aborting if they become pregnant can wed. The benefits of marriage are in no way tied to the ability or choice to have children.



Making a few leaps of logic there, brother.

Where is the leap in logic in stating that strengthening a family structure that already exists is a benefit to society?

See, in this you're citing a flaw in society that didn't apply to gay people alone. Society has had to learn to be tolerant and not to make issues out of things like who somebody sleeps with or who they voted for (something else that has gotten people ostracized). Doesn't mean the solution is to redefine the basic unit of society just to gain a few tax breaks.
Wow...did you actually just reduce the hundreds of benefits, both legal and social, that marriage provides down to "a few tax breaks"? Really?


No dude you can't equate women's sufferage to gay marriage (or the lack therof). That's another apples and oranges argument. You say gays have had to clear 100 other hurdles? What has that got to do with voting rights? Gays had to clear other hurdles before the gay marriage debate could possibly be started. If homosexuality is illegal (sodomy laws), then there is no way one can argue for gay marriage. In the same vein, women had to clear other hurdles before they could even begin their fight for the right to vote. In the same way that blacks had to first fight for their freedom before they could be given the right to wed, and then had to fight again for the right to vote. You were arguing that it is only recently that gays have suddenly wanted the right to wed the person of their choice...that isn't a fact. Gays have been fighting long and hard for equal protection under the law. This is simply a refocusing of that effort.


Because it would protect the rights of both sides.
in what way does my right to wed the person of my choice infringe upon the rights of anyone else?
Yeah, I said both. I've heard of a number of places in which there has been a movement to compel churches to marry gay couples or risk losing their official right to perform marriages at all. And that would be a violation of the first amendment in this country. Same as how we can't compel a church to wed a previously divorced couple or interracial couple or interfaith couple. Just because it happened in one location does not make that inherent within the construct of legal gay marriage. To ban gay marriage based off that fear is illogical, when efforts would better be spent permitting the right, but ensuring that the rights of the church are protected (as was written into the law New Hampshire is currently debating).

The same goes for religious-based adoption agencies. People like to dismiss that argument as being paranoid but it's easy to do when you personally may have no intention of pushing something like that. There are those who do, and who will, and the more normalized the concept of gay marriage becomes, the more momentum such movements would gain.And you would have far more supporters and resources to use to protect church rights if you allowed for human rights first. Why should I go out of my way to protect the rights of a group that actively works to deny me mine? Well, honestly, because the restriction of one groups rights is the death of that right. Will some asshats fight to remove tax exempt status from churches that won't provide gay marriages? I doubt it, but maybe. Is that valid reason to fight against gay marriages? No. It is a valid reason to fight those people when that bridge comes closer, or a valid reason to fight for that protection when the law is passed.


But that's hardly the ideal, is it? Sure, we have mechanisms in our social structure for handling situations where a parent dies, or takes off, or becomes a deadbeat or whatever, but we don't seek out those conditions. These mechanisms are contingencies. To press for gay adoption is to seek out a circumstance that is not ideal.

It is also unrelated to the topic at hand: gay marriage. And yet, two gay parents vs. a foster home, I'm willing to bet the kids and society would prefer two parents.
And if you want what has done more to redefine marriage and invite a bad situation, it would be no-fault divorce. If you want to insulate children from potential bad situations, there's a place to start. Of corse, we allow them for a reason. Because my marriage isn't anyones business but my own, and I don't have to justify its termination. Right to privacy, yet again.

That they weren't calling themselves "married."

Neither were interracial couples. I still don't get what your point is.


Actually what I'm talking about is a single standard for everyone. You're the third person I'm going to ask this question of: What right do I have that a gay man lacks?

The right to marry. You can obfuscate the point all you want with this "we all have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex," but you have the right to marry the person you want to marry. A gay person does not. Neo Art's illustration demonstrates this remarkably well.


No, only the ones that seek to codify those environments on purpose. Sadly, divorce has been around almost as long as marriage itself.

But please don't put words in my mouth. It doesn't help.

I am not putting words in your mouth. I am extending your arguments to their logical conclusions. If your reason for outlawing gay marriage is because it creates unsuitable environments for children, then the logically necessary position is for you to seek to outlaw all acts that can create unsuitable environments for children. Because, if you don't, and you only want to outlaw this ONE thing that creates unsuitable environments for children, then you are a hypocrite.


Yes, "your opinion." You said my reasons were bad. That's your opinion.

What that has to do with slavery is beyond me.

Your argument is that tradition should not be sacrificed to extend equal rights to all. An identical argument can be made towards slavery. It was tradition for white people to own black people as property. Eliminating the obvious discrimination of slavery required that we trample on some very set historical values and traditions. According to the argument you've laid out here, equal rights is not a valid reason to destroy long-held traditions. Ergo, it was incorrect to eliminate slavery.

What right do I posses that a gay man does not?
The right to marry the person you love, the right to marry the person you want to spend the rest of your life with, the right to marry someone you'd just like to spend a weekend with, the right to marry anyone who turns you on sexually...

In short, the right to marry a person of your choosing. That you'll choose a person of the oposite sex is your call.


That's your opinion, not a fact, my friend.
No, that's fact. Several thousand homosexuals got married, but the ones who haven't gotten married, can't. Consenting heterosexuals can get married whenever they want. Consenting homosexuals can't. That's discrimination. That's fact.


Maybe they would be, but we just don't know because there hasn't been sufficient study and research. Meanwhile if I take the cautious approach on this I'm to be labeled a homophobe? Yah, that's useful.
I haven't used that term before, but if you are going to seriously argue that a child may be worse of by being raised by loving homosexuals instead of abusive heterosexuals...

Then I'm not going to call you a homophobe, but I will question your intelligence.


True, there's no such guarantee. So why is the solution to just disregard the need altogether?
Equality.

If they're unfit to be parents, then let it be decided in the same way that heterosexuals are judged.

I won't pigeonhole them. I promise. If my argument works as intended, you will. :)

I accept your challenge, sir.


That argument is simple. The short verson is; Nothing will change.

Consider that you have two sets of people, Group A and Group B. Group A is a diverse group of (mostly) heterosexual couples. Many of them are religious, have deep traditions and children. A considerable number are married. This group has been around for a while and they aren't going anywhere any time soon.

Group B is a much smaller group, between 5% and 10% the size of Group A. They consist of (mostly) Homosexual couples. Many of them are religious, have deep traditions and children(fewer children, but there are some). They are not allowed to marry. This group has also been around for a while and are not going anywhere any time soon.

Now, if Group A has always existed, been married, observed religious traditions and reproduced and if Group B has also always existed, observed religious traditions and reproduced, then if Group B is given the right to marry, how will that in any way alter the Religion, Tradition and Children of Group A? Group B has always been here just as Group A has been. Both groups have always lived together, worshipped together, observed children together and raised the next generation of children together. The only thing that will change is an improperly deprived right will finally be given to Group B.

Group B isn't going to suddenly triple in size. Half of Group A isn't going to decide, "You know, fuck religion and tradition! I want a mate that can play rugby with me!". It's just not gonna happen. The populations are already here. The people are already here, Neo B. The only thing that will change is the deprived right. Your religion, tradition or children will no more be affected by this than when Halley's Comet flew by. In fact, I bet Global Warming will affect you more than Gay Marriage will.

You and your damnable Global Warming... ;)

Your point is well taken, and I can't speak for the reasoning behind a lot of the conservative POV on this, as they may well see it as the way you're describing, but I don't, nor do those with whom I associate, nor anyone I"ve heard of or read the writings of.

See, the fear isn't that it's going to result in people "switching sides" the way you describe it, or a cultural change suddenly rendering Religion irrelevant or anything like that.

If that were all there was to it then I'd be debating this on your side.

While you're right that group B has always been there, the model you're using here is a bit oversimplified. It doesn't take into account the next step. What happens when Group B and Group A, now considered functionally equivalent in the terms you're thinking of, merge to form just "The Group?" What happens when those former Group A people are now expected and perhaps forced, under threat of legal action, to respond to the formerly Group B people the way Group Government wants them to?

Screw it, I'm losing track of this analogy. Too close to quittin' time to think this hard. Let's just flip back to reality.

Assuming gay marriage becomes universal, what happens when, down the road, a gay couple wants to be married in a Catholic Church? Nothing like a Catholic wedding ceremony, ya know? What then?

"Neo B don't be paranoid. Religious freedom protects them from that."

Izzat so? Catholic adoption agencies who are having to close down for not placing kids in gay households would disagree with you there. Or is this a justifiable exception to the religious freedom law? How long before gay couples demand to be married in Mormon temples?

"Can't happen, Neo B."

The Government has, once before, disincorporated the LDS Church and threatened to seize its temples over an issue of marriage definition. How can you assure people that can never happen again?

See that's the problem. We're not talking about simply offering equal rights. We're talking about changing the community in a way that will impact EVERYBODY, and yet people are acting like only one side of the issue gets a say.

Dude I think you're basing that on a faulty set of assumptions.

...that's nice, but is not an argument.

Take a look at Fass.

I am not sure why Fass is relevant in the slightest.

1)That they're seeking to deny you a right. You have to understand that as far as they're concerned, you're trying to assert a right out of thin air.

...right, obviously.

But just because they do not see it as a right does not change the character of their opposition. Imagine somebody saying, "You have no right to practice Mormonism, because your religion is just delusional superstition." Obviously they would not oppose it if they thought it was a genuine right. But they only do not think of it as a right because they are unwilling to judge it on fair terms.

2)That it has anything to do with inferiority.

No. It has everything to do with inferiority. When you refuse to recognize people's relationships and families as legally equal to other people's relationships and families, you are asserting their inferiority. Now, this would be legitimate, and we could neatly separate "person" from "act", if there were actually a valid reason for drawing the distinction. But there is not--so the present state of the law is that people who engage in same-sex relationships are arbitrarily denied the rights that people who engage in opposite-sex relationships are entitled to. That's discriminatory, and discrimination is always a marker of inferiority.

When my actions and my projects are attacked on an arbitrary basis, I have just as much reason to be offended as when I am being attacked simply for who I am.

Excuse me but I know them, you do not. You seem to be assuming that you know their minds better than they do just because you happen to have the same sexual attractions.

No. I make no assumption at all, unlike you. But, yeah, I realize that people belonging to a minority group don't always call people in the majority group on their bigotry... especially not when their bigotry is milder than that of the sort we typically encounter. And friendship is no guarantee of approval either. I have friends whose freedom from prejudice I would never vouch for... I have Christian friends who might say the same about me.

Now, none of this may be relevant to your case. I'm not asserting knowledge; what I'm actually doing is calling into question your capacity to know.

You see them as a collection of gay people who aren't being honest with me.

I don't see them as anything in particular. I see you--and it is only your words I actually have before me--as a straight person who is way too confident in his own freedom from prejudice. I am always suspicious of that. Prejudice--and I mean not just homophobia but sexism and racism as well--is too strong and too pervasive for people to pride themselves on their immunity. We should be always insecure, always on the watch.

Hey at the end of the day if you feel the need to see me as a homophobe then have at it. It doesn't hurt me any.

...then why do you repeat so often that you are not? Show, don't tell. That's my advice for people who feel victimized by others calling them prejudiced.

Oh come on man, you can't tell me it has nothing to do with the overwhelming left tendency of this forum.

Oh, obviously it does. But then you might as well be asking, "Why are people so derisive toward their political opponents (in general)?"

Or maybe you're lumping everybody into the same category.

I am responding to your own condescending overgeneralization.

The same has been said about your side.

"The same has been said" wrongly. But ridiculous lies like the recent NOM "Gathering Storm" ad, or the suggestion that same-sex marriage in California would mean children would be forced to learn about same-sex relationships at a young age, are deceptive attempts to play to people's fears--attempts that (a) dishonestly exaggerate the scope of same-sex marriage and (b) intentionally distort the laws that are actually relevant to their claims.

Plenty of opponents are simply not aware, for example, that civil marriage equality has no effect whatsoever on the free exercise of religion.
[/quote]

I wish that were so.

It is so. That is the end of it. This issue is not in question. Free exercise has nothing whatsoever--nothing whatsoever--to deal with who is and who is not allowed to attain civil marriage licenses. Most religions have internal rules for whom they will and will not marry--the Catholic Church regarding divorce, Orthodox Jews regarding intermarriage, and so forth. The law is more inclusive, and the difference has never meant that religious institutions are free to practice as they see fit.

The suggestion otherwise is simply a lie promoted by people who cannot find any basis for their views in reality.

Does that include times when someone is trying to engage you in a civil discussion?

You seem to have a blindness to context. For instance, it is within the realm of logical possibility to have a "civil discussion" with someone who wants to see you brutally murdered. As a matter of fact, I probably would have such a discussion: it's in my nature to respond well to reasonable-sounding people even if what they say is horribly offensive and absurd. But it's plain to me why other people would not be so keen on that idea.

Obviously being denied marriage rights is not the same thing as being brutally murdered. But the mere fact of the potential for a "civil discussion" obviates neither external circumstance.

If things were already peachy

You're missing the point. "Separate but equal" does not merit my approval. But your recommendation was to strike a compromise on that point--to voluntarily concede that which was (forcibly) lost with Prop. 8. My point was that there was no need to compromise: the only thing same-sex couples were justly entitled to that they didn't have (on the state level) is precisely that which you have suggested we compromise on.

The list of states that have outlawed same sex marriage through referendum is a good bit longer than that, my friend.

...so? What does that have to do with the compromise you have proposed? States that have "outlawed" same-sex marriage, with the single exception of California, never had it in the first place, and the political fights that took place were purely defensive, against the initiatives in question.

You seem to be missing the fact that Prop 8 wasn't about civil unions, which is what I've been saying regarding how willing the political right is to compromise and not argue that point.

California went 60-40 for Obama and contains one of the strongest LGBT rights lobbies in the country; it's not exactly a conservative stronghold. In Florida, a split state, voters went 62-38 for Amendment 2, which banned not only same-sex marriage but also civil unions. Ohio, another split state, passed a similar amendment in 2004; I don't remember the margin but I'd bet it was comparable if not greater.

The political right will compromise when it must compromise (as it had to in California) and will avoid compromise when it need not compromise (as it didn't have to in Florida and Ohio). Why should we behave any different?

Except that you're claiming a right that hasn't been universally accepted to exist,

No, everybody (almost everybody) accepts that all people are entitled to equal protection. (No right has truly universal recognition.) The question is what this constitutes... but its constitution is simply not a matter up to majority whim. That would make the provision meaningless and non-substantive, because the entire point of equal protection is to be counter-majoritarian, to restrain majorities by forcing them to accept the same terms for themselves that they impose on others.

Doesn't matter to you at all how anybody else sees it, does it?

If this were the case, I wouldn't be arguing with you, would I?

No, I'd start by wanting to know where that came from and what other things it had to say about Jews.

...so you don't think denying Jews equal rights is anti-Semitic?

What kind of "other things" would somehow escape that characterization?

There ARE relevant differences.

No. There are not. None at all. This is one of a very few cases that is rationally speaking clear-cut. Just as there is no reasonable moral basis for opposing homosexuality, there is no reasonable political basis for opposing same-sex marriage.

You're blurring the line between advocates for the argument and the State.

It's a political argument regarding public policy. Don't be disingenuous.

You're proceeding from the assumption that your side is the only one with a point of view and that anyone who opposes it is just junk to be swept aside.

This has begun to sound simply like whining. You are not responding to my actual point, you are simply protesting how mean I am being. (I am not, for the record, being particularly mean.)

Actually I think it's more like you're the ones who want the state to come in and force your issue.

...really? So when the state carves out a particular exception--"Everybody else can get married, but not same-sex couples"--it is the people seeking to restore the general rule who are advocating state-sponsored social engineering, not the people who loudly insist that the state treat certain couples differently under the law?

That's absurd.

Maybe so, but the situation is too recent, too new to know for sure.

Nobody else has to prove that they are capable of worthy child-raising prior to raising children. Generally, they have to do the exact opposite.

That's true, but issues like personal style and religion are products of culture, not biology.

The only element of "biology" here is the sperm and the egg. How children are raised, what family structure is used, has always been cultural.

If there's a biological/psychological need that is filled by having parents of both sexes, then religion and parenting style are not nearly as relevant issues.

Who is to say that there is not a "biological/psychological need" to be raised by parents with certain child-raising practices, or certain attitudes toward discipline? If you premise this on the notion that the "natural" way of raising children is not by same-sex couples, well, the nuclear family is not particularly natural either, nor are most of the various cultural practices surrounding child-raising.

Actually, adoption agencies do, just FYI.

I don't know for sure, but I doubt that adoption agencies are particularly interested in, say, the religious and political beliefs (within a mainstream spectrum) of people seeking to adopt children.

Is it homophobia to want to hold off on having gay couples adopt, at least until a useful amount of objective research can be done?

It is homophobia until the people who make this argument (a) want all the other various differences between couples to endure close social scientific scrutiny and (b) want the state to enforce this scrutiny by legally restricting who can and cannot raise children.

The burden of proof, as with marriage, is on the people who want to make the exception to the general rule. It would be different if we had a different general rule. If we were a society where raising children was something that required extensive licensing, close scrutiny, detailed empirical evidence, then you'd be right: same-sex couples, like all other couples, would have to wait (though would we ever get a "useful amount of objective research" that way?) But we are not. And it is arbitrary and discriminatory to make same-sex couples prove something nobody else is required to prove.

Of course, for the record, there is actually a good deal of "objective research" on this topic, though more for same-sex female couples than same-sex male ones, and pretty much all of it supports the conclusion that same-sex parents are equally fit. The mainstream secular organizations concerned with psychology and with child welfare all endorse letting same-sex couples raise children--not only because the overwhelming weight of the evidence says that they are equally fit, but also because it gives adoption agencies more flexibility in choosing the best option for the child. I trust them a whole lot more than I trust speculative theories founded on people's perceptions of gender roles.

Heterosexual couples who choose not to have kids (or who are unable) are completely irrelevant because they're still operating within the existing social construct. They're not pushing to change society, nor would they need to.

Right. "They're not pushing to change society, nor would they need to"... because our society's current conception of marriage is not dependent on procreation or on child-raising.

I'm not convinced of this at all. There are already examples of people trying to push legislation to revoke the ability for ministers to marry couples if they refuse to also do it for gay couples. Sure, such legislation hasn't passed... yet.

There have been examples of people trying to push all sorts of crazy legislation. That doesn't mean it would be upheld.

Churches already regularly hold different standards for marriage that those held by the law. The most obvious example is the fact that some churches will not marry anyone who isn't a member of their church. Another obvious one is the Catholic church - which does not recognize divorce and thus will not allow someone who has been divorced to remarry there (unless they get an annulment instead). The precedent that a church can refuse to perform a wedding ceremony for a couple who could be legally married has already been set.

Well, Neo's 'argument' seems to be "if we legalize gay marriage, we'll have to legalize multiple marriage".

I'm like... okay.

I don't agree with the logic that led him there (if any), but I think polygamy would be a small price to pay for equality.

http://www.ldsknights.org/images/strawman.jpg

I don't necessarily believe anymore that your "gay friends" actually exist; I don't necessarily believe that you even have a brother, or that you've ever been married at all, let alone twice, or that you really have any kids. Those things might be true, but I have seen your glib willingness to say utterly false things too many times to take the truthfulness of anything you say for granted.

I don't care.


This is a prime example of your glib willingness to speak the direct opposite of truth:


Wow you got that source off the Internet? Must be true, then. Boy I'm sure glad I have guys like you around who know more about my religion than I do.

/sarcasm

Your source sucks, dude. I've seen that claptrap before. You believe that with all enthusiasm and you call me a liar. This is why I can't stay mad at you, Tmut. You always bring a smile to my face.

Hence why you chose to use a word that strongly implied that you actually didn't know.
Only for those not blessed with the skill of reading (rather than mining for quotes to take them out of context).


Except, of course, that some rights transcends State boundries.
The Federal law has an explicit provision that this specific right is left up to the states to decide, and no state may be forced to honor another state's gay marriages, nor will the federal government recognize them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

A provision enacted by the Dems, no less.

You guys really like that gay = black analogy.
It's because the situations are quite similar.

(My answer is no, as I could have married a white woman and a black man could not, despite there being historical precedents for it.)
So historical precedent is what makes the difference? Because there's historical precedent for gay marriage too. Marriage between men wasn't banned in Rome until 342 ad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions#Classical_Europe)



Which is?
Because it is one of the founding principles of your country that all people are equal in the eyes of the law. To quote your declaration of independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


Well that's the issue, ain't it?
Are you suggesting it to be otherwise? But you claim you're not a homophobe.


Please refer to my earlier posts for why those analogies fail, IMHO.
Please refer to Galloism's post showing why they are quite valid.


The ones who are being told to change or get labeled as bigots/homophobes/whatever.
Doesn't answer the question and isn't relevant. People on both sides resort to name calling.


But they do so without demanding fundamental changes to society.
You think society will be fundamentally changed by legalising gay marriage? How so?

There have been examples of people trying to push all sorts of crazy legislation. That doesn't mean it would be upheld.

Churches already regularly hold different standards for marriage that those held by the law. The most obvious example is the fact that some churches will not marry anyone who isn't a member of their church. Another obvious one is the Catholic church - which does not recognize divorce and thus will not allow someone who has been divorced to remarry there (unless they get an annulment instead). The precedent that a church can refuse to perform a wedding ceremony for a couple who could be legally married has already been set.

Maybe so but when's the last time you even heard of someone trying to push legislation to change that?

See, that's the thing. Right now you and I would regard legislation to force a church to marry a gay couple as being ridiculous, but times change my friend, and the pendulum ain't swinging toward the protecting that freedom side.

The Federal law has an explicit provision that this specific right is left up to the states to decide, and no state may be forced to honor another state's gay marriages, nor will the federal government recognize them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

A provision enacted by the Dems, no less.

and the problem with DOMA, like any federal law, is that it is, in the end, subservient to the constitution itself.

And not only does the whole "gay marriage ban" problem cause serious equal protection and due process arguments, but the "hey guys, you don't have to honor other state's laws!" raises a big old honking "full faith and credit" problem.

No. You've misunderstood it.

The government should not be the party to register and manage the citzens' marriages.

Instead, the marriages should be replaced by contracts. What these contracts contain is up to the spouses - they can be written to resemble the existing marital law, or to differ from it in radical ways.

You do realize that the government is the party that examines and enforces contracts, right?

The only duty the government has is to recognize those contracts. Just that.

Not really. The government also has a duty to ensure that contracts are legal and, to some degree, fair before enforcing them.

Also, as you pointed out, the government would have to alter contract law to allow for a general contract (rather than a specified type - ie. marriage) to do more than it can currently.

For instance, divorce changes from an exhausting and bankrupting series of trials into a matter of looking into the "Termination" paragraph. You agree on the conditions before the 'marriage' (or however you like to call it).
You decide how your marriage should work, not some bureaucrat you have never seen nor would ever want to see.

You do realize that most divorces are not an exhausting and bankrupting series of trials, right? Most people draw up an agreement, sign it, and a judge just sort of looks it over to make sure it isn't too outrageous before signing it. It only goes into trials and the like if the terms are disputed - which also happens in any type of contract, even with a termination clause.

Maybe so but when's the last time you even heard of someone trying to push legislation to change that?

See, that's the thing. Right now you and I would regard legislation to force a church to marry a gay couple as being ridiculous, but times change my friend, and the pendulum ain't swinging toward the protecting that freedom side.

Oh yes, times change. You never know, people could pass legislation forcing Christian ministers to officiate at Jewish weddings. Guess we better.....eh.....try to elect people who aren't nut cases?

Assuming gay marriage becomes universal, what happens when, down the road, a gay couple wants to be married in a Catholic Church? Nothing like a Catholic wedding ceremony, ya know? What then?

"Neo B don't be paranoid. Religious freedom protects them from that."

Izzat so? Catholic adoption agencies who are having to close down for not placing kids in gay households would disagree with you there. Or is this a justifiable exception to the religious freedom law? How long before gay couples demand to be married in Mormon temples?
This is easy.

Take away the authority of the churches to establish marriages. Seperation of chirch and state and all that. Leaves the churces free to determine who they will and won't hold ceremonies for.

After all, we're talking about legal rights here. Not just ceremonies.

Only for those not blessed with the skill of reading (rather than mining for quotes to take them out of context).
Sure, baby. Which is why you responded to my post the way you did, with your "That's irrelevant, 'cause I'm speaking about America, and California."

Next time, use a dictionary instead of trying to wriggle out of it by making excuses afterwards. Saves you time.


The Federal law has an explicit provision that this specific right is left up to the states to decide, and no state may be forced to honor another state's gay marriages, nor will the federal government recognize them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

A provision enacted by the Dems, no less.
Do you remember the constitution? That trumps federal law...

I know that too, which is why I have no problem with legal protections against such things.

But you do seem to have a problem with them being legal protections under the same legal framework that covers heterosexual couples with the same needs.

Why?

That's where we differ, as it gets back to the basic purpose for marriage as I talked about before.

Different people are going to have different opinions on the "purpose" of marriage. But to know what the purpose of legal marriage is, we need only look to the types of things encoded in marriage law. What needs are met by such laws?

As it turns out, the only legal situation that heterosexual couples might get into that homosexual couples cannot is having a child that they are both the biological parents of (in which case marriage is not necessary for joint custody).

I don't know if it's better or not, but I remain unconvinced that there's a benefit to codifying that in law.

You don't know if it's better for a child to have greater protections in the law? You've argued that it's better for a child to have two parents than one. What is the reason for that? Is it just that there are two people there who give differing perspectives? Or is there also something to be said for having two providers (of money, healthcare, etc.) and two people who can legally make parental choices (ie. immediate medical decisions)? Is there nothing to be said for a child not losing support from both parents in the case of a break up?

You may not like the fact that gay people have children, but they do. Either through a surrogate, adoption (where allowed), or from previous relationships. Unless you're going to argue that they should be outlawed from having children or have their children taken away from them, these situations are going to occur. So is it better for those children to have less legal protection than those with heterosexual parents, or the same protections?

Assuming gay marriage becomes universal, what happens when, down the road, a gay couple wants to be married in a Catholic Church?

The same thing that would happen if divorcees wanted to be married in a Catholic Church, obviously: they would be refused, and they would have no legal standing.

"Neo B don't be paranoid. Religious freedom protects them from that."

Indeed.

Izzat so? Catholic adoption agencies who are having to close down for not placing kids in gay households would disagree with you there.

No, it doesn't. There are two possibilities here; one or both is almost certainly true (and I think both are), though I'm not familiar enough with the situation to be sure which is which.

1. The adoption agencies in question are licensed by the government to provide adoption services. That license comes with a variety of requirements; there is no particular reason why anti-discrimination should not be one. Nobody has the right to run an adoption agency in accordance with their particular beliefs: finding good homes for children is surely an area where careful government supervision is reasonable. It is not a private institutional matter like questions of free exercise.

2. The adoption agencies in question are essentially secular in function even if they are religious in name. They provide services to the general public, regardless of religious affiliation (or lack of such); they don't go investigating people's past sins to test whether or not they meet the Catholic Church's moral standards. But when it comes to the specific particular case of homosexuality, they are inclined to make a discriminatory rule. That's not "free exercise" either, because we're not dealing with a fundamentally religious activity: it's just discrimination.

Neither of these elements apply to church marriage ceremonies. Religious institutions are not licensed and have no need for government supervision. And religious institutions already restrict on grounds of their personal beliefs who can and cannot marry at their churches: that's the character of a church, it is a private institution offering religious services to believers in accordance with the rules and rituals of the religion, not an institution offering services to the general public in accordance (with the single exception of homosexuality) with secular principles.

Not to mention, what a same-sex couple would be demanding in your hypothetical case is a specifically religious service. That's of a different character entirely from asking to adopt children (or to attain and retain employment, or to not be restricted from patronizing a given hotel.)

Or is this a justifiable exception to the religious freedom law?

It's not an "exception." It doesn't actually have anything to do with religious freedom. There are certain roles in our society that require that people act in a certain way our society deems "fair": if your religious beliefs don't permit you to act in such a way, don't adopt those roles. I doubt my ethical convictions would permit me to act as a spy, but (even if the free exercise clause were interpreted, as it has not historically been, to protect abiding but essentially secular moral positions) there is no violation of my rights in the government hiring people whose job requirements include spying.

The question is, where is the line between roles that society may so restrict, and activities personal enough that they should be protected from government regulation? Now, there is some blurry and genuinely difficult territory here--the Boy Scouts of America case comes to mind--but generally the distinction has to do with how private and intimate a given practice is; is it a club of friends or something (for the most part) inclusively open to the public? Is it an ordinary business aiming at secular pursuits like profit or are its practices oriented exclusively toward a given set of specific moral and religious values, by which as a general rule it judges its employees and its customers?

(Religious organizations, of course, have even more protection, because not only are they sheltered under the penumbra of free expression rights, but they also, unlike secular organizations, have free exercise rights.)

The Government has, once before, disincorporated the LDS Church and threatened to seize its temples over an issue of marriage definition.

Not a comparable case, because here we are dealing with a social institution (polygamy) that the government had independent reasons to restrict.

We're talking about changing the community in a way that will impact EVERYBODY

No. We really aren't, when it comes to same-sex marriage.

Anti-discrimination laws, however (which is what these complaints really concern--NOT same-sex marriage), do have a broader effect... but the arguments in this respect between social justice and free association were made and decided reasonably quite a few decades past. The problem now is that the rules involved are complicated enough to not have been absorbed in the popular consciousness, and because they deal with territory that is somewhat ambiguous, they are easy to manipulate at the hands of unscrupulous politically-motivated people.

For the record, I do not think people opposed to anti-discrimination laws are by virtue of that fact homophobic--as long as they apply an equal standard to anti-discrimination laws protecting people from race-based, sex-based, religion-based, and so forth discrimination.

Right now you and I would regard legislation to force a church to marry a gay couple as being ridiculous, but times change my friend, and the pendulum ain't swinging toward the protecting that freedom side.

Then fight that fight when it comes. Don't use it as an excuse to oppose about the totally separate issue of civil same-sex marriage.

A compromise would be more like "We want the same advantages you get, but we understand that the terminology and approach can cause a conflict for you, so we're willing to call it something different and leave room for you to view it differently if you're willing to stay out oft he way."

Why does one have to call it something different in order for you to view it differently?

Different churches view marriage pretty differently, but you don't often see one church going out and telling the other that they should use a different word. The Catholic Church wouldn't recognize my mother and stepfather as being married, but they aren't looking at the Methodist Church and demanding that they use a different term.

Why, then, should your viewpoint (or anyone else's) on same-sex marriage be contingent on whether or not they use a different word? The fact that they use the same word for it isn't going to change your opinion that it is less valid.

Dude you're the ones putting gays in a separate class, not the conservatives. Inherent to the idea of "equal protection" is the concept that you're trying to stand up for a separate class.

.....because someone else has made them a separate class. If blacks had always been treated equally, no one would have had to fight for equal protection for them. It was those who oppressed them who placed them in a separate class. It is those who fought for equality who have attempted to remove such class distinctions.

See, here's where there's a failure in that logic. If you're gay, nothing is stopping you from marrying someone of the opposite sex. Just because you don't want to doesn't mean that you're entitled to special treatment. If marriage is about building a structure for birthing and raising children, as conservatives believe it to be, then it just doesn't make sense to demand to be able to codify into law the ability to marry someone with whom it is biologically impossible to have children with, when the only real goal here is to achieve legal equality, which conservatives generally do NOT have a problem with.

If the purpose of marriage is birthing and raising children, then a couple that cannot have biological children isn't equal and therefore doesn't need equal protection. This includes any couple - regardless of the sex of the participants - who cannot do so.

That said, from a legal standpoint, birthing and raising children is quite clearly not a major reason for marriage. Very few of the laws pertaining to marriage have anything at all to do with children.

So what you're talking about here is a difference between a given cultural view of marriage and the actual legal framework.

http://www.ldsknights.org/images/strawman.jpg

You raised multiple marriages as a comparison, my friend.

Sorry if you think plural marriages are a strawman... but they're your strawman.

Curious that you ignore all my posts except that one.

i have a stupid question... but ima ask anyway seeing as theres smart people here

why dont the gays want civil unions? are they diferent legally or is it just a "moral of the thing" thing?

i think that gays shold have civil unions and that they should be legally the same as marraige, whats wrong with this veiw?

i have a stupid question... but ima ask anyway seeing as theres smart people here

why dont the gays want civil unions? are they diferent legally or is it just a "moral of the thing" thing?

i think that gays shold have civil unions and that they should be legally the same as marraige, whats wrong with this veiw?

They are legally different AND it's a 'moral of the thing' thing.

I accept your challenge, sir.



You and your damnable Global Warming... ;)

Your point is well taken, and I can't speak for the reasoning behind a lot of the conservative POV on this, as they may well see it as the way you're describing, but I don't, nor do those with whom I associate, nor anyone I"ve heard of or read the writings of.

See, the fear isn't that it's going to result in people "switching sides" the way you describe it, or a cultural change suddenly rendering Religion irrelevant or anything like that.

If that were all there was to it then I'd be debating this on your side.

While you're right that group B has always been there, the model you're using here is a bit oversimplified. It doesn't take into account the next step. What happens when Group B and Group A, now considered functionally equivalent in the terms you're thinking of, merge to form just "The Group?" What happens when those former Group A people are now expected and perhaps forced, under threat of legal action, to respond to the formerly Group B people the way Group Government wants them to?

Screw it, I'm losing track of this analogy. Too close to quittin' time to think this hard. Let's just flip back to reality.

Assuming gay marriage becomes universal, what happens when, down the road, a gay couple wants to be married in a Catholic Church? Nothing like a Catholic wedding ceremony, ya know? What then?

"Neo B don't be paranoid. Religious freedom protects them from that."

Izzat so? Catholic adoption agencies who are having to close down for not placing kids in gay households would disagree with you there. Or is this a justifiable exception to the religious freedom law? How long before gay couples demand to be married in Mormon temples?

"Can't happen, Neo B."

The Government has, once before, disincorporated the LDS Church and threatened to seize its temples over an issue of marriage definition. How can you assure people that can never happen again?

See that's the problem. We're not talking about simply offering equal rights. We're talking about changing the community in a way that will impact EVERYBODY, and yet people are acting like only one side of the issue gets a say.

Well if it will give you some comfort, if religious freedom ever becomes curtailed by government, I will be the first to come to it's defense. :)

Next time, use a dictionary instead of trying to wriggle out of it by making excuses afterwards.
I do not "wriggle out of it" or "make excuses", that's your imagination playing tricks on you. I stand by what I say. This is plain and simple: Nobody in CA has the right to marry someone of the same gender, whether they are homo or heterosexuals.

The rest of the world for the purposes of this argument (and this thread) could just as well not exist. You brought it in only to engage in demagogy.


Do you remember the constitution? That trumps federal law...
If the Constitution trumped the federal law in practice rather than only in theory, I'd be free to ride a military issue HMMWV with a .50 machinegun on top.


---


You do realize that the government is the party that examines and enforces contracts, right?
Yes, the government is the party that provides courts and police in order to keep the parties from breaking their contracts.

But it should not have a monopoly on designing these contracts, as it now has with marriage.


Also, as you pointed out, the government would have to alter contract law to allow for a general contract (rather than a specified type - ie. marriage) to do more than it can currently.
Yes. It should do that. The only difference between marriage and general contracts is that marriage is to some extent traditional. But if we break with tradition anyway, that's less than a weak justification to give marriage any exclusivity.


You do realize that most divorces are not an exhausting and bankrupting series of trials, right? Most people draw up an agreement, sign it, and a judge just sort of looks it over to make sure it isn't too outrageous before signing it.
It still only works if there's no conflict. If there is conflict, it's better to have a specific contract for resolving it. And yes, contract termination can have issues too. But issues of interpretation are nothing compared to issues where there's no previous agreement at all.

why dont the gays want civil unions? are they diferent legally

Yes.

or is it just a "moral of the thing" thing?

Also yes.

Gay people want marriages instead of civil unions for the exact same reasons straight people want marriages instead of civil unions.

i have a stupid question... but ima ask anyway seeing as theres smart people here

why dont the gays want civil unions? are they diferent legally or is it just a "moral of the thing" thing?

i think that gays shold have civil unions and that they should be legally the same as marraige, whats wrong with this veiw?

Both, the same as how blacks wanted to go to the same schools as whites not just because white schools were way better, but because of the principle that they shouldn't have to be segregated.

I do not "wriggle out of it" or "make excuses", that's your imagination playing tricks on you. I stand by what I say. This is plain and simple: Nobody in CA has the right to marry someone of the same gender, whether they are homo or heterosexuals.

But a man has the right to marry a woman and a woman does not.

Yes, the government is the party that provides courts and police in order to keep the parties from breaking their contracts.

But it should not have a monopoly on designing these contracts, as it now has with marriage.

It doesn't, really. It puts forth a standard contract that covers most of the bases that people want. Those who want something else generally do pre-nups.

It still only works if there's no conflict. If there is conflict, it's better to have a specific contract for resolving it. And yes, contract termination can have issues too. But issues of interpretation are nothing compared to issues where there's no previous agreement at all.

With marriage, there's at least a standard default position - even in the absence of a well-written termination agreement (which can be included in a pre-nup).

i have a stupid question... but ima ask anyway seeing as theres smart people here

why dont the gays want civil unions? are they diferent legally or is it just a "moral of the thing" thing?

i think that gays shold have civil unions and that they should be legally the same as marraige, whats wrong with this veiw?

The issue with your view is that there is, in fact, a difference between "marriage" and " civil union", even if they are legally identical.

I am married. This statement is an aspect of ones being, similar to "I am tall", or "I am a boy".

I have a civil union. This statement demonstrates posession, similar to "I have a dog" or "I have a car".

It is quite different to call someone your "husband"...such as walking into the hospital when they ask you "Are you family?"..."yes, he is my husband" as compared to "Are you family?"..."yes, he is my partner". Society has created power and value for the term "marriage" and its associated concepts. As there are already perfectly viable terms to use, there is no need to create new terms. It is nearly impossible that these terms would come to have identical connotations and denotations.

Ultimatly, seperate is not equal.

But a man has the right to marry a woman and a woman does not.


Really? I don't remember being the only one who had to sign forms?

Even then isn't it more the matter you guys have to wait for us to get over urge to run at the thought? ;)


With marriage, there's at least a standard default position - even in the absence of a well-written termination agreement (which can be included in a pre-nup).

Doesn't the length of the marriage pretty well do in the pre-nup?

Personally; don't believe in them. My view is that possessions are replaceable. If she wants them; she can have them. But I am not "normal" in that aspect.....

I do not "wriggle out of it" or "make excuses", that's your imagination playing tricks on you. I stand by what I say. This is plain and simple: Nobody in CA has the right to marry someone of the same gender, whether they are homo or heterosexuals.
Except that's not what you said, after talking about analogies about walking round naked, hairy and with guns... Have you forgotten that one can go back in the thread? Let me show you this magic:
The difference between your original analogy and mine is that in your analogy, the minority is demanding a right that nobody has.They don't have that right. Nobody has the right to an intragender marriage.
Nope, no "CA" there, in your absolute statement that, by the way, ignored the homosexuals that have gotten married in California.

And then you decide to respond with
And also probably in Second Life.
These rights elsewhere are irrelevant. Since when can the rest of the world set standards for America? US doesn't even use the metric system.

We're talking about US here. And California in particular.
...showing that even you weren't actually only talking about California.

Sorry about that, but now you know that the "nobody" should be used properly.

The rest of the world for the purposes of this argument (and this thread) could just as well not exist. You brought it in only to engage in demagogy.
Sorry, no, I did it because you presented a factually wrong statement. And trying to ignore the rest of the world - and the rest of the US - in this thread is silly.


If the Constitution trumped the federal law in practice rather than only in theory, I'd be free to ride a military issue HMMWV with a .50 machinegun on top.
No, you wouldn't.

I do not "wriggle out of it" or "make excuses", that's your imagination playing tricks on you. I stand by what I say. This is plain and simple: Nobody in CA has the right to marry someone of the same gender, whether they are homo or heterosexuals.


Which isn't what you said.

You claim that the context is evident, because you were replying to LG, but LG didn't specify, either - and was, in turn - replying to you. And you were replying to Bunny, who ALSO wasn't being specific.

It's cute that you think no one has a memory.

You said no one had the right, and your explanation... was that marriage is definitively between a man and a woman.

So - you are both 'wriggling out of it' AND 'making excuses' now. Really obviously.

Assuming gay marriage becomes universal, what happens when, down the road, a gay couple wants to be married in a Catholic Church?
They can't, plain and simple. Just like Jewish couples can't get married in a Catholic Church, nor a mixed-religion couple with one Catholic and one non-Catholic who refuses to pledge that any children will be baptized and confirmed in the Church, or a couple who are both Catholic if one of them has been civilly married and divorced before. The freedom of the churches to refuse to marry anyone they don't want to marry is absolute, as every decision on the same-sex-marriage issue has explicitly acknowledged. There are churches which not only refuse to marry interracial couples, but will expel members who even go on a social date with someone of another race: however abhorrent that may seem, and however certain that a private business would not be allowed to discriminate in such a fashion, that is the unquestioned law.
"Neo B don't be paranoid. Religious freedom protects them from that."

Izzat so? Catholic adoption agencies who are having to close down for not placing kids in gay households would disagree with you there.
For one thing: those agencies do not OWN those children. We are talking about wards of the state; the agencies can either act as agents of the state, or refuse to do so.
For another thing, in fact the Catholic agency in question had never refused to place kids in gay households; the people who actually worked there had no problem with it, and had done so several times. It was the bishop who ordered the agency to close.

Wow you got that source off the Internet? Must be true, then. Boy I'm sure glad I have guys like you around who know more about my religion than I do.
Well, if you give me your mailing address I can send you some printed texts from your church, but since we're on the Internet, sending you an Internet link seems easier.
I DO in fact know more about your religion than you do: because you are not old enough to remember how the Mormon prophets spoke routinely, back before the late '70s. I remember, and this kind of stuff:

" The Mormon church owned Deseret News printed apostle and future prophet Ezra Taft Benson's words concerning civil rights:

“LOGAN, UTAH—Former agriculture secretary Ezra Taft Benson charged Friday night that the CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT in the South had been 'FOMENTED ALMOST ENTIRELY BY THE COMMUNISTS.' “Elder Benson, a member of the Council of the Twelve of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said in a speech at a public meeting here that the WHOLE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT WAS 'PHONY.'...
“'The whole slogan of 'civil right' as used to make trouble in the South today, is an exact parallel to the slogan of agrarian reform' which they used in China,' he added....
“'The pending 'civil rights' legislation is, I am convinced, about 10 per cent civil rights and 90 per cent a further extension of socialistic federal controls,' Elder Benson said, 'It is part of the PATTERN FOR THE COMMUNIST TAKE-OVER OF AMERICA.'“ (Deseret News, December 14, 1963)

At the 135th annual conference of the Mormon church, apostle Bensen continued his diatribe:

“'What are we doing to fight it? BEFORE I LEFT FOR EUROPE I WARNED HOW THE COMMUNISTS WERE USING THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT TO PROMOTE REVOLUTION AND EVENTUAL TAKEOVER OF THIS COUNTRY. WHEN ARE WE GOING TO WAKE UP? WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE DANGEROUS CIVIL RIGHTS AGITATION IN MISSISSIPPI? DO YOU FEAR THE DESTRUCTION OF ALL VESTIGES OF STATE GOVERNMENT? “'NOW, BRETHREN, THE LORD NEVER PROMISED THERE WOULD NOT BE TRAITORS IN THE CHURCH. WE HAVE THE IGNORANT, THE SLEEPY AND THE DECEIVED WHO PROVIDE TEMPTATIONS AND AVENUES OF APOSTACY FOR THE UNWARY AND THE UNFAITHFUL. BUT WE HAVE A PROPHET AT OUR HEAD AND HE HAS SPOKEN. NOW WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? Do Homework “'Brethren, if we had done our homework and were faithful we could step forward at this time and help save this country.” (Salt Lake Tribune,April 7, 1965, p. A-5)"

is TOTALLY typical of what came out of the Mormon leadership all the time during the Benson era.
The issue here is about what your church *used to* teach; if it doesn't teach that anymore, fine, but your claim was that your church never said such things. Fifty years from now, some Mormon on the Net will doubtless be pretending that the LDS "never" had any opposition to same-sex marriage, either.
Maybe so but when's the last time you even heard of someone trying to push legislation to change that?
Never. I do not know of a single instance of anyone trying to change church-state relationships in the direction of forcing the churches to do anything. There was that one case in Sweden (you dishonestly used the plural, although you are only talking about one case) where a radical party tried to *preserve* a constitutional subordination of the Lutheran church to the state, which Sweden is moving toward completely abolishing, but that got zero support even in Sweden (the Left Party was punished by losing every one of its seats in the Riksdag), and in the US where the church has never ever been an arm of the state, the legal argument could not even be started.
See, that's the thing. Right now you and I would regard legislation to force a church to marry a gay couple as being ridiculous, but times change my friend, and the pendulum ain't swinging toward the protecting that freedom side.
The pendulum ain't swinging at all. Religious freedom will be absolutely unaffected; you have been given explicit assurances on this, if you needed them, but you refuse to take Yes for an answer. If there are absolutely no circumstances in which you would possibly believe any assurances that you could be given, then why are you bothering to pretend that you are open for reasoned discussion on the topic?

But a man has the right to marry a woman and a woman does not.
Marriage is not a unilateral act. It's an act of joining the genders. So, like a corporation can't have two CEOs...


It doesn't, really. It puts forth a standard contract that covers most of the bases that people want.
Oh, it totally does. Otherwise gays and 3+ spouses would have already drawn up their own contracts and used them in place of marriage. But they can't. Only the government has the right to design that marriage contract.

(Your being able to make a separate contract between the same people is not the same.)


With marriage, there's at least a standard default position - even in the absence of a well-written termination agreement (which can be included in a pre-nup).
And many believe that this default position sucks. Besides, the presence of the one-size-fits-all (or so we say) enforced privileged contract discourages people from even considering any alternatives.

Izzat so? Catholic adoption agencies who are having to close down for not placing kids in gay households would disagree with you there.

My wife was turned down for adoption through a Catholic agency when they asked her about her religion and she described herself as a 'lapsed Baptist'.

The Catholic Church does not deserve anyone's sympathy for their policies. If they have to close down for being bigoted assholes, that's not a bad thing.

Marriage is not a unilateral act. It's an act of joining the genders. So, like a corporation can't have two CEOs...


Ahm. Actually they can. They go by the term Co-CEO. Motorola and schwab come to mind......

And then you decide to respond with
And then I respond with "They don't have that right. Nobody has the right to an intragender marriage."

Which would be unnecessary if the minority was not denied that right. The discussion was concerning whether it's denial of a specific right to gays, or is it denial of the right to intragender marriage to anyone regardless of their preference.


Sorry about that, but now you know that the "nobody" should be used properly.
No, now I simply know a few more names of people on NSG who prefer to pick on their own misunderstanding of words rather than address the point. Any person who picks on use of "nobody" without a qualifier "in California, US, as of May 28, 2009" is obviously not interested in the debate at hand.

Marriage is not a unilateral act. It's an act of joining the genders.

No, it isn't.

Marriage is not a unilateral act. It's an act of joining the genders. So, like a corporation can't have two CEOs...

Kind of like the two CEOs of Motorola?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola

edit: Blast, beaten to the punch. :(

Ahm. Actually they can. They go by the term Co-CEO. Motorola and schwab come to mind......
Hmm. Didn't know that. Either way, there must be examples when by definition the "special" contract can only join different parties.

Perhaps the attorney-client (defendant) example is a better one. They have a special privileged relationship, but you can't have a similar special relationship between two defendants.

Kind of like the two CEOs of Motorola?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola

edit: Blast, beaten to the punch. :(

Muwahahaha! :D

And then I respond with "They don't have that right. Nobody has the right to an intragender marriage."
The right to marry consists of the right to marry the person of one's choosing. That is not my opinion; it is the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, and is thus the law in this country.

i have a stupid question... but ima ask anyway seeing as theres smart people here

why dont the gays want civil unions? are they diferent legally or is it just a "moral of the thing" thing?

i think that gays shold have civil unions and that they should be legally the same as marraige, whats wrong with this veiw?

Well... suppose that the government gets really really sick of this whole 'gay marriage' debate and decides from this point on NO ONE can get 'married' anymore. That's right. No more marriages for anyone. Everyone can just be 'partners' and the government will give them a package of legal rights as a couple.

Would this be all right with you?

The law is discriminatory because it says only people with penises can marry women, and only people with vaginas can marry men.
Why not have both? If teh gheyz are really that desperate to get hitched then they'd be open to the idea of self-mutilation.

Well... suppose that the government gets really really sick of this whole 'gay marriage' debate and decides from this point on NO ONE can get 'married' anymore. That's right. No more marriages for anyone. Everyone can just be 'partners' and the government will give them a package of legal rights as a couple.

Would this be all right with you?

Sure, as long as all the other countries that recognize our marriages did so at the same time, so that they would still recognize the thingiemadoodles we would now have.

Of course, pretty much everyone would still call it "marriage".

Everyone can just be 'partners' and the government will give them a package of legal rights as a couple.

Would this be all right with you?
Yeah. That's what the word "marriage" means.

This is easy.

Take away the authority of the churches to establish marriages. Seperation of chirch and state and all that. Leaves the churces free to determine who they will and won't hold ceremonies for.

After all, we're talking about legal rights here. Not just ceremonies.

Churches already have the right to marry or not marry whomever they choose. Catholic churches, for example, will not marry two people if one or both of them had a previous marriage that was deemed a valid marriage by the church. Making same-sex marriage legal won't change the fact that churches that don't want to marry same-sex couples won't have to.

What I don't get is, since when has marriage been defined as specifically to do with genders?

What I don't get is, since when has marriage been defined as specifically to do with genders?
Since 1996, it has been explicitly defined so for Federal purposes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
Before 1996, it was considered implicit.

Since 1998-2009 for state purposes, depending on the state, 30 states have explicitly banned the recognition of any marriages other than between man and woman.

(Most others still don't recognize it, but don't have an explicit legislation against it.)

The right to marry consists of the right to marry the person of one's choosing. That is not my opinion; it is the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, and is thus the law in this country.
I'm afraid there might be some flaw in this reasoning. You see, if it was sound, everybody in every state would be legally able to conduct a homosexual marriage. But that's not exactly the case, hence, the opinion you have expressed is not the law in this country.

Since 1996, it has been explicitly defined so for Federal purposes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
Before 1996, it was considered implicit.

Since 1998-2009 for state purposes, depending on the state, 30 states have explicitly banned the recognition of any marriages other than between man and woman.

(Most others still don't recognize it, but don't have an explicit legislation against it.)

I actually wasn't talking solely of the US.

I've just been looking through some Acts of the British parliament and there appears to be no definition of marriage as strictly between opposite-sex people, yet a law was created to make a separate legal entity for same-sex couples. I'm wondering if other countries have similar vagueness or have passed legislation clarifying it like the US or the Netherlands.

Sure, as long as all the other countries that recognize our marriages did so at the same time, so that they would still recognize the thingiemadoodles we would now have.

Of course, pretty much everyone would still call it "marriage".

I.e. the current status in the UK and parts of Europe where civil partnerships exist. I'm pretty certain that those other countries who don't recognise foreign gay civil partnerships are also those who don't recognise gay marriages and vice versa.

Of course I imagine in the US it's a slightly different issue where there is the problem of federal rights, and marriage being specifically named as a right. It makes the emphasis on the term somewhat more important than in other countries where the emphasis of legal protection may be on the 'family' unit or similar.

Well... suppose that the government gets really really sick of this whole 'gay marriage' debate and decides from this point on NO ONE can get 'married' anymore. That's right. No more marriages for anyone. Everyone can just be 'partners' and the government will give them a package of legal rights as a couple.

Would this be all right with you?
I know you weren't talking to me, but personally I would PREFER that.

I don't like the term "marriage," because I feel it is attached to a whole pile of cultural and historical crap that is really disgraceful and I'd rather not associate my relationship with any of that stuff. If it were possible for me to have a "civil union" with my (hetero) partner, I'd choose that over a marriage any day.

I know you weren't talking to me, but personally I would PREFER that.

I don't like the term "marriage," because I feel it is attached to a whole pile of cultural and historical crap that is really disgraceful and I'd rather not associate my relationship with any of that stuff. If it were possible for me to have a "civil union" with my (hetero) partner, I'd choose that over a marriage any day.

Haha~ XD You should fight to have an 'unmarriage' then. It's so rediculous how much of a shit storm this issue is. I wonder if I should be flattered that there are people out there who care SO much about whether I marry a man or a woman that they're actually losing sleep over this!

I'm afraid there might be some flaw in this reasoning. You see, if it was sound, everybody in every state would be legally able to conduct a homosexual marriage. But that's not exactly the case, hence, the opinion you have expressed is not the law in this country.
It IS the law in this country so far as what the "right of marriage" consists of. Some people are denied the right of marriage: for example, if it is your misfortune that the person you love most and want to marry is your sibling, or is already married to someone else, or is a child, etc. When a fundamental right is denied to certain classes of people, the government has to give a justification for that denial; such justifications can be made for the incest, polygamy, pedophilia cases, and we can argue whether such justifications are sufficient, but the point is: you do have to acknowledge that there is a denial of the right in those cases, and justify that, rather than saying "We define the right to mean the right to marry a non-closely-related, unmarried, person over the age of consent, so those people aren't even included".

The verbal dodge "The right to marry means the right to marry a person of the same race" is what the court in Loving v. Virginia specifically rejected: no, the right to marry means the right to marry the one you choose, and if that is denied to those who are attracted to someone of another race, that denial needs a justification, and the Court found the justifications lacking. The analogous dodge here, "We define the right to marry as meaning the right to marry someone of the opposite gender", is not allowed either: you have to say, we justify denying the right to marry to those whose attraction is homosexual because... (fill in the blank here). The courts in Massachusetts, California, and Iowa found the proffered justifications lacking. No-one has taken this to the US Supreme Court because we are afraid that Scalia would find some specious way of saying the justifications for the discrimination are valid ones, setting a bad precedent that would be hard to overcome.

I know you weren't talking to me, but personally I would PREFER that.

I don't like the term "marriage," because I feel it is attached to a whole pile of cultural and historical crap that is really disgraceful and I'd rather not associate my relationship with any of that stuff. If it were possible for me to have a "civil union" with my (hetero) partner, I'd choose that over a marriage any day.

Man. Give them the vote and they get so upity!

*runs*

This whole thing proves straight people shouldn't be allowed to vote. I propose a buttcocks test for using the voting booth.

Lets not forget that gender and sex are anything but concrete. How are we defining sex? How are we defining gender? If we call "XX" female, and "XY" male, what do we do about the rare XX male and XY female? Or XXY males? What about transexuals? Do we define "male" and "female" strictly by what is between the legs? If so, then what about transexuals?

This, I think, is the best argument against sex discrimination and hetero-only marriage.

Gender and sex are physiological (and psychological) issues. Rights and marriage are social issues.
Why should the law care about the private physiological/psychological issues of private citizens who choose to live together and care for each other?

Why should the law care about the private physiological/psychological issues of private citizens who choose to live together and care for each other?
Because the morality brigade said so.

*wonders how many people actually read the Courts decision.*

*wonders how many people actually read the Courts decision.*

*raises hand*

Why?

*raises hand*

Why?

looking at alot of arguments here... it sounds like alot of them didn't read it or understand it.

In fact, I doubt those who are happy about the support actually realize what the court actually said.

looking at alot of arguments here... it sounds like alot of them didn't read it or understand it.

The actual decision hasn't actually been talked about much. Just same-sex marriage more broadly.

In fact, I doubt those who are happy about the support actually realize what the court actually said.

It's not the Court in this particular decision, it's In re Marriage Cases plus a realization of what Prop. 8 actually says (and doesn't say). So it's still a conservative victory, it's just one that falls quite short of being decisive.

It's not the Court in this particular decision, it's In re Marriage Cases plus a realization of what Prop. 8 actually says (and doesn't say). So it's still a conservative victory, it's just one that falls quite short of being decisive.

it's a victory in name only.

it's a victory in name only.

...quite literally.

But the "name" here is a matter of some significance. If nothing else, the fervency by which supporters and opponents debate it proves that: if it were merely semantic, liberal-leaning states like California would have compromised this out years ago.

Edit: The real significance of the decision, as far as I am concerned, is another affirmation of just how ridiculous the California Constitution is when it comes to matters of ballot initiative. Maybe the courts should "jealously guard" those rights (or whatever the exact phrasing is), but the people should relinquish them.

Edit: The real significance of the decision, as far as I am concerned, is another affirmation of just how ridiculous the California Constitution is when it comes to matters of ballot initiative. Maybe the courts should "jealously guard" those rights (or whatever the exact phrasing is), but the people should relinquish them.
I rarely agree with the Economist, but their article (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13649050) on Californian government seems on the mark. Basically, the devices of direct democracy that helped counter the power of Big Railroad in 1910 don't work so well in 2009.

On the other hand, if the Proposition 8 instead extended gay marriage rights, you would be praising CA's elements of direct democracy...

On the other hand, if the Proposition 8 instead extended gay marriage rights, you would be praising CA's elements of direct democracy...

No, we'd be praising a positive outcome, which grants rights to many and takes rights from none, gained through a far from perfect means. You see, you can celebrate the decision and not agree with the way it was made. It shouldn't be before the voters. Since it was, I would have been happier if they'd voted to end the discrimination--but I still wouldn't think it should be in their hands.

On the other hand, if the Proposition 8 instead extended gay marriage rights, you would be praising CA's elements of direct democracy...

It's nice to know that you think yourself capable of mind-reading... but my doubts about "direct democracy" of California's sort extend far before Prop. 8 ever happened. And I am not against more limited methods of constitutional amendment even when they have results akin to (or worse than) Prop. 8: I just think they should require a supermajority either from the legislature or from the people.

On the other hand, if the Proposition 8 instead extended gay marriage rights, you would be praising CA's elements of direct democracy...

"If"s are nice, but we're dealing with reality.

Sometimes I wonder if the people who wrote and supported this....

Marriages between Jews and citizens of German or kindred blood are forbidden. Marriages concluded in defiance of this law are void, even if, for the purpose of evading this law, they were concluded abroad.

...felt that they were protecting marriage too.

On the other hand, if the Proposition 8 instead extended gay marriage rights, you would be praising CA's elements of direct democracy...

Yeah and if the above Nuremberg Law extended the rights of Jews to marry who they chose to, perhaps people would have praised the document as a milestone in human rights.

But, ya know. It didn't. Neither did Proposition 8. They both have in common that they have denied marriage rights based on bigotry.

Time to take it to SCOTUS, I imagine.

Well... suppose that the government gets really really sick of this whole 'gay marriage' debate and decides from this point on NO ONE can get 'married' anymore. That's right. No more marriages for anyone. Everyone can just be 'partners' and the government will give them a package of legal rights as a couple.

Would this be all right with you?
Why not?

The secular state "marriage" could as easily be called a civil union affording the same legal rights as married couples have now -- the legal and financial benefits and responsibilities with which a "marriage license" both saddles and protects a couple.

The concept of MARRIAGE, which people keep getting their panties in a bunch, seems to be the religious ceremony. Well, let their house of worship of choice perform this ceremony, and more power to them. I don't understand why people think that if a same gender couple have the same legal rights as a both-gendered couples, it "cheapens" their marriage in some way. Really? For fuck's sake, what about the nearly 50% divorce rate? I'd think THAT cheapens marriage a hell of a lot more.

The word "marriage" belongs to THE LAW, and I am sick and tired of the churches trying to steal it. Like many Americans, my parents married without any involvement of any churches, and it is only in the last few years that the Goddamned Christians (that is my private term for "those" Christians, as opposed to "all" Christians) have had the unmitigated gall to question the legitimacy of my parents' marriage. If they want different words for the legal and the religious institutions, THEY have to change their word usage. Call the religious ceremony a "wedding", or "matrimony", or any word they like that is not embedded in the law codes, but the word "marriage" belongs to the state and to the state alone.

The word "marriage" belongs to THE LAW, and I am sick and tired of the churches trying to steal it. Like many Americans, my parents married without any involvement of any churches, and it is only in the last few years that the Goddamned Christians (that is my private term for "those" Christians, as opposed to "all" Christians) have had the unmitigated gall to question the legitimacy of my parents' marriage. If they want different words for the legal and the religious institutions, THEY have to change their word usage. Call the religious ceremony a "wedding", or "matrimony", or any word they like that is not embedded in the law codes, but the word "marriage" belongs to the state and to the state alone.
Well, given that the religious texts use the word Marriage some thousands of years before we are arguing this, and that they were most definitely written before America or her laws existed, I think perhaps your demand that religion not use the word marriage because it belongs to American law may be considered spurious.

Well, given that the religious texts use the word Marriage some thousands of years before we are arguing this, and that they were most definitely written before America or her laws existed, I think perhaps your demand that religion not use the word marriage because it belongs to American law may be considered spurious.Marriage was an institution of the local governments of every community, before any of the Abrahamic religions started. Christian churches originally were not involved in marriages at all (as late as the sixth century, there were still arguments over whether it was even proper for a priest to come and bless a marriage; not until the tenth century did it become the usual practice).

In America, in particular, it has never been a requirement that any particular religion, or any religion at all, give its blessing for a marriage to be legal, and this is not a function of our peculiar separation-of-church-and-state doctrine, but an inheritance from the ancient Anglo-Saxon common law, according to which any couple who publicly proclaimed themselves, or just publicly allowed themselves to be thought of, as exclusively dedicated to one another WERE married, by virtue of that publicity alone; and this had been the law among the English from before they were converted to Christianity; furthermore, it is also the concept of marriage which is taken for granted in the Old Testament (which never mentions any religious ceremony of marriage at any time).

This bullshit about how marriage originally belonged to the church is actually something which as far as I can tell was only invented in recent decades: at least, I never used to hear such a concept floated; perhaps it was a long-standing assumption among backwoodsy types which has recently become more widely promulgated. It is not true, and should never be conceded.

Time to take it to SCOTUS, I imagine.

They are. Two couples have already filed suit. With the bench stacked like it is right now, though, I'm not very hopeful.

But hey, who knows. Thomas and Scalia could be hit by lightning.

They are. Two couples have already filed suit. With the bench stacked like it is right now, though, I'm not very hopeful.

But hey, who knows. Thomas and Scalia could be hit by lightning.

If they take long enough to get to SCOTUS Obama might get to replace one of the conservatives on the court.

They are. Two couples have already filed suit.
I saw one of the plaintiffs speak at the Fresno rally yesterday. Everybody cheered him, but I have to admit to feeling nervous about whether it's a good move. Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts are all likely to live a long time, and while Kennedy is more reasonable I don't think he's a vote on our side.

Why not?

The secular state "marriage" could as easily be called a civil union affording the same legal rights as married couples have now -- the legal and financial benefits and responsibilities with which a "marriage license" both saddles and protects a couple.

I don't know how easy it would actually be. The law can be just as entrenched as religion can - and the word "marriage" has been a part of it for quite some time. I don't think a name change would be as easy as many people seem to think - particularly given that the term is not limited to one nation.

Well, given that the religious texts use the word Marriage some thousands of years before we are arguing this, and that they were most definitely written before America or her laws existed, I think perhaps your demand that religion not use the word marriage because it belongs to American law may be considered spurious.

I think it's spurious to suggest that the word "marriage" is delegated to one or the other. The idea that one construct cannot be called "marriage" just because another entity also has a construct called "marriage" is silly.

I just discovered that because New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states ... you can get a same-sex divorce in NY but not a same sex marriage.

Full faith and credit is pretty weird!

Marriage is a written record of a vow of fidelity. It is often attended by a big party, for one thing because big parties are fun, but mainly to make a lasting mark in the memories of family and friends that A and B are having sex and want everyone to know that. A big party was the pre-literate, and remaining, equivalent of a written record. It's a big mass of evidence!

My feeling is that government should have NO role in marriage, nor in civil union, other than to be a record-keeper. It should not grant legal rights, nor require obligations, from any couple, since this is discrimination on the basis of sexuality.

Whether a sexual couple want their partnership publicly acknowledged, or consider it private IS an aspect of each of their sexualities. Differing treatment of people based on their marital (OR civil union) status, is institutionalized discrimination on the basis of sexuality!

My feeling is that government should have NO role in marriage, nor in civil union, other than to be a record-keeper. It should not grant legal rights, nor require obligations, from any couple, since this is discrimination on the basis of sexuality.

Whether a sexual couple want their partnership publicly acknowledged, or consider it private IS an aspect of each of their sexualities. Differing treatment of people based on their marital (OR civil union) status, is institutionalized discrimination on the basis of sexuality!

Huh?

How would, "We recognize that this couple has chosen to build a life together and therefore faces legal issues not faced by someone who doesn't make that choice," be discrimination based on sexuality?

Huh?

How would, "We recognize that this couple has chosen to build a life together and therefore faces legal issues not faced by someone who doesn't make that choice," be discrimination based on sexuality?

It treats them differently, than it treats a couple who choose to build a life together but consider that their own private business.

As I said, whether you want public acknowledgement of your relationship, or prefer that your vows to your partner remain between you IS an aspect of sexuality.

It treats them differently, than it treats a couple who choose to build a life together but consider that their own private business.

First of all, "private vs. public" is not a type of sexuality.

Second of all, the government often treats people differently based on whether or not they specifically ask for a given protection. After all, it doesn't know whether or not you need it without that. Is the government engaging in discrimination based on employment status when it grants unemployment benefits to those unemployed who come in and apply, but not to those who consider their lack of a job their own private business?

As I said, whether you want public acknowledgement of your relationship, or prefer that your vows to your partner remain between you IS an aspect of sexuality.

Not really. It is an aspect of how you live your life, but not really of sexuality.

Of course, if you're somehow managing to keep everyone from knowing that you're together, you really aren't building a life together - you'd have to be keeping everything separate, in which case you wouldn't need marriage protections.

It treats them differently, than it treats a couple who choose to build a life together but consider that their own private business.

As I said, whether you want public acknowledgement of your relationship, or prefer that your vows to your partner remain between you IS an aspect of sexuality.

Which contradicts the popular wisdom that sex stops when you get married. :)

Of course, there's more to it anyway, as there always is - given the way America works. If you want your partner and children to have certain rights, certain interests in your concerns, etc, you have to get married whether you'd want to or not. And, of course, there's tradition.

In Australia, our social security system investigates non-relatives of opposite sex living in the same house, and if it deems them to be living in a "de facto marriage" applies the same standards as if they were married, in assessing their entitlements. It's not forced marriage, but it might as well be as far as government treatment of the individual is concerned. And moving house is a de facto divorce! It's ridiculous.

In fact, the social security department (which has a silly name I won't even mention) prosecutes people for not declaring a "de facto marriage" and claiming benefits as two single people. That is considered fraud.

This is the logical consequence of government treating married people differently than single people. There would simply be no reason for the government to stick its nose into households, into private lives, if it had no intention to treat people differently on that basis. Nor would there be any basis for fraud.

And it goes deeper. Citizenship can be gained by marriage ... that's a "meta-rights" violation, in that by becoming a citizen one gains a whole set of different rights and obligations. Why is that predicated on a public vow to one other person? A vow of any kind?

In Australia, our social security system investigates non-relatives of opposite sex living in the same house, and if it deems them to be living in a "de facto marriage" applies the same standards as if they were married, in assessing their entitlements. It's not forced marriage, but it might as well be as far as government treatment of the individual is concerned. And moving house is a de facto divorce! It's ridiculous.

In fact, the social security department (which has a silly name I won't even mention) prosecutes people for not declaring a "de facto marriage" and claiming benefits as two single people. That is considered fraud.

This is the logical consequence of government treating married people differently than single people. There would simply be no reason for the government to stick its nose into households, into private lives, if it had no intention to treat people differently on that basis. Nor would there be any basis for fraud.

And it goes deeper. Citizenship can be gained by marriage ... that's a "meta-rights" violation, in that by becoming a citizen one gains a whole set of different rights and obligations. Why is that predicated on a public vow to one other person? A vow of any kind?

I think we call that common law marriage.

In Australia, our social security system investigates non-relatives of opposite sex living in the same house, and if it deems them to be living in a "de facto marriage" applies the same standards as if they were married, in assessing their entitlements. It's not forced marriage, but it might as well be as far as government treatment of the individual is concerned. And moving house is a de facto divorce! It's ridiculous.

Investigates them how?

Meanwhile, while I can understand why a government might do this, I don't agree with it.

This is the logical consequence of government treating married people differently than single people.

No, it isn't. If it was, every country that recognizes marriage would do this. However, the truth of the matter is that the trend seems to be towards less recognition of "common law marriages", not more. The fact that this is what your country does does not automatically make it "the logical consequence" of marriage recognition in general.

Meanwhile, you didn't answer my question. Is the government discriminating based on employment status when it only provides unemployment benefits to those who go to a government office and register for them?

Investigates them how?

Meanwhile, while I can understand why a government might do this, I don't agree with it.




I imagine if there are two people at the same address they go look and see how they are living: sleeping in the same room; See how they pay the bills; and so on.

First of all, "private vs. public" is not a type of sexuality.

Tell that to an exhibitionist.

Second of all, the government often treats people differently based on whether or not they specifically ask for a given protection.

This is a very weak argument you are making. It amounts to "marriage is a legal option which any citizen may avail themselves of" and it fails on this basis: a single person cannot avail themselves of it, unless they can find a willing partner.

After all, it doesn't know whether or not you need it without that. Is the government engaging in discrimination based on employment status when it grants unemployment benefits to those unemployed who come in and apply, but not to those who consider their lack of a job their own private business?

To apply a similar standard of personal choice (to accept the package of rights and obligations) to marriage, it would be necessary that marriage be a purely personal choice which the individual declares or not to government.

It isn't. Surely you can see the mess we will get into, if we try to define "right to marriage" as a purely individual choice?

Not really. It is an aspect of how you live your life, but not really of sexuality.

Whether you want others to know you are "taken," whether you want an objective, written-down record that you have entered an exclusive vow with another IS an aspect of sexuality, and of course of your wider life.

This is the problem many have alluded to, of the definition of marriage. It isn't simply a vow of sexual fidelity, it means different things to different people. Your euphemistic "choose to build a life together" being an excellent example.

Of course, if you're somehow managing to keep everyone from knowing that you're together, you really aren't building a life together - you'd have to be keeping everything separate, in which case you wouldn't need marriage protections.

What?

"Keeping everyone from knowing" isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about government treating citizens A and B differently, given a private contract that A and B have entered.

I think two people should be able to declare a partnership, it should be public with as much hoopla as they both want ... and government should not treat them any differently for it.

This is a very weak argument you are making. It amounts to "marriage is a legal option which any citizen may avail themselves of" and it fails on this basis: a single person cannot avail themselves of it, unless they can find a willing partner.

Luckily, that's not what it amounts to. Marriage is, in fact, a legal option which any couple who wishes to live as a single legal entity can avail themselves of (within limits, some of which should not be there).

I never suggested that marriage was an option for an individual. Given the protections therein, it wouldn't even make sense for it to be offered that way. And a single individual has no need of said protections.

To apply a similar standard of personal choice (to accept the package of rights and obligations) to marriage, it would be necessary that marriage be a purely personal choice which the individual declares or not to government.

Where I live, it is. (Well, replace "individual" with "couple").

Whether you want others to know you are "taken," whether you want an objective, written-down record that you have entered an exclusive vow with another IS an aspect of sexuality, and of course of your wider life.

Legally, marriage isn't really about being exclusive. It isn't even about sex, although that is generally assumed to be a part of it. It is, for the most part, about property and kinship.

This is the problem many have alluded to, of the definition of marriage. It isn't simply a vow of sexual fidelity, it means different things to different people. Your euphemistic "choose to build a life together" being an excellent example.

That's because, from a legal point of view, that is what marriage is. A married couple is seen, for many purposes, as a single legal entity. That is the distinction that marriage law, as a whole, encompasses.

What?

"Keeping everyone from knowing" isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about government treating citizens A and B differently, given a private contract that A and B have entered.

The existence of a contract means that the government treats people differently, yeah.

The government will treat myself and a contractor differently if we have a contract as well. If we don't have a contractor, the government isn't going to care if I go to them and say, "He didn't build me a house!" However, if we did have a contract for that, the government will step in and enforce it! Wow, how discriminatory!

I think two people should be able to declare a partnership, it should be public with as much hoopla as they both want ... and government should not treat them any differently for it.

If you say so. I'll look forward to the courts being jammed with civil suits on end, then.

Luckily, that's not what it amounts to. Marriage is, in fact, a legal option which any couple who wishes to live as a single legal entity can avail themselves of (within limits, some of which should not be there).

You would widen the legal unification of two people? I really hope not, and hope instead that you meant "without limits as to the gender of the parties."

I never suggested that marriage was an option for an individual. Given the protections therein, it wouldn't even make sense for it to be offered that way. And a single individual has no need of said protections.

Really? So if my salary is $120K, and I don't have a stay-at-home or low income spouse to split that salary with, I can split it with my dog Madoff? Or do I have to marry him first?

Where I live, it is. (Well, replace "individual" with "couple").

Well, lucky you. I say that government should treat a married couple no differently to an unmarried couple. And a civilly unionized couple no differently from either. AND two people who have never even met each other, should be treated no differently either.

We cannot argue by individuals. But we can by classes of two people, couples. And I say again: why should government treat one pair of people any differently than another, based on their sexual relationship? Why should government treat a publicly and legally married couple any differently, than they would treat two strangers?

Legally, marriage isn't really about being exclusive. It isn't even about sex, although that is generally assumed to be a part of it. It is, for the most part, about property and kinship.

Property follows from the legal will, and kinship follows from offspring.

Property going to the "heir" and "kinship" being decided by marriage, are obsolete and if I may say, obscene, second-order effects of marriage being a contract to produce children. It comes bundled with vile concepts like the ownership of children, and a father's right to give his daughter's hand in marriage (after which, of course, she becomes some other man's property.)

That's because, from a legal point of view, that is what marriage is. A married couple is seen, for many purposes, as a single legal entity. That is the distinction that marriage law, as a whole, encompasses.

It treats two people differently (and NOT, as in your example of unemployment benefits, by a purely personal opting-in or opting-out) than it would treat two other people who were not married.

If government punished marriage harshly (say, with a high income-tax for both partners) you would surely say that was unfair. Why should they be punished for something which doesn't harm anyone else?

If government rewarded marriage handsomely (say, with matching new cars for the bride and groom) you would, perhaps less certainly, find that unfair. Because whether they loved each other or not, whether they intended to "build a life together," people would all get married anyway, around about when they got their drivers' licences. It would be a hand-out, denied only to those who will only marry for love. Yes, it's subtle in the selfish, "sign this and get the money" sense of personal choice: but it's still unfair.

But because the pro and cons are mixed about (benefits and drawbacks in legal rights of each individual, benefits and drawbacks in welfare entitlements, benefits and drawbacks in the social life of the participants) you think it must be pretty much neutral. If government is socially engineering by treating married couples differently, it doesn't matter much because they're rotten engineers. Trying to fix a jet engine with a banana skin.

That couldn't possibly do any harm, could it? A bit of mindless (not even well-meaning -- simply traditional, keeping their hand in without any intention) fiddling with social values ... that couldn't do any harm, could it?

No matter how dead that hand may seem, no matter how neutral government's role in marriage may seem, I want it out of there. There only role should be to hold in escrow, contracts of marriage.

And to your point: to that I am even more strongly opposed. Unification of legal rights into a non-personal entity is a direct threat to government. The way to keep government in its proper sphere (of interpersonal relations) is to defend individual rights ... of every individual, from birth, and to whoever born. Gaining some advantage in law, by unifying two individuals in law, is quite simply the crystallization of gangs and of clans as alternative sources of law within what already prevails.

Government is a big enemy. In some parts of the world, it is the second, or third or below most salient enemy, to individual freedom. Yes, I respect the rights of "marriage" -- an NGO -- to defend its turf, but no I do not respect its right to do that from within government. To use government to enforce its pattern of "two-person corporations" with special rights not granted to other corporations -- based in exactly the same special plea of privacy which it abdicates by seeking protection -- would make government unworkable, and throw us back into a feudal system of families protecting their own.

If you say so. I'll look forward to the courts being jammed with civil suits on end, then.

Well exactly. If people genuinely entered into every implicit contract they take by getting married, there would be a dozen suits to settle at a divorce.

But it's all done by rule of thumb, because a "marriage" is a contract of thumb. It's a dumb, badly-defined contract with legal implications barely considered in the face of its sentimental importance.

People, free individuals with well defined individual rights (social and legal) enter into this contract in ignorance or defiance of its real legal meaning. Which is to compromise (for better or worse) their legal rights.

Government as the maker of laws, should get as many laws as possible out of the realm of this incompetent contract-making. Welfare entitlements, individual rights like attorney and inheritance, Citizenship for fuck's sake! Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto Romeo and Juliet, the crock of shit which is Romeo's and Juliet's.

I don't know how easy it would actually be. The law can be just as entrenched as religion can - and the word "marriage" has been a part of it for quite some time.
I think Hammurabi's code (c. 2000 BC) is the oldest surviving legislation (though it is clear that there was already a long tradition behind it) that deals with marriage, among many other things, of course, like obligations to maintain irrigation works, and whatnot. It does open with an invocation of the all-seeing eye of Shamash (the sun-god) to guarantee that breakers of the law be brought to justice, but can this really be called a "religious" text on such grounds? Does it follow that irrigation, or eating (to take an activity that is heavily regulated by the Old Testament legal codes), should be considered a "religious" rather than a "secular" activity?
I just discovered that because New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states ... you can get a same-sex divorce in NY but not a same sex marriage.

Marriage is a written record of a vow of fidelity.
The issue of whether a marriage needs to be recorded in writing, or whether just publicizing it to the neighbors is enough, goes back to the very beginning of literate societies. Old Testament law for hetero couples was actually like New York law for same-sex couples: there is no legal procedure whatsoever for marriage, only for divorce! The Hebrews required that written records be witnessed by the elders for various transactions, like land transfers; marriage was not one of them (if you were the first to stick it to her, she was yours, basically), but divorce was: because it was a crime for a man to have sex with a woman who already belonged to another man (by contrast, if a woman had sex with a man who already had a wife, then, that made her another wife of his, no big deal), so a man who repudiated a wife had to made a formal record of the fact that someone else was now allowed to take her.

The issue of whether a marriage needs to be recorded in writing, or whether just publicizing it to the neighbors is enough, goes back to the very beginning of literate societies. Old Testament law for hetero couples was actually like New York law for same-sex couples: there is no legal procedure whatsoever for marriage, only for divorce!

"Son in law, this here is a shotgun. You be married now, or after you is dead!"

The Hebrews required that written records be witnessed by the elders for various transactions, like land transfers; marriage was not one of them (if you were the first to stick it to her, she was yours, basically), but divorce was: because it was a crime for a man to have sex with a woman who already belonged to another man (by contrast, if a woman had sex with a man who already had a wife, then, that made her another wife of his, no big deal), so a man who repudiated a wife had to made a formal record of the fact that someone else was now allowed to take her.

Thankyou. That is a clear-cut case of "ownership" of sexual access to a person, by another person. It is offensively wrong by current standards, and condemns rather than supports any government stake in marriage. Promotion of, manipulation of, profiting from, or indeed any involvement of government with marriage.

That is a clear-cut case of "ownership" of sexual access to a person, by another person.
This ownership right was typically purchased from the father (of course, parents completely owned children, and could sell them in those days). One of the only laws regulating "marriage" procedure makes it clear that if you "marry" a girl simply by raping her, you still have to pay the father, and are not allowed the unilateral divorce that men were otherwise entitled to. The female is not consulted at all about how she feels about it. There is one amusing case, however, of the reverse: Jacob wanted to marry Rachel, Laban's prettier daughter, and agreed with Laban on a price, but Laban snuck his other daughter Leah into his bed instead-- well, that meant they were "married" (Jacob was ticked off about it, but agreed to pay extra so he could have Rachel also).

Really, people who want to go back to Biblical standards of marriage generally have no idea what they would be getting into.

Tell that to an exhibitionist.


That's a flawed comparison as "exhibitionism" is not a type of sexuality like homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality...

You would widen the legal unification of two people? I really hope not, and hope instead that you meant "without limits as to the gender of the parties."

It would be nice if it were without such limits, yes.

Really? So if my salary is $120K, and I don't have a stay-at-home or low income spouse to split that salary with, I can split it with my dog Madoff? Or do I have to marry him first?

Also, chicken.

Seriously, where the hell did this come from?

Well, lucky you. I say that government should treat a married couple no differently to an unmarried couple. And a civilly unionized couple no differently from either. AND two people who have never even met each other, should be treated no differently either.

Like I said, I'll await the courts being crammed full with civil cases.

Believe it or not, there is a reason for government recognition of marriage.

We cannot argue by individuals. But we can by classes of two people, couples. And I say again: why should government treat one pair of people any differently than another, based on their sexual relationship? Why should government treat a publicly and legally married couple any differently, than they would treat two strangers?

Because those two people face different legal situations than two strangers.

When two people decide to build a life together, rather than living on their own, the lines of property ownership, debts, etc. get incredibly blurry. There's no such issue with two strangers off the street, since they don't share such things. These two people also generally consider each other to be close family, while the law does not. Two strangers off the street aren't exactly going to want to be next-of-kin. And so on...

You're trying to ignore the very real legal issues that come up in these situations.

Property follows from the legal will, and kinship follows from offspring.

So you have to have children for your spouse to be kin? What?

Property going to the "heir" and "kinship" being decided by marriage, are obsolete and if I may say, obscene, second-order effects of marriage being a contract to produce children.

Actually, I'm not talking about children at all. I'm talking about the two people engaged in the relationship. Because two people who are married are seen as a single legal entity, they share property ownership. This means that, if one spouse dies, the other doesn't really "inherit" that property. It is already theirs. So they don't end up having to pay taxes on something that they already had a vested interest in.

Likewise, the kinship between the two is formalized through marriage. They become next-of-kin to each other.

It treats two people differently (and NOT, as in your example of unemployment benefits, by a purely personal opting-in or opting-out) than it would treat two other people who were not married.

Actually, it is by virtue of opting in or opting out. If you don't ask the government to recognize your union, you don't get the protections therein. If you do, well, you do get them. The current problem is that the government won't recognize some of these unions, without good reason, thus setting up an unfair structure. There is no problem with the fact that the government doesn't recognize those who haven't gotten married as being married.

*snip irrelevant nonsense*

No matter how dead that hand may seem, no matter how neutral government's role in marriage may seem, I want it out of there. There only role should be to hold in escrow, contracts of marriage.

Wait....now you want the government to recognize marriage contracts? Do make up your mind.

And to your point: to that I am even more strongly opposed. Unification of legal rights into a non-personal entity is a direct threat to government. The way to keep government in its proper sphere (of interpersonal relations) is to defend individual rights ... of every individual, from birth, and to whoever born. Gaining some advantage in law, by unifying two individuals in law, is quite simply the crystallization of gangs and of clans as alternative sources of law within what already prevails.

It isn't really a matter of "gaining advantage." It's a matter of protecting those who are already doing so and those they interact with.

Well exactly. If people genuinely entered into every implicit contract they take by getting married, there would be a dozen suits to settle at a divorce.

Actually, the fact that a standardized marriage contract exists cuts down on the lawsuits involved in divorce, or inheritance, or medical decisions, or any number of other things.

Suppose there were no way for a married couple to be recognized as such and one of the spouses got sick and was incapacitated. Unless they'd gone through the legal steps of setting up a medical proxy, it would be the parents (or children, if they were grown) of the sick spouse who would make decisions by default. However ,the spouse is most likely the person who knows the sick person the best, and thus would know what they wanted. If the family wouldn't listen to him, he would sue to have the "right" thing done, with very little guarantee that the court would hear his plea.

Without such a construct, all divorces would likely end up in court, with no real standard as to how to handle them. There would need to be a paper trail of some sort for pretty much every belonging to try and designate it as belonging to one person or the other.

Without such a construct, a person would end up having to pay taxes on "inheriting" items that were, for all intents and purposes, already theirs - and that's assuming that their spouse actually made out a will designating it as such. Without that construct, their belongings might actually be given to someone else, on the basis that their spouse was the one who bought them.

And so on...

There are all sorts of legal situations that are brought up because of the way people structure their lives when they are married. The government is recognizing those issues and dealing with them through the legal construct of marriage.

But it's all done by rule of thumb, because a "marriage" is a contract of thumb. It's a dumb, badly-defined contract with legal implications barely considered in the face of its sentimental importance.

People, free individuals with well defined individual rights (social and legal) enter into this contract in ignorance or defiance of its real legal meaning. Which is to compromise (for better or worse) their legal rights.

Um....if they enter into a marriage without actually wanting the legal protections therein, that's their own fault, isn't it?

I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly didn't get married without first looking into what that would entail and finding that the protections therein were something my husband and I wanted.

Thankyou. That is a clear-cut case of "ownership" of sexual access to a person, by another person. It is offensively wrong by current standards, and condemns rather than supports any government stake in marriage. Promotion of, manipulation of, profiting from, or indeed any involvement of government with marriage.

This ancient society thought of marriage very much as ownership of a woman. This means that the government should not recognize a relationship entered into by two willing participants.

Yeah, that follows.... :rolleyes: