Uhh… and what about in the societies where slavery was supported by the majority (the ones Jefferson Davis is talking about)?
When the majority is against slavery, you use that as an example of why majority should rule… but in the cases when the majority is for slavery… what then? [/quote]
Uh, is my Second Point above about natural rights written in invisible ink?
Democracies may pass laws in defiance of natural rights - but not every law passed that doesn’t give you what you want is a violation of natural rights.
Slavery is a uniquely awful issue when measured via democracy - and can’t be compared to any other policy choice that you happen not like. That was part of my reply - that attempting to analogize gay marriage to slavery is beyond ridiculous, for the simply fact that not all issues before democracy are equal.
So, you aren’t against gays, but you support a system which, you admit, pressures them to act in a way that does not naturally follow their orientation? [/quote]
Nothing in my “system” pressures gays not to engage in relationships. They have no orientation toward marriage.
“Lest we see more of it” - lest we see more family arrangements where children are involved that aren’t traditional, not gay relationships generally.
Prove it. How does gay marriage incent straight couples in any way not to get married, or to divorce if they have children?
Are you even thinking through the underlying premise of your argument? Does that not sound bizarre to you once you take a moment to reflect? Or are you so invested in the hamster wheel of your anti-gay marriage crusade that you can’t take a step back to evaluate the gist of your argument?
Why the hell would a straight couple choose not to marry just because gays are allowed to marry? Why would they divorce because gays are allowed to marry?
It makes no sense.[/quote]
There is a reason - that isn’t my position. Yet another strawman.
I wrote:
Gay marriage essentially says “the arrangements are equal, so either is fine for kids” - clearly not true.
I said that gay marriage would “equalize” family arrangements generally and would thus produce more non-traditional family arrangements - a bad idea. We don’t more kids outside the traditional family relationship - there are already too many. We need to correct that error, as I said before.
Nowhere in my argument could a person with reasonable brainpower concoct the nonsense you just did - no one ever suggested that straights wouldn’t marry as a result of gay marriage.
So, you aren’t against gays, but you support a system which, you admit, pressures them to act in a way that does not naturally follow their orientation?
Nothing in my “system” pressures gays not to engage in relationships. They have no orientation toward marriage.
[/quote]
Except that, apparently, it reduces the incidence of gay partnerships…
[quote]
Its just, I read that “lest we see more of it” as indicating that you think, were gay marriage legal, more gay partnerships would form… which leads to the logical conclusion that there are now gay people who are not in gay partnerships because it is not legal.
“Lest we see more of it” - lest we see more family arrangements where children are involved that aren’t traditional, not gay relationships generally.[/quote]
So you have no problem with gays forming partnerships, but you’re concerned that allowing them to marry would result in more children being raised by gay couples?
Do you also support bans on gay couples adopting children, then? I’m curious as to where you stand on other issues involving gay couples as far as it relates to children.
Fortunately, there is a document called the Constitution which guarantees equal protection to all citizens regardless of what “society” thinks about that.[/quote]
The Equal Protection Clause allows policies based on classifications so long as those policies have a rational basis. Keeping traditional marriage to the exclusion is a rational policy.
And, don’t bother with your predictable “The California Supreme Court disagrees with you…” followed by your mindless cut-and-paste.
Cherrypicking a state court case you like (where you don’t even live) isn’t an answer to the broader question - it is merely an admission you personally have nothing to add on the subject.
Except that, apparently, it reduces the incidence of gay partnerships…[/quote]
Why would it? Are there really homosexuals in society that would be in a partnership but aren’t because they have no access to marriage?
Be serious.
Correct.
Generally, yes, because of the difficult trade-off involved - our efforts should be focused on putting fewer children into situations where they need to be adopted.
But, as I have said many times, I come to that conclusion because of the hard trade-offs involved, not because I think children being raised by gays is categorically bad - although it certainly is inferior and not equal to being raised by a man and woman. Gay adoption, etc. runs counter to the larger policy of encouraging the kids being born to be raised by their biological parents in the future.
Forlife has said himself, a thousand times - he wants the relationship to have full equality. He wants them to mirror images politically and culturally. That has implications he won’t talk about truthfully, and these are the issues I raise - such “equality”, artificial on its face, encourages results we don’t want, because the results certainly are not equal.
Remember, marriage is a means, not an end - gay marriage is a means to “ends” we don’t want.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I said that gay marriage would “equalize” family arrangements generally and would thus produce more non-traditional family arrangements - a bad idea. We don’t more kids outside the traditional family relationship - there are already too many. We need to correct that error, as I said before.[/quote]
This only makes sense if you can draw the conclusion that either (a) disallowing same sex marriages results in more heterosexual marragies or (b) allowing same sex marriages would result in less heterosexual marriages. Otherwise, you admit that gay marriage would have no effect either way on “correcting that error”, as you put it.
If the number of heterosexual partnerships would remain unchanged by legalizing same sex marriage, wouldn’t it be rational for the government to then incentivize the “next best thing”, which would be a child raised by a same sex couple as opposed to being raised by a single parent (or in a group home or other arrangement)?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Who said same sex couples raising children are the next best thing? As opposed to hetersexual polygamous unions?
[quote]forlife wrote:
clip11 wrote:
If they do then they arent straight despite what they may say. They can say it all day long but their actions, what they actually do tell another tale.
Right, because relationships and love are about sex and nothing else.
Dumb ass.[/quote]
If youre a man and have sex wit another man, it doesnt matter whether you love or hate or are indifferent to him, youre still a queer mf.
Youre not less gay just because you dont love the guy youre butt plugging or getting butt plugged by, whatever the case may be.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Who said same sex couples raising children are the next best thing? As opposed to hetersexual polygamous unions?
Why do you always bring up polygamy?
Because of the discrimination charges.
I think it should be allowed. Now what?[/quote]
What’s the point again? If you’re going to take that position it would seem more reasonable to remove government completely out of the marriage business.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Who said same sex couples raising children are the next best thing? As opposed to hetersexual polygamous unions?
Why do you always bring up polygamy?
Because of the discrimination charges.
I think it should be allowed. Now what?
What’s the point again? If you’re going to take that position it would seem more reasonable to remove government completely out of the marriage business.[/quote]
Or we could remove the irrelevant benefits. Stuff like hospital visitation, custody of children etc. seem pretty beneficial.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I understand what you’re saying forlife, however as I’ve said so many times before; most normal healthy heterosexual men do not have sex with other men.
Most normal heterosexual men are not raised in a culture/religion that demonizes their sexual orientation. It is impossible for you to understand that, because you haven’t been on the other side.[/quote]
Are you claiming that if homosexuality were not demonized every man would want to have sex with another man? I’m sure you really don’t believe that forlife.
How many young boys during previous eras were told repeatedly to stay far from loose women (and wine too for that matter). But, they always seem to end up at the very place that they were told was bad for them.
They were pursuing their natural desires, that is to have sex with the opposite sex.
Homosexuality is an anomaly. Keep in mind I’m not claiming that you or any other homosexual is “bad” because of this. Also, I’m not stating that these relationships should be illegal. I am merely pointing out that a 5000 year old tradition of men marrying only women should not be changed for such a tiny fraction of society and that changing such a stalwart institution can have deleterious effects on society as a whole.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I understand what you’re saying forlife, however as I’ve said so many times before; most normal healthy heterosexual men do not have sex with other men.
Most normal heterosexual men are not raised in a culture/religion that demonizes their sexual orientation. It is impossible for you to understand that, because you haven’t been on the other side.
Are you claiming that if homosexuality were not demonized every man would want to have sex with another man? I’m sure you really don’t believe that forlife.
[/quote]
I’m close to believing you actually read that in his post.
I think what he meant was more along the lines of: if a heterosexual man was in a society that pressured him to be gay, that demonized heterosexuality, that heterosexual man would be far far more likely to have sexual activity with a man at some point in his life.