[quote]sasquatch wrote:
In addition vroom
I’m not arguing that ‘facts’ cn’t be argued, just that they answer the criteria posed by his question. I thinks it’s good that people question the current status quo. A lot of positive change has ocurred because of this. But the mere fact that it is questioned doesn’t lessen its credibility or validity.[/quote]
I guess then we’d have to agree that the current status quo is credible and or valid–which is what I am calling into question.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Suppose for the sake of argument that you did hate homosexuals. Do you imagine you would have any difficulty avoiding to use those precise words if you felt they were impolitic?
This whole thread is predicated on argument. Therefore every word uttered on here is for the “sake of argument”.
I have never said that I “hate fags”. For me to be against gay marraige does not require me to hate. Are you defending a fucking liar? It sounds like you are.
If I said I hate fags then I hate fags. If I say I don’t then I don’t.
If you have spent anytime at all down here you would know just how ignorant your supposition is.
I have never been politically correct. I tell you what I believe - point blank. There is no need for me to mince words - nor is there any need to lie about what I said - so try your pseudo intellectual bullshit out somewhere else.
Are you attempting to cover the back of a liar? Because it sounds like you are. [/quote]
The point is, the proof you offered proves nothing.
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS
Are you dodging my request little liar boy? You’ve made two posts here since I’ve called you out as the liar that you are.
Why won’t you respond? Is it because you are a fucking liar?
Your arguments are as worthless as you if you won’t man up to the fact that you are a liar.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters,
“Can you explain logically why a man and woman can marry but a man who want’s to marry 7 wives can’t. Or why that was allowed previously. Jeez! this lame polygamy distraction”
See, now we are getting somewhere. I never said that you - the collective you - couldn’t make that argument that gay marriage is ok, but bigamy is not…I am saying that nobody here is making that argument.
[/quote]
I’m not sure if you missed the first 4 pages of this thread but the argument as to why gay marriage would be allowed and not bigamy was already presented. It’s very simple. Sex cannot be used as a sole discriminitory factor, the number of people in a group can. That’s not the least bit arbitrary. If you don’t believe gay marriage is gender discrimination fine (BB made a great argument that it is not), but the argument is based on gender discrimination and banning contracts with more than 2 participants has nothing to do with gender.
That is not arbitrary. It’s not gut instinct. It’s based on classes that are defined as being protected by the constitution. The argument is the gay marriage is gender discrimination. Don’t you see that?
Gender and race have protected status.
The size of a group does not have protected status. Familial relation does not have protected status.
Again, if you want to argue that gay marriage is not gender discrimination then fine (BB has done so very effectively). The argument has its flaws and may not be sound, but stop pretending like bigamy and incest are fair game under that argument. The only way bigamy would be fair game (under the gender discimination argument) is if you amended the constitution to say no group can be discriminated against based on its numbers. Never going to happen.
I agree with you that “everyone has a right to happiness” and “it doesn’t hurt anybody” arguments do make bigamy and incest fair game (and generally don’t make sense in and of themselves), but don’t act like those are the only arguments being presented here.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
I don’t care what other people want to do behind closed doors–or in the open for that matter. What I do care about is that it is not allowed by the present definition of marriage.
[/quote]
This is wrong. The definition of marriage doesn’t prohibit anyone from doing anything they want behind closed doors. There is no prohibition any behavior at all. No one in this country is currently being prosecuted for engaging in gay behavior, for living with someone of the same sex, or anything of the sort – and that’s under current marriage law. In fact, there is no penalty on any behavior at all.
The only “penalty”, which isn’t really quite applicable since the person is in no worse position than when he or she started, is that he or she cannot enter into the marriage contract with the partner of his or her choice.
It is discrimination, in that the legislature is discriminating in favor of a certain type of contract it wishes to promote, which is not made available on any other terms other than those it wishes to promote.
But no one is being either punished for or prohibited from having all the gay sex he or she wants, as often as he or she wants.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
The point is, the proof you offered proves nothing.[/quote]
What point would be proved if I answered your question? That I hate gays? I don’t hate gays. My sister in-law is gay.
So tell me what would be gained by answering your pointless question other than admitting to something that is not true.
Now answer my question. Are you covering up for a fucking liar?
Rain,
I am sorry for the implication I made that you “hate fags”–the actual quote was ‘you hate “fags”’. I intentionally used the word “fags” in quotations as a slur that I felt emoted some deep-seated response. You never said the word “fags” or any other slur for that matter. I assure you I meant it in the general sense of the term and usually try to avoid such pronouns that speak directly to the second person when writing.
The entire air of this post reeks of hatred. We are all civil–I am sure–to our fellow man in public where our actions can be monitored. The feeling I get from reading this thread is hatred backed up by “legal” evidence, which tries to give credence to our arguments, which discriminate against individuals who live differently than us.
thunderbolt,
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makkun,
Quickly, as I am short on time.
“But to unpack the “polagamy/-andry”, “incest” and “sodomy” arguments does not really help, as they describe (in our society) clearly illegal behaviours. Homosexual behavious is a legal activity…”
But wait - only recently has it been declared that homosexuality cannot be criminalized (Lawrence v. Texas). Up until that ruling, it was a criminal act.[/quote]
Eek. That is indeed scary. But I’m happy that this is over now. But thanks for telling me.
Sure. Off course they are illegal due to convention - and that is always reversible. But given the fact that homosexuality is (now) legal in the US, means that it has one hurdle less to overcome when it would be institutionalised. The other practices would have to be made legal first. That’s my only point here.
Yes, but if we go with the conventions we have agreed upon, it is of a different status (see above). What I don’t like about the comparison is that it tends to appeal more to feelings of repulsion (“What if you want to marry your daughter…?”) than fair discussion.
Gay people want to get married primarily because they want to get married, not necessarily to overcome a social stigma. That its advocates use every means possible is not a surprise; that’s political culture.
[quote]“…proven not to cause any harm to people pursuing it.”
But you haven’t shown that the other alternative lifestyles hurt anyone else - consenting adults are the makeup of all the relationships, no?[/quote]
As for incest, the proof is quite clear that it is highly problematic (biologically and psychologically). As for sodomy, you can’t really communicate with animals clearly enough to reach the necessary “consent”. As for polygamy - yep, that’s harder to argue against - I wouldn’t really mind principally, but current practices tend to keep women in a subjugated role rather than equal partnerships.
[quote]“Trying to institutionalise it somehow show in my view a willingness to positively take part in society, not to thwart its traditions and values.”
This I have no problem with - I may disagree with it, but gay marriage advocates have every right to advance this view.[/quote]
Yes. And that is what they are doing. With the usual measures. And that is where I agree with BB - it should be parliaments that decide laws, not judges.
Makkun
[quote]Original_Demon wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Twelve pages of this endless debate…Surely we can all agree on another subject to fight about, no?
Here’s one for you… If gays can marry than I should be able to legally use steroids!!!
OD[/quote]
As long as you don’t OD…
I bet you’ll get a majority for this in these forums.
Makkun
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Rain,
I am sorry for the implication I made that you “hate fags”–the actual quote was ‘you hate “fags”’. I intentionally used the word “fags” in quotations as a slur that I felt emoted some deep-seated response. You never said the word “fags” or any other slur for that matter. I assure you I meant it in the general sense of the term and usually try to avoid such pronouns that speak directly to the second person when writing. [/quote]
I never used the word hate either. If you are going to accuse people, or prejudge them as hating, you better have a shitload better reason for it than to make a point. I stand accept attacks. I can accept the fact the this is a deeply divided issue.
What I won’t accept is people taking the liberty to put words into people’s mouths without substantiation.
[quote]The entire air of this post reeks of hatred. We are all civil–I am sure–to our fellow man in public where our actions can be monitored. The feeling I get from reading this thread is hatred backed up by “legal” evidence, which tries to give credence to our arguments, which discriminate against individuals who live differently than us.
[/quote]
Well - you’re wrong yet again, sparky. I debate this way regardless of the format. There are those that hide behind their monitors like a shield. But I am not one of them, and I stand behind every word I utter - in person, or online.
This ‘hatred’ you speak of is free flowing on both sides. Don’t assume for even one second that your argument is free of the same vitriole you accuse your opponents of having.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
In addition vroom
I’m not arguing that ‘facts’ cn’t be argued, just that they answer the criteria posed by his question. I thinks it’s good that people question the current status quo. A lot of positive change has ocurred because of this. But the mere fact that it is questioned doesn’t lessen its credibility or validity.
I guess then we’d have to agree that the current status quo is credible and or valid–which is what I am calling into question.
[/quote]
This is exactly what we ARE arguing. And to do that takes into account peoples opinions. How do you think it came about for women to vote? Blacks to be given ?equal? rights? You start with a given idea/starting point and then expound to try and come up with a more acceptable standard.
And yes, some opinions are formed because of hatred/fear/ignorance, but not everyone who shares similar opinions came to that conclusion by the same means. It is quite a slippery slope to assume this position.
sasquatch,
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
An interesting piece I recently came across. It goes against my thought process, but to be fair–it is relevant and ?informative?
Until roughly 2 centuries ago, the institution of marriage was considered far too important to leave up to the emotions of 2 people. Marriage was about economics and politics and, more than anything, creating in-laws.
…At some point, ‘love conquered marriage.’
The original support for a love match, was to make marriage more secure by getting rid of the cynicism that accompianied mercinary marriage and encouraging couples to place each other first in their affections and loyalties.
From the get-go social conservatives warned of disaster. If love was the only criteria–some people may never marry, people falling out of love may demand divorce and even homosexuals could lay claim to marriage.
looks like they were right on–200 years ago.
Up until 40 years ago, marriage was ‘defined’ by ‘male bread-winner’ manifesto. Held in check by economic dependency of wives, the unreliability of birth control, and penalties for having children out of wedlock. The last 40 years has brought about great change–‘all by the heterosexuals.’
Hetero’s said it should be about love, and claimed they should be able to decide whether to have children. Marriage isn’t about gender roles, but about individualized relationships."
To many, this sounds like exactly what the gays and lesbians are asking for and wanting.
To get back to ‘traditional’ marriage they would need to roll back everything from female independence to divorce, birth control and the idea that marriage is about 2 individuals not a ‘class’ based system of subserviance.
So if ‘traditional’ marriage is truly all but dead, why not allow the next logical step and open it up to all those that ask for it. Marriage is still considered the gold standard of relationships, even with its now non-traditional standars and definitions.
I know this does not address the constitutionality of it, but maybe sheds some light on how the institution itself is under constant change and revision. From what once was convenience and class status quo to love to independence to???
I thought it an intersting read and much above is paraphrased, but the idea is there.
I wonder though, with these revisions have come a price. The family is not what it once was, and society reflects that. Where might this next step take us? I’m not sure I want to hazard a guess. With that thought, can we really sink much lower when it comes to family values in this country. We have bigger problems that should invoke 12 pages of dialogue and passionate debate, and I hope we address those with the vigor we attacked this topic.[/quote]
What you describe was started by “English romanticism” and indeed changed the way we view our relationships here (in the West). And it was a revolution. When I wrote my Master’s thesis (about this topic), I was fascinated by how much the “pillars” of our societies are actually pretty much all simply conventions. But - not every change is for good, off course. The change towards gay marriage though in my view would be.
Makkun
Moriarty,
“I’m not sure if you missed the first 4 pages of this thread but the argument as to why gay marriage would be allowed and not bigamy was already presented. It’s very simple. Sex cannot be used as a sole discriminitory factor, the number of people in a group can.”
I see. I shold have narrowed who I was talking about. My point was that what was being discriminated against was not sex, but sexual orientation. Traditional marriage laws are not setting up one set of rules for men and a different set of rules for women - which is the basis of discrimination based on sex.
“That’s not the least bit arbitrary.”
Hmmm.
“That is not arbitrary. It’s not gut instinct. It’s based on classes that are defined as being protected by the constitution. The argument is the gay marriage is gender discrimination. Don’t you see that?”
Absolutely not - and that is my point. Sexual orientation is not a protected class - yet.
“Gender and race have protected status. The size of a group does not have protected status. Familial relation does not have protected status.”
Yes, but in being serious, gay marriage being dressed up as gender discrimination is nothing more than a stalking horse attempting to create a higher threshold of protection. The dividing line on traditional marriage and non-traditional marriage is not based on sex at all. It would be if the law permitted gay men to get married, but not lesbians.
Do you see the difference? Both sexes are treated equally in traditional marriage - both sexes must follow the ‘opposite sex’ rule in order to have a union formally recognized by the state. Our Equal Protection jurisprudence deals with disparity between the sexes - as in, men get a privilege that women don’t, or vice versa. Tell me - which ‘sex’ is being discriminated against in traditional marriage? Men? Or women? I await your answer.
“Again, if you want to argue that gay marriage is not gender discrimination then fine (BB has done so very effectively). The argument has its flaws and may not be sound, but stop pretending like bigamy and incest are fair game under that argument.”
It is fair game. Anyone who thinks that homosexuals should have the same right as heterosexuals and that a disparity between these two groups in marriage is an Equal Protection problem - which, undoubtedly, this is, not an issue of sex - then they must explain, why under Rational Basis, homsexuals should enjoy the privilege but not other forms of non-traditional relationships. If, as a non-sex based discrimination, traditional marriage fails the Rational Basis test, I merely want to know why other non-traditional ones would pass.
But, Boston makes a great point - judges could conceivably create a new suspect class and all this is academic. But as of right now, since they have not, we debate the concept as is.
“The only way bigamy would be fair game (under the gender discimination argument)”
I never remotely suggested that bigamy is comparable to the gender discrimination argument. I think the gender argument awfully attenuated, and I said so previously. I was referring to this issue being handled at the Rational Basis level without protected classes.
“I agree with you that “everyone has a right to happiness” and “it doesn’t hurt anybody” arguments do make bigamy and incest fair game (and generally don’t make sense in and of themselves), but don’t act like those are the only arguments being presented here.”
Perhaps I shouldn’t have said ‘everyone’, but my gist was to debate with the people that were offering ‘same rights for homosexuals’ as their reason for gay marriage, rather than the ‘traditional marriage discriminates based on sex’ defense.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
I don’t care what other people want to do behind closed doors–or in the open for that matter. What I do care about is that it is not allowed by the present definition of marriage.
This is wrong. The definition of marriage doesn’t prohibit anyone from doing anything they want behind closed doors. There is no prohibition any behavior at all. No one in this country is currently being prosecuted for engaging in gay behavior, for living with someone of the same sex, or anything of the sort – and that’s under current marriage law. In fact, there is no penalty on any behavior at all.
The only “penalty”, which isn’t really quite applicable since the person is in no worse position than when he or she started, is that he or she cannot enter into the marriage contract with the partner of his or her choice.
It is discrimination, in that the legislature is discriminating in favor of a certain type of contract it wishes to promote, which is not made available on any other terms other than those it wishes to promote.
But no one is being either punished for or prohibited from having all the gay sex he or she wants, as often as he or she wants.[/quote]
You are correct–so let me correct my statement.
I do not care what people do that does not take away from my own personal freedom–irrespective of what happens “behind closed doors”. What I do care about is that same sex marriage is not allowed by the present definition of marriage.
Makkun,
“Sure. Off course they are illegal due to convention - and that is always reversible. But given the fact that homosexuality is (now) legal in the US, means that it has one hurdle less to overcome when it would be institutionalised. The other practices would have to be made legal first. That’s my only point here.”
It is a good point, I agree, though I disagree with Lawrence v. Texas as a way of disponsing of these laws.
“What I don’t like about the comparison is that it tends to appeal more to feelings of repulsion (“What if you want to marry your daughter…?”) than fair discussion.”
I don’t think feelings ever exit the discussion - many people have moral qualms about homosexuality as much as they might have against polygamy - and the level of repulsion you feel for incest (which I share) may be the same ‘feeling’ that someone has for homosexuality.
“Gay people want to get married primarily because they want to get married, not necessarily to overcome a social stigma.”
I am not sure I agree with this 100% - many gays I talk to want the social endorsement of marriage perhaps more than anything else.
“That its advocates use every means possible is not a surprise; that’s political culture.”
I concur, but regardless of the topic or issue, the workings of republican government must preserved and judicial fiat is no way to achieve these goals. On this I know we agree.
“As for polygamy - yep, that’s harder to argue against - I wouldn’t really mind principally, but current practices tend to keep women in a subjugated role rather than equal partnerships.”
Now you bring up an interesting point - I’ll bet a law that permitted men to have several wives but disallowed women with multiple husbands would be an Equal Protection violation. But I see your point and would only say that if the women consent, what’s the problem?
“Yes. And that is what they are doing. With the usual measures. And that is where I agree with BB - it should be parliaments that decide laws, not judges.”
As stated above, I agree wholeheartedly. It’s practically a love-fest around here these days (heh).
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
This is exactly what we ARE arguing. And to do that takes into account peoples opinions. How do you think it came about for women to vote? Blacks to be given ?equal? rights? You start with a given idea/starting point and then expound to try and come up with a more acceptable standard.
And yes, some opinions are formed because of hatred/fear/ignorance, but not everyone who shares similar opinions came to that conclusion by the same means. It is quite a slippery slope to assume this position.[/quote]
Precisely my point: The historicity of such statements cannot be defended by convention. Logically it makes no sense–if we knew we were committing a civil injustice and then proceeded to change it through constitutional means we could then correctly infer a generalization that said if ‘a’ was wrong and we are still doing ‘a’ then there is a moral breakdown. This moral breakdown is the fact that we have enacted an amendment that calls for equal protection of the law yet does nothing to back it up by letting states define their own morality–which in turn discriminates against individuals.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
I don’t care what other people want to do behind closed doors–or in the open for that matter. What I do care about is that it is not allowed by the present definition of marriage.
This is wrong. The definition of marriage doesn’t prohibit anyone from doing anything they want behind closed doors. There is no prohibition any behavior at all. No one in this country is currently being prosecuted for engaging in gay behavior, for living with someone of the same sex, or anything of the sort – and that’s under current marriage law. In fact, there is no penalty on any behavior at all.
The only “penalty”, which isn’t really quite applicable since the person is in no worse position than when he or she started, is that he or she cannot enter into the marriage contract with the partner of his or her choice.
It is discrimination, in that the legislature is discriminating in favor of a certain type of contract it wishes to promote, which is not made available on any other terms other than those it wishes to promote.
But no one is being either punished for or prohibited from having all the gay sex he or she wants, as often as he or she wants.
You are correct–so let me correct my statement.
I do not care what people do that does not take away from my own personal freedom–irrespective of what happens “behind closed doors”. What I do care about is that same sex marriage is not allowed by the present definition of marriage.[/quote]
And that’s your opinion, not fact based or ethically backed, that you are arguing for. Not really unlike everyone else on this thread. Before you castigate, please examine your own thought process a little more closely.
There exists great passion and divide on this issue, no doubt. Let’s not condense it down to either you hate gays or you don’t. It is much bigger than that.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Perhaps I shouldn’t have said ‘everyone’, but my gist was to debate with the people that were offering ‘same rights for homosexuals’ as their reason for gay marriage, rather than the ‘traditional marriage discriminates based on sex’ defense.[/quote]
Fair Enough. Good points.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
So RJ planned each of his 20 posts waiting for just this opportunity to say “I never said that” Great (non)-argument
Absolutely. The whole point of the game here is to express fear and loathing without ever being branded as a bigot, quite.[/quote]
Wrong again!
The whole idea is to express our desire for marriage to remain gay free!
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I see, so you want to accept gay marriage and polygamy as well. Any other perversion to the institution of marriage you would like to include? We want to make sure that everyone is happy…right?
You can call me anything you want but you’re not my father so don’t call me son. I say the same of you–no one has said anything you want to hear–so you put down people with legitimate questions because you haven’t the slightest idea of how to answer them. If you don’t know don’t bother posting a response. Say I don’t know–so far the only responses I have read have been laden with peoples religious ideology–which I have tried to argue are not qualified to base legality on. If you disagree please list arguments why you believe that way. So far all I have read is rhetoric about genetics, religion, and psycho-sociology?all of which has no proof or adequate data. I have only argued from an ethical standpoint.
Would it helped if we just changed the definition of marriage to “Civil Union” a la Vermont? Would that help you to get over the fact that I disagree with your opinion?
I don’t care what other people want to do behind closed doors–or in the open for that matter. What I do care about is that it is not allowed by the present definition of marriage.
You can argue on behalf of the sanctity and institution of marriage all you want–it is not my belief that there is such a thing. And the fact that it is defined by
If you don’t believe that a same sex marriage should occur then don’t marry the same sex but don?t deny two people that love each other and want to live under the same protection that you yourself enjoy those rights. Is that wrong for me to believe?
[/quote]
When did I ever call you son?
Hey rainjack, I think you put the kid under so much pressure by calling him out for lying that he is sort of losing it before our very eyes!