Gay Marriage

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
For those who believe homosexuality is a sin, why do you not want it to be criminalized?

How do you determine which sins should be made illegal and which to keep legal?[/quote]

I second this question.[/quote]

You might want to ask it in one of the religion threads.
[/quote]

If there wasn’t a valid (at least to you) for opposing gay marriage would you support it? No?!?

So why not answer the question I posed as it relates to your non-secular argument against gay marriage.

[/quote]

Go hijack another thread, adults are talking in this one.
[/quote]

We already spent two whole threads discussing your secular “argument”

Are you unable to entertain a different talking point? Sad[/quote]

What talking point? This is a thread about gay marriage. Hijack haven is that-a-way!
[/quote]

Will you answer it there?

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
For those who believe homosexuality is a sin, why do you not want it to be criminalized?

How do you determine which sins should be made illegal and which to keep legal?[/quote]

I second this question.[/quote]

You might want to ask it in one of the religion threads.
[/quote]

If there wasn’t a valid (at least to you) for opposing gay marriage would you support it? No?!?

So why not answer the question I posed as it relates to your non-secular argument against gay marriage.

[/quote]

Go hijack another thread, adults are talking in this one.
[/quote]

We already spent two whole threads discussing your secular “argument”

Are you unable to entertain a different talking point? Sad[/quote]

What talking point? This is a thread about gay marriage. Hijack haven is that-a-way!
[/quote]

Will you answer it there?[/quote]

No. Do you have anything to add to the arguments presented here?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
For those who believe homosexuality is a sin, why do you not want it to be criminalized?

How do you determine which sins should be made illegal and which to keep legal?[/quote]

I second this question.[/quote]

You might want to ask it in one of the religion threads.
[/quote]

If there wasn’t a valid (at least to you) for opposing gay marriage would you support it? No?!?

So why not answer the question I posed as it relates to your non-secular argument against gay marriage.

[/quote]

Go hijack another thread, adults are talking in this one.
[/quote]

We already spent two whole threads discussing your secular “argument”

Are you unable to entertain a different talking point? Sad[/quote]

What talking point? This is a thread about gay marriage. Hijack haven is that-a-way!
[/quote]

Will you answer it there?[/quote]

No. Do you have anything to add to the arguments presented here?

[/quote]

what argument ?

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

what argument ?
[/quote]

Nothing to ruin your high over.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

what argument ?
[/quote]

Nothing to ruin your high over.
[/quote]

I think you mean you have no answer

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

what argument ?
[/quote]

Nothing to ruin your high over.
[/quote]

I think you mean you have no answer
[/quote]

Ok. You got me, Pitt. With me out of the way, I think you’re needed in the moral authority thread. Don’t worry about us, we’ll just tie up loose ends around here.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

what argument ?
[/quote]

Nothing to ruin your high over.
[/quote]

I think you mean you have no answer
[/quote]

They don’t need an argument. Gay marriage is mostly illegal so they can just disregard our arguments for whatever reason they want since no progress is in their favor. Now in 20+ years when its legal we can laugh at their arguments and simply call them invalid with no need to answer them.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

what argument ?
[/quote]

Nothing to ruin your high over.
[/quote]

I think you mean you have no answer
[/quote]

They don’t need an argument. Gay marriage is mostly illegal so they can just disregard our arguments for whatever reason they want since no progress is in their favor. Now in 20+ years when its legal we can laugh at their arguments and simply call them invalid with no need to answer them.[/quote]

My point in the moral authority thread is to point out it does not matter because some here will not honestly discuss anything that contradicts their agenda. Besides that they will embrace an untruth if it validates the same agenda

Yeah, I’m done with the both of ya. You don’t come onto a thread, barely stringing 2 or 3 sentence together, most of those being a chain of questions which don’t seem to be arriving at a point, only to say that folks who’ve taken time to lay their positions out, taken time to defend them point after point, haven’t presented arguments. Neither one of you has yet to do any heavy lifting in this thread. I’ve argued spiritedly with Smh, JJ, Cornspirit. While we disagree with each other, perhaps even pointedly, I’m not going to say that they failed to enter the arena, so to speak. You two? Besides pointless questions and pot-shot non-statement statements, haven’t done much of anything. You’ll both have to waste someone else’s time from now on.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

I’ll cut through the bullshit/burden of proofs/and legal arguments:

Con-law problems aside, the real issue is the normalization of homosexuality in society. If you are against gay marriage, I have confidence that you are against it primarily because you don’t want homosexuality normalized. And that’s the same reason that homosexuals care about gay marriage: they want normalization.

I’m for gay marriage because I believe that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic and because gays, including people I am friends with and related to, have been attacked, assaulted and victimized merely because of this immutable characteristic. Treating homosexuality as something that is “abhorrent” and shunned makes it easier for bullies and thugs to continue this behavior. My son is 5 and if he turns out to be gay I do not want him to feel like he’s an outcast, constantly in fear of attacks, and forced to live in the closet to succeed professionally, merely because of the way he was born.

I realize that assaults and attacks are already illegal, but I believe that the primary thing that reduces these events generally isn’t the law, it is the normalization of homosexuality. Things, in my opinion, are getting better in this regard precisely because of the push for normalization. Dick Cheney realized this too when he was forced to deal with the issue directly and he couldn’t look his daughter in the face if he continued to oppose gay marriage.

If you can look a gay son or daughter in the eye and tell them that they are “abhorrent” or deviant because of they way they were born, then I guess that’s your business. But in my view, the state doesn’t have any business telling gays and lesbians that their sexual orientation isn’t “natural” or that they should not be allowed to choose and marry a mate consistent with their pre-disposed, sexual orientation.

So, my reason for supporting gay marriage is that I think it will help normalize homosexuality and make the world a less shitty place for 5 to 20 percent of the population and at the same time it won’t harm or impose any undue burden on the remaining 80-95% of the population.
[/quote]

You didn’t really make any legal arguments, but to your larger point - I appreciate your candor. This is precisely the reason gay marriage advocates want gay marriage - it serves as a kind of cultural self-esteem project for the gay community.

Gay marriage doesn’t solve rational, pressing public policy problems - it serves to satisfy an emotional need for a cultural symbol.

It isn’t reason-based, it is emotion-based. That is the way it has always been. Thanks for crystalliziing that and dispensing with the other distractions.

Is that a sound basis for enacting public policy? Of course not. But at least the conversation about gay marriage can be honest.[/quote]

Basic human dignity has an “emotional” component to it but there is more to it than that. Using the word “emotional” is simply a rhetorical trick to minimize the importance of the issue.

Preserving or furthering human dignity is part-and-parcel of the civil-rights movement and this issue is a civil-rights/human-rights issue. And, yes, preserving or promoting human dignity is a sound basis for enacting public policy.

Rosa parks wasn’t just being “emotional” when she demanded a seat at the front of the bus, she was demanding to be treated with dignity and respect. And, yes, this issue here is exactly the same, its just wearing a different “dress.”

“Normalization” is also an important part of the civil-rights/human rights movement and furthers important policy goals. When I was just getting out of school, almost none of the major Dallas law firms had any female partners. They got the shit sued out of them under Title VII and now its “normal” to see female partners. Now, I’d say, Title VII plays less of a role in gender equality than it used to just because it is now more normal to see women in positions of power in the workplace.

The fact that Sarah Palin got to run for VP and the fact that we have a Black President and a Female Secretary of State is due to the normalization of women and people of color in positions of power due to both legislation like the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act and cultural normalization. Things like the bridge of the first “Star Trek” and, today, shows like “Modern Family” help further the goal of normalization.

If you think homosexuality is abhorrent and that society should press gays to stay in the closet, you should oppose gay marriage. Because its a full-frontal assault on these notions and, if allowed, homosexuality will be normalized eventually.

the question is not “Are gay relationships normal ?”
but
“should they become the norm ?”

And the answer is quite obvious.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

I’ll cut through the bullshit/burden of proofs/and legal arguments:

Con-law problems aside, the real issue is the normalization of homosexuality in society. If you are against gay marriage, I have confidence that you are against it primarily because you don’t want homosexuality normalized. And that’s the same reason that homosexuals care about gay marriage: they want normalization.

I’m for gay marriage because I believe that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic and because gays, including people I am friends with and related to, have been attacked, assaulted and victimized merely because of this immutable characteristic. Treating homosexuality as something that is “abhorrent” and shunned makes it easier for bullies and thugs to continue this behavior. My son is 5 and if he turns out to be gay I do not want him to feel like he’s an outcast, constantly in fear of attacks, and forced to live in the closet to succeed professionally, merely because of the way he was born.

I realize that assaults and attacks are already illegal, but I believe that the primary thing that reduces these events generally isn’t the law, it is the normalization of homosexuality. Things, in my opinion, are getting better in this regard precisely because of the push for normalization. Dick Cheney realized this too when he was forced to deal with the issue directly and he couldn’t look his daughter in the face if he continued to oppose gay marriage.

If you can look a gay son or daughter in the eye and tell them that they are “abhorrent” or deviant because of they way they were born, then I guess that’s your business. But in my view, the state doesn’t have any business telling gays and lesbians that their sexual orientation isn’t “natural” or that they should not be allowed to choose and marry a mate consistent with their pre-disposed, sexual orientation.

So, my reason for supporting gay marriage is that I think it will help normalize homosexuality and make the world a less shitty place for 5 to 20 percent of the population and at the same time it won’t harm or impose any undue burden on the remaining 80-95% of the population.
[/quote]

You didn’t really make any legal arguments, but to your larger point - I appreciate your candor. This is precisely the reason gay marriage advocates want gay marriage - it serves as a kind of cultural self-esteem project for the gay community.

Gay marriage doesn’t solve rational, pressing public policy problems - it serves to satisfy an emotional need for a cultural symbol.

It isn’t reason-based, it is emotion-based. That is the way it has always been. Thanks for crystalliziing that and dispensing with the other distractions.

Is that a sound basis for enacting public policy? Of course not. But at least the conversation about gay marriage can be honest.[/quote]

This is all true.

It is also true for opponents of gay marriage.

The simple fact is that no great threats to our people or society are posed either way. Any assertion to the contrary is egregious hyperbole. You may aver all you’d like that marriage is about procreation, but you’re not going to convince anyone–including yourself–that letting gays get hitched is going to have any kind of deleterious effect on anybody else. New York State is unchanged in almost every way since the legalization of gay marriage–save for the fact that gay marriage is now legal.

And when you really get to the bottom of it, I simply fall on the side of libertarianism–they want to, it doesn’t hurt anyone, so let them. This argument doesn’t extend to (for example) polyamorous configurations because marriage between multiple people is open to a kind of manipulation by chiselers and cheats that is very limited in the case of marriage between two people and two people alone.

But, as I’ve said multiple times, I don’t care all that much either way.

A libertarian should oppose any kind of state recognized marriage.
“why the hell should i pay for your government subsidized orgasms ?”
or something along those lines.

[quote]kamui wrote:

A libertarian should oppose any kind of state recognized marriage.
“why the hell should i pay for your government subsidized orgasms ?”
or something along those lines.
[/quote]

Aye. State recognized gay-marriage is a progressive cause.

[quote]kamui wrote:

A libertarian should oppose any kind of state recognized marriage.
“why the hell should i pay for your government subsidized orgasms ?”
or something along those lines.
[/quote]

Libertarianism as in “allow as much as possible, meddle only when necessary, and always hesitate to tell someone they can’t do something.” Not pure libertarianism, which I find to be childish and naive.

[quote]kamui wrote:
the question is not “Are gay relationships normal ?”
but
“should they become the norm ?”

And the answer is quite obvious.

[/quote]

I would think that they should certainly become the norm among gay people. Or is that not quite obvious?

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
the question is not “Are gay relationships normal ?”
but
“should they become the norm ?”

And the answer is quite obvious.

[/quote]

I would think that they should certainly become the norm among gay people. Or is that not quite obvious?[/quote]

I didn’t get that one either, its obvious the answer is reversed depending who you ask. Also Johnson, a libertarian, is a bigger supporter of gay marriage than Obama. Obama simply stated his opinion on the subject once, and that’s it.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

A libertarian should oppose any kind of state recognized marriage.
“why the hell should i pay for your government subsidized orgasms ?”
or something along those lines.
[/quote]

Aye. State recognized gay-marriage is a progressive cause. [/quote]

The Libertarian Party’s stance on Gay Marriage favors liberty generally and opposes “bans” on gay marriage or any attempts by the government to either promote or condemn any one sexual preference over another.

http://theirownwords.net/platforms/Gay_Marriage.html

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

A libertarian should oppose any kind of state recognized marriage.
“why the hell should i pay for your government subsidized orgasms ?”
or something along those lines.
[/quote]

Aye. State recognized gay-marriage is a progressive cause. [/quote]

The Libertarian Party’s stance on Gay Marriage favors liberty generally and opposes “bans” on gay marriage or any attempts by the government to either promote or condemn any one sexual preference over another.

http://theirownwords.net/platforms/Gay_Marriage.html[/quote]

State recognized marriage is nothing if it is not the active promotion of a specific sexuality : long-term heterosexual monogamy

state recognized gay-marriage transform the institution of marriage into the active promotion of two specific sexualities : long-term heterosexual monogamy and long-term homosexual monogamy…

… while the majority of our relationships are actually short-term heterosexual semi-monogamous relationships.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
the question is not “Are gay relationships normal ?”
but
“should they become the norm ?”

And the answer is quite obvious.

[/quote]

I would think that they should certainly become the norm among gay people. Or is that not quite obvious?[/quote]

I didn’t get that one either, its obvious the answer is reversed depending who you ask. Also Johnson, a libertarian, is a bigger supporter of gay marriage than Obama. Obama simply stated his opinion on the subject once, and that’s it.[/quote]

And only after considerable pressure from Biden, deliberately-applied or not.