Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
701

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Your argument is in shambles before the conclusion of its first premise:[/quote]

No, because you choose to look at the situation in a vaccume doesn’t change the facts and circumstances of the past.

The obvi affect everyone, but not even remotely to the same degree, and were not coming from a place of equal discrimination against a situation.

Murder is a crime. No one can murder anyone else. It is equal discrimination.

Not only were interacial laws made to hurt blacks more than whites, they did just that. 10% of the population being shut off from the other 90% of the mating population hurts the minority much more than 90% of the mating population being shut off from 10% of the pool of potential mates.

This is a catch all pointless statement. All laws do this in one way shape or form.

No it doesn’t. Again whites were only shut out of 10% of the population while blacks were held away from 90% of the potential mating population.

This is like Bloomberg coming out and saying whites can buy 20oz sodas and blacks can only buy 16oz sodas. The ban affects everyone, just not equally.

If there was a ban on gay people getting married you would have a point. Gay people can get married, do, and have been able to throughout the history of this country.

People, whether hetero or homosexual cannot marry another person of the same sex. Who you or anyone is sexually attracted to is moot. You don’t have to pass a sexual attraction text to get married.

Um no, and I’m not sure why you read into that in that way. Did I even mention sexual attraction in the second line? I’ll check after I post this.

And, for like the 4th time now, sexual attraction has zero bearing on this anyway, not sure why it continues to come up.

702

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
If marriage is defined as a white man and white women and we allow it to get changed to just a man and a woman, what’s to stop some guy from marrying both a white and black woman at the same time?

[/quote]

The law.
[/quote]

Perfect, I suppose that will be sufficient to prevent polygamy when gay marriage becomes legal. All this time I was worried the law would somehow get overwritten by the gay marriage one because they ran out of paper.

703

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

What is wrong comparing it to interracial marriage?[/quote]

Because a law preventing interracial marriage infringed on the liberty of an individual, or set of individuals based on skin color, an uncontrolable situation of that individual’s life.

Preventing same sex marriage, prevents it for everyone, all women and all men are prevented from marriage to another of the same sex.

So the first law is like saying “Black people can’t smoke weed”

The second is like saying “No people can smoke weed”

[/quote]

This makes no sense, I was talking about interracial marriage so your first law is only true if smoke weed = marry white people.

“Black people can’t marry white people”

The second would be “No people can marry white people” which makes no sense… switch that to black people and you just said its okay to make a law saying nobody can marry a black person, but its OK because it applies to everyone and is not discrimination.
[/quote]

You are missing the point. And your last sentence contradicts itself. Because it doesn’t discriminate equally. It discriminates against blacks that want to marry.

704

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Push, as it sits, the states require a license to marry and this effects property rights. Denying the license based on same-sex gender denies these property rights and DOMA really fucks people where states actually legally allow them to marry. I agree that states should get out of the marriage business altogether, but once states are in it, and once property rights are bundled together with a system called marriage, the Libertarian platform calls for the government to grant a license to two consenting adults regardless of gender. [/quote]

“Once states are in it?” States have always been in it.[/quote]

Yup, which is why they should allow gays to marry or get out of it. [/quote]

Why did you choose not to respond to my entire post? I think I know.[/quote]

For the most part I don’t really have a problem with polygamy between consenting adults, but it raises distinct issues separate from gay marriage. First and foremost, discriminating against polygamists isn’t discriminating against them on the basis of an immutable characteristic in the same way the ban on gay marriage discriminates against homosexuals based on an immutable characteristic. I think this distinction, while perhaps not of central or overriding importance, is, nevertheless, a material and important one.

Polygamy also has a history of being used to create sex slaves out of underage girls, so I have objections to the way polygamy has been practiced in the past on the basis of lack of real or legal consent. Gay marriage doesn’t have the same history. Another important even if not an overriding distinction.

Finally, as a practical matter, the legal bundle of rights–and how the rights get split in the event of a divorce–becomes exponentially more complicated with each person added to the marriage. I’ve been involved in partnership disputes with many partners and its a real legal clusterfuck sometimes. I imaging if kids were involved it might overwhelm the system having to solve these problems especially if the family couldn’t afford legal counsel.

I think these and perhaps other reasons I haven’t thought of are sufficient to justify treating polygamy differently than gay marriage, although, again, I really don’t have a problem with polygamy between consenting adults. I mean really, why should I give a fuck how other people want to organize their family unit, as long as there is true and legal consent?

705

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
If marriage is defined as a white man and white women and we allow it to get changed to just a man and a woman, what’s to stop some guy from marrying both a white and black woman at the same time?

[/quote]

The law.
[/quote]

Perfect, I suppose that will be sufficient to prevent polygamy when gay marriage becomes legal. All this time I was worried the law would somehow get overwritten by the gay marriage one because they ran out of paper.[/quote]

Was going to say the same thing, almost word for word.

707

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Push, as it sits, the states require a license to marry and this effects property rights. Denying the license based on same-sex gender denies these property rights and DOMA really fucks people where states actually legally allow them to marry. I agree that states should get out of the marriage business altogether, but once states are in it, and once property rights are bundled together with a system called marriage, the Libertarian platform calls for the government to grant a license to two consenting adults regardless of gender. [/quote]

“Once states are in it?” States have always been in it.[/quote]

Yup, which is why they should allow gays to marry or get out of it. [/quote]

Why did you choose not to respond to my entire post? I think I know.[/quote]

For the most part I don’t really have a problem with polygamy between consenting adults, but it raises distinct issues separate from gay marriage. First and foremost, discriminating against polygamists isn’t discriminating against them on the basis of an immutable characteristic in the same way the ban on gay marriage discriminates against homosexuals based on an immutable characteristic. I think this distinction, while perhaps not of central or overriding importance, is, nevertheless, a material and important one.

Polygamy also has a history of being used to create sex slaves out of underage girls, so I have objections to the way polygamy has been practiced in the past on the basis of lack of real or legal consent. Gay marriage doesn’t have the same history. Another important even if not an overriding distinction.

Finally, as a practical matter, the legal bundle of rights–and how the rights get split in the event of a divorce–becomes exponentially more complicated with each person added to the marriage. I’ve been involved in partnership disputes with many partners and its a real legal clusterfuck sometimes. I imaging if kids were involved it might overwhelm the system having to solve these problems especially if the family couldn’t afford legal counsel.

I think these and perhaps other reasons I haven’t thought of are sufficient to justify treating polygamy differently than gay marriage, although, again, I really don’t have a problem with polygamy between consenting adults. I mean really, why should I give a fuck how other people want to organize their family unit, as long as there is true and legal consent?

[/quote]

Excellent post.

710

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Your argument is in shambles before the conclusion of its first premise:[/quote]

No, because you choose to look at the situation in a vaccume doesn’t change the facts and circumstances of the past.

The obvi affect everyone, but not even remotely to the same degree, and were not coming from a place of equal discrimination against a situation.

Murder is a crime. No one can murder anyone else. It is equal discrimination.

Not only were interacial laws made to hurt blacks more than whites, they did just that. 10% of the population being shut off from the other 90% of the mating population hurts the minority much more than 90% of the mating population being shut off from 10% of the pool of potential mates.

This is a catch all pointless statement. All laws do this in one way shape or form.

No it doesn’t. Again whites were only shut out of 10% of the population while blacks were held away from 90% of the potential mating population.

This is like Bloomberg coming out and saying whites can buy 20oz sodas and blacks can only buy 16oz sodas. The ban affects everyone, just not equally.

If there was a ban on gay people getting married you would have a point. Gay people can get married, do, and have been able to throughout the history of this country.

People, whether hetero or homosexual cannot marry another person of the same sex. Who you or anyone is sexually attracted to is moot. You don’t have to pass a sexual attraction text to get married.

Um no, and I’m not sure why you read into that in that way. Did I even mention sexual attraction in the second line? I’ll check after I post this.

And, for like the 4th time now, sexual attraction has zero bearing on this anyway, not sure why it continues to come up. [/quote]

Every single person subject to an anti-miscegenation law is barred from the same act–marriage to a person of another race. It is not legally relevant that one race outnumbers another–it is universal in that it restricts whites and blacks and Amerindians and Creoles and whoever else from exactly the same action.

711

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

First and foremost, discriminating against polygamists isn’t discriminating against them on the basis of an immutable characteristic in the same way the ban on gay marriage discriminates against homosexuals based on an immutable characteristic. [/quote]

Certain states provide subsidies to women to pay for mammograms. I don’t receive this subsidy, and it’s because of an immutable characteristic - I am a male.

Am I being discriminated against because of an immutable characteristic? If not, why not?

712

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Think about it, Andy. What is the difference between an ethnicity and a behavior? Or are you saying there is none?
[/quote]

So my heterosexuality is a behavior? Like being a smoker or eating too many donuts?

No. It’s a fundamental element of my being.

If I thought otherwise, I would wonder if I might actually be gay.[/quote]

It’s both.

But like Beans has said several times, if you’re gay you can still get married right now. Or last year. Or a hundred years ago.[/quote]

And that has exactly nothing to do with a debate about whether or not men should be allowed to marry men, so why does it keep coming up?

713

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
If marriage is defined as a white man and white women and we allow it to get changed to just a man and a woman, what’s to stop some guy from marrying both a white and black woman at the same time?

[/quote]

The law.
[/quote]

Perfect, I suppose that will be sufficient to prevent polygamy when gay marriage becomes legal. All this time I was worried the law would somehow get overwritten by the gay marriage one because they ran out of paper.[/quote]

It’s only perfect for the time it takes to legalize polygamy on the EXACT same basis as gay marriage.

There’s no such thing as a slippery slope “fallacy” in this instance, only the slippery slope.[/quote]

And what is that basis? The fact that its definition changes is not one of them as proved by previous modifications.

714

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

Polygamy also has a history of being used to create sex slaves out of underage girls, so I have objections to the way polygamy has been practiced in the past on the basis of lack of real or legal consent. Gay marriage doesn’t have the same history. Another important even if not an overriding distinction.
[/quote]

What is your definition of underage? You do know in France the age of consent is like 14 years old? There is a push here trying to get that age down to 14. You normally do not hear of lesbians having sex with underage children (maybe a maternity instinct?)

This is a serious question, but might come across as very ignorant, or prejidist. Is there a study out there on pedophiles being more drawn to their own sex or are they drawn to both sexes equally? Are there studies of homosexual (men) seeing if there is any back ground (sexual molestation) that made them misunderstand the normal sexual roles of men and women? I ask this because when you hear in the media about pedophiles they seem to always talk about the pictures of boys, and not so much girls. So would these pedophiles just be homosexuals that just like underage children?

Every one here would consider pedophiles as sick in the head, and should be taken out back to have their arms ripped off. Prior to the 1970’s Homosexuality was considered a mental illness. What caused Homosexuality to no longer be considered a mental illness, and is it?

These are some serious questions and I am not trying to be a Troll.

716

[quote]pushharder wrote:

The institution of marriage will become a joke. It will mean nothing within a decade or two. There’s no way a “progressive” court(s) somewhere in this land will rule against Joe Blow marrying Jane and John Doe once Joe, Jane and John slather all the the “But we love each other” sap on the judge hearing the case IF the gay marriage deal is a sound precedent all across the land. No way.
[/quote]

My only qubble is that I might replace “will become” with “already has become.”

“Progressives” think that marriage - specifically, the public recognition of marriage in law - serves no real function other than the state’s “thumbs up” to your choices in love and relationships.

It’s silly, but emblematic of our age. It’s fine to argue for gay marriage if you want, I’m not unerved by that - but this notion, this obsession that somehow society is guilty of some great moral failure by not giving a collective thumb’s up to gay marriage is Exhibit A as to how frivolous and unserious we have become.

Think late days of the glory of Rome. Don’t be surprised if the next President appoints a horse to the United States Senate.

718

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Think late days of the glory of Rome. Don’t be surprised if the next President appoints a horse to the United States Senate.[/quote]

That is just silly. A Gov of a State and not the President would have to do that.

I agree with you. We are getting really close to the late days of the glory of Rome right here.

719

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
If marriage is defined as a white man and white women and we allow it to get changed to just a man and a woman, what’s to stop some guy from marrying both a white and black woman at the same time?

[/quote]

The law.
[/quote]

Perfect, I suppose that will be sufficient to prevent polygamy when gay marriage becomes legal. All this time I was worried the law would somehow get overwritten by the gay marriage one because they ran out of paper.[/quote]

Was going to say the same thing, almost word for word.[/quote]

I would have been glad to refute you as well.

The institution of marriage will become a joke. It will mean nothing within a decade or two. There’s no way a “progressive” court(s) somewhere in this land will rule against Joe Blow marrying Jane and John Doe once Joe, Jane and John slather all the the “But we love each other” sap on the judge hearing the case IF the gay marriage deal is a sound precedent all across the land. No way.
[/quote]

The slippery slope fallacy again.

Everything is a slippery slope.

Every government benefit has a maximum income threshold. Add a dollar to this number and you’ve got a family that isn’t eligible for the same benefits as a family making a single dollar less every year, despite the fact that to argue that the latter family is better-suited to nourish and clothe itself in any kind of tangible way would be an exercise in idiocy.

The distance between those two families is infinitely smaller than the distance between gay marriage and polygamy. One would expect, listening to all of the doomsayers and their predictions about human-amphibian marriages, that maximum income thresholds for government benefits would rise indefinitely until Michael Bloomberg were buying milk with food stamps. Every step along the way represented a single dollar, mind you–far, far, far less of a leap than is required for gay marriage to give way to King-Solomon-style fuck-all.

Guns, alcohol, foreign aid, humanitarian intervention, taxation, the concept of government itself–everything can be twisted into a step in the direction of absurdity or licentiousness.