[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Why is sex with many different partners so bad…we would not hold the same opinion of people who played tennis or bowled with may different partners. I just don’t get it.[/quote]
For one thing, there’s the issue of babies. Your average homophobe is likely to be against abortion.
An interesting analysis of a state’s likelihood to support gay marriage, based on factors like religiousity and passage of time before the issue is put to the vote:
[quote]Will Iowans Uphold Gay Marriage?
by Nate Silver
4.03.2009
The Iowa Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex marriage is protected under that state’s constitution.
As in California, there will of course be an effort to amend the state constitution to prohibit gay marriage. In Iowa, however, the hurdle to amending the constitution is fairly high: it will have to be approved by two consecutive sessions of the state legislature and then by a majority of the voters. Most likely, this means that Iowans won’t vote on the issue until 2012.
This is good news for defenders of marriage equity, because while you might know it from Proposition 8’s victory last year, voter initiatives to ban gay marriage are becoming harder and harder to pass every year.
I looked at the 30 instances in which a state has attempted to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage by voter initiative. The list includes Arizona twice, which voted on different versions of such an amendment in 2006 and 2008, and excludes Hawaii, which voted to permit the legislature to ban gay marriage but did not actually alter the state’s constitution. I then built a regression model that looked at a series of political and demographic variables in each of these states and attempted to predict the percentage of the vote that the marriage ban would receive.
It turns out that you can build a very effective model by including just three variables:
These variables collectively account for about three-quarters of the variance in the performance of marriage bans in different states. The model predicts, for example, that a marriage ban in California in 2008 would have passed with 52.1 percent of the vote, almost exactly the fraction actually received by Proposition 8.
Unsurprisingly, there is a very strong correspondence between the religiosity of a state and its propensity to ban gay marriage, with a particular “bonus” effect depending on the number of white evangelicals in the state.
Marriage bans, however, are losing ground at a rate of slightly less than 2 points per year. So, for example, we’d project that a state in which a marriage ban passed with 60 percent of the vote last year would only have 58 percent of its voters approve the ban this year.
All of the other variables that I looked at – race, education levels, party registration, etc. – either did not appear to matter at all, or became redundant once we accounted for religiosity. Nor does it appear to make a significant difference whether the ban affected marriage only, or both marriage and civil unions.
So what does this mean for Iowa? The state has roughly average levels of religiosity, including a fair number of white evangelicals, and the model predicts that if Iowans voted on a marriage ban today, it would pass with 56.0 percent of the vote. By 2012, however, the model projects a toss-up: 50.4 percent of Iowans voting to approve the ban, and 49.6 percent opposed. In 2013 and all subsequent years, the model thinks the marriage ban would fail.
Below are the dates when the model predicts that each of the 50 states would vote against a marriage ban. Asterisks indicate states which had previously passed amendments to ban gay marriage.
2009 (now)
Vermont
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Maine
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Nevada*
Washington
Alaska*
New York
Oregon*
2010
California*
Hawaii
Montana*
New Jersey
Colorado*
2011
Wyoming
Delaware
Idaho*
Arizona*
2012
Wisconsin*
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Illinois
2013
Michigan*
Minnesota
Iowa
Ohio*
Utah*
Florida*
2014
New Mexico
North Dakota*
Nebraska*
South Dakota*
2015
Indiana
Virginia*
West Virginia
Kansas*
2016
Missouri*
2018
Texas*
2019
North Carolina
Louisiana*
Georgia*
2020
Kentucky*
2021
South Carolina*
Oklahoma*
2022
Tennessee*
Arkansas*
2023
Alabama*
2024
Mississippi*
The model predicts that by 2012, almost half of the 50 states would vote against a marriage ban, including several states that had previously voted to ban it. In fact, voters in Oregon, Nevada and Alaska (which Sarah Palin aside, is far more libertarian than culturally conservative) might already have second thoughts about the marriage bans that they’d previously passed.
By 2016, only a handful of states in the Deep South would vote to ban gay marriage, with Mississippi being the last one to come around in 2024.
It is entirely possible, of course, that past trends will not be predictive of future results. There could be a backlash against gay marriage, somewhat as there was a backlash against drug legalization in the 1980s. Alternatively, there could be a paradigmatic shift in favor of permitting gay marriage, which might make these projections too conservative.
Overall, however, marriage bans appear unlikely to be an electoral winner for very much longer, and soon the opposite may prove to be true. [/quote]
[quote]lixy wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Why is sex with many different partners so bad…we would not hold the same opinion of people who played tennis or bowled with may different partners. I just don’t get it.
For one thing, there’s the issue of babies. Your average homophobe is likely to be against abortion.[/quote]
Now, I only know a handful of homosexuals so I cannot speak to the entire population but none of those I know have ANY children out of wedlock. Besides, even if they did marriage would solve that problem.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
“Matters of public health and states? interest are paramount. States should quickly enact health laws making homosexuality illegal and sending those who insist on practicing it into sexual addiction recovery programs until they get well. The alternative is to end up with yet another victim group needing ongoing federal and state bailouts this country cannot afford.”
http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david185.htm
Gays are 8 times as promiscuouos as heteros. AIDs is spreading like wildfire in enclaves where it is a popular lifestyle.
[/quote]
Obvious rhetoric is obvious.
Heterosexuals get AIDS too. I’m sure there are more heterosexual citizens of the US with an STD than homosexual citizens. Does my tax dollar know if it is paying for the health of an innocent child with AIDS, or a flaming queen with AIDS? Maybe all sex should be illegal in the interest of public health. Maybe, in the interest of public health, the government should distribute prophylactics to high risk groups like teens. You know, for public health’s sake.
I love how conservatives don’t want anyone to fuck with their right to make monetary contracts, but love to fuck with others’ rights to make social contracts. Keep Big Government in the bedroom, as long as it’s kept out of the boardroom, right?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
lixy wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Why is sex with many different partners so bad…we would not hold the same opinion of people who played tennis or bowled with may different partners. I just don’t get it.
For one thing, there’s the issue of babies. Your average homophobe is likely to be against abortion.
Now, I only know a handful of homosexuals so I cannot speak to the entire population but none of those I know have ANY children out of wedlock. Besides, even if they did marriage would solve that problem.[/quote]
My answer applies to “sex with many different partners”. Didn’t know you had same-sex only in mind.
[quote]borrek wrote:
I love how conservatives don’t want anyone to fuck with their right to make monetary contracts, but love to fuck with others’ rights to make social contracts. Keep Big Government in the bedroom, as long as it’s kept out of the boardroom, right?
[/quote]
Worse, they only support government interfering with other people’s bedrooms, but get huffy if the government peeks into their own bedroom.
It’s ok to preserve the sanctity of marriage by denying gays the right to marry, but the sanctity of marriage isn’t so important when you consider laws that might affect their own lives (frivolous Las Vegas weddings, anti-divorce laws, punishing adultery, etc.).
[quote]lixy wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Why is sex with many different partners so bad…we would not hold the same opinion of people who played tennis or bowled with may different partners. I just don’t get it.
For one thing, there’s the issue of babies. Your average homophobe is likely to be against abortion.[/quote]
What’s a homophobe? Is that like a fecalphiliacphobe? Goatse-phobe? Basically, if you find it repulsive, you’re phobic?
[quote]forlife wrote:
borrek wrote:
I love how conservatives don’t want anyone to fuck with their right to make monetary contracts, but love to fuck with others’ rights to make social contracts. Keep Big Government in the bedroom, as long as it’s kept out of the boardroom, right?
Worse, they only support government interfering with other people’s bedrooms, but get huffy if the government peeks into their own bedroom.
It’s ok to preserve the sanctity of marriage by denying gays the right to marry, but the sanctity of marriage isn’t so important when you consider laws that might affect their own lives (frivolous Las Vegas weddings, anti-divorce laws, punishing adultery, etc.).[/quote]
And you’re a strong supporter of polygamy?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What’s a homophobe? Is that like a fecalphiliacphobe? Goatse-phobe? Basically, if you find it repulsive, you’re phobic?[/quote]
Phobia is pretty applicable here. The main argument is that those supporting the ban are afraid gays getting married will somehow affect their marriage. They are afraid that what someone does, whom they will likely never encounter, will somehow degrade their own vows. Only fear can explain a thought process so irrational. There is obviously a religious component, but we live in a separated state so that doesn’t matter at all.
If someone is against gay marriage simply because they find it repulsive then they’re just plain dicks. Grow up and look the other way. There is always something in life that you’ll find gross. For example, I find intolerance repulsive.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This isn’t even about being gay. This is about the right of individuals to contract with each other. You have no say this this matter at all on issues such as the price payed for a particular service, for example, why do you think you have one when it comes to a marriage contract?
Personal contracts are clearly outside of the domain of the voting public.
Second, while individuals may have a right to contract with one another, the other individuals in the neighborhood around them have every right to approve or disapprove of that contract.
If my community taxes me to set up a food stamp program, I sure as hell better get to say that idiots shouldn’t be buying cigarettes with them.
If, on your way to work, you’re going to drive on the roads that my taxes built, you better believe I get to say, “Don’t go too fast.”
If you’re going to get a state and federal tax break for living with someone, you better believe I (and especially all the persons not in a relationship whom you’re discriminating against) get to put a mother-fucking vote in on the issue.[/quote]
No you don’t. Thats how contracts work. They involve only parties that are signing the contract, no one else.
2&3. These are not examples of private contracts. You elect your city officials and can bring about moratoriums to fix things you dont like. Additionally, youre in conflict with other tax payers, so its not an issue of what you want, its an issue of what society (tax payers as a whole) want.
do you think we should get to invade the private affairs of a business that receives a tax break or benefits?
and you do get a vote on the issue, but not on the contracts, you get to vote for the people in government who would make it all happen, judges, mayors, congressmen ect. Were a republic, hence taxation with representation, not taxation with “I get to vote on what homos can and cant do in private or in contract with the government.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
forlife wrote:
borrek wrote:
I love how conservatives don’t want anyone to fuck with their right to make monetary contracts, but love to fuck with others’ rights to make social contracts. Keep Big Government in the bedroom, as long as it’s kept out of the boardroom, right?
Worse, they only support government interfering with other people’s bedrooms, but get huffy if the government peeks into their own bedroom.
It’s ok to preserve the sanctity of marriage by denying gays the right to marry, but the sanctity of marriage isn’t so important when you consider laws that might affect their own lives (frivolous Las Vegas weddings, anti-divorce laws, punishing adultery, etc.).
And you’re a strong supporter of polygamy? [/quote]
find an example where multiple people formed a written consensual contract around their polygamy relationship.
until then that stupid slippery slope fallacy of an argument has no credence.
[quote]borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What’s a homophobe? Is that like a fecalphiliacphobe? Goatse-phobe? Basically, if you find it repulsive, you’re phobic?
Phobia is pretty applicable here. The main argument is that those supporting the ban are afraid gays getting married will somehow affect their marriage. They are afraid that what someone does, whom they will likely never encounter, will somehow degrade their own vows. Only fear can explain a thought process so irrational. There is obviously a religious component, but we live in a separated state so that doesn’t matter at all.
If someone is against gay marriage simply because they find it repulsive then they’re just plain dicks. Grow up and look the other way. There is always something in life that you’ll find gross. For example, I find intolerance repulsive.
[/quote]
Except who the hell opposes gay marriage because of any effect it may have on THEIR OWN marriage? Especially, in the present. I’ve never met a single opponent of gay marriage (and I know many) who is afraid it somehow effects their own vows. This a complete fabrication to reduce the other side’s arguement.
I find the lack of common sense and cowardice of today’s “men,” intolerable. As if we’re supposed to pretend some unproductive fetish serves the same purpose in society as the smallest unit biologically capable of reproducing and raising it’s own offspring, our citizenry, in an intact home.
If this was about equal protection then same sex hetero roommates would recieve the same legal benefits by picking up a “marriage” license if they wished. Hell, they wouldn’t have to live together! That would be discriminatory! Why should they be denied for not cohabitating?
Polygamists would recieve the same benefits. SINGLE people could recieve the same benefits (whatever ones they could use)! Why not? Because they’re not banging one exclusive partner? I thought what goes on in the bedroom was off limits?!
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
Sloth wrote:
forlife wrote:
borrek wrote:
I love how conservatives don’t want anyone to fuck with their right to make monetary contracts, but love to fuck with others’ rights to make social contracts. Keep Big Government in the bedroom, as long as it’s kept out of the boardroom, right?
Worse, they only support government interfering with other people’s bedrooms, but get huffy if the government peeks into their own bedroom.
It’s ok to preserve the sanctity of marriage by denying gays the right to marry, but the sanctity of marriage isn’t so important when you consider laws that might affect their own lives (frivolous Las Vegas weddings, anti-divorce laws, punishing adultery, etc.).
And you’re a strong supporter of polygamy?
find an example where multiple people formed a written consensual contract around their polygamy relationship.
until then that stupid slippery slope fallacy of an argument has no credence. [/quote]
I don’t have to find an example. I’m only talking about allowing multiple people forming a consensual contract from this day foward.
Do you support consensual state recognized/rewarded polygamous marriage, or not? I’m not talking about non-consensual marriage of any type.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Except who the hell opposes gay marriage because of any effect it may have on THEIR OWN marriage? Especially, in the present. I’ve never met a single opponent of gay marriage (and I know many) who is afraid it somehow effects their own vows. This a complete fabrication to reduce the other side’s arguement.
[/quote]
Are you kidding? The rallying cry for the gay marriage ban is that gay marriage “degrades the sanctity of marriage.” That is to say that what one couple does, has an affect on Marriage as a whole. If gays are getting married, then getting married just doesn’t mean what it once did.
The purpose of marriage is not to form a unit of reproduction. Life is full of unproductive fetishes, distasteful and otherwise. I find your use of the word cowardice interesting, as there is nothing brave about oppressing a minority.
[quote]
If this was about equal protection then same sex hetero roommates would recieve the same legal benefits by picking up a “marriage license” if they wished. Hell, they wouldn’t have to live together! Polygamists would recieve the same benefits. SINGLE people could recieve the same benefits (whatever ones they could use)! Why not? Because they’re not banging some exclusive person? I thought what goes on in the bedroom was off limits?! [/quote]
If a same sex hetero “couple” wanted to get married, then who am I to stop them? They cannot marry anyone else while still married to each other. You’re making a superficial argument to a deeper question. Would Chuck really want Larry to be the executor of his will? Would one want their buddy to have final say in critical medical matters?
I find the barn door argument pretty weak. Once gays get married, then before we know it roommates are getting married? Please.
People marry now for utilitarian reasons. Green cards etc. That is their choice, not mine.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And you’re a strong supporter of polygamy? [/quote]
Unless there’s objective evidence that polygamy is inherently harmful, what valid reason could you possibly have for opposing it?
[quote]borrek wrote:
Are you kidding? The rallying cry for the gay marriage ban is that gay marriage “degrades the sanctity of marriage.” That is to say that what one couple does, has an affect on Marriage as a whole. If gays are getting married, then getting married just doesn’t mean what it once did.
[/quote]
Yes…“as a whole.” And, it’s resulting effects on society. Some people think outside of their own marriage, and outside of the present state of marriage. Your accusation concerned fear felt on the part of opponents for their OWN marriages. That’s bunk.
[quote]
The purpose of marriage is not to form a unit of reproduction.[/quote]
The purpose of marriage is to form the smallest unit of reproduction that has the biological potential (don’t blame me, I didn’t design the reproductive organs) to birth, AND raise their own offspring in intact homes with both biological parents present.
Now, before some shortsighted fool objects with “Oh yeah, what about a marriage with one or two sterile partners!” And? They still represent the damn model needed to propogate our citizenry. A man and/or woman devoted to a member of the opposite sex. You know, the combination that has the potential to–once again–reproduce, raise, and instruct their own offspring!
If this was about equal protection then same sex hetero roommates would recieve the same legal benefits by picking up a “marriage license” if they wished. Hell, they wouldn’t have to live together! Polygamists would recieve the same benefits. SINGLE people could recieve the same benefits (whatever ones they could use)! Why not? Because they’re not banging some exclusive person? I thought what goes on in the bedroom was off limits?!
[quote]If a same sex hetero “couple” wanted to get married, then who am I to stop them? They cannot marry anyone else while still married to each other. You’re making a superficial argument to a deeper question. Would Chuck really want Larry to be the executor of his will? Would one want their buddy to have final say in critical medical matters?
I find the barn door argument pretty weak. Once gays get married, then before we know it roommates are getting married? Please.[/quote]
Yet, the slippery slope/“barn door arguement” is supposed to be pretty weak. But here, you seem ready to step aside for an even broader definition of “marriage” than one that includes homosexuals. If, not outright supportive of polygamous, lifelong “bachelor” hetero arrangements. So tell me, how DOESN’T that effect marriage as a whole?
Yes. So let’s water marriage’s exclusivity down even more. Yes exclusiveness, the thing that puts marriage on a high pedestal. As a norm for members of the opposite sex to aim and aspire to. As something to hold in high regard in our society, for the benefit of future generations. Let’s dilute it. Let us spread it so thin, that well, it really has no definition (meaning), in the name of tolerance. Let’s knock that pedestal low, and widen it up so much, it’ll look like nothing more than the weed choke ground around it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And you’re a strong supporter of polygamy?
Unless there’s objective evidence that polygamy is inherently harmful, what valid reason could you possibly have for opposing it?
[/quote]
Now folks, never again call the slippery slope arguement weak.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
who the hell opposes gay marriage because of any effect it may have on THEIR OWN marriage? Especially, in the present. I’ve never met a single opponent of gay marriage (and I know many) who is afraid it somehow effects their own vows. This a complete fabrication to reduce the other side’s arguement.
[/quote]
Dude, check the hundreds of posts people like thunderbolt have made on just this point. They actually argue that gay marriage is a threat to straight marriage. This argument was specifically addressed (and rejected) by the Iowa Supreme Court just this week.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now folks, never again call the slippery slope arguement weak.[/quote]
It’s weak because it has nothing to do with gay rights, not because polygamy isn’t potentially valid in its own right.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Now folks, never again call the slippery slope arguement weak.
It’s weak because it has nothing to do with gay rights, not because polygamy isn’t potentially valid in its own right.[/quote]
“Gay” rights? What happened to “equal” rights? “Equal” protection? And, I’m supposed to believe the consenting polygamists aren’t going to use the “privacy of our own bedroom” arguemenation? Basically, that they won’t try to piggy back gay marriage with many if not all of the same arguements? Consenting, of age, privacy in bedroom, equal protection, multiple partner “orientated,” opposed by “Polygamophobes”, denited their “nature,” present definition discriminates, blah, blah, blah.
And of course, they have the support of many of our pro-homo-marriage friends.
So, um, where’s the slippery slope arguement supposed to be weak?