Thank god the US is changing! I hope this trend continues.
BTW, speaking of education, are there any stats that link education level and beliefs towards gays? How about income level and beliefs towards gays? I think I be formin’ me a hypothesous.
[quote]lixy wrote:
For one thing, there’s the issue of babies. Your average homophobe is likely to be against abortion.[/quote]
Classic.
[quote]borrek wrote:
This is not hard. This has nothing to do with opening up the barn door and allowing singles to marry themselves (you should really shelf that argument btw)
The legal choice is simple, either apply the same standard of suitability to all marriage license seekers - thereby restricting the right of some heterosexuals to marry, or provide same-sex couples the same level of scrutiny currently given to heterosexuals i.e. none.[/quote]
Why should he drop the ‘allowing singles to marry themselves’ argument?
Personally, I would first like to draw the marriage line more conservatively, my second choice would be to allow single people to marry, and as absurd as the second option is, I would prefer it to allowing gay child molesters (etc.) to get married.
Clearly, I would prefer to exclude the child molesters of any orientation first, but that’s not the distinctions/associations the court drew.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And yet, the Court of Appeals of the great, progressive state of New York agrees with me[/quote]
You forgot to mention that New York already recognizes gay marriages conducted in other states as valid, and is considering passing its own gay marriage law as well.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I’m always amused at your situational pleas for respect - after all, I assume your memory hasn’t faded to the point that you don’t remember that as we came forth with arguments against you, you slandered everyone who disagreed with you a “hate-filled bigot”?
“Respect for me…but not for thee!”
[/quote]
I recognize your views as being sincere, although misguided. I don’t think you are a hateful bigot, although your views promote discrimination against gays. You are probably a decent human being trying to do the right thing.
Now how about showing those that disagree with you the same respect? You may not agree with our views, but you can still recognize our sincerity and good intent.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
BTW, speaking of education, are there any stats that link education level and beliefs towards gays? How about income level and beliefs towards gays? I think I be formin’ me a hypothesous.
[/quote]
You can google actual references, but here’s a nutshell summary from Wiki:
[quote]forlife wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
I’m always amused at your situational pleas for respect - after all, I assume your memory hasn’t faded to the point that you don’t remember that as we came forth with arguments against you, you slandered everyone who disagreed with you a “hate-filled bigot”?
“Respect for me…but not for thee!”
I recognize your views as being sincere, although misguided. I don’t think you are a hateful bigot, although your views promote discrimination against gays. You are probably a decent human being trying to do the right thing. [/quote]
You give him a lot more credit than I do.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Clearly, I would prefer to exclude the child molesters of any orientation first, but that’s not the distinctions/associations the court drew.[/quote]
What does child molestation have to do with anything, and why are you bringing it up in this thread?
This past week has seen historical advances for gay rights on 3 fronts:
-
Gay marriage became legal in Iowa (Supreme Court overturned ban)
-
Gay marriage became legal in Vermont (law passed by Congress, with more than 2/3 majority so governor cannot overturn)
-
Washington D.C. now recognizes gay marriages conducted in other states
There will still be setbacks, but the momentum is clearly growing for civil equality for all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation.
[quote]forlife wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Clearly, I would prefer to exclude the child molesters of any orientation first, but that’s not the distinctions/associations the court drew.
What does child molestation have to do with anything, and why are you bringing it up in this thread?[/quote]
Guess that depends on what journal article you read, I can show you a sudy in the archives of sexual behaviour that shows homosexuals are 6 to 20 times more likely to pedophiles than heterosexuals, it was published in 2000.
kind of like th whole 10% thing right, how come almost every other study besides freakin kinsey’s study, which stated approximately 1 in 10 white males between the ages of 16 and 65 was exclusively homosexual for at least three years. that is all the study claims, while almost every other study shows that percentage to be closer to 2-3 %
closer to the prevalance of autism another disorder.
You are the one that generally doesn’t like good science, but rather preferes pr statements put out by large organizations in the pockets of special interest groups, trying to make everyone feel better about themselves.
[quote]borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
borrek wrote:
If a heterosexual is deemed an unfit parent, their right to marry is not abridged, in spite of failing the same criteria which is preventing same-sex couples from marrying. How is this equal protection?
Ok, and this. The equal protection nonsense is stupid. What about single folks? Why do they have to see a special status and sets of benifits for people who choose to live under the same roof together? Do you propose doing away with marriage? Or, allowing single people to claim the status and benefits of marriage solo? Or, just do away with state recognized/rewarded marriage in order to creat an equal status under the law?
You’re trying to make this more complicated in the hopes the base issue will get bowled away. Shock & Awe didn’t work in Iraq, and it isn’t very good here either.
I will make this simple for you…
-drivel–
[/quote]
You are stuck on specific, single instances of marriage. I’m not. The male and female arrangement is the smallest unit capable of reproducing and raising it’s own children. Period. End of story. It is absolutely pathetic that even needs to be argued.
You can bring up problem scenarios all day long, it does nothing, nothing, nothing to defeat the model. So, the often “sterile couple” scenario falls flat. Why? Because it still provides yet one more model of members of the opposite sex choosing to marry. Numbers take care of the desired outcome. The more married hetero couples out there, the more it is seen as a norm. The more heteros marrying and staying together, the more children born and raised with both parents still together.
Don’t blame me, I didn’t have a hand in crafting the reproductive organs.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Why should he drop the ‘allowing singles to marry themselves’ argument?
[/quote]
Because in all definitions of marriage, it is a union. A union requires two things to put together.
Invoking the possibility of individual marriages is nothing more than silly hyperbole, and it denigrates anything else he says as reeking of desperation.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
You are the one that generally doesn’t like good science, but rather preferes pr statements put out by large organizations in the pockets of special interest groups, trying to make everyone feel better about themselves.
[/quote]
Anyone can cherry pick a study or two to support his viewpoint.
Which is why it is important to consider the consensual conclusions of the major medical and mental health organizations.
It is the responsibility of these organizations to conduct valid scientific research, and draw correct conclusions based on that research over a large number of studies. These organizations have done exactly that, but you dismiss them because their conclusions are different than yours.
[quote]borrek wrote:
This is not hard. This has nothing to do with opening up the barn door and allowing singles to marry themselves (you should really shelf that argument btw)
[/quote]
Not shelving it. This is too often turned into a “you bigots! Equal protection!” arguement. Ok, then it’s discriminatory to the polygamist. Especially those poor, poor, bi-sexuals who are forced by society to choose only one partner from two sexes, in a marriage arangement. Oh, the horror. Or, yeah, and how about single folks? Why are there seperate laws and benefits just because two (or more, I guess) people get married? Why shouldn’t those “married” folks be stuck dealing with lawyers and contracts in making specific arrangements, concerning specific issues, between two individuals, just as two single folks would have to do? Why the different tax statuses? It’s because the law discriminates between classes of people and relationships. If you even define marriage, you’ve discriminated. Tough.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, the often “sterile couple” scenario falls flat. Why? Because it still provides yet one more model of members of the opposite sex choosing to marry. [/quote]
Wouldn’t allowing two infertile people to marry denigrate and disrupt the fertility model you are trying to push as the justification for marriage? Just because it is a man and a woman doesn’t negate the fact that these people cannot reproduce, and allowing them to marry despite this fact sends the message that marriage serves some other valid purpose beyond reproduction.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, the often “sterile couple” scenario falls flat. Why? Because it still provides yet one more model of members of the opposite sex choosing to marry.
Wouldn’t allowing two infertile people to marry denigrate and disrupt the fertility model you are trying to push as the justification for marriage? Just because it is a man and a woman doesn’t negate the fact that these people cannot reproduce, and allowing them to marry despite this fact sends the message that marriage serves some other valid purpose beyond reproduction.[/quote]
Requote in context. It was answered.
No, it wasn’t answered at all. You said:
Why would you want to provide a model of members of the opposite sex choosing to marry when those people are definitionally incapable of reproduction? Far from encouraging fertile couples to marry, it provides a model for infertile couples to marry instead, thus defeating your self-defined purpose of marriage.
[quote]borrek wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Why should he drop the ‘allowing singles to marry themselves’ argument?
Because in all definitions of marriage, it is a union. A union requires two things to put together.
Invoking the possibility of individual marriages is nothing more than silly hyperbole, and it denigrates anything else he says as reeking of desperation.
[/quote]
Ohhhh! So THAT definition is sacred. You learn something new everyday. Why not 4 though? Why not 50 ‘things’ put together?
[quote]forlife wrote:
No, it wasn’t answered at all. You said:
Because it still provides yet one more model of members of the opposite sex choosing to marry. Numbers take care of the desired outcome. The more married hetero couples out there, the more it is seen as a norm. The more heteros marrying and staying together, the more children born and raised with both parents still together.
Why would you want to provide a model of members of the opposite sex choosing to marry when those people are definitionally incapable of reproduction? Far from encouraging fertile couples to marry, it provides a model for infertile couples to marry instead, thus defeating your self-defined purpose of marriage.[/quote]
If you can’t read that, I can’t help you.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You are stuck on specific, single instances of marriage. I’m not. The male and female arrangement is the smallest unit capable of reproducing and raising it’s own children. Period. End of story. It is absolutely pathetic that even needs to be argued.
[/quote]
Now you’re just being dense. I never said that a male and female isn’t the smallest unit. I said that marriage doesn’t serve the purpose of creating that unit.
I’m not bringing up a problem scenario to bring down hetero marriage, I’m highlighting scenarios that invalidate the criteria for banning gay marriage. Not once have you addressed why that criteria still holds. You’re all fluff and no substance…
You’re really really trying hard, so I give you credit for that, but you need to pick a pony and ride. First, it’s gays can’t marry because they fail the reproduction test. Now it’s gays can’t marry because hetero marriage is self recapitulating and is more normal.
[quote]
Don’t blame me, I didn’t have a hand in crafting the reproductive organs.[/quote]
I’m sure this counts as some form of wit in your normal social circles, but it’s a pretty lame effort…