Does anyone else think its funny when people argue that marriage should remain exclusively between heterosexual couples because it’s “always been” exclusively between heterosexual couples.
I mean… isn’t that exactly the problem? The argument is something like this:
“Hey man. Your roof is leaking.”
“Yeah, my roof has always leaked.”
“You should fix that.”
“No. My roof has always leaked.”
“Yes… it has… thats the problem…which you should fix”
“NO. My roof has ALWAYS leaked and therefore it should always leak.”
So, thank you, everyone who has pointed out that marriage is, and has for a very long time, been restricted to opposite sex couples. You’ve identified the problem. Good work.[/quote]
Just dumb. You want to know why your analogy is so terrible? Your dialogue doesn’t recognize that the owner of the house doesn’t think he has a leak to fix.
[/quote]
Um, no, the analogy works because the owner of the house DEFENDS THE EXISTENCE OF THE LEAK BY CITING THAT THE LEAK EXISTS
So, for straight folk, marriage provides all these benefits (with the added bonus of said pedestal and respect given to their unions). Yet, for gay folk, its just a matter of wanting that pedestal and respect.[/quote]
Correct - largely because those benefits apply to unique problems of siring and raising children - procreation.
Not particularly, because there are no looming social problems as a result of this, because the lack of procreation. In short, it’s be creating a solution in search of a problem.
There isn’t a compelling reason to - there is no evidence of a looming social problem that gay marriage fixes. We aren’t worried about homosexuals fathering children and running off or having children out of wedlock or ordering relationships.
It’s not something we’re worried about as a society - there are no pressing issues in need of this “solution”.
Marriage ameliorates certain inherent social problems that are unique to heterosexuals and procreation. Outside of the therapeutic benefits to the individual (cultural affirmation), gay marriage simply doesn’t help solve any of the problems marriage was enacted to help.
[/quote]
And what about the argument that denying homosexuals marriage rights cultivates homophobia? And that allowing them to marry would address this problem (as well as provide many of the benefits for the gay community that the straight community gets)?
If marriage becomes an internalized norm for homosexuals, couldn’t that reduce STD transmissions (assuming that the married have much fewer partners than the unwed)?
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I demonstrated how I was a child of two very different religions which would leave me with no clear cut predisposed religious aspect. My father chose to be Baptist, my mother chose to be Jewish. Both are hetero, not a choice.
religion is a choice, sexual orientation isn’t.
Do you agree with that? If not, why don’t you?
[/quote]
Who says you don’t have a religious prediposition? Maybe you’re living it. Your objection is going to be that you should have been…what, predisposed to at least one of the specific faiths of your parents? You might consider how this applies to a homosexual who has not one, but two, hetero parents. Or, do you suspect both parents are gays living in denial?[/quote]
I believe that some people have a greater propensity to religion than others, the religion they end up with is more likely driven by their upbringing than any genetic tendency though.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
I’m referring to the “leftist nut job conspiracy” that Rush Limbaugh spouted. Stupid fucking radio red neck. I hope he drops dead…like, yesterday.[/quote]
A man who has been married four times and had no children is the last person who should be talking about the sanctity of marriage.
Um, no, the analogy works because the owner of the house DEFENDS THE EXISTENCE OF THE LEAK BY CITING THAT THE LEAK EXISTS
Thank you.[/quote]
Uh, no, there is a difference of opinion on whether a leak exists. There is no consensus as to the “leak”, i.e., there is no consensus that there is a problem to be fixed.
And what about the argument that denying homosexuals marriage rights cultivates homophobia?[/quote]
It’s not much of an argument. We haven’t ever had gay marriage (substantially), and homophobia has decreased exponentially even in the absence of it. You don’t have an argument here.
It wouldn’t help this problem.
Possibly, but I doubt it - but why wouldn’t the dangers of getting STDs in and of themselves be discouraging promiscuity?
Once again, you are desperately trying to create a solution in search of problems.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
We haven’t ever had gay marriage (substantially), and homophobia has decreased exponentially even in the absence of it.[/quote]
Because correlation = causality
Because I can still catch the clap from some tramp who decides she doesn’t need to be tested or tell people.
I’ll take a stab at it. The whole thing is broken. Look, the issue of marriage has two components.
Property
Religion
Property is what a lot of people talk about as when they say they can’t get healthcare as a SO, or have no other claims on estates. Fine. I’m all for civil unions – two (or more) citizens should be able to divide their property any darn way they want. This is a proper area to involve the state, since it concerns property rights, contracts and their enforcement.
As for the religious end of it, what a lot of advocates really want is for the government dictate moral choices to religions by forcing a state-sponsored solutions. No, no, & no. This violates the separation of church and state. For that matter there should be no law at the federal level dealing with marriage in any capacity. The state should not be in the marriage business except insofar as issue #1 is addressed. This also goes for other religions that want some special treatment for marriage as a sacrament. Nope.
So have civil unions then if you are so hot about it, run down and tell your local clergypersonoid. Do not circumvent the separation of church and state to further your religious (or anti-religious) agenda. It is frankly irrelevant what grownups do for fun and games. That is a private matter and should not be a matter of public discourse, i.e., what me and my SO do for whooppee is none of your damn business and to keep it that way, I’m going to make sure I support these boundaries for everyone.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
We haven’t ever had gay marriage (substantially), and homophobia has decreased exponentially even in the absence of it.[/quote]
Because correlation = causality
Because I can still catch the clap from some tramp who decides she doesn’t need to be tested or tell people.
Also, promiscuity + safe sex = fun times[/quote]
This ia America, if the debate arises in NEw Zealand then you have a say otherwise you really don’t.
I’ll take a stab at it. The whole thing is broken. Look, the issue of marriage has two components.
Property
Religion
Property is what a lot of people talk about as when they say they can’t get healthcare as a SO, or have no other claims on estates. Fine. I’m all for civil unions – two (or more) citizens should be able to divide their property any darn way they want. This is a proper area to involve the state, since it concerns property rights, contracts and their enforcement.
As for the religious end of it, what a lot of advocates really want is for the government dictate moral choices to religions by forcing a state-sponsored solutions. No, no, & no. This violates the separation of church and state. For that matter there should be no law at the federal level dealing with marriage in any capacity. The state should not be in the marriage business except insofar as issue #1 is addressed. This also goes for other religions that want some special treatment for marriage as a sacrament. Nope.
So have civil unions then if you are so hot about it, run down and tell your local clergypersonoid. Do not circumvent the separation of church and state to further your religious (or anti-religious) agenda. It is frankly irrelevant what grownups do for fun and games. That is a private matter and should not be a matter of public discourse, i.e., what me and my SO do for whooppee is none of your damn business and to keep it that way, I’m going to make sure I support these boundaries for everyone.
And as always, I might just be full of shit…
– jj[/quote]
but then we go down other roads, I have to pay taxes that fund public education, that is also now trying to teach children that this si all ok. So in essence I am being forced to fund your agenda that completely violates my morals.
And my children will not go to public school, so it will not impact them in this way, but I am still forced to fund it, and also pay for their education.
If this were truly a free society I would agree with your statement.
But it also opens the door to other legal ramificaitons.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
We haven’t ever had gay marriage (substantially), and homophobia has decreased exponentially even in the absence of it.[/quote]
Because correlation = causality
Because I can still catch the clap from some tramp who decides she doesn’t need to be tested or tell people.
Also, promiscuity + safe sex = fun times[/quote]
This ia America, if the debate arises in NEw Zealand then you have a say otherwise you really don’t.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[
but then we go down other roads, I have to pay taxes that fund public education, that is also now trying to teach children that this si all ok. So in essence I am being forced to fund your agenda that completely violates my morals.
[/quote]
Quick question: Your public schools teach marriage legislation and that whatever legislation is current is also morally right?
but then we go down other roads, I have to pay taxes that fund public education, that is also now trying to teach children that this si all ok. So in essence I am being forced to fund your agenda that completely violates my morals.
And my children will not go to public school, so it will not impact them in this way, but I am still forced to fund it, and also pay for their education.
If this were truly a free society I would agree with your statement.
But it also opens the door to other legal ramificaitons.
[/quote]
Fund my agenda…? I’m trying to take an agenda out of the picture, actually. Generally I think that the state should stay out of morality issues precisely because of your predicament: if there is a real issue, people will follow the dictates of their conscience rather than the will of the state, which makes them into unwanted subversives. Allowing people to get on with their lives is the business of the state.
Property must be managed. Working out an arrangement where citizens can have a well-defined path for this without recourse to religious, moral or ethical arguments should be the primary goal of this debate. This means trying to figure out a way in which good people – such as yourself – who are justifiably concerned, can have a system they can live with.
Case in point: civil unions should require no more public school discussion than any other business contract. Why should there be any time spent on it? Do we have profound moral quandries when we sell off a car? The power that the pro-gay marriage proponents gets comes exactly from their ability to maintain a confusion between a religious question, an amorphous call for equality and the hard cold cash of benefits. By reducing the issue to its property, it loses force as a moral question.
Anywho, I flatly maintain any constitutional law about marriage any way is a pernicious step and should be opposed by all sides.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
We haven’t ever had gay marriage (substantially), and homophobia has decreased exponentially even in the absence of it.[/quote]
Because correlation = causality
Because I can still catch the clap from some tramp who decides she doesn’t need to be tested or tell people.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
We haven’t ever had gay marriage (substantially), and homophobia has decreased exponentially even in the absence of it.[/quote]
Because correlation = causality
Because I can still catch the clap from some tramp who decides she doesn’t need to be tested or tell people.
Um, no, the analogy works because the owner of the house DEFENDS THE EXISTENCE OF THE LEAK BY CITING THAT THE LEAK EXISTS
Thank you.[/quote]
Uh, no, there is a difference of opinion on whether a leak exists. There is no consensus as to the “leak”, i.e., there is no consensus that there is a problem to be fixed.
You’re most welcome.
[/quote]
Well, no, see, cause there’s a leak, its just a matter of opinion as to if the problem is a problem.
And what about the argument that denying homosexuals marriage rights cultivates homophobia?[/quote]
It’s not much of an argument. We haven’t ever had gay marriage (substantially), and homophobia has decreased exponentially even in the absence of it. You don’t have an argument here.
It wouldn’t help this problem.
Possibly, but I doubt it - but why wouldn’t the dangers of getting STDs in and of themselves be discouraging promiscuity?
Once again, you are desperately trying to create a solution in search of problems.
[/quote]
So you can see that allowing gay marriage would cultivate acceptance of gays, yet can’t see that denying them marriage rights cultivates intolerance.
Easy breakdown: In order to be effective, marriage system must be an internalized norm. The vast majority of society must believe “You should grow up and get married.”
Now, lets throw in there “Gay people are not allowed to get married.”
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
but then we go down other roads, I have to pay taxes that fund public education, that is also now trying to teach children that this si all ok. So in essence I am being forced to fund your agenda that completely violates my morals.
[/quote]
Oh hey look Thunder. Someone opposed to homosexuality admits that allowing gays legal marriage rights is a step towards tolerance and acceptance of homosexuals and homosexuality.
Too bad I have no argument that denying gays marriage sustains a culture of intolerance against them. I just wonder what apbt here is worried about, then…
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
We haven’t ever had gay marriage (substantially), and homophobia has decreased exponentially even in the absence of it.[/quote]
Because correlation = causality
Because I can still catch the clap from some tramp who decides she doesn’t need to be tested or tell people.
Listen to Ted Olson, the conservative attorney who helped overturn Prop 8, give his view on why this is the right outcome and why sometimes “the will of the people” isn’t the right answer. It’s a little long at 14 minutes, but it’s worth a listen whatever side of the debate you’re on.