Why Do People Care About Gay Marriage?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

You failed to answer my simple yes or no question: Should the government, in your opinion, allow homosexuals to legally marry each other?

BostonBarrister wrote:
Waaaah! You just dont understand!!

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yep. Pretty much what I expected.

Your restatement is very representative of your reading skills, and your expectations at least reflect that you are aware of your lack of comprehension - or that you could at least suss that out of my replies, unlike the main points, after you’ve been hit with it several times.

You’re like a much less intelligent version of Andrew Sullivan, but at least he’s smart enough to ignore points he doesn’t understand or that he can’t effectively address while he classifies all his opponents as bigoted or otherwise morally deficient.

BTW, you could turn your blathering in your posts above into a decent argument - there are some disparate pieces there - but I’m disinclined to help you do so.

You’re too annoying. I recall in another forum another poster with good logic made the same observation - his quote was “I hate that guy.”[/quote]

I’ve read your points, considered them, and rejected them. The fact that you can’t handle this, or can’t defend what you say beyond repeating it and claiming your opponent “just doesn’t understand!” is not my fault, nor my problem.

Your sad attempts at turning this into a popularity contest make you look even worse.

I haven’t taken you to task on proving that incentivizing reproduction is the main goal of marriage benefits, I haven’t even brought up the point of homosexuals being able to adopt. I haven’t brought up the numerous other social, financial, or legal aspects of marriage.

I’ve tried to keep the conversation strictly about your premise (that incentivizing reproduction being a goal of marriage is a legitimate reason to deny marriage to homosexuals) and why I reject it. You have… repeated it. And repeated it. And repeated it.

When you’re ready to actually defend your reasoning that the government should not allow homosexuals to marry (instead of just repeating it), we’ll be ready to go on.

302

BTW, I checked out that thread out of curiosity as to why my name was coming up in threads I’m not involved in.

CaliforniaLaw? Seriously? Why dont you go ask Mick, Thunderbolt, or Professor X how they feel about me? I’m sure you’ll quickly decide that they have “good logic” as well.

303

And then you skip all the posts/articles I give you outlining concerns that extending the exact marriage open to heterosexual couples to homosexual couples could undermine the goal of forming heterosexual marriages and incentivizing their survival, and pretend like there’s just no issue there except for homophobia.

While at the same time you ask what I would support for gay couples - a question I had previously answered in other threads in which I have repeated the same arguments - and after haranguing me to get an answer, ignore the answer. And even quote the question and rephrase my answer to leave out the actual answer… (see quoted text above). You’re simply too much… I think you’d rather just live in your simple little sociologically constructed world in which anyone who has any objection to gay marriage is a benighted bigot - it definitely saves you from actually having to apply any brain power to understand actual critiques. I’m assuming you have a lot saved up, based on the evidence at hand…

304

California. Jeeeeeezzzzzzzzzz…

Imagine that you and your girlfriend go to get married, and a couple of flaming homos are there in line, kissing and cuddling, while waiting for their turn with the judge. Or there’s a couple of bitter old lesbians there with sneers on their faces about how the ‘breeders’ have lost.

What in the fuck is this world coming to?

305

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

You failed to answer my simple yes or no question: Should the government, in your opinion, allow homosexuals to legally marry each other?

BostonBarrister wrote:
Waaaah! You just dont understand!!

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yep. Pretty much what I expected.

BostonBarrister wrote:
Your restatement is very representative of your reading skills, and your expectations at least reflect that you are aware of your lack of comprehension - or that you could at least suss that out of my replies, unlike the main points, after you’ve been hit with it several times.

You’re like a much less intelligent version of Andrew Sullivan, but at least he’s smart enough to ignore points he doesn’t understand or that he can’t effectively address while he classifies all his opponents as bigoted or otherwise morally deficient.

BTW, you could turn your blathering in your posts above into a decent argument - there are some disparate pieces there - but I’m disinclined to help you do so.

You’re too annoying. I recall in another forum another poster with good logic made the same observation - his quote was “I hate that guy.”

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’ve read your points, considered them, and rejected them. The fact that you can’t handle this, or can’t defend what you say beyond repeating it and claiming your opponent “just doesn’t understand!” is not my fault, nor my problem.

If you had written anything actually considering and rejecting the points, this might be believable. However, you haven’t, even given 3 and 4 different opportunities to do so as I continually restated the points and you continually wrote replies that didn’t address them, so it’s just more high comedy.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Your sad attempts at turning this into a popularity contest make you look even worse.

Um, you can’t even understand the point of the ad hominem, and you’re expecting me to believe you understood the point that you demonstrated repeatedly that you didn’t understand or address? Hilarious!

N.B., if I wanted to engage in a “popularity contest” I probably wouldn’t just cite one person in the middle of a thread. No, that would probably entail asking other people to come in and pile on, which I most certainly have not done. I was just citing a very random instance I had observed of someone effectively calling you a twit to confirm that it’s not just a personal quirk of mine to observe you’re a twit. You can grasp the difference, yes?

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I haven’t taken you to task on proving that incentivizing reproduction is the main goal of marriage benefits, I haven’t even brought up the point of homosexuals being able to adopt. I haven’t brought up the numerous other social, financial, or legal aspects of marriage.

Good, because those would just have been further indications of your lack of understanding, and/or that you weren’t paying attention previously.
[/quote]

No, it would have been me bringing up related issues to the topic at hand. Apparently your defense for anything you want to see is, again, claim your opponent doesnt understand your argument.

So heterosexuals, in the aggregate (as a whole), tend to reproduce significantly. Therefore, giving them incentive to get and stay together is a good idea. Gotcha. You’ve said this before, I understood it the first 4 times.

But why couldn’t we say “Adults, in the aggregate, tend to reproduce significantly”? Given that nothing changed except that homosexuals started to marry, that homosexuals are a very small percent of the population, and given that homosexuals can reproduce/adopt, and given that nonprocreative groups within the heterosexual community (such as the elderly) already have the same benefits… how drastically would the instance of married couples without children increase?

You never responded to what I said about ederly couples not being able to procreate – other than to say that, even with elderly couples included, the majority of heterosexuals will still be reproductive. What I’m saying is that, even with homosexuals included, the majority of married adults will still have/raise children.

If you’d like to venture a good reason this would happen other than heterosexuals devaluing marriage socially because it is open to homosexuals (which would be homophobia), or refusing to get married out of protest (homophobia), I welcome you to go ahead. I have trouble coming up with reasons that a straight couple who would otherwise get married would suddenly not, simply because a gay couple could.

306

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

No, it would have been me bringing up related issues to the topic at hand. Apparently your defense for anything you want to see is, again, claim your opponent doesnt understand your argument.[/quote]

You realize you wrote that and then didn’t do anything to counter my point, right?

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote

So heterosexuals, in the aggregate (as a whole), tend to reproduce significantly. Therefore, giving them incentive to get and stay together is a good idea. Gotcha. You’ve said this before, I understood it the first 4 times.

But why couldn’t we say “Adults, in the aggregate, tend to reproduce significantly”? [/quote]

Ummmmmm – maybe because it’s not true? You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. Only one type of union between adults tends to lead to procreation.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote
Given that nothing changed except that homosexuals started to marry, that homosexuals are a very small percent of the population, and given that homosexuals can reproduce/adopt, and given that nonprocreative groups within the heterosexual community (such as the elderly) already have the same benefits… how drastically would the instance of married couples without children increase?[/quote]

Your question is immaterial. The more pertinent question is: How would the rate of heterosexual marriage decrease, or divorce/failure increase, if at all, if homosexual couples were allowed to have the exact same marriage benefits as heterosexual couples. The answer is: No one knows, but there are good reasons to be worried.

Note that this also addresses your question on the elderly, which I have actually addressed before - there’s no effect on marriage rate or stability from elderly marriage - and also no effect on procreative rate within marriage either (N.B., I don’t think any of the arguments hold that allowing gays to marry would affect the rate of procreation within marriages - the worry is about formation of marriages).

You also keep wanting to throw in the fact that homosexuals can adopt or procreate with a third party - but if it’s not the same type of tendency to procreate that heterosexual couples have it’s immaterial to the point.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
You never responded to what I said about ederly couples not being able to procreate – other than to say that, even with elderly couples included, the majority of heterosexuals will still be reproductive. What I’m saying is that, even with homosexuals included, the majority of married adults will still have/raise children. [/quote]

The problem is that your conclusion is immaterial - it’s the rates that matter, not whether it’s the majority. More married couples having more kids, and staying married - from current rates, which are already a majority, but have been decreasing.

See above, and the links below, to address your elderly couples query.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Seriously, I have a real job and a family, and I don’t have huge amounts of time to spoon feed each step of the thought process - and I’m particularly disinclined to help people understand who don’t ask when they don’t understand and instead jump from their misunderstanding to impugn everyone arguing against them as bigoted.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
When you’re ready to actually defend your reasoning that the government should not allow homosexuals to marry (instead of just repeating it), we’ll be ready to go on.

BostonBarrister wrote:
And then you skip all the posts/articles I give you outlining concerns that extending the exact marriage open to heterosexual couples to homosexual couples could undermine the goal of forming heterosexual marriages and incentivizing their survival, and pretend like there’s just no issue there except for homophobia.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If you’d like to venture a good reason this would happen other than heterosexuals devaluing marriage socially because it is open to homosexuals (which would be homophobia), or refusing to get married out of protest (homophobia), I welcome you to go ahead. I have trouble coming up with reasons that a straight couple who would otherwise get married would suddenly not, simply because a gay couple could.[/quote]

Read these (linked again), because it would appear you haven’t yet:

http://www.gideonsblog.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_gideonsblog_archive.html#105952165206390107

Secondarily, even if the reasons for a decline in marriage rates or stability were homophobia, it would be immaterial. The issue is whether there is a good (as in creditable) reason to worry there would be a decline in marriage rates or stability - because that is what would affect society - not whether there is a good (as in morally approvable) reason for such a decline.

307

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Secondarily, even if the reasons for a decline in marriage rates or stability were homophobia, it would be immaterial. The issue is whether there is a good (as in creditable) reason to worry there would be a decline in marriage rates or stability - because that is what would affect society - not whether there is a good (as in morally approvable) reason for such a decline.[/quote]

So you’re comfortable with the government deciding its laws out of fear of people acting out of bigotry and hate? You can just dismiss it as immaterial?

Pathetic.

Also note that you could not even venture one realistic scenerio, either individual or general, that would support your premise that gay marriage would decrease heterosexual marriage rates/procreation rates that would not be an example of homophobia. Meanwhile, you attack me for “acting like the only issue is homophobia”. Taken to task, you cannot deny it, so you choose to ignore or justify it.

Again, pathetic.

308

Could two heterosexual roommates adopt a child together? Or, have a child through some other indirect means?

309

“But there are good reasons to be worried.”

No, BB, there aren’t. Worrying about violence in schools and an increased rate of dropouts among white students were not “good reasons” to keep schools segregated. Worrying that allowing women to hold government positions would undermine faith in the leadership and competency of the government were not “good reasons” not to allow them the opprotunity.

Fear of what bigots will do is NEVER a good reason for ANYTHING.

310

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
“But there are good reasons to be worried.”

No, BB, there aren’t. Worrying about violence in schools and an increased rate of dropouts among white students were not “good reasons” to keep schools segregated. Worrying that allowing women to hold government positions would undermine faith in the leadership and competency of the government were not “good reasons” not to allow them the opprotunity.

Fear of what bigots will do is NEVER a good reason for ANYTHING.[/quote]

Well, your views on sexual orientation and marriage are clear. I wonder if YOU’D allow more than 2 people to marry (polygamy). It could be said that such peoples’ sexual orientation leans towards multiple partners. Or, what if it’s just two people, of any sex, who don’t intend to ever have a sexual relationship, but plan to live together potentially forever? Such as life long bachelors who roommate with others of the same mindset. Perhaps they’d enjoy the benefits of marriage (taxes, maybe), while looking outside of the ‘marriage’ for sex. Do YOU want the bounds of marriage defined at all, even if other people would resent YOUR definition? Just curious as to what a “marriage” even is, to you, and why it has to fall within your definition (assuming you set any boundries as to what makes a marriage).

311

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

Secondarily, even if the reasons for a decline in marriage rates or stability were homophobia, it would be immaterial. The issue is whether there is a good (as in creditable) reason to worry there would be a decline in marriage rates or stability - because that is what would affect society - not whether there is a good (as in morally approvable) reason for such a decline.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So you’re comfortable with the government deciding its laws out of fear of people acting out of bigotry and hate? You can just dismiss it as immaterial?

Pathetic.

Also note that you could not even venture one realistic scenerio, either individual or general, that would support your premise that gay marriage would decrease heterosexual marriage rates/procreation rates that would not be an example of homophobia. Meanwhile, you attack me for “acting like the only issue is homophobia”. Taken to task, you cannot deny it, so you choose to ignore or justify it.

Again, pathetic.[/quote]

Are you ever going to do anything to demonstrate that you understand the argument - or even that you’ve read the links you’ve been given at least 5 times?

Also note: This example of ignoring the entire post to return to your favorite red herring/ad hominem of homophobia is why I dislike you and think you’re a twit.

312

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
“But there are good reasons to be worried.”

No, BB, there aren’t. Worrying about violence in schools and an increased rate of dropouts among white students were not “good reasons” to keep schools segregated. Worrying that allowing women to hold government positions would undermine faith in the leadership and competency of the government were not “good reasons” not to allow them the opprotunity.

Fear of what bigots will do is NEVER a good reason for ANYTHING.[/quote]

Are you ever going to address the actual arguments, or are you going to keep making sh*t up?

Also, the caps thing still isn’t helping.

Finally, race does not equal sexual preference, for a variety of reasons… Sexual preference doesn’t even equal gender… You’ll just need to come up with some actual arguments…

313

BostonBarrister: please give me a logical reason, other than homophobia, that allowing gays to marry would negatively impact marriage or procreation among heterosexuals.

314

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
“But there are good reasons to be worried.”

No, BB, there aren’t. Worrying about violence in schools and an increased rate of dropouts among white students were not “good reasons” to keep schools segregated. Worrying that allowing women to hold government positions would undermine faith in the leadership and competency of the government were not “good reasons” not to allow them the opprotunity.

Fear of what bigots will do is NEVER a good reason for ANYTHING.

Are you ever going to address the actual arguments, or are you going to keep making sh*t up?
[/quote]

What actual arguments? You havent given one actual argument as to why letting gays marry would negatively affect heterosexual marriage (other than to justify if it is, indeed, homophobia).

[quote]

Also, the caps thing still isn’t helping.

Finally, race does not equal sexual preference, for a variety of reasons… Sexual preference doesn’t even equal gender… You’ll just need to come up with some actual arguments…[/quote]

This is one of my favorites: The argument that one form of bigotry is not comparable to another. As if, somehow, comparing racism to sexism is wrong, or comparing ablism to xenophobia is wrong. Its just a shallow avoidance of the fact that they’re justifying one form of bigotry, but not others.

But Boston, gender and race aren’t the same thing… so is it ok if I use racial slurs and speak out against interracial marriage… so long as I support womens rights??

And sexual preference and religion aren’t the same thing… so is it alright if I discriminate against Jews, Muslims, and Pagans… so long as I support gay rights?

315

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
BostonBarrister: please give me a logical reason, other than homophobia, that allowing gays to marry would negatively impact marriage or procreation among heterosexuals.[/quote]

Here are two: It could affect the normative behavior of married people, and also affect the societal normative pressure on heterosexuals to marry. Read the links for more.

Now address each of my previous points please.

316

[quote]

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
“But there are good reasons to be worried.”

No, BB, there aren’t. Worrying about violence in schools and an increased rate of dropouts among white students were not “good reasons” to keep schools segregated. Worrying that allowing women to hold government positions would undermine faith in the leadership and competency of the government were not “good reasons” not to allow them the opprotunity.

Fear of what bigots will do is NEVER a good reason for ANYTHING.

BostonBarrister wrote:
Are you ever going to address the actual arguments, or are you going to keep making sh*t up?

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What actual arguments? You havent given one actual argument as to why letting gays marry would negatively affect heterosexual marriage (other than to justify if it is, indeed, homophobia). [/quote]

Um, how about the ones you keep ignoring and/or not addressing? The links you’re not reading? I can only re-type things so many times…

Are you on crack? It’s attacking the validity of your comparison because of the inherent differences between the things compared. Simple, basic logic - but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, given we’ve already determined you don’t do simple, basic logic as a rule.

Your simplistic little stance and attempt at reductionism is again, amusing. “Bigotry (defined by you, of course) is bigotry is bigotry.” Let’s extend this line of reasoning a little - a preference is always just a simple predilection for something or other, so a preference is a preference is a preference… Obviously a preference for lollipops is no different from a preference for self mutilation, which is no difference from a preference for sadism. All just preferences, right? Individual characteristics obviously don’t matter…

If the items are individually wrong or individually right, make the case. Analogies are useful illustrations - but they don’t prove your case, and you can’t use them for a crutch when your arguments otherwise can’t stand.

Is it wrong for a woman to prefer men with big muscles, and engage in bigotry against the puny? Is it wrong for men to prefer women who aren’t obese, and be “fatophobic”? The mere fact that a preference exists doesn’t make it immoral.

More particularly here, if the government has a preference built into its policies for either no reason (i.e., it wasn’t meant as a preference, but some minority wasn’t considered and does not want to participate under the terms), or because to make the preference all inclusive might undermine the actual non-immoral goal of the policy, then it’s not some immoral bigotry.

You get your panties in such a tight little wad, going off on all your imagined homophobia - you’re like Don Quixote tilting at imaginary windmills (probably made of useless soc texts).

Often, the general policy goal doesn’t include a particular minority, because it’s enacted with societal goals in mind. As long as it wouldn’t hurt the goal, no harm in being inclusive. But the goal is paramount, and the government has the power to enact the policy (except for the very limited case of race - and occasionally gender - or the even more limited case of religion (no preferencing) - no wonder you try so hard to glom on to those examples).

317

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
BostonBarrister: please give me a logical reason, other than homophobia, that allowing gays to marry would negatively impact marriage or procreation among heterosexuals.

Here are two: It could affect the normative behavior of married people, and also affect the societal normative pressure on heterosexuals to marry. Read the links for more.

Now address each of my previous points please.[/quote]

…seriously?

You: It would cause problems?

Me: What problems and why?

You: Uh… it could affect how people act!

Your response here has told me nothing.

HOW AND WHY (I’ll use big letters so you can read them easier) would it affect the normative behavior of married people?

HOW AND WHY would it affect the societal normative pressure on heterosexuals to marry?

Quit repeating the same thing (that it could have an effect), and answer my fucking question.

318

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
BostonBarrister: please give me a logical reason, other than homophobia, that allowing gays to marry would negatively impact marriage or procreation among heterosexuals.[/quote]

Homophobia? Is that like Incestaphobia, Heterophobia, polygamyaphobia, or beastialityaphobia?

319

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Homophobia? Is that like Incestaphobia, Heterophobia, polygamyaphobia, or beastialityaphobia?[/quote]

Don’t argue the semantics of the word just because your argument fails.

320

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
“But there are good reasons to be worried.”

No, BB, there aren’t. Worrying about violence in schools and an increased rate of dropouts among white students were not “good reasons” to keep schools segregated. Worrying that allowing women to hold government positions would undermine faith in the leadership and competency of the government were not “good reasons” not to allow them the opprotunity.

Fear of what bigots will do is NEVER a good reason for ANYTHING.

BostonBarrister wrote:
Are you ever going to address the actual arguments, or are you going to keep making sh*t up?

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What actual arguments? You havent given one actual argument as to why letting gays marry would negatively affect heterosexual marriage (other than to justify if it is, indeed, homophobia).

Um, how about the ones you keep ignoring and/or not addressing? The links you’re not reading? I can only re-type things so many times…

BostonBarrister wrote:
Also, the caps thing still isn’t helping.

Finally, race does not equal sexual preference, for a variety of reasons… Sexual preference doesn’t even equal gender… You’ll just need to come up with some actual arguments…

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
This is one of my favorites: The argument that one form of bigotry is not comparable to another. As if, somehow, comparing racism to sexism is wrong, or comparing ablism to xenophobia is wrong. Its just a shallow avoidance of the fact that they’re justifying one form of bigotry, but not others.

But Boston, gender and race aren’t the same thing… so is it ok if I use racial slurs and speak out against interracial marriage… so long as I support womens rights??

And sexual preference and religion aren’t the same thing… so is it alright if I discriminate against Jews, Muslims, and Pagans… so long as I support gay rights?

Are you on crack? It’s attacking the validity of your comparison because of the inherent differences between the things compared. Simple, basic logic - but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, given we’ve already determined you don’t do simple, basic logic as a rule.

Your simplistic little stance and attempt at reductionism is again, amusing. “Bigotry (defined by you, of course) is bigotry is bigotry.” Let’s extend this line of reasoning a little - a preference is always just a simple predilection for something or other, so a preference is a preference is a preference… Obviously a preference for lollipops is no different from a preference for self mutilation, which is no difference from a preference for sadism. All just preferences, right? Individual characteristics obviously don’t matter…

If the items are individually wrong or individually right, make the case. Analogies are useful illustrations - but they don’t prove your case, and you can’t use them for a crutch when your arguments otherwise can’t stand.

Is it wrong for a woman to prefer men with big muscles, and engage in bigotry against the puny? Is it wrong for men to prefer women who aren’t obese, and be “fatophobic”? The mere fact that a preference exists doesn’t make it immoral.

More particularly here, if the government has a preference built into its policies for either no reason (i.e., it wasn’t meant as a preference, but some minority wasn’t considered and does not want to participate under the terms), or because to make the preference all inclusive might undermine the actual non-immoral goal of the policy, then it’s not some immoral bigotry.

You get your panties in such a tight little wad, going off on all your imagined homophobia - you’re like Don Quixote tilting at imaginary windmills (probably made of useless soc texts).

Often, the general policy goal doesn’t include a particular minority, because it’s enacted with societal goals in mind. As long as it wouldn’t hurt the goal, no harm in being inclusive. But the goal is paramount, and the government has the power to enact the policy (except for the very limited case of race - and occasionally gender - or the even more limited case of religion (no preferencing) - no wonder you try so hard to glom on to those examples).[/quote]

This is why I’m asking him about other possible “alternative” marriages. If he has any definition, any boundries, about who (or how many) can enter into marriage, he’s discriminated against someone’s lifestyle orientation. He’s a bigot. He’s giving the ok for some to recieve a benefit, because they fit within his boundries.

Now, if has none, and he’d like to see marriage open to any arrangement of consenting adults, that’s different. However, you might as well remove government from marriage if that’s the case. Just cut adults taxes and tell them to hire lawyers for property issues.