Why Do People Care About Gay Marriage?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
681

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
…

Your argument boils down to this: extending marriage to gays is a risk that is not worth it. I’ve considered your points as to why it’s not, and still disagree; largely on the basis that the reason it’s such a risk in the first place is that we live in a homophobic society. As I said before, that makes the problem the society, not the homosexuals.

Please feel free to demonstrate you understand what the risks actually are at any juncture.

[/quote]

The risks, according to you, are that marriage will cease to carry the value it once did, and because of that less marriages will form.

This is bad because, in your opinion, the binary heterosexual couple is best suited to raise children (and heterosexual couples are the only type that can produce children). The definition of marriage is restricted to binary heterosexual couples because they, as a whole, produce children, and should therefore be incentivized to stay together to raise them. So, without the pressure place by society on individuals to get married, either (a)less children, or (b-and more likely) the same amount of children but less stable family units.

Also, according to your arguments, it is not a matter of preference, but a matter of action, that the government is incentivizing. Taking into account that a gay man can marry a woman (or a lesbian marrying a man), the current definition of marriage does not technically exclude homosexuals from it, but it does not exalt, legitimize, or incentivize homosexual unions. This is merely a choice, the same as staying unmarried would also be a choice.

Is this about right?

682

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Yes, my aversion comes from the fact that I am a) not attracted to men and b) find male on male sex gross. But that puts me into the category of ‘heterosexual.’[/quote]

I have no aversion to homosexuals despite the fact I find men unattractive and male on male is disgusting. But it’s their choice. You may be heterosexual, but you are still a bigot.

I like to generalize too. Because you don’t like gay marriage, you must therefore be a Bible bashing redneck. The truth of that statement doesn’t matter, all that matter is that a lot of bible bashing rednecks are anti-gay, therefore you must be one of them.

683

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
And you’ve “proven” that homosexuals should marry? Hah ah…you’ve had your “logic” sliced, diced and handed back to you several times by posters on this thread. You are very close to sounding like a retard with some of your arguments…But I view it as cheap entertainment, with you playing the part of the fool.

Okay…continue…

We’re all still waiting…tell us more oh great liberal wonder fuck!
[/quote]

Ya know, I’m actually kind of glad you’re here: true bigots like you put into perspective the other people on your side of the table.

That is, after reading your pointless drivel, I’m just about drooling over a post from BB or Thunderbolt; even if I disagree with a lot of what they say, and there are enough insults thrown from both sides, at least we all attempt to make good points.

You just throw slurs around and jump up and down and pat on the back anybody who agrees with you–thanks to your inability to debate the topic yourself. Nevermind that the nature of debate is that each side makes points, and counterpoints, and back and forth as such. Any point made for gay marriage is stupid and any point made against it is “slicing and dicing your logic and taking your lunch money!”. Idiot.

You also put into perspective the difference between a bigot (you), and someone who holds a position that can be viewed as bigoted while not being a bigot themselves, or whose thoughts may subconciously be influenced by bigotry while not being a bigot (such as BB or Thunderbolt or PRCal). To any of them, I’d say I don’t believe them to be a bigot. But you? Worthless, stupid, idiotic bigot.

684

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BTW, this is spot on. There is no right to equality, broadly speaking. And anyone with two eyes can look around and see that this is obviously the case.[/quote]

Article 16

i Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.[/i]

By not calling it marriage, you essentially brand them as second class and deny them the right to marriage.

685

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
The definition states “homosexuality and homosexuals” nowhere does the definition state “homosexual sex”.

Lol! And you accuse me of playing pointless semantic games![/quote]

Which you are.

686

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

So even if treating people differently based on race would have a rational basis, it would sill be illegal because race is a heightened category?

Are you actually getting dumber?

The point of race is that we have decided there isn’t a rational basis to discriminate on a racial basis (setting aside the Supreme Court’s blessing of affirmative action).

So, lets say I own a bar, where a lot of white people who, well, aren’t so friendly to black folk like to hang out. I posta help wanted ad in the local paper, for a bartender. A black person applies. Me, personally, I like black people, I have black friends. But, I realize to hire a black person is likely to (a)cause some of my customers to stop frequenting my bar (bad for me), (b)make the customers that do continue to come uncomfortable (bad for the customers), and (c)make the bartender uncomfortable/possibly in danger (bad for him/her).

Would this not, then, be a rational basis for not hiring that person, based on their race?[/quote]

The “rational basis” terminology refers to governmental discrimination, not private discrimination. So your analogy doesn’t fit the conversation.

But to answer your question, it depends on the size of the bar. Most likely the bar is a small enough enterprise that it can legally hire whomever it wants, no questions asked. As long as the owner doesn’t flat out say “I ain’t hirin’ no niggers!” (or something similar), they’re okay.

If the establishment is larger than some set standard (which I can’t precisely remember off the top of my head), then the company must follow the 4/5th’s rule. That means that the company must hire members of protected classes (which includes race, among other things) at a minimum of 4/5th’s of the rate at which they hire “majorities”. Keep in mind that that means that a company is breaking federal employment law if, for example, they hire 40% of black, female Muslim applicants but only 25% of white, male Christian applicants. It works both ways.

Also of interest to this thread is the fact that sexual preference is currently not a federally protected class. Some states might include sexual preference as a protected class, but the feds currently do not.

688

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
If the establishment is larger than some set standard (which I can’t precisely remember off the top of my head), then the company must follow the 4/5th’s rule. That means that the company must hire members of protected classes (which includes race, among other things) at a minimum of 4/5th’s of the rate at which they hire “majorities”. Keep in mind that that means that a company is breaking federal employment law if, for example, they hire 40% of black, female Muslim applicants but only 25% of white, male Christian applicants. It works both ways.[/quote]

Wouldn’t that be assuming that all applicants are equally capable?

691

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You “hooked up” but never “had sex” huh?

After reading most of your inane posts on this thread one can only wonder what your definition of sex might be.

No don’t tell me I can guess…you didn’t swallow…[/quote]

If all your going to do is trade insults, kindly fuck off.

692

Everything is going to change anyway, no matter how much we try to control the world. Our norms are subject to change, and they always have been. It’s weird how people who pride themselves to have the highest morals, tend to be spreading the most hatred and misery in the world.

If letting gay people get married can increase tolerance (real tolerance, not the usual BS) for gays, then I say go for it. They’re gonna be gay anyway, so why not let them have what so many straight people consider essential for a complete life, namely marriage? Because “fags are disgusting”? I believe we should choose the alternative that causes the least amount of human suffering, not the alternative that makes us the least queesy.

It may sound like PC bullshit, but it’s surprising how seldom one hears this sort of thing these days.

Straight people marry and get divorced every fucking day. People get pissed out of their brains, go to Vegas, get married then get divorced the month after. I don’t see why there’s any reason to think that gays will corrupt the sanctity of the union of marriage any more than straight people have.

Unless, of course, one feels that the very act of gay sex is incompatible with that which is supposed to be pure and holy. In which case, one really should get over oneself and stop letting ones own misconceptions make everybody miserable.

695

[quote]whoami wrote:
Everything is going to change anyway, no matter how much we try to control the world. Our norms are subject to change, and they always have been. It’s weird how people who pride themselves to have the highest morals, tend to be spreading the most hatred and misery in the world.

If letting gay people get married can increase tolerance (real tolerance, not the usual BS) for gays, then I say go for it. They’re gonna be gay anyway, so why not let them have what so many straight people consider essential for a complete life, namely marriage? Because “fags are disgusting”? I believe we should choose the alternative that causes the least amount of human suffering, not the alternative that makes us the least queesy.

It may sound like PC bullshit, but it’s surprising how seldom one hears this sort of thing these days.

Straight people marry and get divorced every fucking day. People get pissed out of their brains, go to Vegas, get married then get divorced the month after. I don’t see why there’s any reason to think that gays will corrupt the sanctity of the union of marriage any more than straight people have.

Unless, of course, one feels that the very act of gay sex is incompatible with that which is supposed to be pure and holy. In which case, one really should get over oneself and stop letting ones own misconceptions make everybody miserable.[/quote]

Well said.

696

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Is it your role to insult someone who you feel has been insulting others?

“Fuck off?”

Is that all you guys think about?

Continue…[/quote]

Insult if you want, but if that’s all you want to do, then yes… fuck off. Otherwise start contributing something other than backhanded insults.

697

[quote]Makavali wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
If the establishment is larger than some set standard (which I can’t precisely remember off the top of my head), then the company must follow the 4/5th’s rule. That means that the company must hire members of protected classes (which includes race, among other things) at a minimum of 4/5th’s of the rate at which they hire “majorities”. Keep in mind that that means that a company is breaking federal employment law if, for example, they hire 40% of black, female Muslim applicants but only 25% of white, male Christian applicants. It works both ways.

Wouldn’t that be assuming that all applicants are equally capable?[/quote]

Not exactly. That’s why the rule is 4/5th’s rather than 5/5th’s. Companies still get a little bit of discretionary leeway before they trigger the illegal discrimination switch.

I’m sure you could come up with a hypothetical in which a company violated the 4/5h’s rule primarily because they received mountains of severely under-qualified applications from one single protected class. In that case, the company would be “violating” the rule even though their hiring process was not illegally discriminatory.

It is assumed that such a situation would not occur in reality – which it doesn’t. In other words, it is assumed that all applicants will at least be in the ball park of each other in terms of qualifications.

I also didn’t mention that violating the 4/5th’s rule is not a crime in and of itself. It simply means that the company may now have to explain their hiring practices to the feds, who have set a very high bar as to what is an acceptable explanation.

698

So you, the unbigoted heterosexual here, have no aversion to sex with another man - you just haven’t done it? Gee, if sex with a woman is just the same as sex with a man, what’s holding you up? Haven’t found the time?

699

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I have no aversion to homosexuals despite the fact I find a unattractive and male on male is disgusting. But it’s their choice. You may be heterosexual, but you are still a bigot.

So you, the unbigoted heterosexual here, have no aversion to sex with another man - you just haven’t done it? Gee, if sex with a woman is just the same as sex with a man, what’s holding you up? Haven’t found the time? [/quote]

I’ve edited my post. You may want to do the same as my change might alter the meaning of the post in your eyes. Just letting you know.

EDIT: Also, could you put in who typed out what you’re responding to? It’s not just me and you arguing here.

700

[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I’m saying, that as a building block of society, we ought to leave the definition of marriage alone that we’ve been using for 15 or so centuries unless there’s solid data showing that it will have no adverse effects on society. By adverse, I mean that it will not drive normal marriage rates down, normal birthrates down, and that the children raised in these gay marriages won’t be more ill-adjusted than the heterosexual mean.

In that case, slavery should never have been abolished. It was the building block of America (cheap free labor) and you got rid of it because some people got their panties in a twist about equal rights?

What’s up with that shit? I mean come on, you yanks need to man up. There was no data to suggest that slavery could be abolished without some sort of negative effect, why the fuck did you do it? Are y’all retarded or something? And whats up with allowing interracial marriage and removing segregation? I mean jeez people, you gotta take society into account here.

Do you see what I’m doing here?[/quote]

golf clap Well done, sir!