California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[TheDMV]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

ADVERTISEMENT

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in striking down the ban.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as the news spread.

Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"

"This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us," Rizzo said. "This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity."

In the Castro, historically a center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt started crying while watching the news on TV.

"I've been waiting for this all my life," he said. "This is a life-affirming moment."

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted the monthlong wedding march that took place when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the doors of City Hall to same-sex marriages.

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

The challenge for gay rights advocates, however, is not over.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court's decision.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

But, "Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court's majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.

The conservative Alliance Defense Fund says it plans to ask the justices for a stay of their decision until after the fall election, said Glen Lavey, senior counsel for the group.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would've granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a news release that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."


Looks like a step in the right direction. Anyone surprised?

[WhoDidTheElf]

What a crock. Overturning a voter ban...

[Already_Taken]

Obviously the majority of people didn't vote in that election.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

i don't think civil rights should be decided based on a referendum.


"should we let black people vote"? gimme a break.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Edit: to Already_taken

Who's fault is that?

And when was the vote for the ban anyways? If it was in 2000, 2002, or 2004 a majority of people voted in all of those. (between 55% and 59%)

Edit: my mistake that was total population, between 60-65% of registered voters.

[Jude]

i don't think civil rights should be decided based on a referendum.


"should we let black people vote"? gimme a break.

This sounds about right

This is a good development. But not as good as just abolishing marriage as a state institution and leaving it up to churches and other social institutions to define, thus solving this problem easily

[Against Miik!]

This sounds about right

This is a good development. But not as good as just abolishing marriage as a state institution and leaving it up to churches and other social institutions to define, thus solving this problem easily

Hmm I disagree with that. If you left it up to the churches, gays would never be able to get married. Hell, in some areas, there wouldn't be interracial marriages.

Plus, a good amount of people aren't religious. Why should a gay atheist be held to the standards of a church?

But yeah anyways lol at the voter approved part.

[Jude]

Hmm I disagree with that. If you left it up to the churches, gays would never be able to get married. Hell, in some areas, there wouldn't be interracial marriages.
Yes they would there are a lot of churches that would marry gay people and anyway would not be limited to churches

Plus, a good amount of people aren't religious. Why should a gay atheist be held to the standards of a church?
They wouldn't it wouldn't be limited to churches, it would be any social institution that people deem worthy
i.e. if you say you're married you're married and if you're raising kids, you get tax benefits, and as for rights that a spouse has to another, if you say that person is your spouse then they have those rights and if not they don't and this way government can just stay out of the problem entirely

But yeah anyways lol at the voter approved part.[/QUOTE]

[Against Miik!]

If it involves taxes, then the government is in it whethe you like it or not. Thats really the biggest issue with whether or not it should be a state institution.

Besides, it's not exactly like marriage is some sacred thing anymore. With what is probably now over half of marriages ending in divorce, it might as well be no different than renewing your drivers license.

[TheDMV]

You can't butt the government completley out of marriage. Age is one restriction that really makes sense to keep.

[Dave de Sylvia]

What a crock. Overturning a voter ban...
Why do voters have the right to define marriage?

[Against Miik!]

Why not? Marriage isn't like a natural right. It's a social construct that has no doubt changed a bit throughout history. It is not concrete.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Why do voters have the right to define marriage?

I don't care about marriage, I'm just not a fan of the courts becoming activists.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I don't care about marriage, I'm just not a fan of the courts becoming activists.

courts make decisions. it's what they do. upholding civil rights is one of the most important functions the government or any of its branches has because it is one of the few domains where it has the responsability to make decisions whether or not the population supports it, and the current government has failed miserably. if the courts don't do it, nobody will.

[WhoDidTheElf]

courts make decisions. it's what they do. upholding civil rights is one of the most important functions the government or any of its branches has because it is one of the few domains where it has the responsability to make decisions whether or not the population supports it, and the current government has failed miserably. if the courts don't do it, nobody will.

Marriage is not a right. It's a social construct, a privilege. If it was voting or something then I could see your point.

[BridgeToSolace]

I don't care about marriage, I'm just not a fan of the courts becoming activists.

You mean...like Brown people Vs. Board of education?

Activism is fine with me.

[TheDMV]

Why do voters have the right to define marriage?

No one should really have the right to define marriage as an absolute. I personally don't think that voters should be allowed to prevent people from getting married, nor should the government. If churches want to that's a different story, but I think that institutions should be available where people can married to anyone, with some needed age restrictions.

[Jude]

Marriage is not a right. It's a social construct, a privilege. If it was voting or something then I could see your point.

If it's a social construct then why does the government have the ability to control it

[WhoDidTheElf]

If it's a social construct then why does the government have the ability to control it

It shouldn't. Marriage shouldn't exist, it's a crock of ****.

[Jude]

It shouldn't.

We're agreed then.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Why not? Marriage isn't like a natural right. It's a social construct that has no doubt changed a bit throughout history. It is not concrete.
That's the point. I don't see why people holding a rigid definition of marriage should be allowed use the instruments of the state as a stick to beat gay people with.

I don't care about marriage, I'm just not a fan of the courts becoming activists.
Why not? This is clearly an example where judges have struck down some clearly discriminating legislation.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Marriage is not a right. It's a social construct, a privilege. If it was voting or something then I could see your point.

I disagree. Any man and woman have the right to go out and get married, whether they intend to start a family or not, regardless of if they love each other. I think forcing priests and whatnot to perform marriage is a whole other debate, but legally I think it is indeed a question of rights and not priviledge.

Hopefully this doesn't devolve into a gay marriage debate.

[TheDMV]

Marriage is not a right. It's a social construct, a privilege. If it was voting or something then I could see your point.

How can you say marriage is a privelage? With the divorce rate at ridiculous highs, it's not like people are being screened or tested for marriage apptitude. Why should a heterosexual couple where a 25 beautiful girl marries a 97 year old billionaire to get divorced in a year be acceptable but a homosexual couple being married is not?

[WhoDidTheElf]

How can you say marriage is a privelage? With the divorce rate at ridiculous highs, it's not like people are being screened or tested for marriage apptitude. Why should a heterosexual couple where a 25 beautiful girl marries a 97 year old billionaire to get divorced in a year be acceptable but a homosexual couple being married is not?

What the **** are you talking about? I'm saying no one should get married. No one, not straight, gay, black, white, green, brown, red, pink or w/e the **** color people are out there.

I disagree. Any man and woman have the right to go out and get married, whether they intend to start a family or not, regardless of if they love each other. I think forcing priests and whatnot to perform marriage is a whole other debate, but legally I think it is indeed a question of rights and not priviledge.

Hopefully this doesn't devolve into a gay marriage debate.

Marriage shouldn't exist, and there isn't a right to get married. For any one.

Why not? This is clearly an example where judges have struck down some clearly discriminating legislation.

There shouldn't have been any legislation to begin with. Marriage is not a government issue.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Marriage shouldn't exist, and there isn't a right to get married. For any one.

Why not?

[BridgeToSolace]

There shouldn't have been any legislation to begin with. Marriage is not a government issue.

You said it rather poorly up until here, but I agree with this.

Church marriage and lets-get-some-tax-cuts-and-special-treatment marriage should be entirely separate.

But since they aren't, it shouldn't be in the hands of the church.

[dei]

But it exists right now and everyone above the age of consent should be allowed to marry.

[Hababi]

What a crock. Overturning a voter ban...

Yeah, this is an overreach of judicial authority.

[Dave de Sylvia]

There shouldn't have been any legislation to begin with. Marriage is not a government issue.
So, marriage shouldn't be legislated... but as long as it is why not use it to further a homophobic agenda?

[WhoDidTheElf]

You said it rather poorly up until here, but I agree with this.

Church marriage and lets-get-some-tax-cuts-and-special-treatment marriage should be entirely separate.

But since they aren't, it shouldn't be in the hands of the church.

I agree. I said on the previous page something already along those lines.

Why not?

Why should there be?

So, marriage shouldn't be legislated... but as long as it is why not use it to further a homophobic agenda?

Uh?

[Hababi]

But it exists right now and everyone above the age of consent should be allowed to marry.

Everyone is.


Marriage shouldn't exist, and there isn't a right to get married. For any one.


This is correct. There's simply no legal right to marry any consenting adult of your choosing. Marriage is a social institution with a unique set of judicial and social standings.

[Hababi]

So, marriage shouldn't be legislated... but as long as it is why not use it to further a homophobic agenda?

:lol:

I don't think it's a good idea for the government to waste time pursuing a divisive "defense of marriage" constitutional amendment. At the same time, it is ridiculous for a self-righteous judge to overrule the clear majority of voting people in the state. If judges can arbitrarily overrule democratic mandate, then there is no use for democracy. It's judicial tyranny.

[Akira]

Bleh. Activist judges. I believe same-sex marriage should be legal, but not at the expense of America's legal system.


But I disagree with Steve that a judge can't overrule majority opinion. The point of judges is to make sure rulings are based in evidence. If the majority of people vote for something stupid, a judge has the right to overturn it.
However, this is not such a case.

[JohnXDoe]

Obama Change '08

its a more Perfect Union now

[Hababi]

Bleh. Activist judges. I believe same-sex marriage should be legal, but not at the expense of America's legal system.

ITT Akira agrees with me :D

Well, about the second part, anyway.

[JohnXDoe]

i want to stand up for men kissing and holding hands in public parks its cute



oh and ladies as always....feel free bby's

[Dave de Sylvia]

:lol:

I don't think it's a good idea for the government to waste time pursuing a divisive "defense of marriage" constitutional amendment. At the same time, it is ridiculous for a self-righteous judge to overrule the clear majority of voting people in the state. If judges can arbitrarily overrule democratic mandate, then there is no use for democracy. It's judicial tyranny.
Err, or a constitutional republic?

[dei]

Bleh. Activist judges. I believe same-sex marriage should be legal, but not at the expense of America's legal system.


But I disagree with Steve that a judge can't overrule majority opinion. The point of judges is to make sure rulings are based in evidence. If the majority of people vote for something stupid, a judge has the right to overturn it.
However, this is not such a case.

Um, how is voting to ban same-sex marriage not dumb?

[Hababi]

Err, or a constitutional republic?

:smash::smash::smash:

[Hababi]

But I disagree with Steve that a judge can't overrule majority opinion. The point of judges is to make sure rulings are based in evidence. If the majority of people vote for something stupid, a judge has the right to overturn it.
However, this is not such a case.

I can understand what you're saying here. I agree that in extreme, egregious cases, there is a role for judges overturning a popular vote. Eg if 51% voted to deny voting rights to Hispanics.

[JohnXDoe]

if i don't marry some money grubbing broad can i marry some dude now and reap the tax benefits, social membership benefits, insurance benefits, etc?

[Akira]

ITT Akira agrees with me :D

Well, about the second part, anyway.

It's hard. As a rule, I am going to agree with activist judges on issues. However, I believe that the integrity of the judiciary is vital to democracy, and rulings like this decimate judicial integrity.

Um, how is voting to ban same-sex marriage not dumb?

Well, let me clarify. It is indeed dumb, however, it doesn't contradict any significant legal document I know of, so it isn't the judicial system's place to overturn it. If I'm wrong and there is precedent to justify the judges' actions, then I support them.

[dei]

Well, let me clarify. It is indeed dumb, however, it doesn't contradict any significant legal d0cument I know of, so it isn't the judicial system's place to overturn it. If I'm wrong and there is precedent to justify the judges' actions, then I support them.

Yeah but it's still wrong!

[JohnXDoe]

dei will you marry me?

i'm a good cook :)

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Why should there be?


For the same reason cultures do anything else. Because they want to, because it's tradition, because it's symbolic, because it lends "legitimacy" to your children, because it's a way of announcing to the world you plan on spending the rest of your lives together - whether or not you plan on getting married, saying people shouldn't have the right to is just plain stupid. Why do you hang out with friends? You don't have to. Should it be illegal?

[WhoDidTheElf]

For the same reason cultures do anything else. Because they want to, because it's tradition, because it's symbolic, because it lends "legitimacy" to your children, because it's a way of announcing to the world you plan on spending the rest of your lives together - whether or not you plan on getting married, saying people shouldn't have the right to is just plain stupid. Why do you hang out with friends? You don't have to. Should it be illegal?

That's all fine. Government shouldn't have a damn thing to do with it.

[TheDMV]

What the **** are you talking about? I'm saying no one should get married. No one, not straight, gay, black, white, green, brown, red, pink or w/e the **** color people are out there.

You said marriage is a privelage. That's what the **** I was talking about. Right now marriage exists. Therefore, anyone of reasonable age should be allowed to marry. That's all I was saying. I don't think marriage is a great idea either, that doesn't mean people shouldn't do it if they want to.

I don't know why there are tax breaks for married couples, can anyone explain.

[WhoDidTheElf]

You said marriage is a privelage. That's what the **** I was talking about. Right now marriage exists. Therefore, anyone of reasonable age should be allowed to marry. That's all I was saying. I don't think marriage is a great idea either.

And all I was saying is that it shouldn't matter since government shouldn't be involved.

I don't know why there are tax breaks for married couples, can anyone explain.

Children.

[TheDMV]

Is is the same for unmarried couples?

[guitrguy]

Why not? Marriage isn't like a natural right. It's a social construct that has no doubt changed a bit throughout history. It is not concrete.

there is no such thing as a natural right.

[Jude]

Children.

Right. Therefore, like I said, anybody who's raising a kid, married or not, gay or straight, religious or not, should get the tax breaks and that's it. Other than that, marriage as a legal institution should be abolished and everybody can define it as they want to. Problem solved.

[Dave de Sylvia]

if i don't marry some money grubbing broad can i marry some dude now and reap the tax benefits, social membership benefits, insurance benefits, etc?
Dude... gay.

[TheDMV]

Right. Therefore, like I said, anybody who's raising a kid, married or not, gay or straight, religious or not, should get the tax breaks and that's it. Other than that, marriage as a legal institution should be abolished and everybody can define it as they want to. Problem solved.

Sounds good. Now get elected president

[Jude]

Sounds good. Now get elected president

Nah, I value my soul

[TheDMV]

Plus I highly doubt that marriage being abolished, even from a purely legal standpoint would go over well. Not for a long time, at least.

[Jude]

That's only because people have this retarded idea that the government is supposed to protect social traditions

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I think the idea of a government abolishing a well-established social institution that almost all human cultures possess in one form or another is a pretty retarded idea too.

[Dave de Sylvia]

I'm not sure how people would react to government withdrawing from marriage. I'm not sure how much of marriage's legitimacy people believe is invested in it by the government.

[BridgeToSolace]

I think the idea of a government abolishing a well-established social institution that almost all human cultures possess in one form or another is a pretty retarded idea too.

You aren't abolishing the tradition, just any relating government recognition.

Being able to see your loved one in hospital while their in critical condition is a proper, social construction that a ban on gay marriage violates.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/Validity_3.htm

status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;

That's a huge ****ing list of things that gay people aren't allowed to have. Both federal and state law.

Now, under the 14th amendment, we are all allowed equal protection under the law. This did not allow equal protection for all pairs of consenting adults.

It and it completely and utterly ****ing irrelevant the gender of the two people participating in this union. There is no logical reason why you would not allow gay people all the legal benefits on that list.

If churches don't want to marry gay people, that's fine. We should not be forcing churches to do anything. These legal benefits should be separate from the actual act of getting married.

And if you can't do that, any social construct is inherently transient. Just get rid of the those rules.

[TheDMV]

But nearly everyone from birth is just taught to believe you grow up and get married. It's the greatest thing ever and everyone does it it's a tradition etc. People go withwhat they know.

[Jude]

I think the idea of a government abolishing a well-established social institution that almost all human cultures possess in one form or another is a pretty retarded idea too.

I thought I was abundantly clear: Not abolish marriage completely. Abolish marriage AS A GOVERNMENT RUN INSTITUTION. I.e., the government completely washes its hands of marriage and leaves it for what it should be - a traditional, and culturally based institution that can be performed however the people involved want it to be.

[BridgeToSolace]

But nearly everyone from birth is just taught to believe you grow up and get married. It's the greatest thing ever and everyone does it it's a tradition etc. People go withwhat they know.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-07-13-divorce-usat_x.htm

Marquardt is still analyzing the results of her national survey of 1,500 young adults, now 18 to 35. About half are from divorced families and half from intact families. Those from divorced families were younger than 14 when the split occurred.

Yeah, I would hardly say "Nearly everybody"

[Big Baby Jesus]

Gay marriage is pretty much more credible than 50% of man-woman marriages out there right now. But as long as there are people who grow into their 80s-90s as happy married couples, I don't think Marriage should be abolished, but it definitely isn't the same as it used to be.

[Kage]

It's ****ing disgusting that this issue is being discussed.

How did we let our government get where it is?

[PerpetualBurn]

I thought I was abundantly clear: Not abolish marriage completely. Abolish marriage AS A GOVERNMENT RUN INSTITUTION. I.e., the government completely washes its hands of marriage and leaves it for what it should be - a traditional, and culturally based institution that can be performed however the people involved want it to be.

Marriage provides people a lot of rights that it would be stupid to remove.

[Kage]

Yeah...uh, I think the only reason anyone even gets married is for those rights.

Besides, can you imagine how many lawyers would be out of jobs? lol

[TheDMV]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-07-13-divorce-usat_x.htm

Marquardt is still analyzing the results of her national survey of 1,500 young adults, now 18 to 35. About half are from divorced families and half from intact families. Those from divorced families were younger than 14 when the split occurred.

Yeah, I would hardly say "Nearly everybody"

Those kids are still growing up in families who believe in marriage. There parents were once married. It's way more socially accepted to raise your kids as a divorced couple than an unmarried couple. Just look at those stats, nearly half of the kids were from divorced families, it's not like they were shunned. Those kids are still growing up either in or around marriage.

[Volumnius Flush]

It's ****ing disgusting that this issue is being discussed.

How did we let our government get where it is?

Maybe the fact that a good majority of Americans still enjoy good, clean fun, free of drugs, alcohol, sex, and especially homosexuality.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Maybe the fact that a good majority of Americans still enjoy good, clean fun, free of drugs, alcohol, sex, and especially homosexuality.An appeal to the conduct of the rabble is an appeal to the collective sewer mind of the untermensch.

Now gay marriage is on the road to full blown legalisation, obviously the next step the government, infiltrated and compromised by f@g-enablers, is going to do is confiscate your children and hand them over to homosexuals to molest. :rolleyes:

[Volumnius Flush]

An appeal to the conduct of the rabble is an appeal to the collective sewer mind of the untermensch.

Now gay marriage is on the road to full blown legalisation, obviously the next step the government, infiltrated and compromised by f@g-enablers, is going to do is confiscate your children and hand them over to homosexuals to molest. :rolleyes:

This is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord! It must be stopped.

[The Stig]

I think it's the right thing to do. They ought to have the freedom to marry someone. As long as the government doesn't dictate what has to happen with religious marriages (telling the Catholic church they have to let gays marry if they want), I see no harm in it.

[Jude]

Marriage provides people a lot of rights that it would be stupid to remove.

You don't have to remove the rights, as I was saying above
You can still put somebody's name on whatever forms you have to fill out to give them rights to whatever it is

[Hababi]

I think it's the right thing to do. They ought to have the freedom to marry someone. As long as the government doesn't dictate what has to happen with religious marriages (telling the Catholic church they have to let gays marry if they want), I see no harm in it.

It actually imposes itself on the church in a different way, through church run orphanages. If it operates the same as it has in MA, it will force church run orphanages to recognize gay marriages the same as traditional ones.

[dei]

That's good.

[BridgeToSolace]

It actually imposes itself on the church in a different way, through church run orphanages. If it operates the same as it has in MA, it will force church run orphanages to recognize gay marriages the same as traditional ones.

Something tells me that church orphanages just want to get children to a loving couple.

Although I'm sure they'd prefer a straight couple, I doubt most would care a whole lot that the couple is going to hell when they die.

[Pebster49]

Even thought I agree with the decision of the courts in this case...I don't think they should have the right to do this. If the people spoke the people spoke...what if it was the other way around? People wanting gay marriages, but the courts find it unconstitutional...

[Mister Groovy]

It actually imposes itself on the church in a different way, through church run orphanages. If it operates the same as it has in MA, it will force church run orphanages to recognize gay marriages the same as traditional ones.

Another problem that would be easily taken care of by my solution.

[guitrguy]

Something tells me that church orphanages just want to get children to a loving couple.

Although I'm sure they'd prefer a straight couple, I doubt most would care a whole lot that the couple is going to hell when they die.

Depends on the church. Evangelist churches have this idea that having adopted gay parents is by default going to make the child gay. We just can't have that!

[dei]

Evangelist churches should be closed down and their members stoned to death.

[Hababi]

Depends on the church. Evangelist churches have this idea that having adopted gay parents is by default going to make the child gay. We just can't have that!

Most Christian denominations that run orphanages (particularly Catholic ones) object to gay relationships. Some Episcopal churches and a few other organizations don't much care but they're a pretty small minority.

[guitrguy]

Most Christian denominations that run orphanages (particularly Catholic ones) object to gay relationships. Some Episcopal churches and a few other organizations don't much care but they're a pretty small minority.

I'm pretty sure Methodists are fine with it too.

I fail to see why the government should be forced to respect discriminatory doctrine anyways. Thats like if the KKK ran an orphanage and refused to gives kids to minority/interracial couples.

[Mister Groovy]

I fail to see why the government should be forced to respect discriminatory doctrine anyways. Thats like if the KKK ran an orphanage and refused to gives kids to minority/interracial couples.

Why should they have to

It's their orphanage

The only time that would be a problem is if it's a government run orphanage

[guitrguy]

Why should they have to

It's their orphanage

The only time that would be a problem is if it's a government run orphanage

If they are completely private, then I don't have a problem with it.

[dei]

I'd probably bomb the orphanage.

[Volumnius Flush]

I'd probably bomb the orphanage.

That is very constructive there considering you would be killing many young children. But it may be for the better because the statistics show they will almost all wind up homeless and delinquent. 75% I believe.

[guitrguy]

That wasn't serious

[Hababi]

I'm pretty sure Methodists are fine with it too.

I fail to see why the government should be forced to respect discriminatory doctrine anyways. Thats like if the KKK ran an orphanage and refused to gives kids to minority/interracial couples.

I think that it's perfectly reasonable that an orphanage be allowed to operate within logical constraints, including setting its own standards for who can adopt children. And, I'm sure you do too--wouldn't you find it reasonable for an orphanage to not give a child to a polygamous household? Or, say a household which derives its income from the creation of internet p0rn?

[guitrguy]

I think that it's perfectly reasonable that an orphanage be allowed to operate within logical constraints, including setting its own standards for who can adopt children. And, I'm sure you do too--wouldn't you find it reasonable for an orphanage to not give a child to a polygamous household? Or, say a household which derives its income from the creation of internet p0rn?

Just purely by virtue of a polygamous house hold, or internet porn, no. Polygamy isn't necessarily harmful, and if the kid is kept away from the porn set, I don't see a problem.

[Volumnius Flush]

That wasn't serious

You have a knack for telling me when something is serious and when it's not. This makes twice in the last thirty minutes. But the question is should the comment have ever been made?

That's all I'm saying.

[Iscariot]

What a crock. Overturning a voter ban...

voters are bigoted which is why we have an impartial court to correct the mistakes of idiots with a ball point pen

[guitrguy]

You have a knack for telling me when something is serious and when it's not. This makes twice in the last thirty minutes. But the question is should the comment have ever been made?

That's all I'm saying.
You have knack for getting bent out of shape over inane comments.

[Volumnius Flush]

voters are bigoted which is why we have an impartial court to correct the mistakes of idiots with a ball point pen

But that is what democracy is for! So people will have a voice!

You have knack for getting bent out of shape over inane comments.

You have knack for typographical error.

[guitrguy]

And the judicial system is there to make sure people don't take rights away based on nonsensical morality.

[Iscariot]

But that is what democracy is for! So people will have a voice!

and the people get to have that voice as long as it doesn't restrict the rights of their fellow citizens as an attack against their sexual orientation

that's when the court has to step in and set things straight

[Volumnius Flush]

and the people get to have that voice as long as it doesn't restrict the rights of their fellow citizens as an attack against their sexual orientation

that's when the court has to step in and set things straight

But I can't reiterate enough, the gays were never given that right.

And the judicial system is there to make sure people don't take rights away based on nonsensical morality.

The gays never had that right according to any law!

[guitrguy]

But I can't reiterate enough, the gays were never given that right.



The gays never had that right according to any law!

What is that amendment that gives equal rights to all people?

[Volumnius Flush]

What is that amendment that gives equal rights to all people?

Remind me.

[Hababi]

Just purely by virtue of a polygamous house hold, or internet porn, no. Polygamy isn't necessarily harmful, and if the kid is kept away from the porn set, I don't see a problem.

That's a pretty big 'if' I would say. But even if you'd find it reasonable to give a child to such a household, do you think it would be unreasonable for an orphanage to decline to go through with that adoption?

[guitrguy]

That's a pretty big 'if' I would say. But even if you'd find it reasonable to give a child to such a household, do you think it would be unreasonable for an orphanage to decline to go through with that adoption?

If they had more reason than simply the examples you used, then no.

Remind me.

Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, and the Civil Rights act of 1964.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Zero, purely hypothetically, if you had children but couldn't raise them (ie you and your wife died in a car crash), would you prefer they be raised in a church orphanage or in a happy, stable same-sex home?

[Hababi]

Zero, purely hypothetically, if you had children but couldn't raise them (ie you and your wife died in a car crash), would you prefer they be raised in a church orphanage or in a happy, stable same-sex home?

Church orphanage.

[Iscariot]

But I can't reiterate enough, the gays were never given that right.

which is why it's a good thing that the courts are stepping in to ensure that they are

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

Church orphanage.

Why?

[dei]

Why?

Do you even have to ask?

[Volumnius Flush]

which is why it's a good thing that the courts are stepping in to ensure that they are

They were never given the right. No court should have the authority to give someone a right they never had to begin with. I understand inalienable rights, we already had them, but is marriage an inalienable right, and under what confines and limits can we allow marriage is the question.

[Hababi]

Why?

Because I think it'd be a better environment.

[Iscariot]

They were never given the right. No court should have the authority to give someone a right they never had to begin with.

yes they should that's why the courts exist is to uphold institute and maintain the rights of american citizens

I understand inalienable rights, we already had them, but is marriage an inalienable right, and under what confines and limits can we allow marriage is the question.

i would consider marriage an inalienable right

it's a legal process which results in government benefits and a certain legal recognition that a civil union does not offer

blacks can marry, asians can marry, the mentally handicapped can marry

why should homosexuals be restricted from the same activity that every other person on the planet is allowed to enjoy

that's discrimination and it's unconstitutional

[Hababi]

why should homosexuals be restricted from the same activity that every other person on the planet is allowed to enjoy


They're not. They can enter into a social institution by following the same guidelines as anyone else.

Likewise, a person who is simply non-sexual can marry someone.

[Iscariot]

They're not. They can enter into a social institution by following the same guidelines as anyone else.

Likewise, a person who is simply non-sexual can marry someone.

well in most states they can only get a civil union and to someone who is allowed the benefit of a real marriage this is seen as no big deal but to someone who is disallowed from a marriage certificate due to their sexual orientation this is a tremendous slap in the face

i would think that any rational conservative who believes in equality and the constitution would have no qualms about giving gay couples the right to a real marriage

i'm a liberal *** though so idk

[guitrguy]

They're not. They can enter into a social institution by following the same guidelines as anyone else.

What? If they were this thread and debate would be under a completely different context.

[Dave de Sylvia]

They're not. They can enter into a social institution by following the same guidelines as anyone else.

Likewise, a person who is simply non-sexual can marry someone.
It's not fair that women are allowed marry men and I'm not. I demand a husband!

[Hababi]

well in most states they can only get a civil union and to someone who is allowed the benefit of a real marriage this is seen as no big deal but to someone who is disallowed from a marriage certificate due to their sexual orientation this is a tremendous slap in the face

i would think that any rational conservative who believes in equality and the constitution would have no qualms about giving gay couples the right to a real marriage

i'm a liberal *** though so idk


I think you missed my point. Marriage exists as a social institution not to reward people for finding a longer term sex partner but rather for fostering the ideal of society. That's not to attack or persecute gays, it's just that certain things are better for society as a whole.

Higher education is another institutions that is partially public and supported by public funding measures. But not everyone is able to participate. You have to meet certain standards. Sometimes that means that people will be left out for the way they're born. But social institutions don't exist to give everyone a slap on the back and a little piece of paper. They exist to foster an ideal state of order.

This is the central issue: marriage is not a right. It's an institution with a unique legal framework. Earlier anti-miscegenation laws were based on bunk science. Monogomous male-female union is not.

[guitrguy]

male female union is based on societal construct. denying same sex union is deliberate discrimination.

[Hababi]

male female union is based on societal construct.

It's really not.

[JohnXDoe]

its fine if fags / queers / lesbos wanna marry. i'm ok with that. i'm not sure about apdoting kids, though?

this takes some getting used to. i see books like "Jane Has Two Moms" and "Jimmy's Two Dad's" and i'm just kinda wtf?

[Iscariot]

I think you missed my point.

that wouldn't surprise me :p

Marriage exists as a social institution not to reward people for finding a longer term sex partner but rather for fostering the ideal of society.

the ideal of american society is to live your life in any way that makes you happy

That's not to attack or persecute gays, it's just that certain things are better for society as a whole.

allowing homosexuals to have a legal marriage is not going to harm society nor will it help society

if you wanted to go that route you could say that heterosexual couples who do not intend to reproduce should be barred from marriage but that legislation would never be approved by voters because those couples are in fact heterosexual

Higher education is another institutions that is partially public and supported by public funding measures. But not everyone is able to participate.

actually anyone who puts in the effort to achieve scholarships can attend college and get a higher education no one is restricted from attending college for any reason unless they are too lazy to put in the work required to get there

You have to meet certain standards. Sometimes that means that people will be left out for the way they're born.

no this isn't how it works

But social institutions don't exist to give everyone a slap on the back and a little piece of paper. They exist to foster an ideal state of order.

and what would that be

This is the central issue: marriage is not a right. It's an institution with a unique legal framework. Earlier anti-miscegenation laws were based on bunk science. Monogomous male-female union is not.

elaborate on this please

if marriage is not a right then why are you anymore entitled to a legal marriage than a homosexual

[guitrguy]

It's really not.

Yeah it is, animals have multiple partners. Humans however can come up with the concept of monogamous unions and relationships. Love it self has meant different things in different cultures, ie the Greeks.

[Iscariot]

its fine if fags / queers / lesbos wanna marry. i'm ok with that. i'm not sure about apdoting kids, though?

this takes some getting used to. i see books like "Jane Has Two Moms" and "Jimmy's Two Dad's" and i'm just kinda wtf?

i can agree that not all homosexual couples are fit to raise children but a higher number of heterosexual couples fall into this category tbh

it's only one example but my step-uncle is gay and legally wed to his partner

they went through a long uphill battle to be able to adopt children and now they have 7 adopted children that they've been raising for years now

these kids have turned out fantastically which should be expected with two intelligent and successful parents (both of them are well-to-do corporate workers)

they have healthy relationships with their boyfriends/girlfriends and they do great in school and other than the awkward situation of having to tell their friends that they have two dads they're all very comfortable with their parents' orientation

i don't think that someone's sexual preference should be a determining factor in their ability to raise children

[Smokey D]

It's really not.

I wouldn't say it's a social construct as such but I would say the idea that a union can only exist between a man and a woman is socially constructed.

[Hababi]

the ideal of american society is to live your life in any way that makes you happy

Sure. And gays can live together the same as heterosexuals. So I don't see this point. Heck, in California, the civil union legislation had the exact same measures as marriage. It was different only in terminology.

Marriage has nothing to do with letting people be happy or anything of that sort. It's a social institution to promote ideal behavior.



if you wanted to go that route you could say that heterosexual couples who do not intend to reproduce should be barred from marriage but that legislation would never be approved by voters because those couples are in fact heterosexual

It's not based on merely being of reproductive age or capacity. It's based on the ideal relationship. Rewarding all people who engage in that relationship encourages others to follow in that path (and there is some legit academic research suggesting that the percentage of gays in a country is linked to that society's acceptance or rejection of homosexual behavior).



actually anyone who puts in the effort to achieve scholarships can attend college and get a higher education no one is restricted from attending college for any reason unless they are too lazy to put in the work required to get there

There are plenty of people who put in the effort but simply are not smart enough to attend college. The institution is not for them. Marriage, like higher education, is an institution, not a right.


and what would that be

Monogomous male-female relationship.



elaborate on this please

if marriage is not a right then why are you anymore entitled to a legal marriage than a homosexual

I'm as entitled to marry as anyone else meeting the qualifications for participating in the social institution. If you wanted to marry your sister, brother, father or grandmother, you would not be allowed, because that's not how the social institution is defined. That would be the person that you 'love', right? Well, that's not what marriage is for.

I wouldn't say it's a social construct as such but I would say the idea that a union can only exist between a man and a woman is socially constructed.

That depends on what you mean by union. Can two people of the same sex live together in a functional relationship? Sure. I'm not advocating bringing back sodomy laws, but the idea that we should reinterpret a social institution, removing is broader purpose and reducing it to merely a measure of adult consent is harmful to society.

[guitrguy]

Steve I can see you arguing this in with religious doctrine, but we are a secular society, and our laws should represent that.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

there is some legit academic research suggesting that the percentage of gays in a country is linked to that society's acceptance or rejection of homosexual behavior

If it's legit there should be a disclaimer somewhere saying the researchers are well aware that this is likely due to people in oppressive countries fearing reprisals.

[JohnXDoe]

i do believe this is an issue for the court and not for the ballot. so i'm glad it landed in the hands of the justices.

it is the responsibility of government to make sure EVERYBODY has certain rights. even whether or not anything is actually a "right" beyond the "life. liberty, and pursuit of happiness" thing (if that even is), marriage is something people do in this country out of love and / or otherwise.....but everyone usually does it, or at least considers it at one point in their life. they are "free" to do so, and enjoy the freedom of thought and consideration to be legally married. a person should not be excluded because they may love someone of the same sex.

of course this has a lot to do with religion, tradition, social order, etc.....control of marriage and who its for. i think we can broaden that scope a little to include same sex couples
i can agree that not all homosexual couples are fit to raise children but a higher number of heterosexual couples fall into this category tbh

it's only one example but my step-uncle is gay and legally wed to his partner

they went through a long uphill battle to be able to adopt children and now they have 7 adopted children that they've been raising for years now

these kids have turned out fantastically which should be expected with two intelligent and successful parents (both of them are well-to-do corporate workers)

they have healthy relationships with their boyfriends/girlfriends and they do great in school and other than the awkward situation of having to tell their friends that they have two dads they're all very comfortable with their parents' orientation

i don't think that someone's sexual preference should be a determining factor in their ability to raise children
like i said it will take some getting used to. it is a somewhat odd notion for most. certainly their is no shortage of kids in need of good homes. but tradition does weigh heavy on me about this, if not marriage.

man and woman, boy and girl (often times), male and female role models, the way a family works. i have no idea how your uncle's family works, although i'm sure its fine. i wonder when the kids might stop feeling "awkward" about it, however. and how it might affect their relationships as they get older. or at least whom they might choose to have (or whom might choose not to have) relationships with them.

but beyond that i suppose its ok. i just think traditionally yeah, all other things being equal, a good opposite sex family would at least be a more "normal" environment for children / kids then a same sex one. nothing special to "understand" or to explain or perhaps to even feel stigmatized by. i wouldn't know the true feelings of some kids but that might happen.

whatever the case, first comes marriage and then the baby carriage, etc....man and woman man and man woman and woman and on and on....it goes

[Iscariot]

Sure. And gays can live together the same as heterosexuals. So I don't see this point. Heck, in California, the civil union legislation had the exact same measures as marriage. It was different only in terminology.

a differing terminology that is instituted for the sole purpose of appeasing a certain group without giving them the same title as the rest of the population is discriminatory in nature

Marriage has nothing to do with letting people be happy or anything of that sort. It's a social institution to promote ideal behavior.


i would have to disagree


It's not based on merely being of reproductive age or capacity. It's based on the ideal relationship. Rewarding all people who engage in that relationship encourages others to follow in that path (and there is some legit academic research suggesting that the percentage of gays in a country is linked to that society's acceptance or rejection of homosexual behavior).

well of course it's linked

the more gays there are the more uncomfortable the heterosexual community becomes because homosexuality is adverse to their learned morals and guidelines

people treated blacks the same way prior to the civil rights movement

There are plenty of people who put in the effort but simply are not smart enough to attend college. The institution is not for them. Marriage, like higher education, is an institution, not a right.

the big difference in your analogy is that marriage is not based on intelligence or social merit it's a legal expression of love and a commitment made privately between two partners be it a male/female partnership or otherwise


Monogomous male-female relationship.

explain to me without religious reasoning (i'm catholic so you know i can't really argue against religious convictions i'm just trying to be practical here) why this is ideal


I'm as entitled to marry as anyone else meeting the qualifications for participating in the social institution.

you keep referencing these qualifications but what exactly are they

what makes a homosexual couple less qualified for marriage than a heterosexual couple

If you wanted to marry your sister, brother, father or grandmother, you would not be allowed

that depends on where you live

because that's not how the social institution is defined.

jerry lee lewis married his cousin and while he met a great amount of social criticism it was perfectly legal

That would be the person that you 'love', right? Well, that's not what marriage is for.

like i said; marriage is a legal expression of love and commitment

love is what marriage is all about

[Iscariot]

like i said it will take some getting used to. it is a somewhat odd notion for most. certainly their is no shortage of kids in need of good homes. but tradition does weigh heavy on me about this, if not marriage.

man and woman, boy and girl (often times), male and female role models, the way a family works. i have no idea how your uncle's family works, although i'm sure its fine. i wonder when the kids might stop feeling "awkward" about it, however. and how it might affect their relationships as they get older. or at least whom they might choose to have (or whom might choose not to have) relationships with them.

but beyond that i suppose its ok. i just think traditionally yeah, all other things being equal, a good opposite sex family would at least be a more "normal" environment for children / kids then a same sex one. nothing special to "understand" or to explain or perhaps to even feel stigmatized by. i wouldn't know the true feelings of some kids but that might happen.

whatever the case, first comes marriage and then the baby carriage, etc....man and woman man and man woman and woman and on and on....it goes

to be perfectly fair it's only more normal because that's what our religiously constructed society is used to

anything can be considered normal with enough exposure and acceptance

[Smokey D]

That depends on what you mean by union. Can two people of the same sex live together in a functional relationship? Sure. I'm not advocating bringing back sodomy laws, but the idea that we should reinterpret a social institution, removing is broader purpose and reducing it to merely a measure of adult consent is harmful to society.

Why?

[Hababi]

Why?


Because we set up social institutions to encourage order, and the ideal order is heterosexual relationships. That's what we're designed for and it's what is healthiest. Gays are free to live with each other (most laws against interracial relationships banned the very act of interracial sex, by the way), have the relationship they want, etc. but we're talking about how our society is going to work. And if it works to foster moral anarchy, it will suffer.


a differing terminology that is instituted for the sole purpose of appeasing a certain group without giving them the same title as the rest of the population is discriminatory in nature


There are also laws 'discriminating' against polygamous marriages, marriages that are of interbreeding, etc. and all of that is why? Because it goes against the order of things.

A man is free to live with 3 women, as is a woman to live with three men. But we don't reward those relationships with marriage licenses.



the more gays there are the more uncomfortable the heterosexual community becomes because homosexuality is adverse to their learned morals and guidelines

:confused: That doesn't seem to go with what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that where there is gay marriage and the such, there is a higher percentage of gay people--not the latter causing the former, but vice versa.




people treated blacks the same way prior to the civil rights movement


Ideas of 'race' are based on junk science. Looking at the different social implications of different sexual orientations is hardly comparable.


the big difference in your analogy is that marriage is not based on intelligence or social merit it's a legal expression of love and a commitment made privately between two partners be it a male/female partnership or otherwise


Marriage laws don't speak of love. You can marry someone you hate. You could tell the person doing the ceremony, "I hate this person and I'm only marrying them for their money!" and the marriage would proceed. So let's put this in the proper context--it's not based on love, but rather order.


explain to me without religious reasoning (i'm catholic so you know i can't really argue against religious convictions i'm just trying to be practical here) why this is ideal


Wait you're Catholic again? Dude your religious leanings seem to change day by day. Of course, I encourage you to stick with the church :p

But I haven't used a religious argument yet and I don't intend to. The Bible is very clear that adultery is a sin. I don't want the government to legislate against cheating, though (outside of the ramifications it carries in divorce settlements).


you keep referencing these qualifications but what exactly are they

what makes a homosexual couple less qualified for marriage than a heterosexual couple

The very fact that they're two persons of the same sex. The qualifications to enter into the social institution are that you be two persons of different sexes. You don't even have to love each other.


that depends on where you live


So far as I know there isn't a state that allows inbred marriages. But if it's solely based on adult consent then there's nothing to stand against it.


jerry lee lewis married his cousin and while he met a great amount of social criticism it was perfectly legal


That was also roughly 50 years ago. Mores and laws regarding age of consent have evolved since them.


love is what marriage is all about


If that's what you make it.

Examine marriage from a historical context. For the vast majority of human history, it was in relevant communities a property issue--the woman passed from being the property of her father to the property of her husband. Obviously this is backwards and has since changed.

It has, however, often carried with it a broader implication. Even after it was a matter merely of property, marriages were still arranged. There's still a great deal of encouragement in many circles to marry someone of good standing. Let's not lose sight of the fact that marriage has always been about much more than, and often to the exclusion of, our concept of love.

[Dave de Sylvia]

A man is free to live with 3 women, as is a woman to live with three men. But we don't reward those relationships with marriage licenses.
But few of us would have any moral objections to polygamy. The only aspect of polygamy that troubles me is the fact that, historically, it's been primarily a male right.

[Smokey D]

Because we set up social institutions to encourage order,

That's debatable. I would have said social institutions should serve the interests of justice. The preservation of an unjust institution for the sake of order is horrific.

and the ideal order is heterosexual relationships.

Says who?
That's what we're designed for and it's what is healthiest. Gays are free to live with each other (most laws against interracial relationships banned the very act of interracial sex, by the way), have the relationship they want, etc. but we're talking about how our society is going to work.

Surely in this view it's better to encourage long term monogamous relationships than to instituionally exclude people from them. That is, if a gay lifestyle, to use your oft quoted and hilariously superficial phrase, is unhealthy then you would want to encourage gay people to mimic a hetrosexual lifestyle as much as possible.

Not that a) gay people should have to live like hetrosexuals or b) there are such things as a 'gay lifestyle' and a 'hetrosexual lifestyle'.

And if it works to foster moral anarchy, it will suffer.

I don't think it's morally anarchic.

[TheDMV]

Because we set up social institutions to encourage order, and the ideal order is heterosexual relationships. That's what we're designed for and it's what is healthiest. Gays are free to live with each other (most laws against interracial relationships banned the very act of interracial sex, by the way), have the relationship they want, etc. but we're talking about how our society is going to work. And if it works to foster moral anarchy, it will suffer.

We can try to set up moral order, sure. Not at the expense of other people's basic rights however. Also, not at the expense of people's wishes when it harms no one. plus, not everyone is built for heterosexual relationships.

There are also laws 'discriminating' against polygamous marriages, marriages that are of interbreeding, etc. and all of that is why? Because it goes against the order of things.

A man is free to live with 3 women, as is a woman to live with three men. But we don't reward those relationships with marriage licenses.

These things all defy social conventions, sure. But as far as gay marriage and polygamy with consent go, more and more people are beginning to see that these things do no harm. Incest can cause problems with children, which is why laws are in place to prevent that. All are infringements on people's personal choice however.

Not "rewarding" them with marriage liscences? Why should they be denied marriage if they want it?

Ideas of 'race' are based on junk science. Looking at the different social implications of different sexual orientations is hardly comparable.

Orientation is a biological difference, but it's still not a choice. Being against gays is like being against tall people.

it's not based on love, but rather order.

I don't think the world would go spinning into chaos if this "order" was altered. for society, marriage may be about order, but for the people it is largely about love.

You don't even have to love each other.

So why should you have to be opposite sexes? Anything other than this order?

Obviously this is backwards and has since changed.

It has, however, often carried with it a broader implication. Even after it was a matter merely of property, marriages were still arranged. There's still a great deal of encouragement in many circles to marry someone of good standing. Let's not lose sight of the fact that marriage has always been about much more than, and often to the exclusion of, our concept of love.

Clearly it's changed before, why shouldn't it change again. Even if you believe marriage is about order, why should that stop other people from marrying who do it purely on the basis of love?

[Iscariot]

There are also laws 'discriminating' against polygamous marriages, marriages that are of interbreeding, etc. and all of that is why? Because it goes against the order of things.

inbreeding is hardly a parallel to homosexual marriage

A man is free to live with 3 women, as is a woman to live with three men. But we don't reward those relationships with marriage licenses.

the mormon church does

:confused: That doesn't seem to go with what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that where there is gay marriage and the such, there is a higher percentage of gay people--not the latter causing the former, but vice versa.

i think what you're misinterpreting is that the presence of gay marriage does not spawn more gay people, it simply gives them the courage to step out into the sunlight and admit that they're gay and they want to get married

if i were gay i would be ecstatic about the legalization of gay marriage and would want to take advantage of that opportunity before it was repealed

people enjoy having equal rights

Ideas of 'race' are based on junk science. Looking at the different social implications of different sexual orientations is hardly comparable.

social implications in marital relationships are not restricted to sexual orientation

Marriage laws don't speak of love.

traditional marriage vows include the phrase, "do you promise to love and honor person x"

You can marry someone you hate. You could tell the person doing the ceremony, "I hate this person and I'm only marrying them for their money!" and the marriage would proceed.

actually no it most likely wouldn't

if you could cite an incident where this very thing happened i'd be more inclined to agree with you

So let's put this in the proper context--it's not based on love, but rather order.

nope

Wait you're Catholic again? Dude your religious leanings seem to change day by day. Of course, I encourage you to stick with the church :p

the changes were pretty much for the sake of being able to argue from multiple sides of many different debates :p

i've always been christian and my full conversion to catholicism came during my time in the army

i do disagree strongly with some of the stances the church takes but i'm very loyal to the church as a community

But I haven't used a religious argument yet and I don't intend to. The Bible is very clear that adultery is a sin.

i won't disagree with this

but heterosexual partners engage in adultery all the time

I don't want the government to legislate against cheating, though (outside of the ramifications it carries in divorce settlements).

i think the government should fully recognize disloyalty in all post-marriage proceedings as it speaks strongly against the character of any person be they a homosexual or a heterosexual

if you claim that you love someone and swear to be loyal to them and then cheat on them, i don't care what sexual orientation you have you should not receive any relief from the courts

i think we agree on this point

The very fact that they're two persons of the same sex. The qualifications to enter into the social institution are that you be two persons of different sexes. You don't even have to love each other.

that's not a requirement for marriage that's a social ideal and social ideals are not permanent fixtures in any situation

So far as I know there isn't a state that allows inbred marriages. But if it's solely based on adult consent then there's nothing to stand against it.

the ozarks and some deep deep southern states do not prohibit these marriages

when lewis married his cousin she was 14-years old so it wasn't really a matter of adult consent

That was also roughly 50 years ago. Mores and laws regarding age of consent have evolved since them.

evolution does not equal justification

not all social progressions are appropriate

i'm not arguing for inter-family marriages or anything i'm just saying that social practices stemming from religious morals are not necessarily correct

If that's what you make it.

Examine marriage from a historical context. For the vast majority of human history, it was in relevant communities a property issue--the woman passed from being the property of her father to the property of her husband. Obviously this is backwards and has since changed.

well yeah i mean i can't really argue against this

the biggest benefit to marriage used to be the passing of the dowry

obviously if two homosexuals were to attempt a marriage 200 years ago this would not be acceptable because it was religiously immoral and traditionally unstable

like you said, we've evolved

homosexual marriage should not be something to shun in this day and age we should be adult enough and accepting enough to allow equal rights and proceedings to all individuals regardless of orientation race or creed

It has, however, often carried with it a broader implication. Even after it was a matter merely of property, marriages were still arranged. There's still a great deal of encouragement in many circles to marry someone of good standing. Let's not lose sight of the fact that marriage has always been about much more than, and often to the exclusion of, our concept of love.

marriage is about love

traditional marriages were perverted by the desire to progress one's wealth but that does not define the core purpose of marriage which is to form a union with the woman/man that you love to establish a life bond in which you two will forever be tied

[BridgeToSolace]

its fine if fags / queers / lesbos wanna marry. i'm ok with that. i'm not sure about apdoting kids, though?

this takes some getting used to. i see books like "Jane Has Two Moms" and "Jimmy's Two Dad's" and i'm just kinda wtf?

I think that my god parents (the people that my sister and I would have been raised by if my parents died) are both gay. They're close friends of a family.

My dad chose them over his own brother because they're far more responsible.

Really, there are shitty gay parents and shitty straight parents. Depends entirely on the couple. Gay parents would probably just be a lot more tolerant and accepting in general, though.

[cobert]

I dont think zero has answered the question as to why a monogamous heterosexual relationship is the ideal order of society. I am very anxious for his answer.

[dei]

Don't expect an answer that makes sense.

[PianoDan]

I dont think zero has answered the question as to why a monogamous heterosexual relationship is the ideal order of society. I am very anxious for his answer.
There's no doubt it's more natural.

In the case of children, it's surely more beneficial for a child to grow up with his natural, biological parents.

To start with, one or both gay parents have no biological relationship with the child. That's common in many other cases as well, but it's never a good thing for a child to have a step-father/mother or anyone other than their own biological father and mother. Gay parents never offer that, and often neither parent is the biological parent.

Secondly, a child has two different types of bonds with each of their parents. A mother and a father love a child equally well, but in different ways. A child is always going to be better off with his natural parents than with one parent, a step-parent, or two of the same gender, provided of course there's no abuse (emotional/physical or otherwise) or neglect from one (which, granted, there often is, and, also, there often is not from gay parents).

As far as families go, monogamous heterosexual couples are the ideal parents of children. Families are the basic building blocks, the fundamental unit, of a well-functioning society.

[Smokey D]

There's no doubt it's more natural.

There's nothing to say natural is better.

To start with, one or both gay parents have no biological relationship with the child. That's common in many other cases as well, but it's never a good thing for a child to have a step-father/mother or anyone other than their own biological father and mother. Gay parents never offer that, and often neither parent is the biological parent.

There are plenty of horrific biological parents and plenty of brilliant non-biological parents.

Secondly, a child has two different types of bonds with each of their parents. A mother and a father love a child equally well, but in different ways. A child is always going to be better off with his natural parents than with one parent, a step-parent, or two of the same gender, provided of course there's no abuse (emotional/physical or otherwise) or neglect from one (which, granted, there often is, and, also, there often is not from gay parents).

Lots of mothers and fathers are pretty neglectful.

Lots of family structures don't allow for input from both sides.

As far as families go, monogamous heterosexual couples are the ideal parents of children. Families are the basic building blocks, the fundamental unit, of a well-functioning society.

You and steve say this but you never furnish any evidence.

[PianoDan]

There's nothing to say natural is better.
Not always, but it is ideal. Surely it's ideal that a young child is given the opportunity to be raised by those to whom he has a natural bond.



There are plenty of horrific biological parents and plenty of brilliant non-biological parents.



Lots of mothers and fathers are pretty neglectful.

Lots of family structures don't allow for input from both sides.
No, and lots of biological mothers/fathers/family structures are not the ideal at all. Neglectful/abusive mothers and fathers are a tragedy, but that doesn't mean gay parents become ideal. The fact that the ideal is often not met by lousy horrific parents doesn't mean that less than ideal should be tolerated as perfectly okay. Ideally, a child would be raised by his biological mother and his biological father, together.



You and steve say this but you never furnish any evidence.
Do you have evidence against it? Maybe you do... what is it?

[Hababi]

That's debatable. I would have said social institutions should serve the interests of justice. The preservation of an unjust institution for the sake of order is horrific.

That can be a bit vague--I don't see how you can necessarily apply the notion of 'justice' to all social institutions. For instance, is it just that a person born with, say, fetal alcohol syndrome, will be unable to attend college and get a degree in order to get a higher paying job? Is it unjust?

In dealing with marriage, I can see some ways in which you can apply your justice/injustice framework: denying people marriage because they're of different 'races'. But this was based on flawed science to begin with, and there's where the injustice was--authorities were using utterly BS reasons to satisfy racist sentiments.

In the end, the goal of marriage is to foster and encourage the physiologically best relationship. That's monogomous male/female. That means no polygamy/polyandry, in part because it increases the likelyhood of the spread of STDs, and in part because we've determined that it's a bad environment for children to grow up in. And, no male/male or female/female, because that betrays the Darwinian instinct of self-preservation, and again, creates an unnatural environment for children. (No, that's not to say that gays are incapable of being good parents.) Again, we have marriage for a broader social purpose, and so I have to ask: what advantage does it offer society to reward homosexual relationships?



Says who?

Nature. Also the vast majority of human societies. Even the ancient societies that tolerated or even fostered homosexual relations (Spartans, Greeks), still had the ideal, encouraged institution of long term male/female relationship. There's a reason why completely unrelated religions discouraged homosexuality--because for a society, it doesn't make sense to encourage it. Again that's not to call gays horrible people or anything of the such.


Surely in this view it's better to encourage long term monogamous relationships than to instituionally exclude people from them.

By this standard however we should also foster other relationships that we view as non-ideal, such as polygamous and inter-family bonds. It's like the old argument about drug abuse, "well since they're going to do it anyway, just give them the drugs."

Here's the issue: are you going to contend that people need a slip of paper and a little ceremony to be faithful to each other? Plenty of people live together without being married, and are still more faithful to each other than a lot of married folk. I really don't think that gays are so depraved to where they need a little slip of paper to keep them from going out and having orgies.


I don't think it's morally anarchic.

I just like throwing out such terms :p


inbreeding is hardly a parallel to homosexual marriage


Inbreeding just means that they have an increased chance of producing children with defects. So what if you had two people with inhereted genetic diseases, will you stop them from marrying?

It's not just because they might produce children out of Deliverance. It's because we as a society find it unacceptable, even if they would pledge to not have children. So, I don't see how it's not parallel. It's discrimination.

By the way there's actually a greater historic record of society accepting long term inbreeding than long term gay relationships.

(Note that I'm not defending inbreeding).


the mormon church does


:lol: 100 years ago they did. And the US govt nearly put them out of business for it.


i think what you're misinterpreting is that the presence of gay marriage does not spawn more gay people, it simply gives them the courage to step out into the sunlight and admit that they're gay and they want to get married


So far as I know, the research wasn't just about who is out of the closet, but rather the longer term trends of sexual orientation.

While people like to believe that homosexuality is entirely determined by the genetic lottery, I don't think there's much evidence for it. In fact, I think there's a great deal to suggest that environmental factors, particularly early in life (first 10 years), play a determining role in a person's orientation.


social implications in marital relationships are not restricted to sexual orientation


People unalike, in terms of how we describe them in 'racial' terms, are more likely to have healthy children. From a Darwinian perspective, miscenation is healthy and should actually be encouraged.


traditional marriage vows include the phrase, "do you promise to love and honor person x"

People rewrite those all the time. You know the phrase "till death do you part"? Many people are changing that now, to say "while you're both willing."


actually no it most likely wouldn't


A church pastor probably would not. But a secular institution, a justice of the peace? His purpose isn't to issue spiritual guidance or approval. It's just to make it legal. And 'love' isn't part of the legal framework.


that's not a requirement for marriage that's a social ideal and social ideals are not permanent fixtures in any situation


Not all of them, no, but there are basically universal qualities amongst standards for long term relationships.


when lewis married his cousin she was 14-years old so it wasn't really a matter of adult consent


Check out the age of consent laws back then. I'm fairly sure that there were states that had it at 14 in that era.

]
not all social progressions are appropriate

I agree. So, take each one in the context of itself. Lower age of consent laws make sense, socially, psychologically, health-wise. Changing the definition of marriage to reward people engaging in a less than ideal behavior? :\


we should be adult enough and accepting enough to allow equal rights and proceedings to all individuals regardless of orientation race or creed


Well I thought we established that we are all perfectly willing to deny marriage based on orientation--as long as that orientation is one that we still disapprove of, for whatever reason.

But I dislike equating orientation with 'race', because as I said, it's junk science. And creed, again, we do discriminate. The FCLDS says Go Polygamy. We say No Polygamy. So we do discriminate based on creed.


traditional marriages were perverted by the desire to progress one's wealth but that does not define the core purpose of marriage which is to form a union with the woman/man that you love to establish a life bond in which you two will forever be tied


That's what we like to think of it as now. That's our romantic ideal.

[RockStar]

How about all the homo's and people who want abortions etc go live on their own island... I wonder how long until they die out...


Oh and freshly waxed box > some guys hairy bung hole... Sif be gay.

KW's Roll On!

[Smokey D]

That can be a bit vague--I don't see how you can necessarily apply the notion of 'justice' to all social institutions. For instance, is it just that a person born with, say, fetal alcohol syndrome, will be unable to attend college and get a degree in order to get a higher paying job? Is it unjust?

Well it's not just that they have FAS, but I see no reason to let mentally handicapped people go to university.

In the end, the goal of marriage is to foster and encourage the physiologically best relationship. That's monogomous male/female.

Proof.



And, no male/male or female/female, because that betrays the Darwinian instinct of self-preservation

That's the most glib bullshit I've ever heard.

and again, creates an unnatural environment for children.

So do the actions of millions of shitty hetero parents.

Again, we have marriage for a broader social purpose, and so I have to ask: what advantage does it offer society to reward homosexual relationships?

I dunno. To make gay people happy I guess. Whatever their reason is, you don't have the right to tell them no.


Nature.

Stupid reason. Marriage isn't natural.

Also the vast majority of human societies. Even the ancient societies that tolerated or even fostered homosexual relations (Spartans, Greeks), still had the ideal, encouraged institution of long term male/female relationship. There's a reason why completely unrelated religions discouraged homosexuality--because for a society, it doesn't make sense to encourage it.

Intolerance to homosexuality is in many ways a modern phenomenon.

By this standard however we should also foster other relationships that we view as non-ideal, such as polygamous and inter-family bonds. It's like the old argument about drug abuse, "well since they're going to do it anyway, just give them the drugs."

There's nothing automatic in tha step. and even if htere was, that's not a reason in itself to prevent gay marriage.

Here's the issue: are you going to contend that people need a slip of paper and a little ceremony to be faithful to each other? Plenty of people live together without being married, and are still more faithful to each other than a lot of married folk. I really don't think that gays are so depraved to where they need a little slip of paper to keep them from going out and having orgies.

So quit giving married people financial benefits gay people can't get.

[Hababi]

Well it's not just that they have FAS, but I see no reason to let mentally handicapped people go to university.

So you're going to discriminate against them based on how they're born, in order to achieve a societal ideal.



Proof.

:confused: Do I have to explain the birds and the bees, Smokey?




That's the most glib bullshit I've ever heard.

How?



So do the actions of millions of shitty hetero parents.

Society implements measures to keep that from happening.



I dunno. To make gay people happy I guess. Whatever their reason is, you don't have the right to tell them no.

It'd make the FCLDS happy to have their plural marriages. And it'd make some twisted freaks happy to be able to marry their family members.

You have to give a better reason than "it'll make them happy." We ended miscegenation laws because they were based on junk science (and again, additionally, real science shows that miscegenations is healthier).




Stupid reason. Marriage isn't natural.

It's a way to institutionalize what is natural.




Intolerance to homosexuality is in many ways a modern phenomenon.

So is the notion that long term homosexual relationships are to be encouraged by society. I'm not calling for intolerance or persecution. I'm merely saying that it makes no sense to reward such decisions. And the overwhelming body of human history agrees.



There's nothing automatic in tha step. and even if htere was, that's not a reason in itself to prevent gay marriage.


The automatic thing is that they're choosing a lifestyle that we as a society tolerate and do not persecute, but do not equate with the life-sustaining, evolutionarily engineered framework of male/female bonds.


So quit giving married people financial benefits gay people can't get.

I think that a fair argument can be made in this regard. I'm quite willing to listen to arguments concerning financial rewards and the such. But a lot of the financial benefits are overstated--just like the argument for hospital visitation is mostly bunk.

[RockStar]

I dunno. To make gay people happy I guess. Whatever their reason is, you don't have the right to tell them no.


What if someone enjoys strolling around naked and hanging a **** wherever they please. Who has the right to tell them no?

It doesn't 'hurt' anyone but it is something that society should not allow or encourage.

Thing I find amazing is that there's probably more hetero people pushing for this than homo's...

If it doesn't affect you personally, stfu.

[sweboy]

Of course marriage between close relatives and polygamy should be allowed.

And if gay marriages spawns more gay people, that is only a positive thing because that increases the amount of potential partners for gays.

[dei]

What if someone enjoys strolling around naked and hanging a **** wherever they please. Who has the right to tell them no?

It doesn't 'hurt' anyone but it is something that society should not allow or encourage.

Thing I find amazing is that there's probably more hetero people pushing for this than homo's...

If it doesn't affect you personally, stfu.

What?

[RockStar]

What?

Did I stutter?

[Smokey D]

So you're going to discriminate against them based on how they're born, in order to achieve a societal ideal.

It's not discrimination if they actually aren't capable of doing what's required.

Do I have to explain the birds and the bees, Smokey?


There's a lot more to healthy relationships than just sex.

How?

Because it's a complete misdirection about what's important. It isn't up to gay people to perpetuate teh human race.

Society implements measures to keep that from happening.


If society can do that, it can implement systems to prevent bad hetero and gay parents from having children but allow good parents of either persuasion to go ahead.



It'd make the FCLDS happy to have their plural marriages. And it'd make some twisted freaks happy to be able to marry their family members.

I'm perfectly fine with it. My only problem is that in most cases there seems to be abuse. But that's quite incidental to whether we should alow it for non-abusive people.

You have to give a better reason than "it'll make them happy." We ended miscegenation laws because they were based on junk science (and again, additionally, real science shows that miscegenations is healthier).

No once again you are placing the burden of securing the human race in entirely the wrong place.

So is the notion that long term homosexual relationships are to be encouraged by society. I'm not calling for intolerance or persecution. I'm merely saying that it makes no sense to reward such decisions. And the overwhelming body of human history agrees.


I can cite you mountains of anthropological studies to the contrary. And finally you expose your fatal flaw: you say it's a choice but you absolutely no evidence that it is.

The automatic thing is that they're choosing a lifestyle that we as a society tolerate and do not persecute, but do not equate with the life-sustaining, evolutionarily engineered framework of male/female bonds.


What?



I think that a fair argument can be made in this regard. I'm quite willing to listen to arguments concerning financial rewards and the such. But a lot of the financial benefits are overstated--just like the argument for hospital visitation is mostly bunk.

Tax breaks.

Inheritence issues.

Those are enough.

What if someone enjoys strolling around naked and hanging a **** wherever they please. Who has the right to tell them no?

It doesn't 'hurt' anyone but it is something that society should not allow or encourage.

That shouldn't be against the law either.

If it doesn't affect you personally, stfu.

Merciless irony.

[dei]

Did I stutter?

No, but you said something incredibly stupid and I don't know if you really meant it or if you just made a string of really bad typos.

[RockStar]

stfu keyboard warrior.

[Smokey D]

Go away rockstar.

[RockStar]

Why does society have to 'tolerate' gays? Surely the fact that they need to be 'tolerated' means somethings a miss with it...

[Smokey D]

You're a disgrace.

And completely illogical.

[dei]

No.

[Hababi]

It's not discrimination if they actually aren't capable of doing what's required.


In other words, they don't meet the standards to participate in that institution. Well, two people of the same sex don't meet the standards to participate in the social institution of marriage.


There's a lot more to healthy relationships than just sex.


Of course. But I said what is physiologically best, and that's male-female. Health wise, monogomous male/female. That's why the government sanctions that relationship and that relationship only.


Because it's a complete misdirection about what's important. It isn't up to gay people to perpetuate teh human race.


No, it's up to straight people, and that's why we sanction heterosexual relationships.


If society can do that, it can implement systems to prevent bad hetero and gay parents from having children but allow good parents of either persuasion to go ahead.


A gay couple can be responsible and caring, but the very fact that they are two persons of the same sex creates an unnatural environment for children and is unhealthy for them.


No once again you are placing the burden of securing the human race in entirely the wrong place.


I don't place it on gay people. I place it on society.

There will be gay people, there will be people of illegal sexual persuations which I won't equate with homosexuality. There will be people who are completely non sexual. Should we reward a person for concluding that they are simply non-sexual, and have found true love in the absence of a relationship. That makes every bit as much sense as rewarding gay couples, and that is no sense.

But the burden of perpetuating the human race isn't on the above. It's on society. And one of the ways society does that is by rewarding people engaging in the type of relationship that affords such perpetuation.


I can cite you mountains of anthropological studies to the contrary.

Find me a society that emrbaced long term homosexual bonds at the exclusion of male/female relationships. That's not the Spartans or the Greeks. You'll find societies who have a place for homosexuality, but that place is not at the exclusion of essentially a lone emphasis on heterosexual long term relationships. Why? Because a society that encourages homosexuality and equates it with heterosexuality is basically acting against its own self-interest and survival instinct.


And finally you expose your fatal flaw: you say it's a choice but you absolutely no evidence that it is.

I'm not saying it's solely a choice. There's some data to suggest that genetics plays a role. Early childhood experiences also play a role. Sexual orientation can be addressed with therapy.


What? What?



Tax breaks.

Inheritence issues.

Those are enough.


So, say we established legislation to ensure that inheritence was afforded for any person's partner, and the same with tax breaks.

Now, I can see the point of the latter, as it's a personal property issue. The former exists as a way of encouraging people to live the healthiest way possible.

[Amit]

Why does society have to 'tolerate' gays? Surely the fact that they need to be 'tolerated' means somethings a miss with it...

yeah why should blacks or even worse, whites, have to be tolerated? surely the fact that they need to be 'tolerated' means somethings "a miss" with it...

pure genius you idiot

[Hababi]

Amit should not be tolerated.

[Amit]

that's fine i don't want to be tolerated by white sorcerers >:[

practice your white man magic elsewhere!

[Hababi]

Odin* will reign fire upon you!

*Oden: http://images22.fotki.com/v752/photos/7/798917/4263496/070331_oden16-vi.jpg

[Amit]

hahaha

also steve, have you ever met a gay person or even more rarely, a gay couple? i know dozens here at jhu and they aren't hellbent on the destruction of non-procreation in american society

they just want to get married, raise great kids (to be straight or gay; they honestly don't prefer it one way or the other), and happily live their life just as any normal and decent heterosexual couple might

this is a universal viewpoint i've seen espoused with every gay man and woman i've met

homosexuals comprise a small minority of american life; our future as a species/society is not going to be hindered by them getting married so i suggest stop trying to use that argument...it doesn't work

[RockStar]

yeah why should blacks or even worse, whites, have to be tolerated? surely the fact that they need to be 'tolerated' means somethings "a miss" with it...

pure genius you idiot

Because being black or white is not a lifestyle choice (well, ignoring michael jackson).

[Amit]

Because being black or white is not a lifestyle choice (well, ignoring michael jackson).

neither is being gay

but you'd have to meet a gay person to know that

but if you want to play that way

why should being jewish be tolerated? surely the fact that they need to be bla bla bla rockstar is a shitmongrel bla bla

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

And, no male/male or female/female, because that betrays the Darwinian instinct of self-preservation, and again, creates an unnatural environment for children. (No, that's not to say that gays are incapable of being good parents.)

If you want to look at it from a Darwinian perspective, you have to look at it from a purely neutral perspective of "does this behaviour, in the genetic code of a species at a certain rate, encourage the survival of this genetic code?". If you are indeed looking at it from a Darwinian perspective, then the obvious assumption that homosexuality appears to be a trait that should eliminate itself in less than one generation (as homosexuals won't reproduce at all) is wrong, and you have to look for an explanation of how it could possibly be advantageous for X percentage of males and Y percentage of females to have no urge to reproduce. Otherwise species that carry the genetic code containing the gene(s) for homosexuality would have been unable to compete with species that were 100% heterosexual and been eliminated.

There are a lot of other behaviours in animals that appear detrimental to the survival of the individual that still somehow get preserved. My guess is that in a species you don't need 100% of the contributing members of a social group to be competing to reproduce, and it may not be harmful to have a few effeminate males or manly females contributing to the survival of those who reproduce through their daily activities without themselves competing.

[Amit]

gay men are not effeminate and gay women are not manly :P

[RockStar]

What question?

Legally they can't give consent. So where are the people fighting for children's rights to have sex?

[beso negro]

I love how people think that pedo's CHOOSE to molest/rape children but gay people oh **** they can't help it, they were born like that!!!

if a 10 year old boy wants to make love to a 60 year old man then it should be legal. fortunately that's never the case so you can't compare that with gay sex.

[Amit]

i guess you're a gay guy since you didn't even affirm my inquiry about you being a heterosexual male; why are you fighting against your own sexuality?

What question?

but if you want to play that way

why should being jewish be tolerated? surely the fact that they need to be bla bla bla rockstar is a poopmongrel bla bla

moving on...

Legally they can't give consent. So where are the people fighting for children's rights to have sex?

psychologically, they can't give consent either

read up on children's cognitive capabilities before trying to walk down this road

your argument fails miserably (for the third time too!)

this was the fastest forensic demolition ever on this forum i think

[Mister Groovy]

What question?

Legally they can't give consent. So where are the people fighting for children's rights to have sex?

Oh my God worst analogy ever

Anyway, Zero, this is why it's illegal to deny gay people the right to marry their gay lover: it's discrimination based on gender which is illegal in the US. You're telling Sally she can't marry Molly, why? Because they both happen to be a woman. If one was a man, that would be fine. But since both happen to be women they can't? That's basically identical to telling a woman she can't run for office or vote because she happens to be a woman

Extend the analogy appropriately to male homos as well

[RockStar]

If it was so bad you'd be able to explain why

Gay's right to marry has nothing to do with the fact they are male or female... It's got to do with the fact that they want to marry someone of the SAME sex.

So saying a female can't run for office because she's a female is completely irrelevant. Unless the office is female and she wants to marry it?

[Mister Groovy]

Gay's right to marry has nothing to do with the fact they are male or female... It's got to do with the fact that they want to marry someone of the SAME sex.
No
You're saying that Molly can't marry Sally because Molly is a woman
You can turn it either way, but if in one way it comes out as something blatantly discriminatory and illegal then you have to outlaw that discrimination

\

[RockStar]

No
You're saying that Molly can't marry Sally because Molly is a woman
You can turn it either way, but if in one way it comes out as something blatantly discriminatory and illegal then you have to outlaw that discrimination

\

Well I like driving a modified car which the government and department of transport deems 'illegal' even though it stops, turns and handles better than 95% of the **** on the road. That's discrimination against me. It should be made legal then using your logic.

[Mister Groovy]

Well I like driving a modified car which the government and department of transport deems 'illegal' even though it stops, turns and handles better than 95% of the **** on the road. That's discrimination against me. It should be made legal then using your logic.

That's not discrimination against you based on your gender, race, nationality, sexual orientation or something else you can't control

[RockStar]

That's not discrimination against you based on your gender, race, nationality, sexual orientation or something else you can't control

Just wondering why you mentioned sexual orientation as something you can't control...

[Mister Groovy]

Just wondering why you mentioned sexual orientation as something you can't control...

Maybe because you can't control it

And if you want to argue that people choose it you can get on the bus with the creationists and other wackos who make up things in order to validate viewpoints with no evidence for them

[Amit]

Nice lie. You're such a douche on the internet haha. So you finished being caught up in my web of KW stirring yet?

fortunately, unlike you, my sexuality is so secure that the my real life relationships, past and current, don't shrivel and vaporize the moment someone of your intellectual standing (or lack thereof) attacks them in an act of desperation

but i'm glad you're doing your best to continue avoiding all the questions you dodged on the last page

if you're going to say that all of this has been you "stirring things up" then i hope you enjoy the ban you're going to get from smokey d for trolling and spam

we'll miss your dumbass arguments though (no we won't) hehe

[RockStar]

Maybe because you can't control it

And if you want to argue that people choose it you can get on the bus with the creationists and other wackos who make up things in order to validate viewpoints with no evidence for them

Speaking of creationists... How can you prove otherwise?

Neither can be proven right. Best way to find out is dying. We'll all find out if our beliefs were right.

Sexual PREFERENCE is a choice. Do you prefer guys or do you prefer girls?

Anyone with a healthy upbringing/mental state will not turn out gay. And yes, even gays can give children a healthy upbringing.

I would like to know the honest number of people who are gay because of sexual abuse or other similar shock as a child.

[RockStar]

fortunately, unlike you, my sexuality is so secure that the my real life relationships, past and current, don't shrivel and vaporize the moment someone of your intellectual standing (or lack thereof) attacks them in an act of desperation

but i'm glad you're doing your best to continue avoiding all the questions you dodged on the last page

if you're going to say that all of this has been you "stirring things up" then i hope you enjoy the ban you're going to get from smokey d for trolling and spam

we'll miss your dumbass arguments though (no we won't) hehe

So that movie 'A Perfect World' is on tv... pretty sure Kevin Costner just gave this chick a rim job.

[Amit]

Speaking of creationists... How can you prove otherwise?

it's pretty easy

you look at the mountain of evidence for evolution (and the complete lack of evidence for creationism) and that should give you a hint as to which view is probabilistically higher

Sexual PREFERENCE is a choice. Do you prefer guys or do you prefer girls?

something as complex as sexual preference isn't choices; if it was as simple as a choice, then you could easily switch between being sexually attracted to men and being sexually attracted to women

go to school this is something you learn in middle school

Anyone with a healthy upbringing/mental state will not turn out gay. And yes, even gays can give children a healthy upbringing.

that's funny because i know plenty of gay people who had a healthy upbringing/mental state and great parents

I would like to know the honest number of people who are gay because of sexual abuse or other similar shock as a child.

this makes no sense; why would a guy become gay after the horrors of being sexually abused as a child by a man (since this is the most prevalent scenario of sexual abuse on children)

i would like to know the honest number of people who are complete idiots because of sexual abuse or other similar shock as a child

would you like to share your personal experiences

[sweboy]

Dear RockStar,

since sexuality is a choice, could you if you wanted to decide to suddenly be physically attracted to men instead of women? I mean you would never do that because you're a real heterosexual MAN and you have a hot girlfriend with a freshly shaved box, but hypothetically, could you if you wanted just decide to find men hot?

[BridgeToSolace]

Dear RockStar,

since sexuality is a choice, could you if you wanted to decide to suddenly be physically attracted to men instead of women? I mean you would never do that because you're a real heterosexual MAN and you have a hot girlfriend with a freshly shaved box, but hypothetically, could you if you wanted just decide to find men hot?

I read a study in my psych class that showed that it was fairly easy to distinguish between gay men and straight men by showing them porn.

Gay men will get an erection at gay porn, straight men wont. The opposite is true for straight porn.

Girls actually got aroused by lesbian porn regardless of their sexual orientation, though. Which is, if I do say, awesome.

[BridgeToSolace]

PS I forget where but someone said that banning gay marriage is illegal...

check out Baker vs Nelson.

It also violates the 14th amendment, just like the Separate But Equal doctrine did. It'll be overturned upon reexamination at some point.

[VomitStainedCretin]

I read a study in my psych class that showed that it was fairly easy to distinguish between gay men and straight men by showing them animal photographs.

Gay men will get an erection at gay animal photographs, straight men wont.I can't verify this but I think I read somewhere that other studies have suggested straight men are more aroused by gay p0rn.

[Smokey D]

In other words, they don't meet the standards to participate in that institution. Well, two people of the same sex don't meet the standards to participate in the social institution of marriage.

No true scotsman.

Of course. But I said what is physiologically best, and that's male-female. Health wise, monogomous male/female. That's why the government sanctions that relationship and that relationship only.

Marriage shouldn't be a government tool.

And what is physiologically best is completely irrelevant.

No, it's up to straight people, and that's why we sanction heterosexual relationships.

Yes so why prevent gay people getting married.


I don't place it on gay people. I place it on society.

See above.

There will be gay people, there will be people of illegal sexual persuations which I won't equate with homosexuality. There will be people who are completely non sexual. Should we reward a person for concluding that they are simply non-sexual, and have found true love in the absence of a relationship. That makes every bit as much sense as rewarding gay couples, and that is no sense.

You seem to be suggesting that marriage should be used as a bargaining chip to persuade gay people to become straight.

But the burden of perpetuating the human race isn't on the above. It's on society. And one of the ways society does that is by rewarding people engaging in the type of relationship that affords such perpetuation.

You seem to be suggesting that allowing gay marriage is going to turn all straight people gay. If gay marriage has no cost, there's no reason to stop it. Show that gay marriage has a cost.

Find me a society that emrbaced long term homosexual bonds at the exclusion of male/female relationships. That's not the Spartans or the Greeks. You'll find societies who have a place for homosexuality, but that place is not at the exclusion of essentially a lone emphasis on heterosexual long term relationships. Why? Because a society that encourages homosexuality and equates it with heterosexuality is basically acting against its own self-interest and survival instinct.

There's nothing that promotes gay marriage to the exclusion of gay marriage. But that's an awesome red herring.

No one here is saying at we should exclude heterosexual marriage. No one is even saying we should promote homosexual marriages. All we're saying is that there should be no restrictions.


I'm not saying it's solely a choice. There's some data to suggest that genetics plays a role. Early childhood experiences also play a role. Sexual orientation can be addressed with therapy.

Thats highly debatable.

What?

I didn't understand what you're trying to say.

So, say we established legislation to ensure that inheritence was afforded for any person's partner, and the same with tax breaks.

Now, I can see the point of the latter, as it's a personal property issue. The former exists as a way of encouraging people to live the healthiest way possible.

You really think gay people are thinking about their tax issues when they decide to enter into a homosexual relationship?

[JohnXDoe]

i'm comin' outta da closet itt :smoke:

[Hababi]

Marriage shouldn't be a government tool.

Well this is the crux of the disagreement here. If you decentralize marriage and disconnect it from any role in society then it's easy to understand why you'd be ok with removing any standards beyond adult consent.

But I just don't see this. This isn't what the institution was intended for in America, and it isn't historically what it has existed for. The government sanctions marriage to promote order. If there's no order in it, then marriage is worthless. There's no use in even having an institution with no standards.



And what is physiologically best is completely irrelevant.


Only if you view marriage completely detached from society.


Yes so why prevent gay people getting married.

Amongst other reasons, because that would be a way of the government equating sexual persuasions. Well, they're not equally beneficial to society. One promotes, one does not.

And again I must ask: what's so darn important for gays to have that piece of paper? Can they not have a happy relationship without it? Plenty of heteros live together long term without getting married and don't feel the worse off for it.


You seem to be suggesting that marriage should be used as a bargaining chip to persuade gay people to become straight.


I don't think that it's the government's role to compel people to address their sexual persuasion, unless it's predatory (pedophilia and the such). Keeping marriage the way it is no more tries to persuade gays to become straight than it does a non-sexual person to become sexual. But changing marriage to merely be "find love" means that we should give a license to someone who finds love with their video game, or with football.


You seem to be suggesting that allowing gay marriage is going to turn all straight people gay. If gay marriage has no cost, there's no reason to stop it. Show that gay marriage has a cost.


If the research holds, there would be an increase in the gay population over time. We should instead be emphasizing pro-growth lifestyles.

There's nothing that promotes gay marriage to the exclusion of gay marriage. But that's an awesome red herring.

:confused:



No one here is saying at we should exclude heterosexual marriage. No one is even saying we should promote homosexual marriages. All we're saying is that there should be no restrictions.


Yes and what I'm saying is that this is not found in functioning societies. Societies that had acceptance of homosexuality accepted it only within the confines of it not interfering with heterosexual activity.


Thats highly debatable.


It's an area in which the research will develop much mroe in the coming years, but it's not feasable that childhood experience will be discarded as a contributing factor.


You really think gay people are thinking about their tax issues when they decide to enter into a homosexual relationship?

I don't, and this is why I think it's not worth bringing up as a point in terms of a pro-gay marriage argument. It's a political strong arm move.

[Smokey D]

Well this is the crux of the disagreement here. If you decentralize marriage and disconnect it from any role in society then it's easy to understand why you'd be ok with removing any standards beyond adult consent.

But I just don't see this. This isn't what the institution was intended for in America, and it isn't historically what it has existed for. The government sanctions marriage to promote order. If there's no order in it, then marriage is worthless. There's no use in even having an institution with no standards.

I really cannot see that the only reason marriage is practiced is for order. And I really cannot see the that the government has a role in determing which relationships, freely consented, are valid or not.

Amongst other reasons, because that would be a way of the government equating sexual persuasions. Well, they're not equally beneficial to society. One promotes, one does not.

Question begging. You're presuming being gay is a detriment.

And again I must ask: what's so darn important for gays to have that piece of paper? Can they not have a happy relationship without it? Plenty of heteros live together long term without getting married and don't feel the worse off for it.

I don't presume to know the particular desires and feelings of individual gay people. I'm sure plenty of gays have perfectly acceptable relationships without getting married.

But I suppose one reason which you keep on discounting and I shall get to later is the financial benefits marriage confers.

I don't think that it's the government's role to compel people to address their sexual persuasion, unless it's predatory (pedophilia and the such). Keeping marriage the way it is no more tries to persuade gays to become straight than it does a non-sexual person to become sexual. But changing marriage to merely be "find love" means that we should give a license to someone who finds love with their video game, or with football.

You do yourself a disservice by making such poor comparison. If keeping marriage restricted to heteros is not about trying to make gay people straight why do you keep on talking about 'government sanction' for order and benefitting preserving the human race.

If the research holds, there would be an increase in the gay population over time. We should instead be emphasizing pro-growth lifestyles.

Begging the question again.


Yes and what I'm saying is that this is not found in functioning societies. Societies that had acceptance of homosexuality accepted it only within the confines of it not interfering with heterosexual activity.

Yes. But gay people getting married isn't going to affect heterosexuality. By definition it's restricted to gay people. Unless you think allowing gay marriage is going to induce a flood of people coming out or something, I don't see where the problem arises.

It's an area in which the research will develop much mroe in the coming years, but it's not feasable that childhood experience will be discarded as a contributing factor.

Sure but the relationship between homosexuality and parenting is very tenuous.

I don't, and this is why I think it's not worth bringing up as a point in terms of a pro-gay marriage argument. It's a political strong arm move.

Why should gay people suffer tax hardships not placed on married couples?

[Dave de Sylvia]

And again I must ask: what's so darn important for gays to have that piece of paper? Can they not have a happy relationship without it? Plenty of heteros live together long term without getting married and don't feel the worse off for it.
You're assuming the piece of paper is the issue. Which for many it clearly isn't.

[Smokey D]

More to the point, if it's only a piece of paper why is he so opposed to granting it to gay people?

[Bfhurricane]

This whole thing isn't a question of politics, its a question of ethics. Ethics are what our entire system of law is based off of.

On an ethical and religious standpoint, I dont believe gays were ever meant to be married. But then again, because I cant tell somebody else what is intrinsically right or wrong, I cant make a political case that marriage ought to stay traditional. The fact that the Bible shuns gay interraction means nothing in politics. But why do so many people swear on it in politics?

[PianoDan]

This whole thing isn't a question of politics, its a question of ethics. Ethics are what our entire system of law is based off of.

On an ethical and religious standpoint, I dont believe gays were ever meant to be married. But then again, because I cant tell somebody else what is intrinsically right or wrong, I cant make a political case that marriage ought to stay traditional. The fact that the Bible shuns gay interraction means nothing in politics. But why do so many people swear on it in politics?
If as you say on an ethical standpoint gays are not meant to be married, and if ethics are what our entire system of law is based on, then how is the ethical consideration anything but relevant?

And why can't the government decide what is right or wrong, at least in a legal sense? Why can't somebody tell somebody else that certain things are intrinsically right or wrong? Morals are not relative.

[guitrguy]

If as you say on an ethical standpoint gays are not meant to be married, and if ethics are what our entire system of law is based on, then how is the ethical consideration anything but relevant?

And why can't the government decide what is right or wrong, at least in a legal sense? Why can't somebody tell somebody else that certain things are intrinsically right or wrong? Morals are not relative.

orly? care to point me to the conclusive universal truth of this statement?

[Jude]

The fact that the Bible shuns gay interraction means nothing in politics. But why do so many people swear on it in politics?

They're stupid as ****

Morals are not relative.
You're wrong

[Bfhurricane]

Im a very moral/religious guy, so I obviously have my own Christian views towards controversial topics such as marriage and abortion. My point is this: I think Im right. I think that marriage should stay between a man and a woman, because God made us like that. But that IS relative, so many people in this country would be extremely offended if I tried to instill my beliefs on how the system should work on them.

So, our government (and just about every government nowadays) operates to cater to everybodys needs and wants, including the gays who are saying its unfair for them to be declined marriage. Because this is a free country, and not everybody has to have the same Christian viewpoint as mine. But I will always have that sense in the back of my head, that evangelical calling, to stand up and declare when I think something is flat out wrong or immoral. Which, I think this is. But this country will continue to secularize, and not in the too distant future, every state will allow gay marriage.

[Amit]

the problem is that there is no god so your crucial point about "god making us like that" fails miserably

[Iscariot]

amit "there is no god" is a fallacy to people of devout faith

it also carries an ignorant undertone when used by someone who is intelligent because you're not just denouncing the existence of god which would be a perfectly valid stance to take but you're denouncing the entire premise of faith and religious practice which as much as you may disagree with it's methods is a tremendous binding factor in many communities and the only reason those communities are as strong and connected as they are

religion is not so much a blind faith in a greater power but a means of bringing people together without a greater purpose than to be a community tied together by shared morals and beliefs

a community comprised entirely of vehement atheists would be a far more violent and intolerant entity than a community of church going christians

anyway this is not what this thread is about but i wanted to try and get that out of the way :)

anyway not all christians are against gay marriage

i for one am not and i know many more who are with me and they too are practicing catholics so we're not all crazy jerks

[Amit]

it also carries an ignorant undertone when used by someone who is intelligent because you're not just denouncing the existence of god which would be a perfectly valid stance to take but you're denouncing the entire premise of faith and religious practice which as much as you may disagree with it's methods is a tremendous binding factor in many communities and the only reason those communities are as strong and connected as they are

you're making it sound like this is a good thing

the only thing that religion provides for "strong" communities is the justification for things like sexual abuse, the oppression of women, and honor killings

a community comprised entirely of vehement atheists would be a far more violent and intolerant entity than a community of church going christians

oh my; what a completely fair and balanced comparison!

[Iscariot]

it is a good thing

you're over-generalizing and stereotyping

and i've seen more violent atheists than violent christians in every place i've ever been so i'm js

i'm not saying all atheists i'm saying the ones i've personally met have not been nice people to be around

[Amit]

it is a good thing

i don't see how having stubborn and rigid communities is a good thing

you're over-generalizing and stereotyping

where?

and i've seen more violent atheists than violent christians in every place i've ever been so i'm js

that's funny i've seen more violent and intolerant christians, sikhs, muslims, hindus, and jews than athiests

i mean woops i forgot the only people who believe in god are christians

i'm not saying all atheists i'm saying the ones i've personally met have not been nice people to be around

athiests will not drag your daughter out in the street to rape and kill her because they saw a boy looking at her wrong at the local oasis smoothie stand

[Smokey D]

Have you met like 2?

[Iscariot]

Have you met like 2?

since amit's argument is juvenile i'm going to ignore it because i'm feeling too :) right now to bother

and if you're asking me if i've only met 2 atheists the answer is no there is a tremendous atheist movement where i live because i live in a very liberal area

a person of faith might try to "save" you which can be insulting enough i know but i've seen atheists jump anyone of faith and try to, as they put it, "beat the god out of them"

maybe they're jealous because god has an infinitely large penis or something but they're aggressive monkeys as far as i can tell

[Amit]

oh wow a person of faith ignoring something call the CNNs

i wish god was real because this whole athiest thing is almost too satisfying and easy

[Smokey D]

a person of faith might try to "save" you which can be insulting enough i know but i've seen atheists jump anyone of faith and try to, as they put it, "beat the god out of them"


Get some better friends. I have never seen anyone beaten up because of their religion or lack of.

[Jude]

the only thing that religion provides for "strong" communities is the justification for things like sexual abuse, the oppression of women, and honor killings





That's the worst generalization I've ever seen, Zero's included

[Hababi]

ITT Jude posts something I agree in :p

Amit, religion can and has been used as an excuse for people to do very bad thing, but so have belief systems entirely devoid of a belief in God. I'm sure you know enough of history that I don't have to elaborate on this.

[Jude]

And not to mention the huge amounts of religious communities that don't engage in sexual abuse, oppression of women or honor killing
But I would think that goes with out saying

Anyway, zero I'm still waiting for links to those Nazi-defending posts of mine. Or just change your username and get it over with.

[Amit]

ITT Jude posts something I agree in :p

Amit, religion can and has been used as an excuse for people to do very bad thing, but so have belief systems entirely devoid of a belief in God. I'm sure you know enough of history that I don't have to elaborate on this.

of course

but my point is that religion isn't even necessary to build "strong" communities, as often stated by many religious apologists like jared

what apologists say about religion's benefits was true when we were competing against other hominids for the top of the food chain, but now? it's like the appendix; useful long ago but now more of a problematic vestige than anything else

[PianoDan]

orly? care to point me to the conclusive universal truth of this statement?
What are you saying? That morals are relative?

You're wrong
No, you're wrong.

Im a very moral/religious guy, so I obviously have my own Christian views towards controversial topics such as marriage and abortion. My point is this: I think Im right. I think that marriage should stay between a man and a woman, because God made us like that. But that IS relative, so many people in this country would be extremely offended if I tried to instill my beliefs on how the system should work on them.

So, our government (and just about every government nowadays) operates to cater to everybodys needs and wants, including the gays who are saying its unfair for them to be declined marriage. Because this is a free country, and not everybody has to have the same Christian viewpoint as mine. But I will always have that sense in the back of my head, that evangelical calling, to stand up and declare when I think something is flat out wrong or immoral. Which, I think this is. But this country will continue to secularize, and not in the too distant future, every state will allow gay marriage.
The government cannot please everybody. The government doesn't operate solely to cater to everybody's needs and wants, far from it. Government and laws are built on beliefs. You don't want to instill your beliefs on others, but that will always happen; laws are there to protect a certain set of beliefs which, in turn, are shaped by a particular worldview. Everybody has a worldview and a set of beliefs; some people's worldview will clash with the laws and the government and they'll be offended, but if their worldview takes over, then others will be offended instead.

It's not like pro-marriage laws are taking anything away from gays. Gays and gay-marriage advocates are demanding an expansion and re-definition of the very concept and institution of marriage to fit them in. They are the ones enforcing their beliefs onto the rest of society. Society is being uprooted from its foundations, its core values are being dismissed, to cater for the beliefs of a few who want to change society. Traditional beliefs and values and those who hold them are being offended.

[guitrguy]

What are you saying? That morals are relative?

Thats exactly what I am saying.

[PianoDan]

Thats exactly what I am saying.
That's a pretty defenseless stance, really. Are you going to say Hitler was morally perfectly acceptable? He was only doing what he thought was best for the good of mankind. From his point of view, he was doing the right thing.

Will you try and argue that there's nothing wrong with wife-bashing child-abusing mysogonists who just believe they're exercising a God-given right to head their family?

Is the work of those who have dedicated their entire lives to helping others not morally good?

And if I'm not mistaken, you must think it's perfectly morally acceptable for people like me to be outraged at the thought of the current assault on marriage in places like California, and for marriage groups and politicians and Christians everywhere to stand up against gay "marriage" being accepted. Right?

[Dave de Sylvia]

Society is being uprooted from its foundations, its core values are being dismissed, to cater for the beliefs of a few who want to change society.
The definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is not a "core value" of society. The fact that as an issue it's so obviously divisive should alert you to this basic point.

[PianoDan]

The definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is not a "core value" of society. The fact that as an issue it's so obviously divisive should alert you to this basic point.
It's divisive now, with the core values of society being uprooted. It was a core value of society that lasted for a few hundred years, and has only just become an issue at all.

If you don't think marriage is a basic institution and a "core value", are there any values which are core, which are central to a civilised, strong, moral society?

[guitrguy]

That's a pretty defenseless stance, really. Are you going to say Hitler was morally perfectly acceptable? He was only doing what he thought was best for the good of mankind. From his point of view, he was doing the right thing.yeah and from your point of view he wasn't. However what he did was not justifiable scientifically, and merely killed off humans on an illogical stance. From that point we can pass judgment. Neither are an absolute moral position. You seem to want equate moral code with positive action. You're moral stance on gay marriage in your mind is morally acceptable, but from the stance of incorporating all people of society your moral idea is regressive and discriminatory.

Will you try and argue that there's nothing wrong with wife-bashing child-abusing mysogonists who just believe they're exercising a God-given right to head their family?
See above. You really can't prove they are morally unjustified as you're moral code is a chosen code. Not a cosmic truth.
Is the work of those who have dedicated their entire lives to helping others not morally good?Given the morally subscription is the point of comparison.

And if I'm not mistaken, you must think it's perfectly morally acceptable for people like me to be outraged at the thought of the current assault on marriage in places like California, and for marriage groups and politicians and Christians everywhere to stand up against gay "marriage" being accepted. Right?You can be outraged all you want, but that doesn't give you the context you claim morally supremacy, especially when there is no real harm in gay marriage. Being butthurt and wanting your moral code to be forced on others is a horrible position to take to defend you're stance. No says you have to think its moral, but you have no just reason to enforce and push your morals on other people. Especially something as harmless as same-sex marriage.

Just because you have moral code, does not mean its an absolute moral code. Morals are chosen and not absolute. The very fact different societies have varying moral codes is evidence to moral subjectivity. I reiterate, just because you have believe in a specific set of morals, it in no way equates into moral absolutism.

[Dave de Sylvia]

It's divisive now, with the core values of society being uprooted. It was a core value of society that lasted for a few hundred years, and has only just become an issue at all.
Yes, but nonetheless it's ceased to be a core value of society, and it's not a bad thing. A lot of values that would have been held dear decades ago are now viewed as abhorrent, and rightly so.

If you don't think marriage is a basic institution and a "core value", are there any values which are core, which are central to a civilised, strong, moral society?
Of course, societies wouldn't survive without basic shared values. I think this one is pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things.

[guitrguy]

It's beyond trivial, it's nonsensical.

[Light Fantastic]

a community comprised entirely of vehement atheists would be a far more violent and intolerant entity than a community of church going christiansits ok jared i understand that you arent very intelligent because wealth and education are correlated, just like education and atheism are correlated and education and crime and also atheism and crime

which is probably why the countries with the highest rates of organic atheism are the same ones with the lowest crime rates too and are leading the world in well.. everything really

which is probably why basing your arguments concerning world religion on the people you met down at your local kmart isnt very smart

[Iscariot]

it's ok chad i understand that you don't have sex and probably post on the internet wearing a leather jacket and aviators so your opinions are basically worthless :')

[Light Fantastic]

well i do own a pair of aviators but they arent usually in my daily apparel so i am not currently wearing them and i am flattered but i dont see what this has to do with the discussion at hand or why you didnt respond reasonably to anything put forth to you by me or anyone else in this thread since you last posted

i mean i know i used a few harsh and mean words to you but this is pnwi please control your emotions jared

[Jude]

And if I'm not mistaken, you must think it's perfectly morally acceptable for people like me to be outraged at the thought of the current assault on marriage in places like California, and for marriage groups and politicians and Christians everywhere to stand up against gay "marriage" being accepted. Right?
It's morally acceptable for you to find gay marriage morally unacceptable, but it's not morally acceptable to try and deny someone a basic right because of your weird ideas of what's morally acceptable

[YDtoad]

It's morally acceptable for you to find gay marriage morally unacceptable, but it's not morally acceptable to try and deny someone a basic right because of your weird ideas of what's morally acceptable

Marriage (and specifically, subjective interpretations of its definition and purpose) is not a basic right under US law, international law, or any other relevant framework.

[guitrguy]

Marriage (and specifically, subjective interpretations of its definition and purpose) is not a basic right under US law, international law, or any other relevant framework.

Neither is driving, but its pretty illegal to discriminate. Letting blacks drive upsets order as much as letting gay couples marry.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Of course, societies wouldn't survive without basic shared values.Well, I'd say more a web of interconnecting values but yes, societies are shaped and defined by the values they uphold. However, these values are flexible and often stagnation of values has undesirable consequences, e.g. societies who value religious unity and coherence often persecute minority faiths, even long after this has any major benefit to the society's continued existence.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Marriage (and specifically, subjective interpretations of its definition and purpose) is not a basic right under US law, international law, or any other relevant framework.
Equal treatment before the legal apparatuses of the state is a basic right however, and marriage is very much a legal issue. Which makes the debate over whether a particular law upholds those principles of equality and fairness a very important one. Even if you disagree that the current marriage laws are discriminatory, it is at least a viable basis on which to challenge.

[Jude]

Marriage (and specifically, subjective interpretations of its definition and purpose) is not a basic right under US law, international law, or any other relevant framework.
What guitrguy and Spat said plus: it's illegal for the government to discriminate against people based on factors like race, sexual orientation and so forth, and denying gays a right OR privilege that's freely granted to straights is discriminatory

[Iscariot]

i said that on the first page and people are still arguing about it holy crap

[Jude]

I said that the government should take its hands the **** out of everything to do with marriage and people are still arguing too, but that's probably because people have this retarded idea that the government needs to uphold cultural traditions

[Hababi]

Neither is driving, but its pretty illegal to discriminate. Letting blacks drive upsets order as much as letting gay couples marry.

What guitrguy and Spat said plus: it's illegal for the government to discriminate against people based on factors like race, sexual orientation and so forth, and denying gays a right OR privilege that's freely granted to straights is discriminatory

Gays can enter into the social institution the same as straights.

[guitrguy]

Gays can enter into the social institution the same as straights.
Then why can't they get a marriage license?

[Iscariot]

I said that the government should take its hands the **** out of everything to do with marriage and people are still arguing too, but that's probably because people have this retarded idea that the government needs to uphold cultural traditions

maintaining and enforcing equality is the government's job

idk why some of you are so afraid of gay people i would think an effeminate gay man would probably be the least frightening thing in the world

[Hababi]

Then why can't they get a marriage license?

A gay person can attain a marriage license just as easy as a straight person.

[guitrguy]

A gay person can attain a marriage license just as easy as a straight person.

A straight person doesn't have to leave their state to get one.

[Hababi]

A straight person doesn't have to leave their state to get one.

Neither does a gay person.

[guitrguy]

You're telling me a gay couple can get a marriage license in Mississippi?

[Hababi]

You're telling me a gay couple can get a marriage license in Mississippi?

I'm telling you that a gay person can enter into the institution the same as a straight person.

[guitrguy]

I'm telling you that a gay person can enter into the institution the same as a straight person.

not in mississippi, or 47 other states.

[Hababi]

not in mississippi, or 47 other states.

I think you're not understanding what I'm saying.

[guitrguy]

You're saying a gay person has to marry the opposite sex? Please tell me thats not what you mean.

[Hababi]

You're saying a gay person has to marry the opposite sex?

I'm saying that any two people of legal age and the opposite sex can marry. Love is fundamentally a metaphysical phenomena and it shouldn't enter into the legal framework. Don't pretend that all or even most marriages in this country are about love. A whole host of other considerations come into play, often to a much greater degree than the concept of love.

[guitrguy]

I'm saying that any two people of legal age and the opposite sex can marry. Love is fundamentally a metaphysical phenomena and it shouldn't enter into the legal framework. Don't pretend that all or even most marriages in this country are about love. A whole host of other considerations come into play, often to a much greater degree than the concept of love.I wasn't pretending, in fact thats a good reason why the government shouldn't define marriage between a man and a woman. Taking love out gives you less of reason to define how marriage is, not that love means much outside of a spiritual aspect in marriage.

[Hababi]

I wasn't pretending, in fact thats a good reason why the government shouldn't define marriage between a man and a woman.

If marriage serves no orderly purpose then it has no place in society.

[guitrguy]

If marriage serves no orderly purpose then it has no place in society.

Then cut marriage out, whats fair is fair. This "orderly purpose" only benefits a heterosexual couple. If you deny both sides its at least equal.

[Hababi]

Then cut marriage out, whats fair is fair. This "orderly purpose" only benefits a heterosexual couple.

You mean it can't benefit a lesbian and a gay man who want the tax benefits that come with the territory?

[guitrguy]

You mean it can't benefit a lesbian and a gay man who want the tax benefits that come with the territory?

I mean people are likely to marry who they are sexually attracted to. A gay man and lesbian woman are as likely to get married as two straight men.

[Hababi]

I mean people are likely to marry who they are sexually attracted to.

Except for all the people, men and women, who marry wealthy, often older people to have a better life. And the people who marry who their parents want them to marry to appease them. And similar such circumstances.

[guitrguy]

Except for all the people, men and women, who marry wealthy, often older people to have a better life. And the people who marry who their parents want them to marry to appease them. And similar such circumstances.

and how does that support only a man and female should get married? You still discriminate against a gay couple who wants to do it for love, or whatever reason they may have.

[Hababi]

and how does that support only a man and female should get married?

Because in the legal framework, it makes sense to encourage that which is most beneficial to society. And that which is most beneficial to society is monogomous male/female relationships. Hey, I'd love to see government programs encouraging breaking down ethnoracial lines in dating and marriage, too, because that also has quite a benefit for society.

[guitrguy]

Because in the legal framework, it makes sense to encourage that which is most beneficial to society. And that which is most beneficial to society is monogomous male/female relationships. Hey, I'd love to see government programs encouraging breaking down ethnoracial lines in dating and marriage, too, because that also has quite a benefit for society.
Do you honestly think banning gay marriage will force gays to go straight? Do you think that allowing gay people to marry will encourage homosexuality? Its been strongly suggested the its a genetic disposition, not a whimsical choice. There is not going to be some sudden mass gay conversion by allowing gay marriage. Allowing gays to marry does not discourage heterosexuality, nor does it encourage homosexuality. It allows people to live life with there sexual orientation, hetero or homo.

[Hababi]

Do you honestly think banning gay marriage will force gays to go straight?

I'm not concerned with forcing gays to turn straight nor would I endorse making it a government policy to do so.


Do you think that allowing gay people to marry will encourage homosexuality?

If research patterns hold, then yes.


Its been strongly suggested the its a genetic disposition, not a whimsical choice.

It's certainly not a whimsical choice. But it's also certainly NOT purely a matter of the genetic milkshake.


It allows people to live life with there sexual orientation, hetero or homo.

People are already able to do so.

It's not the government's job to sanction, promote, or placate everybody's lifestyle choice. The government's role is to promote order, and the success and long term prosperity of its people. That means advocating the traditional family.

[Amit]

The government's role is to promote order, and the success and long term prosperity of its people. That means advocating the traditional family.

except homosexual marriage doesn't endanger order and the success/long term prosperity of a nation's people

gays getting married won't do anything at all in stopping hetties from getting married

case in point: i have a lot of gay friends and i hang out with them a lot, yet i have been in (too many) relationships with girls since middle school and i will most definitely have children when i get married

where's the danger again? it's not like we are exactly starved for new births in this country so that facet of "long term prosperity" isn't an issue

i could understand that sort of argument in a place like japan...but america?

[Ando!]

but amit what about jesus and heaven!

[Amit]

but amit what about jesus and heaven!

jesus wouldn't give a **** and heaven doesn't exist

so what exactly is bad about gays getting married again?

[Ando!]

but amit what about the holy spirit and the bible!

[Amit]

but amit what about the holy spirit and the bible!

the holy spirit doesn't exist otherwise it would be a little bit more proactive against the people who deny its existence/the people who do terrible things in (or against) its name; in light of this, if it did exist...why would it deserve my respect anyway?

and

middle eastern fables don't impress me