The Gay Marriage Ban (Again)

[Nick Soapdish]

I disagree.
And in truth so do the courts, this is one of many subjects the courts can't agree on.


Except that when the Supreme Court rules on something, it doesn't really matter too much what the other courts say.

No ballsier than Kelo.

That's a decision that potentially impacts a lot of people as opposed to one that actually does.

I think its the primary one.

Being the primary reason still doesn't dispense with other good reasons, such as providing a more stable home life to raise children.


I mean really think about it, in what way is any part of marriage a "right"
Is it your "right" to have other people value your personal relationship as much as you do?

They don't with straight people getting married so I don't see how that would change.


Is it your "right" to force them to recognise it? Is it your "right" be called Mr and Mrs ________________?
What part of marriage is the "right" part?
What about marriage IYO are you entitled to?
More to the point, what part of having your marriage legally recognised are you entitled to?
Take away the tax credits, the consent laws, the hospital visitation, the joint healthcare, all the things people associate with being a benefit of gay marriage, and ask yourself, does marriage need to be changed in order to provide those?

Under the current laws, yes.

If you want better answers to those questions, go back and read this thread. They've all been answered before by people that are a lot more versed in the situation than I am.

Does it take marriage to provide them at all?
If no marriages were recognised by the government, and all marriages were treated as Gilda's is, would it make any difference to the gay community?

The point isn't to force government to allow gay people to marry. The point is to force the government to treat gay people as equal.

Would derecognising the mariages of straights be enough to make you feel "equal"

I am equal under the current laws. I'm straight.

Except that I'm single.

Help, help! I'm being repressed!

At the end of the day, marriage IMO should have never even become a state issue, much less a federal one.
But government, by its nature, seeks to increase its control over its subjects, and one of the easiest ways to do this is to take a preexisting social institution and make it a government one.

Like I said, you're thousands of years too late here. Throughout history in myriads of cultures, societies, and religions, marriage has been a civil institution performed both by government and religion (which were often tied together as separation of church and state is a fairly recent idea).

Which is why we are arguing about this subject today, I just don't get how a cage became a right.

Simply because you feel that being tied down to just one person is confining and a burden, doesn't mean that everybody ... or even anybody else ... holds that viewpoint.

[Gilda Dent]

Wow, shifting gears from serious to humurous like that could be dangerous!! :eek: :D

The funniest part is that people seem to be wondering whether I'm joking.

[Charles RB]

Why does it have to be one or the other?

Because marriage is a 24/7 thing and bondage can't be because you'll need to use the toilet at some point.

[BetterThanYou]

Marriage is a right. Loving v. Virginia. You are factually wrong on this.

No at the moment the current legal intepertation is that it is a right.
As I stated earlier I disagree, and considering how often the supreme court has changed its mind on what rights are, and which rights are legitimate rights, I don't think I want to base my own opinions and judgements on thiers.

The federal government has identified 1049 rights, responsibilities, and duties for married couples. There is no requirement regarding procreation.


Kay gilda again, you are completly and I must assume intentionally misrepresenting my statements.
Like I said, you made the decision that this subject was discrimination v freedom long before we ever met, so it doesn't surprise me you can't even sum up my position.


Infertile couples can marry if they are heterosexual. There is no argument related to childrearing that eliminates homosexual couples without also eliminating infertile heterosexual individuals and couples.

Yeah actually you just didn't read it. I didn't expect you to though, sad to see I was right.


Don't knock it 'til you've tried it.

I have, and many many other things gilda. Just cause you're gay don't mean you know squat about depravity, or kinky.

[Kahnno6]

The funniest part is that people seem to be wondering whether I'm joking.


Wow, I never thought I'd be considered fast on the uptake around here compared to most of these posters, but I think because it's you, it through them off. :)

Keep up the good work!

[Charles RB]

Simply because you feel that being tied down to just one person is confining and a burden, doesn't mean that everybody ... or even anybody else ... holds that viewpoint.

Yeah, I'm kinda freaked out by that line of thinking he just did. Eeeeeeerie.

[BetterThanYou]

Except that when the Supreme Court rules on something, it doesn't really matter too much what the other courts say.


Untill they change thier mind.




The point isn't to force government to allow gay people to marry. The point is to force the government to treat gay people as equal.

It already does.
Seriously, lets say I buy your contention that the gay marirage banis discriminatory, in what other way are gays "opressed"
Really.




Like I said, you're thousands of years too late here. Throughout history in myriads of cultures, societies, and religions, marriage has been a civil institution performed both by government and religion (which were often tied together as separation of church and state is a fairly recent idea).

I take it you've never been to mississippi?



Simply because you feel that being tied down to just one person is confining and a burden, doesn't mean that everybody ... or even anybody else ... holds that viewpoint.
Wrong context for cage.
that wasn't how I meant it, I meant it more as a cage to attempt to supress and then channel our sexual disires.
Thus the creation of "fornication"

[thespianphryne]

Just cause you're gay don't mean you know squat about depravity, or kinky.

That's pretty much what we've been trying to tell the world right from the very start.

[Nick Soapdish]

No at the moment the current legal intepertation is that it is a right.
As I stated earlier I disagree, and considering how often the supreme court has changed its mind on what rights are, and which rights are legitimate rights, I don't think I want to base my own opinions and judgements on thiers.

You don't have to base your own opinions and judgements on theirs.

But until they change their mind, legally marriage is a right in the US.

Kay gilda again, you are completly and I must assume intentionally misrepresenting my statements.
Like I said, you made the decision that this subject was discrimination v freedom long before we ever met, so it doesn't surprise me you can't even sum up my position.

Neither can you apparently.

I'm sure this stuff makes sense from a certain point of view and/or with certain things taken for granted, but we don't know what those are in your case and it doesn't seem like you're enunciating them very well.

[BetterThanYou]

You don't have to base your own opinions and judgements on theirs.

But until they change their mind, legally marriage is a right in the US.



Neither can you apparently.

I'm sure this stuff makes sense from a certain point of view and/or with certain things taken for granted, but we don't know what those are in your case and it doesn't seem like you're enunciating them very well.

Sure I can, the main point of marriage is to reduce the supply of illegitimate children to prevent a burden on society as a whole.

Not that its a license to procreate. Its not about procreating, its about mitigating the unintended consequences of the desire to procreate.

[Camron Amaya]

Sure I can, the main point of marriage is to reduce the supply of illegitimate children to prevent a burden on society as a whole.

.


No it's not.

[Nick Soapdish]

It already does.
Seriously, lets say I buy your contention that the gay marirage ban is discriminatory, in what other way are gays "opressed"
Really.

If that is discriminatory, what else do they need to be discriminated against in order for them to be considered unequal in the eyes of the government?

Isn't being discriminated in one respect enough to be unequal or does it have to be a certain number?

And in answer to your question, they aren't protected by many states anti-discrimination laws which often don't mention orientation.


I take it you've never been to mississippi?


Sorry, I meant civilized societies. :D

Seriously, I don't know what you're trying to get at there. Do churches not marry people or does the government not recognize those marriages?

And if one of the two are true, in what way does that disprove the rest of my assertation that other societies throughout history have treated marriage as both a civil and religious institution? I didn't maintain that it was unanimous throughout all of existence.


Wrong context for cage.
that wasn't how I meant it, I meant it more as a cage to attempt to supress and then channel our sexual disires.
Thus the creation of "fornication"

So are you asserting that you don't see cages as confining?

[anthony!]

Keep in mind, most active opponents of gay marriage in the US - including the Catholic Church, Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, etc. - also oppose civil unions, and most of the anti-gay marriage amendments that have been enacted ban not only marriage but also any other condition for gay relationships that would provide for the same legal status as marriage. This argument isn't about "protecting marriage" - that's a smoke screen. It's about people not liking gays, and not wanting gay relationships to have any sort of legal recognition and status.


I can't speak for the theology of other denominations or the actions of individuals in differing organizations, but the Catholic stance on homosexual persons is certainly not motivated by a hatred of their whole person; both the Catechism and recent documents adopted by the US bishops are explicit in this. Indeed, if memory serves, finding/knowing oneself to have a inclination towards same-sex attraction is not in and of itself a sin. Where that begins and ends of course hinges upon the wider view of human sexuality.

In making observations on American Catholicism, I think its worth mentioning that considering how many gay clergy there seem to be, I think you could make a stronger argument that the church perhaps "likes gays" a litte too much for its own health. Fascinating that the world seems to see-saw in its accusations that the Church is at times too lax or too strict to gay laity, gay celibates, gay clergy, etc.

Gay relationships and sexual acts are not compatible with the Church's teaching on sex and marriage- pure and simple. The Church, in its mission and civic duty, have an obligation to put forward its teaching and be witness to it. There's not a single atom that is devious or venomous about that stance IMHO.

The fundamental question here is simply: are gay relationships, taken as a whole, essentially the same as that between the opposite sex? Clearly the majority on this thread and in these forums believe that to be the case. Yet, that can only be done by breaking down and separating the various aspects of sex and thus twisting all of them into ends unto themselves- a view that the Church objects to. And clearly, others seem to be under the delusion that Supreme Court opinions are the equivalent of fact despite history proving quite the opposite. It cannot be denied that the conscience (and indeed voting conscience) of many people beg to differ. And I don't think one need be a bigot or a hateful person to think so. Such over-simplification and mischaracterization is rather blunt, even for the "liberal intellect".

Of course, don't get me wrong- I think gay marriage will eventually "win". I have a dim view of man's ability to control himself. :rolleyes:

[Gilda Dent]

No at the moment the current legal intepertation is that it is a right.

Given that we're talking about legal rights, that is the determining factor.

Kay gilda again, you are completly and I must assume intentionally misrepresenting my statements. Like I said, you made the decision that this subject was discrimination v freedom long before we ever met, so it doesn't surprise me you can't even sum up my position.

I'm presenting my own viewpoint. It's interesting that you seem to think that you know me on the basis of some three or four posts here.

Yeah actually you just didn't read it. I didn't expect you to though, sad to see I was right.

Nah, you've yet to supply a good reason for denying gay couples marriage rights, or any reason that wouldn't also eliminate infertile heterosexual couples.

I have, and many many other things gilda. Just cause you're gay don't mean you know squat about depravity, or kinky.

Couldn't agree more.

[Nick Soapdish]

Sure I can, the main point of marriage is to reduce the supply of illegitimate children to prevent a burden on society as a whole.


And how's that going? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061122/ap_on_he_me/unmarried_births_10)

[Cam63]

I can't speak for the theology of other denominations or the actions of individuals in differing organizations, but the Catholic stance on homosexual persons is certainly not motivated by a hatred of their whole person; both the Catechism and recent documents adopted by the US bishops are explicit in this. Indeed, if memory serves, finding/knowing oneself to have a inclination towards same-sex attraction is not in and of itself a sin. Where that begins and ends of course hinges upon the wider view of human sexuality.

In making observations on American Catholicism, I think its worth mentioning that considering how many gay clergy there seem to be, I think you could make a stronger argument that the church perhaps "likes gays" a litte too much for its own health. Fascinating that the world seems to see-saw in its accusations that the Church is at times too lax or too strict to gay laity, gay celibates, gay clergy, etc.

Gay relationships and sexual acts are not compatible with the Church's teaching on sex and marriage- pure and simple. The Church, in its mission and civic duty, have an obligation to put forward its teaching and be witness to it. There's not a single atom that is devious or venomous about that stance IMHO.

The fundamental question here is simply: are gay relationships, taken as a whole, essentially the same as that between the opposite sex? Clearly the majority on this thread and in these forums believe that to be the case. Yet, that can only be done by breaking down and separating the various aspects of sex and thus twisting all of them into ends unto themselves- a view that the Church objects to. And clearly, others seem to be under the delusion that Supreme Court opinions are the equivalent of fact despite history proving quite the opposite. It cannot be denied that the conscience (and indeed voting conscience) of many people beg to differ. And I don't think one need be a bigot or a hateful person to think so. Such over-simplification and mischaracterization is rather blunt, even for the "liberal intellect".

Of course, don't get me wrong- I think gay marriage will eventually "win". I have a dim view of man's ability to control himself. :rolleyes:

Gay people are happy with who they are.

They just want respect and acceptance from others.

[Pop Culture Corn]

No, that's carnival folk.
How is your imaginary gay marriage? Does it suck?

[Sally Sensational]

Sure I can, the main point of marriage is to reduce the supply of illegitimate children to prevent a burden on society as a whole.


Okay, this is where I get mad. Do you really mean to tell me, that simply because my child's father and I were not married when she was born, that she will automatically be a burden on society?

I am a tax-paying, hard-working, voting American woman who is doing the by-god best she can to raise her child. My daughter is 6, reads on a 4th grade level, and is the most beautiful, brilliant child I've ever known. That you would assume that she will just become a burden on society because she's not being raised in a home where two heterosexual people are married is plain and utter crap.

It takes a hell of a lot more than married parents to raise a kid right and a hell of a lot more than unmarried parents to screw one up. Next time you want to talk about increasing the burden on society, do some research on all the people who have done great and important things who were raised by single parents.

Crawl back into the Fifties where you belong. When my child and all the children like her who are being raised in single parent homes are paying your bills because you couldn't be bothered, like most people, to plan for your retirement, then we'll talk about who's a burden on whom.

[Cam63]

Okay, this is where I get mad. Do you really mean to tell me, that simply because my child's father and I were not married when she was born, that she will automatically be a burden on society?

I am a tax-paying, hard-working, voting American woman who is doing the by-god best she can to raise her child. My daughter is 6, reads on a 4th grade level, and is the most beautiful, brilliant child I've ever known. That you would assume that she will just become a burden on society because she's not being raised in a home where two heterosexual people are married is plain and utter crap.

It takes a hell of a lot more than married parents to raise a kid right and a hell of a lot more than unmarried parents to screw one up. Next time you want to talk about increasing the burden on society, do some research on all the people who have done great and important things who were raised by single parents.

What Sally said.

[Agent Helix]

How is your imaginary gay marriage? Does it suck?

Awww, you followed me all the way here. Thank you. Thank you so much.

[BetterThanYou]

Okay, this is where I get mad. Do you really mean to tell me, that simply because my child's father and I were not married when she was born, that she will automatically be a burden on society?

NO But I am saying theres a greater chance of it.

I am a tax-paying, hard-working, voting American woman who is doing the by-god best she can to raise her child. My daughter is 6, reads on a 4th grade level, and is the most beautiful, brilliant child I've ever known. That you would assume that she will just become a burden on society because she's not being raised in a home where two heterosexual people are married is plain and utter crap.

I didn't say that. I did say however that she and others like her have a greater probabillity of doing so. That isn't in question. I am sure you're doing the best job you can, however no matter how hard you work, you will never be as effective as a two parent house working just as hard. I'm sorry if reality offends you, but thats the truth.


It takes a hell of a lot more than married parents to raise a kid right and a hell of a lot more than unmarried parents to screw one up. Next time you want to talk about increasing the burden on society, do some research on all the people who have done great and important things who were raised by single parents.

I myself was raised by a single parent. However the fact is that the children of single parents have a greater risk factor. It doesn't mean that they will be a burden anymore than anyone else, it does however mean that there is a greater probabillity that they will do so.
I assume you work to support them yes? Are there times when due to obligations you can not be there for them? Can you honestly say you have the practical capabillity to be there for them as much as two loving parents could? Do you have the time you really want to spend with them?
Its a simple practical thing I am talking about. Raising kids is hard in the best circumstances. It is hard, ugly, dirty, thankless, tiresome work, and like it or not two people working hard will always be more effective than one.
[/quote]
Crawl back into the Fifties where you belong. When my child and all the children like her who are being raised in single parent homes are paying your bills because you couldn't be bothered, like most people, to plan for your retirement, then we'll talk about who's a burden on whom.[/QUOTE]
hahahahahaha
Honey I have 7 kids by 4 women and they all go to private school.
You wanna get pissed, go ahead, knock yourself out.
Then answer this one question, have you ever wished you had a partner to share the workload?

[Gilda Dent]

Then answer this one question, have you ever wished you had a partner to share the workload?

Gee, I think this might apply equally to gay people with children, don't you think?

[BetterThanYou]

Given that we're talking about legal rights, that is the determining factor.


Whites had the right to own blacks once, was the court right on that too?


I'm presenting my own viewpoint. It's interesting that you seem to think that you know me on the basis of some three or four posts here.

You said it yourself, "I can't see any reason other than prejudice"
Now think about that statement for a minute gilda.
I can see why you think the way you do, I disagree, but I can see it. I can see why the opponents think the way they do, I don't always agree, but I can see it.
If you can't see any other reason, either your blind, or your not looking.

Nah, you've yet to supply a good reason for denying gay couples marriage rights, or any reason that wouldn't also eliminate infertile heterosexual couples.

Actually I did. You may not agree with the reason, you may feel my reason is unreasonable, but I gave one, and an explanation.
Thats why I called you closeminded, theres a difference between no reason and a bad reason gilda.

See you have made it clear you think I'm just a homophobe bigot who is afraid of "sexual deviants"

But sadly you are so far off the mark it aint funny.
I am willing to bet i am the most deviant person here.
About the only perversions I haven't engaged in is beastiality, pedophilia, and incest.
Everything else?
Done it and bought the T-shirt.
I have slept with women, men, and both at the same time.
There is no one here who cares less about who, or even what you sleep with.
But I am soo sick of of people screaming and bitching about "opression" when we live in a scoiety with more protections and freedoms than any damn where in the world.
Tell you want gilda, go to turkey, or jamaica, or 95% of all other locations in the world and see how long you survive as openly gay.
You can't get your marriage recognised? You don't get tax breaks?
SO what, you also aren't getting stoned, noone has ever filled a car tire with gasoline, put it around your neck, and set it on fire.
(happened to a buddy of mines boyfriend in haiti)
And honeslty gilda, other than the beneifts, the tyax breaks etc, why do you care? Are you that desperate to have your relationship validated?
90% of the "opression" gays get re marriage can be fixed by a power of attorney and a living will. The other 10% could easily be dealt with legislativley.
So whos kidding who here?
Enjoy your wife, enjoy your life, and please for gods sake quit whinging.

[Agent Helix]

Please try sleeping with a grammar teacher at some point.

[BetterThanYou]

Gee, I think this might apply equally to gay people with children, don't you think?

I thought you had a partner?
So what would having your marriage legally recognised change?

[Nick Soapdish]

hahahahahaha
Honey I have 7 kids by 4 women and they all go to private school.
You wanna get pissed, go ahead, knock yourself out.
Then answer this one question, have you ever wished you had a partner to share the workload?

So you're arguing that since you haven't been constrained by the institution of marriage to keeping your genetics to a single woman or aided by the institution to raise the children in a two parent household ... which is apparently the only reason for marriage, there's no point in letting other people do it that don't have the same sort of dangers of procreating as you do?

[Ed Cunard]

Please try sleeping with a grammar teacher at some point.

Maybe he tried, but s/he remained unimpressed by his dangling participle.

[Agent Helix]

It's more of a fragment, really.

[Nick Soapdish]

But I am soo sick of of people screaming and bitching about "opression" when we live in a scoiety with more protections and freedoms than any damn where in the world.
Tell you want gilda, go to turkey, or jamaica, or 95% of all other locations in the world and see how long you survive as openly gay.
You can't get your marriage recognised? You don't get tax breaks?
SO what, you also aren't getting stoned, noone has ever filled a car tire with gasoline, put it around your neck, and set it on fire.
(happened to a buddy of mines boyfriend in haiti)


Talk to Matthew Shepard.

As long as we continue to say that gays are inequal ... or that separate but equal, such as the government allowing civil unions, but not marriage, we tacitly encourage that sort of behavior.

And simply saying that gays don't have it as bad off here as other places isn't nearly the same as saying that they're being treated fairly. It's "so what if it's not good, others have it worse" under which standard, nobody would ever have to change anything anywhere. (Well, virtually so. Somebody's gotta have it the worst. So everybody else can point to that guy and say "see how much worse off you can be - so stop your complaining".)


And honeslty gilda, other than the beneifts, the tyax breaks etc, why do you care? Are you that desperate to have your relationship validated?
90% of the "opression" gays get re marriage can be fixed by a power of attorney and a living will. The other 10% could easily be dealt with legislativley.


Forcing a gay couple to go through the extra steps in order to gain those benefits ... and they can't get all of them anyway ... is discriminatory.

And it's more complicated to get benefits piecemeal like that legislatively instead of simply saying "gays can marry".

[Ed Cunard]

It's more of a fragment, really.

Or a morpheme.

[Nick Soapdish]

Please try sleeping with a grammar teacher at some point.

I kinda like the challenge of trying to translate it.

Except I don't seem to do it well because I didn't understand that cages weren't confining. :(

[Ed Cunard]

I kinda like the challenge of trying to translate it.

I thought about doing a concrete syntax tree for some of his sentences, but then I remembered that I never had the patience to shape a Bonsai.

Except I don't seem to do it well because I didn't understand that cages weren't confining. :(

Well, that's understandable. He's better than you, so how can you begin to understand him? It'd be like a meerkat trying to understand the nature of God.

[BetterThanYou]

So you're arguing that since you haven't been constrained by the institution of marriage to keeping your genetics to a single woman or aided by the institution to raise the children in a two parent household ... which is apparently the only reason for marriage, there's no point in letting other people do it that don't have the same sort of dangers of procreating as you do?
Nick put it this way, if you don't own a car, why would own car insurance?

Also I never said anything about genetics nick.

Marrige, when you go to a church, is about the people being married.
Marriage when you go to the courthouse to get a license is about societies attempt to control your individual actions.
Now that attempt isn't always successful, but if theres no need to even make the attempt, if the dangers an institution is designed to control don't exist, why use it?

If nobody ever comitted crimes, what would be the reason for a police force?
If gay couples can't pose the danger to society that straight couples can, why bother attempting to mitigate that danger?
See now me I'm, well.... heterotish.
(I have slept with men but prefer women all things being equal)
But the fact is if I meet a chick and bang her in the muvico, that action poses a potential danger to society. I could be a deadbeat dad, I could abandon them to the streets.
But if Gilda meets a hottie and does the same?
Where is there any danger for society to control?
Wheres the need, to either bribe or coerce her into taking responsibillity for the consequences of her sexual actions when, from a societal standpoint, there are no consequences?

Look I am a bigamist. Not in the Utah Mormon cult way, but I am married to three different women.
I would love nothing more than for the people of this country to recognise my relationships as valid and worthy of lincensing.
(well technically one of em is since shes my only wife in this country)
But I would love to be able to not have to hide the fact that I have a thai wife and a czech wife as well.
But I don't go around demanding that it be so because, well thats not what a marriage is here.
Like it or not theres a reason theres a one man/one woman defintion of marriage.
Because those are the liasons society needs to try and control.
Hell if anything theres a better case for volutary bigamy than there is for homosexual marriage.
But I am willing to understand the logic behind the way that marriage is.
I don't pretend its all about opressing poor little me.
I may not always agree with the reasoning put forth, I may not agree with the actions decided upon based on that reasoning, but I don't try to pretend it doesn't exist or over romanticise the insitution.
Now at this moment Gilda is married. Its not considered legal, but she is married.
Noone stopped her, or stoned her, or firebombed the church. No one arrested her when she said I do.
Me if it could be proven?
I'd go to jail.
So whats the problem?
It seems to me that the whole push for gay marriage isn't about "rights" so much as rewards.

[Gilda Dent]

I thought you had a partner?
So what would having your marriage legally recognised change?

It would change the legal nature of our relationship according to every federal and state law that references marriage. There are more than 1000 of these at the federal level and hundreds more at the state level.

[BetterThanYou]

It would change the legal nature of our relationship according to every federal and state law that references marriage. There are more than 1000 of these at the federal level and hundreds more at the state level.
So again, like I said, it isn't about "rights" its about rewards.

[Dreadstar]

So again, like I said, it isn't about "rights" its about rewards.


It can't be both?

[Shade]

Please try sleeping with a grammar teacher at some point.

I pee'd myself a little at this. Well played.

[Dreadstar]

curefreak's grammar never was all that great. Neither was his grampaw.

[Ed Cunard]

curefreak's grammar never was all that great. Neither was his grampaw.

It's not him. I'll put money on it. The grammatical tics, while just as frustrating, are a completely different set of gramatical tics.

[Gilda Dent]

If you can't see any other reason, either your blind, or your not looking.

Or I've looked at the reasons given, and they all come down to prejudice at some level.

Actually I did. You may not agree with the reason, you may feel my reason is unreasonable, but I gave one, and an explanation.
Thats why I called you closeminded, theres a difference between no reason and a bad reason gilda.

It isn't enough to give a reason. It needs to be a valid reason. You've yet to provide one.

See you have made it clear you think I'm just a homophobe bigot who is afraid of "sexual deviants"

No, but you've made it clear that you support bigotry.

But sadly you are so far off the mark it aint funny.
I am willing to bet i am the most deviant person here.
About the only perversions I haven't engaged in is beastiality, pedophilia, and incest.
Everything else?
Done it and bought the T-shirt.
I have slept with women, men, and both at the same time.

That you seem to think this is somehow relevant does tell us something about your viewpoints. How about a fair comparison, of, say monogamous heterosexual couples to monogamous homosexual couples.

There is no one here who cares less about who, or even what you sleep with.
But I am soo sick of of people screaming and bitching about "opression" when we live in a scoiety with more protections and freedoms than any damn where in the world.

Who here has been complaining about "opression"? I've been arguing that gays should have equal rights to straights.

Tell you want gilda, go to turkey, or jamaica, or 95% of all other locations in the world and see how long you survive as openly gay.

Tell you what, why don't we compare to Canada, The Netherlands, The UK, Belgium, or Spain? All recognize same sex marriage or unions. How about the rest of Western Europe? Nearly universal registered domestic partnerships.

It's worse in other places doesn't mean that it's good here.

You can't get your marriage recognised? You don't get tax breaks?
SO what, you also aren't getting stoned, noone has ever filled a car tire with gasoline, put it around your neck, and set it on fire.
(happened to a buddy of mines boyfriend in haiti)

I have been assaulted numerous times.

Also, see Matthew Shepherd, Barry Winchell, Gwen Araujo.

And honeslty gilda, other than the beneifts, the tyax breaks etc, why do you care? Are you that desperate to have your relationship validated?

It's an interesting tactic here, the addition of qualifiers that make the oppositions position seem to be different from what it actually is. I'd like to be considered equal under the law and have access to the same rights and privileges as every heterosexual person in the US.

90% of the "opression" gays get re marriage can be fixed by a power of attorney and a living will. The other 10% could easily be dealt with legislativley.

Sorry, no. It's rather more than that. Moreover, we shouldn't have to go to a lawyer and incur expenses that heterosexual couples get with a twenty dollar marriage license.

On the legislative end, absolutely. All the legislatures have to do is write a new law amending marriage laws to include same sex partners, and the problem is solved without altering marriage in any way for those heterosexual couples. Or amend domestic partnership laws to make them equal to marriage.

So whos kidding who here?
Enjoy your wife, enjoy your life, and please for gods sake quit whinging.

I care about people being treated equally to each other. I'm going to keep being vocal about that so long as the inequalities exist. Vocal protest is the only method that's ever proven effective for correcting social and legal inequities.

[Gilda Dent]

So again, like I said, it isn't about "rights" its about rewards.

Those are not mutually exclusive concepts, but no, it's about being treated equally.

[Agent Helix]

It's not him. I'll put money on it. The grammatical tics, while just as frustrating, are a completely different set of gramatical tics.

I don't know. It is the same avatar as the last one curefreak had. But you're right. The writing is completely idiotic, but it's a different kind of idiotic.

[Nick Soapdish]

Nick put it this way, if you don't own a car, why would own car insurance?


I've actually been legally required to have car insurance despite not owning a car at times. :)

Take it up with the state of Florida. I wasn't happy about it myself.

But hey, turnabout is fair play, right? :)


Also I never said anything about genetics nick.


You spoke about artificial insemination usually keeping the procreation within the family because both parents were often the donors which meant that it was ok because it wasn't going outside of the marriage.

I assumed that you were thinking of a genetic component because AI isn't breaking the bounds of marriage in any other way, even if it isn't using both parents as donors.

Marrige, when you go to a church, is about the people being married.
Marriage when you go to the courthouse to get a license is about societies attempt to control your individual actions.
Now that attempt isn't always successful, but if theres no need to even make the attempt, if the dangers an institution is designed to control don't exist, why use it?


I guess the main distinction is that I don't think that most people think that's the only role that marriage has in society.

It's intended to prop up the two-parent household, but that doesn't mean exclusively for the purpose of preventing illegitimate children. A two-parent household has other benefits to society.

Look I am a bigamist. Not in the Utah Mormon cult way, but I am married to three different women.
I would love nothing more than for the people of this country to recognise my relationships as valid and worthy of lincensing.
(well technically one of em is since shes my only wife in this country)
But I would love to be able to not have to hide the fact that I have a thai wife and a czech wife as well.
But I don't go around demanding that it be so because, well thats not what a marriage is here.
Like it or not theres a reason theres a one man/one woman defintion of marriage.


So how exactly does that work with your staunch defense of the two-parent household? :confused:

[BetterThanYou]

Those are not mutually exclusive concepts, but no, it's about being treated equally.
Except that you are being treated equally IMO.
Everyone is being held to the exact same standard.
Everyone has to follow the same rules.
If anything I'm the one who should be complaining, you don't go to jail for being with your wife.

[Nick Soapdish]

So again, like I said, it isn't about "rights" its about rewards.

Those are not mutually exclusive concepts, but no, it's about being treated equally.

Because it's her right to be treated equally.

[BetterThanYou]

I've actually been legally required to have car insurance despite not owning a car at times. :)

Take it up with the state of Florida. I wasn't happy about it myself.

But hey, turnabout is fair play, right? :)


So you agree it makes no sense but think it should be done anyway?
:confused:



You spoke about artificial insemination usually keeping the procreation within the family because both parents were often the donors which meant that it was ok because it wasn't going outside of the marriage.

I assumed that you were thinking of a genetic component because AI isn't breaking the bounds of marriage in any other way, even if it isn't using both parents as donors.

No just the fact that its through a third party.
And really, if your trying that hard to have a kid, theres no danger you're gonna abondon it.


I guess the main distinction is that I don't think that most people think that's the only role that marriage has in society.

It's intended to prop up the two-parent household, but that doesn't mean exclusively for the purpose of preventing illegitimate children. A two-parent household has other benefits to society.

Other than the abillity to raise children what are they?



So how exactly does that work with your staunch defense of the two-parent household? :confused:
All my kids live in two parent housholds.

[thespianphryne]

BetterThanYou,

I have been following your assertions though the length of this thread. Notice I have not said logic; nor rationale. And I heartily agree with you when you say that marriage was constructed to be as binding a contract as possible between two individuals, and to hopefully act as a check on unfettered sexual activity and its consequences.

By your own admission, marriage has meant little in the way of curbing your own sexual behaviour. You have many children – all ostensibly well taken care of, all ostensibly legitimate – but with multiple partners. But then again, there are marriages that produce children who are essentially born into a sequential litter. The children of these marriages have two parents, of the opposite sex, they are legitimate by all social accounts and are still burdens to society. A child eventually becoming a burden to society is not predicated on the “legitimacy” of his or her birth, which frankly is a offensive notion – that status should be accorded to an individual based on circumstances over which he or she had no control. Someone growing up to be a burden to society is predicated on the amount of resources both material and psychological that are available in the formative years. In my experience working with young people from many socio-economic strata I’ve found that there were many “burdens” who came from supposedly good families who even didn’t lack in material resources because they lacked responsible adult attention and guidance.

You have brandished the phrase “close-minded” a few times against people on this board who have argued against your point of view. Simultaneously you have argued in your defence that you are perhaps the most deviant person of all the persons here and that all the gay people should stop whinging and whining about oppression and discrimination (by the way, we’re not screaming against “oppression” we’re just saying we’d like the same legal rights to apply to us as to the other couples) because no one really cares who anyone sleeps with anyway and things are better here than in name the oppressive country of your choice. Except, that clearly there are enough people out there who do care who I sleep with when it’s not a member of the opposite sex – enough that my asking for the same legal benefits that automatically accrue to a heterosexual couple in a similar position to mine should generate not only bad legislature but also vitriolic cultural propaganda. You say that you don’t care who I sleep with as long it’s not my pet, somebody’s kid or my sibling – except that you do care enough to furnish repeated, condescending and ill-conceived arguments against a point of view which by your declaration affects you not at all.

Two people raising or not raising child wish - at this juncture of time - to spend their lives together. They announce their intent to society, register in a societal contract that allows them certain benefits. Their contract is given legal, and thereby societal, sanction and called a marriage. Then two more people apply for those same legal benefits but they are denied because they happen to be of the same gender – even though there is no demonstrable harm from this. This is discrimination. Whether this is less discriminatory than in another nation state is not at issue, the fact that it is discriminatory is.

In India for example, at the same time as most of Africa was colonised by European countries and slavery was persistent in the USA, there was a strong movement to buck off the colonising English administration. Indians were referred to as niggers by some Englishmen and were considered inferior. But inside India they had property rights and marriage rights and every other right you could think of except the one of deciding their national destiny. They weren’t being lynched, or systematically raped or being sold off into slavery. Yet they protested and agitated for their “privilege” to vote, to sit in the same cars as white folk, to eat and drink in the bars, lounges and restaurants as white people. But how were they being oppressed. It certainly wasn’t as bad as in Africa, what was their ever-loving problem? Why didn’t the Indians just lie down and roll over when the colonial administrators said so. By your reasoning, India should still be the jewel in the crown of the British Empire because they didn’t have it as bad as some other countries.

Your reasoning is flawed; flawed because it is not logical, unethical and also self-deluding; self-deluding because it causes you to behave eminently badly toward persons who did not earn that behaviour. And if you so strongly don’t care about marriage or its accompanying rights and privileges and are so disdainful of its existence as a societal construct, why should it matter to you that there’s an entire subset of citizens who buy into it and want into it. The way you have been arguing thus far seems to imply that gay people asking for legal marital rights is distasteful to you and somehow harmful to society. It seems to indicate a prejudice. You say it’s not a religious prejudice, which would actually be understandable to a degree. So it must be something else, something deeper, and if that’s true, that’s disturbing. And if it isn’t something that fundamental and in this case you’re just talking, well…that’s even more disturbing.

[Agent Helix]

Oh, this keeps getting better and better.

[thespianphryne]

Look I am a bigamist. Not in the Utah Mormon cult way, but I am married to three different women.
I would love nothing more than for the people of this country to recognise my relationships as valid and worthy of lincensing.
(well technically one of em is since shes my only wife in this country)
But I would love to be able to not have to hide the fact that I have a thai wife and a czech wife as well.
But I don't go around demanding that it be so because, well thats not what a marriage is here.
You know what, I would also love to have your three marriages recognised. No facetiousness. You really shoudn't have to go to jail because you're being a responsible provider to three families. I do sympathise with your position.


Like it or not theres a reason theres a one man/one woman defintion of marriage.
Because those are the liasons society needs to try and control.
Oh so you don't want gay people to get married because they're gay. But heterosexual peple can get married because that's just the way it's always been? Just because? What would you call that line of reasoning?

[BetterThanYou]

BetterThanYou,

I have been following your assertions though the length of this thread. Notice I have not said logic; nor rationale. And I heartily agree with you when you say that marriage was constructed to be as binding a contract as possible between two individuals, and to hopefully act as a check on unfettered sexual activity and its consequences.

Good then we have the beginnings of common ground.

By your own admission, marriage has meant little in the way of curbing your own sexual behaviour. You have many children – all ostensibly well taken care of, all ostensibly legitimate – but with multiple partners. But then again, there are marriages that produce children who are essentially born into a sequential litter. The children of these marriages have two parents, of the opposite sex, they are legitimate by all social accounts and are still burdens to society. A child eventually becoming a burden to society is not predicated on the “legitimacy” of his or her birth, which frankly is a offensive notion – that status should be accorded to an individual based on circumstances over which he or she had no control. Someone growing up to be a burden to society is predicated on the amount of resources both material and psychological that are available in the formative years. In my experience working with young people from many socio-economic strata I’ve found that there were many “burdens” who came from supposedly good families who even didn’t lack in material resources because they lacked responsible adult attention and guidance.

No argument, but society has to plan for the most likely threats. The truth is an illegitimate unwanted child is the most likely threat for future brudens.
An unwanted child isfar more likely to be abandoned, neglected etc.
Marriage IMO exists to ensure even unwanted children have half a chance, not for thier benefit but for ours.




You have brandished the phrase “close-minded” a few times against people on this board who have argued against your point of view. Simultaneously you have argued in your defence that you are perhaps the most deviant person of all the persons here and that all the gay people should stop whinging and whining about oppression and discrimination (by the way, we’re not screaming against “oppression” we’re just saying we’d like the same legal rights to apply to us as to the other couples) because no one really cares who anyone sleeps with anyway and things are better here than in name the oppressive country of your choice. Except, that clearly there are enough people out there who do care who I sleep with when it’s not a member of the opposite sex – enough that my asking for the same legal benefits that automatically accrue to a heterosexual couple in a similar position to mine should generate not only bad legislature but also vitriolic cultural propaganda. You say that you don’t care who I sleep with as long it’s not my pet, somebody’s kid or my sibling – except that you do care enough to furnish repeated, condescending and ill-conceived arguments against a point of view which by your declaration affects you not at all.

I'm not saying that all those opposed to Gay Marriage do so because of legitmate thought out reason. Ther eis undoubably a component of hate. MY point was Gilda seemed to be rejecting arguments without actuall considering them. IE she reached the conlusion first, then viewed all arguments through that prism.
Is that not the definition of close minded?

Two people raising or not raising child wish - at this juncture of time - to spend their lives together. They announce their intent to society, register in a societal contract that allows them certain benefits. Their contract is given legal, and thereby societal, sanction and called a marriage. Then two more people apply for those same legal benefits but they are denied because they happen to be of the same gender – even though there is no demonstrable harm from this.

My point is, since theres no harm from them not being controlled, why try to?
Where is the need for marriage for gay couples from a societal perspective?
Where is the danger of thier sexual impulses not being controlled?



This is discrimination. Whether this is less discriminatory than in another nation state is not at issue, the fact that it is discriminatory is.

See the way I see it isn't any more than not prescribing birth control to men is, it isn't done because theres no need to do so.

In India for example, at the same time as most of Africa was colonised by European countries and slavery was persistent in the USA, there was a strong movement to buck off the colonising English administration. Indians were referred to as niggers by some Englishmen and were considered inferior. But inside India they had property rights and marriage rights and every other right you could think of except the one of deciding their national destiny. They weren’t being lynched, or systematically raped or being sold off into slavery. Yet they protested and agitated for their “privilege” to vote, to sit in the same cars as white folk, to eat and drink in the bars, lounges and restaurants as white people. But how were they being oppressed. It certainly wasn’t as bad as in Africa, what was their ever-loving problem? Why didn’t the Indians just lie down and roll over when the colonial administrators said so.
[/quotes]
Theres a major difference between marriage and voting.
Voting allows you to attempt to control cosiety, marriage allows society to attempt to control you.

[quote]
By your reasoning, India should still be the jewel in the crown of the British Empire because they didn’t have it as bad as some other countries.

No My reasoning is that this subject is the equivalent of indians today complaining about colonisation back then.

Your reasoning is flawed; flawed because it is not logical, unethical and also self-deluding; self-deluding because it causes you to behave eminently badly toward persons who did not earn that behaviour. And if you so strongly don’t care about marriage or its accompanying rights and privileges and are so disdainful of its existence as a societal construct, why should it matter to you that there’s an entire subset of citizens who buy into it and want into it.

Simple,
1)the more people who engage in the institution, the more firmly it becomes entrenched.
2) every time someone gets married it costs us money. Either through tax breaks, or through other benefits. I am sick and tired of new benefits and rights that cost me money being created out of shadows.
I amy not have a chance of getting the benefits of legal marriages overturned for straights, but I do have a chance of not expanding the pool of potential applicants.
3) Why do something that is unnecesary?

The way you have been arguing thus far seems to imply that gay people asking for legal marital rights is distasteful to you and somehow harmful to society.

All recognised marriage is distasteful to me. Everyones. The idea that marriage is a legal and governmentally funded institutuion is to me repugnant.
The idea that people belive they have the "right" to force others to value thier relationship is even worse. The idea that i have to then pay for it?
I may not be able to get into reverse, but I can sure help stomp on the brakes.


It seems to indicate a prejudice. You say it’s not a religious prejudice, which would actually be understandable to a degree. So it must be something else, something deeper, and if that’s true, that’s disturbing. And if it isn’t something that fundamental and in this case you’re just talking, well…that’s even more disturbing.

Cost, need, benefits.
Thats what it is about.
What the cost to society?
Over 1000 entitlements at the federal level for gay couples if passed so i would say massive.
Need? None so far as I can see.
Benefis?
Again none.
So why incur an expense if theres no need and no benefit from doing so?

[BetterThanYou]

You know what, I would also love to have your three marriages recognised. No facetiousness. You really shoudn't have to go to jail because you're being a responsible provider to three families. I do sympathise with your position.


Thank you.
By the way good posts.


Oh so you don't want gay people to get married because they're gay. But heterosexual peple can get married because that's just the way it's always been? Just because? What would you call that line of reasoning?

No because gay sex doesn't pose the danger heterosex does.
Look like i said, if noone ever comitted crimes, would you support the idea of a police force?

because essentially, marriage acts as a sexual police force on a societal level.
So if gays cant commit the "crime" why police them?

[Nick Soapdish]

So you agree it makes no sense but think it should be done anyway?
:confused:


No, because I continue to maintain that there is more to marriage than simply avoiding illegitimate children.

Other than the abillity to raise children what are they?

The ability to raise children is not identical to the avoidance of having illegitimate children for numerous reasons that have already been stated to you (and apparently ignored by you?) in previous posts in this thread.

All my kids live in two parent housholds.

That wasn't the question.

How much of that is because of you putting up?

If you aren't one of the people in that two-person household for even one of those children, then marriage is not a contributer to that child's two-parent household in any way that it would not be for a homosexual couple.

Well, I can think of an exception, but it's not keeping the procreation within the marriage bond.

Or if you are continuing(?) to maintain that marriage hasn't helped you with two parents, both when being raised or raising others, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be encouraged for others.

[Tommy]

Is this a little gay?

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/2697/3va9.jpg

Yes, yes it is. Should it have the right to be married. I think so.

[Gilda Dent]

The idea that people belive they have the "right" to force others to value thier relationship is even worse.

Who has been arguing this? The debate is regarding legal rights. An increase in the speed of societal acceptance of homosexuality is one possible consequence, but I see nobody trying to force acceptance.

The idea that i have to then pay for it?

No need. We'll buy the license ourselves. And pay somewhat higher taxes as a result, at least when I'm working.

What the cost to society?
Over 1000 entitlements at the federal level for gay couples if passed so i would say massive.

That's 1000 rights, responsibilities, and privileges. Not entitlements. The actual monetary cost is unknown, but given the percentage of gays in the US population (1.5-2% of females, 3-4% of males), there would at most be a negligible blip.

Need? None so far as I can see.

Treating everyone equally under the law.

Benefis?
Again none.

Did you not just acknowledge above the more than 1000 laws pertaining to marriage that would now apply to gays and their families? Those are the benefits.

[BetterThanYou]

Who has been arguing this? The debate is regarding legal rights. An increase in the speed of societal acceptance of homosexuality is one possible consequence, but I see nobody trying to force acceptance.




You misunderstand my point gilda.
By having your marriage legally recognised, I am forced to value it.

No need. We'll buy the license ourselves. And pay somewhat higher taxes as a result, at least when I'm working.

Joint healthcare which saps the economies resources, joint tax filing which can lead to a lower rate.

[/quote]
That's 1000 rights, responsibilities, and privileges. Not entitlements. The actual monetary cost is unknown, but given the percentage of gays in the US population (1.5-2% of females, 3-4% of males), there would at most be a negligible blip.
[/quote]
Whether negligable or not its unecessary.



Treating everyone equally under the law.

Yet people aren't treated equally under the law. Politicans and cops get privaleges and breaks we don't. If OJ had been poor he'd be in prison now.
So since I don't see any evidence thats an actual goal in our society, and since as a capitalist nation with a market based legal system I don't see how we could without totalitarianism.


Did you not just acknowledge above the more than 1000 laws pertaining to marriage that would now apply to gays and their families? Those are the benefits.

How does that benefit anyone else though?
So you would be eligable for additional privaleges, but be unable to perform many of the responsibillities.


See to my way of thinking, if something doesn't fulfill a purpoose, it doesn't deserve to exist. So what purpose beyond some nominal idea of "equality" would gay marriage serve?
Show me a benefit beyond some subjective concept of "equality" and you would have my support.
But you know what? I will not support a thing which serves no purpose.
If you can show me one concrete benefit of changing marriage laws, I'll become a vocal supporter.

[Nick Soapdish]

Theres a major difference between marriage and voting.
Voting allows you to attempt to control cosiety, marriage allows society to attempt to control you.


Both work both ways.

Voting ... or registering to vote ... puts your name on the rolls to be summoned for jury duty.

Recognizing gay marriage as equal also recognizes gay relationships as equal.


Simple,
1)the more people who engage in the institution, the more firmly it becomes entrenched.
2) every time someone gets married it costs us money. Either through tax breaks, or through other benefits. I am sick and tired of new benefits and rights that cost me money being created out of shadows.
I amy not have a chance of getting the benefits of legal marriages overturned for straights, but I do have a chance of not expanding the pool of potential applicants.
3) Why do something that is unnecesary?


Study data on that is mixed.

The government and businesses will be paying out more money in benefits (some of which businesses are already doing). But they'll also be taking in more money in taxes in other ways (such as the so-called marriage penalty). It forces the couple to start relying on each other more than the government. New Jersey and California both project that they'll be saving money by giving out those benefits.

And more money in taxes from the increase in marriages (since presumably some gays are going to want to hold ceremonies). Forbes assumes the windfall at $16.8 B for the wedding industry.

And according to the census stats, homosexual couples number 1% of the number of heterosexual couples so it's going to boost whatever costs the federal government is having to pay to support the institution of marriage by 1%. You're complaining about pennies.

Which also contradicts what seemed like an endorsement of gays getting those benefits through a means other than marriage because "you" would still be having to pay those few cents for it.

(The windfall for the wedding industry is more pronounced because it's a one-time affair - theoretically - and there's a lot of pent-up demand. The government costs would be recurring though.)


All recognised marriage is distasteful to me. Everyones. The idea that marriage is a legal and governmentally funded institutuion is to me repugnant.
The idea that people belive they have the "right" to force others to value thier relationship is even worse. The idea that i have to then pay for it?
I may not be able to get into reverse, but I can sure help stomp on the brakes.


Including your own?

It sounds a lot like you're saying that you're ok with abusing the system yourself, but you don't think it's fair for other people to be able to do so.

It's an understandable attitude, but it's pretty crummy.

[Nick Soapdish]

But you know what? I will not support a thing which serves no purpose.
If you can show me one concrete benefit of changing marriage laws, I'll become a vocal supporter.


It strengthens homosexual partnerships so that they'd better be able to provide a two-parent household.

Those partners could then adopt children more easily and be able to provide a more stable home life for the child.

The United States currently has a glut of unwanted children that most heterosexual couples are uninterested in adopting because they are too old, have health concerns, or are of a different race. At least some of those children would be adopted by homosexual couples even assuming that most have the same disinclination to adopt them because some wouldn't have those disinclination or would move past them.

Ergo, the state would be freed of the responsibility of taking care of them.

[BetterThanYou]

Study data on that is mixed.

The government and businesses will be paying out more money in benefits (some of which businesses are already doing). But they'll also be taking in more money in taxes in other ways (such as the so-called marriage penalty). It forces the couple to start relying on each other more than the government. New Jersey and California both project that they'll be saving money by giving out those benefits.

And more money in taxes from the increase in marriages (since presumably some gays are going to want to hold ceremonies). Forbes assumes the windfall at $16.8 B for the wedding industry.

And according to the census stats, homosexual couples number 1% of the number of heterosexual couples so it's going to boost whatever costs the federal government is having to pay to support the institution of marriage by 1%. You're complaining about pennies.

Which also contradicts what seemed like an endorsement of gays getting those benefits through a means other than marriage because "you" would still be having to pay those few cents for it.

(The windfall for the wedding industry is more pronounced because it's a one-time affair - theoretically - and there's a lot of pent-up demand. The government costs would be recurring though.)

Nick if you can provide sources for this data, you may change my mind.


Including your own?

It sounds a lot like you're saying that you're ok with abusing the system yourself, but you don't think it's fair for other people to be able to do so.

Mine aren't truly recognised. Yes one is in this country, another is in Malaysia, and the other in Amsterdam,
(my thai wife is actually of chinese descent but I picked the term up from an old boss of mine) (( my other wife is from the czech republic but lives in amsterdam, and BTW I can't belive how much a flat in the centrum costs))
But if there were ever any proof of my "crimes" offered to the cops, they would all be anulled.


[/quote]
It's an understandable attitude, but it's pretty crummy.[/QUOTE]
But to answer your question, the fact that the government, by recognising some marriages, has the right to rule on the validity of others rankles. But I understand why this is so. I would prefer to return to the days when churches and communities regulated marriages based on local standards, but it aint gonna happen.
So the best I can do is try to halt the spread to others.
Look I understand society has a need to exercise control over individuals. I don't like it, but I get it.
But I don't see the point in extending that control unless absolutly necessary.

[Nick Soapdish]

Nick if you can provide sources for this data, you may change my mind.


I can't find the studies themselves, but I've googled up several references to the studies.

This one (http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/mar04/030304b.htm) seems to sum them up pretty well. It's testimony, not an article, but it's well foot-noted. There are a couple links in the footnotes, but they don't provide any stats.

Mine aren't truly recognised. Yes one is in this country, another is in Malaysia, and the other in Amsterdam,


I took the comment about them possibly being anulled meaning that they were legally recognized in their respective locales.

Edit: And I don't mind the crummy grammar or spelling. But could you at least get the quote tags right?

[JeffreyWKramer]

You misunderstand my point gilda.
By having your marriage legally recognised, I am forced to value it.
Not at all. How many people value or respect things like jaywalking statutes? How many people personally agree with or value tax law?

All law does is set the rules. It doesn't require or force anyone to respect anything.

[Dreadstar]

All law does is set the rules. It doesn't require or force anyone to respect anything.

TRUE!

There are people out there who still regard interracial marriages as miscegenation.

[kingdom2000]

LOL I like Nick's argument. It basically came down to "I don't like it so no" and "people don't get equal treatment anyway, so why bother."

Well at least he is up front about it.

[Tommy]

I find it interesting that every gay thread winds up being a fourteen page arguement.

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/2741/14me9.jpg

Isn't "gay" suposed to mean happy? Do people really want to ban happy?

[Agent Helix]

That's not Nick's argument.

[Nick Soapdish]

LOL I like Nick's argument. It basically came down to "I don't like it so no" and "people don't get equal treatment anyway, so why bother."

Well at least he is up front about it.

Hey!

That's not my argument. I'm the one arguing against it.

[Nick Soapdish]

That's not Nick's argument.

Thanks.

I'd rather avoid getting that particular argument attached to me.

[Agent Helix]

I figured you would.

[Gilda Dent]

You misunderstand my point gilda.
By having your marriage legally recognised, I am forced to value it.

No. Greater societal acceptance may be one of the long term consequences, but nobody is forcing anyone to value anything.

Joint healthcare which saps the economies resources, joint tax filing which can lead to a lower rate.

How so? More people are kept employable and thus productive. It's a net gain.

It can also lead to a higher tax rate.

Whether negligable or not its unecessary.

Neither is anything other than food, water, and air. Government isn't necessary. If it's going to provide legal protection, however, it should be equal protection under the law for all.

Yet people aren't treated equally under the law.

This is true. However, they should be.

Politicans and cops get privaleges and breaks we don't.

Benefits that come from their job, not their status as straight people.

If OJ had been poor he'd be in prison now.

Probably true, which points out a flaw in the system we should be trying to fix.

So since I don't see any evidence thats an actual goal in our society, and since as a capitalist nation with a market based legal system I don't see how we could without totalitarianism.

Try reading the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (particularly the bill of rights and the 14th amendment), federal civil rights statutes, Title 9, The Emancipation Proclamation, numerous pamphlets and promotional materials from the revolutionary period. Equality under the law is one of the core values and goals of our society. That we often fail at meeting that goal doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

How does that benefit anyone else though?

Your statement was that there were no benefits. There are, many important direct benefits for gay couples who wish to marry. Their children and families also benefit. Society benefits by becoming more egalitarian, by better serving the needs of it's citizens.

So you would be eligable for additional privaleges, but be unable to perform many of the responsibillities.

Which ones? Keep in mind that procreation isn't a responsibility of marriage.

See to my way of thinking, if something doesn't fulfill a purpoose, it doesn't deserve to exist. So what purpose beyond some nominal idea of "equality" would gay marriage serve?

More than 1000 rights, privileges, and responsibilities would now be available to all couples regardless of orientation.

Show me a benefit beyond some subjective concept of "equality" and you would have my support.

From HRC:

Rights and Protections Denied Same-Sex Partners

Because same-sex couples are denied the right to marry, same-sex couples and their families are denied access to the more than 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples. Among those are:


The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.

The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.

The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.

The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup.

The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships.

Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits.

The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.

The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.


But you know what? I will not support a thing which serves no purpose.
If you can show me one concrete benefit of changing marriage laws, I'll become a vocal supporter.

Easily.

There are eight of them above.

Here (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf) is the entire list of more than 1000.

Glad to have you aboard!

[BetterThanYou]

Not at all. How many people value or respect things like jaywalking statutes?

All of us, the minute we get a ticket for it.


How many people personally agree with or value tax law?

Everybody who pays taxes?

All law does is set the rules. It doesn't require or force anyone to respect anything.
It also sets penalties for breaking them.

[BetterThanYou]

No. Greater societal acceptance may be one of the long term consequences, but nobody is forcing anyone to value anything.


I am an employer. If gay marriage goes through I will be forced to provide gay employees partners with healthcare at an additional cost. Ergo yes I am being forced to value it.


How so? More people are kept employable and thus productive. It's a net gain.

Increases labor costs leading to less people being employed. More employable people, less jobs, net loss.


It can also lead to a higher tax rate.

6 of one half a dozen of the other. Its a wash.


Neither is anything other than food, water, and air. Government isn't necessary. If it's going to provide legal protection, however, it should be equal protection under the law for all.

Should it?
Why?
The wealthy are always going to have better protection, so will the powerful. No society will ever change this. All attempts to do so have led to something exponentially worse.
Personally I think those who contribute more, deserve more.



This is true. However, they should be.

I don't know. Pewrsonally I think your privaleges, and slack, should be determined by what you produce. Produce more, get more.
Still living in your parents house at 27, your rights get revoked.




Benefits that come from their job, not their status as straight people.

Staright people do perform a job though, perpetuation of the species.
So don't they then deserve more than freeloaders who only screw for pleasure?



Probably true, which points out a flaw in the system we should be trying to fix.

Sorry I'm not into lost causes.





Try reading the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (particularly the bill of rights and the 14th amendment), federal civil rights statutes, Title 9, The Emancipation Proclamation, numerous pamphlets and promotional materials from the revolutionary period. Equality under the law is one of the core values and goals of our society. That we often fail at meeting that goal doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

You mean the documents written by slave owners that say "all men are created equal"?
Or the ones that talked about universal human rights when women couldn't vote or own property?
Or maybe you are referring to documents enshrining property values written by a people who had conquered several native nations and taken thier land through force of arms in order to build thier country?
Civil rights movement was all about racial equality right?
Then why is AA legal?
Isn't that nothing more than "compensatory racism"?
See my point here gilda, this country has always been about not equality, but merit.
We hide our love of merit behind a facade of equality, but since people are born with unequal capabillities we know its BS.
A kid with down syndrome will never have the equality of opportunities that a normal kid does, just as a janitors son will never have opportunities equal to a CEO's son.
We all know this to be true.
What America really values, is the abillity to make the most of what you're given.
It values production, results.
We don't value equality anymore than the Soviet Union valued the proletariat.




Your statement was that there were no benefits. There are, many important direct benefits for gay couples who wish to marry. Their children and families also benefit. Society benefits by becoming more egalitarian, by better serving the needs of it's citizens.

How is being more egalitarian a benefit?


More than 1000 rights, privileges, and responsibilities would now be available to all couples regardless of orientation.

Again how is that a benefit?


See Gilda, I don't value equality for its own sake. I don't value egalitarianism for its own sake. I do value the fact that we claim to value them, because they serve as a great smokescreen for what our culture really values.
Winners.



Look Im not trying to be a prick here (allthough I seem to be succeeding none the less) But I really don't consider something that only benefits a special interest a benefit.
OK so gay marriage will benefit gays. How will it benefit straights? If it doesn't what function do gay couples perform that entitle them to a benefit?

[BetterThanYou]

as an example

The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.

OK so how does this benefit anyone other than the couple?

The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.

Uhhuh, again would benefit the couple, would be a problem for the company, would result in lost productivity and lower economic grwoth thus denying everyone.
Again whats the benefit?

The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.

And? Again how is this a benefit?
If the partner has skills in demand he or she can immigrate anyway, if not he or she becomes a burden.

The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup.

Should there be?
If I marry a woman with kids, and then we divorce, I'm not expected to pay for them either, why should you be forced to pay for kids that aren't yours?
Granted this would be a benefit on a small scale, but then if gays can't adopt anyway it wouldn't be necessary. I mean listen these all sound like things which benefit some, but not others. at best these are things that can be addresed seperatly and have l;ittle d=to do with marriage.
When my mom and step dad broke up, he didn't get visitation rights either, and they were married.
So again I'm not seeing a benefit.

The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships.

Again this can be done right now with a good attorney.

Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits.

Wonderful more government spending, real benefit there.

The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.

Uhhuh and again the beneift to everyone else?
Somehow I think that lawyers would love people getting more will and more lawsuits, so it helps some but hurts others. Wash.

The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.

hmm not bad, doesn't seem to hurt anyone, takes burden off the state, increases economy.
This might be a net benefit, but is it enough to justify the changes?

[kingdom2000]

Oops brain fart. Meant that's Better's argument is of the "I don't like it" and "the world isn't fair anyway so why bother" variety, not that Nick's is.

[Gilda Dent]

I am an employer. If gay marriage goes through I will be forced to provide gay employees partners with healthcare at an additional cost. Ergo yes I am being forced to value it.

Ah, you don't want to have to pay health insurance costs. I thought you mean "value" in the sense of "hold it in esteem".

6 of one half a dozen of the other. Its a wash.

That it is. Therefore this is not a good reason to deny equal rights.

Should it?
Why?
The wealthy are always going to have better protection, so will the powerful. No society will ever change this. All attempts to do so have led to something exponentially worse.

All attempts? Are you serious? So we should just cater to the rich and make no attempt to provide equal protection under the law (not equal outcomes, but equal protection)?

Personally I think those who contribute more, deserve more.

This relates to gay marriage how?

I don't know. Pewrsonally I think your privaleges, and slack, should be determined by what you produce. Produce more, get more.
Still living in your parents house at 27, your rights get revoked.

Interesting stance. Let's take away the rights of those who produce less. I didn't realize you were arguing from a social Darwinism perspective. This makes things a lot more clear.

Staright people do perform a job though, perpetuation of the species.
So don't they then deserve more than freeloaders who only screw for pleasure?

This is a new one. Gay people are "freeloaders who only screw for pleasure". Perhaps you've missed it, but gays do have and rear children through a variety of means. Adoption, for example.

Sorry I'm not into lost causes.

Things are better than they were a hundred years ago for blacks, Asians, Hispanics, women, the disabled. It's not perfect, but things are better for all of these groups as a result of the fight for equal protection, and we are better as a nation as a result because we've ensured a better chance for everyone at earning those rewards you value so highly.

You mean the documents written by slave owners that say "all men are created equal"?
Or the ones that talked about universal human rights when women couldn't vote or own property?
Or maybe you are referring to documents enshrining property values written by a people who had conquered several native nations and taken thier land through force of arms in order to build thier country?

Those are the ones. That the men and the times in which they were written were flawed does not decrease the value of the message.

You may notice that those situations have been either improved greatly or rectified by pursuit of the ideal. Even when the ideal is not attainable, it is worth pursuing for the progress that results.

Civil rights movement was all about racial equality right?
Then why is AA legal?

Red herring. Completely irrelevant.

See my point here gilda, this country has always been about not equality, but merit.

It's about both.

We hide our love of merit behind a facade of equality, but since people are born with unequal capabillities we know its BS.

We are talking about guaranteeing equal treatment under the law, not equal outcomes.

A kid with down syndrome will never have the equality of opportunities that a normal kid does, just as a janitors son will never have opportunities equal to a CEO's son.
We all know this to be true.
What America really values, is the abillity to make the most of what you're given.
It values production, results.
We don't value equality anymore than the Soviet Union valued the proletariat.

More social Darwinism. This is a bankrupt moral philosophy on its face.

Again, it's not a matter of providing equal outcomes, but equal protection under the law.

How is being more egalitarian a benefit?

I would think this would be obvious. It prevents institutionalized discrimination and persecution against those not currently holding power.

Again how is that a benefit?

I provided the information. There are a great many benefits. Hundreds of them. Are you just ignoring them? Take a look at the eight in my previous post. How can you not see those as benefits?

See Gilda, I don't value equality for its own sake. I don't value egalitarianism for its own sake. I do value the fact that we claim to value them, because they serve as a great smokescreen for what our culture really values.
Winners.

You keep presenting that as if those two concepts were mutually exclusive. We value achievement, as we should, and equality before the law.

Look Im not trying to be a prick here (allthough I seem to be succeeding none the less) But I really don't consider something that only benefits a special interest a benefit.

Ah, more negative labels. If it benefits only the wrong people, it isn't a benefit. I really cannot argue against logic like that.

The Americans with disabilities act benefits only disabled people. The 19th amendment benefits only women. The 26th amendment benefits only people between 18 and 20. Providing equal protection to a previously disenfranchised group is going to benefit that group, and we are better off as a result.

OK so gay marriage will benefit gays.

So, it is a benefit. Thank you for the concession.

How will it benefit straights?

Gay people have family and friends. My brother would benefit, my wife's family. Children being raised by gay couples. Their friends. There are a lot of indirect benefits to those close to the gay people who would benefit.

Would it benefit straight people directly? No. Women's suffrage didn't benefit men directly, but it was still the right thing to do. Legal protections against racial discrimination didn't benefit whites directly, but they were still the right thing to do.

If it doesn't what function do gay couples perform that entitle them to a benefit?

They are human beings. That alone entitles them to protection against discrimination.

[Gilda Dent]

OK so how does this benefit anyone other than the couple?

It doesn't. Neither does it benefit anyone other than the couple with straight couples.

Uhhuh, again would benefit the couple, would be a problem for the company, would result in lost productivity and lower economic grwoth thus denying everyone.
Again whats the benefit?

I'm not understanding. Are you really not seeing the benefit here? You say in your first sentence that it is a benefit to the couple, as are all marriage benefits.

And? Again how is this a benefit?
If the partner has skills in demand he or she can immigrate anyway, if not he or she becomes a burden.

I'm not understanding how you don't see the benefits of these. You can obviously read and write, so it's becoming increasingly difficult to understand how you're not capable of seeing the benefits when they were listed and linked in detail here.

It's a benefit because it means not forcibly splitting up families.

I mean listen these all sound like things which benefit some, but not others.

These are all things that already benefit straight couples.

So again I'm not seeing a benefit.

Are you actually reading anything in this list?

Uhhuh and again the beneift to everyone else?

Everyone else already has this benefit available to them.

This might be a net benefit, but is it enough to justify the changes?

By itself, no. Along with the thousand other rights and legal protections, definitely.

[Cam63]

I don't know. It is the same avatar as the last one curefreak had. But you're right. The writing is completely idiotic, but it's a different kind of idiotic.

Has he called a woman he disagreed with or felt rejected by the " C " word yet ?

That's the clincher.

[Nick Soapdish]

All of us, the minute we get a ticket for it.


By "value", do you mean vehemently disagree with because it's no longer a useless law, but a useless law that is costing you money?


Everybody who pays taxes?

That must be why there are so many people complaining about the current tax code and trying to get it fixed or torn down entirely. And why "lower taxes" is usually the best campaign "promise" of politicians.

Just because I pay my taxes doesn't mean that I think they're fair or that I have any respect for the system. It means that I think that paying my taxes is a better idea for me than not paying my taxes. And aolthough it doesn't explicitly mean this, I don't think that not paying my taxes is giong to be any kind of fix for the situation.

[Nick Soapdish]

See my point here gilda, this country has always been about not equality, but merit.
We hide our love of merit behind a facade of equality, but since people are born with unequal capabillities we know its BS.
A kid with down syndrome will never have the equality of opportunities that a normal kid does, just as a janitors son will never have opportunities equal to a CEO's son.
We all know this to be true.
What America really values, is the abillity to make the most of what you're given.
It values production, results.
We don't value equality anymore than the Soviet Union valued the proletariat.


Not even close.

This country has been about trying to make people equal in the eyes of the law.

The founders of this country knew that they didn't get everything right in the first take which is why there is a mechanism for amending the Constitution ... and why they immediately did so with the Bill of Rights.

[Nick Soapdish]

This is a new one. Gay people are "freeloaders who only screw for pleasure". Perhaps you've missed it, but gays do have and rear children through a variety of means. Adoption, for example.

Beats me.

It was even the only topic that I touched upon in my response to his claim that he would support gay marriage if there was any concrete benefit.

Which has since been amended to enough net benefits to justify any change.

[BetterThanYou]

Two things.
1) over the week end I checked out some of the links provided.
I'm on board, the benefits as I see them would seem to outweigh the costs.
2) Gilda, how can you not be a social darwinist?

[Kahnno6]

Two things.
1) over the week end I checked out some of the links provided.
I'm on board, the benefits as I see them would seem to outweigh the costs.
2) Gilda, how can you not be a social darwinist?


This is an honest question - You were honestly swayed by people's arguments here? And changed your view on something?

I don't know that I've ever seen that happen on YABS in these kinds of discussions. I'm kind of shocked..and at that same time very pleased!

[Charles RB]

2) Gilda, how can you not be a social darwinist?

Because she's got brains?

[BetterThanYou]

This is an honest question - You were honestly swayed by people's arguments here? And changed your view on something?

I don't know that I've ever seen that happen on YABS in these kinds of discussions. I'm kind of shocked..and at that same time very pleased!
People give me new information, I may come to a new conclusion. The only people who don't reconsider thier opinion when given new information are morons.

[BetterThanYou]

Because she's got brains?
Elaborate please.

[Charles RB]

Elaborate please.

Surely it was pretty obvious that I was saying Social Darwinism is a load of balls?

[BetterThanYou]

Surely it was pretty obvious that I was saying Social Darwinism is a load of balls?
Thats what I was asking you to elaborate on.
In what way IYO is it a load of balls?

[Gilda Dent]

Two things.
1) over the week end I checked out some of the links provided.
I'm on board, the benefits as I see them would seem to outweigh the costs.

Good to hear.

2) Gilda, how can you not be a social darwinist?

As I said, it's a morally bankrupt philosophy. It allows for people to be discarded because of circumstance. I believe there is potential to contribute in everyone and nurturing that potential provides greater benefit to society and to most individuals than a pure cutthroat winner takes all system.

I would not be here if not for a group of people who helped me not because of anything I'd done to deserve that help, and not because they would directly benefit in any material way, but because I was a person in need and they were in a position to help. If these people had been operating from a purely social darwinist perspective, I'd have been simply out of luck.

[Cam63]

Gilda is one brainy sheila. :)

[JeffreyWKramer]

2) Gilda, how can you not be a social darwinist?

How can anyone with an ounce of brains be a social darwinist?

Social darwinism - which isn't Darwinism at all, really, that's completely a misnomer - assumes that individuals and groups in society are at the place they occupy in society because of inherent superiority (in the case of those high in society) or inferiority (in the case of those that are poor, etc.).

The existence of Paris Hilton is in and of itself enough to disprove this hypothesis. The existence of GW Bush is another disproof.

Social darwinism ignores the existence of prejudice, discrimination and injustice, and the impacts these things have on social and economic status, and is essentially an argument used to justify the social inequality.

If social darwinist principles were true, giving women the vote and legal equality should have done nothing to improve female economic standing, academic achievements, etc. Yet, witness Oprah. Witness the fact that women have come to dominate some areas of academic study, and some professions.

[MrSuslov]

The existence of Paris Hilton is in and of itself enough to disprove this hypothesis.
Naah, that argues for something else, probably the existence of an inheritance tax that is squared, cubed, etc., by the number of celebrity sexual partners and/or "private" sex tapes one has. Besides, she may yet prove her worth by being Patient Zero for some horrible new disease that consumes those who qualify for Lifestyles of the Undeservedly Rich and Famous. Tara Reid, Nicole Richie, Anna Smith, y'all are next.

Yet, witness Oprah.
Nnnh. That is a sight too horrible for the eyes of man or beast, or whatever else I might dig up out of H.P. Lovecraft.

Witness the fact that women have come to dominate some areas of academic study, and some professions.
Like what? Might be useful to know that.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Like what? Might be useful to know that.

For one, women outnumber men in psychology, and by huge margins in some sub-fields, such as developmental psychology. They are starting to outnumber men in some medical specialties, and overall, medical research (as opposed to practice) is composed of approximately equal numbers of women and men. If current trends continue, women will be outnumbering men in the entirety of medicine within the next couple decades.

[Gilda Dent]

Like what? Might be useful to know that.

If I remember the last time I looked at this, more than half of all medical students are now female and new pharmacists tend to be females by a significant margin. Women are closing the gap in dentistry and orthodontics. While a majority of high end chemists tend to still be male (though the margin is closing), the majority of entry level chemists (typically lab technicians) are female. I believe a large majority of botanists and zoologists are women, and women dominate the biological sciences in general. A majority of new real estate brokers are female and accountants are split roughly evenly. About half of all MBA's are women.

I think women are now a slight majority in psychology, and tend to dominate the humanities departments at most universities, particularly English and the social sciences.

Men still dominate engineering, math, and physical sciences, and tend to still be predominant at the doctorate and post-doctorate level in other sciences and at the upper ends of the business world, in physical labor intensive jobs such as construction, mining or welding, in public protection jobs such as the military, police, fire fighting, and corrections, and there doesn't seem to be a strong trend towards closing the gap, and women's professions such as nursing and teaching likewise tend not to show as much movement towards a closing gap.

The closing gap in the medical profession makes perfect sense given that it entails a lot of nurturing and caring behaviors. There are a couple of curious anomalies, though. A significant majority of gynecologists and pediatricians remain male--it's, for whatever reason, still difficult to attract women to these specialties.

Note: These trends towards higher female participation are at the current entry level. It'll still take a decade or two before the trend manifests itself completely in actual practice, and the mommy track tends to have a slightly negative effect on the level of female participation post graduation.

[Cam63]

'Told ya she was brainy.

[Agent Helix]

Wait, what are the stats on sexy nurses and buxom doctors?

Are those high?

Please tell me those are high.

[shanejayell]

Being OT (who'd a thought?) I just do NOT get the objection. Considering the declining number of straight people marrying, why not let gays marry?

:)
Priests need the work.

[BetterThanYou]

How can anyone with an ounce of brains be a social darwinist?

Social darwinism - which isn't Darwinism at all, really, that's completely a misnomer - assumes that individuals and groups in society are at the place they occupy in society because of inherent superiority (in the case of those high in society) or inferiority (in the case of those that are poor, etc.).

We seem to have different defintions of Social Darwinism, which doesn't surprise me. After reading your posts I googled a bit and found there is no consensus on what social darwinism is.
To me, the theory I was referring about, was the idea that the competition between cultures inproves both, unless one is completly inferior in which case it dissapears. On a personal level I was reffering to the idea that the competition among individuals for social staus and power usually ensures the most qualified individuals rise to the top. Not so much that competition illuminates innate superiority, as that it creates improvement



Social darwinism ignores the existence of prejudice, discrimination and injustice, and the impacts these things have on social and economic status, and is essentially an argument used to justify the social inequality.

I don't belive social inequality needs justification, nor do I belive in any pipe dream of social equality. There will always be haves and have nots, and the have nots will allways outnumber the haves. The only question to me, is whether the haves earned it or not.

If social darwinist principles were true, giving women the vote and legal equality should have done nothing to improve female economic standing, academic achievements, etc. Yet, witness Oprah. Witness the fact that women have come to dominate some areas of academic study, and some professions.

And yet wasn't she subject to the same discrimination, as both a black and a woman that you say debunks Social Darwinism?
If anything Oprah is proof that regardless of the odds against it, cream always rises to the top.

[JeffreyWKramer]

To me, the theory I was referring about, was the idea that the competition between cultures inproves both, unless one is completly inferior in which case it dissapears.
How does one define superiority on a cultural level. Would you argue that radical Islamism and African kleptocracies are superior cultures? They sure seem on the rise today.

On a personal level I was reffering to the idea that the competition among individuals for social staus and power usually ensures the most qualified individuals rise to the top. Not so much that competition illuminates innate superiority, as that it creates improvement.
Yet, this ignores the impact of the advantages created by those who have high status. Better access to resources, better healthcare, better education, better connections, etc. Your concept would only work if the playing field was relatively equal, and it isn't.

I don't belive social inequality needs justification, nor do I belive in any pipe dream of social equality. There will always be haves and have nots, and the have nots will allways outnumber the haves. The only question to me, is whether the haves earned it or not.
And again, the existence of people like George W. Bush and Paris Hilton at high levels of social status clearly argues that this doesn't work very well.


And yet wasn't she subject to the same discrimination, as both a black and a woman that you say debunks Social Darwinism?
If anything Oprah is proof that regardless of the odds against it, cream always rises to the top.
No. The fact that no women - black or otherwise - rose to such positions of prominence until modern times - post civil rights and equal rights legislation - demonstrates that whether or not people rise up through the system isn't just a matter of ability. If it was just about ability, other women would have risen to such positions.

Or I guess you can argue that Oprah represents some jump ahead in human evolution. Good luck with that argument.

[Camron Amaya]

Oh my God I hate Oprah. She is a living plague sent upon Earth by Satan. I despise her.

[BetterThanYou]

How does one define superiority on a cultural level. Would you argue that radical Islamism and African kleptocracies are superior cultures? They sure seem on the rise today.

Easy just ask youself what do they/have they produced?
I would argue that radical islamism is as inherantly inferior to westen (more specifically) American culture, as Svoiet culture was. And for the same reason.
Neither created or creates a vibrant enough society to whether challebge or change.

Yet, this ignores the impact of the advantages created by those who have high status. Better access to resources, better healthcare, better education, better connections, etc. Your concept would only work if the playing field was relatively equal, and it isn't.

And never will be. However even uneven cometition produces improvements in both individuals. If anything uneven comeptition produces the greatest improvement in those less fortunate.

And again, the existence of people like George W. Bush and Paris Hilton at high levels of social status clearly argues that this doesn't work very well.

Really?
Bush had a higher grade point average than Kerry did, and was a pretty good governor. Hilton may act like a sexed out tramp, but that may just be becasue its easier than working for a living. In many ways its just like real evolution, the two most dominant members of a species might have one just as dominant, otr they might have offspring with down syndrome. The question isn't whether every individual is better, but whether the bulk are. Doesn't evolution states that random mutations will be "tested" through cometition, the most successful mutations then reprodcuing?
What if Bush and Paris are just random mutations that won't reproduce?



No. The fact that no women - black or otherwise - rose to such positions of prominence until modern times - post civil rights and equal rights legislation - demonstrates that whether or not people rise up through the system isn't just a matter of ability. If it was just about ability, other women would have risen to such positions.

I take it you never heard of Madam Walker?
Presuffrage, pre civil rights. Vastly successful Ceo.

Or I guess you can argue that Oprah represents some jump ahead in human evolution. Good luck with that argument.
Huh?

[Nick Soapdish]

What if Bush and Paris are just random mutations that won't reproduce?


Too late. Bush already has kids. And the odds of Hilton not getting pregnant at some point are virtually zero.


I take it you never heard of Madam Walker?
Presuffrage, pre civil rights. Vastly successful Ceo.


On March 23, 1944, Nicholas Alkemade of the RAF fell to the ground from about 20,000 feet up without his parachute deploying and didn't suffer as much as a fracture. I'd still rather use a parachute if I'm sky-diving, even if it's going to be into a snow-drift.