The shameful gay marriage ban.

[Crowley]

Aww nice attempt at redirect Crowley.
So when was the last time you bought a Homosexual?
How much did he cost?
no redirect there... social progession happens. 60 years ago women had limited rights as did other minorities. Gays deserve equal rights... Especially if you're a TRUE REPUBLICAN.

get with the times or get left behind. Here's a real question for you... when's the last time you had a meal with a gay friend of either gender in social non-work setting?

[EdContradictory]

when's the last time you had a meal with a gay friend of either gender in social non-work setting?
For some reason I can't see him eating with people he considers mentally diseased and/or deviants.

Or maybe he doth protest too much...

[mwm1331]

no redirect there... social progession happens. 60 years ago women had limited rights as did other minorities. Gays deserve equal rights... Especially if you're a TRUE REPUBLICAN.
Gays have equal rights. They have the exact same rights as heterosexuals.
That is the very defintion of equal rights.


get with the times or get left behind. Here's a real question for you... when's the last time you had a meal with a gay friend of either gender in social non-work setting?
This weekend why?

[Crowley]

Gays have equal rights. They have the exact same rights as heterosexuals.
That is the very defintion of equal rights.
so then you're for gay marriage?

This weekend why?
so do they know you consider them to be deviants and mentally diseased?

[Spike-X]

Marriage...doesn't have to available to everyone to be fair.

Actually yes, it does. If you allow couple A to marry, but not allow couple B to marry, then you're being unfair to couple B. It's really not that hard to understand.

Noone is being discriminated against.

Are you actually saying that with a straight face?

Be gay, be happy, sleep with as many men/women as you want or just one, no one can, or wants to stop you.

Yeah, be happy. Just don't expect to be treated equally. Apparently, that's too much to ask for in a supposedly civilised country.

And, contrary to what you say above, there are many people who want to stop gay people from "sleep(ing) with as many men/women as you want or just one". Who want to kill people simply for doing that. Who have killed people simply for doing that.

If people are being treated unequally because of their sexual orientation, that is unfair and it is discrimination. You can say it isn't until you're blue in the face, that won't make it true.

[mwm1331]

so then you're for gay marriage?

No Marrigae isn't a right. Besides that the regualtions on Marriage apply to everyone equally. Gays can get marriede, they can not however marry someone of the same sex. Neither can I. Tell me do you feel polygamists are being discriminated agianst?



so do they know you consider them to be deviants and mentally diseased?
No, because I don't. She knows I feel her behavior is deviant, and a sin, and we often discuss such subjects as this. We rarely agree, but so what?
Just becuase I don't agree with certain behaviors doesn't mean I hate those who engage in them. Of course to a liberal disagreeing = Bigotry.

[Spike-X]

Gays have equal rights. They have the exact same rights as heterosexuals.

Bullfuck. Gay people do not have the right to marry the person they love and want to spend the rest of their life with (assuming said person is able and willing to consent to marriage).

[mwm1331]

Actually yes, it does. If you allow couple A to marry, but not allow couple B to marry, then you're being unfair to couple B. It's really not that hard to understand.

That so?
So its discrimination when we disallow first cousins to marry?
See your argument breaks down because the fact is this is what marriage is. A man and a wmoan. The US has already looked at, and rejected as valid, the other permutations on marriage, such as polgymay, incesstous marriage, etc.
The simple fact is marriage is not a right. There are litterally thousands of privaleges only granted to a small percentage of the population. That isn't discrimination.

Are you actually saying that with a straight face?

Yes I am. Because its true.


Yeah, be happy. Just don't expect to be treated equally. Apparently, that's too much to ask for in a supposedly civilised country.

And, contrary to what you say above, there are many people who want to stop gay people from "sleep(ing) with as many men/women as you want or just one". Who want to kill people simply for doing that. Who have killed people simply for doing that.

If people are being treated unequally because of their sexual orientation, that is unfair and it is discrimination. You can say it isn't until you're blue in the face, that won't make it true.
Gays are treated equally. YTes there are some small mined people who hate gays. So what? There are also small minded people who hate whites, blacks, asians, americans, europeans, non-europeans etc. What is your point?
Again no one is being treated unequally. Gays have the same jobs, education, slary, etc. as heterosexuals. They go to the same colleges, work in the same industries, etc.
That they can't take part in an ceremoney which has nothing to do with them is irrelevant.

[mwm1331]

Bullfuck. Gay people do not have the right to marry the person they love and want to spend the rest of their life with (assuming said person is able and willing to consent to marriage).

Uhh neither do I.
Or anyone else.
None of us have the right to marry.
Becasue marriage isn't a right.
However nothing is stopping them from spending the rest of thier life with said person.

[Crowley]

No Marrigae isn't a right. Besides that the regualtions on Marriage apply to everyone equally. Gays can get marriede, they can not however marry someone of the same sex. Neither can I. Tell me do you feel polygamists are being discriminated agianst?
that's a nice attempt at a dodge but obviously that's not equal rights.

If the main point of idealogy in Republican party is "less government in people's lives" then they have no right telling consenting adults who they can and can't marry. Equating homosexuality with polygamy is utterly ridiculous.

Furthermore, I find it funny how you want SS money to be returned to the people so they can make up there own minds on what to do with the money... yet they can't marry another consenting adult.

That's hypocrisy.


No, because I don't. She knows I feel her behavior is deviant, and a sin, and we often discuss such subjects as this. We rarely agree, but so what?
Just becuase I don't agree with certain behaviors doesn't mean I hate those who engage in them. Of course to a liberal disagreeing = Bigotry.
you viewpoint is certainly bigotry... your behavior toward her and disagreeing is certainly not.

[EdContradictory]

you viewpoint is certainly bigotry... your behavior toward her and disagreeing is certainly not.
He clearly lies to her. Or else he was lying when he said he thought homosexuality could be a mental disease. I seriously doubt anyone would put up with someone who thought that about them.

Or maybe she's a family member that has to interact with him.

[Spike-X]

The simple fact is marriage is not a right. There are litterally thousands of privaleges only granted to a small percentage of the population. That isn't discrimination.

Okay, let's go with the premise that marriage is, in fact, a privilege rather than a right.

Let's have a look at the types of people who are currently granted this privilege:

Murderers.

Rapists.

Child molesters.

Serial wife-beaters.

Jerry Springer Show guests.

Me and some chick I meet in Vegas while I'm drunk.

All these people can marry, yet loving, commited same-sex couples can't.

Even if it's not discrimination, it's pretty bloody insulting.

[mwm1331]

that's a nice attempt at a dodge but obviously that's not equal rights.

If the main point of idealogy in Republican party is "less government in people's lives" then they have no right telling consenting adults who they can and can't marry. Equating homosexuality with polygamy is utterly ridiculous.

Furthermore, I find it funny how you want SS money to be returned to the people so they can make up there own minds on what to do with the money... yet they can't marry another consenting adult.

That's hypocrisy.


No they can't tell people who they can and can't marry. However the minute the federal government became involved in Marriage, they did have the right to determine what a marriage is. As do the citzens as a whole. The vast majority of Americans believe a marriage to be a union of a man and a woman. If that is the defintion which Americas chooses to go with, its not discrimination anymore than not allowing girls into the boy scouts is.



you viewpoint is certainly bigotry... your behavior toward her and disagreeing is certainly not.
No it isn't. The fact that you believe it is, only shows your ignorance. I am neither a bigot nor intolerant.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
I am not intolerant of those who differ. I tolerate them. I may disagree with thier behavior that doesn't make me a bigot. I do not hate, nor do I oppress anyone. That doesn't mean I am required to accept, celebrate, or embrace those things I disagree with.
As an example, would feeling that armed robbery is immoral and deviant make me a bigot?

[mwm1331]

Okay, let's go with the premise that marriage is, in fact, a privilege rather than a right.

Let's have a look at the types of people who are currently granted this privilege:

Murderers.

Rapists.

Child molesters.

Serial wife-beaters.

Jerry Springer Show guests.

Me and some chick I meet in Vegas while I'm drunk.

All these people can marry, yet loving, commited same-sex couples can't.

Even if it's not discrimination, it's pretty bloody insulting.

Insulting? Perhaps.
I can easily understand why it offends, and why gays want to be able to marry.
I also understand why so many feel discriminated aginst.
That doesn't however mean that that is what it actually is though.

[Spike-X]

Gays can get marriede, they can not however marry someone of the same sex. Neither can I.

That's like saying miscegenation laws weren't discriminatory because black people had the right to marry somebody of their own race, the same as white people did.

[Crowley]

No they can't tell people who they can and can't marry. However the minute the federal government became involved in Marriage, they did have the right to determine what a marriage is. As do the citzens as a whole. The vast majority of Americans believe a marriage to be a union of a man and a woman. If that is the defintion which Americas chooses to go with, its not discrimination anymore than not allowing girls into the boy scouts is.they also determined at one point what a man was inspite a majority of the country at the time.

your argument is collapsing.

No it isn't. The fact that you believe it is, only shows your ignorance. I am neither a bigot nor intolerant.I am not intolerant of those who differ. I tolerate them. I may disagree with thier behavior that doesn't make me a bigot. I do not hate, nor do I oppress anyone. That doesn't mean I am required to accept, celebrate, or embrace those things I disagree with. but you don't believe they should be granted the same rights as you... therefore you may tolerate their presence... but you certainly don't tolerate their lifestyle.

[Gail Simone]

First, bullshit. PLENTY of people want to stop gay people from having sex. Idiots, mostly, but yes, plenty, and it takes an ignorant viewpoint to pretend otherwise.

Second, and I apologize to people who have no ill will against gays but are still against gay marriage...

...you will be defeated on this. It may take time, but eventually, the majority of people start to see that it's wrong to discriminate, and they elect people who agree. I'll go a little farther--I bet it's a Republican who first signs a gay marriage rights bill into law. Just a hunch I have that the Dems are going to continue to be cowardly about this for a while.

But in any case, eventually, much of the rest of the world will allow gay marriages, and when we find that the world doesn't explode, common sense and kindness will prevail.

Gail

[Gilda Dent]

That so?
So its discrimination when we disallow first cousins to marry?

Yes, it is, as there's no good reason cousins shouldn't marry, and in fact the majority of Americans can marry a first cousin.

There are litterally thousands of privaleges only granted to a small percentage of the population. That isn't discrimination.

Actually, that's the definition of discrimination.

That they can't take part in an ceremoney which has nothing to do with them is irrelevant.

Actually, we can have the ceremony. We can also have a church wedding (my wife and I did) if a church will marry us. What we can't do is enter into a marriage contract and thus have our marriages legally recognized by the government.

I'd like to add that it seems to me that same-sex marriage bans aren't just a violation of gay people's rights, they're a violatiion of equal rights for men and women. If a man can marry a woman, it's sex discrimination not to allow me to do the same.

Gilda

[mwm1331]

Yes, it is, as there's no good reason cousins shouldn't marry, and in fact the majority of Americans can marry a first cousin.

There is a very good reason not to allow it. The factt that they do (now I guess I always heard it was illegal) Is shameful.



Actually, that's the definition of discrimination.

Really? So its discrimination that women are automatically gratned custody rights after divorce unless the father can prove she is unfit? It's discrimination that that men can go shirtless in public but women can't? Its discrimination that The husband or wife of US citizens can become a citizen themself easier than someone not married to a US citizen?



Actually, we can have the ceremony. We can also have a church wedding (my wife and I did) if a church will marry us. What we can't do is enter into a marriage contract and thus have our marriages legally recognized by the government.

And? How exactly is that discrimination?
You're marriage does not meet the rquirements to be legally recognised.

I'd like to add that it seems to me that same-sex marriage bans aren't just a violation of gays civil rights, they're a violatiion of equal rights for men and women. If a man can marry a woman, it's sex discrimination not to allow me to do the same.

Gilda
So if a man is allowed to do anything a woman isn't its sexual discrimination now?
Tell you what, walk into a mens bathroom at the mall and see how well that plays when they arrest ya OK?

[Pixies Chick]

First, bullshit. PLENTY of people want to stop gay people from having sex. Idiots, mostly, but yes, plenty, and it takes an ignorant viewpoint to pretend otherwise.

Second, and I apologize to people who have no ill will against gays but are still against gay marriage...

...you will be defeated on this. It may take time, but eventually, the majority of people start to see that it's wrong to discriminate, and they elect people who agree. I'll go a little farther--I bet it's a Republican who first signs a gay marriage rights bill into law. Just a hunch I have that the Dems are going to continue to be cowardly about this for a while.

But in any case, eventually, much of the rest of the world will allow gay marriages, and when we find that the world doesn't explode, common sense and kindness will prevail.

Gail

George W. Bush, when his poll numbers hit 22.

And when it happens, and people see that life goes on, we'll all be glad he did.

[mwm1331]

George W. Bush, when his poll numbers hit 22.

And when it happens, and people see that life goes on, we'll all be glad he did.


Conversely when it doesn't happen, and peoploe see Gays are still living thier lives, having relationships, having sex, doing whatever they want in thier bedrooms, and in general being treated exactly like anybody else, we'll all be gald he didn't.

[Crowley]

Conversely when it doesn't happen, and peoploe see Gays are still living thier lives, having relationships, having sex, doing whatever they want in thier bedrooms, and in general being treated exactly like anybody else, we'll all be gald he didn't.
I'm sure that Matthew Sheperd would love to hear that...

oh wait...

[mwm1331]

I'm sure that Matthew Sheperd would love to hear that...

oh wait...


That was a sad, and tragic event.
Which has precisely squat to do with this subject.
Now please explain how the actions of two hateful idiots has anything at all to do with "gay marriage"?

[TCJohnson]

Conversely when it doesn't happen, and peoploe see Gays are still living thier lives, having relationships, having sex, doing whatever they want in thier bedrooms, and in general being treated exactly like anybody else, we'll all be gald he didn't.


except they cannot visit their loved ones when they are in the hospital, nor can they make medical decisions for their significant others. If their loved one is from another country they cannot spend their lives together. Their significant others most of the time cannot be covered by their insurance and they don't get tax breaks allowed other married couples.

So no, they are not being treated like anybody else.

[Noah Johnson]

Conversely when it doesn't happen, and peoploe see Gays are still living thier lives, having relationships, having sex, doing whatever they want in thier bedrooms, and in general being treated exactly like anybody else, we'll all be gald he didn't.
The levels of utter, absolute delusion necessary to make that post would, even in the absence of everything else you've posted, relieve you of all credibility.

I mean, really. That is entirely equivalent to posting that bald people have heat vision.

[mwm1331]

except they cannot visit their loved ones when they are in the hospital, nor can they make medical decisions for their significant others.
Then it sounds like an issue that needs to be adressed through congress. I have no problem allowing Homosexual couples to visit or make medical decisions for each other.



If their loved one is from another country they cannot spend their lives together.
I'm sorry I wasn't aware gays were banned from travel.
Their significant others most of the time cannot be covered by their insurance and they don't get tax breaks allowed other married couples.

So no, they are not being treated like anybody else.

Well that might be becasue they aren't married.
Again these are all legitimate grievances, what isn't however is how they are trying to address it.

[Gilda Dent]

There is a very good reason not to allow it. The factt that they do (now I guess I always heard it was illegal) Is shameful.

That reason being? I assume you must be referring to some moral reason, as the science is pretty clear that it's harmless. The chance of reinforcing an undesirable recessive gene and thus passing on a genetic disease is negligible.

Really? So its discrimination that women are automatically gratned custody rights after divorce unless the father can prove she is unfit?

That's no longer the case in most of the US, but when it was, that was unfair sex discrimination, yes. Also, historically, women got custody in most divorces when it was uncontested, but men got custody in the majority of cases where they contested it.

It's discrimination that that men can go shirtless in public but women can't?

Yes.

Its discrimination that The husband or wife of US citizens can become a citizen themself easier than someone not married to a US citizen?

Not at all. When it comes to immigration, it makes sense to give preference to groups that are more likely to benefit the host country over those that aren't, such as those who are married to US citizens .

And? How exactly is that discrimination?
You're marriage does not meet the rquirements to be legally recognised.

That depends on the state, but for the most part you're right about the legal part. The law discriminates against homosexuals.

So if a man is allowed to do anything a woman isn't its sexual discrimination now?

If the sole factor preventing a man and a woman from entering into exactly the same contract is sex, yeah.

Tell you what, walk into a mens bathroom at the mall and see how well that plays when they arrest ya OK?

While I actually have some experience with this, it's a separate issue altogether from same sex marriage. I have the opportunity to use the restroom while I'm at the mall, and there is actually a single occupancy gender neutral one that I use exclusively when I'm there. Having separate bathrooms for the sexes doesn't keep me from using the restroom, while banning same-sex marriage does prevent me from having my marriage legally recognized.

Gilda

[mwm1331]

That reason being? I assume you must be referring to some moral reason, as the science is pretty clear that it's harmless. The chance of reinforcing an undesirable recessive gene and thus passing on a genetic disease is negligible.

I would have to see that evidence I have always heard the exact opposite.



That's no longer the case in most of the US, but when it was, that was unfair sex discrimination, yes. Also, historically, women got custody in most divorces when it was uncontested, but men got custody in the majority of cases where they contested it.

I'm sorry buit that is patently false.
1) This is still the Norm in the US.
2) Men have never in the US recieved a mjority of custody settlemants when custody is contested. Never. The advantage in contested custody settlements is always with the woman.



]
That depends on the state, but for the most part you're right about the legal part. The law discriminates against homosexuals.

No it doesn't regonise same sex marriages. Just as if I were to attempt to get my house legally recognised as a soveriegn country it wouldn't happen. Whyy? Becuase my house doesn't meet the criteria.
You have every opportunity I do to fall in love, be with the poerson you want, live with them, cherish them, etc. You can (and have) even have a religous Marriage ceremony,
however that will no more be recongised by law that that idiot basketball players marriage to himself, or a brothers marriage to his sister.
Thats the way it is.


If the sole factor preventing a man and a woman from entering into exactly the same contract is sex, yeah.

Really? Whens the last time you signed a penile enlargement procedure contract?


While I actually have some experience with this, it's a separate issue altogether from same sex marriage. I have the opportunity to use the restroom while I'm at the mall, and there is actually a single occupancy gender neutral one that I use exclusively when I'm there. Having separate bathrooms for the sexes doesn't keep me from using the restroom, while banning same-sex marriage does prevent me from having my marriage legally recognized.

Gilda
And if marriage, like using the bathroom, were a necessary function, you would have a case. If there were a right to marriage you would have a case. You don't.
Marriage is what it is, and no amount of lobbying, whining, or accusing is going to change that. Love your partner and be happy you found her.

[anthony!]

Marriage isn't a right, or an entitlement. It doesn't have to available to everyone to be fair.

We've been down this road a dozen times. I agree, but know that many here are going to argue that it's not only a right, but a human right— and falls under that whole "pursuit of happiness" routine.

[Gilda Dent]

I would have to see that evidence I have always heard the exact opposite.

You made the original claim, the onus is on you to defend it.

However, according to Forbidden Relatives: The American Myth of Cousin Marriage by Martin Ottenheimer, first cousin marriages represent a only a 2-3% increase in birth defects over that of unrelated couples which is well withing the margin of error, and genetic counseling can greatly reduce this incidence.

I'm sorry buit that is patently false.

It appears the last part of my initial statement was in error. Women do gain physical custody in contested cases more often than men. The rest of my statement remains true.

1) This is still the Norm in the US.

Nope. The legal presumption in favor of the mother went away for the most part in the 1970's. The current standard in nearly all cases currently is "The best interests of the child" though some do have a presumption for "the primary caregiver". Neither of these standards specify the mother.

2) Men have never in the US recieved a mjority of custody settlemants when custody is contested. Never. The advantage in contested custody settlements is always with the woman.

Patently not true. Fathers were automatically granted custody of all children in divorce cases up until the late 1800's, and mothers didn't get a presumption on their part until roughly the 20th century.

I will however, agree that a presumption in favor of the mother is sexist and discrimination and should be fought as unfair.

No it doesn't regonise same sex marriages. Just as if I were to attempt to get my house legally recognised as a soveriegn country it wouldn't happen. Whyy? Becuase my house doesn't meet the criteria.

This is relevant to discrimination among people how?

You have every opportunity I do to fall in love, be with the poerson you want, live with them, cherish them, etc. You can (and have) even have a religous Marriage ceremony,
however that will no more be recongised by law that that idiot basketball players marriage to himself, or a brothers marriage to his sister.
Thats the way it is.

You got me there. That is the way it is. Miscegenation used to be illegal too. That doesn't mean it was right, or that it wasn't discrimination.

Really? Whens the last time you signed a penile enlargement procedure contract?

Hee hee. My god, that was wonderful. I literally haven't read something that made me laugh that hard in months. I had to take a minute to e-mail that to my wife. Truly, this one comment alone was worth all of the aggravation I've gotten from this thread. Seriously, thank you for that. This comment may actually replace "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly" as a surefire way to cheer me up. You seriously have no idea how much you've cheered me up here. I'm going to be walking around all day with a big goofy grin on my face, and when people ask me why, I'll think "penile enlargement procedure contract" and start laughing again. You just made my day. Hell, possibly my week. Hee hee. "penile enlargement procedure contract". For reference sake, I think I'll shorten this to "penile enlargement contract". Hee hee.


And if marriage, like using the bathroom, were a necessary function, you would have a case. If there were a right to marriage you would have a case. You don't.

Hee hee. Sorry about that. Still laughing about the penile enlargement contract. Hee hee.

Actually, in the US, marriage is a fundamental right, according to SCOTUS in Loving vs. Virginia:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

Marriage is what it is, and no amount of lobbying, whining, or accusing is going to change that. Love your partner and be happy you found her.

Hee hee. Still laughing about the penile enlargement procedure contract. That was absolutly the most delightful thing I've read in weeks, maybe all this year.

Anyway, I disagree here. Lobbying has resulted in legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts, Civil Unions in Vermont, and registered domestic partnerships in California. It's resulted in the CA legislature passing a law permitting same sex marriage, though that seems likely to be vetoed. Just a second. Hee hee. Penlie enlargement procedure contract. Hee hee I think the lobbying and vocal opposition to anti-gay marriage laws is having the desired effect. There will be more states with same-sex marriage in the near future. It's inevitable. It may take a little longer at the national level, but I see it happening there, too.

Gilda

PS. Hee hee. You really can't know how much you've lifted my spirits. You are due my very sincere thanks for this. penile enlargement procedure contract. Hee hee.

[Gilda Dent]

We've been down this road a dozen times. I agree, but know that many here are going to argue that it's not only a right, but a human right— and falls under that whole "pursuit of happiness" routine.

That's certainly what the Supreme Court thought in Loving vs. Virginia.

Gilda

[anthony!]

That's certainly what the Supreme Court thought in Loving vs. Virginia.

Gilda


Of course, the Supreme Court isn't without fault.

[Samurai]

Okay, let's go with the premise that marriage is, in fact, a privilege rather than a right.

Let's have a look at the types of people who are currently granted this privilege:

Murderers.

Rapists.

Child molesters.

Serial wife-beaters.

Jerry Springer Show guests.

Me and some chick I meet in Vegas while I'm drunk.

All these people can marry, yet loving, commited same-sex couples can't.

Even if it's not discrimination, it's pretty bloody insulting.
Wait... are you arguing that those people should not be allowed to marry, or that gay murderers, gay rapists, gay child molesters, gay Jerry Springer guests, and 2 gays who met in Vegas while drunk should be allowed to marry?

[Gilda Dent]

Conversely when it doesn't happen, and peoploe see Gays are still living thier lives, having relationships, having sex, doing whatever they want in thier bedrooms, and in general being treated exactly like anybody else, we'll all be gald he didn't.

If we can't marry the person we love, we're not being treated exactly like anybody else, we're being treated differently, which is the problem. We should be treated the same.

Gilda

[jwmojo]

No it doesn't regonise same sex marriages. Just as if I were to attempt to get my house legally recognised as a soveriegn country it wouldn't happen. Whyy? Becuase my house doesn't meet the criteria.

I'm guessing here, but I think what you're saying is that same sex marriage doesn't meet the criteria because marriage can only occur between a man and a woman? The interesting thing to note here is that some members of the federal government, as well as members of state governments, are trying to change the legal definition of marriage to restrict it to only being between a man and a woman. At this time, it is not defined that way, nor should it be.

And the idea that marriage is a privilege, and not a right, is just absolutely ridiculous. Voting is a privilege, and if you commit a felony you lose it. Under what circumstance do you lose the right to marry? I can't think of one. Being gay certainly doesn't revoke the right, because a homosexual can still marry someone of the opposite sex. So, how do you lose this privilege? It seems to me that the only thing you've shown in this discussion is that you don't know the difference between a right and a privilege.

EDIT: fixing typos

[Jeff Brady]

Can anyone answer this:

Whom does Gay Marriage harm?

[EdContradictory]

Can anyone answer this:

Whom does Gay Marriage harm?
It hurts "marriage."

Duh.


;)

[jwmojo]

It hurts "marriage."

Duh.


;)

The sad thing is that some people will actually try to convice you that they believe that. They hide behind the "sanctity of marriage as an institution," when all it really is, is gay bashing.

I would have a harder time disregarding the claim if the divorce rate weren't at 40% or some such crazy number (we won't even go into nonexistant stats about infidelity).

[EdContradictory]

The sad thing is that some people will actually try to convice you that they believe that. They hide behind the "sanctity of marriage as an institution," when all it really is, is gay bashing.
Yeah. It's as dishonest as the whole "I don't hate gay people, I just hate everything about them" argument.

Gay People: We want to get married!
Marriage: Ow!

[mwm1331]

You made the original claim, the onus is on you to defend it.

However, according to Forbidden Relatives: The American Myth of Cousin Marriage by Martin Ottenheimer, first cousin marriages represent a only a 2-3% increase in birth defects over that of unrelated couples which is well withing the margin of error, and genetic counseling can greatly reduce this incidence.

Well actually my claim was that first cousins aren't allowed to marry which you already proved untrue. However I will have to check out this book, the only thing I hate more that not knowing is thinking I do falsely



It appears the last part of my initial statement was in error. Women do gain physical custody in contested cases more often than men. The rest of my statement remains true.



Nope. The legal presumption in favor of the mother went away for the most part in the 1970's. The current standard in nearly all cases currently is "The best interests of the child" though some do have a presumption for "the primary caregiver". Neither of these standards specify the mother.

Gilda, as a gay woman you should know the difference between the theoretical legal interpertation of the law and the actual practical interpertation. Perhaps legally it is supposed to be that way, in practise its a whole different story.


Patently not true. Fathers were automatically granted custody of all children in divorce cases up until the late 1800's, and mothers didn't get a presumption on their part until roughly the 20th century.

Gilda, I have been adresing the modern period only, say 1950s onward. I didn't live ion earlier times and can't really address what went on then. I do know that since at least the 50-60's fathers have been continuously screwed over in any custody case.

I will however, agree that a presumption in favor of the mother is sexist and discrimination and should be fought as unfair.

So that makes one area where we agree.

This is relevant to discrimination among people how?

That failure to meet a specific criteria is not discrimination.

You got me there. That is the way it is. Miscegenation used to be illegal too. That doesn't mean it was right, or that it wasn't discrimination.

It also doesn't mean that this is. Liberals always use the historical or tradional evils such as slavery to counter the "tradition" argument. Yet they always fail to mention the vastly greater number of traditions that are, and always have been positive. I understand your point, traditional doesn't automatically mean good however it doesn't automatically mean evil either.


Hee hee. My god, that was wonderful. I literally haven't read something that made me laugh that hard in months. I had to take a minute to e-mail that to my wife. Truly, this one comment alone was worth all of the aggravation I've gotten from this thread. Seriously, thank you for that. This comment may actually replace "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly" as a surefire way to cheer me up. You seriously have no idea how much you've cheered me up here. I'm going to be walking around all day with a big goofy grin on my face, and when people ask me why, I'll think "penile enlargement procedure contract" and start laughing again. You just made my day. Hell, possibly my week. Hee hee. "penile enlargement procedure contract". For reference sake, I think I'll shorten this to "penile enlargement contract". Hee hee.

I'm glad, not too many people seem to find the humor I attempt to place in most of my posts.



Hee hee. Sorry about that. Still laughing about the penile enlargement contract. Hee hee.

Actually, in the US, marriage is a fundamental right, according to SCOTUS in Loving vs. Virginia:

I was not aware of that. That is somehting I will have to consider very carefully, I was unaware any such ruling had been made. Thank You.




Hee hee. Still laughing about the penile enlargement procedure contract. That was absolutly the most delightful thing I've read in weeks, maybe all this year.

Anyway, I disagree here. Lobbying has resulted in legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts, Civil Unions in Vermont, and registered domestic partnerships in California. It's resulted in the CA legislature passing a law permitting same sex marriage, though that seems likely to be vetoed. Just a second. Hee hee. Penlie enlargement procedure contract. Hee hee I think the lobbying and vocal opposition to anti-gay marriage laws is having the desired effect. There will be more states with same-sex marriage in the near future. It's inevitable. It may take a little longer at the national level, but I see it happening there, too.

Gilda

And as a direct result of those few wins, over 3/4 of US states have pasased ammendments designed to stop that from happening. So the question you have to ask is, were those really net positives? You see I understand why you believe this to be "inevitable" however IMO you aren't taking into account that for every ones step forward, you are taking three steps back. Every time homosexuals attempt to force somehting through the courts, the average citizens have a pretty predicitbale range of emotional responses, either anger, fear, exasperation, annoyance, or indifference. Yes there are those who greet such news warmly, but they are a small minority. Most simply don't. In point of fact gilda, the more court decisions won, the more law suits filed, the futher you are from your goal.

PS. Hee hee. You really can't know how much you've lifted my spirits. You are due my very sincere thanks for this. penile enlargement procedure contract. Hee hee.
You're welcome it was my pleasure. Its nice to discuss issues like this without being accused of bigotry. We may not agree gilda, but I respect your mind.

[mwm1331]

The sad thing is that some people will actually try to convice you that they believe that. They hide behind the "sanctity of marriage as an institution," when all it really is, is gay bashing.


This type of comment is why reasoned political discourse is damn near dead in the US. No it isn't "just hidden gay bashing" Whether you agree, diagree, or whatever, those who take different positions from yours are not evil, they are not for the most part filled with hate, and they are not interested in opressing anybody. They just disagree. They see the world differently than you do.

[Spike-X]

Wait... are you arguing that those people should not be allowed to marry, or that gay murderers, gay rapists, gay child molesters, gay Jerry Springer guests, and 2 gays who met in Vegas while drunk should be allowed to marry?

I'm saying that it seems pretty inconsistent to allow the above-mentioned groups to marry, and then argue that allowing a loving, committed same-sex couple to marry will somehow destroy the fabric of civilisation as we know it.

[Spike-X]

This type of comment is why reasoned political discourse is damn near dead in the US. No it isn't "just hidden gay bashing" Whether you agree, diagree, or whatever, those who take different positions from yours are not evil, they are not for the most part filled with hate, and they are not interested in opressing anybody. They just disagree. They see the world differently than you do.
Let me ask you this, then - why do you believe that same-sex couples should be denied the basic rights/privileges that any heterosexual couple is entitled to? Why are Liza Minelli and her thirty-seventh husband entitled to these things, yet Gilda and her wife are not?

[mwm1331]

Let me ask you this, then - why do you believe that same-sex couples should be denied the basic rights/privileges that any heterosexual couple is entitled to? Why are Liza Minelli and her thirty-seventh husband entitled to these things, yet Gilda and her wife are not?

Tp put it simply, Thats not what marriage is about. For all of its "problems" marriage has, does, and will, continue to provide a valuable service to society. It creates an Institutionlised framework dedicated to supporting the creation of, and raising of, a family. All of the tax breaks, special privaleges, etc. that comne with marriage are in some way dedicated to this function. At the end of the day the purpose of marriage as an institution is to support procreation. It is a well known fact that children from married two parent households are healthier, better equipped for the world socially, emotionally, and skillwise. This is the purpose of marriage, not love, not romance, procreation. It has always been thus. Even in cultures such as the picts, in which a 'traditional marriage was one woman married to mulitple men, it was about legacy and procreation. There has never, prior to the modern era, been any culture anywhere in which marriage was not a heterosexual institution. Even among the greeks, to whom pederasty was considered socially desirable, marriage was a heterosexual institution. It was this way becuase only the union between a man and a woman can result in children. Recently marriage has been percieved to be about love, and support, and comittment to another, but the roots and foundations of the institution, as well as the legal privaleges associated with it, are based on the asumption that the purpose of marriage is the support of procreation. Now this does not mean that all couples must or even can procreate, it simply means that the institutioon is desinged to support procreation. While some couples may be infertile, this does not negate the insitutuions purpose, as infertillity is an exception and institutions must by nature be desinged to acount for the rule, not the exception. Homosexual couples however vcan not procreate, this is not an exception but the rule. As a result they have no way as a practical matter of fulfilling the purpose of the insitutuion of marriage as a group. Yes there will be those couples that adopt, or have IVF, but again these are exceptions to the rule. Because they can not possiblly advance the cause for which marriage was designed to support, there is no purpose served in changing the defintion of marriage.
Now I understand that not being able to visit your partner in the hospital, or to obtain joint tax returns or health insurance rankles many. Nor do I blame them. However attempting to change an instutuion that has served america well for over 200 years, in order to obtain benefits which could be obtained through a (IMO) more legitimate route, is both counter productive and illogical from where I am standing.
Rather than attempting to change an insutution that is working well, why not work togehter with with married couples to design an institution which is created to support the life long commitment of two people for the purpose of loving each other?
To me that is a more senisble and intelligent idea.

[Spike-X]

So the purpose of marriage is to raise kids.

But it's ok for people to get married if they can't, or don't want to, have kids.

Gay people are capable of producing (with a little help) and raising kids.

But it's not ok for them to get married.

Gotcha.

[mwm1331]

So the purpose of marriage is to raise kids.
NO its to create a frmaework that makes raising kids easier.

But it's ok for people to get married if they can't, or don't want to, have kids.
Institution as I said must be desinged around the rule, not the exceptions. Just as we have jury trials because as a rule it is the fairest way of judging a mans guilt, there are exceptions of course, but the institution is desinged around the rule.

Gay people are capable of producing (with a little help) and raising kids.

NO I am sorry but that is just not true. No amount of help will allow two men or two women to produce a child together. Yes A man can donate his sperm but then his partner will not be biologically involved, likewise a woman can have IVF but even modern cloning technology will not be able to incorporate both sets of DNA.

But it's not ok for them to get married.

Gotcha.
Its not about OK, right, or wrong. Its about does this proposed change help this instituion serve its purpose? Does the proposed change serve a purpose to society as a whole? DO the benefits of such a change outweigh the bad? Given that there are several thousand tax breaks, privaleges, special deferments etc and finacial entitlements that come with marriage and no study has ever been done to determmine what the cost to the economy would be of extending them to gay couples, we don't even know what the costs will be. and since there are no benefits to society as a whole or marriage as an institution that I can define, I see no reason to change what has been working for centuries.

[EdContradictory]

No it isn't "just hidden gay bashing"
No. It really, really is.

You don't like gay people. You don't think your "god" likes gay paople. So you don't want them to have something that you have.

[mwm1331]

No. It really, really is.

You don't like gay people. You don't think your "god" likes gay paople. So you don't want them to have something that you have.


True "tolerance" of other ideas and beliefs from the left, mixed in with a liberal (pun intented) helping of omniscience.

[Crowley]

NO its to create a frmaework that makes raising kids easier.
Institution as I said must be desinged around the rule, not the exceptions. Just as we have jury trials because as a rule it is the fairest way of judging a mans guilt, there are exceptions of course, but the institution is desinged around the rule.

NO I am sorry but that is just not true. No amount of help will allow two men or two women to produce a child together. Yes A man can donate his sperm but then his partner will not be biologically involved, likewise a woman can have IVF but even modern cloning technology will not be able to incorporate both sets of DNA.

Right... So adoptive parents I guess don't mean shit seeing as how they don't share DNA

[mwm1331]

Right... So adoptive parents I guess don't mean shit seeing as how they don't share DNA

You want to stop putting words in my mouth crowley? Not only do you suck at it but you aren't even accurate.
I simply said that no help will allow same sex couples to have kids. I never even touched adoption.

[YoGo]

NO I am sorry but that is just not true. No amount of help will allow two men or two women to produce a child together. Yes A man can donate his sperm but then his partner will not be biologically involved, likewise a woman can have IVF but even modern cloning technology will not be able to incorporate both sets of DNA.


That is obviously not what he means by gay couples can produce with a little help.

You are an idiot.

[mwm1331]

That is obviously not what he means by gay couples can produce with a little help.

You are an idiot.

Gay couples can't produce children period.
One member of the couple can if an opposite sex person is willing to help. Thatw as my point. No amoun t of help will allow a same sex couple to reproduce. They can adopt, one member can have a child with someone of the opposite sex either naturally or through IVF, buit under no circumstances can a same sex couple procrerate. No matter how he might have meant it, he was wrong.

[YoGo]

Do you really think that he meant same sex couples can procreate?

Ur such a poo poo head.

[mwm1331]

Do you really think that he meant same sex couples can procreate?

Ur such a poo poo head.
You would be shocked at how many people I have run into online who seem to think exactly that.

[Crowley]

You want to stop putting words in my mouth crowley? Not only do you suck at it but you aren't even accurate.
I simply said that no help will allow same sex couples to have kids. I never even touched adoption.
you used IVF and DNA as the primary reason... so answer the question:
Are adoptive parents less fit because they don't share DNA?

Is that one qualification for good parents? shared DNA?

yes or no.

[mwm1331]

you used IVF and DNA as the primary reason... so answer the question:
Are adoptive parents less fit because they don't share DNA? Less fit. No, Parent's No. They are guardians not parents.

Is that one qualification for good parents? shared DNA?

yes or no.
NO its the qualification to be a parent..

[Crowley]

really?

so to you Adoptive Parents aren't Parents?

[mwm1331]

really?

so to you Adoptive Parents aren't Parents?

Uhh Not to me, Not to biology, not to genetics, No.

[Crowley]

well duh.

but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking two people who've adopted a child... let's say a baby and the biological parents are dead.

those people are his adopted parents... so what does genetics matter in parenting?

[EdContradictory]

True "tolerance" of other ideas and beliefs from the left, mixed in with a liberal (pun intented) helping of omniscience.
The argument that the left must be tolerant of intolerance is the stupidest argument the right has ever made.

[EdContradictory]

Are adoptive parents less fit because they don't share DNA?
Less fit. No, Parent's No. They are guardians not parents.
You are an awful human being.

[Crowley]

You are an awful human being.
did you read this:
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=1957956&postcount=5
he downright topped himself today in awfulness.

Hurrican Katrina apparently is trivial.

[mwm1331]

well duh.

but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking two people who've adopted a child... let's say a baby and the biological parents are dead.

those people are his adopted parents... so what does genetics matter in parenting?


It doesn't. Adopted parents are treated as and fulfill the role of parents, but they aren't themselves parents they are guardians.
However that has nothing to do wiuth the point I was making as again adoption is the exception not the rule.
Institutions aren't desinged with the exceptions in mind they are desingned with the rule in mind. There are many wonderful adopted parents out there who love thier children, however the number of traditonal parents dwarfs them. Therfore the insutution of marriage is designed for those traditional parents. I see the point you are trying to make crowley, that in terms of adopted parents it really make no difference whether they are same or opposite sex couples. Again however Adopted parents aren't what marriage was designed and evolved to support. Thus far adopted parents have been able to be included under the existing institutional framework without any changes needing to be made. In order to include same sex couples however drastic changes to the instituion of marriage will have to be made, including a comprehensive review of all marriage entitlements, many of which are of little use to same sex partners.
I am not disputing that same sex couples can love each other or that they can be good parents, however even if every single same sex couple adopted the numbers would still be massively dwarfed by tradtional parents and marriages. This is what the institution was designed to support.
And it is working. The US is one of the only devloped nations with a birth rate higher than the population replacement rate. Why "fix" what aint broke?
Like I said marrigae does what it was designed to do, why not design a new institution?

[mwm1331]

did you read this:
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=1957956&postcount=5
he downright topped himself today in awfulness.

Hurrican Katrina apparently is trivial.


Yes becuase afterall the best way to show how untrivial Katrina was is to go hysterical over a triviality.
BTW wanna take that bet crowley?

[Crowley]

It doesn't. Adopted parents are treated as and fulfill the role of parents, but they aren't themselves parents they are guardians.
However that has nothing to do wiuth the point I was making as again adoption is the exception not the rule.
Institutions aren't desinged with the exceptions in mind they are desingned with the rule in mind. There are many wonderful adopted parents out there who love thier children, however the number of traditonal parents dwarfs them. Therfore the insutution of marriage is designed for those traditional parents. I see the point you are trying to make crowley, that in terms of adopted parents it really make no difference whether they are same or opposite sex couples. Again however Adopted parents aren't what marriage was designed and evolved to support. Thus far adopted parents have been able to be included under the existing institutional framework without any changes needing to be made. In order to include same sex couples however drastic changes to the instituion of marriage will have to be made, including a comprehensive review of all marriage entitlements, many of which are of little use to same sex partners.
I am not disputing that same sex couples can love each other or that they can be good parents, however even if every single same sex couple adopted the numbers would still be massively dwarfed by tradtional parents and marriages. This is what the institution was designed to support.
And it is working. The US is one of the only devloped nations with a birth rate higher than the population replacement rate. Why "fix" what aint broke?
Like I said marrigae does what it was designed to do, why not design a new institution?

Marriage can evolve like us. Marriage was originally about company mergers. marrying wealth together. Brides were owned.

Marriage has evolved. It will continue to evolve and the Neantherdals that try to cling to "family values" will burn in the lava flow.

[Crowley]

Yes becuase afterall the best way to show how untrivial Katrina was is to go hysterical over a triviality.
BTW wanna take that bet crowley?
I answered you at the other thread.

[mwm1331]

Marriage can evolve like us. Marriage was originally about company mergers. marrying wealth together. Brides were owned.

Marriage has evolved. It will continue to evolve and the Neantherdals that try to cling to "family values" will burn in the lava flow.
Marrige evolved as necessary. Please explain what benefits society as a whole recieves from same sex marriages?

[Crowley]

Marrige evolved as necessary. Please explain what benefits society as a whole recieves from same sex marriages?
aside from two people in loving monogamous marriage?
economy boost from marriages.
More families able to adopt kids.

[mwm1331]

aside from two people in loving monogamous marriage?
Two people aren't society as a whole.

economy boost from marriages.
Tell you what crowley when you are capable of understanding basic concepts such as supply and demand I'll listen tou your thoughts on the economic benefits.

More families able to adopt kids.
As of right now, there are so many Americans who want to adopt, they adopt children from other countries, there is no shortage of families to adopt children.

[Crowley]

Two people aren't society as a whole.
Tell you what crowley when you are capable of understanding basic concepts such as supply and demand I'll listen tou your thoughts on the economic benefits.

God you're an idiot. Two people as in "The homosexual population"

Here's a really basic concept for you:
Congressional Budget Office discovered: Legalizing gay marriage nationwide would save the federal government a whopping $1 billion a year.

http://www.detnews.com/2005/editorial/0501/31/A09-74600.htm

As of right now, there are so many Americans who want to adopt, they adopt children from other countries, there is no shortage of families to adopt children.

NOT TRUE.
Adoptions by Unrelated Adults Declining
The number of adoptions by unrelated adults -- adoptive parents who are not step-parents or other relatives -- grew to a peak of 89,200 in 1970, but declined significantly to 47,700 in 1975, the last year for which data are available.[5] A reason for the decline may be that fewer U.S.-born white infants were available for adoption.

[mwm1331]

God you're an idiot. Two people as in "The homosexual population"
Same respjonse the homosexual population are not society as a whole now are they?


Here's a really basic concept for you:

Perhaps but that is irelevant as it still isn't known how much it would cost to extend the various entitlements to Homosexual couples.



NOT TRUE.
Do you evenm bother to read before posting?
A reason for the decline may be that fewer U.S.-born white infants were available for adoption.
SO the decline in adoption of US infants was due to.................. The lack of Us infants to be adopted.
WHich is exactly what I said.

[Crowley]

Same respjonse the homosexual population are not society as a whole now are they?


Perhaps but that is irelevant as it still isn't known how much it would cost to extend the various entitlements to Homosexual couples.



Do you evenm bother to read before posting?

SO the decline in adoption of US infants was due to.................. The lack of Us infants to be adopted.
WHich is exactly what I said.

read it again...
U.S.-born white infants
the key word there is WHITE.

[mwm1331]

read it again...

the key word there is WHITE.
And what race are 90% of adopters?
Or are you implying that parents who want to adopt children who look like them are racists?

[Crowley]

And what race are 90% of adopters?
Or are you implying that parents who want to adopt children who look like them are racists?
no filling in the part that YOU left out.

prospective adoptive parents who would choose not to adopt a child based on race are in fact racist. Like it or not.

[mwm1331]

no filling in the part that YOU left out.

prospective adoptive parents who would choose not to adopt a child based on race are in fact racist. Like it or not.
Or maybe they just want a child who looks like them.

[Crowley]

which is discrimination based on race.

it's like the old lady who has "black friends" but locks the doors when a black young man walks by her car. It's racism but it's not overt.

[jwmojo]

This type of comment is why reasoned political discourse is damn near dead in the US. No it isn't "just hidden gay bashing" Whether you agree, diagree, or whatever, those who take different positions from yours are not evil, they are not for the most part filled with hate, and they are not interested in opressing anybody. They just disagree. They see the world differently than you do.

You know, for someone who bitches about people putting words in his mouth, you sure are pretty good at it. I never said they were evil, I said that denying homosexuals the right to marriage is gay bashing. I have more than a few friends who are intolerant to alternate lifestyles. They aren't evil people, they just can't seem to follow their thought process through to see the point where it hurts others who aren't hurting them.

Did you seriously make the argument that marriage is about children? And you don't see how ridiculous that is? See, this is a perfect example of what I was talking about earlier. I don't think you're evil, you just can't seem to think things all the way through.

To paraphrase Kyuubi a little:

You: not evil.
Everything you say and do: incredibly evil

[mwm1331]

You know, for someone who bitches about people putting words in his mouth, you sure are pretty good at it. I never said they were evil, I said that denying homosexuals the right to marriage is gay bashing. I have more than a few friends who are intolerant to alternate lifestyles. They aren't evil people, they just can't seem to follow their thought process through to see the point where it hurts others who aren't hurting them.

Did you seriously make the argument that marriage is about children? And you don't see how ridiculous that is? See, this is a perfect example of what I was talking about earlier. I don't think you're evil, you just can't seem to think things all the way through.

To paraphrase Kyuubi a little:

You: not evil.
Everything you say and do: incredibly evil
Uhuh.
So 60% or more of the country are "gay bashers"
Yup that attitude will do wonders for the spread of liberal phiosophy.

[jwmojo]

Uhuh.
So 60% or more of the country are "gay bashers"
Yup that attitude will do wonders for the spread of liberal phiosophy.

No, just you.

As far as the spread of "liberal philosophy" goes, I don't feel a need to do that. Exposure to reality seems to be trumpeting the cause better than any single person could. Interesting quote from one of the Republican co-sponsors of the anti-gay marriage amendment that was voted down in Massachusetts:

"Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry," said state Sen. Brian Lees, a Republican who had been a co-sponsor of the amendment. "This amendment which was an appropriate measure or compromise a year ago, is no longer, I feel, a compromise today."

[Gilda Dent]

Gilda, as a gay woman you should know the difference between the theoretical legal interpertation of the law and the actual practical interpertation. Perhaps legally it is supposed to be that way, in practise its a whole different story.

Your initial claim was, "women are automatically gratned custody rights after divorce unless the father can prove she is unfit?"

I countered that claim with the fact that women are not automatically granted custody rights, that the modern standard is the best interest of the child. There must be a custody hearing if there is a dispute, and fathers are given due process. That is the fact. I disproved your claim.

You then said, "1) This is still the Norm in the US." Restating your claim doesn't make it true.

There is no state remaining in the US where women are "automatically" granted custody in the absense of a proof of unfitness. None. You are factually wrong. There may be judges that are biased in favor of women, and there may be more such judges than posess the opposite bias, I don't know, but that's not what you were claiming.

Gilda, I have been adresing the modern period only, say 1950s onward. I didn't live ion earlier times and can't really address what went on then.

Nice try. Unfortunately, your actual remarks are still over there for everyone to read, and you did address the whole of US history in them. I'll transfer them for you:

2) Men have never in the US recieved a mjority of custody settlemants when custody is contested. Never. The advantage in contested custody settlements is always with the woman.
[bolding mine]

Notice that you repeat the "never" for emphasis, even putting it into its own sentence to make your point, then add an "always" just in case we weren't sure. You got caught making an usupportable claim, and now you're trying to backpeddle. It's actually somewhat amusing the rhetorical convolutions you're resorting to here.

That failure to meet a specific criteria is not discrimination.

It is if the criteria discriminate on the basis of sex or orientation.

It also doesn't mean that this is. Liberals always use the historical or tradional evils such as slavery to counter the "tradition" argument. Yet they always fail to mention the vastly greater number of traditions that are, and always have been positive.

Well, gee, I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about slavery there, but miscegentation, which prevented people from marrying based on race. I made a direct parallel from one form of marriage discrimination to another.

I understand your point, traditional doesn't automatically mean good however it doesn't automatically mean evil either.

I never made such a point.

I'm glad, not too many people seem to find the humor I attempt to place in most of my posts.

I rather expect the humor I found there wasn't what you intended, but that's quibbling. That was one of the funniest things I've ever read. My wife, by the way, thanks you.

And as a direct result of those few wins, over 3/4 of US states have pasased ammendments designed to stop that from happening. So the question you have to ask is, were those really net positives? You see I understand why you believe this to be "inevitable" however IMO you aren't taking into account that for every ones step forward, you are taking three steps back. Every time homosexuals attempt to force somehting through the courts, the average citizens have a pretty predicitbale range of emotional responses, either anger, fear, exasperation, annoyance, or indifference. Yes there are those who greet such news warmly, but they are a small minority. Most simply don't. In point of fact gilda, the more court decisions won, the more law suits filed, the futher you are from your goal.

In point of fact, those were all laws passed by legislatures, and had nothing to do with the judicial activism. Arkansas recently passed a law allowing same sex couples to adopt jointly. A majority of Americans favor equal rights for homosexual unions. The dispute that's standing in the way isn't over the rights, it's over the name. Equal rights for same sex unions is inevitable; they may not all end up carrying the name "marriage", but it's going to happen, and sooner than you think. In CA we have both a DOMA, and laws granting most marriage rights to same-sex couples in the form of registered domestic partner laws, which were unremarkable to the majority of Californians.

It'll happen, and sooner than most opponents expect.

Gilda

[mwm1331]

No, just you.
I said that denying homosexuals the right to marriage is gay bashing.
Well over 60% of the country opposes gay marriage.
Therfore based on the above quote from you, you feel 60% of the country are gay bashers.

As far as the spread of "liberal philosophy" goes, I don't feel a need to do that.


Exposure to reality seems to be trumpeting the cause better than any single person could.
Reality? You mean like the last two presidential elections and every congressional one since 94?

[Gilda Dent]

RE: Adoption and the purpose of marriage.

If the purpose of marriage is to promote a healthy environment for the raising of children (that is indeed one purpose, but hardly the only one), that's a good reason to favor allowing same sex marriage. Like it or not, children are born into lesbian relationships. Gay couples do adopt children. Children are being raised in households by same-sex couples. Providing children with a stable homelife, a stable family environment is a good thing, I agree completely. It's a good thing for all children, including those who are born to or otherwise raised in households headed by same sex couples. Denying them the same protections granted children raised in a heterosexual household is in opposition to the very purpose you're claiming for marriage.

Gilda

[jwmojo]

Well over 60% of the country opposes gay marriage.
Therfore based on the above quote from you, you feel 60% of the country are gay bashers.

So, I'm curious, are you blind to obvious exaggeration, or are you just so desperate for something to be right about that you'll just point out anything?Obviously, I don't really think you're the only gay basher in the country, just one of them.

I do have a problem with characterizing everyone who's against same sex marriage as "gay bashers," though. I guess, by strict definition, anyone who participates in gay bashing would be a gay basher, but I kind of prefer the idea that a person isn't defined by a single opinion. I also think that if most of those people could be made to understand that it was gay bashing, they would reverse their opinion.

Oh yeah, and I disagree with that 60% number.

Reality? You mean like the last two presidential elections and every congressional one since 94?

No, I mean like a presidential job approval rating in the low 40s. I mean like a Republican sponsor of an anti-gay marriage amendment saying that the amendment doesn't make sense because gay marriage hasn't hurt anyone.

Reality is now. I'm glad you enjoyed those election results, but they're in the past, and unless the Republicans fix things, but quick, those victories aren't likely to repeat.

By the way, I think it is possible for them fix things. Maybe not in time for the midterm elections, but 3 years is a long time before the next presidential election. They might be able to make the country forget, but it's going to be a seriously uphill battle for them.

[mwm1331]

RE: Adoption and the purpose of marriage.

If the purpose of marriage is to promote a healthy environment for the raising of children (that is indeed one purpose, but hardly the only one), that's a good reason to favor allowing same sex marriage. Like it or not, children are born into lesbian relationships. Gay couples do adopt children. Children are being raised in households by same-sex couples. Providing children with a stable homelife, a stable family environment is a good thing, I agree completely. It's a good thing for all children, including those who are born to or otherwise raised in households headed by same sex couples. Denying them the same protections granted children raised in a heterosexual household is in opposition to the very purpose you're claiming for marriage.

Gilda
See thats what I like about discussing this with you gilda, the abillity to make a rational and logical point without resorting to accusations.

Yes children are born to parents who are in a same sex relationship. Same sex couiples do also adopt. However I think you would agree that child rearing is not the norm in the homosexual community. Nor is the issue of adoption by same sex couples a major issue in terms of number od said adoptions. As I said earlier an institution, to be effective, must be designed artound the rule, and not the exception.
Gay couples, who have children to raise are in effect an exception for an exception.
To model the institution of marriage around them given the low incidence would be ludicrous.
(that is indeed one purpose, but hardly the only one),
What in your opinion are the others?

[ChildOfTheDarkholde]

which is discrimination based on race.

it's like the old lady who has "black friends" but locks the doors when a black young man walks by her car. It's racism but it's not overt.

This reminds me of a nice, white family I used to live with a couple of years ago, in an Illinois suburb: Very open-minded people, very compassionate, quite progressive-thinking, raised two artist kids,...basically the last people on earth you would think were racists, but as months and months went by, I noticed some subtle little things that made me pause and think...maybe they weren't as progressive-thinking as I thought:

Finally three things made me realize that racism is a sneaky little bastard that makes people believe it doesn't really exist-The mother of the family was watching Oprah one day and very casually she mentioned that she loved Oprah cuz you really couldn't see "her blackness"...
then another day, the whole family was watching the MTV Awards, and once again, the lady opened her mouth and said "Jeez, why don't they call it the N***** Awards?" (that was a year in which Missy Elliott won almost every award.

And then another day her daughter told me that her mom actually told her that she would rather have the girl bring home a lesbian lover than a black boyfriend!!!!!!

(after all this and I confronted them, they actually told me that they ARE NOT racist....)
Needless to say, I am not living there anymore...they were good friends once, but I can not stand by while that kind of crap happens, and pretend that everything's fine with me.

[mwm1331]

This reminds me of a nice, white family I used to live with a couple of years ago, in an Illinois suburb: Very open-minded people, very compassionate, quite progressive-thinking, raised two artist kids,...basically the last people on earth you would think were racists, but as months and months went by, I noticed some subtle little things that made me pause and think...maybe they weren't as progressive-thinking as I thought:

Finally three things made me realize that racism is a sneaky little bastard that makes people believe it doesn't really exist-The mother of the family was watching Oprah one day and very casually she mentioned that she loved Oprah cuz you really couldn't see "her blackness"...

And yet, how many on the left have no problems calling Condoleeza rice or Colin Powell "uncle toms" or commenting on how "whitewashed" they are. I swear the amount of online liberals I have seen complain that Powell isn't black enough sickens me.

Yes Racism is subtle and sneaky.
"all asians are good at math"
"all blacks are good at basketball"
"Blacks can't get a job becuase whites keep them down"

etc. etc. etc.

[cactusmaac]

In point of fact, those were all laws passed by legislatures, and had nothing to do with the judicial activism. Arkansas recently passed a law allowing same sex couples to adopt jointly. A majority of Americans favor equal rights for homosexual unions. The dispute that's standing in the way isn't over the rights, it's over the name. Equal rights for same sex unions is inevitable; they may not all end up carrying the name "marriage", but it's going to happen, and sooner than you think. In CA we have both a DOMA, and laws granting most marriage rights to same-sex couples in the form of registered domestic partner laws, which were unremarkable to the majority of Californians.

It'll happen, and sooner than most opponents expect.

Gilda

That's probably true.

It will probably be slowed down considerably though by the crystallisation of the traditional values coalitions thanks to the push for gay marriage.

[mwm1331]

Your initial claim was, "women are automatically gratned custody rights after divorce unless the father can prove she is unfit?"

I countered that claim with the fact that women are not automatically granted custody rights, that the modern standard is the best interest of the child. There must be a custody hearing if there is a dispute, and fathers are given due process. That is the fact. I disproved your claim.

You then said, "1) This is still the Norm in the US." Restating your claim doesn't make it true.

There is no state remaining in the US where women are "automatically" granted custody in the absense of a proof of unfitness. None. You are factually wrong. There may be judges that are biased in favor of women, and there may be more such judges than posess the opposite bias, I don't know, but that's not what you were claiming.


Your right. I should have been more specific. I used automatically to emphaisze that it is a virtually automatic decision on behalf of the judges. The vast majority of judges are baised against men and torwards women. The only Practical way for a father to get custody is to prove the woman is "unfit" for motherhood. Either way my choice of language was wrong.

Nice try. Unfortunately, your actual remarks are still over there for everyone to read, and you did address the whole of US history in them. I'll transfer them for you:


[bolding mine]

Notice that you repeat the "never" for emphasis, even putting it into its own sentence to make your point, then add an "always" just in case we weren't sure. You got caught making an usupportable claim, and now you're trying to backpeddle. It's actually somewhat amusing the rhetorical convolutions you're resorting to here.

Thus the danger of engaging in hyperbole, I was thinking of the modern period, but used never and always for effect. Either way you are correct what I worte is erroneous.


It is if the criteria discriminate on the basis of sex or orientation.

You mean like joining the boy or girl scouts?


Well, gee, I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about slavery there, but miscegentation, which prevented people from marrying based on race. I made a direct parallel from one form of marriage discrimination to another.

True you didn't perhaps I have become a tad to trigger happy.



I rather expect the humor I found there wasn't what you intended, but that's quibbling. That was one of the funniest things I've ever read. My wife, by the way, thanks you.

Try me you might be surprised.
And tell her she welcome.

In point of fact, those were all laws passed by legislatures, and had nothing to do with the judicial activism. Arkansas recently passed a law allowing same sex couples to adopt jointly. A majority of Americans favor equal rights for homosexual unions. The dispute that's standing in the way isn't over the rights, it's over the name. Equal rights for same sex unions is inevitable; they may not all end up carrying the name "marriage", but it's going to happen, and sooner than you think. In CA we have both a DOMA, and laws granting most marriage rights to same-sex couples in the form of registered domestic partner laws, which were unremarkable to the majority of Californians.

It'll happen, and sooner than most opponents expect.

Gilda
I Have already said I would support a registered domestic partner law, not changing marriage though. Domestic patrner laws? Yes taht will happen, Changing Marriage? No it won't.

[Jeff Brady]

Its not about OK, right, or wrong. Its about does this proposed change help this instituion serve its purpose? Does the proposed change serve a purpose to society as a whole? DO the benefits of such a change outweigh the bad? Given that there are several thousand tax breaks, privaleges, special deferments etc and finacial entitlements that come with marriage and no study has ever been done to determmine what the cost to the economy would be of extending them to gay couples, we don't even know what the costs will be. and since there are no benefits to society as a whole or marriage as an institution that I can define, I see no reason to change what has been working for centuries.

I repeat: Whom does gay marriage hurt?

What could possibly go wrong? Since homosexuals make up about 10-15% of the population, couldn't you assume that the percentage of all married people would rise by 10-15% as well?

[anthony!]

Since homosexuals make up about 10-15% of the population...

I don't know how reliable the numbers are on this. I've heard it could be as low as 1-3%, 10% on the high end for the country at large.

San Francisco and New York are unique in their larger, more concentrated gay population (I think San Francisco is at one-third, and NYC is about 20%— last I read).

[Jeff Brady]

Well, yes, but I'm talking about nation wide statistics, not city by city.

[Boldido]

It's alive...ALIVE!!!!

Oh sweet Jesus, what have I done?
WHAT HAVE I DONE?!?!?!?!?!?

[Adam Crocker]

Oh sweet Jesus, what have I done?
WHAT HAVE I DONE?!?!?!?!?!?

It's okay. You'll only be forced to listen to the entirety of Michael Bolton's recorded output as penance.

[Spackling Compound]

Oh sweet Jesus, what have I done?
WHAT HAVE I DONE?!?!?!?!?!?
Muhahahahaha!
Dance to the music of the thread once dead now alive..dance, puppets, dance!
http://www.rowantreearts.com/T-Shirts/alchemy/death%20dance.jpg

[Michael P]

Less fit. No, Parent's No. They are guardians not parents.

I pride myself on my writing ability. I'm very good with twisting words around to get just the right nuance for what I want to express. But every so often, I experience something that words cannot even approach.

Such is the rage I feel at the depth and breadth of your ignorance.

You lose. Good day, sir.

[Spike-X]

They are guardians not parents.


You go tell that to the couple up the road who are the adoptive parents of a friend of mine.

Go on, I dare ya.

Man, sometime you just gotta walk away...














Penile enlargement procedure contract!

[TCJohnson]

Wait, wait....is Gilda Dent really getting a penile enlargment procedure?


Well...that is what I got out of this thread.

[Gilda Dent]

Wait, wait....is Gilda Dent really getting a penile enlargment procedure?


Well...that is what I got out of this thread.

Hee hee hee. I only wish I could make a banner of that and put it up on my classroom wall. It's much better than anything I've got up there now ("I have misplaced my pants!" is the kids' favorite).

Hee hee. That, all by itself, has made the hours I've spent here worthwhile.

Gilda

[Goldenbane]

I believe I voted no on that marriage ban. My memory is a bit foggy, but I don't recall ever having a problem with it. The problem I do have...and this is straying from the original subject...but I DO have a problem with the sick freaks out there who want to marry...well...things...instead of people...and expect to get the full range of benefits due to married people.

Unless I miss my guess, there's some sort of tax brake or insurance benfit or something that helps married couples. I refuse to give those same benefits to some psycho who "REALLY LOVES" his dog and toaster.

BTW, this is um...I guess you'd call me a "redneck worthless religeous right wing jerk" speaking. While I might not be mega religeous, I do think I'm spiritual...and I don't recall ANYWHERE in the bible it saying "Oh by the way, Jesus told Peter, John, and Bartholmule that gayness is not allowed! The end" anywhere in those pages. But then again so much of the middle stuff is so boring to me that I skip a lot of it so I guess I could be wrong.

[Evan Waters]

I believe I voted no on that marriage ban. My memory is a bit foggy, but I don't recall ever having a problem with it. The problem I do have...and this is straying from the original subject...but I DO have a problem with the sick freaks out there who want to marry...well...things...instead of people...and expect to get the full range of benefits due to married people.

Unless I miss my guess, there's some sort of tax brake or insurance benfit or something that helps married couples. I refuse to give those same benefits to some psycho who "REALLY LOVES" his dog and toaster.

And if there were a serious human-appliance marriage movement, this would be relevant.

[Spike-X]

I DO have a problem with the sick freaks out there who want to marry...well...things...instead of people...and expect to get the full range of benefits due to married people.

Unless I miss my guess, there's some sort of tax brake or insurance benfit or something that helps married couples. I refuse to give those same benefits to some psycho who "REALLY LOVES" his dog and toaster.

Well, since I don't think these people actually exist - I've never, ever heard of anyone seriously demanding the right to marry his dog, inflatable doll, car, or any other non-human creature or object - what is your point, exactly?

[Cam63]

I believe I voted no on that marriage ban. My memory is a bit foggy, but I don't recall ever having a problem with it. The problem I do have...and this is straying from the original subject...but I DO have a problem with the sick freaks out there who want to marry...well...things...instead of people...and expect to get the full range of benefits due to married people.

Unless I miss my guess, there's some sort of tax brake or insurance benfit or something that helps married couples. I refuse to give those same benefits to some psycho who "REALLY LOVES" his dog and toaster.

BTW, this is um...I guess you'd call me a "redneck worthless religeous right wing jerk" speaking. While I might not be mega religeous, I do think I'm spiritual...and I don't recall ANYWHERE in the bible it saying "Oh by the way, Jesus told Peter, John, and Bartholmule that gayness is not allowed! The end" anywhere in those pages. But then again so much of the middle stuff is so boring to me that I skip a lot of it so I guess I could be wrong.

mwm, is that yew ?

[El Santo]

I thought you were Canadian?



By DAMN, I AM proud of my country. People stood up, for hours in freezing rain and were COUNTED.

As much as I might personally find the Defense of Marriage amendments to be wrong-headed, they WERE voted for, via the democratic process. Not all of the people who voted "YES" are hateful barbaric bible-thumping rednecks, it's not possible. With that many votes, you have to concede that a great many were well-educated people, able to think for themselves.

Do I agree with their choice?

Hell no.

Am I going to accede to their wishes?

Damn straight.

Now we can only hope that the Supreme Court of each state rules the amendment unconstitutional. There's where my hopes are pinned.

The fact that a large number of people voted for something does nothing to suggest anything about the intelligence, or lack thereof, of the voters. I see no reason to assume that some, many, or even one of the people who voted for such a bill are intelligent, thoughtful, or even decent people. Any speculation about their nature is just that, speculation. And when it comes to speculation, actions speak louder than words. Their actions define them as hateful bigots, so that seems like the safest assumption to make about them.

[Samurai]

The fact that a large number of people voted for something does nothing to suggest anything about the intelligence, or lack thereof, of the voters. I see no reason to assume that some, many, or even one of the people who voted for such a bill are intelligent, thoughtful, or even decent people. Any speculation about their nature is just that, speculation. And when it comes to speculation, actions speak louder than words. Their actions define them as hateful bigots, so that seems like the safest assumption to make about them.
No, the definition of "hateful bigot" is not "believes marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman." Just as as the definition for "benevolent, enlightened soul" is not "believes marriage between 2 or more people of any gender should be recognized by the state."

[Cam63]

No, the definition of "hateful bigot" is not "believes marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman." Just as as the definition for "benevolent, enlightened soul" is not "believes marriage between 2 or more people of any gender should be recognized by the state."

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pm/421956_p.jpg

R'uh ?

[El Santo]

No, the definition of "hateful bigot" is not "believes marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman." Just as as the definition for "benevolent, enlightened soul" is not "believes marriage between 2 or more people of any gender should be recognized by the state."

"2 or more"? When did polygamy come into this equation? We're talking about a government institution, a partnership between two people that effects taxes, legal rights and contracts. If you're trying to deny a legal institution to a specific group of people based on your own (erranous, I might add, from a Christian perspective) religous beliefs, what you are doing is hateful, bigoted, and un-American. Period.

The Bible's strictures against homosexuality are contained in Old Testament law, which even the most Fundamentalist Christians violate on a daily basis. Do you eat pork? Do you allow your wife, or any other woman, to live with you during menstruation? Have you touched, physically, in any way, a menstruating woman without ritually purifying yourself? Then you've got no right to say anything about sodomites. Either take Talmudic law in its entirety, or shut the hell up. You don't get to pick and choose.

Me, I'm a Christian. I follow the teachings of Jesus. Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and unto God what is God's. Don't cast stones unless you are entirely without sin. Anyone calling themselves a Christian is obligated to treat homosexuals with the same kindness they would treat a neighbor. Denying them civil rights just to be a dick is about as Christian as kicking puppies.

[Spike-X]

"2 or more"? When did polygamy come into this equation?

Since Samurai can't stop bloody dragging it into the conversation every time the subject of gay marriage comes up.

[the4thpip]

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong


01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.


http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/about/best/por/102351114.html

[Samurai]

Pip's back, and lo, this thread is resurrected! Welcome back, Pippy.

As for your list of 10 things, I considered disputing them 1 at a time, but then I figured I'd simply quote someone else whose comments are entirely appropriate here...


You are grasping for straws, and most of them are even imaginary. I shall call you Imaginary Strawboy from now on.

[Noah Johnson]

As for your list of 10 things, I considered disputing them 1 at a time, but then I figured I'd simply quote someone else whose comments are entirely appropriate here...
Perhaps I missed something. That directly addressed all of the arguments against gay marriage, in a satirical fashion.

"Grasping at straws" does have a specific meaning, you know.

[Samurai]

Perhaps I missed something. That directly addressed all of the arguments against gay marriage, in a satirical fashion.

"Grasping at straws" does have a specific meaning, you know.
It didn't "address" them, it stretched them beyond the breaking point, effectively making them straw men. I could do the same thing for the pro-gay marriage arguments...

1. Everyone has a constitutional right to marriage with whomever they love... including their kids, their dog, their parents and siblings, and a life-sized cardboard cut-out of Jennifer Garner in her Electra outfit.


There, I "addressed" that argument for gay marriage in a satirical fashion...

[Jeff Brady]

There, I "addressed" that argument for gay marriage in a satirical fashion...

Actually, you didn't. That's been the argument all along.

[EdContradictory]

Actually, you didn't. That's been the argument all along.
Yeah. The right actually believes the beastiality thing. Therefore it's not satire.

[kid_mash]

It didn't "address" them, it stretched them beyond the breaking point, effectively making them straw men. I could do the same thing for the pro-gay marriage arguments...

1. Everyone has a constitutional right to marriage with whomever they love... including their kids, their dog, their parents and siblings, and a life-sized cardboard cut-out of Jennifer Garner in her Electra outfit.


There, I "addressed" that argument for gay marriage in a satirical fashion...

No you didnt, thats not sarcasim ,its the argument the right use,it just sounds ridiculous.

[the4thpip]

No you didnt, thats not sarcasim ,its the argument the right use,it just sounds ridiculous.
Heck, it's the argument Samurai has used herself over and over again.
You'd think they'd notice something is off when they call satire something they've also claimed with a straight face.

[Gilda Dent]

My question is why lump same sex marriage in with bestiality, incest, and polygamy?

Polygamists tend to be a single man with several wives, making that a heterosexual institution. Interfamily marriage or sexual relationships also tend to be heterosexual. As for bestiality, given that heterosexuals out number homosexuals about 20 to 1, I'd assume that most of its practitioners are heteros.

So if we're going to use the polygamy, incest, and bestiality as parallels, they fit better with heterosexual marriage than homosexual, being that those practices are neutral by their nature, but engaged in by heteros far more often than homosexuals.

So, if we allow heterosexual marriage, why not allow polygamy, incest, and marriage to animals?

The answer is the same. Those are issues that are irrelevant to this particular discussion. Bestiality is ridiculous, but I do think that polygamy and cousin marriage are worthy of discussion. But those are separate discussions, having nothing whatsoever to do with same sex marriage.

Gilda

[Cam63]

I married a beer on a really hot day once.

It didn't last long. I kinda anulled it after I drank it.

[Lester C.]

I married a beer on a really hot day once.

It didn't last long. I kinda anulled it after I drank it.

murderer!!!

[Adam Crocker]

The answer is the same. Those are issues that are irrelevant to this particular discussion. Bestiality is ridiculous, but I do think that polygamy and cousin marriage are worthy of discussion. But those are separate discussions, having nothing whatsoever to do with same sex marriage.

Very well said Gilda.

[Spackling Compound]

So if we're going to use the polygamy, incest, and bestiality as parallels, they fit better with heterosexual marriage than homosexual, being that those practices are neutral by their nature, but engaged in by heteros far more often than homosexuals.

Gilda
I think because many of us who oppose gay marriage do so on moral lines and each of the examples, to varying degree, share the overall title of "sexual immorality".

And incest does not have more to do with heterosexuality than it does homosexuality. I think there are many, many cases of boys being sexually approached by a father, uncle or brother.
The bestiality issue may go beyond homo- or hetero- distinctions, as does pedophilia. The attraction is for for animals. A man may be attracted to a male dog but that may not be homosexual.

You just brought this thread back up so Gail would shoot you, didn't you?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Very well said Gilda.

She speaks logic. Doesn't that affect Samurai the way garlic and holy water affects vampires?

[Noah Johnson]

And incest does not have more to do with heterosexuality than it does homosexuality. I think there are many, many cases of boys being sexually approached by a father, uncle or brother.?
There are many such cases, yes. However, the heterosexual cases outnumber them. So, if we're going to have it be about homo or hetero, it's more about hetero. Thus, attempting to equate it rhetorically with homosexuality is dishonest.

Unless I misunderstood what Gilda was getting at.

[Jeff Brady]

Marriage = Two consenting, loving adults. No big whoop.

[Spackling Compound]

There are many such cases, yes. However, the heterosexual cases outnumber them. So, if we're going to have it be about homo or hetero, it's more about hetero. Thus, attempting to equate it rhetorically with homosexuality is dishonest.

Unless I misunderstood what Gilda was getting at.
I think Gilda wanted to keep gay marriage/sex as a seperate issue and have it argued on its own merits.

Fine.

However, those who bring in other sexual deviancies (probably me back in the 2402 post or so..) were probably begging the question by appealing to other sexual proclivities that are seen as taboo.
Gilda may just have wanted such argumentation to cease. However, her pointing out that beastiality, et al is more a straight issue than gay wasn't the best tack.
To whit, those, following her logic, should be argued outside the gay/straight paradigms as well.

[JeffreyWKramer]

To whit, those, following her logic, should be argued outside the gay/straight paradigms as well.

Which was her point. And which is contrary to the tack you and others - most persistently Samurai - have taken in regard to those issues.

For the record:

Pedophilia is not gay or straight - it is an orientation toward kids. Some pedophiles are oriented toward kids of both sexes, some toward same-gender, some toward opposite gender. The largest group (by a small margin) appears to be pedophiles who are oriented toward opposite-gender. Some pedophiles can also function in relationships with other adults. Most typically, these individuals have sex with adults and with chldren of the opposite gender.

Most bestiality involves men doing things with female animals (usually livestock), or (more rarely, but not unknown by any means), women doing things with male animals (most often dogs). Men doing things with male animals is much more rare; according to available statistical evidence, it is extremely rare (statistically, practically unknown) for women do mess around with female animals

As someone noted earlier, incest is practiced much more often by family members of the opposite gender (father/daughter, brother/sister, mother/son) than in same-gender pairings, though same-gender (most often male/male) is far from unknown.

[Samurai]

I've got to run to work now, so no long answer, but the main worry is about setting a precedent for changing the definition of marriage. If you can change 1 part of it (man/woman), how do you flat out forbid any further changes? That question has never been satisfactorily answered IMO, especially when it is done by court order rather than a legislative bill. And before you say "Oh, that'll never happen...", remember that more than a few people here already support polygamy and that it has taken place in the Netherlands. Not because of a careful consideration of the pros and cons of polygamy and a public vote or bill on the issue, but because the definition had been changed from "1 man and 1 woman only" to "Marriage/Civil Unions are a right which shall not be restricted by the govt." That kind of sloppy precedent can easily open the door to all kinds of stuff that was never originally intended (or was it?)

[JeffreyWKramer]

I've got to run to work now, so no long answer, but the main worry is about setting a precedent for changing the definition of marriage. If you can change 1 part of it (man/woman), how do you flat out forbid any further changes?

Why worry about this? I mean, really - even if someone else did marry their dog, or their toaster or their cousin or eleven other people, how would this impact you in any tangible way?

In our society "God says no" and "I don't like it" are not justifiable grounds for imposing one's will upon others. That gets to the core of what concepts such as freedom and individual liberties - concepts you seem to despise, Samurai, based on your stances on so many things - are all about.

[Noah Johnson]

Having caught what Samurai said in the quote, I'm forced to wonder why this change is the one that will be such a big problem, when all previous changes to the definition of marriage have somehow left the world intact.

[Gilda Dent]

To clarify:

My point, as others pointed out, was tha