Marriage Laws

[RendeR]

I've been involved in the abstinance day thread and wanted to get a discussion going on a related topic: Equal rights regarding marriage for same sex couples.

My state, MA, is currently in the hot seat, they spent two days debating it in the legislature and I must say I fear for our individual freedoms based on what some of these people said.

Here is the issue: Should Same Sex couples be allowed the same rights, protections, and benefits that male/female couples do when they get married?

I personally have to question why this is even a question? This nation's history is based on the freedoms and persuit of happiness that we all have enjoyed. Why are we now trying to remove that right from a group of people? The religious right will say that the sanctity of marriage cannot be enjoyed by same sex couples because the bible tells them so. Since when does the Bible dictate legal statutes in this country? It was never intended to.

Some say that same sex marriages are damaging the "traditional family values" and will hurt children. I'm sorry, but thats just ignorant. Same sex couples all across this nation have adopted otherwise parent-less children, and raised them to be wonderful and productive members of society. How is that hurtful? Traditional family values are based on having a loving caring and strong family, not just a mother-father-children style family.

I cannot agree with any kind of legislation that discriminates. If any state truly bans same sex marriage they are discriminating as badly as they did in the south during the civil rights movement.

No single person or group in this country has the right to limit someone elses liberty based on their personal beliefs.

OK, I've stuck my neck out, lets see what others have to say.

[albionmoonlight]

Separate but Equal is bad public policy.

[RendeR]

Separate but Equal is bad public policy.


Please explain that a little more albion, I don't want myself or anyone else to fill in the gaps on their own and get your opinion incorrect =)

[clintl]

I completely agree, RendeR. I don't understand how granting same sex couples the right to marry takes anything away from heterosexual married couples. The truth is that it does not affect them at all.

[Fritz]

please hurry with this. I can't wait to marry and bed my father and great great uncle.

[cthomer5000]

any 2 consenting adults (outside blood relatives) should be able to be joined in some sort of civically recognized union, and be able to receive all the benefits current male-female marriages do.

this is not a message for debate, i'm just telling you how it should be. :)

[Fritz]

why exclude blood relatives?

[Fritz]

why limit it to two?

[Fritz]

why limit it to adults?

[Ben E Lou]

I've said this before. Call it a "civil union" or something to that effect, and I say it should be legal.

[CamEdwards]

I've been involved in the abstinance day thread and wanted to get a discussion going on a related topic: Equal rights regarding marriage for same sex couples.

My state, MA, is currently in the hot seat, they spent two days debating it in the legislature and I must say I fear for our individual freedoms based on what some of these people said.

Here is the issue: Should Same Sex couples be allowed the same rights, protections, and benefits that male/female couples do when they get married?

I personally have to question why this is even a question? This nation's history is based on the freedoms and persuit of happiness that we all have enjoyed. Why are we now trying to remove that right from a group of people? The religious right will say that the sanctity of marriage cannot be enjoyed by same sex couples because the bible tells them so. Since when does the Bible dictate legal statutes in this country? It was never intended to.

Some say that same sex marriages are damaging the "traditional family values" and will hurt children. I'm sorry, but thats just ignorant. Same sex couples all across this nation have adopted otherwise parent-less children, and raised them to be wonderful and productive members of society. How is that hurtful? Traditional family values are based on having a loving caring and strong family, not just a mother-father-children style family.

I cannot agree with any kind of legislation that discriminates. If any state truly bans same sex marriage they are discriminating as badly as they did in the south during the civil rights movement.

No single person or group in this country has the right to limit someone elses liberty based on their personal beliefs.

OK, I've stuck my neck out, lets see what others have to say.

Since I'm speaking at a Rally for Traditional Marriage in a few hours, I'll bite.

First of all, let's take the civil rights for black Americans out of the equation. Whether or not homosexuality is something you're born with is up for debate right now. I've yet to meet anyone who wasn't born black.

Secondly, your assumption about the lack of a decline in traditional marriage with the advent of same sex marriage is a bit presumptous. I would suggest reading hxxp://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp and hxxp://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402050842.asp for a different take on the issue.

As a heterosexual, I'll freely admit that straight couples have done more damage to the institution of marriage than homosexuals have. That's why I'm also opposed to no fault divorce laws. Oklahoma was the first state in the nation to implement them, and we've been among the leaders in divorce ever since.

I think your argument provides a lot of fodder for those who would say allowing gay marriage could ultimately lead to the legalization of polygamy at the least, and other types of marriage further down the road.

But the most important thing for me is that this isn't an issue that should be decided by four justices in Massachusetts, or one mayor in San Francisco. Around the country people have cast their votes to define marriage, and the people have spoken. If we're so willing to hand over our power to activist judges and renegade public officials to get what we want, don't complain when those you disagree with use the same tactics to grant something you're opposed to.

[wig]

You guys are obsessed with gay marriage.

I remember a time when a guy could just smoke his buddy's meat-pipe in the garage without everyone weighing in on what his rights should be.

Seriously, next thing you know, they will want to vote.

:(

[revrew]

Here is how I would summarize the most legitimate arguments for forbidding same sex marriage:

Fritz's comments are actually point on. "Marriage" is an institution that was refined through history to be between one man and one woman. On what basis shall we redefine it? On what moral authority?

And if no moral authority is needed, for it simply "should be" according to current public opinion, then the precedent is set of redifining marriage--not by authority, but by opinion. By removing the moral authority, we also remove any grounds for forbidding polygamy. There is no reason, if man can marry man, that man cannot marry two women. And if consent is all that's needed, could not a man marry two men? Or more? And, taken to the ludicrous end, without a governing moral or historical authority to tell us otherwise, there really is no reason to forbid man marrying horse. Now, I admit, that seems silly to us all. I'm not trying to be inflammatory or obnoxious. But without respecting the historical or religious grounds that give us moral authority, we open ourselves, legally, to complete relativism. If a man can marry a man, what can't he marry? And if he wants to marry X, who is to say he can't?

Our legal system is based on precedence. Once the precedence is set that marriage has no historical definition, it ceases to have any meaningful definition at all.

[wig]

If I'm attracted to lesbians, am I pseudogay?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I fully support the proposed Constitutional amendment currently being considered here in Georgia. I'm even more pleased to note that my state Sen. was among those voting in favor of it yesterday & that the state Sen. from an adjoining district was the primary sponsor of the Senate version of the bill.

Most importantly at issue in the Georgia situation (other states may be in different stages or on different paths) is the notion that this is something that the voters deserve to be allowed to address directly, not have shoved down their throats by either side of the political aisle. The latter has been quite common in this state over the past few years & I think that bit of recent history is playing at least a small role in the current process (not nearly so much as recent developments elsewhere, but a role nonetheless).

This one is pretty much an easy call for any elected official, of either party, who hopes to be re-elected in November. Basically, it'll be opposed in & around Atlanta & in at least one district of 3 other metro areas. It'll draw support from everywhere else and the voting yesterday points that out pretty clearly. It's almost shocking in its own way -- elected representatives who are actually voting the way the majority of their constituents would want them to. Hmm ... must be getting close to election time ;)

[wig]

Does anyone else think Jeremy Shockey is really gay?

I think he is trying a little too hard to be homophobic

[Cuckoo]

Once again revrew, well said. Anyone wanting my opinion (and I know there isn't anyone who does :) ) should just refer to his post.

[wig]

I'm not afraid to say it, Brad Pitt is a good looking man.

Ocean's 11 is a sweet movie, too.

:)

[Cuckoo]

I'm not afraid to say it, Brad Pitt is a good looking man.

Ocean's 11 is a sweet movie, too.

:)


Hey, I agree with a wig. Do I get a prize? :D

[RendeR]

Cam,
I'm concerned by your comments only in that you seem to believe that everyone in the country must live by the moral codes you agree with.

Give me real reasons, not personal preferences, as to why two men or two women who love one another should be denied the legal benefits that you and I both have access to.

I won't argue that the same tactics are being used to push the anti-same sex marriage ammendment, its true. I'm not even complaining about it. My argument is that its unconstitutional to discriminate, period.

Please, I've always thought your arguments very well thought out and acceptable, please give me some real facts to work with in understanding your side of this. I will go check those links out as I have time today (classes suck). But I'm hoping you are taking this issue based on more than just a personal preference.

I dislike low-rider-building car junkies too, but its their right to act as they see fit, I can't legislate against them building cars the way they want to. I can't legislate away their bass defeaning sound systems. I may not like the way they choose to live, but in this country they have that right to live the way they choose. without censure from the government.

[stevew]

I'm not afraid to say it, Brad Pitt is a good looking man.

Ocean's 11 is a sweet movie, too.

:)

Well if you think he's cute, why dont you marry him then?

[wig]

I'm concerned by your comments only in that you seem to believe that everyone in the country must live by the moral codes you agree with.


Whoah! You're kidding, right?

All laws are based on a set of moral codes that the majority agrees with.

Don't make me bust out a handful of extreme examples.

[albionmoonlight]

In some ways the statement stands on its own--people can decide what it means to them in their life.

A little more clarity as to my thoughts. The first question is whether a state has an obligation to recognize marriage at all. Does a state have the right to say that it will not recognize the legal institution of marriage? An interesting question.

If you believe that marriage is something that a state must provide to its citizens, then it is akin to some very basic rights, such as the right to raise ones children. In situations involving such basic rights, the state needs to have a durn good reason to deny that right to someone. I think that a desire to enter into the legal status of marriage with someone of the same sex does not fall into the category of "durn good reasons."

You may, however, believe that a state does not have an obligation to recognize marriages (which makes them more akin to something like driver's licenses). In that case, the state has more freedom in denying the privilege to someone. The state can keep you from getting a driver's license if you are blind or if you can't pass the driving test.

However, even if marriage is not a basic right, the state is still under some obligation not to deny that right to certain people. For example, no state is obligated to provide driver's licenses, but once a state chooses to, it cannot deny the right to have one to someone based solely on that person's race. Or because that person is named Fred and the state does not like the name Fred.

To stretch the analogy, some people feel that there is something fundamental about marriage that necessitates it being between a man and a woman. To them, denying a marriage license to same sex couples is like denying a driver's license to someone who can't see. The state is allowed to place the restriction because the restriction gets to the core of the privilege being offered.

Others, however, feel that marriage is fundamentally about a binding legal commitment between two people in love who wish the state to recognize their union. They believe that the man/woman dichotomy is nothing more than superficial trappings. To them, the state has no more right to deny the privilege of marriage to someone based on their same sex status as it has the right to deny someone a driver's license because of their gender.

I fall into the second group. Others fall into the first group. It gets to the definition of marriage, and that may just be the point where people need to disagree. I can't really defend my defintion other than to say that "it just feels right to me."

For what it is worth, I see parallels between this debate and the debates that this country had when we decided that race was not a legitimate factor in denying people certain privileges. Hence, the Separate but Equal comment.

Once more thing. Some people seem offended that "the courts" are leading the way in enforcing these rights against the will of the people. Taking no stand on the issue--I simply want to point out that that is what the courts are designed to do. The legislature expresses the will of the majority; the executive branch enforces the will of the majority; the courts protect the rights of the minority against undue encroachment.

No matter how you feel about the issue, please recognize that whenever 51%+ of the population agrees on something, that there is nothing wrong or unnatural about the courts being the avenue through which the 49%- attempts to have their rights upheld. In fact, its exactly the way that America is supposed to work.

[clintl]

On what basis shall we redefine it? On what moral authority?


On the principle of equal protection under the law. The current system is discriminating against a group of people with respect to family rights, and some of this discrimination is harming them in economically as well, all to appease the sensibilities of people with a different set of values.

[Maple Leafs]

I'm in favor of civil unions and agree with much of what Render says.

However...

Traditional family values are based on having a loving caring and strong family, not just a mother-father-children style family.I think you'll find that different people will define "family values" in different ways. Pretending that there's one unanimously agreed-on definition, and you happen to have it, just strikes me as silly.

If any state truly bans same sex marriage they are discriminating as badly as they did in the south during the civil rights movement. Without diminishing the importance of the gay marriage issue, would it be possible to have the debate without invoking the civil rights movement?

[Celeval]

I've yet to meet anyone who wasn't born black.
I wasn't born black. Of course, I'm not black now, either. :)

[Fritz]

somebody does not understand the concept of society......

[wig]

When did it become popular to be gay?

[CamEdwards]

Cam,
I'm concerned by your comments only in that you seem to believe that everyone in the country must live by the moral codes you agree with.

Give me real reasons, not personal preferences, as to why two men or two women who love one another should be denied the legal benefits that you and I both have access to.

I won't argue that the same tactics are being used to push the anti-same sex marriage ammendment, its true. I'm not even complaining about it. My argument is that its unconstitutional to discriminate, period.

Please, I've always thought your arguments very well thought out and acceptable, please give me some real facts to work with in understanding your side of this. I will go check those links out as I have time today (classes suck). But I'm hoping you are taking this issue based on more than just a personal preference.

I dislike low-rider-building car junkies too, but its their right to act as they see fit, I can't legislate against them building cars the way they want to. I can't legislate away their bass defeaning sound systems. I may not like the way they choose to live, but in this country they have that right to live the way they choose. without censure from the government.

To take your second argument first, you might be surprised at the number of noise ordinances passed to get those bass deafening sound systems turned down. Also, low riding cars are subject to the same laws that govern all other motor vehicles on the road.

As to my personal preference, I don't know how you could infer that my argument was based solely on that. My argument is basically the same as revrew's. Unfortunately for me, he said it better than I did. Good thing I was taking notes. :)

[Fritz]

When did it become popular to be gay?

I blame Will and Grace. John Ritter just made it popular to pretend to be gay to get access to housing.

[Ksyrup]

I blame Will and Grace. John Ritter just made it popular to pretend to be gay to get access to housing.
Yep, at some point between Ellen's show going into the can when she came out and Will & Grace, things changed.

[wig]

After this issue is resolved, you'll see some 40 year old man using the courts to allow him to have sex with 12 year old boys. :(

"Who decides what is moral?"

:(

[John Galt]

why exclude blood relatives?

Small genetic pool = bad mutations gaining prevelance (see European royalty especially Russian hemophiliacs). It's a public health argument, not a moral one.

[John Galt]

Since I'm speaking at a Rally for Traditional Marriage in a few hours, I'll bite.

First of all, let's take the civil rights for black Americans out of the equation. Whether or not homosexuality is something you're born with is up for debate right now. I've yet to meet anyone who wasn't born black.

Assuming being gay is a choice, I assume you would have no problem with a law that prevented Christians from being married (since no one is born Christian).

[John Galt]

why limit it to adults?

consent.

[Fritz]

Small genetic pool = bad mutations gaining prevelance (see European royalty especially Russian hemophiliacs). It's a public health argument, not a moral one.

that only matters if you want kids. if you are gay, I am pretty sure you wont be reproducing with your lover.

[Fritz]

consent.

we dont limit it to adults now

[stevew]

How about that fat pig bitch Rosie O'Donnell. She certainly killed my love for lesbians :(

[wig]

I almost want to take "someone" off ignore to see what he posted.

naw. ;)

[John Galt]

Here is how I would summarize the most legitimate arguments for forbidding same sex marriage:

Fritz's comments are actually point on. "Marriage" is an institution that was refined through history to be between one man and one woman. On what basis shall we redefine it? On what moral authority?

And if no moral authority is needed, for it simply "should be" according to current public opinion, then the precedent is set of redifining marriage--not by authority, but by opinion. By removing the moral authority, we also remove any grounds for forbidding polygamy. There is no reason, if man can marry man, that man cannot marry two women. And if consent is all that's needed, could not a man marry two men? Or more? And, taken to the ludicrous end, without a governing moral or historical authority to tell us otherwise, there really is no reason to forbid man marrying horse. Now, I admit, that seems silly to us all. I'm not trying to be inflammatory or obnoxious. But without respecting the historical or religious grounds that give us moral authority, we open ourselves, legally, to complete relativism. If a man can marry a man, what can't he marry? And if he wants to marry X, who is to say he can't?

Our legal system is based on precedence. Once the precedence is set that marriage has no historical definition, it ceases to have any meaningful definition at all.

I don't think you open up to relativism because lines are easily drawn. I've already addressed the blood relative issue, but the polygamy argument is also easy. As long as marriage is defined as the unification between two people (regardless of gender), there is no bad precedent set. The situations aren't analogous.

Similar arguments were made when blacks were allowed to marry whites.

[Ben E Lou]

Assuming being gay is a choice, I assume you would have no problem with a law that prevented Christians from being married (since no one is born Christian).[open can of worms]Well, if you're coming from a reformed theological perspective, then that argument falls apart completely. ;)[/close can of worms]

[RendeR]

I'm in favor of civil unions and agree with much of what Render says.

However...

I think you'll find that different people will define "family values" in different ways. Pretending that there's one unanimously agreed-on definition, and you happen to have it, just strikes me as silly.

Without diminishing the importance of the gay marriage issue, would it be possible to have the debate without invoking the civil rights movement?


I agree with you on the values idea, everyone's is different, hence my argument that laws cannot be passed to discriminate against those with differeing values.

I don't think you can have this discussion without the basis of the civil rights movement thrown in, this is a CIVIL RIGHT. How can our legal system recognize one group of people and protect their insurance, death benefits, visitation rights etc etc, and completely deny them to another segment of the population based on a differing set of values? it is the black white movement all over again simply moving on to a gay/straight arguement.


Also, Cam: I read the first article just now, and it has some very interesting information, however it was written in general to renounce a paper that supported gay marriage at the time. The author states numerous times in the article that marriage was in decline before any legalization, he does not however show eny evidence that legalizing it is the direct result of the widening of the gap, it could in fact simply have been a natural change. I also found this line highly enlightening:
"Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable."

I can only say, "Bravo, you finally hit the idea, any family form IS acceptable"

[wig]

How about that fat pig bitch Rosie O'Donnell. She certainly killed my love for lesbians :(

In my mind, the only real lesbians are the hot ones in pornos

[albionmoonlight]

And to respond to Fritz's valid points (which a lot of people on my side of this discussion tend to ignore because they raise hard issues):

[NOTE: I am writing this in the context of the right to have consentual sex. You may or may not extend this to marriage. Because of the points revrew and others have raised, I think that recognize marriage is a "closer question" than consentual sex.]

There should not be a problem with blood relatives having sex. There may be health issues related to them having children (I don't know enough genetics to know). If so, then the state has a good reason to prevent sexual unions that result in unhealthy children. If, however, potential children are not an issue, I don't see why the community has a right to go into someone's bedroom and tell them that they can't have consentual sex with an adult.

Sex is not limited to two. The state has a reason to limit marriage (as we currently know it) to two because the whole legal structure upon which marraige is based assumes two people. Things like the intestate disposition of property and the right to make end of life decisions would have to be completely reworked. If, however, a state were willing to do the work and make new laws to deal with the situation, then why not recognize polygomous unions? If we did recognize them, I'd have no problem calling them a marriage.

We limit it to adults because the law assumes that people under a certain age do not have the legal ability to give consent. We also don't let children sign contracts for that reason. Marriage and sex both assume consent. A child simply cannot give consent.

[John Galt]

that only matters if you want kids. if you are gay, I am pretty sure you wont be reproducing with your lover.

But you may very well be adopting. And family members already have legal rights over each other without being married. Gays have no such luxury. And how do you justify the line of most states allowing second cousins but not first cousins?

[stevew]

In my mind, the only real lesbians are the hot ones in pornos

Either that, or the ones in "prison movies."

[Butter]

I love all these homophobic slippery-slope arguments. They're quite amusing. Keep 'em coming.

[wig]

Either that, or the ones in "prison movies."

Hell yeah.

[John Galt]

we dont limit it to adults now

we should. And VA and WV are hardly representative. ;)

[John Galt]

[open can of worms]Well, if you're coming from a reformed theological perspective, then that argument falls apart completely. ;)[/close can of worms]

True, but I'd be suprised if anyone is supporting that. If they do, just change the example to any other religion.

[Fritz]

The state has a reason to limit marriage (as we currently know it) to two because the whole legal structure upon which marraige is based assumes two people. Things like the intestate disposition of property and the right to make end of life decisions would have to be completely reworked. If, however, a state were willing to do the work and make new laws to deal with the situation, then why not recognize polygomous unions? If we did recognize them, I'd have no problem calling them a marriage.


so we should be able to marry as many as we like, if we get off our collective ass and rework the laws?

[Maple Leafs]

I agree with you on the values idea, everyone's is different, hence my argument that laws cannot be passed to discriminate against those with differeing values.See, this is the part that I just can't get past. If we can't pass laws that affect people with different values, than what laws can we pass? I can't think of any values out there that are completely and universally accepted by everyone.

[wig]

Why are all prison movie babes named Honey?

[Fritz]

we should.


REPRESSION REPRESSION. JOHN IS CALLING FOR REPRESSION!

[Cuckoo]

I love all these homophobic slippery-slope arguments. They're quite amusing. Keep 'em coming.


I love all these you must be homophobic if you don't agree with me arguments. They're very amusing, but please stop them.

[John Galt]

Well i love all the "judeo-christianphobic" arguments on how its all cool to be gay and stuff. We shouldnt have to accept the garbage thats going on in SF or Mass. If you want to marry your partner, go move to freaking canada or something.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner for the worst reply in this thread. Yes, the "go to Canada" argument is always a strong one.

[RendeR]

Assuming being gay is a choice, I assume you would have no problem with a law that prevented Christians from being married (since no one is born Christian).


well said John, and skydog, i do understand your comment as well, nicely added!

This makes me stop and consider why we have government interaction with marriage at all? Why do we need licenses from a state in order to be recognized?

I understand that for tax reasons, married couples would need to be registered somehow, so that tax benefits are assigned properly.

can someone fill in some other *realistic* reasons why? Because if we find that licensing marriage is unnecessary, perhaps this is a moot arguement?

[Ben E Lou]

True, but I'd be suprised if anyone is supporting that. If they do, just change the example to any other religion.Supporting what? Reformed theology? You'd be surprised.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I almost want to take "someone" off ignore to see what he posted.
A word to the wise -- don't do it. I've given in to that temptation numerous times & it never fails that I regret it almost immediately.

[wig]

I'm against any community asking for special rights.

[Butter]

If you want to marry your partner, go move to freaking canada or something.

I would, but they might stop my car with a grenade.

[John Galt]

REPRESSION REPRESSION. JOHN IS CALLING FOR REPRESSION!

Why? Because I believe kids can't form the requisite intent to consent to marry. How about if I said 8 year olds shouldn't be subject to the death penalty because they can't form the requisite intent to kill? Does that make you feel better?

[wig]

A word to the wise -- don't do it. I've given in to that temptation numerous times & it never fails that I regret it almost immediately.

I hear you, brother. I used to give in to the temptation, and it was always a bad move.

[albionmoonlight]

so we should be able to marry as many as we like, if we get off our collective ass and rework the laws?
If the state (which is nothing more or less than We the People) decides that pologomy is a good idea and passes laws to accomidate it, why not?

I just don't think that it would work now because the whole structure of the laws as they are written depends upon only two people.

Since most people are against pologomy, I don't see it happening any time soon.

[stevew]

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner for the worst reply in this thread. Yes, the "go to Canada" argument is always a strong one.


Damn, I should have listened when Wig told me to put you on ignore

[Fritz]

yes

[John Galt]

Supporting what? Reformed theology? You'd be surprised.

Maybe, but that is some (excuse my French) wacked out shit. It is also the basis for a very dangerous perspective in our "war on terror." Anything that enables religious and culture wars freaks the hell out of me.

[stevew]

I would, but they might stop my car with a grenade.


As long as nobody tries to blast you with a "pipe-bomb", I think that you will be okay.

[Maple Leafs]

Since most people are against pologomy, I don't see it happening any time soon.So is it really just a question of majority rules?

And if so, are you confident that the majority is in favor of gay marriage?

[Butter]

I love all these you must be homophobic if you don't agree with me arguments. Please stop them.

I have yet to see a cogent argument against allowing gay civil unions aside from ones that seem to think that gay people will go on some sort of animal/child-fucking rampage if we allow them to have equal legal status to heteros.

[John Galt]

So is it really just a question of majority rules?

And if so, are you confident that the majority is in favor of gay marriage?

No and No for me. I think albionmoonlight is totally wrong on this one.

[Honolulu_Blue]

After this issue is resolved, you'll see some 40 year old man using the courts to allow him to have sex with 12 year old boys. :(

:(

Once again, Senator Santorum makes his way onto our happy, humble board... This time in the form of the infamous "wig."

[wig]

Somewhat off topic, but not really, does anyone else think that the "slippery slope" argument doesn't work because we are already on that slope?

Seriously, 2 men asking the government to give them special benefits that are reserved for married couples? This doesn't sound like the downside of that slope to anyone?

The courts are going to be the downfall of this society, along with soy milk.

[John Galt]

I'm against any community asking for special rights.

Yeah, I hated it too when heteros got the right to marry.

[Maple Leafs]

No and No for me. I think albionmoonlight is totally wrong on this one.That seems like a much more consistent position.

[CamEdwards]

I love all these homophobic slippery-slope arguments. They're quite amusing. Keep 'em coming.

Especially when you don't answer any of them.

JohnGalt, since we outlaw incestual relationships because of the health effects it would have on a child, then shouldn't we start banning deaf couples from getting married? What about couples who both carry the genetic marker for cerebral palsy?

Your argument regarding polygamy is also sadly short sighted. You say as long as marriage is defined as two people (regardless of gender). But right now marriage is regarded as a man and a woman. If we remove the gender restriction, why shouldn't we remove the number of people entitled to marriage?

As to Christians not being allowed to marry, I haven't seen too many Christians comparing their struggle for salvation to the civil rights movement. I have, however, seen supporters of gay marriage do that very thing. That was the basis for my comments. However, we do currently forbid those who would practice polygamy as part of their religion from getting married, so I guess it could happen (and very well might if some people would have their way).

[albionmoonlight]

well said John, and skydog, i do understand your comment as well, nicely added!

This makes me stop and consider why we have government interaction with marriage at all? Why do we need licenses from a state in order to be recognized?

I understand that for tax reasons, married couples would need to be registered somehow, so that tax benefits are assigned properly.

can someone fill in some other *realistic* reasons why? Because if we find that licensing marriage is unnecessary, perhaps this is a moot arguement?
That gets to my initial post. The state has chosen to recognize a certain legal relationship as a "marraige." It coorolates to, but is not hopelessly intertwined with the spiritual relationship known as marriage.

Some legal effects of marriage: disposition of property at death, tax concerns, right to make end of life decision, property rights in certain states, etc.

Maybe the answer that would make everyone the most happy would be to call all legal unions between two people "civil unions" and reserve the word Marriage for the spiritual side of things. That way, everyone is being treated equally from the state perspective, but the word and concept of "marriage" can maintain its power and dignity in everyone's eyes.

[Cuckoo]

I have yet to see a cogent argument against allowing gay civil unions aside from ones that seem to think that gay people will go on some sort of animal/child-fucking rampage if we allow them to have equal legal status to heteros.


Well then we must be reading things quite differently. What I've seen is people saying that the need to define marriage stems from a fear of marriage becoming a broad institution that can be utilized by those who would engage in activity considered by a large portion of the population to be immoral and wrong. As far as I know, no one said they were worried that gays would do those things.

[Maple Leafs]

I have yet to see a cogent argument against allowing gay civil unions aside from ones that seem to think that gay people will go on some sort of animal/child-fucking rampage if we allow them to have equal legal status to heteros.Either you honestly don't understand the argument being made, or else (more likely) you're intentionally warping it in order to make it easier to defeat.

And if that's the case, John Galt is going to beat you down for straw-manning. You've been warned!

[Tekneek]

I've said this before. Call it a "civil union" or something to that effect, and I say it should be legal.

Then the government would have to stop requiring a marriage license, and require everyone to get a "civil union license." If marriage really is a religious issue, the state should not be requiring you to get licensed for it.

[CamEdwards]

jeez, I can't keep up with this stuff.

[wig]

jeez, I can't keep up with this stuff.

Don't worry, nothing new is ever posted. :)

[Chubby]

Are we debating this again?

[John Galt]

Especially when you don't answer any of them.

JohnGalt, since we outlaw incestual relationships because of the health effects it would have on a child, then shouldn't we start banning deaf couples from getting married? What about couples who both carry the genetic marker for cerebral palsy?

Your argument regarding polygamy is also sadly short sighted. You say as long as marriage is defined as two people (regardless of gender). But right now marriage is regarded as a man and a woman. If we remove the gender restriction, why shouldn't we remove the number of people entitled to marriage?

As to Christians not being allowed to marry, I haven't seen too many Christians comparing their struggle for salvation to the civil rights movement. I have, however, seen supporters of gay marriage do that very thing. That was the basis for my comments. However, we do currently forbid those who would practice polygamy as part of their religion from getting married, so I guess it could happen (and very well might if some people would have their way).

On your first argument, I think eugenics is a very different case. Creating a small pool that encourages bad mutations is one thing, but preventing minorities (deaf) from procreating and selecting out "bad" traits is an ugly power to give gov't (see Hitler). Regulating intra-family childbearing is not the same thing and once again, the slippery slope is fallacious.

On your second argument, (beyond the fact that the slippery slope is an argumentative fallacy), the same point was made with blacks marrying whites. People felt changing the definition of marriage would open "everything" up. Amazingly it didn't.

On your last point, I don't think you really answered the argument. Would you support a law that forbade Jews to marry just because the majority supported it? (Your example of polygamy is slightly askew because the law eliminates a practice that was at one time used by a certain religion - not dissimilar from laws that ban human sacrifice that were practiced by some religions).

[wig]

Chubby is going to backload this topic.

;)

[RendeR]

That gets to my initial post. The state has chosen to recognize a certain legal relationship as a "marraige." It coorolates to, but is not hopelessly intertwined with the spiritual relationship known as marriage.

Some legal effects of marriage: disposition of property at death, tax concerns, right to make end of life decision, property rights in certain states, etc.

Maybe the answer that would make everyone the most happy would be to call all legal unions between two people "civil unions" and reserve the word Marriage for the spiritual side of things. That way, everyone is being treated equally from the state perspective, but the word and concept of "marriage" can maintain its power and dignity in everyone's eyes.

But doesn't this just relate to semantics? I suppose if the legal side of things were equal and fair to all people through this type of result then it could be acceptable, but I don't think thats what the people frantically trying to pass amendmants to their states constitutions are trying to do. You don't put a ban of something into your constitution to be fair and equal to those you are banning.

[Maple Leafs]

Are we debating this again?Define "debating"...

[RendeR]

Also, QUICKSAND: I saw a post from you that was amazingly dead on. Please repost it!!!

[John Galt]

Either you honestly don't understand the argument being made, or else (more likely) you're intentionally warping it in order to make it easier to defeat.

And if that's the case, John Galt is going to beat you down for straw-manning. You've been warned!

*beating down Butter*

[albionmoonlight]

I think that it is clear that the majority of people in this country are against gay marriage.

I think that it is clear that the majority of people in this country are againt pologomy.

There is nothing fundamental about legal marriage that should prevent a state from recognizing same sex marriage. Therefore, even though the majority of people are against it, the state simply should not have the right to deny marriage to someone based on what is, to me, a completely superficial reason.

There is something fundamental about legal marriage that should prevent a state from recognizing pologomy (i.e. the entire structure of "marriage" law). Therefore, the state has the right to prevent pologomous unions.

[Cuckoo]

*beating down Butter*

That just sounds funny anyway. :D

[Chubby]

Define "debating"...

Well that depends on your definition of the word "is"... :D

I'm surprised Bubba Wheels hasn't pounced on this topic like a priest at a cub scout meeting...

[John Galt]

Define "debating"...

I don't think Chubby can - that was the problem he had last time he was "around" one of these discussions.

[Maple Leafs]

On your first argument, I think eugenics is a very different case. Creating a small pool that encourages bad mutations is one thing, but preventing minorities (deaf) from procreating and selecting out "bad" traits is an ugly power to give gov't (see Hitler).I envoke Godwin's Law (http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html) and declare this thread over.

SkyDog, lock away.

[John Galt]

Also, QUICKSAND: I saw a post from you that was amazingly dead on. Please repost it!!!

I was going to repost it, but then I realized half the people in this thread have me on "ignore."

[Chubby]

I think that it is clear that the majority of people in this country are against gay marriage.




Did Ms Cleo tell you this? Feel free to cite sources since every poll I have seen shows people don't really give a fuck, unless this is going to be another debate over Christianity "owning" the word marriage.

[CamEdwards]

On your first argument, I think eugenics is a very different case. Creating a small pool that encourages bad mutations is one thing, but preventing minorities (deaf) from procreating and selecting out "bad" traits is an ugly power to give gov't (see Hitler). Regulating intra-family childbearing is not the same thing and once again, the slippery slope is fallacious.

On your second argument, (beyond the fact that the slippery slope is an argumentative fallacy), the same point was made with blacks marrying whites. People felt changing the definition of marriage would open "everything" up. Amazingly it didn't.

On your last point, I don't think you really answered the argument. Would you support a law that forbade Jews to marry just because the majority supported it? (Your example of polygamy is slightly askew because the law eliminates a practice that was at one time used by a certain religion - not dissimilar from laws that ban human sacrifice that were practiced by some religions).

John, if you really believe the slippery slope argument is fallacious, go back and read the Mass. Supreme Court decision. You'll find plenty that proves you wrong.

As to whether or not I would support a law that forbade Jews to marry... of course not. And I'd be protesting just as loudly as those in support of gay marriage. I've never said people shouldn't debate the issue. I've never said people shouldn't believe what they believe. I just believe I'm right, and a majority of Americans feel the same way. If I was in the minority, of course I'd be protesting. Dissent is patriotic, right?

[John Galt]

I envoke Godwin's Law (http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html) and declare this thread over.

SkyDog, lock away.
:D

True enough, I forgot about that. Of course, I didn't bring up eugenics and how can you bring up eugenics without immediately pulling out the Hitler card? ;)

[wig]

Fat people shouldn't marry either.

[albionmoonlight]

I based my belief on the fact that most states seem to be tripping all over themselves to pass "one man and one woman" amendments.

Whether the majority is against gay marriage or for gay marraige or does not care does not really change my arguement.

[Your catch brings to mind one of the cardinal rules of reading. Whenever someone starts a sentence with "It is clear that. . . ." you can be sure that what follows is 1.) not clear and 2.) not supported.

Thanks for keeping me honest.]

[Maple Leafs]

True enough, I forgot about that. Of course, I didn't bring up eugenics and how can you bring up eugenics without immediately pulling out the Hitler card? ;)Good point. But if we change the rules now, we just start down a slippery slope...

[Tekneek]

But doesn't this just relate to semantics? I suppose if the legal side of things were equal and fair to all people through this type of result then it could be acceptable, but I don't think thats what the people frantically trying to pass amendmants to their states constitutions are trying to do. You don't put a ban of something into your constitution to be fair and equal to those you are banning.

I think that this is a good point. Some of the comments that were coming out of the Georgia Senate are disturbing. It made me wonder just what religious dogma was going to make its way out the door next. It sounded like a religious crusade. Some were acting as if the future of the entire world was dependent on getting this ban into place. A lesson to any gay folks out there that vote for Democrats just because of the party name. Many of them voted for the ban here in Georgia, so clearly that party is not as accepting as they would lead you to believe when they are counting your votes in November. I remember when some Republicans here said that passing a law protecting a mother's right to breastfeed would result in mass exhibitionism. One particular fellow was quoted on the radio saying such, and when I called his office he could not come up with one verifiable news story of that happening. They make these "chicken little" arguments with no evidence to backup their doomsday predictions.

[RendeR]

John, if you really believe the slippery slope argument is fallacious, go back and read the Mass. Supreme Court decision. You'll find plenty that proves you wrong.

As to whether or not I would support a law that forbade Jews to marry... of course not. And I'd be protesting just as loudly as those in support of gay marriage. I've never said people shouldn't debate the issue. I've never said people shouldn't believe what they believe. I just believe I'm right, and a majority of Americans feel the same way. If I was in the minority, of course I'd be protesting. Dissent is patriotic, right?


I'm honestly not sure you are in the majority though. Throughout the MA debates they took votes on numerous amendmants and referendums, every one failed. they only needed a simple majority to pass them. granted not every state is the same as MA, I would expect the southern and bible belt states to vote banning, I would also expect the northern and most western states to vote against it. I wouldn't be so comfortable with your "majority" at this stage.

[wig]

ok, fat people can marry if they don't have kids

[Tekneek]

Fat people shouldn't marry either.

Hahah. So what happens if you get fat AFTER you get married?

[Chubby]

I based my belief on the fact that most states seem to be tripping all over themselves to pass "one man and one woman" amendments.

Whether the majority is against gay marriage or for gay marraige or does not care does not really change my arguement.

[Your catch brings to mind one of the cardinal rules of reading. Whenever someone starts a sentence with "It is clear that. . . ." you can be sure that what follows is 1.) not clear and 2.) not supported.

Thanks for keeping me honest.]
No problem :)

Just because a majority of lawmakers in certain states is for this doesn't even mean their constituents are even for it.

[John Galt]

John, if you really believe the slippery slope argument is fallacious, go back and read the Mass. Supreme Court decision. You'll find plenty that proves you wrong.

As to whether or not I would support a law that forbade Jews to marry... of course not. And I'd be protesting just as loudly as those in support of gay marriage. I've never said people shouldn't debate the issue. I've never said people shouldn't believe what they believe. I just believe I'm right, and a majority of Americans feel the same way. If I was in the minority, of course I'd be protesting. Dissent is patriotic, right?

On the first point, I've read the opinion and I think you are confusing a "slippery slope" with a "precedent." A slippery slope is a fallacy because of the way the argument is set up. Usually it goes like this.

Allowing X (which is not that bad or even goo) leads to Y (which is probably bad) and Z (which is always horrible and unthinkable).

The fact that you use Z is because you want to shock and horrify the listener who wouldn't be horrified by X alone. However, the mere fact that you can differentiate X from Z is usually why you need not slip down the slope.

From a precedental standpoint, I think there are easy arguments to show why polygamy and incest aren't precedents from gay marriage. Opening up the definition of marriage does not lead to all the evil unspeakables just as it didn't will interracial marriage. Sure, some polygamist will argue otherwise, but a court can easily differentiate as has been done in this thread.


And to your last point, I'm all for dissent - it is my middle name. I just don't know how the religious feel empowered by arguing being gay is a choice when being religious is as well. And the arguments against opening up marriage to religions beyond your own are often more prone to slippery slope argument (ie Christians could easily be horrified by Muslim or Jewish ceremonies).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Okay, I know in advance I'm going to regret even asking this, but I just gotta, 'cause I'm not following you. If you've already spelled this out elsewhere, just chalk it up to the speed of the thread being more than I've kept pace with.

There is nothing fundamental about legal marriage that should prevent a state from recognizing same sex marriage.

There is something fundamental about legal marriage that should prevent a state from recognizing pologomy (i.e. the entire structure of "marriage" law). Therefore, the state has the right to prevent pologomous unions.
Where are you drawing the line of difference between the two examples?
At "2 people vs 2+ people"?

And if so, why did you place it at "2 people" vs "1 man + 1 woman"?

TIA,
Jon

[wig]

Hahah. So what happens if you get fat AFTER you get married?


hmm..... slippery slope with a strawman at the top.......

ok, if you get fat after marriage you have to move to France.

[Tekneek]

The news reports here made it sound as if the Senate was hoping it could be rushed through because they did not want it to go to a public vote/referendum on the general ballot. That, to me, sounds like they are afraid of what the majority of voters would decide if it were left up to them.

[albionmoonlight]

As much as this thread has sucked me in--I need to get some work done, so I must check out. Good points made by many.

And John--never again will I labor under the illusion that New York lawyers work long hours. You post as much as I do, and I am a government employee in New Orleans :) .

[John Galt]

The news reports here made it sound as if the Senate was hoping it could be rushed through because they did not want it to go to a public vote/referendum on the general ballot. That, to me, sounds like they are afraid of what the majority of voters would decide if it were left up to them.

Even I'm not willing to go that far. I think the big fear with the public vote is the delay. The result would be a window of time when gays could be married and have those marriages permanently honored in the state (since eliminating them retroactively invites more sticky legal problems).

[John Galt]

As much as this thread has sucked me in--I need to get some work done, so I must check out. Good points made by many.

And John--never again will I labor under the illusion that New York lawyers work long hours. You post as much as I do, and I am a government employee in New Orleans :) .

Yeah, but when I'm still here at midnight, you'll remember the difference (especially after I worked yet another 3 day weekend). ;)

[albionmoonlight]

I caught Jon's question before I left. Here is how I stated it earlier in the thread. Hope that you don't regret asking.

To stretch the analogy, some people feel that there is something fundamental about marriage that necessitates it being between a man and a woman. To them, denying a marriage license to same sex couples is like denying a driver's license to someone who can't see. The state is allowed to place the restriction because the restriction gets to the core of the privilege being offered.

Others, however, feel that marriage is fundamentally about a binding legal commitment between two people in love who wish the state to recognize their union. They believe that the man/woman dichotomy is nothing more than superficial trappings. To them, the state has no more right to deny the privilege of marriage to someone based on their same sex status as it has the right to deny someone a driver's license because of their gender.

I fall into the second group. Others fall into the first group. It gets to the definition of marriage, and that may just be the point where people need to disagree. I can't really defend my defintion other than to say that "it just feels right to me."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Many of them voted for the ban here in Georgia,
Actually, "many" is also "nearly half" (10 of 24). And they're split neatly along geographic lines as I mentioned earlier.

And nobody on eitherside should believe for a minute that their votes were anything except politicians hoping to be re-elected, by voting the way they believe the majority of their constituents wanted them to.

Here's a potential kicker you might like though: I presume that the various Senators voted based upon their current district. I wonder how many may be bit in the butt by this same vote when the districts are re-mapped?

[Fonzie]

Hahah. So what happens if you get fat AFTER you get married?

The slippery slope happens.

Edit: damn, wig beat me to it. :(

[JonInMiddleGA]

Hope that you don't regret asking.
Nah, except that I wish I hadn't asked a question you'd already answered but I had missed in the posting flurry somewhere along the way.

Thanks for doubling up to cover my question, I appreciate it.

[Maple Leafs]

Allowing X (which is not that bad or even goo) leads to Y (which is probably bad) and Z (which is always horrible and unthinkable).

The fact that you use Z is because you want to shock and horrify the listener who wouldn't be horrified by X alone. However, the mere fact that you can differentiate X from Z is usually why you need not slip down the slope.Yes, but...

I was taught that slippery slopes aren't wrong by definition. They just usually don't stand up to scrutiny. Usually the fallacy falls apart because you can refute it with a perfectly good argument drawing on the differences between X and Z.

Example:
Slippery Slope: If you legalize marijuana, cocaine and heroin will be next.
Rebuttal: But we know that cocaine and heroin are more dangerous drugs and more addictive. We have the evidence to back that up.

When you can draw a line on the slope, so to speak, it becomes a fallacy.

But sometimes (rarely), the slippery slope argument can work. This happens when there isn't a valid line to draw. And there's a danger of that happening here.

Slippery Slope: If you change the definition of marriage to allow for people of the same gender, you'll have to change it to allow for more than two people.
Rebuttal: I'm not sure what works here. You obviously can't use "because that's not the traditional intention", and you can't use "the majority don't want that", because both arguments apply to the gay marriage issue as well. So what's left?

Of course, there's also the rebuttal of "so what, who does that hurt?" But in that case, the slippery slope argument has succeeded in at least forcing that acknowledgement.

[Tekneek]

Even I'm not willing to go that far. I think the big fear with the public vote is the delay. The result would be a window of time when gays could be married and have those marriages permanently honored in the state (since eliminating them retroactively invites more sticky legal problems).

I was not thinking about it that way, but I grant that much.

[Cuckoo]

Well said Maple Leafs.

This is really all I'm going to do now, just read and pat various people on the back. It allows me to stay somewhat out of it. :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

The news reports here made it sound as if the Senate was hoping it could be rushed through because they did not want it to go to a public vote/referendum on the general ballot. That, to me, sounds like they are afraid of what the majority of voters would decide if it were left up to them.
Umm ... the legislation calls for a vote on a Constitutional (state) amendment.

Even with my often dim view of general public, I think there's a pretty good chance it can't exactly be slipped past them (since Constitutional amendments have to go before the voters).

In other words, I'm not sure what news reports you were following but they must have done a really bad job of explaining what was actually being voted on yesterday.

[wig]

The slippery slope argumet is perfetly valid.

20 years ago, gays getting legal marriage rights would have been considered a slippery slope argument.

[Tekneek]

Here's a potential kicker you might like though: I presume that the various Senators voted based upon their current district. I wonder how many may be bit in the butt by this same vote when the districts are re-mapped?

I would consider 10 out of 24 to be many, actually, in that it was a large number of them. Obviously it was not a majority, and at the time I thought it was half of them...but I was wrong.

As far as them voting the way their constituents would want them to, then that is fine with me. That's what they should be doing, IMHO. I certainly wouldn't have you representing me if you wanted to vote against my wishes all the time. If you want my vote, you better vote for what I want. As to who gets caught in it later, there may be some of that going both ways.

[Fritz]

did someone toss aside straw man for slippery slope?

[Tekneek]

Umm ... the legislation calls for a vote on a Constitutional (state) amendment.

Even with my often dim view of general public, I think there's a pretty good chance it can't exactly be slipped past them (since Constitutional amendments have to go before the voters).

In other words, I'm not sure what news reports you were following but they must have done a really bad job of explaining what was actually being voted on yesterday.

Yes, and it was WSB. :)

I actually knew this had to go to a vote, but was (unfortunately easily) confusing this with another debate. The deal in Georgia is that they are afraid they won't get done soon enough to get it on the ballot in November.

The sponsor of this bill is Sen. Mike Crotts, who is the guy I talked to on the phone a year or two ago about his claims that protecting the rights of breastfeeding moms would legalize exhibitionism. I called his office and then he called me back at work. In the ensuing conversation, he could not provide any verifiable evidence to back up his claims. I wonder if that's the way he does it all of the time. I wonder how he voted on the proposals to put a ban against adultery in the Constitution, which did not get all 30 Republican votes.

[wig]

The slippery slope is much better than the straw man.

Although, if it was a gay straw man that wanted to get married to another gay straw man........

[JonInMiddleGA]

... and then he called me back at work.
You're lucky, most people he doesn't call back (from what I know of him).
And that's about all I can say on that subject ;)

[John Galt]

Yes, but...

I was taught that slippery slopes aren't wrong by definition. They just usually don't stand up to scrutiny. Usually the fallacy falls apart because you can refute it with a perfectly good argument drawing on the differences between X and Z.

Example:
Slippery Slope: If you legalize marijuana, cocaine and heroin will be next.
Rebuttal: But we know that cocaine and heroin are more dangerous drugs and more addictive. We have the evidence to back that up.

When you can draw a line on the slope, so to speak, it becomes a fallacy.

But sometimes (rarely), the slippery slope argument can work. This happens when there isn't a valid line to draw. And there's a danger of that happening here.

Slippery Slope: If you change the definition of marriage to allow for people of the same gender, you'll have to change it to allow for more than two people.
Rebuttal: I'm not sure what works here. You obviously can't use "because that's not the traditional intention", and you can't use "the majority don't want that", because both arguments apply to the gay marriage issue as well. So what's left?

Of course, there's also the rebuttal of "so what, who does that hurt?" But in that case, the slippery slope argument has succeeded in at least forcing that acknowledgement.

You are right, except that I think the slippery slope is in itself a fallacy. I think it is the "slippery" part that is where it is inherently problematic. Otherwise, I think your summary is right and why I also try to draw lines.

As for this specific one, I'm still arguing that the slope isn't slippery as proven historically by interracial marriage. Opening up the definition of marriage doesn't give rise to every nonsense view of the institution. And either way, if you can't prove that gay marriage in itself is destructive then it can be differentiated from those things that are in themselves destructive.

[John Galt]

The slippery slope argumet is perfetly valid.

20 years ago, gays getting legal marriage rights would have been considered a slippery slope argument.

So, we should have opposed interracial marriage on those grounds?

[wig]

There must be some confusion in this topic.

Gay is not the same as black.

There were never hundreds of years of gay slavery.

Just wanted to clear that up for some of you.

[John Galt]

There must be some confusion in this topic.

Gay is not the same as black.

There were never hundreds of years of gay slavery.

Just wanted to clear that up for some of you.

I say - the same slippery slope arguments were used for interracial marriage.

You say - the slippery slope arguments were proven true because 20 years ago gay marriage was the slope

I say - so you would oppose interracial marriage because it started the slope to gay marriage

You say - race has nothing to do with this.


You are right - there IS confusion in this topic.

[Drake]

[open can of worms]Well, if you're coming from a reformed theological perspective, then that argument falls apart completely. ;)[/close can of worms]

I didn't want to let this little gem slide by without pointing out how ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT it was in context if you've studied any theological history. An obscure point, yes, but fabulously played. Give SD a cookie.

[Drake]

dola...

The only way that allowing gay marriage effects me is by subjecting gay couples to the marriage tax penalty, which means that there's more money in the till, which is ultimately good for me. Gay marriage makes good economic sense.

And lawyers should be all for this (well, divorce lawyers, anyway). You will increase your pool of clients. On top of that, I know a lot of gay lawyers, and I'd like to have all the legal guys I can get on my side in divorce proceedings--'cuz when I was younger and got divorced, I got screwed because of assumptions in my state that women should get everything in a divorce.

So, gay marriage is good for me, and what's good for me is good for the country.

[John Galt]

dola...

The only way that allowing gay marriage effects me is by subjecting gay couples to the marriage tax penalty, which means that there's more money in the till, which is ultimately good for me. Gay marriage makes good economic sense.

And lawyers should be all for this (well, divorce lawyers, anyway). You will increase your pool of clients. On top of that, I know a lot of gay lawyers, and I'd like to have all the legal guys I can get on my side in divorce proceedings--'cuz when I was younger and got divorced, I got screwed because of assumptions in my state that women should get everything in a divorce.

So, gay marriage is good for me, and what's good for me is good for the country.

Just to address this very side issue - the marriage penalty is largely a fiction in terms of budget surplus/deficit. While there was a penalty for couples who filed jointly (they could have filed separately to avoid the penalty) because they combined in usual ways in the tax brackets (high income differentials with double incomes was usually more likely to trigger the "penalty"), there were an equal number who benefited with the marriage tax break. Ultimately, the penalty was deficit neutral. Eliminating the penalty, however, has led to less revenue. Either way, filing separately avoids the penalty.

[Tekneek]

You're lucky, most people he doesn't call back (from what I know of him).
And that's about all I can say on that subject ;)

I'd say they are lucky. He was the most unpleasant person I have ever spoken with in my entire life.

[Young Drachma]

I've been involved in the abstinance day thread and wanted to get a discussion going on a related topic: Equal rights regarding marriage for same sex couples.

My state, MA, is currently in the hot seat, they spent two days debating it in the legislature and I must say I fear for our individual freedoms based on what some of these people said.

Here is the issue: Should Same Sex couples be allowed the same rights, protections, and benefits that male/female couples do when they get married?

I personally have to question why this is even a question? This nation's history is based on the freedoms and persuit of happiness that we all have enjoyed. Why are we now trying to remove that right from a group of people? The religious right will say that the sanctity of marriage cannot be enjoyed by same sex couples because the bible tells them so. Since when does the Bible dictate legal statutes in this country? It was never intended to.

Some say that same sex marriages are damaging the "traditional family values" and will hurt children. I'm sorry, but thats just ignorant. Same sex couples all across this nation have adopted otherwise parent-less children, and raised them to be wonderful and productive members of society. How is that hurtful? Traditional family values are based on having a loving caring and strong family, not just a mother-father-children style family.

I cannot agree with any kind of legislation that discriminates. If any state truly bans same sex marriage they are discriminating as badly as they did in the south during the civil rights movement.

No single person or group in this country has the right to limit someone elses liberty based on their personal beliefs.

OK, I've stuck my neck out, lets see what others have to say.

I think marriage should not be sanctioned by the state, that people should simply enter marriage "contracts" that are arbited like any other contract and let churches sanction whatever that want.

There is a libertarian author who talks about it. Dunno if anyone else on the thread has said it yet, 'cuz I wanted to get my .02 in on this...but yeah, I can understand the implications on both sides. I can see the arguments against decentralization, but hey...its the state of affairs we're in now.

[Drake]

Don't fuck up my point, Mr. John-Galt-is-not-my-real-name. People in this country will do anything if it benefits them economically. ;)

[Drake]

And another dola...

Though I see them as separate issues, I support polygamy, too, if that's what people want to do. Seriously, if people can get along and get their kids raised and educated and prepared to lead a decent life, I don't care how we define marriage as long as it's broad enough to fit in a functioning family unit that works.

Oh my God, I'm showing my libertarianism in public again. Somebody call for an intervention!

[Drake]

And one more time, with feeling...

Of course, I really only like polygamy because I'm a guy. I mean, what guy doesn't like the idea of polygamy? I don't think I'd like the reality, mind you. One nagging love of my life is plenty, thank you very much.

There's a reason women outlive men on average, and it ain't stress and diet, let me tell you.

[John Galt]

Don't fuck up my point, Mr. John-Galt-is-not-my-real-name. People in this country will do anything if it benefits them economically. ;)

Sorry, Drake-is-not-my-real-name-either. ;)

[wig]

--SkyPost buster--

[Drake]

Sorry, Drake-is-not-my-real-name-either. ;)

Weird, Drake isn't my real name, too! It's odd that we have that in common. Well, maybe not statistically odd--there are plenty of people not named Drake--but who'd have thunk two of us would show up on the same message board?

By the way, my birthday is not May 19.

[wig]

wig is my name

[wig]

SAY MY NAME!

[Butter]

So, what is the argument against gay marriage? It could lead to polygamy? This is our problem with it? If not, what is it? That it will ruin the sanctity of marriage? As though "Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire" hadn't already proven that marriage as an institution in this country is pretty much a joke as it is? Could I ask some more rhetorical questions?

This is all about denying gay people the right to equal footing with heterosexuals. Because many people think homosexuality is bad. They view homosexuals as potential sexual predators who must be contained and quarantined. Giving legitimacy to them would be the same as legitimizing their sexual activity of choice. Which is wrong why? Because the Bible "says so". Dress the argument up however you would like, this is still an act of the self-righteous in this country wanting to dictate their morality onto everyone else, whether they agree or not.

Those of you who agree that gays should have the right to a legally recognized "civil union" that is not really the same as a marriage, I suggest you re-read the 2nd post in this thread..."Separate But Equal is bad public policy".

[John Galt]

Weird, Drake isn't my real name, too! It's odd that we have that in common. Well, maybe not statistically odd--there are plenty of people not named Drake--but who'd have thunk two of us would show up on the same message board?

By the way, my birthday is not May 19.


Whoa. This is getting freaky. And Archibald Leach, Bernard Schwartz, Lucille LeSueur have never been in my kitchen.

[wig]

This is all about denying gay people the right to equal footing with heterosexuals. Because many people think homosexuality is bad. They view homosexuals as potential sexual predators who must be contained and quarantined. Giving legitimacy to them would be the same as legitimizing their sexual activity of choice. Which is wrong why? Because the Bible "says so". Dress the argument up however you would like, this is still an act of the self-righteous in this country wanting to dictate their morality onto everyone else, whether they agree or not.

I am so glad that Butter is here to tell me how I feel.

Thanks, man.

:)

[cthomer5000]

The state has chosen to recognize a certain legal relationship as a "marraige." It coorolates to, but is not hopelessly intertwined with the spiritual relationship known as marriage.

Some legal effects of marriage: disposition of property at death, tax concerns, right to make end of life decision, property rights in certain states, etc.

Maybe the answer that would make everyone the most happy would be to call all legal unions between two people "civil unions" and reserve the word Marriage for the spiritual side of things. That way, everyone is being treated equally from the state perspective, but the word and concept of "marriage" can maintain its power and dignity in everyone's eyes.
This represents my feelings 100%. Religious groups can feel free to recognize whatever they want, I just feel the government should recognize same sex unions. I don't care what term is used, as long as a gay couple can become legal equals of a hetero couple.


Aside:
I thought wig's "12 year old boy" comment was perhaps the most ridiculous and generally hateful commnets I've ever read on this board.

[JonInMiddleGA]

He was the most unpleasant person I have ever spoken with in my entire life.
I really ought to introduce you to some of the politicians I covered over the years http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Samdari]

This represents my feelings 100%. Religious groups can feel free to recognize whatever they want, I just feel the government should recognize same sex unions. I don't care what term is used, as long as a gay couple can become legal equals of a hetero couple.

I really do not understand why religious types cannot differentiate the difference between what marriage means in the law, and what it means in their religion. Get over it.

[Maple Leafs]

They view homosexuals as potential sexual predators who must be contained and quarantined.Your straw man arguments are either stunningly dumb or beautiful satire. I really can't tell.

[wig]

Straw man sighting!

[wig]

Aside:
I thought wig's "12 year old boy" comment was perhaps the most ridiculous and generally hateful commnets I've ever read on this board.

You missed the point then.

The point was that the argument "Who is to say what is moral?" is not a good one because someone can apply the same argument to anything, no matter how distasteful.

There are actually people out there that don't see anything wrong with grown men having sex with young boys, and I'm sure they feel that government doesn't have the right to force their morals on them.

To understand what the wig is saying, you have to look beyond the sound bite. :)

[Butter]

I am so glad that Butter is here to tell me how I feel.

You won't tell us how you feel without injecting animals or children into your argument, so I had to do some inferring.

That's what I came up with. I think "Hitler" sneaked in there in the original draft, but I had to take him out since that would have automatically lost me the argument.

By the way, way to once again compare homosexuality and pedophilia. Your ignorance and bigotry speak volumes!

[wig]

Do you even read my responses?

[digamma]

I really do not understand why religious types cannot differentiate the difference between what marriage means in the law, and what it means in their religion.

If you inserted the word "certain" before "religious," I think the above sentence pretty much captures my feelings on this subject.

[RendeR]

I am so glad that Butter is here to tell me how I feel.

Thanks, man.

:)


Take it however you want, he's got a valid point.

[Butter]

Do you even read my responses?

Yes, and your ignorance about moral relativism is pretty standard among those who have this bigoted "slippery slope/gay marriage=the end of morality" view.

Thus "ignorance", "bigotry", etc. It's all up there if you care to read it.

[wig]

It is possible that people against gay-marriage have just as many complex and meaningful reasons as you pro gay-marriage people do.

You always want to sum it up as "bigotry", "ignorance" or "slippery slope", because it's easier than dealing with the real issues of the opposing opinion.

Not everyone that is against this is a religious freak or a bigot.

[wig]

I admit my sound bite posts might not be the best way to get my point across. I could write out the same kind of manefesto that some FOFC members do, but I won't. I believe that most FOFC members are intelligent enough to get the point of my sound bites, without having it spelled out for them.

If you don't get it, you aren't my target audience.

[stevew]

Wig, realistically, is there anything wrong with being a homo-phobe. I dont think so

[wig]

Isn't a homo-phobe afraid of gay people?

Dude, you don't need to be scared. They don't think you're hot. :)

[edit for political correctness :) ]

[RendeR]

In all of this conversation I've come to a couple thoughts:

A: Christian and possibly some other religious believers(and anyone else on this side of the arguement) want to make it illegal for same sex couples to have the legal status of "marriage" because it goes against their beliefs.
1. Can the people on this side of things honestly give a reason that is NOT
validated by the religious views?
2. Do you believe then that we should pass laws based on religious rules/laws
in the future? Even if doing so at some point goes against YOUR specific
beliefs?

B: Those who are for making same sex marriages equal under the law with hetero
marriages seem to be doing so for the good of the families involved, benefits,
protections, estate rights, visitations etc etc.
1. Can anyone on the negative side honestly say and support their stance
that they should be denied these rights? And please don't go to the bible
for this, I've already asked for more valid arguments than spirituality.
2. If it comes to pass that same sex marriages/unions/whatever are made
legal and binding, what real damage, injury, worries are there that you see
coming to pass? What is it that you see this hurting in the long run?

I appreciate the fact that everyone has really kept a level head here and given good input to the discussion! Thank you!

Ren

[wig]

Just to clear this up, I am not a Christian.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Butter.

:)

[stevew]

Isn't a homo-phobe afraid of gay people?

Dude, you don't need to be scared. They don't think you're hot. :)

[edit for political correctness :) ]

Yeah, but unlike you, I could kick their ass. Pansy boy. Nifty told me you were a little bit of a "runt."

[Fritz]

Some days it is only the compass provided by a moral society that keeps one from getting up on top of a watertower and taking out whoever passes by with a high powered rifle.

[Butter]

Just to clear this up, I am not a Christian.

So, why are you against it? Enlighten me. I need it "spelled out", because I'm not part of your target audience. :rolleyes:

[RendeR]

Some days it is only the compass provided by a moral society that keeps one from getting up on top of a watertower and taking out whoever passes by with a high powered rifle.

thats a great line, but how is this relevant to the topic at hand?

[Cuckoo]

It is possible that people against gay-marriage have just as many complex and meaningful reasons as you pro gay-marriage people do.

You always want to sum it up as "bigotry", "ignorance" or "slippery slope", because it's easier than dealing with the real issues of the opposing opinion.

Not everyone that is against this is a religious freak or a bigot.

Wow, something weird is going on. I agree with a wig again. :)

[Fritz]

unless, or course, an immoral society has taken away all the high powered rifles

[RendeR]

Wow, something weird is going on. I agree with a wig again. :)

I think the point cuckoo, was that it IS possible that they have many reasons, but the ONLY reasons anyone is giving is that their religion says its wrong. We're not seeing any other reliable or relevant arguements. Thats why I asked the further questions in my post just above here.

[Fritz]

I suppose one could then fling themselves off the tower and hope to hit a passer by.

[stevew]

unless, or course, an immoral society has taken away all the high powered rifles

Man, if you are gonna start shooting, just give me a heads up first, so I can get the hell off of the Penninsula. If you want to, you can start by capping people at the Unitarian church on Colley.

[RendeR]

Man, if you are gonna start shooting, just give me a heads up first, so I can get the hell off of the Penninsula. If you want to, you can start by capping people at the Unitarian church on Colley.


If this is the height of your ability to enter this conversation, I ask that you refrain. There is no reason or place for something this completely ignorant in this thread.

[Cuckoo]

I think the point cuckoo, was that it IS possible that they have many reasons, but the ONLY reasons anyone is giving is that their religion says its wrong. We're not seeing any other reliable or relevant arguements. Thats why I asked the further questions in my post just above here.

RendeR, I've read every post in this fairly pointless thread, and I can say absolutely that there have been reasons other than religion given. You say they aren't "reliable or relevant," but to the people who believe them, they are most certainly relevant and quite important. I think you'd answer every one of your questions if you went back and read the thread again, viewing the opposition as a valid objection rather than dismissing it as bigoted or ignorant.

[Fritz]

If this is the height of your ability to enter this conversation, I ask that you refrain. There is no reason or place for something this completely ignorant in this thread.


I think he was only being incompletly ignorant. Colley Ave. is on the South Side.

No way could could a bullet from up here get all the way across the bay, cross the Naval base, and come down anywhere on Colley.

[stevew]

If this is the height of your ability to enter this conversation, I ask that you refrain. There is no reason or place for something this completely ignorant in this thread.

This thread is ignorant. Everyone who doesnt agree with you is a Homophobe. So why do you even post this shit? Nobody else's opinion matters to you.

[stevew]

I think he was only being incompletly ignorant. Colley Ave. is on the South Side.

Damn, so I thought I lived on the Penninsula. My Bad.

[Fritz]

Peninsula - surrounded on three sides by water.
South Side - sweltering pile of dung

[RendeR]

RendeR, I've read every post in this fairly pointless thread, and I can say absolutely that there have been reasons other than religion given. You say they aren't "reliable or relevant," but to the people who believe them, they are most certainly relevant and quite important. I think you'd answer every one of your questions if you went back and read the thread again, viewing the opposition as a valid objection rather than dismissing it as bigoted or ignorant.

I've read the thread quite thoroughly actually, and have yet to see an argument that is not based on religious belief. If I've missed something please feel free to point it out.

I can accept that those who believe it use their religious dictates as the basis for their argument, in their eyes it is perfectly valid for them to do so. My arguement is that there shouldn't be laws made based on religious belief. because laws govern ALL people in this country, and unlike many would have you believe this is NOT a religious state, it never has been. This is why I've kept asking for something other than their religious faith. I personally cannot accept banning same sex marriage because a religous group or following doesn't like it, however, I am open to being persueaded by other factual reasons that it should be banned.

Religion is not an acceptable reason for making law in this nation.
Tradition is not acceptable for making law in this nation.

these are MY beliefs, not blanket statements as I'm sure any layer could show precedent for either one.

Show me some evidence that same sex marriages is going to hurt/injure/damage anyone beyond the sensibilities of religious belief, and you might get me to agree with you.

[stevew]

Peninsula - surrounded on three sides by water.
South Side - sweltering pile of dung


Damn, that sums it up as good as anything I've ever heard.

[Fritz]

Religion is not an acceptable reason for making law in this nation.
Tradition is not acceptable for making law in this nation.


are you satisfied going through life being wrong?

[rkmsuf]

http://www.wiredvideo.com/clips/av3/marriage.mp3

[RendeR]

This thread is ignorant. Everyone who doesnt agree with you is a Homophobe. So why do you even post this shit? Nobody else's opinion matters to you.

Of course you know me SO well that you can say this...yeah. whatever. I've been more accepting of the other sides arguements than anything else. think before you post, most people find it helps.

[RendeR]

are you satisfied going through life being wrong?


Its a belief fritz, they are neither right nor wrong for anyone but me. So I haven't been going through life being wrong, as I believe they are right. If you disagree, more power to you :)

[Maple Leafs]

RenderR, while it's not necessarily my view and I'm probably not qualified to argue it, I do know that there are plenty of people who are deeply concerned about what's happening in SF for reasons apart from religion. The idea that a city mayor would take it upon himself to order that existing laws be ignored because he does not personally agree with them is a little bit troubling to many.

[Chubby]

Someone please post a reason that has been stated in this thread that is against same sex marriage yet isn't based in religous beliefs.

[Butter]

Fritz, it's pretty easy to take the moral high ground when your arguments consist of non-sequiturs interlaced with random jabs that seem to be backed up with some sort of personal conviction that you're too jaded to share with anyone. It's kinda tired and makes for frustrating reading.

[Fritz]

I have no argument with the fact that you have beliefs. I think we can see that you do. But just because you believe the world to be flat does not mean you will ever find the edge.

[Maple Leafs]

Its a belief fritz, they are neither right nor wrong for anyone but me. So I haven't been going through life being wrong, as I believe they are right. If you disagree, more power to you :)I know I'm shouting into the wind at this point, but this kind of thing drives me crazy.

If I believe that torturing babies for fun is OK, that doesn't make it right for me. I'm still wrong, whether I believe it or not.

[Fritz]

It's kinda tired and makes for frustrating reading.

then put me on ignore, duh

[John Galt]

I don't think the slippery slope argument need be based on religion (and I don't think it has been used exclusively as a religious argument in this thread).

[RendeR]

RenderR, while it's not necessarily my view and I'm probably not qualified to argue it, I do know that there are plenty of people who are deeply concerned about what's happening in SF for reasons apart from religion. The idea that a city mayor would take it upon himself to order that existing laws be ignored because he does not personally agree with them is a little bit troubling to many.


I agreee with you that the mayor doing so is setting a frightening precedent along the government line, its showing just how fragile our government can become because of a subject like this. It will be interesting to see the fallout of that. I also have to see it as a bit of revolution not being a bad thing sometimes. while they may have thrown some wrenches into the legislative side of things for california, they have also shown a point to every other legislature in this country that they need to be mindful that the people may not follow blindly into what they write into their laws.

very interesting indeed.

[John Galt]

then put me on ignore, duh

Fritz, if he puts you on ignore then he might forget that . . .

[Noop]

I have a question who on here is gay? I' m sure that of all the members on this site there a few gays/bisexuals who post.

[Chubby]

Someone please post a reason that has been stated in this thread that is against same sex marriage yet isn't based in religous beliefs.

[Fritz]

Fritz, if he puts you on ignore then he might forget that ...


shhhhhh. he has sigs turned off and i wanted to see how long it took for him to say something.

[John Galt]

I have a question who on here is gay? I' m sure that of all the members on this site there a few gays/bisexuals who post.

Given this forum, I'm not sure you will get everyone to come "out," but I've already done so. For lack of a better term, I'm "bi."

[RendeR]

I know I'm shouting into the wind at this point, but this kind of thing drives me crazy.

If I believe that torturing babies for fun is OK, that doesn't make it right for me. I'm still wrong, whether I believe it or not.

are you there yet? cause I've got other fairs to drive crazy today too, I want to drop you off soon.

[John Galt]

shhhhhh. he has sigs turned off and i wanted to see how long it took for him to say something.

Edited. But man that thing is big.

[Noop]

Given this forum, I'm not sure you will get everyone to come "out," but I've already done so. For lack of a better term, I'm "bi."
I wasnt really asking for anyone to "out" themselves I was just wondering... and when you admitted you were bi what type of respone did you get?

[Easy Mac]

Someone please post a reason that has been stated in this thread that is against same sex marriage yet isn't based in religous beliefs.
Gays scare me like clowns? :)

And what happens if a gay straw man falls down a slippery slope.

I haven't seen a wig joke for a while, so I thought I'd chime in.

[Fritz]

I dont think it was any big shock with JG, so I don't know if you will get the answer you are looking for....

[RendeR]

I don't think the slippery slope argument need be based on religion (and I don't think it has been used exclusively as a religious argument in this thread).


You are correct John, the slippery slope concept was not entirely based on religous belief, although it was rather well rebutted by another poster, hence I was looking for some reasonsing that hasn't been responded to as yet.

[Maple Leafs]

are you there yet? cause I've got other fairs to drive crazy today too, I want to drop you off soon.Keep the change....

[Chubby]

Gays scare me like clowns? :)

And what happens if a gay straw man falls down a slippery slope.

I haven't seen a wig joke for a while, so I thought I'd chime in.

Haha, of course noone has an answer yet...


Someone please post a reason that has been stated in this thread that is against same sex marriage yet isn't based in religous beliefs.

[John Galt]

I wasnt really asking for anyone to "out" themselves I was just wondering... and when you admitted you were bi what type of respone did you get?

Since the old forum is gone, I guess you can't see for yourself. Basically, I'd been around since the early days of the old, old board, but most members didn't know me that well. I posted here and there, but I wasn't too active. Slowly, I got more involved in a few political discussions (including a few dumb ones where I responded to the skippy troll bot). One day, I posted a thread that was a collection of quotes from the previous month that I felt were gay-bashing or gay-baiting. In the course of that thread, I think I revealed my sexual orientation. The response was pretty hostile (I think I only got good replies by backchannel). However, my coming "out" was part of a thread where I was complaining about the rhetoric on the board so a lot of people were defensive. It was impossible to separate the response to me coming "out" and the rhetoric, so my situation was probably not that telling.

[John Galt]

You are correct John, the slippery slope concept was not entirely based on religous belief, although it was rather well rebutted by another poster, hence I was looking for some reasonsing that hasn't been responded to as yet.

I'd like to think that "poster" was me, but oh well. ;)

And I just wanted to point out that you were going a little far in saying no one had offered a non-religious argument. I think a lot of it is tied to religion, but not all of it is.

[John Galt]

Haha, of course noone has an answer yet...


Someone please post a reason that has been stated in this thread that is against same sex marriage yet isn't based in religous beliefs.

I just did in reply to your last request, but I'm probably on your ignore list, but I figured I'd try again.

[Maple Leafs]

Someone please post a reason that has been stated in this thread that is against same sex marriage yet isn't based in religous beliefs.But you won't find one, because you'll claim that any argument against your position must be religion-based, even if there's no mention of religion anywhere in it.

But just for fun, try these, from the first few posts:

Revrew: "Our legal system is based on precedence. Once the precedence is set that marriage has no historical definition, it ceases to have any meaningful definition at all."

Cam: "But the most important thing for me is that this isn't an issue that should be decided by four justices in Massachusetts, or one mayor in San Francisco. Around the country people have cast their votes to define marriage, and the people have spoken. If we're so willing to hand over our power to activist judges and renegade public officials to get what we want, don't complain when those you disagree with use the same tactics to grant something you're opposed to."

[Cuckoo]

Of course you know me SO well that you can say this...yeah. whatever. I've been more accepting of the other sides arguements than anything else. think before you post, most people find it helps.

I did want to say RendeR that I think you have been fairly accepting of the other sides of the argument. I hope my previous post didn't imply otherwise. With a few exceptions, I've enjoyed reading this thread actually despite the fact that I don't think it will change any minds. I typically think that threads like these only entrench beliefs when one is forced to defend himself and "enlightenment," for whatever that means, of other viewpoints rarely occurs.

As to specific examples, John Galt posted what I would have said. The reasoning that many have called the "slippery slope" argument, in my view, does not have to originate from anything biblical or religious but rather an overall sense of right and wrong. I would be more likely to accept the opposition to that "slippery slope" argument if someone was to say that multiple partner marriages, interfamilial marriages, and others mentioned should be legal as well.

Truth be told, I'm actually a Libertarian of sorts, and I don't typically advocate the government being involved in these things at all. I think someone (Drake maybe) said essentially what I would argue a page or so back when he basically pointed out that the government probably shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place, but rather the contractual business. If the government is going to be involved, though, I do think that some sort of system needs to be in place to define what the society accepts as the ideal family structure. At this point, I think the "slippery slope" argument is real and should be considered.

[Chubby]

I just did in reply to your last request, but I'm probably on your ignore list, but I figured I'd try again.


No you didn't.

I don't think the slippery slope argument need be based on religion (and I don't think it has been used exclusively as a religious argument in this thread).

is not a reason against same-sex marriages.

[John Galt]

No you didn't.



is not a reason against same-sex marriages.

Huh? People are arguing that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because then you would have to allow polygamy/incest/child molestation. I think these are bad arguments, but they need not be based on religion (unless you believe the ONLY reason incest, child molestation, and polygamy are bad is religion).

[Butter]

then put me on ignore, duh

Nah, if I'm going to come here, I might as well read what everyone has to say.

Although stevew advocating the death of Unitarians earlier pushed me close to the Ignore button.

[RendeR]

I'd like to think that "poster" was me, but oh well. ;)

And I just wanted to point out that you were going a little far in saying no one had offered a non-religious argument. I think a lot of it is tied to religion, but not all of it is.


I actually thought it was you but since this thing has become a beast of a thread I didn't take the time to slog through to see who had said it =)

[Cuckoo]

Since the old forum is gone, I guess you can't see for yourself. Basically, I'd been around since the early days of the old, old board, but most members didn't know me that well. I posted here and there, but I wasn't too active. Slowly, I got more involved in a few political discussions (including a few dumb ones where I responded to the skippy troll bot). One day, I posted a thread that was a collection of quotes from the previous month that I felt were gay-bashing or gay-baiting. In the course of that thread, I think I revealed my sexual orientation. The response was pretty hostile (I think I only got good replies by backchannel). However, my coming "out" was part of a thread where I was complaining about the rhetoric on the board so a lot of people were defensive. It was impossible to separate the response to me coming "out" and the rhetoric, so my situation was probably not that telling.

Not that I'm trying to argue with you :), but didn't you actually come "out" in that Jeremy Shockey thread a while back. I think your thread about being upset by the gay-bashing came after that, but I could be wrong. The only reason I remember is because I think that I started the Shockey thread and you and I got into an argument when you came out. I, for one, was a little surprised. Maybe I'm not as intuitive as Fritz. :) If I remember correctly, the thread died quickly thereafter and few responded to your comments at that time.

[Easy Mac]

(unless you believe...child molestation....are bad is religion).
well not in the catholic church :)

[RendeR]

I did want to say RendeR that I think you have been fairly accepting of the other sides of the argument. I hope my previous post didn't imply otherwise. With a few exceptions, I've enjoyed reading this thread actually despite the fact that I don't think it will change any minds. I typically think that threads like these only entrench beliefs when one is forced to defend himself and "enlightenment," for whatever that means, of other viewpoints rarely occurs.

As to specific examples, John Galt posted what I would have said. The reasoning that many have called the "slippery slope" argument, in my view, does not have to originate from anything biblical or religious but rather an overall sense of right and wrong. I would be more likely to accept the opposition to that "slippery slope" argument if someone was to say that multiple partner marriages, interfamilial marriages, and others mentioned should be legal as well.

Truth be told, I'm actually a Libertarian of sorts, and I don't typically advocate the government being involved in these things at all. I think someone (Drake maybe) said essentially what I would argue a page or so back when he basically pointed out that the government probably shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place, but rather the contractual business. If the government is going to be involved, though, I do think that some sort of system needs to be in place to define what the society accepts as the ideal family structure. At this point, I think the "slippery slope" argument is real and should be considered.


That wasn't aimed at you cuckoo, sorry if you thought so, I was responding to stevrew's assinine attacks on me personally.

[wig]

DAMN!

I go for a quick run and miss the best part of this topic.

I love Fritz to death. :)

[Fritz]

Nah, if I'm going to come here, I might as well read what everyone has to say.

Although stevew advocating the death of Unitarians earlier pushed me close to the Ignore button.

I am sure he just wanted them to be winged.

[Noop]

I like lesbo's :) I love the Jenna and Lacy pornos when they do each other! John my parents told me to never judge someone cause of what they do at home. I have read your respones while they are a little hard for me to understand I can see where you coming from. Fritz I believe you have alot of valid points as well... but my personally opinion is this does not belong in this country. Its bad enough we have the courts making stupid ass precendents(sp?) and shit. I believe I read the main reason behind this is so they can get a tax relief or something like that. If I am wrong folks by all means Educate me. (not on my spelling or grammar :))

:)

noop

[RendeR]

Although stevew advocating the death of Unitarians earlier pushed me close to the Ignore button.


You and me both, good greif.

[John Galt]

Not that I'm trying to argue with you :), but didn't you actually come "out" in that Jeremy Shockey thread a while back. I think your thread about being upset by the gay-bashing came after that, but I could be wrong. The only reason I remember is because I think that I started the Shockey thread and you and I got into an argument when you came out. I, for one, was a little surprised. Maybe I'm not as intuitive as Fritz. :) If I remember correctly, the thread died quickly thereafter and few responded to your comments at that time.

No, I came "out" a long time ago, but it may have seemed new to you. I think most of the vets who actually look at political threads can verify my memory, but I'm almost 100% sure I have the timing right.

[Cuckoo]

That wasn't aimed at you cuckoo, sorry if you thought so, I was responding to stevrew's assinine attacks on me personally.

Oh I know, I just wanted to make it clear that I did think you were acknowledging the other sides for the most part. I get grouped in with some others far too often that I may agree with on certain aspects of things, but not all, and I wanted to make sure you knew that I wasn't implying anything like that in my earlier post.

[Chubby]

But you won't find one, because you'll claim that any argument against your position must be religion-based, even if there's no mention of religion anywhere in it.

But just for fun, try these, from the first few posts:

Revrew: "Our legal system is based on precedence. Once the precedence is set that marriage has no historical definition, it ceases to have any meaningful definition at all."

Cam: "But the most important thing for me is that this isn't an issue that should be decided by four justices in Massachusetts, or one mayor in San Francisco. Around the country people have cast their votes to define marriage, and the people have spoken. If we're so willing to hand over our power to activist judges and renegade public officials to get what we want, don't complain when those you disagree with use the same tactics to grant something you're opposed to."

Hey, thanks for putting words in my mouth. A fine way to have an argument :rolleyes:

Precedence's aren't over turned? It was precendence that we have slarvery yet somehow, we don't anymore. It certainly does have a definition, and how does the argument of "marriage has no definition" = no same sex marriage?

"Around the country people have cast their votes to define marriage" They have? I must have missed that vote, I'm sure I would have seen a commercial on tv about such a vote. And how does saying that activist judges and renegade public officals have power = no same sex marriage?

[Cuckoo]

No, I came "out" a long time ago, but it may have seemed new to you. I think most of the vets who actually look at political threads can verify my memory, but I'm almost 100% sure I have the timing right.

Okay, you'd know better than I would. I've been around since the old Sideline days, but I tried to avoid a lot of political threads over the years so that's probably why it was new to me at the time.

[Ben E Lou]

No, I came "out" a long time ago, but it may have seemed new to you. I think most of the vets who actually look at political threads can verify my memory, but I'm almost 100% sure I have the timing right.I'm pretty sure your memory is correct.

[Chubby]

Huh? People are arguing that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because then you would have to allow polygamy/incest/child molestation. I think these are bad arguments, but they need not be based on religion (unless you believe the ONLY reason incest, child molestation, and polygamy are bad is religion).


Well ok why didn't you just say that :) I disagree with that argument but at least it isn't religion based.

[John Galt]

Okay, you'd know better than I would. I've been around since the old Sideline days, but I tried to avoid a lot of political threads over the years so that's probably why it was new to me at the time.

It was really just a day or two where my thread was at the top of the forum as people freaked about my comments - if you missed those days, it didn't reappear again. And now, I've tired of trying to fight all the "fag"/"homo"/"gay" comments on the board, so I try to just argue the larger political issues.

[RendeR]

I like lesbo's :) I love the Jenna and Lacy pornos when they do each other! John my parents told me to never judge someone cause of what they do at home. I have read your respones while they are a little hard for me to understand I can see where you coming from. Fritz I believe you have alot of valid points as well... but my personally opinion is this does not belong in this country. Its bad enough we have the courts making stupid ass precendents(sp?) and shit. I believe I read the main reason behind this is so they can get a tax relief or something like that. If I am wrong folks by all means Educate me. (not on my spelling or grammar :))

:)

noop


its not about tax relief, though filing joint returns is something they may choose to do. Some important points are these:

Family visitation rights: If a same sex couple has an adopted chiled and they are sick or in intensive care, most/many of the same sex parents are being denied visitation rights that hetero couples are allowed.

Death benefits: Its very difficult for same sex couples to assign benefits to their partners because of the inheritance laws as they stand now.

Health insurance: same sex couples can't put their sig others on their family health plans because they are technically (IE legally) not married.

there are other items, all of which relate directly to the legal status of being "married". I may not have stated all this perfectly either, so please, PLEASE go out and read up on things to make sure you get the right information.

[RendeR]

Oh I know, I just wanted to make it clear that I did think you were acknowledging the other sides for the most part. I get grouped in with some others far too often that I may agree with on certain aspects of things, but not all, and I wanted to make sure you knew that I wasn't implying anything like that in my earlier post.

:)

[Noop]

its not about tax relief, though filing joint returns is something they may choose to do. Some important points are these:

Family visitation rights: If a same sex couple has an adopted chiled and they are sick or in intensive care, most/many of the same sex parents are being denied visitation rights that hetero couples are allowed.

Death benefits: Its very difficult for same sex couples to assign benefits to their partners because of the inheritance laws as they stand now.

Health insurance: same sex couples can't put their sig others on their family health plans because they are technically (IE legally) not married.

there are other items, all of which relate directly to the legal status of being "married". I may not have stated all this perfectly either, so please, PLEASE go out and read up on things to make sure you get the right information.
Thanks alot... I still don't get the entire picture maybe I need to get a plasma t.v. brain....

[Butter]

But you won't find one, because you'll claim that any argument against your position must be religion-based, even if there's no mention of religion anywhere in it.

Then you go on to quote arguments from a reverend and a conservative talk show host.

BZZZZZ! Try again!

[wig]

noop?

[Cuckoo]

Then you go on to quote arguments from a reverend and a conservative talk show host.

BZZZZZ! Try again!


I think you just made his point for him. Just because they're a reverend and a conservative talk show host doesn't make their arguments based on religion alone or even religion at all.

[wig]

let's compromise.

Hot lesbians can get married, but gay guys can't.

:)

[Fritz]

Thanks alot... I still don't get the entire picture maybe I need to get a plasma t.v. brain....


http://www.plasmatvbrain.com/products/closeouts.asp

[Noop]

noop?
I think you like me.... or is that your new thing?

[RendeR]

I think you just made his point for him. Just because they're a reverend and a conservative talk show host doesn't make their arguments based on religion alone or even religion at all.


I think the point there was that both of those mentioned were quoting bible verses to support their stance. Which, is based entirely on religion and therefore didn't fit the question at hand.

[Chubby]

I think you just made his point for him. Just because they're a reverend and a conservative talk show host doesn't make their arguments based on religion alone or even religion at all.

No, but the things he cited have nothing to do with same-sex marriage being "wrong" or that it should be done away with in any form as I pointed out.

[wig]

I think you like me.... or is that your new thing?

Say it out loud. It's fun to say.

noop? noop?

:)

[Noop]

Frtiz nothing came up... are you trying to tell me something:

:(

noop

[RendeR]

http://www.plasmatvbrain.com/products/closeouts.asp


I can't believe he suckered me into clicking this link......I'm so ashamed.

[Noop]

Say it out loud. It's fun to say.

noop? noop?

:)
You know if you say it backwards alot you might actually get it ;)

:)

noop

[Butter]

Hot lesbians can get married, but gay guys can't.

Done and done.

[wig]

I wonder how many here think they are actually going to change someone's mind.

[Chubby]

I wonder how many here think they are actually going to change someone's mind.


well shit, let us never discuss anything ever again!

[Cuckoo]

I think the point there was that both of those mentioned were quoting bible verses to support their stance. Which, is based entirely on religion and therefore didn't fit the question at hand.


My point, similar to Maple Leafs', is that it doesn't matter if they had used bible verses or not, some like Butter would immediately reject their argument outright because they are a reverend and a conservative talk show host.

[RendeR]

I wonder how many here think they are actually going to change someone's mind.


My intention with this thread was never to change anyone's mind, but to try and better understand other peoples point of view. This is also why I've kept asking questions and looked for answers beyond the biblical sense. This is an issue that is not going away and the better *I* can understand all sides of the argument the more confidence I'll have when it comes time to vote on something, or choose to protest or whatever else.

its all about ME damnit =)

[wig]

Stop trying to backload the topic, Chubby!