CA - Gay Marriage Legalized.

[sharpie]

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR26-08.PDF

Pretty cool news if you ask me and a long time coming considering CA's liberalness(?).

[Anonymous]

That link doesn't work, but yeah, read about this already, and I agree. I find it interesting how we're recognizing it as marriage before other nations which are generally seen as more socially progressive than us, like Denmark and Sweden (both allowing only civil unions).

[Oso Mocoso]

Pretty cool news if you ask me and a long time coming considering CA's liberalness(?).

Yes, I welcome this as good news. However, I wonder how long it will last. I voted against a state measure to explicitly ban gay marriage in CA back when I lived in Berkeley. It passed anyway by a decent margin. This recent court ruling trumps that, but I think a constitutional amendment would probably pass. The governator says he opposes an amendment, but we'll see if that actually matters. I think the fundie nutjobs will probably mobilize.

Oh, and previously I lived in Massachusetts where gay marriage was legalized. Maybe I'm a gay marriage luck charm? We'll find out in November!

[Anonymous]

Yes, I welcome this as good news. However, I wonder how long it will last. I voted against a state measure to explicitly ban gay marriage in CA back when I lived in Berkeley. It passed anyway by a decent margin. This recent court ruling trumps that, but I think a constitutional amendment would probably pass. The governator says he opposes an amendment, but we'll see if that actually matters. I think the fundie nutjobs will probably mobilize.

Yeah, I really, really hope that doesn't even get onto the ballot. If we pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, I think that'd basically be regression.

[Dansker]

Great news.

It was reported here with the headline: Gay ruling: DeGeneres, de Rossi to wed.

Australia's still a long way from legalising gay marriage. A few years ago, Federal parliament voted to explicitly define marriage in the Marriage Act as a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. This had the support of both major political parties.

[outmywindow]

Yeah, I really, really hope that doesn't even get onto the ballot. If we pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, I think that'd basically be regression.
Apparently there are already over twice as many signatures collected as required to get the proposal on the ballot. The last time Californians were faced with the question of legalization (though not to the extent of an amendment), the result was a 61% vote in favor of banning. I'm hoping the seven years which have passed will be enough to have calmed some people's fears/discomforts with the idea of gay marriage, what with open homosexuality becoming such a mainstream, normal part of our media/pop culture.

What really gets me about this is the fact that if our state constitution is amended to forbid gay marriage, it will be a piece of legislation which is blatantly and unapologetically religious in nature. I likes me my separated church and state, thank you very much. 'Sin' should be irrelevant when it comes to passing laws.

[dubbeltop]

CA - Gay Marriage Legalized.

Anyway is the wedding ceremony part of the marriage? Or is this just an option?

[Arouet]

One of you wrote: "What really gets me about this is the fact that if our state constitution is amended to forbid gay marriage, it will be a piece of legislation which is blatantly and unapologetically religious in nature."

First (because otherwise, I will end up being called homophobic), I want to assure any gay people reading this that I am your friend, not your enemy. I have several gay acqaintances and a third whom I am proud to call my friend. Granted, we will not be watching football and hockey together anytime soon, but he and I share a couple of other interests that fall in the general area of Art. And the simple fact is, both of us know we'll spend more than half the night laughing.

There are many straight people--I have other friends and family members, women, who have gay friends and brothers--who also oppose gay marriage for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with that which is "blatantly and unapologetically religious in nature." I do not go around quoting from Leviticus, and I make no moral judgment concerning people's sexual orientation. Further, I am all for gay civil unions that extend to both parties
ALL the legal rights of married hetero couples.

But legally calling it "marriage"--which you are in any case free to do privately--further weakens the tradtional view of marriage, making it even more laughable. (In urban America alone, the out-of-wedlock birthrate is 70 percent, which practice only perpetuates poverty and gangland violence. And out-of-wedlock birthrates, probably with no small help from the geniuses of Holllywood, have now begun to climb somewhat throughout the rest of the country, as well.)

Having children without being married is a formula for disaster (especially in urban America), and this country can no longer afford the consequences of such "open-mindedness." It's bad for the kids; it's bad for women; it's bad for decent people who are daily terrorized by gangs; and it's bad for America.

Also, please consider the larger picture here: Do you think it's a good public relations strategy for gay people to be so strongly associated in people's minds with a COURT's having declared the result of a statewide ELECTION null and void?

You do not win hearts and minds by overturning elections, by saying that the Will of the People is irrelevant. (This has been, historically, the tactic of totalitarian regimes from both sides of the political spectrum; that is to say, fascists were able to circumvent democracy by in some way intimidating two or three judges.)

This narrow legal decision sets a bad precedent--and is short-sighted. Under the banner of Equal Rights, you've overturned election results (in which, btw, the margin of victory was not even close).

I genuinely hope, for your sake, if you are gay, that you at least consider the possibility of what may lie farther down the road. The backlash that's begun already is only a minor consideration. This has been a Pyrrhic victory.

[bluebell]

I'm always slightly suspicious of anyone who starts a post with the equivalent of 'my best friend is X so therefore I'm not anti-X' but I did try to give you the benefit of the doubt till I got to this bit:



But legally calling it "marriage"--which you are in any case free to do privately--further weakens the tradtional view of marriage, making it even more laughable. (In urban America alone, the out-of-wedlock birthrate is 70 percent, which practice only perpetuates poverty and gangland violence. And out-of-wedlock birthrates, probably with no small help from the geniuses of Holllywood, have now begun to climb somewhat throughout the rest of the country, as well.)

Having children without being married is a formula for disaster (especially in urban America), and this country can no longer afford the consequences of such "open-mindedness." It's bad for the kids; it's bad for women; it's bad for decent people who are daily terrorized by gangs; and it's bad for America.


As far as I can tell, your main argument against legalising gay marriages in CA is because children born out of wedlock contribute to gang warfare and poverty, and gay marriages encourage more children to be born out of wedlock, hence increasing gang violence etc? And it's bad for kids and mothers. Or something.

Edit: I'm still going wtf over this post. Assuming it's not tongue in cheek, it's one of the most incoherent posts (by someone who can actually use real sentences and is presumably not tripping) I've seen for a good long while.

[dubbeltop]

Gentle xx-yy, please consider the following:

So , basically society is still in control ? Well that is an illusion...The court provides an opportunity for same sex people to get married...

This doesn't reflect the will of the people but it doesn't infringe on the will of the people right?

I mean do less and less people get married because now that same sex people get married it somehow is less interesting to get married? NO...

The court clearly saw something more important ...that is :
1)same sex people can be good parents
2)same sex people should not be hindered by a religious majority in their daily lifes, for example :a public official or a religious official could oppose the marriage because of moral problems....

So in a society which promotes family values the court has created a precedent and that is better because the future is about creating precedents...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

(looky looky some very list of bizarre weddings ), as I allways say if you are in a restaurant you choose what you eat not the restaurant)....

[rawr]

I personally don't think the state should recognize marriage what so ever, straight or gay. It has nothing to do with the governing function of the state and is solely of religious origin. By doing this you make it not an issue, simplify the tax code, health insurance and get rid of that laughing stock called divorce court.

You also avoid taking away peoples rights. Whatever church you go to wont have to break their own doctrine and do something they consider as sin because of a state law and whatever gay couple wants to get married wont have the church imposing their will on them by legal means.

[Arouet]

You have--perhaps not surprisingly--not addressed in any way the historical issue I raised: Do you honestly think that it's a good idea for a COURT to overturn an ELECTION? Do you see no possible future danger here.

Suppose tomorrow's court--AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE--outlawed homosexuality?

You have also attempted to trivialize my rather straightforward argument re what's happening in urban America: The "absent father syndrome" is an epidemic there: Do you even doubt this?

I have no wish to discredit the (often heroic) parenting job done by single mothers. But it is my opinion that even GIRLS need to have their father living in the home. And boys absolutely do--and far too many do not.

Many urban males grow up in a total Matriarchy, surrounded by women--and such familiarity breeds contempt: misogyny, the Bitches & Ho Music--and its almost invariable complement, a virulent homophobia.

In our eagerness to redefine The Family--often with the best of intentions--we have created a monster. We perpetuate a cycle of gangland violence because these poor and young and uneduated mothers are not prepared for parenting--and their sons now have guns.

This is the harsh reality: Our cities are a national disgrace. And many decent people there live in fear. And more and more young women, there and elsewhere, white and black, are having babies out of wedlock. (I will assume, for the sake of argument, that you and I probably agree on this--that this is not such a great idea.)

We should be providing tax incentives for people to marry and to stay together and to act responsibly--AS PARENTS.

And if you think that gay marriage STRENGTHENS the institution of marriage in most straight people's minds, please give this a little more thought.

Also, a small favor, if you wouldn't mind: Deal, if you want to, with the SUBSTANCE of my points--with the issues--one by one--and steer clear, please, of ferreting out my "hidden motives" for mentioning a valued friendship--questions concerning my sincerity and integrity: You know nothing about me.

This familar tactic is, at best, a diversion, an artless dodge. And equally important, I would never do it to you. It is not "learned debate"; it's the stuff of sound-bites.

And I am not running for anything. Nor am I particularly diplomatic. I have no reason to lie: I don't have the patience.

[LongSilence]

I personally don't think the state should recognize marriage what so ever, straight or gay. It has nothing to do with the governing function of the state and is solely of religious origin. By doing this you make it not an issue, simplify the tax code, health insurance and get rid of that laughing stock called divorce court.

You also avoid taking away peoples rights. Whatever church you go to wont have to break their own doctrine and do something they consider as sin because of a state law and whatever gay couple wants to get married wont have the church imposing their will on them by legal means.

Think about marriage for a second. Do you think it really is just a religious ceremony designed to 'enjoin two souls together forever and ever' or create some such spiritual union?

No, it is and always has been much more a social contracting procedure, with religion often coming along and adding an extra little soulful element. Societies since the dawn of civilisation have had marriage unions, whether they were communities situated on tiny islands, in the jungle or on the continent. It's a primarily social, not a religious convention. Religion is not to blame for the idea though it did very much begin and continue to take control and define / refine it. Take the religion away though and you still have the social forces seeking to put its ideals on a pedestal for the people to observe and obey. Of course, history has had its Emperors marrying horses and whatever but that has almost always been a matter of whims of the powerful being tolerated.

This do not negate the sense that people have of what is right for themselves and what they think is right for society, which is what I believe encourages the kind of opposition Arouet is referring to. In short, disregarding the religious issues gay marriage still brings up questions about societal values. It does not have to be a question of saying that gay marriage is bad- more that ideally it does not tick all the requisite boxes in the checklist that some people have when they imagine the world developing- i.e. The world still deals with and prefers the distinctions that a nuclear heterosexual family creates and homosexuality as a concept does best when it remains as a happy alternative.

Now, it's easy to respond to this by saying that society and its institutions shouldn't fixate itself on ideals. Let marriage become a less distinctive and far simpler assertion of any two peoples love for one another. After all, in the modern world there is no need to focus on getting men and women to produce and rear children together. Once that's sorted we can look to strip marriage of its antiquated traditional views on relationships and how they affect the world and overshadow individual predilections.

Personally I see a great deal of merit in this view. However, it becomes a difficult standpoint from which to argue that society should prevent or discourage any two consenting individuals from marrying. Why should we stop family members from marrying one another? Two brothers could well have a loving connection that would far surpass any other they could ever have with anyone else in their lives. What about a man and his donkey where it's clear that the ass is very much happy with the relationship? Why should society have any say in the love lives of happy consenting individuals?

In the end, it's a matter of how libertarian we think things should be.

[Oso Mocoso]

You have--perhaps not surprisingly--not addressed in any way the historical issue I raised: Do you honestly think that it's a good idea for a COURT to overturn an ELECTION? Do you see no possible future danger here.

Remember the civil rights movement? Courts were overturning elections all the time. People in plenty of places thought it was perfectly all right to lynch black people and pass laws against the outrage that would be a black man touching a white woman.

In fact, for several years my own marriage was technically illegal in the state where I was living. It was still legal under federal law (and in the state where my wife and I were wed), but not in the state where we lived.


Suppose tomorrow's court--AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE--outlawed homosexuality?

LOL!

Suppose tomorrow's court -- AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE -- outlawed heterosexuality? Or toilet paper? Or marshmallows?!?!?!?!?111!?!?!


You have also attempted to trivialize my rather straightforward argument re what's happening in urban America: The "absent father syndrome" is an epidemic there: Do you even doubt this?

As soon as you've figured out how this is relevant to the issue of gay marriage, be sure to get back to us here in reality.


Many urban males grow up in a total Matriarchy, surrounded by women--and such familiarity breeds contempt: misogyny, the Bitches & Ho Music--and its almost invariable complement, a virulent homophobia.

So, basically you hate women? That's cool.

You posted a lot of other completely off-topic nonsense that I snipped.


And if you think that gay marriage STRENGTHENS the institution of marriage in most straight people's minds, please give this a little more thought.

You're right, every time two ladies or guys fall in love with each other I can feel the very fabric of my relationship with my wife slowly eroding. You're damn right. If enough gay Californians get married, I'll have to succumb to the peer pressure and fall in love with another dude. That would be awkward at first, I'm sure, considering my heterosexuality, but we'd somehow move past that because ... Crap. Why?!? Help me out here, fundie nut job?


Also, a small favor, if you wouldn't mind: Deal, if you want to, with the SUBSTANCE of my points--with the issues--one by one--

The problem is how ridiculous the enormity of your arguments are. Especially considering how most of them have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic you're pretending you have an opinion on.


Nor am I particularly diplomatic.

You've begun down the road of self-gnosis. Why stop there?

[Sierim]

You have also attempted to trivialize my rather straightforward argument re what's happening in urban America: The "absent father syndrome" is an epidemic there: Do you even doubt this?
Your "absent father syndrome" is trivialized by its irrelevance to the issue at hand. It is (apparently) an argument from analogy, but you fail to connect it to why homosexual marriage should not be legal.


I have no wish to discredit the (often heroic) parenting job done by single mothers. But it is my opinion that even GIRLS need to have their father living in the home. And boys absolutely do--and far too many do not.
So we should make sure only gays and not lesbians marry? That would resolve this issue.


Many urban males grow up in a total Matriarchy, surrounded by women--and such familiarity breeds contempt: misogyny, the Bitches & Ho Music--and its almost invariable complement, a virulent homophobia.
A matriarchy?


In our eagerness to redefine The Family--often with the best of intentions--we have created a monster. We perpetuate a cycle of gangland violence because these poor and young and uneducated mothers are not prepared for parenting--and their sons now have guns.
And now our problem is lack of education and gun control. And this relates to homosexuality how?


This is the harsh reality: Our cities are a national disgrace. And many decent people there live in fear. And more and more young women, there and elsewhere, white and black, are having babies out of wedlock. (I will assume, for the sake of argument, that you and I probably agree on this--that this is not such a great idea.)

We should be providing tax incentives for people to marry and to stay together and to act responsibly--AS PARENTS.
So you are opposed to marriages which do not produce/raise children? Or do you define couples of the same sex who together raise their children as a group distinct from parents?


Also, a small favor, if you wouldn't mind: Deal, if you want to, with the SUBSTANCE of my points--with the issues--one by one--and steer clear, please, of ferreting out my "hidden motives" for mentioning a valued friendship--questions concerning my sincerity and integrity: You know nothing about me.

Admittedly, I know nothing about you. However, on trial is your argument, not you personally. Please do not confuse the two; things become very messy when persons cannot separate their position from their identity. As for the substance of your argument, there seem to be a significant lack of anything of the sort. As soon as some is uncovered, I will happily consider it.

[Madrigal]

Further, I am all for gay civil unions that extend to both parties ALL the legal rights of married hetero couples.


But legally calling it "marriage"--which you are in any case free to do privately--further weakens the tradtional view of marriage, making it even more laughable.

So basically you want them to have all the rights heterosexual couples do (that would include adoption btw - *gasp!*), except for the use of the term "marriage". You realize you're either a clown or a hypocrite? You are not against them having all the rights, but if they take the word "marriage", they'd make "marriage" laughable? Uh, yeah, you are so not a homophobe.

Plus, there is no evidence to support your claims that the changing family structure is the cause for, uh, gang violence, or WTF the whole children out of wedlock rant has to do with gay marriage. Like most reactionaries, your inductive logic borders on delerium.


You do not win hearts and minds by overturning elections,

As I'm not living in the US, I don't know which elections you're talking about, but I certainly don't see why a sector of the population should have to submit to referendum their right to enjoy the same benefits everyone else already has. That's a disgusting attempt to let the most backwards sectors of society impede a minority's access to equal rights under the law.

[LongSilence]

Ah come on people, quit picking on Arouet just cos he's making the easier argument to destroy. Take a shot at me- I promise I'll make it trickier for you.

[colormegone]

In the end, it's a matter of how libertarian we think things should be.

Agreed with your whole post. I think the best approach would be to separate the traditional definition of marriage from the legal by giving a civil union with the same rights to anyone who wants it and leaving the ceremony and social contract aspect to be defined by one's church of choice. That way your union can be accepted by one congregation without having to be accepted by everyone.

[stewie3128]

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR26-08.PDF

Pretty cool news if you ask me and a long time coming considering CA's liberalness(?).

Actually, the CA legislature has passed gay marriage legislation twice already... a group of bigots has been holding it up in court though.

Nice that Schwarzenegger has said that the ruling shouldn't be challenged.

[stewie3128]

You have--perhaps not surprisingly--not addressed in any way the historical issue I raised: Do you honestly think that it's a good idea for a COURT to overturn an ELECTION? Do you see no possible future danger here.

That cake was baked a long time ago.

[outmywindow]

Suppose tomorrow's court -- AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE -- outlawed heterosexuality? Or toilet paper? Or marshmallows?!?!?!?!?111!?!?!

Fuck. Ing. Hilarious. I just rolled around on my couch in semi-uncontrollable laughter. Thanks for that, Oso.

Anyway, this thread has become awesome. Thank you, Arouet. How did you know absurd comedy is my favorite type?

[Chaselation]

I certainly don't see why a sector of the population should have to submit to referendum their right to enjoy the same benefits everyone else already has. That's a disgusting attempt to let the most backwards sectors of society impede a minority's access to equal rights under the law.

This is the point. Well stated.

[C.J.Woolf]

Yes, I welcome this as good news. However, I wonder how long it will last. I voted against a state measure to explicitly ban gay marriage in CA back when I lived in Berkeley. It passed anyway by a decent margin. This recent court ruling trumps that, but I think a constitutional amendment would probably pass. The governator says he opposes an amendment, but we'll see if that actually matters. I think the fundie nutjobs will probably mobilize.
They'll mobilize, all right, but there are two factors that might defeat them. First, fear of Teh Gay is getting less and less effective at turning out the hater vote. Second, Democrats are more energized to vote than ever, and Obama on the ballot should increase turnout.

Arouet, if your goal is to reduce the number of births to unmarried mothers, encouraging kids to go gay would do it. Just sayin'. ;)

[Madrigal]

They'll mobilize, all right, but there are two factors that might defeat them. First, fear of Teh Gay is getting less and less effective at turning out the hater vote. Second, Democrats are more energized to vote than ever, and Obama on the ballot should increase turnout.

I read that Obama stated he was against gay marriage, maybe I'm mistaken but I'm pretty sure I read that. If he really thinks that, he's full of crap, and if he's just hiding his "opinion" to not scare the conservative voters, he's still full of crap. Bourgeois politicians. :rolleyes:

[eggs]

Marriage is a religious matter and thus should not be regulated by the state.

[MacGuffin]

Marriage is a religious matter and thus should not be regulated by the state.

lol

[Oso Mocoso]

Marriage is a religious matter and thus should not be regulated by the state.

Not really. My own marriage is basically a matter between me, my wife, and Clark County, Nevada.

[lowtech redneck]

They'll mobilize, all right, but there are two factors that might defeat them. First, fear of Teh Gay is getting less and less effective at turning out the hater vote. Second, Democrats are more energized to vote than ever, and Obama on the ballot should increase turnout.


A huge percentage of California Democrats are black, Reagon Democrats, or hispanic. Those demographics are not favorable to gay marriage. Also, the court decision contradicts Obama's position (that marriage is between a man and a woman, but gays should have civil unions with equal rights), and he will be obliged to defend that position when asked. Factor in the now energized participation of the religious right, and I predict the constitutional amendment (in California) will pass easily.

If anyone cares, my own position can be illustrated by the way I voted in the Georgia election on this very issue, and the reasons for the same; I voted against a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, BUT if the amendment were worded in such a way that the issue was simply left up to the legislature, and thus subject to periodic re-examination, I would have voted in the affirmative. I think gays should have equal rights and I don't think there is an objective justification for classifying homosexual relations between adults as immoral, but I also don't take judicial intervention lightly, and do not think these circumstances warrant it. Its somewhat analogous to believing that lying under oath and obstruction of justice are serious offenses, but the actual impeachment of President Clinton was an overreaction, given the predictable consequences of such an action on a wide range of issues.

[Zephyrus055]

At present, marriage includes both religious and legal rights. It is a religious right for religious adherents as an expectation and blessing by their deity, and a legal one that affords social and economic benefits. The idea of changing the definition of marriage to expand its inclusiveness to homosexual couples will piss off many religious individuals and groups, because they will view that inclusion as opposing the expectations of that deity. Secondly, that would be an act of the state unjustifiably imposing its will on religion.

A homosexual can desire either the religious or legal rights religion affords. In my view, if a homosexual group or individual desires equal religious rights and to be seen as equal in that religion, then they will have to bring that up with religious authorities. If they want legal rights, then the state should afford them those rights in the name of equality. So in order for the state to guarantee equal legal rights to all law-abiding citizens, while separating the state from religion, two things need to happen.

The state should not recognize marriage as a legal document.
The state should offer a kind of package that offers legal rights for couples that declare themselves committed, whether that commitment is called married, intimate forever, monkey love, or whatever.

[C.J.Woolf]

I read that Obama stated he was against gay marriage...

A huge percentage of California Democrats are black, Reagon Democrats, or hispanic. Those demographics are not favorable to gay marriage. Also, the court decision contradicts Obama's position (that marriage is between a man and a woman, but gays should have civil unions with equal rights)...
The young people Obama has been turning out, who tend to be tolerant, might not agree with Obama on this one. But I'm prepared to be wrong.

[rawr]

At present, marriage includes both religious and legal rights. It is a religious right for religious adherents as an expectation and blessing by their deity, and a legal one that affords social and economic benefits. The idea of changing the definition of marriage to expand its inclusiveness to homosexual couples will piss off many religious individuals and groups, because they will view that inclusion as opposing the expectations of that deity. Secondly, that would be an act of the state unjustifiably imposing its will on religion.

A homosexual can desire either the religious or legal rights religion affords. In my view, if a homosexual group or individual desires equal religious rights and to be seen as equal in that religion, then they will have to bring that up with religious authorities. If they want legal rights, then the state should afford them those rights in the name of equality. So in order for the state to guarantee equal legal rights to all law-abiding citizens, while separating the state from religion, two things need to happen.

The state should not recognize marriage as a legal document.
The state should offer a kind of package that offers legal rights for couples that declare themselves committed, whether that commitment is called married, intimate forever, monkey love, or whatever.



I agree but except for the second part. Why should someone have legal rights with benefits because they have a binding contract with the person whom they have sex with?

That puts the screws to people like my self who will miss out on these benefits because they most likely never get married.

[Zephyrus055]

I agree but except for the second part. Why should someone have legal rights with benefits because they have a binding contract with the person whom they have sex with?

That puts the screws to people like my self who will miss out on these benefits because they most likely never get married.

Mostly the legal rights would refer to social benefits like being able to see your loved one in the hospital, and with the distribution of resources in the event of a divorce etc. Such laws really wouldn't affect you, I don't think. You can individually declare these contract terms by seeing a lawyer, or modify them to your needs, but there would just be a package of such terms typical of modern day marriage, minus other things that may unfairly benefit them.

[Arouet]

I recognize that this is a "hot-button issue," but what bothers me about this, as well as similar, issues, is that too many people, IMO--and I'm not naming names or referring to Oso here--have been brainwashed into thinking such issues are always so simple.

Most people's minds "work" pretty much like this: If you honestly believe that there's nothing wrong with being gay--and if you believe that everyone is entitled to Equal Rights under the law--then you MUST be in favor of gay marriage. If, therefore, you are NOT in favor of gay marriage, you're a homophobe, hypocrite, etc.

And unfortunately, this is as far as many people get; everything is black or white, either/or: gay marriage, abortion, the war in Iraq, etc.

I don't quite follow why, for example, I'm a "hypocrite" (or worse)--if I got this right--because, though I'm opposed to gay marriage, I see nothing wrong with gay couples--those who have been joined in civil unions--adopting children.

I have no reason whatsoever to suspect that gay couples wouldn't be good parents. It's unlikely that they could do a worse job than many parents today. (Paris Hilton's come to mind.)

I'm familiar, of course, with the rather odd view that gay parents would somehow raise gay children. But first, I don't think that this is possible; and second, I don't personally know any gay couples who would ever want this. They know that it's not an easy life.

To any who might disagree, a question: Would you really prefer that these children be wards of the State?

To the individual who compared the court's decision in support of gay marriage to various court decisions re Civil Rights and interracial marriage:

Yours is a fair--and interesting--point. But like all such analogies, its usefulness is limited, and by one fact more than any other: Unless I am mistaken, the courts in such cases never voted to overturn the results of an ELECTION. And further, by using this analogy, you're implying that a marriage between a man and a woman--simply because they come from different ethnic/racial backgrounds?--is identical to a marriage between two men. (I'm just guessing, of course, but some strange sixth sense tells me that many interracial couples would not find your analogy particularly flattering.)

Many--probably on both sides of this issue--are correct in saying that my argument is chiefly one of semantics: I favor "gay civil unions" that confer ALL THE SAME LEGAL RIGHTS AS MARRIAGE--but I don't think we should call it "marriage." And my reasons are these: First, the institution of marriage (through no fault of gay people, obviously) is in enough trouble already, and regardless of what you think of marriage as an institution, most would probably agree with me that, though it's no guarantee of stability for a child, at least it's a start, it's SOMETHING. And second, though it may be fairly argued that I have always believed (perhaps too much) in the power of words, I do believe that the words we use are important.

Item; yes, a digression, but the power of words: Consider how the word "rape" has now been redefined--by law--in I believe several states: A man who in no way used force is now inside a woman. She has in effect said "Yes" in a dozen different ways, most of which were non-verbal. But suddenly, she changes her mind, and says "No." And the law in several states now asserts that, though they are in medias res, if the man does not withdraw within something like four to seven seconds, he can be charged with "rape." And why?

--"Because 'No' means 'No.'" --Because "What part of No didn't you understand?"

"Well, the part where you had all YOUR clothes off, and I had all MY clothes off, and I was on TOP of you, and your LEGS were spread, and I was already INSIDE you."

Yet many intelligent women--because of slogans, shibboleths such as "No Means No"--WORDS--agree with such ridiculous laws. (My hope for such women is that all of them, someday, have sons.) Human sexuality is extremely complex, far too complex to simplify with slogans. And ruining some young kid's life--in a situation such as the one I described--by charging him with "rape" is unconscionable.

I oppose gay "marriage" because it further weakens in the minds of most straight people--never mind the "sanctity" (!) of marriage--but the very CONCEPT of marriage--without which, The Family is weakened even further.

Out-of-wedlock birthrates in some parts of urban America are at or near 70 percent. In the 1990's, it was I believe the Brookings Institute that reported that 64 percent of ALL black babies born in this country are born out-of-wedlock. (And we know that this is "the formula" for perpetuating poverty-- and probably a contributing factor to gangland violence. Despite the heroic efforts of many single mothers, these boys and young men need to have their fathers in the home--and too many of these "boys" now have guns.)

And the "marriage boycott" is spreading throughout America. I recently read (somewhere) that one out overy ten white babies is now born out of wedlock.

Though many or most of you may disagree with me about this or that, I'm sure that many of you are, as I am, troubled by the kind of teenage violence we're now routinely seeing on television. And joke if you want to, but I'm troubled also by the number of eleven-year-old girls wearing thongs. I'm concerned--worried and afraid for them--because the media are "sexualizing" these girls--kids--at far too young an age. (And I honestly don't think this is going to make their lives any easier--or that it will ever make them any happier. This is not "feminism" or "liberation"; this is "merchandising"--and stupidity.)

And most of us--no matter where we stand on gay marriage--usually have the same question when we see some of these kids: "Where are the PARENTS?!" How was this little boy able to take a gun to school? Why are these teenage girls beating that one up?

Yes, I'm so old-fashioned, I believe that even LITTLE GIRLS need to have their fathers living in the same house with them. And I therefore believe that we as a society owe it to these children and young people to do everything within our power to strengthen, not weaken, marriage and the family. Kids need this kind of stabilty. They need to believe that "Mommy and Daddy will always be here when I get home." (And I think that strengthening marriage is better for women, too--for these young and often uneducated mothers to be living with, and married to, the father of their children.)

And the reality is--at least in this man's opinion--that gay "marriage" will, in the minds of most straight people (and probably even more so for many straight men) make "marriage" more of a joke than it is already.

And I do believe it's dangerous for courts to overturn elections--that this is dangerous for any democracy; your agreeing with the court's decision should not blind you to all future possibilities. (This has been, historically, an early tactic of totalitarian regimes: They bypass the Will of the People by going to a few appointed judges. And if you agree with their decision, great. But have all you Democrats so soon forgotten Florida?)

I am still a registered Democrat, by the way--but none of you believes it. Because what I'm saying about gay marriage doesn't "fit": "How could you be Pro-Choice and have a small arsenal?!" (A SMART Pro-Lifer would say: "I see no contradiction whatsoever.")

I, too--though we may disagree on this subject--enjoyed the humor in some of your posts. But I think you understood very well my point concerning the potentially dangerous historical ramifications of this recent decision. (It was, however, odd to me that, in a debate on the subject of gay marriage, someone's mind would somehow connect to "bathroom tissue" and "marshmallows.")

Listen, my friends: We are Borg, are we not? We have at least this much in common: Most of us here are INTP. We have what is often perceived as a "macabre sense of humor"; we are always trying to clarify our current level of Understanding of god-knows-what; and we can wield words like weapons.

And some of us are too easily provoked, not only by our principles and by our passions, but because of what we perceive (rightly or wrongly) as the very "public" nature of this forum. And so we too easily get involved in ad hominem attacks and pissing wars. (--Of little more use than fiddling while Rome burns.)

And though I am not immune to this, this is not why I've come here. I've come to clarify my own thinking; to use others as a sounding-board; and, more than any other reason, to learn.

So though we may not always agree, let's not try--at least not deliberately--to provoke one another. If you knew me, you would know--no matter how I might sometimes sound, and regardless of the way you may react to what I'm saying--that I am what you might call a decent and honorable man. And I always begin by assuming the same of each of you.

[mgb]

I recognize that this is a "hot-button issue," but what bothers me about this, as well as similar, issues, is that too many people, IMO--and I'm not naming names or referring to Oso here--have been brainwashed into thinking such issues are always so simple.

Most people's minds "work" pretty much like this: If you honestly believe that there's nothing wrong with being gay--and if you believe that everyone is entitled to Equal Rights under the law--then you MUST be in favor of gay marriage. If, therefore, you are NOT in favor of gay marriage, you're a homophobe, hypocrite, etc.

And unfortunately, this is as far as many people get; everything is black or white, either/or: gay marriage, abortion, the war in Iraq, etc.

I don't quite follow why, for example, I'm a "hypocrite" (or worse)--if I got this right--because, though I'm opposed to gay marriage, I see nothing wrong with gay couples--those who have been joined in civil unions--adopting children.

I have no reason whatsoever to suspect that gay couples wouldn't be good parents. It's unlikely that they could do a worse job than many parents today. (Paris Hilton's come to mind.)

I'm familiar, of course, with the rather odd view that gay parents would somehow raise gay children. But first, I don't think that this is possible; and second, I don't personally know any gay couples who would ever want this. They know that it's not an easy life.

To any who might disagree, a question: Would you really prefer that these children be wards of the State?

To the individual who compared the court's decision in support of gay marriage to various court decisions re Civil Rights and interracial marriage:

Yours is a fair--and interesting--point. But like all such analogies, its usefulness is limited, and by one fact more than any other: Unless I am mistaken, the courts in such cases never voted to overturn the results of an ELECTION. And further, by using this analogy, you're implying that a marriage between a man and a woman--simply because they come from different ethnic/racial backgrounds?--is identical to a marriage between two men. (I'm just guessing, of course, but some strange sixth sense tells me that many interracial couples would not find your analogy particularly flattering.)

Many--probably on both sides of this issue--are correct in saying that my argument is chiefly one of semantics: I favor "gay civil unions" that confer ALL THE SAME LEGAL RIGHTS AS MARRIAGE--but I don't think we should call it "marriage." And my reasons are these: First, the institution of marriage (through no fault of gay people, obviously) is in enough trouble already, and regardless of what you think of marriage as an institution, most would probably agree with me that, though it's no guarantee of stability for a child, at least it's a start, it's SOMETHING. And second, though it may be fairly argued that I have always believed (perhaps too much) in the power of words, I do believe that the words we use are important.

Item; yes, a digression, but the power of words: Consider how the word "rape" has now been redefined--by law--in I believe several states: A man who in no way used force is now inside a woman. She has in effect said "Yes" in a dozen different ways, most of which were non-verbal. But suddenly, she changes her mind, and says "No." And the law in several states now asserts that, though they are in medias res, if the man does not withdraw within something like four to seven seconds, he can be charged with "rape." And why?

--"Because 'No' means 'No.'" --Because "What part of No didn't you understand?"

"Well, the part where you had all YOUR clothes off, and I had all MY clothes off, and I was on TOP of you, and your LEGS were spread, and I was already INSIDE you."

Yet many intelligent women--because of slogans, shibboleths such as "No Means No"--WORDS--agree with such ridiculous laws. (My hope for such women is that all of them, someday, have sons.) Human sexuality is extremely complex, far too complex to simplify with slogans. And ruining some young kid's life--in a situation such as the one I described--by charging him with "rape" is unconscionable.

I oppose gay "marriage" because it further weakens in the minds of most straight people--never mind the "sanctity" (!) of marriage--but the very CONCEPT of marriage--without which, The Family is weakened even further.

Out-of-wedlock birthrates in some parts of urban America are at or near 70 percent. In the 1990's, it was I believe the Brookings Institute that reported that 64 percent of ALL black babies born in this country are born out-of-wedlock. (And we know that this is "the formula" for perpetuating poverty-- and probably a contributing factor to gangland violence. Despite the heroic efforts of many single mothers, these boys and young men need to have their fathers in the home--and too many of these "boys" now have guns.)

And the "marriage boycott" is spreading throughout America. I recently read (somewhere) that one out overy ten white babies is now born out of wedlock.

Though many or most of you may disagree with me about this or that, I'm sure that many of you are, as I am, troubled by the kind of teenage violence we're now routinely seeing on television. And joke if you want to, but I'm troubled also by the number of eleven-year-old girls wearing thongs. I'm concerned--worried and afraid for them--because the media are "sexualizing" these girls--kids--at far too young an age. (And I honestly don't think this is going to make their lives any easier--or that it will ever make them any happier. This is not "feminism" or "liberation"; this is "merchandising"--and stupidity.)

And most of us--no matter where we stand on gay marriage--usually have the same question when we see some of these kids: "Where are the PARENTS?!" How was this little boy able to take a gun to school? Why are these teenage girls beating that one up?

Yes, I'm so old-fashioned, I believe that even LITTLE GIRLS need to have their fathers living in the same house with them. And I therefore believe that we as a society owe it to these children and young people to do everything within our power to strengthen, not weaken, marriage and the family. Kids need this kind of stabilty. They need to believe that "Mommy and Daddy will always be here when I get home." (And I think that strengthening marriage is better for women, too--for these young and often uneducated mothers to be living with, and married to, the father of their children.)

And the reality is--at least in this man's opinion--that gay "marriage" will, in the minds of most straight people (and probably even more so for many straight men) make "marriage" more of a joke than it is already.

And I do believe it's dangerous for courts to overturn elections--that this is dangerous for any democracy; your agreeing with the court's decision should not blind you to all future possibilities. (This has been, historically, an early tactic of totalitarian regimes: They bypass the Will of the People by going to a few appointed judges. And if you agree with their decision, great. But have all you Democrats so soon forgotten Florida?)

I am still a registered Democrat, by the way--but none of you believes it. Because what I'm saying about gay marriage doesn't "fit": "How could you be Pro-Choice and have a small arsenal?!" (A SMART Pro-Lifer would say: "I see no contradiction whatsoever.")

I, too--though we may disagree on this subject--enjoyed the humor in some of your posts. But I think you understood very well my point concerning the potentially dangerous historical ramifications of this recent decision. (It was, however, odd to me that, in a debate on the subject of gay marriage, someone's mind would somehow connect to "bathroom tissue" and "marshmallows.")

Listen, my friends: We are Borg, are we not? We have at least this much in common: Most of us here are INTP. We have what is often perceived as a "macabre sense of humor"; we are always trying to clarify our current level of Understanding of god-knows-what; and we can wield words like weapons.

And some of us are too easily provoked, not only by our principles and by our passions, but because of what we perceive (rightly or wrongly) as the very "public" nature of this forum. And so we too easily get involved in ad hominem attacks and pissing wars. (--Of little more use than fiddling while Rome burns.)

And though I am not immune to this, this is not why I've come here. I've come to clarify my own thinking; to use others as a sounding-board; and, more than any other reason, to learn.

So though we may not always agree, let's not try--at least not deliberately--to provoke one another. If you knew me, you would know--no matter how I might sometimes sound, and regardless of the way you may react to what I'm saying--that I am what you might call a decent and honorable man. And I always begin by assuming the same of each of you.

What is this, a clinic on how to offend as many people as possible, employing the maximum amount of logical fallacies, while at the same time having absolutely no point at all?

If it is, congratulations, mission accomplished.

[Rhu]

What is this, a clinic on how to offend as many people as possible, employing the maximum amount of logical fallacies, while at the same time having absolutely no point at all?

You have to admit, it's an effective strategy if you want to eliminate the possibility of others employing point-by-point counterarguments.

[mgb]

You have to admit, it's an effective strategy if you want to eliminate the possibility of others employing point-by-point counterarguments.

True, but it leaves the tl;dr attack wide open.

[Oso Mocoso]

If it is, congratulations, mission accomplished.

Yeah ... well, I didn't read all of that, but I think he made a pretty compelling argument for gay marriage dissolving the institution of heterosexual marriage.

Why fight it anymore? The gays are already running wild in the streets of California. MGB, what say you and me dump the fishes, and get gay-married?

[mgb]

Yeah ... well, I didn't read all of that, but I think he made a pretty compelling argument for gay marriage dissolving the institution of heterosexual marriage.

Why fight it anymore? The gays are already running wild in the streets of California. MGB, what say you and me dump the fishes, and get gay-married?

First California, and then the world!!

You aren't going to get off that easy--I'm going to need a ring first.

Innuendo For The Win!!!

[outmywindow]

Yeah ... well, I didn't read all of that, but I think he made a pretty compelling argument for gay marriage dissolving the institution of heterosexual marriage.
So does that make all marriage gay marriage then? Could I go gay marry a guy? I don't care that our genitals fit together in a way that's reproductively viable -- it'll be a gay marriage and there's nothing that can stop it from being one!

Or something.

Why am I suddenly whisked back to the day in elementary school where we learned -- amazingly enough -- that all squares are rhombuses, but not all rhombuses are squares....?

[Rhu]

True, but it leaves the tl;dr attack wide open.
At best, that's a gambit that surrenders initiative to the OP. Depending on the perspective of the OP, usage of that meme could just be ignored as a signal of forfeit.

[mgb]

At best, that's a gambit that surrenders initiative to the OP. Depending on the perspective of the OP, usage of that meme could just be ignored as a signal of forfeit.

I disagree, I think it signals to the OP that their point, if there happened to be one, was lost in a deluge of nonsense which rendered the aggregate sum of relevant content in the post null and void. Rather than a forfeit, it undermines the entire effort of the OP in five key strokes, perspective willing of course.

If anything it's a Gordian Knot solution, slicing through the post in one stroke.

[Arouet]

--All heat, and no Light. You see, we have very different goals here. You're not helping me to clarify my thinking or to learn anything. If I have, as you say--what was it--"employed the maximum number of logical fallacies possible"--in the time it took you to lash out, it really shouldn't have been any effort for you at all to rattle off at least four or five.

You know, some of you may not believe this, but there are actually older gay couples whom I know--people who have been together for many years--who see no reason whatsoever to now get married. And if you can have, which I support completely, civil unions that grant you all the rights of married heterosexual couples (a civil union that you're free to call whatever you want), I'm not quite sure that I understand why it's so important to gay people to have the STATE call your civil union a "marriage." And I am therefore mystified by your anger.

This ballot initiative has been I think turned down in almost every state in which it was introduced, and if I were gay--and I mean this very sincerely--and with compassion--I'd be more worried right now about an anti-gay backlash: I am NOT your enemy.

--Sorry, actually, that you heard my attempt to sort this out as some kind of "strategy." I truly am.

I will leave you now--for a week, at least. I have the distinct impression that I'm not wanted here.

[V Profane]

LOL, too gay; didn't read. I'm gonna move to California and marry my dog! It's okay, he's gay.

I was sure Portia de Rossi was saving herself for me. She gives me this come hither look every time I watch my Arrested Development DVDs.

Amusingly, this was on my TV as I was writing this:
0HcbOMqvK2M

Fuck it, I'm moving to California and marrying Stephen Fry.

[mgb]

--All heat, and no Light. You see, we have very different goals here. You're not helping me to clarify my thinking or to learn anything. If I have, as you say--what was it--"employed the maximum number of logical fallacies possible"--in the time it took you to lash out, it really shouldn't have been any effort for you at all to rattle off at least four or five.

I'm not here to help you clarify anything. However, you were chastised for being overly wordy and long and not having any constructive points. That might be a great place to start during your journey of self actualization.

Why should back up anything I say when you aren't willing to extend the same courtesy? You rattled off a bunch of "facts" using double dashes and cap lock words to make them more true. Don't hold me up to a standard you aren't capable of meeting.



You know, some of you may not believe this, but there are actually older gay couples whom I know--people who have been together for many years--who see no reason whatsoever to now get married. And if you can have, which I support completely, civil unions that grant you all the rights of married heterosexual couples (a civil union that you're free to call whatever you want), I'm not quite sure that I understand why it's so important to gay people to have the STATE call your civil union a "marriage." And I am therefore mystified by your anger.

Logical fallacy




This ballot initiative has been I think turned down in almost every state in which it was introduced, and if I were gay--and I mean this very sincerely--and with compassion--I'd be more worried right now about an anti-gay backlash: I am NOT your enemy.

I'm sure they are sleeping with bats next to the bed now that they can get married.



--Sorry, actually, that you heard my attempt to sort this out as some kind of "strategy." I truly am.

It's an internet forum, nothing gets "sorted out". Realizing that, you'll also realize that every discussion has more to do with strategy than it does anything else.




I will leave you now--for a week, at least.

I bet you don't.

[Oso Mocoso]

Most people's minds "work" pretty much like this: If you honestly believe that there's nothing wrong with being gay--and if you believe that everyone is entitled to Equal Rights under the law--then you MUST be in favor of gay marriage. If, therefore, you are NOT in favor of gay marriage, you're a homophobe, hypocrite, etc.

Okay, so instead of responding to anyone's posts in the thread, you kick off your post with a straw man argument. Nice.


Yours is a fair--and interesting--point. But like all such analogies, its "usefulness is limited, and by one fact more than any other: Unless I am mistaken, the courts in such cases never voted to overturn the results of an ELECTION.

As HAS been --pointed-- OUT to you in the THREAD previously, that ship sailed a long time ago in American politics. You're clinging to an irrelevancy.


And further, by using this analogy, you're implying that a marriage between a man and a woman--simply because they come from different ethnic/racial backgrounds?--is identical to a marriage between two men.

Utter bullshit. The point is that previously in American history categories of people were legally forbidden from marrying each other. But because all people are supposedly equal under the Constitution, the court sided for them.

And again with you and the straw man argument? And why do you think of gay marriage as not being between two women?

Anyway, from Loving vs. Virginia:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."

All I'm suggesting is that this same decision should be extended to include sexual orientation as well as race.


(I'm just guessing, of course, but some strange sixth sense tells me that many interracial couples would not find your analogy particularly flattering.)

They'd probably just think you're an idiot for reading that into the analogy.


Item; yes, a digression, but the power of words: Consider how the word "rape" has now been redefined--by law--in I believe several states: A man who in no way used force is now inside a woman. She has in effect said "Yes" in a dozen different ways, most of which were non-verbal. But suddenly, she changes her mind, and says "No." And the law in several states now asserts that, though they are in medias res, if the man does not withdraw within something like four to seven seconds, he can be charged with "rape." And why?

--"Because 'No' means 'No.'" --Because "What part of No didn't you understand?"

"Well, the part where you had all YOUR clothes off, and I had all MY clothes off, and I was on TOP of you, and your LEGS were spread, and I was already INSIDE you."

Yet many intelligent women--because of slogans, shibboleths such as "No Means No"--WORDS--agree with such ridiculous laws. (My hope for such women is that all of them, someday, have sons.) Human sexuality is extremely complex, far too complex to simplify with slogans. And ruining some young kid's life--in a situation such as the one I described--by charging him with "rape" is unconscionable.

Holy crap, man. This is just so preposterous I don't even know where to start.


I oppose gay "marriage" because it further weakens in the minds of most straight people--never mind the "sanctity" (!) of marriage--but the very CONCEPT of marriage--without which, The Family is weakened even further.

Most straight people are that weak-minded? I don't think this is the case. Maybe some of them are. So, because some straight people are idiots incapable of rational thought, gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married?
Seriously, that's your argument?


Out-of-wedlock birthrates in some parts of urban America are at or near 70 percent. In the 1990's, it was I believe the Brookings Institute that reported that 64 percent of ALL black babies born in this country are born out-of-wedlock. (And we know that this is "the formula" for perpetuating poverty-- and probably a contributing factor to gangland violence. Despite the heroic efforts of many single mothers, these boys and young men need to have their fathers in the home--and too many of these "boys" now have guns.)

This is utterly irrelevant to the point.


And the "marriage boycott" is spreading throughout America. I recently read (somewhere) that one out overy ten white babies is now born out of wedlock.

Also irrelevant.


Though many or most of you may disagree with me about this or that, I'm sure that many of you are, as I am, troubled by the kind of teenage violence we're now routinely seeing on television. And joke if you want to, but I'm troubled also by the number of eleven-year-old girls wearing thongs. I'm concerned--worried and afraid for them--because the media are "sexualizing" these girls--kids--at far too young an age. (And I honestly don't think this is going to make their lives any easier--or that it will ever make them any happier. This is not "feminism" or "liberation"; this is "merchandising"--and stupidity.)

Are you even in the same state as some kind of point?


Yes, I'm so old-fashioned, I believe that even LITTLE GIRLS need to have their fathers living in the same house with them. And I therefore believe that we as a society owe it to these children and young people to do everything within our power to strengthen, not weaken, marriage and the family. Kids need this kind of stabilty. They need to believe that "Mommy and Daddy will always be here when I get home." (And I think that strengthening marriage is better for women, too--for these young and often uneducated mothers to be living with, and married to, the father of their children.)

So ... this has something to do with gay marriage in what way?


And the reality is--at least in this man's opinion--that gay "marriage" will, in the minds of most straight people (and probably even more so for many straight men) make "marriage" more of a joke than it is already.

Riiiiiiiight. So you think straight people are feeble minded enough that a significant number of them will think that because everyone has equal rights under the law, anyone can marry anyone else and that somehow makes marriage less exclusive. And because it's less exclusive it's less important.

You realize you made this point already before your long rambling and irrelevant tangent.


And I do believe it's dangerous for courts to overturn elections--that this is dangerous for any democracy; your agreeing with the court's decision should not blind you to all future possibilities. (This has been, historically, an early tactic of totalitarian regimes: They bypass the Will of the People by going to a few appointed judges. And if you agree with their decision, great. But have all you Democrats so soon forgotten Florida?)

<Sigh> Yeah, you said this before. You like to hear yourself type, huh?


I am still a registered Democrat, by the way--but none of you believes it. Because what I'm saying about gay marriage doesn't "fit": "How could you be Pro-Choice and have a small arsenal?!" (A SMART Pro-Lifer would say: "I see no contradiction whatsoever.")

I, too--though we may disagree on this subject--enjoyed the humor in some of your posts. But I think you understood very well my point concerning the potentially dangerous historical ramifications of this recent decision. (It was, however, odd to me that, in a debate on the subject of gay marriage, someone's mind would somehow connect to "bathroom tissue" and "marshmallows.")

Okaaaay.


So though we may not always agree, let's not try--at least not deliberately--to provoke one another. If you knew me, you would know--no matter how I might sometimes sound, and regardless of the way you may react to what I'm saying--that I am what you might call a decent and honorable man. And I always begin by assuming the same of each of you.

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/1045/gaymarriagepk7.gif

[NightCrawler]

America: You lose.

[Xenolith]

On the surface, there is nothing wrong with legalizing gay marriages, as long as it doesn't unfairly take advantage of the rights of others in the process. If two men decide to get married it's really none of anyone's business until they decide to force their adopted children to become gay. At this point, it is important to acknowledge that sexual orientation is like religion. You can't force someone to prefer establishing sexual relationships with a certain gender.

Society will accept or reject the gay marriage creed regardless of what the government says. But this is more than just dealing with races and religion. To be frank, IMO in the long run the genuine and full acceptance of gay relationships directly affects the reproductive capability of a society itself, although right now this seems virtually impossible. But that is still a big thing. In this case, the more pervasive the acceptance the greater the threat of societal implosion. Now the theological question becomes a logistic one.

Then again I may just be thinking too much.

[Anonymous]

Society will accept or reject the gay marriage creed regardless of what the government says. But this is more than just dealing with races and religion. To be frank, IMO in the long run the genuine and full acceptance of gay relationships directly affects the reproductive capability of a society itself, although right now this seems virtually impossible. But that is still a big thing. In this case, the more pervasive the acceptance the greater the threat of societal implosion. Now the theological question becomes a logistic one.

Then again I may just be thinking too much.

So 6.5 billion people isn't enough for you, then? How many do you want, 9.5 billion? 12.5? I don't think that our problem is with a shortage of people right now. And for that matter, I doubt it ever will be, barring some sort of disaster occurring. And I don't consider "gay marriage" to be one of those disasters, I was talking more like global nuclear war.

[colormegone]

While I don't personally care whether gay people get married or not, I think the assumption of its proponents begs examination. Why should an arrangement have sanction and legal protection from society when it doesn't serve any legitimate public interest whatsoever?



Then again I may just be thinking too much.

Why? Because you might hurt someone's feelings? I happen to find it refreshing that someone else isn't afraid to rationally weigh the pros and cons of this issue.

[mgb]

While I don't personally care whether gay people get married or not, I think the assumption of its proponents begs examination. Why should an arrangement have sanction and legal protection from society when it doesn't serve any legitimate public interest whatsoever?

Where is the legitimate public interest in anyone getting married? Or maybe, is this solely about private interest?

And if you say it's about having kids, then two straight people who aren't interested in having kids should have no legal right to get married as far as society is concerned. Which makes the whole procreation argument kind of irrelevant.

[Xenolith]

Why? Because you might hurt someone's feelings? I happen to find it refreshing that someone else isn't afraid to rationally weigh the pros and cons of this issue.

I observe the conventional limits of this discussion.

[Hustler]

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/595disappointed3if8.jpg

[lowtech redneck]

So 6.5 billion people isn't enough for you, then? How many do you want, 9.5 billion? 12.5? I don't think that our problem is with a shortage of people right now. And for that matter, I doubt it ever will be, barring some sort of disaster occurring. And I don't consider "gay marriage" to be one of those disasters, I was talking more like global nuclear war.

Not that the this issue is especially relevant to the topic at hand, but some places ARE having problems originating from extremely low birthrates. A relatively high and growing proportion of old people poses many of the same problems as countries with high fertility levels (and introduces new problems). You have a large proportion of dependents who are expensive to care for, and don't contribute to the economy-and they vote. Europe (East and West) and Japan, in particular, are going to be in serious trouble sometime within the next couple of decades.