having been amused,angered and saddened by some of the views expressed in the article you can read here,I was wondering what people's views are on the subject in general. Now, I'm not married-- been engaged once a long time ago and it didn't work out as such, possibly for the best upon reflection-- but generally I'm quite pro the institution. I don't have a problem with same sex couples having the same legal entitlements as heterosexual couples, but neither do I think couples ( or indeed individuals) who don't marry should come in for disapproval or a hard time.

Last I read the marriage rate in the UK has dipped a fair bit in the past few decades, but has actually risen slightly in the past few years, is that similar in the other countries represented on here ?

I'm all for a committed relationship, but I feel the concept of a religious marriage is somewhat outdated.

This is why unless my wife to be happens to be a committed Christian, I will not be Married in a Church. I will not make my vows to a God I do not believe in. To do so would surely make a mockery of the whole service, and worse, make me a bare faced liar!

Civil Ceremonies, where I make my vow to my partner and my partner alone make much more sense to me, and are just as legally binding!

This belief is reflected in The Industrial Vagina in her description of marriage as a type of prostitution; a legal transaction that has traditionally guaranteed sexual access to women's bodies in return for subsistence. "Prostitution and marriage have always been related," says Jeffreys. "What is shocking is that today marriage is becoming more fashionable amongst some young women". She writes that even in the case of employed, well-paid professional women "the right of men to women's bodies for sexual use has not gone but remains an assumption at the basis of heterosexual relationships".

What about the rights of women to MY body? That's what I'm talking about.

Giggedygiggedygoo!

The usual feminist claptrap. And here's another!

100% of Male Violence Is Perpetrated By Males. Therefore, All Males Are Violent.

Okay, so I pinched that from 'The Modern Parents' in Viz, but I think it illustrates the point. Marriage is what you make of it. And indeed, it is generally accepted that people in Marriages have less sex than those not.

I pretty much concur with your views with regards to being "churched", it would be too hypocritical of me and I'd much prefer a non religious ceremony. Although from experience it seems to me that what the man wants with regards to the whole wedding drama usually takes a far second place.

In regards to same sex marriages.

If marriage was just something religious groups did for you after you got your marriage license I could understand the bans on gay marriage. It would hold no real meaning then, just like the institution itself. It really doesn't mean anything anymore. People bail on their marriages all the time now. It's not homosexuals getting married that is destroying marriage, it's people getting married and then immediately getting divorced. Marriage also has implied legal rights attached to it. Gays can adopt children, they can own households together, but for some reason we won't let them get married?

Don't like gay marriage? Don't get gay married.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Giggedygiggedygoo!

The usual feminist claptrap. And here's another!

100% of Male Violence Is Perpetrated By Males. Therefore, All Males Are Violent.

Okay, so I pinched that from 'The Modern Parents' in Viz, but I think it illustrates the point. Marriage is what you make of it. And indeed, it is generally accepted that people in Marriages have less sex than those not.

Generally, married couples have sex more frequently than single people.

Unmarried cohabiting couples (straight or gay) have sex more frequently than married couples.

Marriage is a sacred institution, steeped in religious rite and meaning.

We have a seperation of church and state in the US.

Therefore, marriage should not be the business of the state.

Binding civil unions should be the business of the state, be they between roommates or soulmates. The part of marriage that is the legal compact should implicitly be the business of the state, and not of any particular denomination or sect.

I'd say it *used* to be a of Religious Significance. However, this is the opinion of someone in the UK, a country less noted for it's Religious fervour than the US. This seriously isn't meant to be a snide remark, I just couldn't think of an appropriately inoffensive way of putting it, so I just wrote some suitable verbs and put in this disclaimer!

Vallahalan42nd:I'm with you on that one. As long as a civil union provides exactly the same legal rights as a marrige, I'm down with that.
Civic unions should be open to everyone out of fairness, though I can see the argument for the benefits being an incentive for people to have kids in a stable environment.

I wouldn't get married unless the lady in question was pretty set on it. I'm not religious so it would be a bit meaningless.

I think the idea of a couple standing in front of all their friends and family and telling everyone how much they love each other is a wonderful thing. That they happen to be putting on free booze for the rest of us is a nice bonus. So yeah, I like marriage.

When it comes to gay marriage, it's worth remembering that marriage was originally a civil institution, designed to formalise inheritance among those lucky enough to have stuff. Religion came into it later. I don't see any reason it should be any different now, a civil institution that establishes a formal relationship that a church can choose to bless if it wants to.

What has to stop is the idea that gay folk can have one kind of marriage and straight folk another kind and that somehow makes things fair. Seperate but equal is a lie.

malfred wrote:Generally, married couples have sex more frequently than single people.

Unmarried cohabiting couples (straight or gay) have sex more frequently than married couples.

Is that controlled for the length of the relationship? Because generally the longer the relationship the less sex, and also the greater chance you're married.

Valhallan42nd wrote:Marriage is a sacred institution, steeped in religious rite and meaning.

We have a seperation of church and state in the US.

Therefore, marriage should not be the business of the state.

Binding civil unions should be the business of the state, be they between roommates or soulmates. The part of marriage that is the legal compact should implicitly be the business of the state, and not of any particular denomination or sect.

My views exactly.

Well, that boggles my mind a bit, Fraz. We're usually on opposite sides of the spectrum.

If I see Four Horsemen, I'll let you know.

I think that gays should have the right to be married. I think it's unfair that only straight men have to suffer.

My wife and I were married in a religious ceremony. We're not that church-going right now, but it suits us. YMMV.

I do think the US government should issue a civil union to all couples, not just straight ones. If you want married, go find a church.

I've known a number of women who live with their significant other, but don't get married. I think it's usually because they have poor self-esteem, he doesn't want to get married, and they don't want to lose the relationship. A marriage provides some legal protection to both parties, that they otherwise don't have, unless they would draft up a contract. For example, he buys a house. She pays half the mortgage. In two years, they break-up and she moves out. She has nothing to show for using her money to pay half the mortgage. If they were married, she would be entitled to half the property. I don't say this as women should get half of everything in a divorce - I don't think that. But, if she's paid half the bills, then it's fair to have half the value when the relationship ends. When my parents divorced, my father took out a second mortgage, to pay my mother half the equity of the home. That was it, no alimony, nothing else - just half the value of the home.

sebster wrote:

malfred wrote:Generally, married couples have sex more frequently than single people.

Unmarried cohabiting couples (straight or gay) have sex more frequently than married couples.

Is that controlled for the length of the relationship? Because generally the longer the relationship the less sex, and also the greater chance you're married.

Not sure. I also don't know if they're averaging overall or if they're basing it on age groups and
whatnot.

That article made me very, very sad. Second Wave Feminism is the devil itself.

Hard to respect a thought project when it blames its own failure on the ingrained nature of male oppression, and not on any flaw inside the project itself.

Marriage as it used to be, was essentially a form of prostitution. The wife got a reasonable amount of economic security, in return the husband got legal access to her body. Of course, women were often forced into marriage because society denied them other ways of supporting themselves.

That was how things worked in Victorian times or earlier, and we have moved on from there.

The law on rape within marriage was revised in 1994 in the UK. The laws on rights to work and similar economic factors had been revised in the 70s. Things are by no means equal but they are much better than they were.

There is still a discrepancy whereby husbands can cash in their pension schemes to benefit themselves alone. If the husband dies first, the wife gets no more pension. This seems unfair, since women usually do the bulk of child-rearing duties and this restricts their ability to earn a pension for themselves.


In the UK, marriage is a legal contract enacted by a state official -- the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

If people want a religious service they can do it, but no religious marriages performed in the UK have any legal validity except Church of England. This is because a Church of England legally counts as a Register Office.

Thus the new "Civil Union" for gay couples is a marriage in all but name. Lots of people call it gay marriage anyway.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I don't think an unstable heterosexual couple provides a better home environment than a stable homosexual couple. I don't believe sexuality can be 'taught' within the home.

Valhallan42nd wrote:Marriage is a sacred institution, steeped in religious rite and meaning.

We have a seperation of church and state in the US.

Therefore, marriage should not be the business of the state.

Binding civil unions should be the business of the state, be they between roommates or soulmates. The part of marriage that is the legal compact should implicitly be the business of the state, and not of any particular denomination or sect.

Actually this is a misconception based on religions. Marriage was a legal institution long before it was ever a religious ceremony. It is a legal contract by definition, not a religious one. It wasn't until monotheism became the "it" thing(Hebrews) that it was really a religious institution.

As such, I believe in marriage by state as much or more than marriage by religion(I was married in the church, BTW).

Can yu support that statement Platuan? I'd posit that historically there was not a difference.

Well, that Marriage for Love is a genuinely rather modern invention would seem to lend some credence to his statement.

Before, although it was not unheard of for genuine emotion to be involved, weddings were strategic unions more than ones of emotion.

im not sure on all states in the US, but i know that Texas has a law that basically states that if you cohabitate with someone for 10 years or more, then you have a civil union... now, incest is still illegal in texas, but under this law, if you lived with your opposite gendered sibling for 10 years as roomies, then suddenly you have a civil union, and now fall under different tax laws... im not sure about how much that affects homosexual couples, but i do find it funny that Texas essentially allows incest, as most people view civil unions to be State run Marriages.

*It doesn't
*You're factually in error.

i didnt believe it when i first heard it, however a JAG officer who basically specialized in divorce/marriage related cases (the military obviously has a high divorce rate, and so has accordingly higher number of civil lawyers) and he personally showed me this law... its not something i would think is enforced to much, as im sure that many people would be "forced" to move, or marry someone else, while still keeping the same living arrangements.

but my real opinion on marriage is that folks are getting married too soon, and thus getting divorced more, which in turn brings about more broken homes. and to me, the "problems" with society isnt purely to blame on things like video games, as many congressmen seem to think, but rather the result of too many boys, and young men growing up without a true father figure, and so they dont get taught the discipline needed in life, i see this all too often in younger soldiers who cannot keep their rank, as they cant keep their mouth closed at the right time, or have a myriad other problems with authority.


beyond that, i could give 2 skaven rear ends about where/how you get married, just so long as you "know" what you are getting into, and are prepared as much as can be for that choice.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:im not sure on all states in the US, but i know that Texas has a law that basically states that if you cohabitate with someone for 10 years or more, then you have a civil union... now, incest is still illegal in texas, but under this law, if you lived with your opposite gendered sibling for 10 years as roomies, then suddenly you have a civil union, and now fall under different tax laws... im not sure about how much that affects homosexual couples, but i do find it funny that Texas essentially allows incest, as most people view civil unions to be State run Marriages.

No, I don't believe that at all. You'd have to show me some pretty convincing evidence before I'd believe there was a law that made that little sense. Sounds suspiciously like an urban legend, a particularly hurtful urban legend.

u dont particularly see how such a law, if ever enforced would be hurtful, as the folks involved would suddenly get all the benefits as a couple who was married by more... public? means.

it was one of many questions i had asked a JAG lawyer about prior to getting married in the first place, because both my wife and i come from different states, and IF we were to get a divorce while in the military, there are many different ways of dealing with that, usually whatever state you are currently in, or if both parties agree to it, one of the home of record states.

Though, to me, this sort of law sounds like many of the outdated laws that have simply been left untouched since their creation (those oddball, and downright weird laws are off topic, and i shall not mention them)

There is an old common law statute, but it basically says if you hold yourself out as married to someone then the law considers you married. Has nothing to do with how long you have lived with someone or incest or other nonsense.

the ten year thing may have come from his explanation of it to me, so on that ground i stand corrected. i also have a horrible memory as to the exact wording of anything people say, i do however remember the gist of almost everything told to me, hence i probably confused myself somewhere down the road.


but my old fashioned opinion on the state of society today stands

A lot of states have a common law statue from the 'olden times'. If a couple lives together for X years and says they're married, they're married. But, it's usually 7-10 years, not just a couple years. And it still doesn't always hold up in court well if challenged. It works alright for survivorship issues, spousal priviledge, and doctor/patient confidentiality. But if there's a 'common law divorce', it has a lot less weight than a 'normal divorce'.

Some states also have statues that if you're married X years, all assets become shared instead of separate. iirc, Tom Cruise divorced Nicole Kidman at like 9 years 9 months, and California's statute kicked in at 10 years. So, in three months, he would have had to give her half in a divorce, but because of the timing, he didn't. I'm sure she walked away with a big chunk of change, but I'm also sure it wasn't half.

The opposite is true in the UK.

While people often think they gain "common law spouse" status by living together for a long time, it is actually rubbish and there is absolutely no division of assets or any other legal rights or privileges that accrue.

The sole exception is that if a woman shacked up with a man gives birth, and gives permission to the man, he can register the child and will thereby get some paternal rights.

I think marriage is great and people should be allowed to do it with the person they love no matter what sex they are.

As far as religion goes, I would be more than happy to get married in a church. I'm not religious at all but I was raised roman catholic and I would want to do it more out of family tradition than anything else, I could care less if God sees it. He should be see it wherever it's done.

But, my idea of the perfect wedding would be for me and my gal to just go to a judge to make it legal maybe with just a few immediate family there if they want, then that night throw a huge BBQ. None of that banquet stuff where everyone laughs at grandpa doing the hokey pokey with aunt edna and we smush wedding cake in each others faces. Just a big feast of charred animal flesh, lots of booze and lots of friends & family to share it with. I also consider myself hella lucky to have a woman who thinks that's an awesome idea too

sebster wrote:What has to stop is the idea that gay folk can have one kind of marriage and straight folk another kind and that somehow makes things fair. Seperate but equal is a lie.

Made me think a lot of Jim Crow laws. I totally agree, separate but equal is a lie. Many of my black friends point out that gay is not a race though and such comparisons shouldn't be made. I'm not gay and I'm not black so I don't know how to really talk about it either way with either of my friends of that race or orientation.

dogma wrote:That article made me very, very sad. Second Wave Feminism is the devil itself.

Hard to respect a thought project when it blames its own failure on the ingrained nature of male oppression, and not on any flaw inside the project itself.

Best way to deal with Second Wave feminists is to buy your daughter pink and tell her to grow up and get married.

Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I don't think an unstable heterosexual couple provides a better home environment than a stable homosexual couple. I don't believe sexuality can be 'taught' within the home.

Funny you mention that. Most children raised by homosexual couples actually come out more homophobic and non-homosexual than children raised in heterosexual environs. Even funnier is that most children that are homophobic raised in heterosexual households actually end up homosexual.

I think marriage should be de-legalized.
and marriages that currently act as civil unions be legally re-termed as such
protections should be placed for whichever partner/s earn less liquid capital or earning capacity
(which I know is extremely difficult)
so in effect, I don't think anyone should be able to be 'married' under U.S. law
which would be a real step towards separation between church and state
and give families the ability to define their relationships according to their own values

On a personal level, I believe it's infinitely more badass to be with someone for years without a binding agreement.
(I intend no disrespect to those who are loyally married.)
I find working through difficult times with someone when either party can leave at any time shows a lot of the actual integrity of a relationship.
I want the person I'm with to be able to leave anytime they want. So there presence is proof of their feeling.
Also, to me at least, being with someone for X+ years without binding says a lot more for that family's honor and willingness to support one another.

Typeline wrote:Funny you mention that. Most children raised by homosexual couples actually come out more homophobic and non-homosexual than children raised in heterosexual environs. Even funnier is that most children that are homophobic raised in heterosexual households actually end up homosexual.

Just curious. What study is this based on?

My wife mother and grand-mother are anything but prostitutes. there is nothing like a good woman to take care of you, unlike what that lady seems to think, Marrige is about a lot more than sex. Any of us with a mother or grandmother, who raised us know that mom was anything but a prostitute.

wyomingfox wrote:

Typeline wrote:Funny you mention that. Most children raised by homosexual couples actually come out more homophobic and non-homosexual than children raised in heterosexual environs. Even funnier is that most children that are homophobic raised in heterosexual households actually end up homosexual.

Just curious. What study is this based on?

I knew this would come up. But sadly it was some papers my psychology professor summarized for us in sexual development a year ago. I have no real proof.

sexiest_hero wrote:My wife mother and grand-mother are anything but prostitutes. there is nothing like a good woman to take care of you, unlike what that lady seems to think, Marrige is about a lot more than sex. Any of us with a mother or grandmother, who raised us know that mom was anything but a prostitute.

Dude, I wouldn't worry about it. It's radical feminism, and it'll keep saying stuff like that regardless of any reasoning, facts or direct examples brought up to counter it. It also gets a lot crazier than 'marriage is prostitution'.

The whole idea of 'civil union' upsets me. Mainly because the government over here always wants to know who I'm living with, how much money I make, etc. Basically everyone I've ever lived with makes more money than me; I have a professional job, but all of my money goes into maintaining that position and its expenses, which the government doesn't care about.

But because the people I live with make more money than I do, they somehow think I can get them to buy things for me, and try to cheese me over it. I've been in constant arguments with social services ever since I moved out of home to go to uni.

My views on marriage are mostly based around the idea that the government thinks it can rip me off. History is nice, but some of these rotting laws need to be cleaned up already. The UK sounds like it needs it even more. I did skim this a bit, but Belphegor's comments rang the most with my views.

The point of marriage is that it's practically impossible to achieve total equality between two people so their mutual interests have to be protected. Otherwise if the marriage breaks down, the weaker partner may get severely disadvantaged.

That requires some kind of contract enforced by law. A serious, long-lasting contract needs to be witnessed and registered with the government.

As for the government wanting to know where you live and who with, etc. In a modern state with a taxation and social welfare system it is important for the government to know these things for reasons of voter registration and fair taxation and social support. This is not only on an individual level, it has to be balanced across regions as well.

What amused me most about that article was it's claims to be supporting women, whilst casting them as docile, simpering idiots who just want financial security and hate sex, but have to compromise. Has the writer ever met another woman?

As far as same sex marriages go, they should be allowed to get married. Land of the Free for us in the U.S. anwyays. It is the Churches decision on if they will let them get married there or not. If it is not a religious ceremony, then I do not see why the Church or any others should throw a fit.

Marriage used to be a religious thing. Now it is more of a union between two people financially and emotionally. Financially for the Governments, Emotionally for them.

You know, marriage has the value that you put into it. Call it social programming, call it lack of options facing starvation or prostitution, call it little green men from mars; there are a lot fo little girl out there that want to be wives and mothers when they grow up. There are a lot of guys who grow up trying to get a handle on how to be lead dog in their own families when they get to be grown men.

My point is neither pro nor anti marriage. It is pro-thought. Everyone has their own views on marriage, just like most everything else. Some people are closely aligned in view, some are juxtaposed. But I LOVE it when some who has, through their own idiocy and incredible buy-in without critical and analytical thought, allowed themselves to be educated out of their sense tries to tell people what to think. How to live. That, because of it's history, something we do today is evil and not to be participated in. As if they are the only ones intelligent enough on earth to finally see through all the lies and smoke and mirrors ot discover the truth. About an ages-old institution.

Marriage can be a wonderful thing. It can be a part of your life that could never be replaced. It can be a hell on earth. In this respect, I postulate that marriage is a lot like life: don't take someone elses word for it, go make up your own damn mind.

Good to see that some are doing just that. Shameful to see some are still trying to use the letters after their names for evil.

Thats way too deep for the internet.

Me? Deep? Nah, masster of the obvious with a vocab modifier.
Least it wasn't one of those posts where every other line is a quote of someone else, going at each other hammer and tongs. That gets SO boring. I mean if people have axes to grind, do it where I don't have to slap you with a member-ban (ignore)? Thanks. Love ya. Mean it.

Well, it seems like almost everyone responding more or less feels the same way, it is just a matter of how strongly they feel. As it happens, I more or less agree with everyone. Frankly I feel if your church is against gays getting hitched, then that church shouldn't marry gays. I question why the state has anything to do with marriage in the first place. It is kind of interesting, I am a 2nd amendment buff, and I kind of feel that I can't really justify my opinions in that matter unless I'm at least slightly pro-choice and at least "look the other way" concerning gay marriage. I suppose those people feel just as strongly about the government interfering with what they feel is their business as strongly as I feel about it. I actually bring it up at the range quite frequently, after everyone has unloaded their pistols of course.

Since no one else is going to do it, I feel obligated to be the devil's advocate here. I more or less thrive off of other people's hostility anyhow, so here goes:

First off, marriage is not a right of any sort. Therefore, you cannot really talk about the "right" to be married. It is a privilege granted by the State. Similarly, you cannot compare it to Jim Crow laws, as we're talking about privileges, not rights. Also, has anyone ever defined exactly what marriage is? I mean this as a legal definition, not the Christian ( Or other faith, for that matter ) definition of it. How do you define marriage between straight people? Can one marry two people as long as any sexual contact is heterosexual? What about child brides? If there is no sex involved, is it marriage? Many cultures promise brides to a man when they are below the "age of consent" for that culture. This is golden here.....why don't we have an alliance of convenience between fundamentalist polygamists and homosexuals. I'd like to see how that one turns out.

Well, that is the best I can come up with. You can never say I wasn't obliging......

Here is my take. You can really think of me as the ultimate anti-discrimination/anti-racist poster child. Wetbacks, honkies, bohunks, queers, picaninnies...none of this matters. All are examples of H. sapiens and therefore all are equally worthless.

I be what they call a misanthrope, fool.

Hate everyone equally?

malfred wrote:Hate everyone equally?

Well, dislike. Hate is a bit strong.

I think that sex and "race" are two totally different things, and that it's disingenuous to conflate the two.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I think that sex and "race" are two totally different things, and that it's disingenuous to conflate the two.

Sex meaning gender or the act?

Yes.

Grignard wrote:I actually bring it up at the range quite frequently, after everyone has unloaded their pistols of course.

What an unfortunate choice of words in a thread about homosexuality

First off, marriage is not a right of any sort. Therefore, you cannot really talk about the "right" to be married. It is a privilege granted by the State.

This is circular, though, isn’t it? You have a right to own a gun because the constitution says you should own a gun. You don’t have gay rights because the constitution says nothing on the topic.

But this is a debate about changing the law, so that such a right is granted.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I think that sex and "race" are two totally different things, and that it's disingenuous to conflate the two.

If one was to go about nitpicking over inane side issues, then sure. But if one was to look at why racism is wrong, it becomes very difficult to argue that the same underlying principles don’t relate to gay rights.

And that’s all people mean, that the underlying principles of both debates are the same.

If you believe in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, marriage is a right, not a privilege granted by government.

Surely the whole point of the US Constitution is that the people create the government and therefore define their own rights.

I actually bring it up at the range quite frequently, after everyone has unloaded their pistols of course.

WHAT DID YOU SAY? YOU WANT A CEASE FIRE? WHAT DID HE SAY WIFE?

If you believe in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, marriage is a right, not a privilege granted by government.

Well thats right out. I don't believe anything "Universal" Declaration of anything thats signed by a bunch of politicians, except confirming my right to eat cheeseburgers when I want, where I want.

Forget even thinking about your "ideal wedding," boys. You're the groom and the single most powerless person in the entire affair. She gets her say. Her family gets their say. Your family might get a little say. Her friends will have their input. You? Zilch.

So if she wants a wedding in the church of Gorgo and Mormo involving the ritual use of snakes, you'll do it, act as if you like it, and put on a goofy grin for the wedding pictures even if you wonder why you can't see the minister's face under that heavy black hooded robe.

Frazzled wrote:

I actually bring it up at the range quite frequently, after everyone has unloaded their pistols of course.

WHAT DID YOU SAY? YOU WANT A CEASE FIRE? WHAT DID HE SAY WIFE?

If you believe in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, marriage is a right, not a privilege granted by government.

Well thats right out. I don't believe anything "Universal" Declaration of anything thats signed by a bunch of politicians, except confirming my right to eat cheeseburgers when I want, where I want.

The US Constitution was signed by a bunch of politicians.

Frazzled wrote:Well thats right out. I don't believe anything "Universal" Declaration of anything thats signed by a bunch of politicians, except confirming my right to eat cheeseburgers when I want, where I want.

So not much of a fan of the US Constitution then?

Last I saw the US Constitution was not titled "Universal."



Yea baby:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Frazzled wrote:Last I saw the US Constitution was not titled "Universal."

So you just don't like the word? Because, within the United States, the Constitution if pretty universal. Or are you just overly attached to the state system, and the lovely little lines that it draws on maps?

Frazzled wrote:
Yea baby:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Frazzled wrote:
Yea baby:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Frazzled wrote:
Anything that starts with a long winded "Universal Declaration" is strictly meh and easily forgotten .

I don't know Fraz, the Declaration of Independence is pretty unnecessarily verbose. It is, after all, the equivalent of the 'Universal Declaration' component of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I want to sign my name to the Galactic Declaration of Felix's Awesomeness.

Just moments before we discover life beyond our galaxy.

David Beckham is trying to prove there is life beyond the LA Galaxy.

Related thought to the original topic: since when did states regain the right to define rights within their borders? It hasn't always been a right; otherwise, I'd have never seen a black person in my schools growing up.

If you go by the standard of segregation (the last time "separate but equal" was tried), Prop 8 and its ilk are illegal. It will be interesting to see when this comes up in court.

You know, I just don't see why anyone would support Prop 8, I really don't.

So, you believe that rather than being a genetic anomaly, that being homosexual is in fact a choice someone makes, so what? I utterly fail to see how the choice they have made in who they love impacts in any way shape or form on another person who made a different choice (surely, if it's a choice to be homosexual, it is likewise a choice to be Heterosexual. And if we follow this line of reasoning to one conclusion, we would all, by default, be Bisexual).

Isn't this just a case of bullying against a minority?

No. In summary, the other side of the argument is that it is a 10,000 year old tradition which shouldn't be messed with. Second, that to change it undermines the family which is already under siege. Third, to permit it will open the door to a host of other nastiness. To paraphrase Lewis Black-one of my favorite comics- 'the Ten Commandments were put in place to keep us from marrying...GOATS.'

While I disagree with everything but the third argument I can understand where they are coming from.

OT but its interesting that the Mormons are being attacked despite the defeat coming from voters from every major group including minorities and hispanics (but don't attack them, they're Democrats). Fun to watch.

I'm just going with the best covered objections my friend! And anyways, when it comes to this, my opinion means nowt as I don't live in the US, let alone California!

But will it really open a door to other nastiness? I'm not convinced it would. Marriage, like sex, as long as it is between two consenting adults, whats the problem? Like many things, I feel the correct stand point a Government should take is one of impartiality. Legalese it, but do not criminalise places of marriage that decide not to do same-sex ceremonies. Then everyone is surely happy?

Well, the Nambla crowd piped up when one state ruled it legal. Thats the GREAT BUGABOO with me. Unless its a clever ploy to find them prior to extermination of course...

Difference being Children do not have the same understanding of such things as Adults.

What Same-Sex Marriage is addressing is something which is largely a great injustice. Nambla however, are genuine perverts who prey on the young. Big difference!

Agreed on both counts. However, the same argument can be about homosexual marriage. In fact that was the Nambla argument-that this was a stepping stone in greater understanding of "their cause."

Other slippery slope arguments I've heard:
-What about multiple husbands/wives?

-What about more communal relationships?

Again I expect to get plastered shortly, which will be especially upsetting as I'm trying to play Devil's Advocate here.

Frazzled wrote:No. In summary, the other side of the argument is that it is a 10,000 year old tradition which shouldn't be messed with. Second, that to change it undermines the family which is already under siege.

How does having more marriages undermine families though ? I thought the argument was that married family units are the bedrock of a stable society ?

It's not really a 10,000 year old tradition either is it ? At least in the accepted modern sense of the word marriage.

Frazzled wrote:No. In summary, the other side of the argument is that it is a 10,000 year old tradition which shouldn't be messed with. Second, that to change it undermines the family which is already under siege. Third, to permit it will open the door to a host of other nastiness. To paraphrase Lewis Black-one of my favorite comics- 'the Ten Commandments were put in place to keep us from marrying...GOATS.'

While I disagree with everything but the third argument I can understand where they are coming from.

OT but its interesting that the Mormons are being attacked despite the defeat coming from voters from every major group including minorities and hispanics (but don't attack them, they're Democrats). Fun to watch.

They're all bad arguments, not just dubious but really very awful.

Defending something as tradition means you end up arguing that we can't ever be more tolerant than people that have been dead for 100 years.

The idea of the family under siege is a non-sequitur. A marriage survives on the commitment of the two people involved, if the two guys down the road get married it doesn't affect that marriage one bit.

And a slippery slope argument is probably the weakest of the lot. Don't do something innocuous because then something vaguely related might also happen? Please. There is no chance of legalised paedophilia, and this will not change one bit by allowing consenting adults to marry. Anyone that argues such really has to have a sit down and figure out to themselves why they'd believe anything so silly.

I just don't see the same slippery slope, and I think it's a bogus idea to campaign under.

Multiple Spouse Marriage is not a good idea, because at the point it becomes a matter of male dominance etc. This is also not tolerated by either side of the Prop 8 debate I'd imagine (well, barring the Mormons who allegedly like that sort of thing. Please note the allegedly there).

Please define communal relationship. Is that when two people share a place? I'd agree that needs legal representation, though in a different way.

People are monkeys. WE might pretend we live in a nation etc etc. But the reality is;
Happy family = happy you.
Unhappy family = unhappy you.

Frazzled wrote:Agreed on both counts. However, the same argument can be about homosexual marriage. In fact that was the Nambla argument-that this was a stepping stone in greater understanding of "their cause."

Other slippery slope arguments I've heard:
-What about multiple husbands/wives?

-What about more communal relationships?

Again I expect to get plastered shortly, which will be especially upsetting as I'm trying to play Devil's Advocate here.

Keep in mind I'm not attacking you, Frazz, but the arguments.

Slippery slope arguments are intrinsically invalid. Always, anywhere, and in all cases. Now, I do understand why people make these arguments, but that still doesn't change the fact that they are horrendous abominations of 'rational' thought.

I respectfully disagree-not in this instance but in general. Often, slippery slope arguments come out to be very true.

Frazzled wrote:I respectfully disagree-not in this instance but in general. Often, slippery slope arguments come out to be very true.

That just makes your next argument more likely to occur.

/cough

malfred wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I respectfully disagree-not in this instance but in general. Often, slippery slope arguments come out to be very true.

That just makes your next argument more likely to occur.

/cough

I think its time for some random attachments

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:You know, I just don't see why anyone would support Prop 8, I really don't.

Isn't this just a case of bullying against a minority?

And there are at least 50% of the people on California who don't see why anyone wouldn't support Prop 8 to the extent of modifying the State Constitution.

No. It's the case of a lone Mayor saying that he will not enforce the law in the state, but that he will encourage people to break that law. It's a case of Judicial Activism by less than a handful of men overridding the will of millions of people (recall that California passed a law banning Gay Marriage over a decade ago by a overwhelming majority). It's a case of a very small minority forcing their views on a majority.

Now, let's be very clear about what "bullying" would be. Bullying would mean that Gays cannot buy homes in nice neighborhoods (which is a total LIE if you've ever been to Silver Lake, and FYI, my grandfather had to deal with racial covenants when he moved to California). Bullying would mean that there'd be a legally-mandated pink triangle on their driver's licenses and official identification (when I visited the South in my youth, people were actually ID'd as "black" or "white"). Bullying would mean that Gays can't sit in certain sections of buildings, or user certain facilities (BTW, "whites-only" restrooms aren't a joke - I remember very vividly my mom having to ask whether we were black or white). And there's a lot more official and unofficial "bullying" from that time.

So, maybe, to you white folks, never having experienced any such "bullying", meh, it's no big deal.

But when you guys say, "Oh, it's the same", I'm going to tell you in no uncertain terms that gender and "race" are NOT the same. There is no fething way you'll get me, or anybody else of a certain color and certain age to agree with that statement. That's total bs.

So none of that "bullying" applies. Instead, Gays are held to the same standard as any other man (or woman) before the law in terms of who marries whom. A Gay man can marry any other woman, just like a non-Gay man. A Gay woman can marry any other man, just like a non-Gay woman. Whether those result in sexless marriages, childless marriages, loveless marriages, marriages of convenience, or even (gasp!) extramarital sex, is the same choice that non-Gays have to deal with.

Similarly, Gays can have wedding ceremonies and Civil Unions. But redefining "marriage" and "civil union" isn't the way to do it, as it simply defines a particular relationship, just as "heterosexual" and "homosexual" define a particular sexual orientation.


I say, if the Gays want Gay Marriage to be accepted, let them earn it.

If they want to claim this to be a civil rights issue, let them lay down their lives and dreams for the cause.

From my POV, the Gays haven't done that. Not even close.

dogma wrote:Slippery slope arguments are intrinsically invalid. Always, anywhere, and in all cases. Now, I do understand why people make these arguments, but that still doesn't change the fact that they are horrendous abominations of 'rational' thought.

What's most amusing is that, in the social sphere, every single one of them comes true.

So why you may not like the argument, the history of society proves that they actually *are* always valid, and always proven to be so. It just takes time.

Back when Welfare was concieved, guys like you would argue "oh, no, nobody would actually *stay* on welfare". When unlimited per-child increases were proposed, guys like you argued "oh, no, nobody on welfare would actually have *more* children". And so on.

But people did this. Not a huge number, but enough to make Welfare far larger and more expensive than what anyone would ever expect.


So on the basis of historical fact, you cannot dismiss any slippery slope argument.

You are therefore obligated to address every single slippery slope argument.

John, sorry, but what a load of bollocks. Black people had to fight and die for their rights so everyone else does? Haven't we learnt anything from those struggles? Shouldn't it be that no-one has to suffer those indignities again? We live in modern democratic nations, and denying around a tenth of the population the right to marry just because of staid old traditions and homophobia is crap, it's an act of dehumanising, saying that these people are abnormal, and lower class citezens than straight people.

As for the arguments saying this is one step away from letting paedophiles and bestiaphiles marry is just utterly offensive, as it places gay people into the same category as these practises and perversions. Being gay is not perverted or wrong, it's love and sex between two consenting adults.

If gay people want to marry, let them, why hurt people because we feel a bit uncomfortable about it?

10%-thats a substantial overstatment.

playing devil's advocate here:

As for the arguments saying this is one step away from letting paedophiles and bestiaphiles marry is just utterly offensive, as it places gay people into the same category as these practises and perversions. Being gay is not perverted or wrong, it's love and sex between two consenting adults.

I can make one change and thats the next step:
"Loving two people at the same time is not perverted or wrong, it's love and sex between consenting adults."

I say, if the Gays want Gay Marriage to be accepted, let them earn it.

.. err..... how ? Live together ? Marry... oh, right.

Most bizarre.

2008/12/03 17:17:35 Subject: Your views on marriage..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

dogma wrote:
Slippery slope arguments are intrinsically invalid. Always, anywhere, and in all cases. Now, I do understand why people make these arguments, but that still doesn't change the fact that they are horrendous abominations of 'rational' thought.

What's most amusing is that, in the social sphere, every single one of them comes true.

So why you may not like the argument, the history of society proves that they actually *are* always valid, and always proven to be so. It just takes time.

Back when Welfare was concieved, guys like you would argue "oh, no, nobody would actually *stay* on welfare". When unlimited per-child increases were proposed, guys like you argued "oh, no, nobody on welfare would actually have *more* children". And so on.

But people did this. Not a huge number, but enough to make Welfare far larger and more expensive than what anyone would ever expect.


So on the basis of historical fact, you cannot dismiss any slippery slope argument.

You are therefore obligated to address every single slippery slope argument.

Every single one has come true ?

I sure as hell don't see "Rivers of Blood" or " the Black man having the whip hand over the white man", or indeed the collapse of American civilisation after racial equality laws were passed.

WE best keep women back in the home too, in case they get uppity or something too right ? They'll be wanting to vote next !

WE best keep women back in the home too, in case they get uppity or something too right ? They'll be wanting to vote next !

My Wife's pretty uppity...

JohnHwangDD wrote:
What's most amusing is that, in the social sphere, every single one of them comes true.

So why you may not like the argument, the history of society proves that they actually *are* always valid, and always proven to be so. It just takes time.

Yes, that would be the operative component of the clause, 'it takes time'. Time, and a separate decision, which makes the premise of a slippery slope wholly fallacious as there is nothing 'necessary' about making another decision.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Back when Welfare was concieved, guys like you would argue "oh, no, nobody would actually *stay* on welfare". When unlimited per-child increases were proposed, guys like you argued "oh, no, nobody on welfare would actually have *more* children". And so on.

But people did this. Not a huge number, but enough to make Welfare far larger and more expensive than what anyone would ever expect.

That isn't a slippery slope John, that is a direct consequence of the Federal dole.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
So on the basis of historical fact, you cannot dismiss any slippery slope argument.

You are therefore obligated to address every single slippery slope argument.

Not really, because the example you cited wasn't even a slippery slope argument.

My Wife's pretty uppity...

Yeah, but we've been told her husbands a real jerk and he.. HEY WAIT A MINUTE ! IT'S A TRAP!

Frazzled wrote:
I can make one change and thats the next step:
"Loving two people at the same time is not perverted or wrong, it's love and sex between consenting adults."

See, but there isn't anything wrong with that insofar as it isn't a binding social agreement. Modern polyamorous relationships are founded on the freedom of partners involved. Something which the property rights of marriage necessarily impede by turning what is essentially an open social arrangement into a contractual obligation, and a highly complicated one at that. Something which would be better handled with either a Will, or open judicial arbitration.

Frazzled wrote:I respectfully disagree-not in this instance but in general. Often, slippery slope arguments come out to be very true.

They never do because slippery slope arguments imply that if 'x' happens 'y' MUST happen. Not that it might happen, but that it must happen. Nothing, ever, must happen in a particular way.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:You know, I just don't see why anyone would support Prop 8, I really don't.

Isn't this just a case of bullying against a minority?

And there are at least 50% of the people on California who don't see why anyone wouldn't support Prop 8 to the extent of modifying the State Constitution.

No. It's the case of a lone Mayor saying that he will not enforce the law in the state, but that he will encourage people to break that law. It's a case of Judicial Activism by less than a handful of men overridding the will of millions of people (recall that California passed a law banning Gay Marriage over a decade ago by a overwhelming majority). It's a case of a very small minority forcing their views on a majority.

Now, let's be very clear about what "bullying" would be. Bullying would mean that Gays cannot buy homes in nice neighborhoods (which is a total LIE if you've ever been to Silver Lake, and FYI, my grandfather had to deal with racial covenants when he moved to California). Bullying would mean that there'd be a legally-mandated pink triangle on their driver's licenses and official identification (when I visited the South in my youth, people were actually ID'd as "black" or "white"). Bullying would mean that Gays can't sit in certain sections of buildings, or user certain facilities (BTW, "whites-only" restrooms aren't a joke - I remember very vividly my mom having to ask whether we were black or white). And there's a lot more official and unofficial "bullying" from that time.

So, maybe, to you white folks, never having experienced any such "bullying", meh, it's no big deal.

But when you guys say, "Oh, it's the same", I'm going to tell you in no uncertain terms that gender and "race" are NOT the same. There is no fething way you'll get me, or anybody else of a certain color and certain age to agree with that statement. That's total bs.

So none of that "bullying" applies. Instead, Gays are held to the same standard as any other man (or woman) before the law in terms of who marries whom. A Gay man can marry any other woman, just like a non-Gay man. A Gay woman can marry any other man, just like a non-Gay woman. Whether those result in sexless marriages, childless marriages, loveless marriages, marriages of convenience, or even (gasp!) extramarital sex, is the same choice that non-Gays have to deal with.

Similarly, Gays can have wedding ceremonies and Civil Unions. But redefining "marriage" and "civil union" isn't the way to do it, as it simply defines a particular relationship, just as "heterosexual" and "homosexual" define a particular sexual orientation.


I say, if the Gays want Gay Marriage to be accepted, let them earn it.

If they want to claim this to be a civil rights issue, let them lay down their lives and dreams for the cause.

From my POV, the Gays haven't done that. Not even close.

So, because the Black population of America had an unjust* struggle for basic human rights, the same must happen for all minorities, be they ethnic or sexual?

You say race and sexuality are two different issues, I respectfully disagree. Those fighting for their civil rights had no choice in being born with non-white skin. A homosexual has no choice in who they happen to fancy. As I said earlier, it stands to reason that if Homosexuality is a choice, then so is Heterosexuality, making the entire population Bisexual by default.

I honestly cannot believe that a person who's family had suffered horrendous civil rights abuses could possibly declare that another group has to earn it.

The Black populace should never have had to earn the vote and equal rights. That is something you should just have.

John's argument (correct me if I am wrong) is that they already have all these rights.

Except for Marriage.

And the 'well, they can go and marry a member of the opposite sex' arguement is just incredibly, unbeliveably lame, and already covered earlier I believe.

But hey, if he wants to keep to his own ideas, then fair enough. Just don't push them on people you don't know and whose behaviour doesn't affect you.

The ten percent figure is widely used by Gay rights movements, the most recent study in the UK put the figure at between 6 and 9%, hence the 'around' qualifier in my above statement. Regardless of stats, the argument stands, the number is unimportant.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
No. It's the case of a lone Mayor saying that he will not enforce the law in the state, but that he will encourage people to break that law. It's a case of Judicial Activism by less than a handful of men overridding the will of millions of people (recall that California passed a law banning Gay Marriage over a decade ago by a overwhelming majority). It's a case of a very small minority forcing their views on a majority.

Not really, it the case of a small minority forcing people to accept their views, not practice them.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
So, maybe, to you white folks, never having experienced any such "bullying", meh, it's no big deal.

But when you guys say, "Oh, it's the same", I'm going to tell you in no uncertain terms that gender and "race" are NOT the same. There is no fething way you'll get me, or anybody else of a certain color and certain age to agree with that statement. That's total bs.

It isn't the same, but the concept is similar in that it is founded on denying rights to people because they are different.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
So none of that "bullying" applies. Instead, Gays are held to the same standard as any other man (or woman) before the law in terms of who marries whom. A Gay man can marry any other woman, just like a non-Gay man. A Gay woman can marry any other man, just like a non-Gay woman. Whether those result in sexless marriages, childless marriages, loveless marriages, marriages of convenience, or even (gasp!) extramarital sex, is the same choice that non-Gays have to deal with.

Of course, the consequences are different for them as they are essentially being forced to marry a partner whom they are not sexually attracted to.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Similarly, Gays can have wedding ceremonies and Civil Unions. But redefining "marriage" and "civil union" isn't the way to do it, as it simply defines a particular relationship, just as "heterosexual" and "homosexual" define a particular sexual orientation.

So, you aren't opposed to gay marriage so long as they don't use 'your' word? That's pretty shallow, John.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I say, if the Gays want Gay Marriage to be accepted, let them earn it.

If they want to claim this to be a civil rights issue, let them lay down their lives and dreams for the cause.

From my POV, the Gays haven't done that. Not even close.

And they shouldn't have to. Unless your advocating retributive violence, but that cant be true, because then you'd be advocating terrorism.

Thats the other argument, that this is being pushed by a very vocal very small minority in conflict to the traditions of Democracy.

Its a conservative argument that I agree with. If you want to change something, do it properly. Win a vote. Get enough legislators on your side to pass legislation. What happened is that a court short circuited the democratic process and imposed it. Thats not democracy thats despotism.

Win the vote. Win your rights.

As for the polygamy arguments, as far as I'm concerned, if all the adults are consenting, then again, who cares? Marriage in this case is a seperate, and highly complex issue, and one unrelated entirely to the issue of gay rights to marriage.

Frazzled wrote:
Win the vote. Win your rights.

I dearly hope you see the issue with this statement.

I clearly hope you see you're arguing for tyranny.

No . No. No.

RIGHTS are not a Prize. They are something everyone should be given.

It is a black mark upon humanity than some have to struggle for them!

I don't mean to be rude to you personally, but who exactly is demanding equal rights for all sections of soceity advocating Tyranny? Tyranny is not giving them in the first place, or later taking them away.

Doesn't the Declaration of Independance contain words to the effect of all men are created equal under God, and that every man has certain inalienable rights, including the right to pursue happiness? What if that happiness is to be found within the security of a loving marriage?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:No . No. No.

RIGHTS are not a Prize. They are something everyone should be given.

It is a black mark upon humanity than some have to struggle for them!

I don't mean to be rude to you personally, but who exactly is demanding equal rights for all sections of soceity advocating Tyranny? Tyranny is not giving them in the first place, or later taking them away.

QFT

Although I would argue rights cannot be given, everyone already has them, regardless of law-makers' attempts to remove them.

Frazzled wrote:I clearly hope you see you're arguing for tyranny.

The Bill of Rights wasn't passed by popular vote, was that tyrannical? What if people believed that they should have the right to deny others the freedom of speech, should they have been able to practice such a belief? Sorry, Fraz, tyranny is the imposition of your views on other people. Allowing homosexuals to marry is not imposing on anyone.

Greebynog wrote:Doesn't the Declaration of Independance contain words to the effect of all men are created equal under God, and that every man has certain inalienable rights, including the right to pursue happiness? What if that happiness is to be found within the security of a loving marriage?

What if that happiness means you like to eat babies? Do that mean you have a right to eat babies? What if Bob wants to marry a goat to give him that happiness?

I'm painting myself into a corner here on a topic I don't actually disagree with (aka gays want to suffer in marriage, hey its their funeral... ), so will defer further argument.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I clearly hope you see you're arguing for tyranny.

The Bill of Rights wasn't passed by popular vote, was that tyrannical?

Er, I believe it was actually. It was passed by Congress and ratified by the States.
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

interesting notes on the Bill of Rights itself:

The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 through 10)
As noted on the Constitutional Convention Topic Page, several delegates to the convention refused to sign the newly drafted constitution because it did not include a bill of rights. Bills of rights were typically parts of the constitutions of the several states of the day (and today), placed there to ensure that certain rights were recognized by the government. Most of the delegates did not feel such a bill was necessary, and other may have been on the fence but were weary from the months of negotiations.

The lack of a bill of rights was one of the main arguments that Anti-Federalists used to try to convince the public to reject the Constitution. But the need for change was all too evident, and it was not rejected. However, some of the states sent suggestions for amendments to the Constitution to add an enumeration of certain rights. The ratification messages of the states included many varying suggestions, which the very first Congress took under consideration in its very first session.

Representative James Madison, who was so instrumental in the creation of the Constitution in the first place, drafted a bill of rights. Though he originally opposed the idea, by the time he ran for a seat in the House, he used the creation of a bill as part of his campaign. He introduced the bill into the House, which debated it at length and approved 17 articles of amendment. The Senate took up the bill and reduced the number to 12, by combining some and rejecting others. The House accepted the Senate's changes, voting on September 24th and 25th, 1789; twelve articles of amendment were sent to the states for ratification.

The first two articles were not accepted by enough states, but the last ten were. We know them today as Amendments 1 through 10. The second article was eventually ratified as the 27th Amendment. The first ten amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, were ratified on December 15, 1791 (811 days). A photographic image of the badly-faded original Bill is available on this site.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html
I wonder what the two amendments were that failed. 12th Amendment right to a good Dental Plan?

As Genghis Connie would say HAH HAH!

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I clearly hope you see you're arguing for tyranny.

The Bill of Rights wasn't passed by popular vote, was that tyrannical?

Er, I believe it was actually. 2/3 of the States.

So, if Congress passed a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexuality you would consider that a popular vote? You'll be alone in that belief Fraz.

Frazzled wrote:

Greebynog wrote:Doesn't the Declaration of Independance contain words to the effect of all men are created equal under God, and that every man has certain inalienable rights, including the right to pursue happiness? What if that happiness is to be found within the security of a loving marriage?

What if that happiness means you like to eat babies? Do that mean you have a right to eat babies? What if Bob wants to marry a goat to give him that happiness?

I'm painting myself into a corner here on a topic I don't actually disagree with (aka gays want to suffer in marriage, hey its their funeral... ), so will defer further argument.

Is cool. Is nice to have someone throwing up the other side without just defending it senselessly.

And you raise an interesting point. Peoples freedoms need to be measured against one another. Some are given up, but the ones remaining can be enforced. Eating babies, NAMBLA, Animal 'Lovers' etc is given up, and understandably so, because it's impacts on the life of another who cannot give consent.

Frazzled wrote:

Greebynog wrote:Doesn't the Declaration of Independance contain words to the effect of all men are created equal under God, and that every man has certain inalienable rights, including the right to pursue happiness? What if that happiness is to be found within the security of a loving marriage?

What if that happiness means you like to eat babies? Do that mean you have a right to eat babies? What if Bob wants to marry a goat to give him that happiness?

I'm painting myself into a corner here on a topic I don't actually disagree with (aka gays want to suffer in marriage, hey its their funeral... ), so will defer further argument.

Fair point, but again I would argue that the marriage of two same-sex partners is a very different proposition to eating babies or marrying a goat, as it is between two consenting adults. I think that the 'all men are created equal' part is more prescient in this case, why should some have the right to marry who they love and not others if all men are equal?

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I clearly hope you see you're arguing for tyranny.

The Bill of Rights wasn't passed by popular vote, was that tyrannical?

Er, I believe it was actually. 2/3 of the States.

So, if Congress passed a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexuality you would consider that a popular vote?

My last bite at this apple-

In general yes indeedy, if signed by El Jefe and not limited by the Constitution, then thats representative democracy. Again, I really can't defend the specific of the issue-marriage-as the argument that it is a right protected under the Constitution already might have some merit in my view.

To me it seems like the subject of Gay Marriage is really just a symptom of a larger issue, which is the acceptance of the Gay Lifestyle.

To be honest, I haven't decided which side of that issue I fall into, but looking objectively at it, I think homosexuals are pushing for acceptance when the best they're going to get is tolerance.

Why is tolerance the best they are going to get?

I'm bisexual, and I would never, ever plump for mere tolerance. What I do doesn't hurt anyone in any way. I am open with what I believe. And I am also more than capable of monogomy, something which non-heterosexual people are alleged to have problems with.

Greebynog wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Greebynog wrote:Doesn't the Declaration of Independance contain words to the effect of all men are created equal under God, and that every man has certain inalienable rights, including the right to pursue happiness? What if that happiness is to be found within the security of a loving marriage?

What if that happiness means you like to eat babies? Do that mean you have a right to eat babies? What if Bob wants to marry a goat to give him that happiness?

I'm painting myself into a corner here on a topic I don't actually disagree with (aka gays want to suffer in marriage, hey its their funeral... ), so will defer further argument.

Fair point, but again I would argue that the marriage of two same-sex partners is a very different proposition to eating babies or marrying a goat, as it is between two consenting adults. I think that the 'all men are created equal' part is more prescient in this case, why should some have the right to marry who they love and not others if all men are equal?

Thats not legal binding language (wrong document). Fortunately somewhat similar language has been expressed in later amendments to the Constitution, enacted after that little tiff known as the Civil War. Ah here we go:

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So class-equal protection found here
right to proerty found here
marriage has been viewed legally as, among many things including a right pain in the butt, to be a contractual property right.

Roll to Hit with the Great US Constitution Melta Cannon of Liberty


Roll to Penetrate with the Great US Constitution Melta Cannon of Liberty


Roll damage with the Great US Constitution Melta Cannon of Liberty


Result: Destruction of the forces of Tyranny






SCORE A DIRECT HIT!


Witty reposte

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Why is tolerance the best they are going to get?

I'm bisexual, and I would never, ever plump for mere tolerance. What I do doesn't hurt anyone in any way. I am open with what I believe. And I am also more than capable of monogomy, something which non-heterosexual people are alleged to have problems with.

Believe me, I feel your pain, man. My people have been trying to acheive acceptance for around 200 years and the best we've achieved is tolerance. We're not being genocidally hunted anymore, but most of the country still hates our guts for reasons I'll never understand.

I define tolerance as meaning that you are allowed to live your own way, while I define acceptance as an additional level where your way is actually treated as equally valid. Gays may win the legal ability to marry, but whether or not the majority of people consider it an equally valid lifestyle is a battle I don't think can be won.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

All highly commendable.

This all applied to women straight away did it then ? And black people ?

Would not banning same sex partners from marrying be abridging their privileges then ?

" ..any person within its jurisdiction.." Guantanamo is.... naahhh, let's not go there.



Literally upon reflection.

Why marriage is not always a great idea.

Wives (gayor straight) frown on letting you watch these shows of deep intellect:
http://tv.yahoo.com/the-victoria-39-s-secret-fashion-show/show/43369/photos/1

reds8n wrote:

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

All highly commendable.

This all applied to women straight away did it then ? And black people ?

Would not banning same sex partners from marrying be abridging their privileges then ?

" ..any person within its jurisdiction.." Guantanamo is.... naahhh, let's not go there.





Literally upon reflection.

So you get the train and the flawless victory? (note to directly answer this was instituted after the Civil War. The lives of hundreds of thousands payed in blood to put those words in the Constitution-salute to the honored dead)

Frazzled wrote:Thats the other argument, that this is being pushed by a very vocal very small minority in conflict to the traditions of Democracy.

Its a conservative argument that I agree with. If you want to change something, do it properly. Win a vote. Get enough legislators on your side to pass legislation. What happened is that a court short circuited the democratic process and imposed it. Thats not democracy thats despotism.

Win the vote. Win your rights.

That is what has gradually been happening throughout the western world. Gay marriage is now available in all but name in a number of countries. The civil union law in the UK has been broadly accepted and we have already has our first gay divorces.

The recent case in California was a reverse step, brought about by democracy, and of course democracy can reverse again in the future.

Frazzled wrote:10%-thats a substantial overstatment.

Correct.

The 10% number comes from a poorly-controlled study. The population studied was gay-friendly, and the scope of inclusion was broad. It's akin to asking Dakka how many people have ever played a game of 40k, and then using that to generalize to the population at large. Basically, that 10% figure sets a *very* generous upper bound on the number of gays.

If you do a true random sample with proper statistical controls, the number of people who currently self-identify as actively bi/gay is considerably smaller.

Interestingly, despite the popularity of what the Intarwebz, lesbianism is less common than male homosexuality.
____

If people actually care about the numbers, I can pull details from my library later tonight.

Greebynog wrote:it's an act of dehumanising,

saying that these people are abnormal,

and lower class citezens than straight people.

As for the arguments saying this is one step away from letting paedophiles and bestiaphiles marry is just utterly offensive, as it places gay people into the same category as these practises and perversions.

Being gay is not perverted or wrong, it's love and sex between two consenting adults.

By definition:

No, it isn't. They're still human.

Yes, they are abnormal. When more than 95% of the population is goes one way, and only around 5% go another, by any numerical definition, that's abnormal.

Given that they have additional "Hate Crime" protection that straight persons do NOT enjoy, I have to disagree with this completely.

If you're offended, that's too bad. It's a fact, though.

When you consider that 95% of the population defines the norm, then by definition, it is a perversion of the norm.

10% came from the original McKinsey study. It was a flawed study whose main virtue was that it was the first serious attempt to survey sexual behaviour -- hithertoo a taboo subject for clinicians -- and thus broke an important barrier.

dogma wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
What's most amusing is that, in the social sphere, every single one of them comes true.

So why you may not like the argument, the history of society proves that they actually *are* always valid, and always proven to be so. It just takes time.

That isn't a slippery slope John, that is a direct consequence of the Federal dole.

Not really, because the example you cited wasn't even a slippery slope argument.

And yet, the argument was that it's be OK to use Federal money this way because the expenditures would be limited in scope and duration.

So the analogy strongly holds in terms of making a Federal right to "gay marriage" not opening the door to incestuous / pedophilic / bestial "marriage".

Frazzled wrote:John's argument (correct me if I am wrong) is that they already have all these rights.

Correct.

And they have additional Hate Crime and Anti-Discrimination protections by State and Federal Law. I also happen to disagree that Hate Crimes are especially heinous. If they're crimes, then they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, just like any other crimes.

Frazzled wrote:Thats the other argument, that this is being pushed by a very vocal very small minority in conflict to the traditions of Democracy.

Its a conservative argument that I agree with. If you want to change something, do it properly. Win a vote. Get enough legislators on your side to pass legislation. What happened is that a court short circuited the democratic process and imposed it. Thats not democracy thats despotism.

Win the vote. Win your rights.

C'mon Frazz, don't you see the issue with that? Ever heard of Tyranny of the Majority? In a Democracy rights are there specifically to protect the minorities, no matter how small the minority!

Just because something is a tradition doesn't mean that it's good or appropriate. Slavery is as old a tradition as marriage yet we all agree (hopefully) that the abolition of slaver was progress.

And to the Civil Unions are the same as Marriage: Separate but Equal inherently isn't!

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Did you miss the Constitutional discussion just a few posts above?

dogma wrote:Not really, it the case of a small minority forcing people to accept their views, not practice them.

It isn't the same, but the concept is similar in that it is founded on denying rights to people because they are different.

Of course, the consequences are different for them as they are essentially being forced to marry a partner whom they are not sexually attracted to.

So, you aren't opposed to gay marriage so long as they don't use 'your' word? That's pretty shallow, John.

And they shouldn't have to. Unless your advocating retributive violence, but that cant be true, because then you'd be advocating terrorism.

And I'm saying that the majority should only have to *tolerate* their existence, but never actually *accept* them.

Except, gender *is* a real difference, while "race" is more of an artificial construct. If you ignore the gender as a difference (and it's pretty real, you can check the chromosones), you might as well ignore age, which is a huge slippery slope, particularly when you go back into the history of child brides. Which then makes NAMBLA / pedo legal. Go, go pedo!

And marrying people that one isn't attracted to is in what way bad? Are you even aware that roughly half of the world practices arranged marriage? And that arranged marriages don't turn out any worse than romantic ones?

When words have no meaning, then what's the point?

Interestingly, it was the gays advocating anti-Catholic, anti-Mormon violence in the wake of Prop 8's passage. You can check the news if you don't believe me.

BTW, nice play of "terrorism" card. By extension of Godwin's Law, I automatically win.

Doctor Thunder wrote:To me it seems like the subject of Gay Marriage is really just a symptom of a larger issue, which is the acceptance of the Gay Lifestyle.

To be honest, I haven't decided which side of that issue I fall into, but looking objectively at it, I think homosexuals are pushing for acceptance when the best they're going to get is tolerance.

QFT.

Kilkrazy wrote:10% came from the original McKinsey study. It was a flawed study whose main virtue was that it was the first serious attempt to survey sexual behaviour -- hithertoo a taboo subject for clinicians -- and thus broke an important barrier.

Exactly so.

And even today after all this progress, America's most gay-friendly city (San Francicso) is only 10% gay. This is by census, of a very small population. If you get away from SF and into the rest of the country, that number goes down in a hurry.

BTW, I think I'm going to sign off this thread.

This is an opinion thread, and will accomplish nothing aside from the argument itself. Nobody's going to convince me that gays deserve additional rights. I'm not going to convince anyone that gays should be treated the same as the heterosexuals that make up 95+% of society.

Thanks for the discussion.

This thread is an opinion thread. -- "What are your views on marriage?"

It's not even specifically about gay marriage and has just got detoured in that direction.

If we want a serious discussion about marriage, we should start by defining the term and establishing its legal or religious status and social purpose.

However that's a bit too far OT for me. I'm going back to painting my Megger-Deff Kopta™.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
And yet, the argument was that it's be OK to use Federal money this way because the expenditures would be limited in scope and duration.

So the analogy strongly holds in terms of making a Federal right to "gay marriage" not opening the door to incestuous / pedophilic / bestial "marriage".

No, it doesn't, you're making two completely unrelated, even in an analogical sense, statements.

In the case of Social Security the argument was that, in most cases, expenditures would be limited in scope and duration. It was a single decisions which was made that had unintended, but not unforeseen, consequences.

Legalizing gay marriage, on the other hand, is one decision which has not necessary effect on the marriage rights of pedophilia/incest/bestiality/ or any other sexual perversion because each of those are governed by separate legal decisions, and independent trains of logical thought

JohnHwangDD wrote:BTW, I think I'm going to sign off this thread.

This is an opinion thread, and will accomplish nothing aside from the argument itself. Nobody's going to convince me that gays deserve additional rights. I'm not going to convince anyone that gays should be treated the same as the heterosexuals that make up 95+% of society.

Thanks for the discussion.

Well John, just in case you do come back, I'm going to ask you a question. How can you presume that homosexuals would be given special treatment if they were allowed to marry when that legislation would also allow you the same freedom to marry a man?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
And I'm saying that the majority should only have to *tolerate* their existence, but never actually *accept* them.

Except, gender *is* a real difference, while "race" is more of an artificial construct. If you ignore the gender as a difference (and it's pretty real, you can check the chromosones), you might as well ignore age, which is a huge slippery slope, particularly when you go back into the history of child brides. Which then makes NAMBLA / pedo legal. Go, go pedo!

Why must we also ignore age? There is a clear sense in which society defines an individual as being capable of making rational decisions.

Hell, if you really want a slippery slope argument, how 'bout this one: If we are going to define gender purely on the basis of chromosomes why don't we start genetically screening people in order to determine which ones are fit to bear the 'right' kind of children. After all, there is no difference right? :S

JohnHwangDD wrote:
And marrying people that one isn't attracted to is in what way bad? Are you even aware that roughly half of the world practices arranged marriage? And that arranged marriages don't turn out any worse than romantic ones?

But we don't practice arranged marriage in this country, John, so that's absolutely irrelevant.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
When words have no meaning, then what's the point?

Words have the meaning we give them John, and allowing homosexuals to marry would in no know way change your ability to assign meaning to the word 'marriage' however you choose.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Interestingly, it was the gays advocating anti-Catholic, anti-Mormon violence in the wake of Prop 8's passage. You can check the news if you don't believe me.

I thought you said they should lay down their lives for their rights, seems like a pretty good way to do that is to incite riots.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
BTW, nice play of "terrorism" card. By extension of Godwin's Law, I automatically win.

I fail to see the relevance. You wanted homosexuals to 'lay down their lives for their rights', which is pretty bold endorsement for retributive force, which is a broad category of resistance tactics that includes terrorism.

@Dogma: Apparently, you're familiar with what laying down one's life means. I'm coming from more of an Eastern POV. So I'm envisioning things like Buddhist Monks self-immolating, Ghandi going on a hunger strike, Indian demonstrators standing in the face of British machine guns, along with American Civil Rights marchers standing in the face of police brutality.

*You* are the one advocating riots, not me.

Greebynog wrote:The ten percent figure is widely used by Gay rights movements, the most recent study in the UK put the figure at between 6 and 9%, hence the 'around' qualifier in my above statement. Regardless of stats, the argument stands, the number is unimportant.

As has Kilkrazy already mentioned it was the Kinsey report that originally came up with the 10% figure. He interviewed people at a mental institute, at a time when people could be condemned to that institution for homosexuality. It's no surprise the hospital reported a sustantial homosexual population.

The actual percentage of gay people is basically whatever you want it to be. Sexuality is hopelessly complex and very difficult to define. Is a person gay or straight if they once had a gay relationship. Does it matter if it was a one night thing or a long term thing? Does it matter if the relationship ended for reasons other than gender, if the person wasn't interested in another gay relationship?

Frazzled wrote:Thats the other argument, that this is being pushed by a very vocal very small minority in conflict to the traditions of Democracy.

Its a conservative argument that I agree with. If you want to change something, do it properly. Win a vote. Get enough legislators on your side to pass legislation. What happened is that a court short circuited the democratic process and imposed it. Thats not democracy thats despotism.

Win the vote. Win your rights.

That's hopelessly circular.

When do they deserve the rights given to other citizens?
They deserve the rights when they get them by winning the vote.

How do they earn your vote in extending rights to them?
They will get my vote when they deserve it.

Greebynog wrote:As for the polygamy arguments, as far as I'm concerned, if all the adults are consenting, then again, who cares? Marriage in this case is a seperate, and highly complex issue, and one unrelated entirely to the issue of gay rights to marriage.

Having multiple partners isn't currenty a crime. Marrying multiple people is, and while in an ideal world you'd be able to enter marriage arrangements with as many willing people as possible there are a lot of issues with these arrangements in reality. How do you account for welfare and tax conditions? What should the courts consider when organising the seperation of one or more people from the group? How do you deal with child custody?

Frazzled wrote:What if that happiness means you like to eat babies? Do that mean you have a right to eat babies? What if Bob wants to marry a goat to give him that happiness?

I'm painting myself into a corner here on a topic I don't actually disagree with (aka gays want to suffer in marriage, hey its their funeral... ), so will defer further argument.

Come on, are you thinking about this at all?

Babies have a right to live. By eating one, you have imposed your own desires onto that baby's right.

This is obviously very different to a gay marriage, as no-one outside the marriage has any right infringed by that marriage.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Why is tolerance the best they are going to get?

I'm trying to figure out what us straight people are supposed to be tolerating. What is you're doing that make my life any harder?

JohnHwangDD wrote:Except, gender *is* a real difference, while "race" is more of an artificial construct. If you ignore the gender as a difference (and it's pretty real, you can check the chromosones), you might as well ignore age, which is a huge slippery slope, particularly when you go back into the history of child brides. Which then makes NAMBLA / pedo legal. Go, go pedo!

No, it doesn't. Gender is a wholly different thing to informed consent. Words. Meaning. All that stuff.

And marrying people that one isn't attracted to is in what way bad? Are you even aware that roughly half of the world practices arranged marriage? And that arranged marriages don't turn out any worse than romantic ones?

When words have no meaning, then what's the point?

JohnHwangDD wrote:BTW, I think I'm going to sign off this thread.

This is an opinion thread, and will accomplish nothing aside from the argument itself. Nobody's going to convince me that gays deserve additional rights. I'm not going to convince anyone that gays should be treated the same as the heterosexuals that make up 95+% of society.

Thanks for the discussion.

Well, considering you came back...

They aren't additional rights. They want the rights other people benefit from right now.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Dogma: Apparently, you're familiar with what laying down one's life means. I'm coming from more of an Eastern POV. So I'm envisioning things like Buddhist Monks self-immolating, Ghandi going on a hunger strike, Indian demonstrators standing in the face of British machine guns, along with American Civil Rights marchers standing in the face of police brutality.

*You* are the one advocating riots, not me.

Why does someone have to suffer for a logical statement to be true?

This thread is like a roller coaster of pain.

1. The reason why homosexuals want "marriage" rather then a civil union is because in many states, civil unions don't grant the same rights as marriage. For example, in many states the
adoption rights for a married couple is different then for those in a civil union.

2. Marriage isn't a religious institution and shouldn't be monopolized as such. Even if it is, some religions, and christian sects are OKAY WITH IT. Just because your church doesn't
want to marry gays because they think they are icky/sinful/whatever doesn't mean that Bhuddishts, Unitarians, Hundus should be bound by your specific beliefs. YOU ARE IMPOSING YOUR
BELIEFS ON OTHER CONSENTING ADULTS AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS.

3. "Tyranny of the Majority" people. Remember, interracial marriage was originally illegal. This was only over turned by the supreme court because they ruled that it was
unconstitutional to bar interracial couples to marry. If this was given as a vote to the majority of people at the time, they would have voted to keep interracial marriage illegal.
This is also very important for people in the majority. Unless you want your rights taken away from you once you fall out of the majority due to a simple democratic vote.

sebster wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:BTW, I think I'm going to sign off this thread.

Nobody's going to convince me that gays deserve additional rights.

I'm not going to convince anyone that gays should be treated the same as the heterosexuals that make up 95+% of society.

Well, considering you came back...

They aren't additional rights.

There is nothing to discuss, but a few things to clarify.


"Hate Crime" protection is an additional right that is NOT afforded to straight people. As is non-discrimination law that is similarly NOT granted to straight people. If gays have these additional laws for their benefit, they have additional rights not available to straights.


Also, I wanted to further clarify the "95+%" number I gave above - my memory was off by a factor of two.

According to _Sex in America_, throught the US as a whole, less than 3% of males self-identify as homosexual, while less than 2% of females do so. When you consider male-female ratios in the use, I should have written "roughly 98%".

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Dogma: Apparently, you're familiar with what laying down one's life means. I'm coming from more of an Eastern POV. So I'm envisioning things like Buddhist Monks self-immolating, Ghandi going on a hunger strike, Indian demonstrators standing in the face of British machine guns, along with American Civil Rights marchers standing in the face of police brutality.

*You* are the one advocating riots, not me.

No, you're envisioning a highly idealized, and self-selected memory of the renunciation of one's life. For every Mohandas Gandhi there was a Rani of Jhansi, for every Martin Luther King a Huey P. Newton. It is disingenuous to consider the positive elements of any push for civil rights without simultaneously considering the negative ones, as they are absolutely codependent.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
There is nothing to discuss, but a few things to clarify.


"Hate Crime" protection is an additional right that is NOT afforded to straight people. As is non-discrimination law that is similarly NOT granted to straight people. If gays have these additional laws for their benefit, they have additional rights not available to straights.

No, they don't. The punishment accorded for a given legal transgression has nothing to do with any given individual's rights. Gay people have almost all the same rights as straight ones, the punishments for trampling upon those rights are simply more severe.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Also, I wanted to further clarify the "95+%" number I gave above - my memory was off by a factor of two.

According to _Sex in America_, throught the US as a whole, less than 3% of males self-identify as homosexual, while less than 2% of females do so. When you consider male-female ratios in the use, I should have written "roughly 98%".

The size of the minority is irrelevant when considering that minority's rights.

JohnHwangDD wrote:There is nothing to discuss, but a few things to clarify.


"Hate Crime" protection is an additional right that is NOT afforded to straight people. As is non-discrimination law that is similarly NOT granted to straight people. If gays have these additional laws for their benefit, they have additional rights not available to straights.

That's irrelevant. We're talking about a specific right - gay marriage.

I'm not much of a fan of hate crime legislation either, by the way. But like you claim to be, I am a fan of giving everyone the same rights under the law, and that would include gay marriage. Good to have you on-side.

Also, I wanted to further clarify the "95+%" number I gave above - my memory was off by a factor of two.

According to _Sex in America_, throught the US as a whole, less than 3% of males self-identify as homosexual, while less than 2% of females do so. When you consider male-female ratios in the use, I should have written "roughly 98%".

That sounds closer to the right number. It's also pretty irrelvant, it could be three people total - they still deserve equal treatment.

Out of curiousity, what terms of endearment would a homosexual use for each other? Husband and husband seems rather confusing, as does wife and wife. In the interest of clarity, perhaps the homosexual movement needs to invent its own terms for the institution they wish to possess.

Our society defines many differences which we treat as equals. If this were not the case, there wouldn't be a box for 'race' on any official forms. I don't see why this level of equality could not be preserved while keeping a distinct cultural identity, which I imagine is the point.

Frazzled wrote:Why marriage is not always a great idea.

Wives (gayor straight) frown on letting you watch these shows of deep intellect:
http://tv.yahoo.com/the-victoria-39-s-secret-fashion-show/show/43369/photos/1

If my wife were gay, I'd think she'd want me to watch this show and watch with me.

You clearly would be wrong Malf. her annoyance that you would want to would outweigh any prurient benefit

The main problem with the gay marriage argument is also the great strength it currently enjoys. It lacks a set ‘pro’ argument. It changes based on what the ‘con’ argument is.

For example:

PRO: People should be allowed to marry who they love without government involvement.
CON: That clears way for pedophiles and bestiality.

PRO: Homosexuality is not the same as those abnormalities.
CON: 98% of humanity is Heterosexual. Therefore homosexuality is abnormal.

PRO: This is about the rights of a minority.
CON: Choice does not make a minority.

PRO: People are born homosexual. It is not a choice.
CON: Pedophiles are born with their lusts. In fact, a lot of ‘normal’ guys like the looks of teenage girls. That is natural, but wrong. This leads full circle to the pedophile/bestial argument.

Again, I am not insulting anyone. I am saying the arguments are individually weak. There needs to be a more solid intellectual argument that currently is being used.

Gitzbitah wrote:Out of curiousity, what terms of endearment would a homosexual use for each other? Husband and husband seems rather confusing, as does wife and wife. In the interest of clarity, perhaps the homosexual movement needs to invent its own terms for the institution they wish to possess.

'Husband' and 'wife' aren't terms of endearment, they are specific terms that describe a type of relationship; 'honey-bear', 'baby', and schnookums' are terms of endearment. In civil unions 'partner' is usually used, though depending on context husband and wife may/can still be used.

You left out "the old ball and chain"

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:The main problem with the gay marriage argument is also the great strength it currently enjoys. It lacks a set ‘pro’ argument. It changes based on what the ‘con’ argument is.

For example:

PRO: People should be allowed to marry who they love without government involvement.
CON: That clears way for pedophiles and bestiality.

No, we're saying " two consenting adults of legal age and sound mind should be allowed to marry who they love without interference". This in no reasonable or logical way clears the way for pedophiles and bestiality.

One law determines "Age of Consent" and another law determines "Marriage is heterosexual". In both situations, there is a law stopping them. We are talking about the morals behind the law (for gay marriage we weigh freedom of the individual against traditions and prevailing culture). If we open that up to discussion, then the age of consent is also under scrutiny as it is a law that is arbitrarily assigning an age for sex. In nature, menstruation is the age of consent. This ties in with the “Born that way/natural” argument. That is the point I am making. Many of the laws about marriage are based on an old-fashion point of view. We cannot pick and chose when to apply a moral.

I also want to make it clear, I am NOT an advocate for destroying children! I am just trying debate logic.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:One law determines "Age of Consent" and another law determines "Marriage is heterosexual". In both situations, there is a law stopping them. We are talking about the morals behind the law (for gay marriage we weigh freedom of the individual against traditions and prevailing culture). If we open that up to discussion, then the age of consent is also under scrutiny as it is a law that is arbitrarily assigning an age for sex. In nature, menstruation is the age of consent. This ties in with the “Born that way/natural” argument. That is the point I am making. Many of the laws about marriage are based on an old-fashion point of view. We cannot pick and chose when to apply a moral.

Of course, because the Constitution assures the separation of Church and State, the idea that a moral argument can hold legal water is fallacious. The debate is not about whether or not gay marriage is 'right', but whether or not the state has the power to utilize legislation to define that 'rightness' without a compelling secular argument.

dogma wrote:
Of course, because the Constitution assures the separation of Church and State, the idea that a moral argument can hold legal water is fallacious. The debate is not about whether or not gay marriage is 'right', but whether or not the state has the power to utilize legislation to define that 'rightness' without a compelling secular argument.

You are very right! But the problem with opening this 'Pandora's box' is that the age of consent is an arbitrary moral. What is the 'legal water' about the magical age of 18? 17years and 364 days old is illegal. Add a day and it is A-Okay! What is the legal justification to stop polygamy? If the persons are consenting adults? We can bring up thoughts to support all of these moral rulings, but in the end it comes down to Morals. Right and wrong (viewed thru the democratic process of majority rules).

Also, the Constitution does not state a separation of Morals and State. The rule of law is at its heart about Morals. Which is tricky as morals tend to be loosely interpreted. Is it okay to kill someone? Not by our morals. But head-hunters had no such qualms. So in the absence of morality, there can be no law.

Actually the Constitution doesn't say anything about a separation of church and state either...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

1. no state religion
2. no interference with religion

in essence protection of religion FROM the state.

to Frazzled:
So basically if a couple is married under an ordained minister (or similar marriage maker) the state should have to accept it with equal legal validity as a hetro-couple since otherwise the exercise of that minister's religion is being prohibited via the state.
Correct?

No, but only because the the ordained minister has to follow the law in that state for who may be married and when.

Remember marriage is religious but its also a contractual & property right (the older use for). Hence the state involvement. Now you see why the state should not be involved...

Let the state determine legal contractual rights and let the religions choose who they will permit to "marry."

Frazzled is smarter than I. He wins.

So what is the line of the law specifically?
If a couple declares themselves married, is this an offense? What would be the punishment?
If other individuals honor that 'marriage' by treating them as such. What would be the punishment for that?
(example, a family rate at a local restaurant or hotel.)

Edit: typo

I have no problem with your scenario, Belphegor.
Your first question is answered that they are not breaking the law with their declaration, as they are not really married.

However, in the second question, if that same couple insisted that I treat them as such, then I have a problem.

Actually in many states, by making that declaration, they are legally married at that point, and thus screwed...

to Gen. Lee Losing:
If their marriage was sanctioned by the state would you treat them as such?
If your community treated them as married, but the state did not legally dignify their union would you take offense to a couple's 'insistence'?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
You are very right! But the problem with opening this 'Pandora's box' is that the age of consent is an arbitrary moral. What is the 'legal water' about the magical age of 18? 17years and 364 days old is illegal. Add a day and it is A-Okay!

But it isn't a religiously motivated model. Aesthetic arguments are perfectly acceptable with respect to legislation, so long as they do not turn on God, or any equally circular mode of argumentation.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
What is the legal justification to stop polygamy? If the persons are consenting adults? We can bring up thoughts to support all of these moral rulings, but in the end it comes down to Morals. Right and wrong (viewed thru the democratic process of majority rules).

Polygamy is quite easy in that the traditional form of it necessarily requires an unequal application of rights. Essentially, men can marry more than one woman, but women can not marry more than one man. There are also further considerations with respect to the division of property, partial divorces (1 person leaving a 3 person union), and child rights. It certainly comes down to morals, but being able to substantiate your morals with evidence is what makes them legitimate.

Frazzled wrote:Actually the Constitution doesn't say anything about a separation of church and state either...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

1. no state religion
2. no interference with religion

in essence protection of religion FROM the state.

Which is absolutely tacit to the separation of church and state. After all, if the state entertains a religious line of argumentation it is interfering in the practice of all other religions by sanctioning the practices of one of them.

Belphegor wrote:to Gen. Lee Losing:
If their marriage was sanctioned by the state would you treat them as such?
If your community treated them as married, but the state did not legally dignify their union would you take offense to a couple's 'insistence'?

If the government sanctioned their marriage, I would treat them like a married couple. Honestly. All my argument was trying to show holes in the "big debate".

If my community were to treat any alternate life style as married, I would not treat them as married. Because they are not. I would still be respectful and even friendly. But I would not give them a discount on the Honey-Moon suite, or the family rate at the buffet.

dogma wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
You are very right! But the problem with opening this 'Pandora's box' is that the age of consent is an arbitrary moral. What is the 'legal water' about the magical age of 18? 17years and 364 days old is illegal. Add a day and it is A-Okay!

But it isn't a religiously motivated model. Aesthetic arguments are perfectly acceptable with respect to legislation, so long as they do not turn on God, or any equally circular mode of argumentation.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
What is the legal justification to stop polygamy? If the persons are consenting adults? We can bring up thoughts to support all of these moral rulings, but in the end it comes down to Morals. Right and wrong (viewed thru the democratic process of majority rules).

Polygamy is quite easy in that the traditional form of it necessarily requires an unequal application of rights. Essentially, men can marry more than one woman, but women can not marry more than one man. There are also further considerations with respect to the division of property, partial divorces (1 person leaving a 3 person union), and child rights. It certainly comes down to morals, but being able to substantiate your morals with evidence is what makes them legitimate.

Answer 1: The argument did not include God/religion. Even in ancient Greece, when homosexuality was accepted and even encouraged, marriage was between a man and woman. So historic precedence of a society accepting homosexuality but respecting heterosexual marriage.

Answer 2: The traditional form of polygamy is again the most "natural" model of marriage once 'religion' is out of the way. In nature, most mammals have a dominate male that is the sole breeder with a herd/troop/school/pride/etc. of females. So if we are using the 'natural' argument, polygamy has a better footing than homosexuality.

dogma wrote:

Which is absolutely tacit to the separation of church and state. After all, if the state entertains a religious line of argumentation it is interfering in the practice of all other religions by sanctioning the practices of one of them.

By that line of thinking, since Christians believe "Thou shalt not kill" and the government agrees, they are interfering with religions that make use of human sacrifice. Is it wrong to kill people? I think so! But that is my Morals. Others are free to disagree.