Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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).