Your views on marriage..

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.

**Greebynog**

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.

**dogma**

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.

**Frazzled**

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.

**Greebynog**

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.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Win the vote. Win your rights.

I dearly hope you see the issue with this statement.

**Frazzled**

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

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

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.

**Greebynog**

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?

**Greebynog**

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.

**dogma**

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.

**Frazzled**

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.

**Frazzled**

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!

**dogma**

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.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

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.

**Greebynog**

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?

**Frazzled**

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.

**Doctor Thunder**

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.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

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.

**Frazzled**

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

**Doctor Thunder**

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.

**reds8n**

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.

**Frazzled**

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

**Frazzled**

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)

**Kilkrazy**

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.

**JohnHwangDD**

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.

**JohnHwangDD**

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.

**Kilkrazy**

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.

**JohnHwangDD**

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".

**JohnHwangDD**

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.

**Ozymandias**

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