Even Marriage isn't equal when it occurs by AnthonyT

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
But by my brain or by my heart, the conclusion I reach is the same. If they want this thing, why should I tell them no? Why should anyone deny them?

You're a good man, Anthony. And a good man is better than a perfect man.

Back when I was a fundie, I used to be against homosexuality as well, as in believe it was a birth defect and unnatural. That was what I was taught, and I accepted it without much thought. But I never understood why people had to speak of them in a derogatory way so as to hurt their feelings. It didn't seem to me very Christlike.

Then, of course, I got to know some gay people, and understood sexual preference was not much more different than ice cream preference. Who is to say vanilla is natural and chocolate is unnatural? I saw that discrimination because of sexual preference was the last socially acceptable prejudice, the final frontier of human beings being accepted as equals.

After that, my brother told me he was gay. He fell in love with a man who wasn't American. For someone else, that was no problem. Fill out some paperwork, marry your lover, and your non-American spouse gets an automatic green card to live with you. Because they could not marry, his partner was unable to live with him. The only way they could be together was for his partner to get the nearly impossible work visa. An employer would have to pay huge fees, fill out a tall stack of forms, and provide proof that you are doing a job an American couldn't do. For years, his partner looked and looked for a job. Fortunately for him, he finally got a work visa after 5 years of looking. That was five years they had to be apart from each other. Others have not been so lucky.

How is that fair? If my brother were only born a woman, if his partner were only born a man, they could have enjoyed their love immediately like everyone else. But because they were not born the same way, they had to be apart.

It is wrong to deny someone his or her rights that everyone else enjoys, just because some people happen to be grossed out or offended by his/her choices. It would be as if someone outlawed chocolate ice cream because they think chocolate was immoral, unnatural, and gross. If it offends you, don't do it. But why would you keep love out of someone else's life just because you wouldn't choose that for yourself?

It is wrong, and for me, this wrong is personal.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 10:59 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I can't marry anyone who is the same sex as I am, so both you and are under the same rules... no discrimination.

Sorry, you’re wrong. See you're being discriminated in that regard as well. You just don't see it as discrimination because you don't want to marry someone of the same sex.

It is this simple, if sex or gender is deciding factor in a law then it is discriminatory.

You may disagree, but I'm not " wrong " . I can't marry a 7 yr old ,and neither can you. If I don't want to , and you do, how are both of us being discriminated ? Or do you want to toss out the completely arbitrary notion of 'consenting adults' ?

No thank you, I'm comfortable on my dry patch, and see no reason to venture off onto that slippery slope.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:22 AM

This appears to have been missed, but when I brought up slippery slope, I was referring to the logical fallacy that one thing would inevitably lead to another worse thing.

A good example I've heard is that giving the vote to women did not result in giving the vote to animals.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
This appears to have been missed, but when I brought up slippery slope, I was referring to the logical fallacy that one thing would lead to another worse thing.

I understood your post on the slippery slope perfectly. Excellent point. I call it the "gateway" fallacy. If you give a pig a pancake....

But to be fair, it got me thinking. I use that logic quite often myself, in arguing against "gateway" laws that I don't like, when I am convinced Law A will no doubt lead to Law B. I need to be more aware of it.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
No, it is discrimination. I can't marry someone of the same sex. The only reason I can't marry them is because of their sex. That is discrimination based on sex, which is illegal.

I don't think you know what discrimination is. Essentially its comes from denying one person the rights that another person has. If everyone is under the same restriction, then there is no discrimination.

You act like homosexuals are not free to marry, but that is not the case. They are free to marry the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals.

For example. If you, a man, can't marry another man...but I, a man, can marry another man...then you are being discriminated against.

But if you, a man, can't marry another man, and every other man has the same restriction...then you are all being treated the same.

I understand that you see a distinction, but it is simply not there. So long as heterosexuals are denied the right to marry a same sex partner and homosexuals have the right to marry the opposite sex...then the discrimination argument will fail.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:51 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

The law fails under the scrutiny of disparate impact. Wherein a practice not discriminatory on its face can be discriminatory nontheless in its effect.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
This appears to have been missed, but when I brought up slippery slope, I was referring to the logical fallacy that one thing would inevitably lead to another worse thing.

Really? I thought you meant that gay people were more prone to falling down while walking down the aisles...an actual "slippery slope".

I mean the last thing we want is a bunch of gay couples suffering preventable ankle injuries. Its like the NFL banning hits on Quarterbacks.

Naturally this is in part a propaganda lie. Gay men and many gay women are in fact much more nimble and lighter on their feet then everyone else and thus less prone to "slippery slope" injuries. Its only certain lesbians who experiance a reduction of agility that comes from wearing boots, leather, and a variety of chains that can suffer this sort of accident.

Thats why I advocate Civil Unions...and protective gear such as pads and helmets all administered by refs with whistles and pink flags to enforce the rules, like False Start, Improper Formation, too many men on the field, and Excessive Celebration (last thing we need is one gay spiking another in the end zone for all to see).

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 12:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The law fails under the scrutiny of disparate impact. Wherein a practice not discriminatory on its face can be discriminatory nontheless in its effect.

Actually it does not because the impact is the same for everyone. You argue that gay people are not getting married because they are not free to marry. The law says they are free to marry same as anyone else. Therefore they are choosing not to exercise their right to marry.

Its like saying speed limits have a disparate impact on people who want to speed. People who want to murder are impacted by the law against murder.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 12:01 PM

It is important to note that legal precedence and "worst case scenario" is not the same thing as a slippery slope, however, care must be taken how such concerns are phrased, or they could still fall under the fallacy.

It is very different to say, for example: "the Arizona anti-immigration law will lead to a totalitarian police state where anyone could be stopped on the street" versus "what happens if the concept of who is and who isn't a U.S. citizen is redefined while the Arizona law is in effect?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 12:30 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I don't think you know what discrimination is. Essentially its comes from denying one person the rights that another person has. If everyone is under the same restriction, then there is no discrimination.

You act like homosexuals are not free to marry, but that is not the case. They are free to marry the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals.

For example. If you, a man, can't marry another man...but I, a man, can marry another man...then you are being discriminated against.

But if you, a man, can't marry another man, and every other man has the same restriction...then you are all being treated the same.

I understand that you see a distinction, but it is simply not there. So long as heterosexuals are denied the right to marry a same sex partner and homosexuals have the right to marry the opposite sex...then the discrimination argument will fail.

Here is where that fails. You can't tell me who I can or cann't marry without bringing up mine or the other person's sex.

If I ask if person X can marry person Y and state that they are both of age and able to make decisions on their own behalf you can't answer unless you ask about their sexes. That is sexual discrimination.

If I want to marry another man, and a women wants to marry that same man I can't because of my sex. That is denying one person the rights that another person has.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 12:32 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Its like saying speed limits have a disparate impact on people who want to speed. People who want to murder are impacted by the law against murder."

Hello Hero,

It's not like that at all, actually. People who want to speed and people who want to murder are not protected criteria under the law.

But you know this already, being a lawyer.

If you want to compare this to speeding, then imagine a law stating that two men or two women travelling together may use the HOV lane. Any man or woman can team up with another man or woman and use the HOV lane. Everyone has that right equally. No apparent discrimination.

However, the phrasing of the law means that a man and a woman travelling together can not use the HOV lane. Nor can three men or three women. The law is not phrased to specifically discriminate against mixed sex couples, or groups of three, but its effects touch them disproportionately. Disparate impact of this sort is legal only when someone can demonstrate a practical reason why it needs to be limited in this way.

The Fireman test that requires a person to lift or drag 100 pounds creates a disparate impact against women, who tend to have lower upper-body strength. However, there is a practical reason for this criteria, so it is not considered illegal.

I wonder what the practical reason is for excluding homosexual couples from marriage...

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 12:48 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

I wonder what the practical reason is for excluding homosexual couples from marriage...

Because then lots more people would become gay, silly!
Duh!

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 2:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
But if you, a man, can't marry another man, and every other man has the same restriction...then you are all being treated the same.

It is how you frame it.

Heterosexuals are free to marry whoever they choose to mate with for life. Homosexuals are not free to marry whoever they choose to mate with for life.

Discrimination.

OR, as Nickerson says,

Everyone is free to choose Mr. John Smith as a mate except for male persons, that is discrimination against men.

Everyone is free to choose Ms. Jane Doe as a mate except for female persons, that is discrimination against women.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 2:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I wonder what the practical reason is for excluding homosexual couples from marriage...

It will cause an epidemic of nausea and vomiting for people who are offended by homosexual affection. It is a public health concern.

The reason is the same as why interracial marriages were not allowed in the South. Legality legitimized and validated such relationships culturally; that could not be tolerated. And frankly speaking, seeing an interracial couple made some people feel sick.

When I lived in Alabama in the 90's, I got a flyer stuck under my windshield wiper one day. It read, "Does it make you sick to see a black man holding hands with a white woman? Do you feel whites were not meant by nature to mix with blacks? Come and meet others who feel the same way..." (I think it was a KKK meeting announcement.)

I hear the same exact sentiments from people who object to homosexual relationships.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 3:18 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Hey Byte. So in those native cultures who practiced this tradition was the word a woman used to describe her mannish female mate the same word that a woman would use to describe her actual man mate? That's my question in this situation. Because if its not the same word then its not the same thing, even if its socially acceptable to have same sex unions in that culture.

CTS: I think comparing physicality to icecream flavors is way too simplistic and need I say juvenile. But I definitely think that people with a stuffsharing license should be able to share insurance, benefits, hospital privelidges, and should be able to give their inherritance. I think that everyone should have a will or a card or something that states who you want the bulk of your things to go to when you pass away, that way there is no confusion. For instance if someone gets married the second time around they may prefer the bulk of their assets to go to their child instead of the new spouse. Everyone should have a choice where their stuff goes after they kick the bucket, and it may not be the person you're married to or with whom you have a sharestuff license. I think that the concept of sharestuff is important because there are so many kinds of relationships that are important and valid in a person's life and they shouldn't have to involve sex to be recognized as worth having legally.

Anthony, I don't shun or avoid anyone. I have friends who have same sex partners. It ain't about avoidance or shunning with me. I just don't ask for lurid details of their relations together, which most people don't ask of their friends anyways.

I think Wynn and Frank, who love each other as siblings and live together, should have the same rights to insurance etc. as the lovers Dorinda and Heather or my best friend and her husband.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 3:24 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I have friends who have same sex partners."

Hello,

If your friend wanted something that would cause harm to no-one, and it was within your power to give this to your friend, would you give it to them?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 3:45 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:

I think Wynn and Frank, who love each other as siblings and live together, should have the same rights to insurance etc. as the lovers Dorinda and Heather or my best friend and her husband.

Riona, your beliefs set you apart from most of humanity at this point in history, do you REALIZE that?????

I commend you.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 4:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
CTS: I think comparing physicality to icecream flavors is way too simplistic and need I say juvenile.

Why is it juvenile?

Sexual preference is a matter of taste, of preference, that hurts no one. It is neither morally right nor wrong, just like preferring vanilla over chocolate, or chocolate over vanilla, is not better or worse, more moral or immoral. We all recognize ice cream flavors to be equal and morally neutral. It is a very apt analogy for to make the point that sexual preference is also equal and morally neutral.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 4:59 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

But physicality is something you feel in your nethers, on a primal level, its a primal thing, preference for vanilla or chocolate isn't physically stirring or primal, at least it isn't for me. Maybe I'm out of the icecream response physicality loop?

Chris, your comment to me is intriguing, especially when juxt opposed to the otheropinions on my beliefs no doubt held by those in this thread. Thank you.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:48 PM

Quote:
Hey Byte. So in those native cultures who practiced this tradition was the word a woman used to describe her mannish female mate the same word that a woman would use to describe her actual man mate? That's my question in this situation. Because if its not the same word then its not the same thing, even if its socially acceptable to have same sex unions in that culture.

I am not a native american, and so I only have a passing knowledge of this practice. But when I say they become women in the eyes of their tribe, my understanding is they become women in all intents, purposes, and understandings, so I would imagine so.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Maybe I'm out of the icecream response physicality loop?

Maybe I like ice cream a LOT more than you do. :)

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:50 PM

Eating food and the drive for food is pretty primal. It's not in the nethers OR, in many cases, the ache in the chest and heart, it's a different kind of need and hunger. But a need and a hunger it is, and it can only be scratched one way.

Because for many of these people, trying to be with the opposite sex is as repulsive and impossible to them as being with the same sex would be for you. Or, in my case, a revulsion at imagining anyone touching me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 7:25 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Mmmmm icecream! I'll take any flavor of that yummy stuff.

Anthony, no one ever gets everything they want, why should Dorinda and Heather be any different? I don't get everything I want so why should anyone?

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 7:34 PM

Denying something to someone because you can't have something...

I'm sorry, Riona, but this isn't about anyone's views on homosexuality anymore. What you just said is very serious.

We should talk about this. If you're willing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 7:41 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

I think it is very sad that two people who are dedicated to each other can be the cause of such vehement... I have to call a spade a spade, here... hate. Absolute hatred being leveled at a mutually loving, mutually consenting, mutually dedicated relationship. Comparisons of this type of relationship to relationships that are by definition rape... It just tilts my brain a little bit. There is no logical way for marriage defined as a union between consenting adult human beings to open the door for child or animal molesters. Seriously, where is the logic there? There is none.
Anthony, you sum it all up quite well. There is nothing to be personally gained by those cutting this down, and nothing to be personally lost if the law changes. There's no harm being done to anyone by expanding the definition and legal rights of marriage, and so it should not be considered wrong. All my sentiments, exactly.

Honestly, I think the only people who have any semi-legitimate beef with the concept are people who make their living off insurance. Expanded legal marriage means more money paid out. Selfish of course, but at least it's an actual concrete reason. "I think it's gross because I'm not wired to find it appealing" is not a concrete reason, it's an emotional one. Emotions have merit, and there's no way for people who find it gross to not find it gross, but that's not a good reason to limit the rights of a segment of the population. Like Anthony said, there needs to be a practical reason for such things. And like Lili said, most homosexuals find hetero sex repulsive, because they aren't wired to find it appealing. I'm sure that no heterosexuals would find that a compelling reason to prevent them getting legally married, because it isn't one.
All it takes it to turn the arguments around, and think about how you might feel if they were being directed at you. If that makes them seem entirely illogical, then they're pretty much illogical. For example: "The existence of heterosexual marriage between consenting adult human beings will lead to the existence of interspecies marriage." Does that make sense? No, it doesn't. It doesn't make sense applied to homosexual marriage between consenting adult human beings, either.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
...the concept of "soulmates" and I figured that was generally the concept of one true love being bandied about nowadays.

I think most people stop thinking that way the fourth or fifth time they fall in love. I could be wrong. I've certainly found more than one person I'm compatible with, though there have been varying degrees of said compatibility. Does anyone still believe that there is one person, and one person only in the whole wide world that is their one true love, and no one else can ever make a good partner? I hope not, because that would be... well, sad. The odds of meeting one's "soulmate" would be one in two or three billion (discounting those of an incompatible age and gender) and those are not odds I'd want to bet on.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 7:51 PM

Rose: You see my meaning, yes. Perhaps it's not as widespread in REALITY as I thought, but movies and tv perpetuate the idea.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 8:15 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/17/update-married-woman-in-same
-sex-couple-faces-deportation-to-japan/?hpt=hp_bn2

Hello,

I was surprised and saddened to read this story. Two women managed to get married in a state where marriage is legally recognized. However, the Federal government is not extending the same benefits to them that heterosexual married couples receive. As a consequence, one of them may be deported.

Apparently, even marriage can't make homosexuals and heterosexuals equal under our current laws.

--Anthony

Years ago I had a couple of friends who were a lesbian couple. One was from overseas. In order to stay with one another as a committed couple, the immigrant had to 'marry' a man. It was kind of sad that their relationship was given lesser status than a het couple, and they had to then go through a charade in order to be together.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 9:10 PM

HKCAVALIER

Hey Riona,

I had a friend who was a member of the Salish tribe and she was born a boy. Her brother was a teacher of mine. She was considered a woman by the tribe. And she wasn't particularly feminine in her looks. There was no special word for her. She did indeed live as a woman of the tribe.

Many indian traditions consider the birth of a transgender child a good omen. The nomadic Sioux considered it a sign that a community had reached a high level of civilization when such a child was born. Since such children do not contribute to the gene pool, it is understood that they've come among us to bring beauty to the world in other ways and, indeed, often become healers and spiritualist.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 9:10 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Byte I just mean that getting everything we want isn't reality, for anyone, me or other. In life we don't get everything we want, any of us.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 9:26 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
getting everything we want isn't reality, for anyone, me or other. In life we don't get everything we want, any of us.

Hmmm... So not everyone gets everything they want all the time, and therefore... laws making sure people can't possibly get something they want are okay...? (Specifically, something they want that does absolutely no harm to anyone?) You want to talk about an actual slippery slope, let's talk about what would happen if that sort of thinking were to be applied to every law.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Rose: You see my meaning, yes. Perhaps it's not as widespread in REALITY as I thought, but movies and tv perpetuate the idea.

True, they do, but there's a lot of stupid crap in movies and tv. I mean, they also perpetuate the idea that no serious harm comes from being thrown through plate glass. I hope no one really believes that one, either.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 10:06 PM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
All it takes it to turn the arguments around, and think about how you might feel if they were being directed at you.

An excellent point, Rose. I'd like to put another example forward:
Those of you who are straight, how would you feel about the statement, "You have the right to marry someone of the same sex just like everyone else, which means there's no discrimination."
Please consider this, and how it would make you feel, the next time you hear or feel like saying, "Gay people can get married if they want, so long as it's to a member of the opposite sex."

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 5:22 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Anthony, no one ever gets everything they want, why should Dorinda and Heather be any different? I don't get everything I want so why should anyone?

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

Hello,

You seem to be saying that you would not help your friends, even if it was within your power, even if it would harm nobody, even if it would cost you nothing.

Is this what you are saying? Or do I misunderstand you? Possibly I have missed something.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 7:57 AM

I think Zach Wahls says it better than anyone else.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 8:47 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
personal and emotional opinion should not dictate what legal rights consenting adults have. For all the hype about the religious roots, marriage is undeniably a legal institution. It stopped being the sole purview of religion as soon as legal rights were tied to it. If three people want to enter into a marriage and deal with whatever unique obstacles that may cause, then I have no right to tell them they can't just because I personally wouldn't want to enter into a marriage with two other people. By the same token, I don't have the right to say hetero sex is not a good basis for marriage just because it weirds me out. And by the same token, it's hurtful and insulting when someone says homo sex is not a good basis for marriage just because it weirds them out. Just because I want to spend my life with another woman doesn't mean any other woman has to, so I don't see why "it's grotty" is somehow a good reason to deny my partner and me legal rights that are provided to hetero couples. It has no personal impact on you whatsoever, so your personal-feelings-based argument is deeply, deeply flawed.

Well said Lili, I agree and have the same feeligns. The argument that it's "wrong" because of how someone feels about it is the equivalent of saying interracial marriage is wrong because it grosses out a racist.

Quote:
marriage has traditionally had very little to do with any such thing as love.

Damned straight, Byte. For how long did numerous societies exist where partners were chosen by parents or someone else, to join families for business reasons, for financial reasons, or in the case of royalty, for political reasons between nations?

Quote:
Searching around for some perfect someone really is a waste of time, and I think that people who focus on that end up ruining what might have been just fine relationships for the duration. And then there's the awful commercialism around it, women obsessed with cosmetics and fashion and plastic surgery so they can attract that perfect mate, and men deluding themselves than it's not about anything else but their base desires

Well said, Byte...and add to that people going into debt to have huge weddings!

Quote:
Recognizing gay marriage harms absolutely no one

There's the crux of it, and absolute bottom line.

Quote:
These were people just like me. They deserved the same respect that I deserved.

And there's the bottom-line answer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 9:58 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Just for the "fun" of it, let's see how those against same-sex marriage's predictions matched reality regarding divorce in just Massachusetts.

Let's begin with predictions about the results of gay marriage prior to its acceptance by Massachusetts:

Quote:
if we allow this [ same sex marriage ] to happen we will, in effect, have destabilized the basic institution of our society, which is marriage between a man and a woman

Quote:
"the sexual revolution led to the decoupling of marriage and procreation; same-sex "marriage" would pull them completely apart, leading to an explosive increase in family collapse...

Quote:
Such conduct violates both the criminal and civil laws of this State and is destructive to a basic building block of society -- the family

Quote:
"We must aggressively combat the homosexual effort to destroy the tradition of marriage. This nation is on the precipice of moral devastation

Quote:
any attempt to allow same-sex marriages is a detriment to the family unit and hurts our state and nation

Quote:
"Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It [ same-sex marriage ] will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth

Quote:
Strengthening marriage in the face of widespread cohabitation and the galloping divorce rate needs to be the concern of every citizen. Radically redefining marriage will simply serve to intensify the assault on marriage and the American family

Quote:
just a fraction of a master plan to destroy everything that is good and moral here in America

Quote:
It means losing limited government. It means losing American civilization

Those predictions above, made prior to the May 17, 2004 court decision that made gay marriage legal in Massachusetts, represent the spectrum of dire claims made about the allegedly disastrous impact gay marriage would have on the Bay State, American society, the family, Western Civilization, and the World.

As of 2009, Massachusetts had legal gay marriage for six years. The result?

Quote:
According to the most recent data from the National Center For Vital Statistics, Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940. To get a sense of perspective, consider that the last time the US national divorce rate was 2.0 per thousand people was 1940. So the Massachusetts divorce rate is now at about where the US divorce rate was the year before the United States entered World War Two.

As of 2011,

Quote:
According to provisional data from the Census Bureau, 5 of the 10 states, plus the District of Columbia, with the lowest divorce rates per thousand people (of the 44 states, plus D.C., that had available data) are also among the nine that currently perform or recognize gay marriages.

Maggie Gallagher, "conservative thinker", was active in the push to pass California's anti-gay marriage Proposition 8. She was one of those who made the horrible predictions of what would transpire after gay marriage was legalized. specifically, the one where it would "mean losing American civilization". Given the actual results, she then came up with new "predictions":

Quote:
1. In gay-marriage states, a large minority people committed to traditional notions of marriage will feel afraid to speak up for their views, lest they be punished in some way.

2. Public schools will teach about gay marriage.

3. Parents in public schools who object to gay marriage being taught to their children will be told with increasing public firmness that they don't belong in public schools and their views will not be accomodated [sic] in any way.

4. Religous institutions will face new legal threats (especially soft litigation threats) that will cause some to close, or modify their missions, to avoid clashing with the government's official views of marriage (which will include the view that opponents are akin to racists for failing to see same-sex couples as married).

5. Support for the idea "the ideal for a child is a married mother and father" will decline.

The above from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/divorce-rate-in-gay-marri_b
_267259.html.

In other words, those who hate the idea of gay marriage and made predictions about how it would be some kind of apocalypse, when proven wrong, come up new scary predictions. When those are proven wrong, what will they come up with next? It's a perfect example of how those who are afraid of things will predict horrible consequences for them, yet even when proven wrong, will find OTHER reasons to fear them.

To me, that says something about fear/disgust/prejudice/whatever; that even when they're proven wrong, those who aren't able to accept them find other reasons to predict horrors. It's about close-mindedness, not facts or logic, but about personal feelings.

As an aside, at least half of those making dire predictions on gay marriage were religious leaders. I believe part of what they believe (or at least say) is based on the fact that gay marriage lessens the power of the Church, so it's personally important to them for it to be a bad thing. That's one of the reasons I reject organized religion.

I agree with the idea of making marriage a legal contract giving both parties the same rights; if people want to add a religious ceremony, that's their right, but it should have nothing to do with the legalities, and everyone should have the same right to legal marriage.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It's not like that at all, actually. People who want to speed and people who want to murder are not protected criteria under the law.

But you know this already, being a lawyer.

Yes. I also know that homosexuals are NOT a protected class.

Quote:

I wonder what the practical reason is for excluding homosexual couples from marriage...

Over the years the moral issue has been argued again and again. The practical issue revolves around the State's interest in reproduction. Essentially the State has a recognized interest in maintaining its population.

I've seen other arguments too, but the practical arguments often get lost in the moral arguments or distorted by the false propaganda arguments on both sides.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:12 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Essentially the State has a recognized interest in maintaining its population.

roflmao! Heterosexuals are on the front lines of the War on Extinction! Go heterosexuals, go! And thank you for your service!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Here is where that fails. You can't tell me who I can or cann't marry without bringing up mine or the other person's sex.

It does not fail because the law does not apply to just you. It applies to everyone the same.

Your making a good argument. A man and a woman want to marry a woman. The man is allowed, the woman is not, so there must be discrimination. But the man is also barred from marrying a man who either woman is free to marry and the gay woman is free to marry any other man but the man is not allowed...so the rule is uniformly applied to everyone...it is not discrimination.

The argument is that you are not free to marry the person of your choosing. That is true of everyone...otherwise I'd be moving in with Kelly Monaco (aka Mrs. Hero) right now with my collection of naked Jessica Albas from another Thread.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:23 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Over the years the moral issue has been argued again and again. The practical issue revolves around the State's interest in reproduction. Essentially the State has a recognized interest in maintaining its population.

I've seen other arguments too, but the practical arguments often get lost in the moral arguments or distorted by the false propaganda arguments on both sides.

Please explain to me how allowing gays to marry would effect reproduction and how marriage has any barring on reproduction at all.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:23 AM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The practical issue revolves around the State's interest in reproduction. Essentially the State has a recognized interest in maintaining its population.

Yes, we're in real danger of depopulating, clearly. What's the population of the United States, again? And what's the trend? Downwards? Right. And oh yes, clearly having same-sex marriage be illegal will, somehow, make homosexuals contribute to the overall population growth. Of course.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:24 AM

HKCAVALIER

Hero,

You are killing today! Symmetrical discrimination isn't discrimination! Two wrongs do make a right!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:26 AM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
so the rule is uniformly applied to everyone...it is not discrimination.

So if there was a law that, for example, forbade everyone from owning a housepet that was not a dog, this would not be considered discrimination against those people who disliked dogs and would prefer to own a cat? Since everyone would be equally free to own dogs, this law would be right and proper?

(For the record, I don't like making the comparison between pets and partners, but since my question about how straight people would feel if they were all "equally" allowed to marry someone of the same sex but not the opposite sex is being blown off, I had to come up with another example.)

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
..so the rule is uniformly applied to everyone...it is not discrimination.

A discriminating rule. If you discriminate against everyone equally, there is no discrimination?

If black people are not allowed to use white bathrooms, and whites are not allowed to use black bathrooms, then it is not discrimination?

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:29 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
It does not fail because the law does not apply to just you. It applies to everyone the same.

Your making a good argument. A man and a woman want to marry a woman. The man is allowed, the woman is not, so there must be discrimination. But the man is also barred from marrying a man who either woman is free to marry and the gay woman is free to marry any other man but the man is not allowed...so the rule is uniformly applied to everyone...it is not discrimination.

The argument is that you are not free to marry the person of your choosing. That is true of everyone...otherwise I'd be moving in with Kelly Monaco (aka Mrs. Hero) right now with my collection of naked Jessica Albas from another Thread.

The problem is that nothing in the law is baring you from moving in moving in with Kelly Monaco right now with my collection of naked Jessica Albas so long as they agree to it. The law is not involved.

Now remember you can’t discriminate or have a law that is based on a person’s sex. So tell me why I can't marry another man without mentioning his sex at all and then it will not be discrimination.

It is just as if you said that a person could not hold a certain job because of their sex. That would apply to everyone.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:30 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"The practical issue revolves around the State's interest in reproduction. Essentially the State has a recognized interest in maintaining its population."

Hello,

I am at a loss to explain this logic. Am I to understand that the state is involved in a social program to promote homosexual-heterosexual breeding? That by eliminating gay marriage the state hopes that homosexual men will choose to impregnate heterosexual females, and vice versa?

And what profit to such an odd program, if it exists? Trying to ensure that any genetic material unique to homosexuality is propagated? In the interests of maintaining population size?

Does any part of this argument seem sensible to you? I am surprised you even proposed it.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:32 AM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

I feel like I need to repost this, since apparently more than one person is applying this sort of thinking:

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
So not everyone gets everything they want all the time, and therefore... laws making sure people can't possibly get something they want are okay...? (Specifically, something they want that does absolutely no harm to anyone?) You want to talk about an actual slippery slope, let's talk about what would happen if that sort of thinking were to be applied to every law.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:37 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Over the years the moral issue has been argued again and again. The practical issue revolves around the State's interest in reproduction. Essentially the State has a recognized interest in maintaining its population.

I've seen other arguments too, but the practical arguments often get lost in the moral arguments or distorted by the false propaganda arguments on both sides.

Marriage and law came together because of property issues. It became a way of determining who should inherit - traditionally, the eldest legitimate son. It also determined what would happen to property - which traditionally included children - if that relationship terminated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:54 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Magons: Yup. And Rose: Right on. To me, that one is a non-starter; while it's obvious nobody gets whatever they want, that has nothing to do with the discussion of same-sex marriage. That might be why others are ignoring it. Or not.

I don't understand why Hero keeps making the same flawed argument. It's exactly the same kind of argument as could be used about interracial couples, that everyone, black or white, is prohibited from marrying someone of a different race. It makes just as little sense, too.

The correlation is exact: anyone can marry anyone, as long as they're not of a different race. In my opinion, homosexuality is the same, something you're born with not a choice. Tho' it's not necessarily as visual, it's exactly the same concept. I can marry anyone but someone of the same sex/I can marry anyone but someone of a different race; the same in every way, as I see it. It's so obvious, I don't understand how he doesn't see that, or is it deliberate blndness? Or does he see interracial marriage the same way? It's just weird.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2011 11:32 AM