Jinn

I was with him until this. Of course you don't think its important, you're not being harmed by it. I'm sure that the country had far more serious issues to deal with during the Civil Rights Movement, and I'm sure people said it was a non-issue, or that the problem didn't exist. But I also am willing to wager that those people weren't black.

To a gay person, this could easily be the most important political issue they've ever known. Fundamental civil rights wouldn't be important to you, if they were being infringed on?

It's admittedly easy to ignore the plight of other individuals if we dismiss everything that doesn't directly effect us. And we certainly can't be expected to fight other people's battles. But that doesn't mean we can't recognize that their problem is important and serious to them.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Sultana

Hmm, I read Ustwo's comment as meaning that this is really a non-issue, so in effect let it go and focus on more "issue-full" things.

__________________
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath.
At night, the ice weasels come." -

Matt Groening

My goal? To fulfill my potential.

ratbastid

Or so it would seem, if NCB's statements about it were true. But they're not. If you read the whole thread, what he implied about it has been completely ripped apart. That document was made for gay young adults. They weren't "given to MA schoolchildren". There's no support whatsoever for NCB's statement that they were "complete with homosexual bar pick up joints".

roachboy

there are so many aspects of this thread that i find baffling it is hard to know where to start.


among the positions outlined in opposition to the nj decision, infiniteloser's is maybe the best summary one--but it seems based entirely on a notion that the american legal system is static--so that if at one point socially or politically marginal groups were not taken into account in the formulation of law, that's the end of the matter. and if the american legal system were static--or closer to static---were it, say, a civil law tradition and not a common law tradition--he'd in principle be right (though in practice he wouldnt be because even in civil law traditions, judges (though officially functionaries charged with the rigid application of the law) have considerable interpretive latitude in applying it).

but the american system is set up to be adaptable to changing political situations, and one way that change is brought about is through the mobilization of social groups, the elaboration of arguments and/or claims, the dissemination of those arguments/claims, debates about them, actions geared around that debate--the context within which law operates is historical, that is it shifts, like it or not--and so categorizations that were at one point reflective of a particular historical situation change--not in lock step, usually at a lag, but nonetheless--and so at this point any claim concerning the legal marginality of the gay population is effectively moot and has been for quite a number of years--so in essence the entire logic of infinite loser's positions is outmoded, invalidated by changing circumstances.

the claims that he has made concerning "mainstream culture" dont really mean much of anything, frankly. there are people who agree with his position--most of whom are on the right politically--and there are many who do not. there is no single phenomenon called "mainstream culture"--there are multiple discourses, multiple groups--always has been---and there are political claims generated by particular groups that they represent the interests of a segment of the population much larger than they are themselves--this is what we call political argument. and for a time these claims might hold----but over time their hold tends to dissolve...witness what is happening to the american right at the moment. the social-historical--the world--"reality"--changes. you might not like that, infiniteloser, but you cannot stop it--you can try to influence it, as can anyone else--but it's ridiculous to attempt to use some transcendent logical framework to try to "disprove" change.

in the initial post you made to this thread, il, you grouped homosexuality incest and bestiality together and for a while tried to argue that there was some logical consistency between them---well any such consistency is a function of the higher-order category you use to group them, and that means then that such logic as there is is circular--you advance three distinct categories as if there is a family resemblance between them--well the only resemblance between them is the notion of "sin" that circulates in conservative churches prompted in significant measure these days by far right political groups like the christian coalition which produces videos that anyone can watch that make essentially the argument you are making. typically, these videos try to evade the logical problems that you walk straight into by recourse to articles of faith, which for believers function like natural law. and perhaps or the demographic that finds these crackpot videos compelling, it is natural law--but that erases the simple fact of the matter, which is that the version of christianity endorsed by the american far right is particular to itself, and no matter how much the protestant far right hates this fact, they speak to and for themselves and no-one else.

your arguments are embedded in such a context, presuppose such a context--and you seem unable to see that.

so you call for referenda, assuming (with a kind of political motivation particular to the american far right) that the judiciary is somehow dominated by folk who do not share the assumptions of your fictional "mainstream culture" which really means the culture you imagine to exist out there made up of folk who share your assumptions. you call for referenda because you assume this imagined community would react as you do to changes in the purview of marriage as a legal institution.

i agree that referenda would be good, but i also think that your position would loose in many areas of the country, and i would personally appplaud each and every loss.


=======
as for the amazing display of ( empty ) that ncb has spattered across this thread, i dont really feel any particular need to say much...to do so would be to take it seriously--and i see no reason to take it seriously--so i am going to take my dog for a walk instead.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

filtherton

NCB, i think that this is right up your alley.


Because apparently you can't teach someone about something without encouraging them to do it.

NCB

Wrong. The article does indeed state that the material was on full display and open for consumption to middle grades students who were also attending the fair. Also, I posted the accompanying homosexual bars section on page 2.

__________________

highthief

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

ratbastid

Please READ what I wrote. "On display" is different from what you claimed. You claimed it was "given out". But look on the bright side! You now have the opportunity to pull a GWB and claim you never said "given out".

You also still haven't acknowledged that it wasn't meant for middle schoolers and wasn't the product of some liberal "convert our children to gay" initiative, as you claimed it was. It was designed for young adults. Please, I dare you: make some argument about how this sort of information wouldn't be damn good for gay young adults to have. It was accidentally, briefly, included in a table of materials on display at an event where there were some middle schoolers.

Unless you can prove to me that a middle schooler took it (and there's "no evidence" that such a thing happened), then this is a non-issue. Except, of course, inasmuch as it points to your desperation to find anything to discredit the gay rights movement. (Where I come from, such rabid homophobia generally is understood to be the result of very deep repression of homosexuality. Just FYI. )

I missed that the first time. My bad. But again: in the context of a handout for young adults, I don't see the problem.

FoolThemAll

Uh huh. And KKK members must be secretly black.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Willravel

Edit: To address your comparison better...I'll bet you that most if not all members of the KKK suffer from depression, low self esteem, and some serious social disfunction. The racism and anti-social behavior is symptomatic of deep seeded problems that would take years to shrink, but they are seeded in problems none the less.


Homophobic male heterosexuals showed more arousal to homosexual images than did nonhomophobic heterosexuals.

Adams, H. E., L. W. Wright Jr. and B. A. Lohr, 1996. Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Journal of Abnormal Psychology 105(3): 440-445.

FoolThemAll

If your point is that repressed homosexuality is a possible explanation for homophobia, I agree. But I'm sick of people treating this generalization as though it were an absolute rule. Secret self-loathing is just one possible source.

And even if it were an absolute rule, it wouldn't have any bearing on the quality (or lack thereof) of their arguments. At best, it's useless and antagonistic. At worst, it starts resembling the bigotry of the person it's thrown at. E.g.: Ooh, you just implied not so subtly that he's gay. Nice slam.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

ratbastid

It was a joke. I grant that it was in poor taste. But do note the emoticon. Let's not turn a throwaway one-liner into a threadjack, okay?

NCB

Look, what some homosexual does in the bedroom is their biz. Marriage, however, is asking for federal benefits. The idea behind these benefits is the advancement of a stable family situation. While this is certainly no guarantee in a normal relationship, it's a possibility. A homosexual relationship can not reproduce, ever. It is not naturally intended that they do so. You are asking the federal government to basically fork over dollars for a sexual proclivity. Homosexuals are not a race. It's like declaring special rights to S&M practitioners. Shack up, cool. As others have said, however, tax dollars should not go to fund a non-productive sexual orientation.

__________________

pig

Reproduction is not the purpose behind a stable family relationship. Given that the population of our little blue ball is exploding in an exponentious relationship (see Gromlich Effect, Matt Lauer for more information) - I'd rather think that stable relationships that can't make babies might be a preferential situation. At least in an increased proportion of said stable relationships, receiving the same treatment under the law that people with polarized genitalia receive. What's the big deal?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Ustwo

Yes it is, its all about reproduction. The population of the western world is NOT exploding, its in fact shrinking unless they allow immigration in great numbers. I always find people not having kids and using this exploding population argument as the best secondary reason in the world, they have the real reason they don't want kids, and then the 'oh the worlds population is exploding' myth to sound good about it.


Gay marriage is something of a farce, but if they want to play house I don’t' really care. They can walk around talking about their wife/husband and if that makes them feel accepted, great. Its such a small issue to deal with, and its not like the government handed me a check when I got married. I got a minor tax credit but if my wife and I both had high paying jobs I'd have had a worse tax situation.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

filtherton

You're wrong. Reproduction isn't a corequisite of marriage, regardless of birth rates.

Sounds like your marriage is something of a farce, if all you're doing is playing house. At least your understanding of the benefits that come with marriage is a farce.


I can't wait to see what kind of contrived excuse you'll pull out once this one is properly exposed.

pig

Ustwo, I'm not entirely following what you're saying here - somehow I get the feeling you posted this in a hurry - but if I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that claims of increasing population are a secondary rationalization for support of lifestyles that do not further reproduction. I feel pretty confident that the world's population, taken in whole, is in fact increasing and will continue to do so, barring disease, war, famine - you know, the four horses and all that. Yep, I know we're being out-fucked by the rest of the world - but gay mariage might very likely result in increased adoption rates. Gay people already are in the "not making babies" region, and I don' t see how not letting them get married is going to significantly make them start magically making babies.

My point is that encouraging reproduction isn't the sole purpose of marriage-related benefits. I am under the impression that many of these benefits are practical in nature - such as making medical decisions, or filing joint tax claims, etc. This has been discussed across the boards, and even in other places, to the extent that I don't see much point in belaboring the point. I think the entire question of equating marital status and the rights therein to the question of encouraging reproduction to be a secondary rationalization. At the end of the day, I agree that this shouldn't be a big deal - I just don't see why that defaults to denying gay people the right to marriage. Particularly if the estimates of fraction of our population is something like 5-10%, who cares?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

NCB

What part of it is factually incorrect?

__________________

snowy

Then should we deny federal benefits to the hundreds of thousands of heterosexual couples who do not have children?

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

filtherton

I imagine what it will boil down to is that you will be asked to provide a rational basis for the latest argument you have offered. You will then ignore these requests for elaboration and simply move on to a different argument.

Infinite_Loser

No, because they still have the ability to reproduce.

Anywho, why don't we make a compromise? Let's legalize gay marriage but grant them only the non-child producing benefits. Seem fair?

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

pig

Aaggghhh!!! I keep getting dragged in

Um, even the sterile one, the ones past menopause, the ones with vasectomies and hysterectomies, and so forth? It's been argued before, I can pretty much promise that you can't find a straightforward manner in which to defend reproduction and syncronicity with the broad band of heterosexual marriages, but I've never been a man to try and stop someone from trying.

And what would those be? If you're going where I think you're going, I think that could set a precedent that heterosexual couples who adopt lose whichever rights you associated with child production too. Because they didn't actually produce any children, and such. This would be a rhetorical position, as those rights would likely be given back in a legal case after the homosexual right to marriage was recognized / granted. Of course, I personally suspect this entire exchange is almost a rhetorical argument at this point. It's pretty much going to happen - its just a matter of time.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Ustwo

Its the whole point of marriage, and how the rules are set up. Its to have a family not a fuckbuddy who lives with you.


I have a kid, and will be having another one in the near future, I'm not playing house, I have a family, you know the thing that keeps society going generation to generation.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

hulk

It is? I thought the point of marriage was to have a union of two people recognised by the relevant state/religion. Let's ban marriages for money, old people, couples who adopt and celebrities who don't want kids!

Seriously, that argument is utterly wrong. It might be what you think marriage should be, but has no basis in reality.

__________________
"'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex."
-- From an IGN game review.

Gilda

That is one of the benefits, I agree. There are families headed by homosexual couples, mostly lesbians with a smaller number of gay males. However these were formed--adoption or artificial insemination--they do already exist. Wouldn't it make sense to promote the stability of these families in the same way we promote stable heterosexual families?

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

analog

It would likely be easier to accept your opinions as being motivated by "the good of the country", as you claim, if you didn't speak with such contempt for them.

With only 1.5-2% of females exclusively homosexual, and 3-4% of males, what precisely is your concern? Your concern is that some of the 2% of women in the entire US population or 4% of the men might want to have their union recognized in a civil process?

So you're saying that your tax dollars are ok to pay for the chance that the other 98% of straight women and 96% of straight men want to marry, but that last 2% and 4% are out of the realm of reasonable? Right now, there are 147.8 million women in the US, and only 62.9 million of them married- that's 42.5% of all women in the US. Using the approximation of 2% of all women to be homosexual, that's a mere 2,956,000 women of the 147.8 million total. Let's assume, since there are no numbers to support it, that your nightmare has reached its peak, and a full 50% of all homosexual women want to get married. This is, of course, way more than the only 42.5% of straight women who are currently married, by percentage. That's 1,478,000 married lesbians, or 739,000 couples.

A same-sex union would, at most, only ever result in the same "tax burden" as a hetero couple with no kids, and not more. To put this into perspective, you're adamently denying equal rights and "your tax dollars" to 739,000 female couples, when 44% of ALL women of childbearing age are childless. This makes your tax argument complete and utter bunk.

Unless, of course, you're looking to deny tax dollars to hetero couples who don't procreate? Or maybe you'd like to take tax aid away from even the single women who aren't making babies?

"Your tax dollars" are going towards schools for all the heteros' spawn, it's going towards healthcare aid for those who (intentionally or not) have children and can't afford them, it goes to subsidize public housing for a lot of them, it goes to subsidizing college educations for children, it goes to publicly available and free family planning centers teaching soon-to-be parents how to cope with the new addition and how to best prepare, among a littany of other things that your tax dollars go to pay for all the hetero spawn.

Oh, and by the way- gay women don't hand in their eggs when they go gay. Plenty of lesbian women are planning on, or have had, children. I'm sure there are many gay male couples who would like to adopt- but the issue of that is another thread by itself, i'm just talking about your very important "taxes only for the procreating" dollars.

So can I get government aid right now, even though i'm not married, because it's possible for me to get married? Specious. Specious and grasping at straws.

See above. Lesbians can easily reproduce- in fact, they can reproduce twice as fast as your precious, "normal", hetero couples can, because they have two women. Gay men can also raise children, and there are more than enough unwanted children to go around to anyone with the income stability to take them. Again, we're arguing over your taxes, leave the "gay couples raising kids" stuff out of this thread.

All heteros have to do is "shack up", and they already get their union recognized by the government- there's no difference. And forget your argument about "it's possible they could reproduce", because it's bunk and malarky, and you know it.

If I get married tomorrow and sign a piece of paper saying I will NEVER have children, I still get all my tax breaks and whatnot, and STILL pay ALL the taxes everyone else who IS having kids pay- so I'm not adding to the tax burden by having kids, but i'm still adding to the pool of taxes everyone else pays anyway.

So basically, even if you're right about same-sex couples not being able to have kids (which you're wrong about), you've caught yourself in a huge fallacy of logic- they pay all the same taxes you do, but aren't using nearly at all the same resources as you. They're helping you out by paying taxes on services they'll NEVER use. So what are you trying to convince us of, exactly? because your reasons don't stand up to even passive scrutiny.

So again, you propose removing all tax aid to those hetero couples who don't have kids? Because there are a lot of them. And again, the "hetero couples having children is a possibility" argument is nonsense.

jorgelito

Why not compromise and have a civil union? Seems like a good idea. Homosexual couples can get all the benefits etc of a marriage and opponents don't have to share the same term (word) with them. This is a practical, pragmatic solution to me. Everyone comes out a winner. As long as you get the same privileges what difference does the name make?

Also, is there an issue with gay adoption or are gays allowed to adopt freely? This seems like a natural "marriage" to me. Letting gay couples adopt, early and often. Way too many positives and very little negatives (as far as I can tell). Kill two birds with one stone.

As a conservative-moderate, I think homosexual unions are a great reinforcement of family values in terms of a familial unit. It's almost "antigay" (the stereotype that is). Stable, presumably well-incomed gay couples have the means and wherewithal to raise a family and make a positive contribution to society AND simultaneously reduce the orphan population (potentially) and help relieve the child social welfare system a bit. The more kids out of foster home and orphanages or as wards of the state, and into loving, stable families the better.

I'm not seeing the negative here, what am I missing?

Ustwo

Because its not about rights for many, its about being accepted as 'normal'.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

roachboy

huh?

it is about a social group being able to avail themselves of the legal protections and advantages of the legal institution of marriage. it is about equal protection.

i was thinking earlier that saying marriage is about reproduction is like saying clouds are about precipitation.
so any cloud that does not issue forth would be a lesser cloud.
it's not wrong that clouds are linked to precipitation, but it is absurd to say that clouds are about that.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Lady Sage

Marriage isnt required to have a family. People have kids out of wedlock all the time and there are single people adopting children these days.

So to some people Pan and I shouldnt get married because the doctor says I cant have kids? We are gonna do it anyway. Marriage is more than "kids".

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open.
It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper
Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

Ustwo

So what, hospitals are set up for treating the sick but some sick people treat themselves at home.

Marriage is about having children. If some people get married and don't have kids, thats fine but it doesn't change the reason for it.

I don't care if gays want to get married in the least if it will shut them up. I personally don't think it will, the next on the agenda will be teaching the gay lifestyle in schools as normal as that is what this is really all about. If it was just rights of a spouse, then everyone would be happy with civil unions and not care if the term 'marriage' was involved.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Lady Sage

I will respectfully agree to disagree with you.

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open.
It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper
Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

Infinite_Loser

One hand one you say that marriage isn't solely about providing a stable environment in which to raise children. That's fine. Yet when I propose the idea of removing all child-rearing benefits from gay marriage, you then have a problem with it because it would leave very few-- If any-- Benefits left untouched. How does that work?

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

hulk

Not all gay marriages are childless. It's simple enough - what part are you having trouble with?

__________________
"'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex."
-- From an IGN game review.

pig

That's one purpose, but its also a way to rebuild a support system which should come closer to providing unconditional love - once your parents are starting to get old enough to die. Two people (or as far as I'm concerned, more) can easily decide to settle down so that they have someone to count on. With no expections of having kids.

I personally favor a civil union....for everyone. For heterosexuals and homosexuals, let the state have a contract which grants a civil union. The happy couple can then go out and find their flavor of church or secular society that can provide an official marriage. No discrimination, no "separate but equal" / implied secondary status, everyone wins. How many heterosexual people would be willing to have a civil union instead of a marriage license?

IL - my point is that regardless of what rights you attach to child production, there are a slew of heterosexual couples who would also have to forfeit these rights. If heterosexual couples who adopt do not lose these rights, then all couples will have these rights because all couples can adopt.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

filtherton

Why are you attempting to redefine marriage? Everyone knows it's about the consolidation of property and political power.

I have a suspicion that you aren't actually in any kind of position to tell anyone what marriage is about. You don't get to tell other people what marriage is about just because you're married.

Being gay is normal, and the "gay lifestyle" is nothing more than a scary story conservatives tell each other to keep each other awake at night.

NCB

If it were so normal, than why is everyone reasearching and looking for a cause? You only look for causes for things that are out of whack, not normal.

And yes, this is one of the big issues: normalizing homosexuality via our public school system. Do you not find it reasonable that if the govt recognizes homosexuality as legitimate as hetherosexuality, then the sex education curriculums must follow?

__________________

ratbastid

This word "everyone"... I do not think it means what you think it means.

I know of some politically-motivated (and religiously-funded) "researchers" who are interested in causes and "cures" regarding homosexuality. I also know of some legit brain scientists who have discovered correlations between brain structures and homosexuality. Not a particularly big slice of "everyone".

The question presupposes a right-wing slippery-slope bogeyman called "liberals want to convert our children to gay".

What's the problem if, in the context of a complete sex-ed curriculum, children are taught a respect for and understanding of non-majority forms of sexual expression? Do you have any idea the amount of grief it would save gay young people to have even one lesson mention that some people are attracted to people of their own gender, and that's okay? I'd rather live in a world where children are taught to be accepting and inclusive.

Charlatan

Clearly the talking points have shifted... now it seems the issue is that homosexuality is going to be taught in school and that it will be rendered, "normal".

To both issues I say, "so?'

It is normal and I could care less if it is discussed in a public school. It's a fact of life that homosexuals exist. Why not discuss and normalize it? Perhaps we can undo some of the damage done by those who feel the opposite is true (and who are clearly wrong).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

NCB

And here lies the rub. Why should the govt be involved in promoting normalcy of homosexuality and why should the public schools trump the values of families who thik homosexuality is a vile and deviant behavior?

__________________