No, you simply assume I have something against homosexuals. I don't. I simply believe that marriage should strictly between a man and a woman. No questions asked. Those are my views.

This is what I was getting at. I'm glad that you acknowledge the fact that you would be in the extreme minority, but the same reason as to why many people would oppose legalizing incest is the exact same reason as to why I oppose legalizing gay marriage.

Incorrect. I'm not sure you know this, but there's a correlation between the two. In the wake of the Lawrence v. Texas decision by the US Supreme Court, striking down laws criminalizing homosexual sodomy as unconstitutional, some have argued that by the same logic laws against consensual adult incest should be unconstitutional.

To be perfectly fair, they're right. By the same reasons one wants to legalize gay marriage, one would legalize incest laws. Anyway, I asked you the question for a specific reason. You have nothing to lose by answering it.

You want to ask me why I don't want gay marriage to be legalized? Well, assuming that you are against incest (I know that some people here are), my reason for being against gay marriage would be similiar to your opposition to incest laws.

If you can't understand that well... I can't tell you anything else.

Sorry but because "some" have made a corelation between homosexulity and incest does not mean there is any realtionship whatsoever.

They are completely seperate issues and I see no reason to compare them.

What's next, you are going to drag pedophilia into this as well? People have suggested there is corelation between homosexuals and peodophilia as well. Again, it just isn't the case.


Your premise is flawed and therefore so is your reasoning.

Views have reasons, either rational or faith-based. "No questions asked" the way you used it, I think, means faith-based, by defintion, because it means that we can't question it, which means you don't have any reason other than you believe it to be truth.

I'm not going to try to persuade you out of it, since you're welcome to have that opinion, but it is analytically impossible for you to say, "I have no problems with gays and I'm happy for them to do whatever they want...but they can't get married." No problems means just that, no problems. What you're saying is, "I'm generally ok co-existing with homosexuality, but simply because it is two members of the same sex, they have not earned the priviledge/right to get married and gain the associated benefit." If marriage is a priviledge, then you're saying that two straight people have earned it and have something that two gay people don't or have done something that two gay people haven't done. If marriage is a right, then they are second class citizens who are not entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Either way, by virtue of their status as gays, you've devalued their status, which means you have a problem with it.

I am merely pointing out that the reason in which neither is legalized is exactly the same, and that is because people just don't like them. Both acts can occur between two consenting adults, but that doesn't mean that we instantly have to accept them or even legalize them. I'm fairly sure (By your refusal to answer the question) that you are indeed against incest and would favor to keep a ban on it. One of the reasons you would be against the legalization of incest is because you would deem it "Wrong" (Not a very good reason for banning something, but a reason nonetheless).

That is exactly how I feel about gay marriage. It's wrong and that's all there is to it.

(The key point is that the act occurs between two consenting adults, not an adult and a minor.)

No, the reasons I oppose gay marriage aren't religion based. It mearly means that I've explained my reasons as to why I oppose gay marriage. You don't have to agree with them, but they are reasons nevertheless.

Arguing about banning something with someone who admits that his premise is

makes me want to cry. Can I please have all of those keystrokes back?

And I said faith based, as in you have faith in the veracity of your assertion without reasons to back it up. You think it is wrong because you think it is wrong. You have faith in the fact that gay marriage is wrong. Faith=/=religion.

Insest law do not exist simply because people find it icky or are bigoted against families.

Incest laws exist because most incest is between adults and children (i.e. a situation where authority and power are used to create a "consenting" situation), furthermore, the offsping of such a union are more than likely to have grave genetic deformities.

Neither of these reasons have anything to do with same sex marriage.


Again, I suggest that your belief that same sex marriage is "wrong and that's all there is to it" has more to do with your deep seated bigotry than anything else.

Read the whole sentence...

My mistake. By faith I assumed you meant religion.

1.) Did you miss the sentence which said "Between consenting adults"?

2.) You've completely ignored the point I was trying to make. The way you call me bigoted because I don't agree with gay marriage, I could call you bigoted for not agreeing with incest between consenting adults. Remember, following your logic, what two adults want to do is their business.

Again, I know you're wrong. But if you wish to believe that then, by all means, continue.

It's axiomatic. There is no process. It's no different than if someone were to try to explain to me why interracial marriage is wrong. I might listen to their argument, but my first assumption would be "this person is a bigot". Whether you think that is justified doesn't matter at all to me.

Intellectual caution is one thing. Throwing out random, flailing, "oh yeah, but what about pedophiles" type arguements is intellectual dishonesty. See most of post #84

True, though in my opinion it most often does in the context of the homosexuality debate. Frankly i don't see why you care so much.

Well, apparently just being "mistaken" is okay even if your mistake comes in the form of support for systematic discrimination.


Actually, that's not what i said.

Yeah, why not? I don't care. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business. Why do you think that it's yours?


I called your perspective flawed because it is. If it wasn't you wouldn't need to try to make this discussion one about correcting all social inequalities as opposed to the specific one mentioned in this thread.

What, things like sodomy or fornication? Okay, so give me a good reason why we shouldn't legalize the other "less-favorable" activities.

Okay, so marriage is out. Good to know.

Demanding consistency on the arguement provided as the basis for the wholesale denigration of homosexuals is not irrelevant.

Even with your newly minted definition of natural, you still presume to know the original function or purpose of things that occur completely through chance. You know what fingers are for? Certainly not for typing on a keyboard. You know what ears are for? Certainly not listening to headphones. Neither headphones nor keyboards existed when fingers and ears evolved. By your definition anything that isn't strictly biologically necessary for survival and reproduction is unnatural in the same sense that homosexuality is unnatural. Which is a completely meaningless distinction on which to base social policy.


I never backed off. Homosexual behavior is natural. The fact that two male chimpanzees don't have anal sex doesn't mean that homosexuality in nature doesn't exist.

In your book dancing is unnatural because it doesn't fall under the umbrella of original intent.

Both.

You assert that my analysis is theoretical and that this is how it actually is in the real world - but all I'm seeing is more theory. Theory which my own experience fails to confirm. It's quite possible - scratch that, I've seen your theory come true in real life. But I've also seen behavior consistent with my own alternate theory. And sure, they could just be hiding their bigotry, but the same goes for every human being on the planet.

It's irresponsible to assume bigotry without evidence that rules out the alternatives. People deserve the benefit of the doubt.

I don't see much point in posting an assertion in a discussion board that you aren't interested in discussing.

It's not axiomatic. Your personal experience does not equal the world.

Eh, not everyone took a class in logic. Not everyone realizes that the slippery slope is always a fallacy (whether it's false or irrelevant). What's random and flailing to you could look convincing to someone less experienced in debate.

You don't see why I care so much about unsubstantiated blanket accusations? Must be because you're a liberal. You see, 99.99999999% of liberals don't care about the truth. At least not the ones I've met.

I don't recall making the argument that opposition to gay marriage is okay. Let me clarify: it's wrong.

But it's a strange kind of bigotry, the kind which doesn't actually treat those who differ with any less respect, which doesn't lend itself to any feelings of superiority or preachiness. Which may not even favor any difference in legal rights. (See: civil unions.)

I guess I have less respect for your mistake because it's been my experience that your mistake is more of a roadblock to civility/friendship than their alleged yet invisible bigotry.

I've actually discussed it quite extensively.

Actually, for me it is axiomatic. If someone tells me that gay marriage is wrong then i assume that they are a bigot. If we get to talking and it turns out that they were just using flawed logic, well, they aren't a bigot anymore. That doesn't mean my basic assumption was wrong. It just means that they got talked out of being a bigot.

Then it should all come out in the wash. In my experience it really never does, but i concede that it might happen.

Most of them hate america too.

Give me some credit for giving you some credit; i never seriously thought you did.

Okay, i'll concede this point. People who believe faulty logic, yet don't actually do anything that is implied by their belief in that faulty logic aren't actually bigots. They have the potential to be bigots, but being a bigot requires activity beyond just believing something.

It may not appear so on the tfp, but i'm a pretty civil person when it comes to face to face time if i feel like the civility is reciprocal. Just because i think someone is ridiculously mistaken doesn't mean i treat them like a piece of shit.

Marriage is a civil right in the United States. This is a fact, and to deny it is to deny reality.

Loving v. Virginia establishes marriage as a constitutionally protected civil right under the 14th amendment.

Incest, either between a brother and sister, parent and child, or uncle/aunt and neice/nephew increases the chance that offspring produced will have reinforced harmful recessive genes. Long term inbreeding likewise increases the chance of offspring having recessive genetic diseases.

Homosexuality, however, has a zero chance of producing offspring with genetic diseases.

Also, your example isn't really parallel. If you're going to go down that slippery slope, we're already on it. Most incestuous relationships are between a male and a female--it's more closely related to heterosexuality than it is homosexuality.

Strange. You made an absolute statment, which was easy to refute, then react as if you didn't mean it as absolute, then repeat the same absolute statement. You can't have it both ways. The fact that there have been recent changes in Belgium, The Netherlands, Spain, and Canada on gay marriage refutes on its face the claim that it "has always been" between a man and a woman. It also refutes the statement "For as long as anyone can remember". I remember the last couple of years when several countries amended their laws to extend civil marriage to same-sex couples. I'm sure the people in those countries remember that as well.

It isn't necessary for me to name an ancient culture to disprove these statements. You're making an absolute claim, that it has always been this way, and then setting as your criterion for disputing that claim one small part of it. It doesn't work that way.

I understand why you phrase it the way you do. It has more power that way, and if true, carries more weight. It's a dangerous tactic because it makes it easier to disprove, which I have done.

Oh, and your last sentence is misleading. People haven't just "tried to challenge that" it has been successfully challenged and changed.

"A man and a woman" hasn't always been the norm. For much of recorded history, polygyny has been an accepted form of group marriage, both in Western and Eastern cultures.

Finally, in ancient Greece and ancient Rome, to name two, male homosexuality was both commonplace and accepted, especially among the upper classes.

Marriage is a form of social structure.

:confused:

How can dressing and occupying the social role of the opposite sex even to the point of forming a premanent pair bond with someone of the same physical sex not be related to sexuality?

Well, first, homosexuality isn't the same thing as homosexual sex. I'm gay because I'm attracted to women and not to men. That attraction preexisted any homosexual contact I ever had with a woman. I share a household with, sleep with, have an intimate social and spiritual bond with, and will in the foreseeable future be raising a child with as coparents, another woman.

Many male homosexuals identify as gay and exhibit feminine characterstics from early childhood, four or five, long before becoming sexually active.

Heterosexuals aren't heterosexual solely when having sex. Heterosexual behavior isn't limited solely to intercourse. The same is true of homosexuality and homosexual sex.

You're using the same tactic here, making a broad claim--homosexuality is unnatural--and asking for proof that one specific part of that claim is untrue to refute it. It simply doesn't work that way.

By the way, I've seen a male dog hump another male dog. Male mammals when stimulated will try to fuck just about anything available, including other males of the same or even different species.

Also, what, precisely, is "homosexual intercourse"? I can't think of any sexual activity engaged in by homosexuals that is not also engaged in by heterosexuals. This isn't to say that there aren't I just can't think of any. Is it unnatural only when homosexuals do it, or is also unnatural when heterosexuals do it?

I don't dispute this. Since homosexual sex cannot result in reproduction, "social interaction and to relieve stress", along with "it's a lot of fun" is a pretty good way to describe human homosexual sex. For intimate couples, it can be a form of emotional and spiritual bonding, too, but that's hardly a homosexual characteristic.

Gilda

You can argue this for all you want, but being married is a privilege-- One which isn't given to any persons. This is evidenced by the fact that, in many cases, the Supreme Court has refused to make any direct ruling on the issue and, for the most part, has left it up to the states to decide from themselves whether or not they want to extend those privleges to another group of people.

Even though this is purely hypothetical, assuming that two people incapable of having children wanted to engage in incest, what would your logic behind denying them that "Right" be?

While it is true that incest causes an increase in recessive traits, it has very little to do why most incest is outlawed in most cultures. Incest has been frowned upon and, in many cultures, outlawed for far longer than humans have known about recessive and dominant traits, only for the simple reason that it has alway been considered to be taboo. Taboo, in our culture, equals a gigantic "No no".

Your reasons as to why incest are wrong, just like many other people, are only a facade to cover up the "I think it's wrong and it shouldn't be legalized!" aspect of it. Similiarly, my reason as to opposing gay marriage is "I think it's wrong and shouldn't be legalized!". Therefore, what's the difference between my stance on gay marriage and your stance on incest?

In fact, aren't you guilty of doing the same thing in which people have accused me of? Your refusal to grant another group of the people the same rights in which you are advocating for would make you a bigot (At least, it would be some people's definition of the word).

That isn't the point at all. The point is that both are outlawed mainly because culture, as a whole, has seen both activities are taboo. You could try to make cases on keeping incest outlawed on the basis of bilogical reasons but, then again, I could make an argument to keep gay marriage outlawed on the basis of social structure.

This still isn't the point. Read what I typed out before this.

Apparently, you missed something. Let me go back to the first page in this discussion to quote myself (Pay attention to the part in bold).

That was my original statement. Somewhere along the line you started to play semantics (That is you started to debate the meaning of words instead of the actual post), and took what I said completely out of context, if only to benefit yourself. I'm not exactly sure why everyone else knew I was referencing ancient cultures (Someone even responded as such) while you wanted to throw out recent examples :confused:

Read the post in where I quoted myself. That was my original claim. Nowhere did I make an absolute claim. As stated prior, you took what I originally said and started to play semantics, ending up where we are now.

*Points above*

Erm... Once again, you're playing semantics. People have just recently tried to challenge the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman. And while, in some countries, they might have won that right, in others they've taken gigantic hits (That last sentence really wasn't relevant, but since you decided to throw in your $.02, I felt that I would do the same).

Are you not reading any of my posts? I already acknowledged the fact (Somewhere on the first page) that sometimes marriage occurs between multiple spouses. I have no problems with that (My grandfather in Nigeria has two wives, after all), as I deem marriage to be between a man and a woman. I have no problems with heterosexual marriage. Gay marriages, however, I do have a problem with.

Hence my original statement of "I could be wrong".

But I have a question for you: Was homosexuality commonplace, or was gay marriage an accepted practice? Don't mix up the two concepts. In the United States homosexuality is an accepted practice, but we don't legalize gay marriages.

Because it's not. It has nothing to do with sexuality. It's main focus was social structure, in which either men took on the roles of women or women took on the roles of men. Not surprising enough, was the fact that these people played integral parts in the social structure of their native tribes.

I never said it was. Once again, you're taking one of my earlier quotes out of context. The homosexual tendencies which manifest themselves in nature either stem from procreation or social structure (And, even then, it is very limited). In humans, neither of the two is true (Though, I'm sure that you would like to convince yourself that the second is true).

I could sit here and explain to you the institution of marriage and it's social implications, but you would more than likely try to challenge that, as well.

That wasn't exactly my claim. To quote myself, yet again:

I'm not going to get into this too much, but the top two reasons why dogs will try to hump other males or even people usually boils down to one of two things:

1.) Hormonal imbalances and

2.) The exertion of dominance over another organism.

Find me where I stated anything about making a distinction between homosexual or heterosexual intercourse.

Yes, you could say any of that, but then you'd just be grasping for straws. I'm not going to get into antrhopology too much, but even if you would like to think differently, homosexuality plays much different roles in nature than it does with humans.

Peolpe don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. People are selfish and stupid and listen to what they're told. They're easily misled and manipulated by people with agendas looking to reinforce their own power and wealth. I concede that perhaps they're not "at fault" for being bigots, since they've just accepted whatever they've been told, but that doesn't exonerate them.

All it means to be a bigot is that you're strongly partial to your own group and intolerant of those who differ. I consider being in favor of depriving people of fundamental rights intolerant. If they're reasonable, and after a discussion have ideas that make sense for why gay marriage is a bad thing-other than because it's "wrong"-then live and let live. That's not a bigot, that's a difference of opinion.

If all you've got for me is, "Gays can't be married because they're gay and that's wrong" then I have no problem labeling you a bigot and giving you no benefit of the doubt. That's not even a reason. It's some sort of aborted circular logic whose fundamental premise is hatred of another person simply for being who they are. Discrimination against gays isn't any different than racism or sexism and should be treated with the same degree of scorn. Stop making excuses for people who can't get beyond such insignificant differences.

Infinite, my only response, which I've already said once, is you'd have a solid argument for the sanctity of marriage being violated by letting gays get married if 1) marriage was still in any way sacred and 2) if marriage had no associated legal consequences. The decline of marriage as a sacred institution (you can get married without going to a church, didn't you know?) and the heaping loads of divorces people get (I've served drinks at a marriage where it was the woman's 5th and the man's 4th) have totally destroyed any concept of the first. And you're blind if you can't see the enormous LEGAL-not spiritual-impact that getting married has on both people. There's a reason divorce lawyers make so much money and that's because it's a shitstorm when people have to extricate themselves from the tangle of legal responsibilities they created when they got married.

Marriage doesn't (and never really did) mean only the union of male and female before god. All you have is your gut telling you that it's "wrong," a premise that you have recongized as a weak position from which to argue. I don't understand why your (and others') belief that it is wrong is reason enough to prevent gay marriage when them getting married has no impact on your life.

Calling anyone who disagrees with gay marriage a bigot, therefore trying to discredit their argument, is nothing more than ad hominem at it's worse. Simply because you don't agree with my reasoning as to why I feel gay marriage is wrong, doesn't mean I'm a bigot nor does it mean that I'm wrong in my assertion nor does it mean that any of my reasonings are false. I find it funny that you accuse others of circular logic, when you're the one using it. It seems as if your stance is that "Anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is a bigot. The fact that Infinite is against gay marriage prooves that he is a bigot." If that's not circular logic, then I don't know what is.

Furthermore, who are you tell me that my reasoning for opposing gay marriage stems from the hatred of another person (A false statement, another logical fallacy)? Did it ever occur to you that maybe I'm arguing from the standpoint of keeping marriage between a male and a female, rather than simply assuming I hate all gays? Or is it simply easier to label us as you choose, making it easier for you to argue your position?

Regarding point number one, whether you agree or not, marriage is still sacred in our society. You say marriage isn't sacred, then I ask you why is there an enormous social structure built around it? While you might not think so, marriages are a big deal. If they weren't, then so much planning wouldn't go into them. To see this as true, the only thing in which you need to do is to look around you. Why would people waste so much time on something which wasn't considered sacred? The fact is, that they wouldn't.

Concerning your second point, the legal benefits of marriage were instituted as a way to encourage people to marry. If you would remember, marriage has been the basis of social structure moreso than anything else. This makes me wonder, though... Are homosexuals trying to be married on the basis on "Love" or on the basis of "Reaping the legal benefits of marriage"? If it's the first option, then marriage shouldn't be an issue. If it's the second option, then that would undercut the entire premise of gay marriage (It seems that many people who favor gay marriage love to use the phrase, "If two people love one another, why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?").

I saw you mention it, so I thought I would address it. The only thing a high divorce rate proves is that the concept of "Love" isn't as strong a reason for marriage as one might think (Ironically enough, arranged marriages have much lower divorce rates than marriages based on love, but that's another topic for another day).

My reasoning is as circular as saying 4 is 2+2 because 2+2 is 4. If you really had no problems (as in zero, none at all) with gays, you would have no problems with gay marriage, because they would be no more different than people with brown hair and people with red hair. You do have problems with gay marriage, so I can conclude you have some (even if it is small and very specific) problems with gays. I don't see how that's circular.

I consider the existance of divorce to be dispositive of the sanctity of marriage. I consider the ability to get married by the state and not by a church to be dispositive of the sanctity of marriage. I consider the fact that people cheat on their spouses to be dispositive of the sanctity of marriage. If something is truly sacred, it doesn't have exceptions. Marriage has lots of them. That doesn't mean it's not still a big deal and reason for many people to put lots of effort into getting married, nor does it mean that some couples conduct themselves in a way that upholds the sanctity of marriage. That doesn't change the fact that the institution, as a whole, is no longer sacred.

As I'm sure you're well aware, divorce rates are meaningless. If divorce exists, marriage isn't sacred. Remember the "Til death do us part" section? That "sacred" oath before god is violated every time someone gets a divorce. Funny how that works.

Of course no one can argue with a factual statement (Such as 2 + 2 = 4), as it's easy to prove it's validity. That's not circular logic, as we can prove the statement to be true without it needing to rely on itself to support its central premise. Your statement, however, most certainly does rely on itself to support it's central premise. You have no reason to call me a bigot other than the fact that I don't agree with gay marriage and, in your mind, the fact that I don't agree with gay marriage instantly makes me a bigot. If you don't see what's wrong with your assertion, then it's useless trying to point it out.

I oppose gay marriage, but that doesn't mean I have something against gays. To say as much is nothing more than a baseless generalization of all people who oppose gay marriage.

I thought religion was supposed to be discluded from this subject? Whether people are married in a church or not is irrelevant, as the whole world isn't Christian. Simply because a marriage doesn't occur in a church, doesn't mean that it's not sacred. I hate to burst your bubble, but very few of my ancestors were ever married in a church (As Christianity hadn't yet reached them)-- That doesn't make their marriage ceremony any less sacred than those who were married in a church. Anyway, if marriage weren't a sacred institution, then you wouldn't need a liscense to be able to perform them; You could pick someone off of the street, have them perform a marriage ceremony and then have the marriage be recognized by the government.

Anyway, you state that the existance of divorce proves that marriage is no longer sacred? If that is the stance you take, then marriage would have never been sacred. For as long as marriage has existed, there has always been a way to divorce your spouse and/or annul the marriage (At least, this is the case in the majority of cultures). Simply because all marriages don't work out, doesn't mean marriage isn't sacred. If that were the case, then very few things-- If any-- Would ever be considered sacred. We measure whether something is sacred or not by social attitude, not by the success/fail rate of the act itself.

Anyway, I really would like my question from earlier answered, as I am wondering what the answer is:

Whether or not a marriage is 'sacred' or not is irrelevant.

One of the original purposes of marriage was to join a woman to a man. Her ownership was transfered from the father to the groom. She little more than chattle (often bought and paid for with a dowry).

There is little "sacred" about this.

There are other reasons and traditions but in the end but what does it really matter in this day and age? Sacred is as sacred does? Who are you to judge and say that the committment between one couple (let's call them Grace and Gilda) is more meaningful than another?

If there is anything sacred in a marriage it is that "love and committment".

I don't care if you are married by an Elvis impersonator or in a Cathedral... nothing else matters except that two people are committing to oneanother.

The rest is just window dressing.


Once you have that out of the way, the reason for a marriage in this day and age is (essentially) a contract (see the post way back near the start where there was a tally of benefits granted to a married couple).

If you have no problems with gays in general, you should have no problems with gay marriage. Again, you have yet to provide any reason other than that you think it is "wrong"... and that's just not enough to deny someone's rights.

A couple of quick things:

1. infinite: i think you are mistaken in your claim of circular logic. I believe that form is a syllogism. It reads to me like: A person who opposes gay marriage is a bigot. Infinite opposes gay marriage. Therefore, Infinite is a bigot." I believe circular would look more like "A person who opposes gay marriage is a bigot. The fact that Infinite opposes gay marriage and is a bigot proves this." You may dispute that a person who opposes gay marriage is automatically a bigot, but that doesn't make the argument circular. You disagree with one of the axioms...I believe it was filterton's?

2. It really doesn't matter what the basis of a person's motivation to get married, when it comes to addressing the legality of the practice. They could be marrying because they both love the idea of slaughtering panda bears with dull scissors. The question is simply whether or not two people of the same sex can enter into a state-sanctioned marriage contract, with all the rights that are implied, in the same way with the same facility that two people of opposite sex can.

I was thinking earlier today that the very issue you seem to be dancing around might be the precise one that the op asked to be addressed. You have said that you oppose gay marriage, and (those are [your] views). You have given some reasons you feel that gay marriage should / could rationally be opposed. It seems to me that many of these have been discredited, but perhaps you do not feel so. Regardless, I think that the issue behind the (these are [your] views) might be more interesting to the op, and the topic. I can promise you that the question of gay marriage has been addressed ad nauseum on these boards. At the very most root, visceral level: why do you oppose gay marriage? Just because you view it as icky and not natural?

I hope I don't sound offensive, I don't really care to argue with you. I just don't clearly understand your reasons for your views.

Different people have different reasons; there isn't one entire premise for gay marriage. Just as there isn't just one reason offered as justification for opposing gay marriage.

Anyway, i was wondering about your definition of unnatural. You said that it meant "a deviance from the original function or purpose." As you must know, humans now do a whole lot of things that we didn't do when our species originally came into existence. By your definition the vast majority of human activity is just as unnatural as homosexuality. If that is indeed the case, how can you use the concept of "unnatural" as a means to justify much of anything? How can you even presume to be able to judge original function or purpose? If you place such a high priority on original function or purpose, whatever that may mean, how can you support any kind of human progress in any sense?

I don't think it's that productive or even reasonable to place a high priority on conformity to "original function or purpose" because in doing so you would necessarily deny the value of most any kind of evolutionary adaptations and adaptation in general.

I can understand people opposing gay marriage because they don't like homosexuality. I don't agree with them, and I don't think their dislike is reason enough to deny a segment of the population equal rights, but I can at least understand it.

I can understand people who oppose it on religious grounds. Their beliefs are not my own, and the government could recognize gay marriages without forcing churches to marry them, but I can at least see where they're coming from.

But to oppose it because of semantics, because you'd have to buy a new dictionary? To have no moral or religious opposition, but to oppose it because you'd have to change the wording in Webster's from "man and woman" to "two persons"? I don't get that at all.

Yes, you have. But "Whether you think that is justified doesn't matter at all to me" would seem to suggest a shift. I could've misinterpreted it.

You can define bigotry that broadly if you want, but you're left with a bigotry that is not necessarily malevolent and not necessarily dishonest. In fact, the only negative characteristic I could definitively assign to this bigotry is ignorance.

I don't find much value to this use of the word, but to each his own.

The wash needs to be a clean wash. If you're labeling the washee a bigot from the onset, or if you don't do a very good job of refuting the arguments, or if you're antagonistic in some other way, it's like doing the wash with dirty water. I've seen this happen too many times. People aren't perfectly neutral, and bad or inflammatory arguments can poison them against a position that they might otherwise carefully consider.

And they kick puppies.

To me, an essential ingredient of bigotry is disrespect, and I just don't see that in many of my friends/family who are opposed to same-sex marriage.

(To be clear, I do see it in some of them, including a member of my immediate family. I'm not trying to pretend that it's all honest and respectful disagreement.)

Yeah, I could've been clearer here. I wouldn't know how you treat the opposition, beyond the little you've said in this thread, and I didn't mean to imply that you treat them like shit. When I say that your mistake is more of a roadblock to civility than their mistake, I'm talking about the mistake of telling them they're bigots (when, imo, they're not). I see that as a bigger source of unfriendly situations than the mere declaration of opposition to same-sex marriage.

Of course, when one actually shows bigoted behavior (by my standards), then that's obviously the bigger problem by a few miles.

This is where we differ. I think bigotry applies to anyone who would knowingly or unknowingly seek or passively support efforts to deny civil rights or even basic respect to a certain subset of people based on arbitrary, selective, or faulty logic.

Let me be clear, though; i don't think bigots are automatically bad people. I know plenty of people whom i consider to be bigots, at least in some respect, that are actually great people(aside from the whole bigot thing). I think that it is also axiomatic that bigots are misinformed individuals. To me it makes no difference(in terms of the application of the term bigot) whether that misinformation is acted on or not.

I'm late to the party here and most of my views (supporting gay marriage) have already been stated here, so I'll simply say this:

It's awfully easy to dismiss someone else's desire to have something when you already have it.

Does anyone remember the gay penguins? This is one of many available articles about Wendell and Cass. Not to anthropomorphize these guys too much, but there are gay animals.

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentw...-06-10/591.asp

It's been said, but c'mon...no homosexuality in nature? That's almost as bad as "There's no war in nature." I've personally seen gay birds, dogs, primates, and dolphins, and heard about more species such as the penguins above. And I'm sure there's some gay animals in nearly every species. And as far as our culture goes there have been plenty of times and places were homosexuality was not only accepted, but expected of you. Spartans anyone? They actually cherished the relationship between two men more than a heterosexual one. Hijras (usually castrated males) from India also practice prostitution/homosexuality sometimes even marrying a man and being treated like a wife would. Hijras have been around since about 1000 BC...i think, either way for a very long time though (and spartans in that similar time as well, Im going off memory though).

I'm stating a fact. Marriage is a civil right in the United States. Loving v. Virginia. It has not been overturned since.

I'm astounded. Really, truly astounded. You asked a question, and I answered. You then ignore my answer, make one up I manifestly did not give, argue against it, and call me a bigot for holding that position, a position which I did not take.

Well, that would be different then, wouldn't it?

Semantics matter, esepcially in a debate regarding what a "marriage" is and should be.

The bolded part is an absolute statement. It has two smaller absolute statments in it.

I see you recognize it as a right. I accept your concession.

Cool. So if Grace and I go out and find a man to marry, you'd be fine with the marriage? Hmmmm. There are a few gay male couples at church. We could marry one of those couples, the husbands would have their room, the wives thiers, and it's all kosher. A capital idea!

Ohh, and built in sperm donors for our children, and a surrogate for theirs! This idea just gets better and better.

Homosexuality isn't a practice, it's a condition.

Who's playing semantics now? By the way, I have no objection to semantic arguments. You ought to see a thread on my comic book website where I argue that a costume, a uniform, and an outfit are not all the same thing and shouldn't be used interchangably. My dear lord you cannot believe how some people would stretch logic to the breaking point to try to justify their unjustifiable position. A uniform by definition has to be designed as part of a set of similar garments, otherwise it isn't uniform. I just cannot see why such a simple concept is beyond some people.

Back on topic.

If a man dresses as a woman, takes on the social role of a woman, and forms a permanent mating pair with another male, I cannot see how that's not either transsexuality or homosexuality. If you accept that as a social sex change, it's transsexual, or at least bi-gender (like Ty Greenstein, my god s/he's hot), and if not, then you have a male/male pairing that is not only accepted but often celebrated, and in dozens of different cultures across pre-Colombian North America.

So there we have it, homosexuality in nature.

Maybe, maybe not. I am married by the way, just not civilly married, and I would prefer to be legally married, so I think I value the institution just as much as you do. Among other things, it provides a stable environment for the rearing of children.

Another semantic argument. Again, I don't object in the least to semantic arguments, but for someone who dislikes them, you seem to use them quite a bit.

When I say "unnatural" I mean either "not ocurring in nature" or "actions deviating from one's own nature". If I were to have sex with a man, that would be unnatural for me.

And lack of avaialable female partners when stimulated.

This explains the motivation for the behavior, it does not mean that it isn't homosexual.

Oh, and in response to 2, on a paersonal note, last weekend my wife dominance over me--I'm an organism, by the way--a whole lot of dominance. Yeah, that was very nice. I'm hoping for some more exertions of dominance this coming weekend when we both have time. Oh, yeah, I'm hoping for quite a lot of exerting.

Gilda

Arguing this topic makes me sad and tired. I never thought we'd see a government that proactively tried to take rights away from the citizens of this country.

How is it irrelevant? Simply because you do not agree with an assumption does not mean that it's irrelevant.

What about this day and age? As I'm sure you are fully aware, gay marriage is still highly opposed in the majority of the world. Saying "what does it really matter in this day in age" is simply a way of ignoring other people's opinions and beliefs regarding gay marriage.

Why do you deem it impossible for people to oppose gay marriage but have no problems with gays in general?

I'm sure that I more than likely stated this prior, but I suppose one more time couldn't hurt. It is my opinion that marriage is strictly between males and females. Unites States law as well as well as public opinion sees that marriage is between a male and female. Now, as I know what your counter argument will be, my question to you is who says that mariage should be extended to gays?

How about the fact that Gays are absolutely the same as heterosexual people in every way besides who they chose to partner with,thus denying them a right/privelage of said heterosexual person is a gross display of bigotry?

I think part of the problem is how we're defining "marriage." Why does it NEED to be defined as "one man, one woman" just because that's the way it has generally been? Arguing from tradition, history, even evolution, is irrelevant when those things have been discarded in countless instances to re-imagine social order. Look at monarchy, the class system, slavery, laws against miscegenation, etc. All of those institutions used the same arguments used by opponents of gay marriage to defend themselves from rational challenge. There's no reason inherent to marriage as practiced today why it should be defined as "one man one woman."

Look at the reasons for marriage, and you'll see:

- social institution for stability: Marriage keeps society stable because it defines relationships, places limits on behavior, and provides a structure for people to relate to each other. By this definition, including gays in "marriage" would add to social stability rather than detract from it.

- providing an environment for raising children: not all heterosexual married couples can or choose to procreate. All credible studies find gays and lesbians to be as competent as heterosexual couples at parenting.

- public recognition of a private physical, spiritual and emotional commitment. Again, no reason why two people of the same sex can't be just as physically, spiritually and emotionally committed as two people of the opposite sex.

- religious institution mirroring god's relationship with the church. Some religions DO recognize gay marriage, and a particular religious definition of marriage should not be privileged over another through state-sponsored legislation.

Given that homosexuality is widely accepted as a biological condition and NOT a "choice" I can't see any valid ethical reason for denying people public and legal recognition of a relationship that would be perfectly acceptable if one of them had a slightly different chromosome.

Sorry for the extended time between posts.

...Yet that "Right" can be taken away by a state-- Or even the Federal Government-- If the populace so wishes. While I understand what you're getting at, rights normally can't be abridged.

There'd be no point in doing that, as you and your partner wouldn't be receiving the legal benefits which you seek from marriage (Referencing one of your earlier anecdotes). And, by the way, no I don't support that.

[QUOTE]Ohh, and built in sperm donors for our children, and a surrogate for theirs! This idea just gets better and better.[QUOTE]

This and the former issues are seperate of each other. While I do have a problem with gay marriage, I have no problems with gays adopting and raising children. Therefore, if you want to do that then it's A-OK by me.

All right. I'll change the word from "Practice" to "Condition", but my question still stands. Was homosexuality commonplace, or was gay marriage an accepted practice in the ancient Roman culture? Don't mix up the two concepts. In the United States homosexuality is an accepted condition, but we don't legalize gay marriages.

All right. I'll concede the point about being paired with another man (Even though they weren't always expected to) as being an act of transexuality.

It sounds to me as if you value the legal benefits of marriage moreso than you do the "Love" aspects of marriage (That's simply my opinion).

All right. I agree with that point.

Don't know. But slavery was. So if the populace of a given state were to vote on readopting slavery, you'd be cool with that too?

I tire of this argument. The logic is simple. If you have no problems with gays, then they are just like everyone else with the exception of one attribute. It's like me saying I have no problem with people with brown hair. They exist, they do their thing, I couldn't care less what color their hair is. It's just a part of what makes up other people with whom I interact.

The fact that you want to deprive them of a right/privilege that you think is fine for everyone else means that you think of them differently. And that difference degrades their status in your eyes because they don't deserve whatever right/privilege you don't want them to have. So when you say you have no problems with gays, you don't actually mean you have no problems with gays. The fact that they are gay, to you, means they're not good enough to get married because their condition is unnatural or wrong or something to that effect.

I suppose I threw around the word bigot a little loosely earlier. I don't mean you gay-bash or won't interact with gay people or actively hate them, but it's patently untrue that you don't have any problems with them. You're seeking to deprive them of something they desperately want and, as far as the law is concerned, is a civil right in this country. You're entitled to that opinion, but you can't hold that opinion and simultaneously have NO problems with gays. They're mutually exclusive conditions.

Also when I said "a church" (as opposed to the church) I meant a religious institution, as opposed to the Christian Church. Guess I should've used less specific nomenclature.

Seems rather arbitrary. Though you are entitled to your opinion, it doesn't mean your opinion must make sense in any kind of broader context.

Well, to me it's like saying, "I'm not racist, and i don't have any problems with teh blacks, but i just don't want them marrying our women."

Frosstbyte... I believe you have nicely summarized all the issues most of us are having with infinite_loser.

Thank you.

Sure, you could take my reasons as to why I oppose gay marriage and equate them to me having a problem with gays in general, but this simply isn't so. While I understand where your reasoning is coming from, I don't agree with it. As odd to you as it may seem, my opposition to gay marriage has little to do with fact that two people are gay as opposed to keeping marriage between a man and a woman (If someone wanted to marry their pet, I'd be opposed to that under the same reasons I oppose gay marriage, if that makes sense).

Wow, if that's not one of the most insulting things in this thread....

I didn't mean it to be insulting. I apologize if I came off that way.

What I was trying to say is that my opposition to gay marriage doesn't stem from people being gay, but rather that-- In my opinion-- Marriage is defined as strictly between a man and a woman, and not anything else.

Edit: Let me clarify something. When I made the pet comment, I wasn't trying to compare gay marriage to that. Don't get me wrong. Both are seperate. Under the same grounds in which I oppose gay marriage, I would oppose something of that nature (If that makes an sense).

I won't speak for anyone else, but your logic baffles me. I suppose I see what you're saying-that your definition of marriage requires it to be only between a man and a woman-but I don't understand why that definition isn't adaptable to new definitions. There is nothing forcing that definition on marriage besides you. If you don't have any problems with gays, why do you have a problem expanding your defintion of marriage to include them?

So it's like a dictionary thing?

Can you give me an example of a group unable to marry the person of their chosing of the opposite sex (assuming they're not in MA)? Prisoners are allowed to marry, as are mentally and physically challenged and paroled felons. I don't see how you can even begin to argue that marriage is a privledge, not a right considering that the RIGHT to vote is commonly forfeited by those convicted of a felony, yet I can come up with no other group commonly barred from the practice. You have yet to explain identify anyone anywhere and this seems to be a critcal point in the whole of your arguement.

vs.

Are you just fucking with us? Because I feel really pretty certain, particularly throwing out semantic discussions, those are the same sentences with very mild rewording.

I think the interesting question is what, precisely, is it about gay marriage that you oppose? It sounds to me like you're saying that you don't like it, you view it as unnatural and icky, and you think you can find some rationalizations to oppose legalization of it. What I think might be more interesting, is what do you think is wrong with it?

She is my wife. Please refer to her in that manner.

Your opinion is misinformed. If we did not value the love, commitment, and spiritual aspects of marriage, we would not be married.

We also value the several dozen legal rights that come with civil marriage. We also value the social aspects of a state-recognized marriage. It isn't a matter of picking one, all of them matter. Everything on lurkette's list is something that is valueable to us as a married couple.

And there it is, the inevitable comparison to bestiality. You know, in addition to my marriage being homosexual, it's also interracial. Would you compare that to marrying an animal?

Gilda

I never said that they were two different statements. I tried to reword it and further elaborate on what I meant, as to not be offensive.

*Points to post #137*

What do I find wrong with gay marriage? Plain and simply put, in my opinion, it undermines the core values of marriage (Not to say that marriage in most "Western" countries hasn't been undermined already, but gay marriage would further that process along).

Whether one wants to acknowledge it or not, the issue of children is still a driving force for marriage. I'm not sure of other countries, but I'm perfectly aware that nearly 1/3 of births which occur in the United States each year occur outside of wedlock and I'm also aware of the fact that there are adoptions for single parents. However, it is well documented that children in families which have both a mother and a father generally fair better than those which are lacking one of two (Lower suicide rates, higher test scores, females are less apt to become pregnant younger, etc.)-- As far as child development goes, there is no substitution for a mother or a father.

Also, I am perfectly aware that some marriages don't result in child-bearing, whether that be due to infertility or through the use of contraception. Infertility in marriages has been around for centuries. Some cultures solved the problem of infertility by having the male impregnate another woman (Not his wife), and then taking that child for him and his wife to raise while others had a form of our present day adoption. Of course in our modern day culture, many infertile couples choose to adopt a child, which leads me back to my first point about a child needing both a father and mother in a family situation.

(You know... I think I talked myself out of support gay adoption. Go figure...)

Contraception, in my opinion, is a bit trickier of a subject. I'm not going to go as far as some people in claiming that contraception ruins marriages (I don't really see how contraception leads to higher divorce rates), but I will say that it undermines one of the central premises of marriage; To rear children in a stable environment (That's not to say that all marriages are stable environments, but they tend to lead to better results than situations in which either the mother or father is absent). Before someone asks, the reason why I don't make too much fuss about contraception undermining marriage is because it does more good than harm (Whether that's a good or bad thing could be debated, but that's neither here nor there).

Edit: All right. I forgot to address something. While it's true that some marriages don't result in children, the majority of them do. Since when has the minority been indicative of the majority? Everything has an exception to it. That exception doesn't define the original purpose or object, though.

Not to turn focus away from the topic at hand, but I don't find it surprising that the countries with the highest divorce rates are generally the countries debating the issue of gay marriage and I don't find it surprising that most countries are strictly opposed to gay marriage. I suppose one could say that in our pursuit of "Social progress" an "Equality", we slowly destroy our own society.

Just because something can be changed, doesn't mean it should be. Once again, that's just my opinion. Did that answer your question?

Not to be rude, but I prefer the term partner.

I can't speak for everyone who's been married or thinking about being married, but generally love is the driving force for marriage as opposed to the legal benefits of marriage, but that's just what I think.

No, I wouldn't, because I'm not trying to compare homosexuality to beastiality. I even stated in one of my posts prior that they are completely different.

I just don't understand, I guess. I think the existance of homosexuals and divorce rate indicate that male/female life-long partnership is not the universal norm for human beings and, at one point in our species's social development, simple survival required that we force it on ourselves in order to guarantee that there were children and that they were provided for. We no longer have that problem, and I don't see any evidence that either homosexual relationships or divorce are destroying our society.

I see a trend towards not holding people accountable for their actions which has led to people getting married irresponsably and having children irresponsably. You're attributing a wide range of social ills to the eixstance of divorce and adovaction for gay rights, when I don't think that either of those things can conclusively said to have the slightest bit to do with those social ills, except that they happen to be happening concurrently.

I suppose we destroyed society when we let women vote, did away with slavery, did away with segregation and legalized abortion, huh? Well, we've come this far, might as well knock out another one.

I wasn't trying to attribute all of societies social ills to one cause particular cause. I simply believe that society has gotten to the point where we try to facilitate everyone's views and appease every group who has a dissenting opinion, thus causing a great deal of social ills. It's just my opinion, but I don't see the reason for gay marriage to be legalized as I can't perceive any benefit to society by doing so.

Anyway, I'm not opposed to all social changes, as some are for the better. But just because we can make social changes, doesn't mean that it's always good to do so.

Really? What core value related to marriage can my wife and I not exhibit as a consequence of our being the same sex? I can't think of any.

Slick. You start with a comparison of two parent families to single parent families and contort that into an argument against homosexual marriage. A comparison between children being raised by two opposite sex parents to those raised by a single parent of either sex says nothing about the fitness of homosexual couples to raise children and the outcome of such situations.

You would have to study homosexual couples raising children to determine what kinds of outcomes could be expected, and such study has in fact been done. All of the evidence indicates that children of homosexuals turn out about the same as heterosexuals, and that being raised by a homosexual couple does not harm children in any way. Outcomes are about the same for both groups on average. The major medical associations dealing with the care of children have policy statments favoring homosexuals being given equal treatment in parenting.

Here a summary of the research, based primarily on the study of children raised by lesbian couples.

You didn't prove that a child needs a mother and a father. The actual evidence says that a homosexual couple is the equal of a heterosexual couple in rearing children.

Don't the children of homosexuals deserve that same protection? Suppose my wife were to have a child through artificial insemination. Wouldn't that child benefit from the stability that marriage and a legal relationship with me as a parent would provide? We can do the latter--I can adopt as a co-parent, but if the stability of marriage and family is a benefit to children, aren't you harming children being raised by homosexual couples by denying them that stability?

Also, how would allowing legal gay marriage prevent heterosexuals from raising their children together, or lessen any of the benefits of that? I don't see any connection between one and the other.

If you don't mean to be rude, please use the correct term, wife. I'll accept spouse also, as it means the same thing in a gender neutral way. Would you tell the men here who are married that you prefer to call their wives "partners"?

I can speak for myself and for my reasons for being married, and for my wife's reasons for being married, and I did:

"If we did not value the love, commitment, and spiritual aspects of marriage, we would not be married.

We also value the several dozen legal rights that come with civil marriage. We also value the social aspects of a state-recognized marriage. It isn't a matter of picking one, all of them matter. Everything on lurkette's list is something that is valuable to us as a married couple."

Did it ever occur to you that the reason heterosexual couples talk about love and rarely (if ever) about the legal benefits of marriage is because they take those legal rights for granted?

Because of the peculiar nature of my own wedding (no papers, no preist) I did have to look into the legal ramifications of thumbing my nose at the establishment. If you are going to suggest that just because I examined the legality of my union that I have any less committment or love for my wife, I'd suggest you are a fool.

Same-sex couples have not enjoyed the rights that have been available to heterosexual couples. They do not take anything for granted. I suggest that you ask this same question in 10 to 15 years from now, in Canada... I promise you, they will be taking these rights for granted just like heteros and it will be all about the love.

infinite, first i'd like to thank you for your responses. i think that this type of response is potentially more useful for discussion, that a discussion of rights versus privelages or the definition of bigotry at this point; partially because i think that's been pretty well covered.

I guess what I didn't understand is that on one hand, you stated that you didn't see them as the same, but then you seemed to repeat the phrase again with slight rewording as if that would clear anything up. Regardless, if you don't want to try to make an analogy between homosexuality and beastiality, then I'm not going to pursue that discussion.


ok, first I'd like to point out that I agree that children, childrearing, and the education and provision of the next generation(s) is/are a huge issue for our society, and societies in general. As frostbyte points out, there was a time when heterosexuality was a survivial issue. People died at much younger ages, and manual labor was a huge issue. Point blank, you needed to make lots of babies so a few of them would make it out of childhood, some would work the farm, hunt, gather, etc - and some of them would ensure that the species continued.

That's just not the case in Western societies anymore. We don't need more babies...if anything, we have an overpopulation problem. Homosexuals would presumably have a higher probability of adopting children unwanted by other parents, in addition to not having their own children. That part of the issue, by itself, would seem to be a positive aspect for a society such as ours, as far as I can understand.

as gilda pointed out, are you sure about that? i give you that children are more likely to benefit from a stable homelife, but does that automatically mean a man and a woman? what about My Two Dads? Would children raised by a man and his father / brother be more apt, in your opinion, to be psychologically damaged? What if you compare them to the children of homosexuals parents with a physically / emotionally abusive household? Is it better for daddy to beat the kids and mom to cover up, or is it better for daddy and daddy, or mommy and mommy, to love the kids in a nurturing environment?

I think you're comparing the best possible scenario of heterosexual marriage, versus the worst possible scenario of homosexual marriage. I do not think that's a valid comparision.

as mentioned earlier, i hope this extends to any situation where groups of one gender act as the primary care provider / nuclear family. Forget the marriage aspect, but if two people of the same sex shouldn't raise children together, then that's an entirely different piece of legislation.

how do you separate contraception from infertility? Not making babies would seem to be not making babies, to me. also, as alluded to earlier, i fail to see how making the baby is the same thing as raising the child. i think i understand where you're going, but i disagree with some of the though processes by which you arrive at your conclusions.

huh? i kind of think our society is loads better than it was in say, 1100 A.D. britain. serfdom, anyone? i mean, being Count Pigglet would have rocked pretty hard....but being that dirty guy who works all the time would sort of suck. how exactly is letting gays marry going to destroy society?

s
llll
iiiiii
pppp
ppppp
eeeeeee
rrrrrrrrrrrr
yyyyyyyyyyyy


agreed. for instance, i like murder being illegal. there are some pretty good reasons behind that. i don't think anyone is advocating just some random old, willy nilly, changes. this particular one happens to make pretty good sense to bunch of people.

yep, thanks for your reply.

i agree wholeheartedly. of course, when refering to my "black" friends, i prefer "coolie" or "darky" or "sambo" too. you may feel that's a little extreme, but its not really up to you to decide what terminology gilda and her wife use with each other.


pssst....don't tell the people i know in india. they still arrange marriages between people who have never met each other. you might want to keep quiet around a lot of heterosexual married folk i know right here in the good old united states, who got married because they were scared of being alone, or wanted someone to provide for them. for instance, see my (heterosexual) great grandfather, who couldn't have had an erection the last ten years of his life if he tried. 100 year old men don't pop wood.

guess i still don't understand exactly the logic behind your position, but you're certainly welcome to it. however, one of the things about the united states is that while majority rules, the majority also can't deprive a minority of a right, simply because it wants to. it just doesn't work that way. homosexual marriage will be legal in this country one day.

I still have yet to hear a solid explanation of exactly how gay marriage would erode or undermine the value or sanctity of marriage. I keep hearing that it will, not how it will.

I mean seriously, does a little bit of your straight marriage die everytime a gay person marries another? Do you wake up each morning loving your wife a little less? What the fuck?

It's kind of like how segregation damaged the sanctity of whites-only water fountains. To hear the antigay marriage folk talk about it, the main reason marriage is considered sacred is because homosexuals can't get married.

http://www.slate.com/id/2097048/#Return

I'm quite sure that you'll find that article interesting to read. You have both advocates and opponents of gay marriages alike questioning the validity of the studies done in the 70's, 80's and 90's. It's not a good sign when one of the major proponents of gay marriage rejects the studies which would help to strengthen her own cause.

The "Actual evidence" upon which you rely, is largely in question by both sides alike. There is concrete evidence proving that a child does better in a situation which involves bother a mother and a father. There is no evidence (Which isn't under question), that refutes that claim.

Yes, that child would deserve stability. But-- And I hate to be a broken record-- The majority of the claims which you assert as true aren't, because they are under heavy fire from both sides. If you can show me a study that proves your claims which aren't disputed by your own side, then I'll concede the point.

I never said it would prevent heterosexuals from raising their children. I'm not exactly sure as to what your point is...

All right. Even though I don't agree with the term being used in this case, I will refer to her as your wife.

All right. That's a fair point.

I don't know where you get that assumption from, but I never made any such suggestion.

So, guilty until proven innocent, eh?

Any couple's ability to be good (adoptive) parents should be judged on a case by case basis regardless of race, color, creed or sexial orientation. Studies that show that a mother-father parenting situation is good shouldn't give neglectful, abusive straight couples a free pass, nor should it disqualify any and all couples who are not mother-father

Yes that was an interesting op ed piece, which cites a single critic of the research from "my side" and makes vague reference to "people behind the scenes". I tend to put little credence in what unsourced "people behind the scenes" say. I agree that more study needs to be done, which is really the point of that article.

However, an op ed piece and one cited critic are hardly "largely in question". In fact, the majority opinion of the major medical and psychological community on that research is that it does provide evidence that children of homosexuals fare about as well as those of heterosexuals.

Let's look at what the actual medical and mental health experts have to say on the matter, based on the currently available research:

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry:

American Academy of Pediatrics

American Medical Association

American Psychoanalytic Association

American Psychological Association

"Prove" is a tricky word, especially in psychology. What you have when conducting psychological studies is evidence leading to or supporting a conclusion.

You have an incomplete comparison there: "a child does better". You've left off the other end because the studies you are referring to don't compare heterosexual families to those headed by same sex couples, and thus are not valid evidence in this debate (and contain their own flaws, but that's a separate debate). Those studies that do make such comparisons conclude that no harm has come to the children of homosexual parents.

You ignore the crux of my argument there. If one of the core purposes of marriage is to provide a stable environment for the rearing of children--and I agree that that is one purpose, though hardly the only one--then don't those children being raised by homosexual couples deserve the same familial stability and legally protected relationship with both of their parents as those being raised by heterosexual couples?

First, I've never claimed anything was "true" or that the studies "prove" anything. I've consistently said that the evidence shows that children of homosexuals turn out fine, which it does.

Second, you exaggerate. The studies cited are not "under heavy fire" from both sides. Supporters of gay marriage and gay adoption are not generally challenging the conclusions of those studies, and the concensus of the mainstream medical and psychological community is that such studies provide evidence to support the conclusion that homosexual parents do not harm their children by being homosexual. This conclusion has changed over time to match the evidence as it comes in, by the way, which gives it more weight. Has it been proven conclusively? Of course not. Nothing in psychology ever is. However, that's where the best evidence available points at the moment. I agree completely that more study is needed.

My therapist was telling me during my last meeting that there's some new anectodal evidence that gay male couples are actually better parents than lesbians or heterosexual couples, though the sample sizes are a bit too small, and it may be due to factors not primarily related to their sexuality. In essense, because gay male couples have the most difficulty becoming parents of any of the studied structures, they have to be much more committed to the idea of being parents than lesbians or heterosexual couples, and thus begin with the advantage that unwanted parenthood has been selected out. That's a tangent, though I did find it interesting and passed it off to one of the gay male couples at church who have two boys of their own. Adorable kids, too.

Third, that a claim has been challenged does not mean it isn't supported by the evidence.

Fourth, disproving one claim does not mean that the opposite is true. All of the studies on point that I've seen support the conclusion that children of homosexuals are about as healthy as those of heterosexuals. More study is needed, definitely.

You object to gay marriage on the basis that one of the core purposes of marriage was providing a stable environment for the rearing of children. I fail to see how allowing gay marriage would in any way interfere with that purpose for marriage, and think it would actually support it. Heterosexual couples would still have the stability provided by marriage, and homosexual couples and their children would have it also. More stability for families, not less.

Thank you for the concession. What exactly is your objection?

For the record, I'm a Christian, and Grace and I were married, twice actually, once by a Unitarian minister (for us) and once by a Shinto priest (for her family), and our marriage is recognized and accepted by the UU church of which we are members.

You did so with me and with my marriage, suggesting that, though I'm already married in a spiritual and religious sense, because I'm interested in the legal ramifications of a civil marriage, that means that my marriage isn't motivated by love. I believe Charlatan was equating his marriage to mine, in that both are marriages that are not legal civil marriages, which means that your objections to my marriage would apply equally to his.

Charlatan, if that was not your meaning, I apologize in advance for speaking for you and for misinterpreting you.

Gilda

That was bang on Gilda. Thanks.

That's interesting. I know that there is more than anecdotal evidence that adoptive parents tend to be better parents than biological parents (which might seem counterintuitive). The explanation is similar to the one you give above- it's difficult to become adoptive parents, only the really committed do it.

An "Op ed piece and one cited critic"? I'm thinking you simply skimmed over the article.

http://marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.pdf

A short abstract taken from a 149 page study done on the matter.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=276907
The abstract of the article co-authored by Judith Stacy, a staunch advocate of gay marriage.
A child does better in families in which a mother and father is present-- That we already know. Now, concerning your second point, I have to ask what studies are those? Opponents and proponents alike agree that the current studies comparing heterosexual couples to homosexual couples are drastically flawed, yet you embrace them anyway, continuing to use them as the basis of your argument. That makes very little sense.

And now you're ignoring the crux of my argument. The core purpose of marriage is to provide a man and woman a stable environment in which to rear children.

If you don't claim them as "True", then for what purposes do you continue to cite them?

Single parents can raise better kids than heterosexuals, too. That means very little in the way of social implications. Basing any type of conlusion off of such a small sample size is going to give you skewed-- Or even intended-- Results.

I might have misread, but it seems to me as you were posting links in hopes to disprove the notion that gay parents raise socially different children than heterosexuals, but I could be wrong.

Correction: I oppose gay marriage under the basis that the purpose of marriage is to provide a man and a woman a stable environment for rearing a child. Of course, if I didn't believe marriage was between a man and a woman I would have no opposition to your original statement.

I'm not going to get into religion, but you must realize that the UU is considered-- For a lack of a better word-- As radical among the Christian community. Good luck having your marriage recognized by the majority of them.

The purpose of marriage was to transfer property. It has nothing to do with "stable family relationships."

People figured out how to mate long before they figured out what property was. Once people had land and goods that they wanted kept in their families, they decided to come up with a method that would ensure that their property went to their progeny. Mating and generational property transfers worked well together, for obvious reasons, but the concept of marriage has much less to do with creating a stable place for kids to grow up (in some developmental and emotional sense) and much more to do with the economics of keeping people and families alive over multiple generations.

You say repeatedly, "the purpose of marriage is to provide a man and a woman a stable environment for rearing a child." It really was a tool to allow two men to make a financial transaction that they hoped would strengthen both families by trading a son or a daughter to the other for access to resources. Children from the union were a convenient, if necessary, byproduct of that transaction.

What we think of as the purpose of marriage now would be very alien to the people who came up with it, and indeed, to most people in all but the most recent generations. It worked to keep people/families alive. It no longer serves that purpose, and our definition of what marriage is, consequently, has changed. The new purpose of marriage has little reason, if any, to exclude gays, since the current purpose of marriage has everything to do with uniting two people who are in love.

Uh, no. It's interesting where you end the quote there. What I actually said was

Yes that was an interesting op ed piece, which cites a single critic of the research from "my side"

Notice the "from my side" part. Leaving that out changes the meaning drastically.

Your claim was that the research I cite is "largely in question" and "they are under heavy fire from both sides". This isn't so. One critic was cited from "my side", which does not equate to the studies being "largely in question" or "under heavy fire" from "my side".

My side consists of pretty much every mainstream medical and psychological organization in the United States, and you can see their positions cited above. Some cite the studies, some have null positions that basically say "no harm has been shown".

That's not a study, it's a position paper co-authored by members of Marriagewatch, an organization whose purpose is attacking same sex marriage, written for the purpose of attacking generally accepted research because it is hurting their cause, and published by that organization.

It says nothing to indicate that homosexual parents harm their children.

And there's the one critic that is nominally on "my side" who questions the validity of the studies. This is hardly a justification for your hyperbole in claiming that they're "largely in question" or "under heavy fire".

Note, however, she makes no claim that homosexuals in any way harm their children, and cites no studies in favor of that conclusion. This is likely because every study published in a mainstream peer reviewed journal concludes that there is no harm.

It's still an incomplete comparison. Better than what? Better than which children?

Of course opponents attack them. That's what makes them opponents. That's not an argument, that's a definition.

But the proponents? The concensus of the mainstream medical and psychological community is that there is no evidence to support the idea that children of homosexuals are harmed by being raised by homosexuals.

You've found one pro-gay marriage critic of the research, and she concludes that the studies are flawed, not that homosexuals are harmed.

You have two rhetorical fallacies here, two premises and circular reasoning or begging the question.

First, that's really two separate premises--A. Marriage is between a man and a womand and B. marriage is for the purpose of providing a stable environment in which to rear children.

Second you conclude that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. You've used your conclusion as a premise in your argument, which renders it invalid.

However, let's look at those two premises for a second. Let's start with B. If marriage does in fact provide a stable environment for the rearing of children, wouldn't this be true also of the children of homosexual couples? Now let's look at premise A. Extending marriage rights to homosexual couples would not in anyway change this. Marriage would still be between a man and a woman. It would also be between a man and a man and a woman and woman.

Even if we accept this argument at face value, it does not preclude extending marriage rights to homosexual couples, because that purpose--providing a man and a woman with a stable environment in which to rear children--would still exist unchanged. A man and a woman could still get married, have and rear children.

Your claim there is both fallacious and doesn't even support your conclusion.

I cite them as evidence that children of homosexuals are not harmed by being raised by homosexuals. There's little evidence regarding transsexuals, but what little there is doesn't point to any harm there, either, but since most transsexuals are straight, that's really a tangent.

Yeah, that's why I said anecdotal, sample size too small, possible other explanations, etc. I wasn't proposing anything with that, just sharing some interesting new information.

Yeah, that was poorly worded, let me rephrase.

I was posting links that give evidence in support of the position that homosexuals do no harm. My point was that even if do manage to disprove those studies, which has not been done, you're not showing harm of any kind. Until you can show harm caused by homosexual parents, your argument is not a valid one for denying homosexuals the right to marry.

Nor is it even one then.

I apologize for my mistatement. You do realize that this argument is a tautology, and thus invalid, do you not?

Yeah, I realize that's the position. I'm not seeking to get any church other than the one of which I am a member to recognize my marriage, which is between me, my wife, and God.

Gilda

I am not familiar with the terminology used in same sex marriages. The only same sex couples I know are not married and generally refer to each other as partners. A gay friend/aquaintance I trade music files with from Norway once referred to his partner as his wife but mostly uses the term partner.

What is the accepted norm among gay marrieds? Do the women refer to each other as wives and the men refer to each other as husbands most times? I am not trying to be difficult but am genuinely interested in using correct terms that do not offend anyone.

Yes, this seems to the be the case in almost all gay marriages I'm familliar with.

Not to repeat myself, but if you use flawed data and use it to draw a conclusion, then your conclusion is also flawed.

I never said it was a study on whether or not homosexual marriages harm children or not, but rather a paper on the flaws on the research conducted thus far. It doesn't draw the conclusion as to whether homosexual marriages harm children or not, as that's not the point of the paper. I expected you to realize that.

That one critic isn't "Nominally on your side". That one critic is a major proponent of gay marriage as an institution.

[QUOTE]Note, however, she makes no claim that homosexuals in any way harm their children, and cites no studies in favor of that conclusion. This is likely because every study published in a mainstream peer reviewed journal concludes that there is no harm.[QUOTE]

And, once again, I never stated that she made that claim. What I stated was that she's opposed to the various studies which have been conducted, because they're all biased and flawed, a view hard to dismiss.

Better than the children without. I thought I stated that already?

No where did I state that this was my aim. I was simply showing that the studies which you so readily point out are disputed, because they contain empirical flaws.

Here's your problems:

1.) You can't disprove the notion that a marriage is between a man and a woman and

2.) You can't disprove the fact that a marriage isn't for providing a stable environment in which to raise children, since numerous studies which have been conducted which prove that children raised in the confines are marriage typically do better than those who aren't.

It would, if not for premise #1.

Therefore, marriage is no longer between a man and woman, but between a man and a woman, a man and a man and/or a woman and a woman.

Now you're assuming that premise #1 is independent of premise #2, which is incorrect. I oppose gay marriage on both premises-- Not just one.

The gay couples I know that are married generally refer to each other using the standard terms, married woman = wife, married man = husband.

I do know of a married MTF couple that prefers that no label be used other than their names, feeling that such labels are and should be irrelevant.

Unmarried homosexual couples tend to use partner or boyfriend/girlfriend, as do the unmarried heterosexual couples I know.

My beef with Infinite Loser was that I'd clearly been referring to Grace as my wife and he switched to partner in direct response to a post in which I'd used wife. I interpreted that as his refusal to accept that we are married, which he later confirmed was an accurate inference, and objected to it on those grounds. It wasn't so much the word as the implied criticism behind it.

So long as he's polite in further usage, it shouldn't be an issue any longer.

Gilda

Yes, marriage is currently defined as being between a man and a woman. The fact that this is the current definition is in no way a legitimate reason not to redefine the word

I think your one critic is more than overbalanced by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians,

It's still an incomplete comparison. Better than children with homosexual parents? Of course you're not going to say that because there's no evidence of such. As that is the subject of this debate, your claim is meaningless.

They're disputed sure. Everything is disputed. That doesn't change that the evidence supports the idea that homosexual parents do their children no harm, and that the mainstream medical and psychological organizations in the United States accept this conclusion.

I wouldn't want to do that. Of course marriage is between a man and a woman. In some countries, it's also between two women and between two men, as it is n Massachusetts. In many churches, it is also between two or two women.

The question under debate here is whether civil marriage should be between same sex couples in addition to opposite sex couples.

Those are correlational studies comparing children raised in intact families to those raised by single parents, and do not indicate causation. There are a number of factors not controlled for that have a big influence, chiefly poverty. However, none of those studies control for orientation or compare children of heterosexuals to those of homosexuals, so they are irrelevant to this discussion.

Also, I haven't been disputing that that is one of the functions of marriage. It is not, however the sole one, and is not a requirement, and that argument works in favor of gay marriage, not against it. If marriage is beneficial to children, then let's extend that same benefit to the children being raised by homosexual couples as well.

That makes no sense. In the second description, marriage is, by your own words, still between a man and a woman. It just includes other groups as well.

Gilda

I'm sorry, but that really is quite nonsensical.

People against gay marriage are homophobic not only because it's usually out of an irrational prejudice to homosexuality in some form, but because they believe in enforcing some form of discrimination against homosexuals.

How does that translate to people for gay marriage being heterophobes? That's horrible logic. People against straight marriage and not gay marriage would probably be heterophobe. Heterophobe is a ridiculous word nearly always coined by neo-cons who can only argue through emotionally weighted strawmen, it's a good idea to steer clear of it.

I think there is far too much tolerance of homophobia in this day and age. It's not the same thing as being a heterosexual like some people write it off to be, it's something that should be frowned upon because it causes nothing but strife. If people would only listen to logic so many of the "blurry lines" would becoem distinct.

It's nothing about agreeing, it's about discrimination. Am I the only person that remembers discrimination is an objective BAD thing? Most of the great revolutionaries of the past never acted that way.

Can you imagine Martin Luther King saying "I have a dream - but well, I have to admit the KKK DO have a point in their whole "Black people should die" thing".

It's complete nonsense. Being against discrimination doesn't mean you can't be for "discriminating" against things which are actually proven to be wrong in some manner.

Most discriminatory views are simply quite illogical and not based in fact. Writing claims off as opinions and beliefs is a wonderful way to let them keep them long after they're proven wrong.

Homophobic arguments are pretty much without exception non-sequitor if you consider the facts of homosexuality, homosexuals, and relationships in general.

When you get down to "opinion", protecting someone's opinion that those kind of people should all burn in hell is ridiculous. Nobody is going to control someone's thoughts, but we should take a stand against that which is simply unacceptable and leads to nothing but hardship.

There is nothing to be gained by protecting homophobia in the manner in which people do online, constantly. Ultimately, the people protecting homosexuality are the ones that get banned first in a heated argument. It's complete idiocy and it's time someone took a stand against it.

Absolute rubbish. If someone were to "discriminate" against a rapist, would you call hypocrite on them for claiming to be liberal too? No. Personally, I accept things so long as they don't hurt other people. Bigotry unfortunately does hurt other people as it's an idea that spreads like a virus, giving people an excuse to show a complete lack of regard to others. At least this is a good reason to disrespect someone, and is something that, unlike homosexuality, can be changed through choice.

He is not voting against bigot's right to marry, is not spreading ridiculous propoganda as to how they should burn in hell. What's funny about you and many "relativists" is that you're acting exactly in the manner Neo-Cons need for their fallacies to remain in place, protecting arrogance as equally as wisdom.

Relativist nonsense. "Bigot" is usually coined as someone who is intolerant of someone else as a person and their way of life that in no way intrudes on others, not just a "view".

Again, a person is not a Bigot for thinking that a rapist is doing something wrong and should be stopped. Similiarly, as bigotry has a proven track record of violence, social rejection of victims and removal of civil rights, it is something which should be stood against.

I will say I am intolerant of other people's views if they are in someway harmful, and I have no shame in it anymore than I do in saying I am tolerant of people who do not set out to hurt or discriminate against others who do no wrong. I do not believe they should be "Medicated" for it like some people believe homosexuals should be, however, just that it be socially discouraged. So attempting to making me out to be that which I hate fails in more areas than one. Not to mention how tired I am of fence-homophobes using that argument.

Kittie Rose, please stick around... I like what I am reading.

Cheers!

The word "Homophobe" is nothing but a loaded term used to mischaracterize one side of the debate. You, being on the other side, will always claims that my opinions are connected with some form of bigotry and will readily use the term "Homophobe" to describe my position. If you have no problems in throwing out the term "Homophobe", then you can expect others to throw the term "Heterophobe" back at you.

Now, with that being said... People who are against gay marriage are homophobic? Really? How did you come to that conclusion? By making biased assumptions?

I have two words for you-- Straw man.

You know what else is horrible logic? Calling everyone who opposes gay marriage "Homophobes".

And you using the term "Homophobe" is any different than using the term "Heterophobe"? Don't be a hypocrite.

You know what I think? I think there's too much tolerance of "Homophobiaphobia" (The mischaracterization of those who oppose gay marriage).

You are incorrect. A bigot is defined as "A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." Whether or not one person's way of life and/or beliefs is intrusive on another person's way of life and/or beliefs is irrelevant. By the pure definition of the word, the people using the term bigot are as bigotted as the people they label.

Well said Kittie Rose. I've read two of your posts and I like you a lot already.

Gilda

It's lonely being a bigot.

It's easier to say that everyone is a bigot.

I don't really care what people do behind their bedroom doors, but what really bothers me about gay marriage is the fact that they cannot reproduce. Of course there are other ways that they can raise children, like adoption, but those are often difficult and expensive to come by. If it is too difficult for a couple then they may decide not to do it.

Oh great, I haven't heard this from conservatives time and time again.

Quite frankly, this is just plain insensitive to anyone who's suffered homophobia.

Yeah, homophobia doesn't exist. Nobody gets beaten up for being gay, nobody has to fear any form of social rejection for being gay and apparently "godhatesfags", Fred Phelps, and Pat Robertson don't exist.

You are an extremely insensitive human being.

I never called you a homophobe. I merely pointed out that your opinion has little to no basis in facts or logic.

Yeah, because people get beaten to death for being straight.

I explained exactly how and it seems conveniently, like most conservatives, you ignore the part you can't deal with.

Do you even know what a Straw Man is? You're making it look like homophobia doesn't exist - that's BEYOND a Straw Man and just plain delusional.

Everyone knows Ad Hominem and Straw Man. To actually understand what they mean and when they apply is a different matter.

How? Being against gay marriage means you are for the institutionalised discrimination of a minority. I like how most of your argument consists of one line assertions with nothing to back them up.

Straight people are not discriminated against by the tyrannical "Velvet Mafia", so no, it's not hypocritical. Please grow up.

Yeah, because straight people are actively discriminated against so it's the same thing.

So you want there to be MORE homophobia? Because that's exactly what happens when you don't oppose it.

This is beyond a "viewpoint", this is just plain abhorrant, selfish and cruel-minded.

Yes, note the word "prejudice". Being against bigots isn't a prejudice - as you already KNOW what they're doing in action. A prejudice is when you have a false and destructive notion about someone. Otherwise you'd be "Prejudiced" against murderers and rapists.

Many Americans have problems seeing why forcing their beliefs on someone is wrong.

I already debunked that and like a good little conservative, you pull it out again since actual "proof" doesn't matter. In fact, I just debunked it again directly above, and I'm sure you'll ignore this again.

The word "bigot" wouldn't exist if your model existed - since nobody could actually use it.

Where is your actual argument? Your entire post seems to be saying that there should be less opposition towards hatred of gay people and discrimination against them, and that homophobia doesn't exist, in an extremely insensitive manner.

Why exactly should I have any decent level of respect for you if this is how you present your so called "opinions"? Please, come back with an actual argument or don't bother at all. I'm not arguing semantics with a neo-con.

Wow. I guess I'd better tell my Mom and her current husband and a number of my other married hetero friends that they'd better get making babies or their marriage is null and void.

Childeren are only a part of what a marriage *can* be. It is *not* an essential component of marriage.

Before I begin, I would just like to say that I saw the unedited version of your post. You need to chill out. Seriously. It's just a debate.

It's true. Whenever someone opposes gay marriage they're instantly labeled "Bigots" or "Homophobes", without regard to their actual opinions or stances. It's a rather simple case of ad-hominem. Attack the person's character, and discredit their argument.

Insensitive? How so? The term is loaded-- It has a negative connotation and denotation-- And is usually used to attack some directly rather than their argument. Since when did everyone who opposes gay marriage become homophobic?

I can only speak for myself, but I don't beat up someone for being gay, or make fun of them or exclaim that "Godhatesfags". There are always people who take things to the extreme. No one is really defending their actions. Have you ever heard the saying "Don't paint everyone with the same paintbrush"? Merely opposing gay marriage is much, much different than taking an active role in hate towards gays.

In your prior post you said that "People against gay marriage are homophobic not only because it's usually out of an irrational prejudice to homosexuality in some form, but because they believe in enforcing some form of discrimination against homosexuals." You insinuated that I was a "Homophobe" because I oppose gay marriage. Explain to me why it's all right for you to label others, yet you take offense when others label you?

Hate crime against any group of people is wrong. Of course, that's really irrelevant as it didn't directly deal with my previous post. Why is it acceptable for you to use "Homophobe" to characterize someone else, but incorect of them to use the term "Heterophobe" to characterize you?
Nowhere did I ever state that "Homophobia" never existed. You asserted that everyone who opposes gay marriage are homophobes. That's simply untrue, and you have no logical reason for arguing as such except for baseless assumptions. I have two very good lesbian friends, yet I oppose gay marriage. That debunks your entire theory about everyone opposing gay marriage being homophobes.

By the way, concerning ad homimen, your previous post is filled with it, so I don't really need to address that.

In a strange twist, gay hate crime against straights does happen, albeit rare.

What's the point of me replying if you're going to answer my questions for me?

No, I don't support hate crimes against any group of people, if that's what you mean. Never have, never will. But, then again, while I don't support hate crimes I also don't support gay marriage.

Yes, no one really ever disagreed with that statement. However, instantly labeling someone as a bigot because they oppose gay marriage is an incorrect assumption. If someone hates gays simply because they're gay then, by all means, label them a bigot. I've said this a few times, but one more time couldn't hurt. I don't hate gays and I even have gay friends. I'm wondering where such a situation fits into your definition of the word bigot.

Our entire society is based off of forcing one's beliefs and ideals on others. Actually, all societies are. But meh... That's another topic for another day.

I'm actually quite liberal on 95% of issues :P

Anyway, your entire theory is based on the premise that everyone who opposes gay marriage hates gays. Yes, some people who oppose gay marriage hate gays but, then again, not everyone who opposes gay marriage hate gays. I'm still waiting to know how I'm a bigot. Please... Don't say that I'm a bigot because I oppose gay marriage.

If we wanted to follow that line of logic, I guess I'd be a bigot for opposing incestral marriage or opposing bestiality (No, I'm not equating gay marriage to either of the two. I'm pointing out that simply because I oppose something, does not mean that I'm a bigot).

Look up a couple of responses. I answered that already.

I wasn't arguing. I was merely pointing out that simply because someone opposes gay marriage doesn't make them a bigot. And, as far as the homophobia-thing goes, I answered that somewhere near the beginning.

I actually wasn't arguing with you but... I don't really care if you respect me or not. You've already proven yourself to be beligerent and abrasive for no real apparent reason. You can't even conduct a debate on the internet without the useless name-calling and flamebait. In a strange twist, you're not much different than the people you like to labe.

Anyway, you could always read my prior responses in this thread and respond to those.

It's not, by a long shot. To you it is, but in the real world it's something which hurts real people.

This is exactly the problem. You have no clue what you're talking about or the real world affects of what you're saying.

Hah! Knew you'd say Ad Hominem. But that's invalid, as Ad Hominem is only when you base your point entirely around a personal attack, not when you use a specific and accurate word to describe someone. If I would have replied to one of your points with "Shut Up You Idiot" that would be Ad Hominem.

I'm sorry, but I've stated several times as to how someone against gay marriage is homophobic. You've ignored it several times. I cannot continue any form of debate with you if you continue to be completely selective.

But these are the things that happen when you make homophobia an acceptable vice.

But it's STILL homophobia as it's still discriminating against a minority for no real reason. There has never been a valid argument against gay marriage. All of them fall flat on their asses and have some logical fallacy at their core.

Why does your entire argument consist of ridiculous nitpicking?

If you oppose gay marriage, then yes, you are homophobic to a degree, as you believe in actively discriminating against and forcing your beliefs on an innocent minority. There is no real debate to this.

Because I'm not discriminating against Straight People, so it is in no way accurate. It doesn't seem you give a crap about anything I say though, you'll just make the same completely nonsensical statements and questions over and over again.

Are you purposely trying to frustrate me by refusing to listen, then call "Ad Hominem" when I just plain can't take it?

Yes you did. You said it was a word that was nothing but a loaded term used to mischaracterize one side of the debate.

If you don't like being lumped in with Fred Phelps, then stop having such discriminative views, there's no real logic behind them anyway. Otherwise, put up with it.

It's not untrue. You believe in actively discriminating against a minority that aren't damn well hurting anyone. This has to be the 9th time I've said this.

My assumptions aren't baseless. There is no logic or reason and certainly no facts to back up being against gay marriage. It is pure discrimination.

What are YOUR reasons for being against gay marriage, then, since you implied you were earlier?

No it doesn't. The "Gay friends" argument is an infamous sign of an utterly rubbish viewpoint. You still don't want them to marry. You're still actively discriminating against them. That does not change anything.

WHY do you oppose gay marriage?

When? Examples. Gay "hate" crime against homophobic people like Fred Phelps, maybe. And quite frankly, they're asking for it.
No it's not. Laws are meant to be founded on STOPPING other people forcing certain other things on others. You have to moderate some things.

When nothing is hurting anyone, it should not be illegal, and it is in no way acceptable to force someone out of it.

But utterly and irredeemibly conservative on this on. I suspect that's a gross exagerration, regardless.

You are a bigot. You refuse to accept your stance that certain people should be allowed marry despite the fact that apart from gender they are analogous to a straight couple in almost every way. Deal with it. Bigot or Homophobe in the modern usage doesn't mean that you have to HATE gays, but you most likely have some form of disrespect for them if you believe they shouldn't be allowed marry - either that, or sheer ignorance, or sheer arrogance.

[quoet]If we wanted to follow that line of logic, I guess I'd be a bigot for opposing incestral marriage or opposing bestiality (No, I'm not equating gay marriage to either of the two. I'm pointing out that simply because I oppose something, does not mean that I'm a bigot).[/quote]

That's not logic. In fact, it's the exact opposite - it's the Slippery Slope Fallacy.

Incestral Marriage and Beastiality are not the same as homosexuality by a long shot. Whether or not they hurt people is a different argument - though at least there, there are technicalities as they aren't directly analogous to straight relationships - one is with a family member, complicating legal issues, and one is with a non-consenting animal.

Being against gay marriage is a purely a vice, one along the same lines of thinking as homophobia. Let's just call a spade a spade.

Unles of course, you can prove me wrong and wow me with your amazing reasons as to why gay marriage should never be. But I've seen it all before. We all have. And we no there's no defense for it, just good old enforcing traditional values on people, which is just plain disrespectful.

1) Marriage has benefits.

2) Two adults fall in love, get married, and receive those benefits.

Two other adults fall in love, aren't allowed to get married and don't receive those benefits.

3) If one person, couple or group doesn't get the benefits another person, couple or group gets (because of 'differences'), then that's discrimination.




I'm not sure sure where the breakdown in 'logic' is occuring in some of these posts. If you don't agree with #1, then I could see a person thinking "no problem, what's the big deal?". But #1 is demonstrably false. Gilda gave a great (partial) list earlier in this thread. #1 is just simple fact, and I haven't seen anyone argue otherwise.

#2 also seems like simple fact. It stands on point 1, but it's sort of the premise everyone accepts to have this conversation - gay people can't get married.

#3 seems to be where the stickiness is. This also hinges on point 1. It seems people want to argue against point 3, while ignoring point 1. That doesn't really fly, does it?

I'm certainly no master of logic, but this doesn't seem that complicated.

Here's my 2 cents:
Am I against gay marriage? Yes.
Am I against a civil union between two same-sex people? Not at all.

Marriage is a union, in the eyes of God, between a man and a woman. Period. The only way to make "gay marriage" legal is for the churches to accept homosexuals... but that'll probably never happen in our lifetimes.

The word "marriage" is what's causing all the uproar. It's a religious term and all the ultra conservatives will fight with every ounce of strength (and money) they have to keep it from happening. If the homosexual community would fight for "same-sex civil unions" they'd face a less-daunting task than fighting for "gay marriage".

I believe that if two people want to "legally" join and have all the rights, protections, benefits, etc. that they receive then they should have every right to no matter their sexual preference.

Regardless of what you want to call it, it's still a debate. There's no need to name-calling or flamebaiting. It doesn't make your argument any stronger. Quite the opposite, in fact. The more beligerent you are, the less willing I am to debate with you. That's real life.

Erm... The majority of your argument is/was centered around comments directed towards my intellect, while the other half was mainly about me being "Homophobic" or a "Bigot". There was one comment (Well, one I remember in particular) directed towards me which was nothing but a petty insult.

I posed a question to you, but it went unanswered. I oppose gay marriage, yet I have two lesbian friends (Good friends, in fact) whom I regularly spend time with. How do that fit into your broad category of homophobia?

Correction; Those are extreme examples of what can happen. Unfortunately, there's always an extreme to any situation. It doesn't mean that this type of thing is indicative to the majority.

Most opposition to gay marriage stems from moral and religious beliefs. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not-- Or even agree with it or not-- Most of our laws are built on moral and religious beliefs. That's a valid reason as any to oppose gay marriage.

It's not meant to. I'm just responding to your posts.

It's good to see that you have slightly backed off of your ridiculous statement that "All people who oppose gay marriage are homophobic".

As far as forcing your beliefs on another, I'm not really going to argue against that because, in a way, it is true. But, then again, I don't see the problem with that as the majority usually forces their beliefs on the minority in one way or another.

I believe you're missing the point. We're really not arguing semantics. I believe the person's point whom you originally quoted was that if you feel obligated to use the term "Homophobe" to describe people opposing gay marriage, that someone could very easily call you a "Heterophobe". Neither term is really correct in describing either side, but you can't honestly expct to label one side without them labeling you in return.

By the way, I only call ad hominem when you blatantly insult me (As you did in the post which Charlatan edited).

It is a loaded term, but that doesn't mean that there aren't people who don't live up to the term. Simply because some people do, doesn't mean everyone does.

That's rather an unfair comparison. Fred Phelps is an idiot, I agree. But, unlike Fred Phelps, I don't hate gays nor do I preach hate for gays. It's wrong of you to group everyone opposing gay marriage in the same breath as him.

It is untrue and your assumptions are baseless.

*See response below*

It's not rubbish. Your first assumption was that I was homophobic, easily disproved by the fact that I have gay friends. That's what I was responding to. According to your logic, for someone to non-discriminatory they have to be willing to grant all groups the exact same rights as the next.

I've already explained why I disprove of gay marriage on pages prior. You could always read go back and find them for yourself.

That's not correct. Laws are basically a set of standards upon which the populace is expected to abide by. Laws, by their nature, will inherently discriminate against some group of people as they usually force a set of standards on someone.

That's a rather noble concept, but not one which is feasible. Following that criterion, most of our laws would be null and void and some of them prevent people from engaging in activities which would harm no one.

This is getting kina' old... I'm not a bigot.

You're right. I do oppose gay marriage because it goes against my moral code. That doesn't make me a bigot, though. There's a stark difference between disagreeing with gay marriage and being a bigot toward's gays. Bigotry is a form of intolerance. I'm not intolerant of gays; I don't sit on the corner of the street protesting their right to exist; I don't exclaim that the government jail them; And I certainly don't believe that they be on the receiving end of hate crimes. I simply don't believe that they be allowed to marry.

You need to learn the difference between bigotry and disagreement.

Did you miss the two sentences which said "No, I'm not equating gay marriage to either of the two. I'm pointing out that simply because I oppose something, does not mean that I'm a bigot"? I fully well realize that none of the three are equatable. My point is that simply because I oppose something in principle, doesn't mean I'm a bigot. We all oppose some principle. It doesn't make any of us bigotted.
You say that enforcing traditional values on people is disrespectful? I'm not really going to get into an argument over whether that's right or not, but what I do know is that the majority of our laws are based squarely on religious and/or moral beliefs. According to many people's standards, gay marriage is wrong. I hate to break it to you, but very nearly all of our modern laws and rules stem from religious and/or moral beliefs.

True, but even if two gay people decide to have children the option is a lot more difficult. I was not saying that all married people should reproduce, I am simply saying that it is much more difficult for gay people to do it.

Rubbish. That isn't an opinion, it's a claim, and it's false. Marriage has been around since before pre-Christian times, I'm staring at a Greek creation myth in which Uranus was Gaia's husband. Atheists can marry. You have no right to force your beliefs on someone else through the ballots, even if your country may make it seem like you do.

But it still means gay couples are somehow second rate to straight couples. Unless you can give them something that has equal standing to marriage, like, for instance, gay marriage, you're just being patronising. There are many, many rights given to married couple and I have no doubt that a "civil union" would only recieve the most basic of these benefits.

There's no need for making unbacked assertions against minorities, either.

Except everytime I do that I explain why. It's not an insult to call you a chicken if I can demonstrate to you that you are for all intensive purposes, your average farmyard chicken.

What question?

I find it very arrogant and malign of you that even with gay friends, you still oppose gay marriage, actually. Not to mention how overuse and completely ridiculous that argument is.

You're not Fred Phelps, I noticed. That doesn't mean you're in anyway justified, however.

Examples of what DOES happen.

I don't see any parrellel on the pro-gay side. Nothing even resembling it.

It does mean that it happens as long as people create an atmosphere where it's acceptable to have so called "Opinions" that are nothing but an insult to a minority.

No it's not. That's circular reasoning and appealing to tradition. It's literally DEFINED as invalid reasoning, therefore you are wrong. Please read up on logical fallacies before. And don't reply to me whining about how I'm forcing my beliefs on you(which is extremely ironic), it's defined as being invalid reasoning and you'll have to come up with something better than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Your reasoning is wrong. Please be mature and accept this. If you do not, you are not adhering to some of the most basic rules of debate and I literally cannot continue a logical debate with you any longer. Maybe there is some incredible reasoning why gay marriage should be banned, but the ones you have mentioned are not. You should need a heck of a lot more than to force your beliefs on someone. You have some of the most terrible societal reasoning I've ever seen.

Moral and religious beliefs are no excuse. It's not difficult to see you're denying someone their rights for little to no reason. Keep your "morals" and beliefs to yourself, and let others have their beliefs. The only Morals there should be are ones based on what hurts people and what doesn't.

I didn't. It's true. I'll say it again. You believe in discriminating against a minority, putting your own arrogant beliefs before the well being of others.

Ad Hominem is only arguing from an insult. It is not merely insulting someone.

It just shows how little you really know - Ad Hominem is merely short for Argumentum Ad Hominem. If you'd have known the full title, it speaks for itself - arguiment against the person. I wasn't using insults as part of my actual argument, as I was demonstrating how the "weight" of them was in some way true.

Your argument is based around two fallacies - Appeal to Tradition and Circular reasoning. You're in no position to the pointing out apparent "fallacies" in my argument which are merely instances of frustration with the repetition of your argument.

You said it was NOTHING but a loaded term. Now you're changing your position to look somewhat less ridiculous. Please just admit your initial post was very brash in offensive, and in a manner that you can't get a warning for, making it somewhat sly too.

But you do take a stand against gay marriage for no real logical reasons. So you do belong in the same camp as him if we're grouping by that. Being against Gay Marriage is a homophobic vice and you've done nothing to prove otherwise, despite my backing for it.

I never said you were homophobic until you said you were against gay marriage, confirming that you are a particular brand of homophobe.

There's a reason homophobe IS a loaded word. Your stance is wrong and unlike most people online I don't mollycoddle this rubbish. Unless you can defend your position without basing it on fallacy, it's a pile of cack. A pile of cack that keeps people from the rights they deserve. Maybe most people stand for that, but I don't. I'm telling you right here and now that it's wrong and not a viewpoint you should be proud of, and not as an opinion, but according to the current facts which indicate nothing is wrong with legalising gay marriage.

No, if you have such a definite argument you should be able to repeat it in a short summary. It can't possibly be that complicated.

But laws are only meant to be enforce when people act in a manner that hurts others. They're not, obviously, thanks to conservatism and people like you who make utterly fallicious arguments to defend institutionalised discrimination, but the point is, that's what they're meant to be. They're meant to protect people - why do people need protecting from Gay Marriage when it's not even damn well effecting them? And don't give me the "It affects all society" nonsense. You know very well you can't back that up. It affects the rest of society in a very small way, but ultimately puts nobody else in any overall differing position.

This is why Relativism is such a dangerous idealogy - it claims to be the most realistic yet involves removing any trace of actual reality.

What!? It's the only basis any law should based on. What the hell are the point of laws if they're not there to protect people?

Do me a favour - never use "following that logic" type statements again. They nearly always invoke the slippery slope or are generally nonsensical.

In this statement, it's ridiculous because we are sentient beings that can tell when a certain law against a particular "hurting people" action would be inadvisable.

There is no logic behind banning gay marriage.

So says you, bigot.

Now, if I was to use Ad Hominem, it would look like that. But that's not how I put it at all. you are bigotted as you believe in your idealogy of marriage far above all others, and enforcing it on other people, where it doesn't affect you in the slightest.

*sigh*

You are intolerant of homosexuals marrying.

You are intolerant of them marrying.

You are protesting their right to marry.

You do exclaim that the government refuse to grant them equal status.

Yet you do believe that homophobia should not be frowned upon, thus created an environment where hate crimes are more common.

Rubbish. Like I said, people right off claims as opinions and beliefs so they can keep them long after they're proven wrong.

This is no exception.

But you also believe very strongly in your idea of marriage to the extent that it should be the only one that exists. That's disgustingly bigotted. Why not let everyone have their own idea of marriage if you're not a bigot?

I won't piss on someone for thinking that marriage should be a man or a woman. I will for thinking that that's the way it should be for everyone else.

I will repeat that American and much of the rest of the world has serious problems distinguishing between having a belief, and forcing it on someone in a vicious manner.

Of course not, it's the basis for your entire argument, and we already established that it's most likely about as grounded as most other homophobic arguments.

That doesn't make it right.

So? Many laws can be logically determined by the simple does-it-hurt-people law combined with the sense of is-it-practical. Gay marriage does not hurt people and is practical. Tradition is meaningles in such things, as you shouldn't be allowed enforce it on others.

Are you on the debate team, Kittie? Did you just take logic? Did you find a textbook on logical fallacies wedged underneath your couch? For someone who got after Infinite for nitpicking, you're sure being picky about responding to his posts and making sure every logical fallacy is identified and used with exacting precision. We're having a discussion on an emotionally charged issue. Carving a swath through it with perfectly constructed treatises on logic isn't going to help us much.

I'm the first to concede, as I made evident throughout this thread, that, to me, there is a fundamental disconnect in Infinite's adamant stance against gay marriage and his contention that he has no problems with gays. So I, and everyone else, I think, stopped posting, because attacking that point over and over didn't move the discussion anywhere. We'd made our points and that was that.

I don't understand where re-hashing 5 pages of thread has gotten us. If Infinite was looking to be convinced, he has ample evidence to allow him to change his mind. If you were looking for his reasoning, you have opportunity to read several pages of it. I guess your tone and how you've gone after Infinite feels to me like you're looking for a fight in an effort to force everyone to "listen to logic so many of the 'blurry lines' would becoem [sic] distinct." Though in principle I agree with you, your approach is very hostile, and I can't figure out why.

Wait, I don't get that.

Oh, logical fallacies! You just took a Debating 101! Amirite? Amirite?

His argument is clearly based on two huge fallacies. That's not nitpicking. It's pointing out the entire premise for his argument is wrong.

If we can't use logic because it's an "emotional" argument, what CAN we use? This is my problem with arguing on the internet in general - facts and logic become suspended just so some hypothetical moron can have an opinion. If you want to know why I seem so "hostile" that's exactly why.

Logic is there for a reason. Fallacies don't determine the whole nature of the universe, but they do point out invalid reasoning. Somethings are just plain wrong and we need to accept that.

Have you ever heard of civility? It never really killed anyone. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I respect your opinions without feeling the need to insult you, so I would have expected the same from you but meh... I suppose that's wishful thinking.

There really isn't any point in debating with someone who name-calls and/or flamebaits every other sentence.

There definitely isn't any point in debating with someone who refuses to adhere to basic logic. Logic rarely kills anyone- lack of logic has, however, as stupid, arrogant decisions are often made that cost lives.

There's more to life than "respecting opinions", and it doesn't make you a better person just for claiming to "respect my opinion" when I do not respect yours. There are real issues in the real world, and sometimes agreeing and disagreeing isn't enough, it has to be determined what is actually right. Having the guts to stand up for what's right is often preferable to "agreeing to disagree" - which leads nowhere.

There is no place for relativism here. Gay Marriage either works or it doesn't. The majority has no right to control the minority in a way that doesn't affect them. Gay Marriage has been successfully legalised in various countries around the world, and it hasn't hurt a soul.

And that's pretty much the end of it.

If you TRULY believed in respecting everyone equally, then you wouldn't "disagree" with this, seperating your personal preference from what you think should happen.

So I'm going to take your "look at me I'm so respectful" with a bag or two of salt.

Some issues some people will agree with you on and some they will not; However, you should still respect my opinion just like I respect yours. That's basically what it boils down to. It's as if you can't accept the fact that people have opinions which are differing to your own.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and no one needs to be insulted for them. Differing opinions are no reason to be abrasive, rude and just flat out beligerent.

You instantly attack anyone who holds an opinion which you don't agree with. Why that is well... I really don't know.

This thread is a great example of when one person gets just a little too personal, and then one or two others spend the entire rest of the thread whining and crying about it, rather than attempting to steer it in a better direction or just hitting their back button and not continuing to bait the person who "started it".

If you want to complain about someone's tactics, report their post using the "report this post" link on the post itself, and keep us informed, don't continue to make post after post telling the person how you're done talking to them. Because you aren't. You had no intentions to actually stop arguing or else you'd have said your peace and not posted again. When you post "i'm not going to argue with..." 3 times in a row to the other person's subsequent responses, you're still arguing with them.

And this thread was actually going really well for a bit there. Shame.