What Upsets People About Gay Marriage - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Bill O'Rights · 06-26-2006, 06:27 AM

Interesting.
I see an awful lot of argument and debate in this thread. What I do not see, is anyone (with the exception of one "Devil's Advocate") take the stated position that Homosexuals should not be permitted to marry.
Which...is fine. I, like so many others, also believe that homosexuals should be allowed legal marriage, but that churches should not be forced to marry them.
So...what then is the problem? To whom are we arguing our stated point?

Charlatan · 06-26-2006, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magictoy

"A tad?" If this were a discussion on receipt of government assistance, I wouldn't ask for "losers" to chime in. I don't know whether 'chick meant it to be insulting, because it's pervasive throughout the media (and this forum) to label as a "homophobe" anyone who doesn't support whatever gay agenda is making the news. Had there been reason to suspect that she knew better, I would have used a stronger word than "bias."

Umm no.

The actual equivalent would be having a discussion about racism and asking a racist to chime in with an opinion.

She *did not* equate (in that post at least) homophobia with *all* who are against same-sex marriage. It was you who made that leap.

Infinite_Loser · 06-26-2006, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moyaboy

If marriage is a privlage then why do you have the quick marriages in Nevada. Such a privilage!

It's rather simple. No one has the right to marry. Not me, not you or anyone else who reads this. A right is something which is owed to you and marriage isn't owed to you (Even if you would like to think it is). The institution of marriage-- More than anything else-- Is a based off of social structure. Rather, being married is a privilege, just as being able to drive or owning a cell phone is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Your religion may tell you that homosexuality is a sin. Bully for you! Don't become a practiving homosexual. The key here is that all citizens are supposed to be equal before the law. Those who would fight to discriminate based on something as silly as sexuality need to seriously examine their place in the division of church and state.

I haven't based anything off of religion. The only time I ever mentioned religion was in response to a users post which happened to mention religion. Anyway, as I stated in my post prior, being married is a privilege and, as such, the act of being married can be denied to any persons. How does the denial of the privilege of marriage negatively affect a homosexual's life?

The notion that citizens are equal under the law-- While noble-- Is a load of horse dung. There are many social inequalities present in our every day society, which are not questioned and accepted as common practice (For example, in the United States, we deny criminals the right to vote, we deny minors the right to enter into contracts, you can't legally drink if you're under the age of 21 etc.). If you're going to argue on the basis that denying homosexuals the privilege of marriage is violating the notion that citizens are equal under the law, then you'd better start to challenege all inequalities.

maleficent · 06-26-2006, 06:41 AM

Looks like I'm going to have to speed up my plot for world dominiation, well at least domestic domination...

I stand by my original statement that I don't think anyone should get married, that all marriage is, is just a piece of paper... but...

if the tax status were gotten rid of, and people were smart enough to have wills and powers of attorney and that other stuff (which every adult should have anyhow) What does it matter who marries who?

What right does any government have to legalize or illegalize marriage?

A person could marry their freakin' dog for all I care... the government has no place saying that it's either legal or illegal.

Charlatan · 06-26-2006, 06:51 AM

Infinite_Loser: I wasn't addressing you, or anyone in particular, with my comments about religion. It was simply arguing to remove religion from this debate as it has no place in a discussion of law in a secular society.

Yes, there is a a lot of inequity in the world. So, by you suggestion, unless we can solve all inequity we shouldn't solve any? Wow. (I won't even get into the fact that the examples you have provided included criminals and minors).

The issue is, again... equality before the law for adult citizens.

A marriage is a marriage. There is no reason (other than bigotry) to deny these rights.

Infinite_Loser · 06-26-2006, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Yes, there is a a lot of inequity in the world. So, by you suggestion, unless we can solve all inequity we shouldn't solve any? Wow. (I won't even get into the fact that the examples you have provided included criminals and minors).

No, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying, though, is that if you're going to argue that gay marriages should be legalized on the basis of social equalities, that you should argue against all social inequalities and not just one of them.

And my examples were simply to show that there are a great deal of social inequalities in our societies (Whether you agree with the examples given or not). They were simply the first to come to mind.

Quote:

The issue is, again... equality before the law for adult citizens.

A marriage is a marriage. There is no reason (other than bigotry) to deny these rights.

I asked a question earlier, but I think it was ignored. What do homosexuals lose by denying them the privilege to be married? Better yet, in what ways are they negatively affected?

Charlatan · 06-26-2006, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

No, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying, though, is that if you're going to argue against social inequalities, that you should argue against all of them and not just some of them.

And my examples were simply to show that there are a great deal of social inequalities in our societies (Whether you agree with the examples given or not). They were simply the first to come to mind.

Who's to say that those battles aren't being fought? Just because this particular issue is prominent doesn't mean that others issues aren't being addressed.

Progress is not instantaneous... it usually happens one fight at a time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

I asked a question earlier, but I think it was ignored. What do homosexuals lose by denying them the privilege to be married? Better yet, in what ways are they negatively affected?

I didn't ignore it at all. The are being denied the right of equality before the law. There is no reason, other than bigotry, to deny these "priviliges" as you call them. To me, that is enough.

Jinn · 06-26-2006, 07:13 AM

Quote:

What do homosexuals lose by denying them the privilege to be married? Better yet, in what ways are they negatively affected?

What do heterosexuals lose by denying them the privilege to be married? Better yet, in what ways are they negatively affected?

It's the same things.

Infinite_Loser · 06-26-2006, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I didn't ignore it at all. The are being denied the right of equality before the law. There is no reason, other than bigotry, to deny these "priviliges" as you call them. To me, that is enough.

Since marriage is a privilege, how can the denial of something which someone isn't entitled to be considered bigotted?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

What do heterosexuals lose by denying them the privilege to be married? Better yet, in what ways are they negatively affected?

It's the same things.

If heterosexuals weren't allowed to be married, they wouldn't lose anything nor would their normal lives be affected. Therefore, shouldn't the same thing be said of homosexuals?

Edit: But, you see, we have an accepted status quo which is the result of thousands of years of practice. Unfortunately for many homosexuals, the prevailing attitude throughout many, many cultures is that homosexuality is a gigantic "No no". Even in the United States, when votes are taken on the issue of legalizing gay marriages, you usually receive a resounding "No" vote. It might not be "Fair" but, then again, many things in life rarely are.

Redlemon · 06-26-2006, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

I asked a question earlier, but I think it was ignored. What do homosexuals lose by denying them the privilege to be married? Better yet, in what ways are they negatively affected?

Have you read Gilda's reports of her recovery from her accident? She was in the hospital and unconscious. Her wife, who is also a medical doctor, was not allowed to make any decisions on her treatment. The only way the doctors would accept her instructions were to have Gilda's sister there, saying "Do what she said".

Jinn · 06-26-2006, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfiniteLoser

If heterosexuals weren't allowed to be married, they wouldn't lose anything nor would their normal lives be affected. Therefore, shouldn't the same thing be said of homosexuals?

They'd lose NOTHING? Honestly..

Quote:

In the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
* joint parenting;
* joint adoption;
* joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
* status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
* joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
* dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
* immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
* inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
* joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
* inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
* benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
* spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
* veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
* joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
* wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
* bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
* decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
* crime victims' recovery benefits;
* loss of consortium tort benefits;
* domestic violence protection orders;
* judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

Those are the losses I was referring to -- and those are some of the things that unmarried gay couples cannot enjoy.

Infinite_Loser · 06-26-2006, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Those are the losses I was referring to -- and those are some of the things that unmarried gay couples cannot enjoy.

I know what you were getting at, buy my point was that they're aren't losing anything which they don't already have. No benefit is being taken away from then, since they never had it in the first place.

Meh... A slightly cynical view, I know, but still true nevertheless.

mixedmedia · 06-26-2006, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

I know what you were getting at, buy my point was that they're aren't losing anything which they don't already have. No benefit is being taken away from then, since they never had it in the first place.

Meh... A slightly cynical view, I know, but still true nevertheless.

I wouldn't categorize it as cynical. I'd categorize it as dismissive. Perhaps even evasive.

Just my opinion...

Charlatan · 06-26-2006, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Edit: But, you see, we have an accepted status quo which is the result of thousands of years of practice. Unfortunately for many homosexuals, the prevailing attitude throughout many, many cultures is that homosexuality is a gigantic "No no". Even in the United States, when votes are taken on the issue of legalizing gay marriages, you usually receive a resounding "No" vote. It might not be "Fair" but, then again, many things in life rarely are.

So, here is one vote for "tyranny of the majority".

It wasn't fair that blacks were discriminated against. They should have just learned that their status as second class citizens was just life not being fair.

"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinite_loser

No benefit is being taken away from then, since they never had it in the first place.

Their rights as a citizen are being diminished. They are being excluded from the benefits of marriage that are accorded to citizens as a whole, through no other reason than bigotry.

There is no sound reason to limit someone's rights in this manner in a secular society.

Infinite_Loser · 06-26-2006, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Their rights as a citizen are being diminished. They are being excluded from the benefits of marriage that are accorded to citizens as a whole, through no other reason than bigotry.

There is no sound reason to limit someone's rights in this manner in a secular society.

You keep mentioning that this is a secular society, but this secular society-- As a whole-- Doesn't approve of gay marriages (In the United States, this is evidenced by the fact that votes on gay marriages usually receive a resounding "No" vote).

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I wouldn't categorize it as cynical. I'd categorize it as dismissive. Perhaps even evasive.

Just my opinion...

It's not intended to be dismissive or even evasive.

Jinn · 06-26-2006, 08:23 AM

Quote:

I know what you were getting at, buy my point was that they're aren't losing anything which they don't already have. No benefit is being taken away from then, since they never had it in the first place.

Just like women and African Americans -- they didn't have the rights in the first place, so no "benefit is being taken away since they never had it in the first place" ?

And you don't see how that's bigoted? It's not cynical, it might be evasive and dismissive, but it's definitely bigoted.

"Hey look -- an underpriveleged class. Let's not give them equality, beacuse .. well,... uhh.. they don't have it now so they don't know what they're missin!"

StanT · 06-26-2006, 08:29 AM

I'm apathetic as hell to gay marriage, it's a non-issue to me. You get it on a ballot, I'll vote for it; but it doesn't make my "top 10 list" of social issues that I feel a need to do something about.
What I find hard to understand is the insistance on the use of the word "marriage". Why not use a term that doesn't carry the same political / religious baggage. Legislation that allowed the same rights, but was labeled as a civil union, would stand a much greater chance of passage. From a strictly tactical perspective, I'd compromise the wording to get the rights.

The_Jazz · 06-26-2006, 08:33 AM

Examples of other "status quo" practices that are now no longer accepted by the majority of the Western world:

Slavery
Blood feuds
Duels
Arranged marriages

I'll also point out that there are biblical approval for all of these as well as widespread acceptance of them. Cultures change. Ours probably will accept homosexual marriage, although it may not be in our lifetimes (then again it might). Since I'm not gay, it won't directly affect me regardless of the outcome. However, it does affect my friends and family and I don't want to see them struggle with issues like Gilda's. If you're against gay marriage, my opinion is that you're ignoring the realities of life. If you're willing to grant all the rights that a married couple has but unwilling to call it a marriage, then that's fine with me as long as you recognize my right to call it what it really is.

Infinite_Loser · 06-26-2006, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Just like women and African Americans -- they didn't have the rights in the first place, so no "benefit is being taken away since they never had it in the first place" ?

And you don't see how that's bigoted? It's not cynical, it might be evasive and dismissive, but it's definitely bigoted.

"Hey look -- an underpriveleged class. Let's not give them equality, beacuse .. well,... uhh.. they don't have it now so they don't know what they're missin!"

All right. You've taken what I was saying out of context. I don't agree with denying people basic rights. What I do agree with, however, is denying people privileges (Things such as marriage, driver's liscence, etc.).

If you remember, the Tenth Ammendment states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

In a nutshell, a state can deny anyone basic privileges as long as the people agree to it. In this case, the states have voted (Overwhelmingly, I might add) for the non-legalization of gay marriages. That is what I agree with. If that makes me bigotted, then so be it.

mixedmedia · 06-26-2006, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

It's not intended to be dismissive or even evasive.

Well, to rely upon your argument - in essence, they've never had these rights therefore they are not entitled to them - you would have to, by necessity, be dismissive. And the argument itself is evasive of any real discussion about it. That's how I come to that conclusion. And it is common among those who oppose gay marriage, but are averse to being viewed as bigoted.

To address the question in the title of this thread, I contend that more prevalent than religious bias against homosexuality is the simple "ick" bias. And the ick-sters are loathe to be associated with the haters and the religious objectors. So they come up with these vague arguments regarding priveleges and the status quo that seem dismissive and evasive. Because they are.

Tell us why you agree with denying people priveleges? On what basis? Did you feel this way before gay marriage became an issue?

Jinn · 06-26-2006, 08:59 AM

Quote:

If you remember, the Tenth Ammendment states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

In a nutshell, a state can deny anyone basic privileges as long as the people agree to it. In this case, the states have voted (Overwhelmingly, I might add) for the non-legalization of gay marriages. That is what I agree with. If that makes me bigotted, then so be it.

If YOU remember, the Fourteenth Amendent addressed a similar idea:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourteenth Amendment, Section I

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Aside from specifically preventing states from invoking laws which take away priveleges granted to OTHER United States Citizens, it prevents taking away life, liberty, and property. Read the list I have above and show me one that's not one of those three.

If you're going to quote the Constitution, remember that the same document can be taken two ways.

Charlatan · 06-26-2006, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

All right. You've taken what I was saying out of context. I don't agree with denying people basic rights. What I do agree with, however, is denying people privileges (Things such as marriage, driver's liscence, etc.).

If you remember, the Tenth Ammendment states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

In a nutshell, a state can deny anyone basic privileges as long as the people agree to it. In this case, the states have voted (Overwhelmingly, I might add) for the non-legalization of gay marriages. That is what I agree with. If that makes me bigotted, then so be it.

I don't believe anything has been taken out of context. Again, I suggest that you are advocating for the tyranny of the majority.

The majority once agreed that blacks should not be allowed to drink from the same water fountain as whites. Heck, if the majority of people agree that this is OK then it *must* be OK. Drinking at a water fountain isn't a right, it's a privilige... besides, we've provided them with their own water fountain. It's just as nice, really.

This has nothing to do with who has the right to make a law. It has everything to do with inequity before the law.

Kurant · 06-26-2006, 09:06 AM

I have no problem with gay marriages.. It's unnatural and IMO disgusting, but it's someone elses life and sexual preference, not mine. With that said, this is America, the so called land of the free, so more power to them.

What I DO have a problem with, is gay marriages mainly gay men having the ability to adopt children. That is not a postive thing for any child in any form. Could you imagine the hell this kid would go through in a public school system when people found out? Talk about an extreme case of a social misfit. Potentially creating another social disaster and a kid that mentally is just not together.

Besides removing a child from some sort of foster care or adoption center, I just cannot thing of one positive thing about gay marriages adopting children.

Again, just my opinion. But, I'm very strong about it.

(P.S. Sorry for the edit, but formatting on my laptop is hell for some reason. Drives me crazy.)

Charlatan · 06-26-2006, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurant

What I DO have a problem with, is gay marriages mainly gay men having the ability to adopt childeren. That is not a postive thing for any child in any form. Could you imagine the hell this kid would go through in a public school system when people found out? Talk about an extreme case of a social misfit. Potentially creating another social disaster and a kid that mentally is just not together. It's not a healthy thing.

Again, it's just my opinion, but I'm extremely strong willed about it.

This is really a topic for another thread... Please feel free to start another thread as I would love to debate it there...

Infinite_Loser · 06-26-2006, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

If YOU remember, the Fourteenth Amendent addressed a similar idea:

Aside from specifically preventing states from invoking laws which take away priveleges granted to OTHER United States Citizens, it prevents taking away life, liberty, and property. Read the list I have above and show me one that's not one of those three.

If you're going to quote the Constitution, remember that the same document can be taken two ways.

No, I didn't forget the 14th Amendment. I fully well realize realize what it says and I fully well realize what it means. Now, with that being said, I might be wrong, but I distinctly remember a series of states taking votes regarding a ban on gay marriages, all of which passed resoundingly (I believe this was back in 2004).

I haven't kept up too much with recent activities, but unless those laws were revoked, then doesn't that show that states can indeed pass bans on gay marriage?

Charlatan · 06-26-2006, 09:27 AM

Yes. It does show that they can pass laws banning same sex marriage. It doesn't make it right. It also doesn't mean it is permanent. Laws can be struck down in the court of law.

The law in Canada was changed to allow same sex marriage when the courts said that denying the right to marriage ran contrary to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A charter that protects against the tyranny of the majority.

Infinite_Loser · 06-26-2006, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Yes. It does show that they can pass laws banning same sex marriage.

That was my point.

water_bug · 06-26-2006, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maleficent

Looks like I'm going to have to speed up my plot for world dominiation, well at least domestic domination...

I stand by my original statement that I don't think anyone should get married, that all marriage is, is just a piece of paper... but...

if the tax status were gotten rid of, and people were smart enough to have wills and powers of attorney and that other stuff (which every adult should have anyhow) What does it matter who marries who?

What right does any government have to legalize or illegalize marriage?

A person could marry their freakin' dog for all I care... the government has no place saying that it's either legal or illegal.

I used to feel that way too. Now, -I don't know- I guess I am begining to think differently. Thses days people usually live together before they are married, and then get married. I always though -what's the difference now? Nothing has changed except a last name maybe. But now I think the idea of marriage is more romantic than practical. It's making this momumental coomitment to another person offical, and it parades it around in front of others so to tell everyone "See, I love this person so I don't try anything."

I am not married so maybe my view is naive, but to me it is very romantic. And that too me is the basis of why anyone should be allowed to marry whomever they like.

Charlatan · 06-26-2006, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

That was my point.

I can also pass a law, with appropriate support, banning all Muslims from entering the USA. It doesn't mean that the law is right or will stand up in a court of law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by water_bug

I used to feel that way too. Now, -I don't know- I guess I am begining to think differently. Thses days people usually live together before they are married, and then get married. I always though -what's the difference now? Nothing has changed except a last name maybe. But now I think the idea of marriage is more romantic than practical. It's making this momumental coomitment to another person offical, and it parades it around in front of others so to tell everyone "See, I love this person so I don't try anything."

I am not married so maybe my view is naive, but to me it is very romantic. And that too me is the basis of why anyone should be allowed to marry whomever they like.

My wife and I were married just over 13 years ago. We had a ceremony with about 100 people in attendence. We didn't sign any license. We didn't take any vows before a deity. Nonetheless, we consider ourselves in every way but the legal or religious definition, married.

The ceremony of marriage. The decision to commit yourself to another *is* a big decision. What the government has to do with was and continues to be, beyond me. I don't understand it.

We both felt that it was enough to tell our friends and family that we were married and to have a celebration to commemorate that committment.

(interestingly, my wife and I are getting married at city hall this Friday. Because we immigrating to Singapore and Singapore doesn't recognize common-law marriage we need documentation to show we are married. The neccessity of this action annoys the hell out of me...)

Gilda · 06-26-2006, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Those changes have only happened RECENTLY. For centuries-- No matter what the culture-- Marriage always has been deemed as a sacred union between males and females. No matter what the causes, many cultures have always openly looked down on homosexual practices.

You claim was that it has always been between male and female. It hasn't. It doesn't matter that the changes I list are recent, they disprove that claim.

Oh, and many Native American tribes followed a practice labled by anthropologists as berdache. Most nations prefer the term two spirit. It allowed, and even celebrated the practice of a male dressing and acting the role of a female even marrying another male. The argument can be made, I suppose, that this represents an early form of transsexualism, but given what I've read on the subject I think it covers both male homosexuality and transsexuality depending on the degree to which the two-spirited person identified as masculine or feminine.

Quote:

Oh! And marriage isn't a right. It's a privilege.

In the United states marriage is a right. Loving v. Virginia:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCOTUS

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Quote:

Homosexuality in nature occurs for procreation purposes (All right, in some species which lack both sexual organs (Such as some primates), homosexual tendencies have been observed, but the actual act of sex between same genders have not).

In Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, biologist Bruce Bagemihl documents hundreds of animal species that exhibit various kinds of homosexual behaviors.

Non human animals engage in pretty much every sexual behavior that humans do.

Quote:

Nothing more, nothing less. Not to gay bash or offend anyone, but the reasons for homosexuality occurring in nature are far different than the reasons homosexuality occurs in humans, as two homosexuals can not reproduce (I believe someone stated that earlier).

We don't know the exact reasons for homosexuality occurring in nature outside of human beings, though it has been linked to overcrowding in some species. We have a very good grasp of the causes of male homosexuality in humans, while there seem to be multiple causes, mostly environmental, for females. They're both natural, though.

Gilda

FoolThemAll · 06-26-2006, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

If everyone can believe what they want about gay marriage, i can believe what i want too. I believe that about 99.9999999999% of those opposed to gay marriage and homosexuality are bigots. If you're one of them and that hurts your feelings, well, tough. If anything you can take comfort in the irony of your taking offense at being judged for your judgement of homosexuals. I don't know what i'd call that other .0000000001%, i'll have to wait until i meet one of them.

Perplexing no matter how many times I hear it. Particularly with your figures, as it looks like they amount to saying that one out of a trillion same-sex marriage opponents manages to avoid bigotry - does this mean that you've cast judgment on people from a couple other planets besides Earth?

I can only chalk up your experience to a lack or experience, a lack of diverse experience, or an inability/unwillingness to understand the non-bigoted opposition. Take your pick or supply me with your own explanation, because it's been more like 75/25 for me. A minority, to be sure, but sizable and - contrary to your implied assessment - existent.

If you're to argue that 100% of them are wrong, I agree. But whether they fall into the definition fallacy, the "correlation = causation" Scandinavian fallacy, the slippery slope fallacy, or what have you, I've met quite a few same-sex marriage opponents that avoid any noticeable kind of bigotry. That don't show intolerance of homosexuals. That treat homosexuals as equals and friends. That even sometimes- believe it or not - aren't against completely equal rights for homosexuals. (It sometimes amazes me how much stock people on both sides put in a mere word.) They aren't bigoted in any meaningful way. You might as well label everyone you disagree with bigoted - it will dilute the word just the same.

While we're riding on the theme of people being able to believe whatever they want, I believe that people who assume bigotry in this context are on the same level as people who assume a hatred for America on the part of anti-war folk. The same careless and unimaginative level.

Gilda · 06-26-2006, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

I haven't based anything off of religion. The only time I ever mentioned religion was in response to a users post which happened to mention religion. Anyway, as I stated in my post prior, being married is a privilege and, as such, the act of being married can be denied to any persons. How does the denial of the privilege of marriage negatively affect a homosexual's life?

Marriage is a basic civil right in the United States.

Eight months ago I drove my car into a ditch, ending up with a severe concussion, cerebral edema, and a mangled left arm. I was unconcious for three days. My wife Grace was at the hospital within 12 hours. She is a nurse with a master's degree in emergency medicine, and has worked both as a paramedic and in the ER. She had with her my living will naming her as the person I wanted making my medical decisions, and there was a number of them to be made, for example, whether to try to save my arm or to amputate. Even though she had a living will in hand, she wasn't permitted to make those decisions. She was not permitted to visit me in ICU during a crucial period of time when it was unsure whether I would survive. They attempted to contact my parents, the last people I'd want making decisions for me, which is in my living will, to do that. My wife was forced to get a lawyer and a court order to get those privileges.

In the interim, my sister was determined by the hospital to be my next of kin. Until the court order arrived, the doctors involved would explain the choices to my sister, Grace would tell them what she wanted done (in every case making the same choice I would have for myself, I might add) and Sissy would tell them "Do what she said." Once the court order arrived, she was treated like my wife rather than an unrelated friend.

What required a living will and a court order would have been automatic had we been legally married.

That's just one. There are dozens, probably hundreds, and all come automatically with marriage, without having to make other arrangements.

Quote:

The notion that citizens are equal under the law-- While noble-- Is a load of horse dung. There are many social inequalities present in our every day society, which are not questioned and accepted as common practice (For example, in the United States, we deny criminals the right to vote, we deny minors the right to enter into contracts, you can't legally drink if you're under the age of 21 etc.). If you're going to argue on the basis that denying homosexuals the privilege of marriage is violating the notion that citizens are equal under the law, then you'd better start to challenege all inequalities.

Red herrings. Those are separate issues that deserve their own separate discussions. We all have issues that concern us more than others. Specific advocacy regarding those issues does not require that one take a specific position on other unrelated or only tangentially related issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurant

I have no problem with gay marriages.. It's unnatural and IMO disgusting, but it's someone elses life and sexual preference, not mine. With that said, this is America, the so called land of the free, so more power to them.

All marriage is unnatural.

Quote:

What I DO have a problem with, is gay marriages mainly gay men having the ability to adopt children. That is not a postive thing for any child in any form. Could you imagine the hell this kid would go through in a public school system when people found out? Talk about an extreme case of a social misfit. Potentially creating another social disaster and a kid that mentally is just not together.

Besides removing a child from some sort of foster care or adoption center, I just cannot thing of one positive thing about gay marriages adopting children.

Again, just my opinion. But, I'm very strong about it.

(P.S. Sorry for the edit, but formatting on my laptop is hell for some reason. Drives me crazy.)

Speaking as a homosexual in the process of starting a family, I understand the specific concern you express here, and it is a reasonable one to have. When we have a child or children, it will be an issue that we'll discuss with them and how they can deal with the potential teasing or bullying at school. It, however, has not proven to be the case that children of homosexuals are harmed in any way, or turn out any differently from the children of heterosexuals.

Gilda

filtherton · 06-26-2006, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Perplexing no matter how many times I hear it. Particularly with your figures, as it looks like they amount to saying that one out of a trillion same-sex marriage opponents manages to avoid bigotry - does this mean that you've cast judgment on people from a couple other planets besides Earth?

The numbers mean that i have never heard an argument against gay marriage that seemed reasonable or sufficient justification for depriving homosexuals of certain rights. I'm not an absolutist, though, so i left the door open with that really small number because i know that perhaps there is a good reason out there somewhere that i just haven't heard yet.

Quote:

I can only chalk up your experience to a lack or experience, a lack of diverse experience, or an inability/unwillingness to understand the non-bigoted opposition. Take your pick or supply me with your own explanation, because it's been more like 75/25 for me. A minority, to be sure, but sizable and - contrary to your implied assessment - existent.

Okay, so obviously your completely subjective experience is way more valid than mine. Wait, why is that again?

I would love to understand the nonbigoted opposition. I have tried and ultimately what it comes down to is that every argument i've heard that seeks to justify the marignalization of gays and gay rights is based on flawed logic, tyranny of the majority, or outright dishonesty. I would love to understand an argument that completely justifies the denial of the right of marriage between two men or two women. I would. Just because I feel like in doing so i would be seeing some sort of mythical creature. Like a unicorn.

Quote:

If you're to argue that 100% of them are wrong, I agree. But whether they fall into the definition fallacy, the "correlation = causation" Scandinavian fallacy, the slippery slope fallacy, or what have you, I've met quite a few same-sex marriage opponents that avoid any noticeable kind of bigotry. That don't show intolerance of homosexuals. That treat homosexuals as equals and friends. That even sometimes- believe it or not - aren't against completely equal rights for homosexuals. (It sometimes amazes me how much stock people on both sides put in a mere word.) They aren't bigoted in any meaningful way. You might as well label everyone you disagree with bigoted - it will dilute the word just the same.

I'm arguing that essentially 100% of the arguments are bigoted. I would also argue that essentially 100% of the arguments used against interracial marriage were bigoted.

Help me out. Explain to me a nonbigoted justification for opposing same sex marriage.

You may not see such rationales as bigoted. In my mind they are perhaps bigoted by definition. I used the numbers that i did because i have yet to hear a well reasoned, consistent, nonarbitrary reasoning for opposing gay marriage.

Quote:

While we're riding on the theme of people being able to believe whatever they want, I believe that people who assume bigotry in this context are on the same level as people who assume a hatred for America on the part of anti-war folk. The same careless and unimaginative level.

Fair enough, though to be sure, there are several reasonable arguments for why our current iraqian military endeavours are flawed. Like i said above, i have yet to hear a reasonable argument(reasonable enough to justify the denial of civil rights) for why gay marriage is bad.

I should also mention that i don't hate bigots. They have every right to believe what they want.

MySexyAssJ · 06-26-2006, 04:33 PM

i think that when two people love eachother, they should be able to do as they want. if they want to get married, they should! whether it's heterosexual or homosexual.. it shouldn't matter. love is love.

FoolThemAll · 06-26-2006, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I would love to understand the nonbigoted opposition. I have tried and ultimately what it comes down to is that every argument i've heard that seeks to justify the marignalization of gays and gay rights is based on flawed logic, tyranny of the majority, or outright dishonesty.

I have no disagreement with the second sentence here.

I just don't see how you conclude that every argument indicates bigotry on the part of the arguer. Either you're making a leap, or I'm missing a step.

Charlatan · 06-26-2006, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

I have no disagreement with the second sentence here.

I just don't see how you conclude that every argument indicates bigotry on the part of the arguer. Either you're making a leap, or I'm missing a step.

Please supply us with a non-bigoted argument. You speak about them but have yet to supply one.

Thanks.

FoolThemAll · 06-26-2006, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Please supply us with a non-bigoted argument. You speak about them but have yet to supply one.

Thanks.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman by definition.

This study from Scandinavia shows that same-sex marriage led to the deterioration of their institution of marriage.

Marriage requires procreation.

Three off the top of my head. Keep in mind that I'm not submitting them as good arguments; they are, in fact, seriously flawed arguments. But now you get to explain why anyone who makes these arguments must be a bigot, as opposed to merely mistaken.

Gilda · 06-26-2006, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman by definition.

That isn't an argument.

Quote:

This study from Scandinavia shows that same-sex marriage led to the deterioration of their institution of marriage.

Scandanavia? Do you mean Belgium and the Netherlands? What study would this be? Was it conducted by an organization that doesn't have an anti-homosexual agenda?

Quote:

Marriage requires procreation.

No it doesn't.

Gilda

Frosstbyte · 06-26-2006, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Marriage requires procreation..

If this is true, I know a WHOLE lot of people who aren't actually married. You're trying to subsume a biological function-mating-into the social institution which has grown up around it-marriage. There are untold numbers of perfectly happy married couples without children either by choice or because one or the other of them is incapable of having children.

I expect all of those people would be fairly upset if you told them that their either lack of desire or lack of ability to procreate renders them not married.

The "study from Sacndinavia" argument is hilarious. Correlation does not equal causation and statistics are easily manipulated. If I had the link, I'd refer you to the Fark cliche which clearly shows that global warming is linked to a decrease in the number of pirates in the world.

filtherton · 06-26-2006, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman by definition.

This study from Scandinavia shows that same-sex marriage led to the deterioration of their institution of marriage.

Marriage requires procreation.

Three off the top of my head. Keep in mind that I'm not submitting them as good arguments; they are, in fact, seriously flawed arguments. But now you get to explain why anyone who makes these arguments must be a bigot, as opposed to merely mistaken.

Just being mistaken is fine, because it implies some sort of misunderstanding, e.g. "Oops. I misread the recipe and accidentally put in two cups of sugar instead of two tablespoons." Do people who are "just mistaken" about homosexuality even exist? Is fred phelps "just mistaken" and should i feel bad about calling him a bigot on the off chance that he is?

People who opppose gay rights are bigots because generally the particular line of reasoning that they employ isn't relevant to their position. They are bigots because the level of commitment they have with respect to any argument against homosexuality is directly related to their ability to convince others of that argument's veracity. Once a particular line of reasoning is discredited they move on to another one. Their preexisting disdain for homosexuality necessitates some sort of rationalization, the specifics of which aren't important.

I feel very comfortable labelling all who oppose homosexuality bigots, because the vast vast vast majority of them are. On the off chance that they are "just mistaken", well, they shouldn't feel so bad, i was "just mistaken" too.

06-26-2006, 06:27 AM	#41 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Interesting. I see an awful lot of argument and debate in this thread. What I do not see, is anyone (with the exception of one "Devil's Advocate") take the stated position that Homosexuals should not be permitted to marry. Which...is fine. I, like so many others, also believe that homosexuals should be allowed legal marriage, but that churches should not be forced to marry them. So...what then is the problem? To whom are we arguing our stated point? __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

06-26-2006, 06:41 AM	#44 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	Looks like I'm going to have to speed up my plot for world dominiation, well at least domestic domination... I stand by my original statement that I don't think anyone should get married, that all marriage is, is just a piece of paper... but... if the tax status were gotten rid of, and people were smart enough to have wills and powers of attorney and that other stuff (which every adult should have anyhow) What does it matter who marries who? What right does any government have to legalize or illegalize marriage? A person could marry their freakin' dog for all I care... the government has no place saying that it's either legal or illegal. __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

06-26-2006, 06:51 AM	#45 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Infinite_Loser: I wasn't addressing you, or anyone in particular, with my comments about religion. It was simply arguing to remove religion from this debate as it has no place in a discussion of law in a secular society. Yes, there is a a lot of inequity in the world. So, by you suggestion, unless we can solve all inequity we shouldn't solve any? Wow. (I won't even get into the fact that the examples you have provided included criminals and minors). The issue is, again... equality before the law for adult citizens. A marriage is a marriage. There is no reason (other than bigotry) to deny these rights. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-26-2006, 08:33 AM	#58 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Examples of other "status quo" practices that are now no longer accepted by the majority of the Western world: Slavery Blood feuds Duels Arranged marriages I'll also point out that there are biblical approval for all of these as well as widespread acceptance of them. Cultures change. Ours probably will accept homosexual marriage, although it may not be in our lifetimes (then again it might). Since I'm not gay, it won't directly affect me regardless of the outcome. However, it does affect my friends and family and I don't want to see them struggle with issues like Gilda's. If you're against gay marriage, my opinion is that you're ignoring the realities of life. If you're willing to grant all the rights that a married couple has but unwilling to call it a marriage, then that's fine with me as long as you recognize my right to call it what it really is. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-26-2006, 09:06 AM	#63 (permalink)
Kurant Junkie Location: Don't worry about it.	I have no problem with gay marriages.. It's unnatural and IMO disgusting, but it's someone elses life and sexual preference, not mine. With that said, this is America, the so called land of the free, so more power to them. What I DO have a problem with, is gay marriages mainly gay men having the ability to adopt children. That is not a postive thing for any child in any form. Could you imagine the hell this kid would go through in a public school system when people found out? Talk about an extreme case of a social misfit. Potentially creating another social disaster and a kid that mentally is just not together. Besides removing a child from some sort of foster care or adoption center, I just cannot thing of one positive thing about gay marriages adopting children. Again, just my opinion. But, I'm very strong about it. (P.S. Sorry for the edit, but formatting on my laptop is hell for some reason. Drives me crazy.) Last edited by Kurant; 06-26-2006 at 09:11 AM..

06-26-2006, 08:29 AM	#57 (permalink)
StanT © Location: Colorado	I'm apathetic as hell to gay marriage, it's a non-issue to me. You get it on a ballot, I'll vote for it; but it doesn't make my "top 10 list" of social issues that I feel a need to do something about. What I find hard to understand is the insistance on the use of the word "marriage". Why not use a term that doesn't carry the same political / religious baggage. Legislation that allowed the same rights, but was labeled as a civil union, would stand a much greater chance of passage. From a strictly tactical perspective, I'd compromise the wording to get the rights.

06-26-2006, 09:27 AM	#66 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Yes. It does show that they can pass laws banning same sex marriage. It doesn't make it right. It also doesn't mean it is permanent. Laws can be struck down in the court of law. The law in Canada was changed to allow same sex marriage when the courts said that denying the right to marriage ran contrary to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A charter that protects against the tyranny of the majority. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-26-2006, 04:33 PM	#74 (permalink)
MySexyAssJ Tilted Location: Los Angeles	i think that when two people love eachother, they should be able to do as they want. if they want to get married, they should! whether it's heterosexual or homosexual.. it shouldn't matter. love is love. __________________ Once bitten, Twice shy.