Why is fighting gay marriage such a big issue for many of you?

But will it ever no longer be an issue? Will gay activists celebrate, and then go away? I fear not. I figure they will milk the issue for generations, much like the lefts race baiters do. As long as there is a buck to be made, the 'issue' and the victim group will linger.

 

And yet, it exists. And has, for as long as there have been humans.

As for giving a reason that it's an acceptable behavior, first, the burden of proof is on those who claim it isn't. Second, the fact that it causes no harm makes it, naturally, acceptable behavior. I can swing my arms around as much as I want, until I punch you in the face.

 

It's a question I like to ask. It demonstrates you people don't have an answer, every time one of you is compelled to respond yet again to the same question, again without providing an answer

 

Actually, the problem is that people who think like this are unable to view the issue in any other terms than discrimination, prejudice, and denying rights. Any other perspective is simply outside of their reality. So they view the issue in very black and white terms. "You're either with us or you're a bigot."

As I always point out, the onus is always on the person trying to change the law, not on the person defending the existing law. The law is justified by default until proven otherwise. Not the other way around. And most pro-same sex marriage people recognize this on other issues like abortion. They just tend to do a 180 when they're up against the law instead of on the same side of it. Which is logically inconsistent.

The other problem is that most of these same-sex marriage advocates are also subjective moralists which completely undermines their entire position. If morality is all subjective and so nobody should be legislating morality on anyone else, then your own position dictates that your opponents are just as correct as you are. Not just on this issue but on every issue. So you have no argument.

 

Those who persist in pushing their anti-gay agenda are still unable to offer a rational explanation as to how either the reality of homosexuality or of legal equality adversely impacts them, but the progress that most folks are expressing is quite encouraging.

If peeking out from behind lace curtains and muttering, "It must be Satan!" brings some modicum of self-righteous joy, let them go for it.



.

 

We do not consult the Old Testament, Paul, or the Koran when making secular law in this country. To do so is illegal and Unconstitutional. Ergo, it doesn't matter a lick what any of them had to say.

 

What in the world for?

 

Well, yeah, but you aren't demanding we provide you tax breaks and governmental entitlements because you like to swing your arms around.

 

Gender discrimination in marriage is no longer practiced in a continually increasing number of states and nations, but in none that follow Shari'a Law.






.

 

I expect at some point it will be legal everywhere on the planet except such places. And maybe Uganda.

 

Why shouldn't they be?

I'm not trying to be an ass here, but illustrating an important principle: Are you in the camp that believes in restricting the lives of others if they don't conform to your personally held values? Or are you on the side that thinks people should have as much freedom as reasonably possible when their actions don't actually do any directly demonstrable harm?

I ask because there seems to be a whole lot of people hell bent on punishing others merely because they find non-conforming behavior offensive, but can't explain why anyone should actually care that they're offended. Animus toward some group is not reason enough to restrict their freedom or their equal access to their government.

Does it? I don't find that to be so at all. In fact, I would say that if there's a question of fairness, it's one created by the recognition of "traditional one man and one woman" relationships in the first place, not something that comes from letting in same-sex couples. Same sex couples and opposite sex couples are more similar to each other, and both are equally dissimilar to polygamy based on the number of parties to the agreement.

And slippery slopes are very often fallacious. The law is not based on personal freedoms alone. It is in fact the nature of law to classify people into groups for the purpose of determining to whom the law is applicable, and to whom it is not. While personal freedom is certainly a concern in the context of applying the law, it is not the only concern. Lifting a restriction on one group doesn't automatically mean we have to let in others in the name of "personal freedom". We should instead examine the individual case to discover if the restriction has a rational basis, and when rights such as due process and the equal protection of the law are implicated, we should scrutinize the law further to determine whether it actually forwards a legitimate interest of government through the least restrictive means possible, or whether it arises out of animus.

In doing so, we might well determine that polygamous marriages should be provided recognition, or we may discover reasons other than mere animus for retaining the restriction. Either way, it has nothing to do with whether or not we extend recognition to same sex couples. They're completely separate cases. Apparently the only thing they have in common is that they inspire animus among those who believe in tradition for its own sake.

 

I haven't ridden a horse since the sixth grade, and it was not a particularly high one.

So you and those who agree with you are frothing at the mouth over less than 1% of all marriages(even if that statistic is from Sweden). And, then you tell me that I am being irrational. You continuously spout off that marriage is only for procreation...oh and the rest of the marriages that aren't are okay too...but you tell me I'm being irrational. You cite a same-sex marriage statistic from Sweden, which is one of the most successful countries in Europe right now despite those evil gays getting married, and they even still have a sky over their heads....but you tell me that I am being irrational. You hide behind children, like every good politician does, pretending that you're doing this for their sake, and not because you're a petty bigot even when you cannot cite any research or statistics that show same-sex couples are any better or worse than opposite sex couples....but you tell me that I'm being irrational.

I think it's quite obvious who the irrational ones here are. They are the ones spreading fear and lies, the ones preaching doom and gloom.

The rational ones among us first examine the potential risks of same-sex marriage, of which there are none not already present in traditional marriage. Okay, so, risk assessment has turned up nada. Next, we examine the positive and negative benefits of using the law to enshrine personal discomforts. Hmm, well, benefits(actual tangible ones) are.....well they're (*)(*)(*)(*)ing nonexistent. The negatives however, are not. It is dangerous, unethical, and just plain old wrong to use the law in a discriminatory manner for no good reason. Want to know why? Because if one group of people can use the law as their own personal clique, others can and will too. The law is supposed to be neutral. It is not supposed to reflect popular prejudices. You support the continued hijacking of the law for petty and unethical purposes that clearly go against the spirit of this country as well as the it's laws while at the same time spouting off constitutional arguments as if that settles it...and you tell me I'm being irrational.

It makes no sense. Some of you argue that we should all have guns practically coming out of our arses, but woooooohhh nooooo, gay people can't get married because that's dangerous!

And you tell me I'm being irrational.

This is a sad sad joke. Luckily, it's one we won't have to groan at for too much longer.

 

Even as the libertarian attitude prevails and progress occurs, religious fanatics of various stripes will continue to vehemently oppose equality and continue to become flustered when asked how it adversely impacts them - or the folks in all the legal jurisdictions where equality has already been achieved and empirical evidence confirms that it is regarded as proper, innocuous and harmless.



.

 

Would the human species survive?

Putting aside artificial insemination, think about it.

There would never be any procreation.[/QUOTE]
Since this isn't the case and hasn't even the remotest possibility of being the case, I can find no reason why we should consider this ridiculous hypothetical. Moreover, being gay doesn't make a man sterile. Gay men still produce viable reproductive material, and are also capable of inseminating a woman "the old fashioned way" were it to come to that. You don't have to be attracted to someone to engage in sexual intercourse, though it certainly helps. Besides, I doubt we'll ever lose the basic technology behind the turkey baster.

Which is conformist BS. I never did like Kant. I prefer "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" in tandem with "mind your own damned business".

 

And sometimes, viewing things in that manner is correct because that is a spot-on description of what is happening. You think it's my side of the debate that is being single-minded, but it is actually the anti-gay side that is, because you have nothing to support your position with other than rehashs of "that's the way it should be because it's always been that way". Same-sex marriage advocates have the facts and the real life experiences to support them. You have...mostly old people and religious folks who aren't going to change their minds regardless. Your side is slowly losing because younger generations don't buy into this BS and because it's plainly obvious who is being petty in this debate.

You've got nothing. You don't have facts. You don't have real life examples. I mean, just come out and say already that this is really all about being uncomfortable with gay people, not because there is actually harm to be done by same-sex marriage. At least then, you'd have honesty. But you don't even have that right now. No, you guys hide behind the kids, saying you're opposing same-sex marriage to protect them, without being able to explain why beyond repeating, over and over again, more empty rehashs of "kids need a mommy and a daddy or else they're (*)(*)(*)(*)ed". Funny enough, I don't really hear people saying that same-sex marriage will destroy traditional marriage anymore. Did that little gem get old and tired, or is it only for special occasions?

Clearly that has been met. The reason these exclusionary laws should not stand is because there's no reason they should. Sounds dumb, but that's actually the gist of it. A law needs to have a reason for existing, and you can't just use the fact that it exists to define why it exists, especially one that is used to discriminate and deny equal rights to people. That's why separate but equal was struck down you know. Those justices ruled the way they did because they did it in the spirit of the law and what this country stands for, not in the spirit of the mob as you would seem to have our current judges rule.

If your side actually has a case to make, MAKE IT! Use facts and reasoning and logic, and you will win people over. But you don't. You've got nothing but appeals to other people also subjectively uncomfortable with gay people, which is pointless, because they already feel that way. You're not winning new people over to your side, you realize that right? You are utterly failing at convincing people that your side has the right of it, and that's mostly because you don't. That is why you will fail and are already.

Wrong. Same-sex marriage advocates are not trying to legislate morality. They are not trying to make anyone conform to any set of values. The morals of a person who opposes same-sex marriage will not be infringed upon, nor will their rights, in any way by legalizing same-sex marriage because nobody is forced to actually have one, to view one, to read about one, or to even think about one. There is no harm being done to you because those two guys over there got married. It's not moral relativity, it's about not being a prick and expecting others to live by YOUR rules, when those rules serve no actual purpose other than to make you feel better about yourself. Show me a law with a rational basis and I'll probably agree to it. I certainly believe murder should be illegal, because that makes sense. Rape and kidnapping, also illegal, because it makes complete sense why they are. Those examples I cited infringe upon the rights of others.

Same-sex marriage infringes upon no one.

And just for the record, there is no such thing as absolute morality because there is nothing that makes that morality absolute. It's the irony of the situation, because usually absolutists will decry moral relativism when they have no idea they too are relativists because all morals are relative. Morals are ideas, they are not innate to the universe like the laws of physics are. The laws of physics have been the same since the dawn of time. Morals change every hundred years, and there are literally thousands of sets of morals operating at any given moment across the world. The only thing absolute about that is that they are not in fact, absolute at all.

 

Hey, that worked for quite a while as a defence of slavery, wives as chattel, and propertied white males having the exclusive right to vote.

Why would they suddenly want to progress now?

 

Let's stop it right there. Show us you are not completely full of (*)(*)(*)(*). Since I do this continuously, should be easy for you to quote even one of my posts where I said any such thing. Let's see it.

 

Post #743

Post #701

Those are just from this thread going back to page 30 from the current one. Imagine how many I could find if I searched multiple threads. I'd be here for hours copying and pasting.

 

Since this isn't the case and hasn't even the remotest possibility of being the case,

Moreover, being gay doesn't make a man sterile. Gay men still produce viable reproductive material, and are also capable of inseminating a woman "the old fashioned way" were it to come to that. You don't have to be attracted to someone to engage in sexual intercourse, though it certainly helps. Besides, I doubt we'll ever lose the basic technology behind the turkey baster.


Which is conformist BS. I never did like Kant. I prefer "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" in tandem with "mind your own damned business".[/QUOTE]

As a thought experiment.

What would happen if all men were gay.

 

I'd say that's exactly what they are doing. From the California case
In light of the evolution of our state's understanding concerning the equal dignity and respect to which all persons are entitled without regard to their sexual orientation, it is not appropriate to interpret these provisions in a way that, as a practical matter, excludes gay individuals from the protective reach of such basic civil rights….

entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage...

couple's right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families,...

designation of "marriage" exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect....(*)

same-sex couple's fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple....(*)

gay individuals are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect {Page 43 Cal.4th 822} and dignity afforded all other individuals...

In light of the evolution of our state's understanding concerning the equal dignity and respect to which all persons are entitled without regard to their sexual orientation, it is not appropriate to interpret these provisions in a way that, as a practical matter, excludes gay individuals...(*)

the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships....

by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership -- pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry....(*)

right of an individual and a couple to have their own official family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationship of other couples....(*)

the state's assignment of a different name to the couple's relationship poses a risk that the different name itself will have the effect of denying such couple's relationship the equal respect and dignity to which the couple is constitutionally entitled....

the right of those couples to have their family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationship of opposite-sex couples....

fundamental interest of same-sex {Page 43 Cal.4th 847} couples in having their official family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that conferred upon the family relationship of opposite-sex couples...
http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C4/43C4t757.htm

- - - Updated - - -

I'd say that's exactly what they are doing. From the California case
In light of the evolution of our state's understanding concerning the equal dignity and respect to which all persons are entitled without regard to their sexual orientation, it is not appropriate to interpret these provisions in a way that, as a practical matter, excludes gay individuals from the protective reach of such basic civil rights….

entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage...

couple's right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families,...

designation of "marriage" exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect....(*)

same-sex couple's fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple....(*)

gay individuals are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect {Page 43 Cal.4th 822} and dignity afforded all other individuals...

In light of the evolution of our state's understanding concerning the equal dignity and respect to which all persons are entitled without regard to their sexual orientation, it is not appropriate to interpret these provisions in a way that, as a practical matter, excludes gay individuals...(*)

the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships....

by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership -- pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry....(*)

right of an individual and a couple to have their own official family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationship of other couples....(*)

the state's assignment of a different name to the couple's relationship poses a risk that the different name itself will have the effect of denying such couple's relationship the equal respect and dignity to which the couple is constitutionally entitled....

the right of those couples to have their family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationship of opposite-sex couples....

fundamental interest of same-sex {Page 43 Cal.4th 847} couples in having their official family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that conferred upon the family relationship of opposite-sex couples...
http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C4/43C4t757.htm

 

To what purpose?

I won't pretend to know, and more to the point - neither should you.

 

That's all well and good, but you can't legislate morality if the laws you're passing are not actually disrupting someone's life in some way. Same-sex marriage does not mean gay people are going to flood the street and hold hands outside your house at night to creep you out. Same-sex marriages work just like the currently allowed ones, because every marriage is made up of two people, and most times those two people have decided to marry one another because of an emotional bond. It's not a moral issue for two people to get married if those people are not harming anyone. It shouldn't be an issue at all.

"But the children! What about the children?! Those poor children! Oh the humanity!"

Saved you the time of typing out your next likely response(paraphrased of course). Yet, to date, you still have not shown exactly how same-sex marriages are harmful to children. Kids need loving homes. That's what matters. Not the gender of the occupants.

So to answer your inevitable retort, the kids are going to be fine. Stop hiding behind them.

 

Silly logic. Tax breaks and governmental entitlements to encourage certain behaviors don't disrupt anyones lives.

 

My point exactly, and I would add two people getting married to that list as well. Does that mean you've seen the light?

 

Nonsense. Biological parents aren't preferred because they aren't harmful to children, but instead because they are beneficial.